Tell Me :
Talk
Don't get me wrong, I love this tour. But you didn't say why Keith played better here than in 69 or 78 - with less moments to shine, and more plain rhythm work. In fact, no one has managed to come up with a good explanation other than that Taylor got more room for solos. That's a fair thing, and it's all about taste.
But please explain to me why and how Keith was on top of his game in 73.
Now Look, DP.
In '73 they had a new album with which they were touring.
So 4-5 new songs were in the set.
No-one would or did complain that Bitch and BBJ were ommoiited.
Hardly any going in '73 would have known or cared what was 'being omitted'.
As per Logie's post and per my and others'experiences people were leaving Stones' gigs then in a stunned and dazed state of exhiliarated astonishment and disbelief.
That is why it so irrelevant and irreverent etc etc etc to complain 41 years later that Keith was not doing enough Berry-style soloing.
He was following his own muse and breaking his own barriers.
Hence why Europe '73 was so SPECIAL compared to STP '72 and 'Down Under' '73, (each of those also outstanding too ofcourse).
I think you nailed it right there. Despite a lack of solos, he and his wonderfully distorted amps, drove the band. Yes, there were MT, BK and BPreston solos galore, but Keef's lovely amps were what Charlie and Bill, and thus everybody else, were following. He set the tempo, the dynamics, the feel for the show. MR is the obvious stellar track on Brussels, but to me it's also the amazing crispness of when he stopped each chord's ringing with a precise staccato (like the Angie intro near 0:07) and then as the song rolled along would go into embellishments.
1973 had Keith's tone and instincts at their best even if he was wasted. Jagger, evidenced on GHS, was really opening up his melodies and playfulness vocally, pushed to greater heights no doubt by having Preston's vocals in the band (you can hear this all the way through 1976's Melody), and he was at his most transcendent and androgynous. MJ's stunning low "ooh Yeah"s right into a falsetto "oh baby" almost like playing the Rambler/victim call-and-response on the one microphone around 8:40 on Brussel affair boot is an example. Keyes, Preston and MT (OMG! those soaring lines) gave the band 3 virtuosos on top of this incredible pastiche, Keef's backup vocals kept it earthy, and Bill and Charlie added their special sauce.
Pinnacle of expression, and yes, that radio broadcast mix totally sealed the deal, but it's tough to say how much it actually sounded like that tone wise in the audience. Regardless, the notes they all played and the confluence heard on other 1973 Europe boots are evidence it all really happened; amazing. There is a real progression even from a year prior in 1972 in terms of musical conversations and dynamics. Hot Stuff!
That's YOUR opinion.
I don't think Keith was "following his own muse" at all.
In 69 their solos were more powerful, because they weren't playing them all the time.
MR is a good example (thank you, erad!), because that's one of the few songs they are actually doing some equal interplay - lead and rhythm by both, unpredictable/improvising/rooted in the blues - a tad too fast for my liking but a lovely version. Luckily, they didn't omit that one.
But they had MR down like this already in 69 (albeit slower), as well as this kind of interplay on more songs (SFTD, LWM etc.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-12 11:15 by DandelionPowderman.
I believe the saying goes:
5 strings are tuned, yet no one does any tuning.
Devoid of Self upon attaining the Stateless state, the Master guitarist ceases to exist.
There is no guitar, no amp, no player.
No notes are played, and yet the music rings out without ceasing!
ERIK, Rocks Off is a MT solo song. He plays solo during the bridge, although it's more a brass-oriented song than anything else.
"Rotters", never heard that nick for Rotterdam before!
It was indeed really loud. But the concert I attended was great. I've written some sort of report of the Oct. 13 "Rotters" show:
[keessiedeg.wordpress.com]
I don't recall any negative review, so I would ask Mattijs to show them.
Here's a compilation of the best of the three Rotterdam shows, most songs are from the Oct. 13 show, for audio quality reasons:
Yes he does a solo, but Keith is running the show on Rocks Off
I wouldn't really even call it a "solo". It's more like a fill in my opinion.
Correct, M.
?????
Uninspired? That's the last thing I would say about that tour. Mick's vocals were pretty awful in 1975, but 1973 was simply brillant, whereas it is clear that on any tour there are some 'runthrough' nights, you can't avoid them.We always tend to judge by present standards but in 1973 it was essential to have a guitar hero in the band. As important as Ronnie later was, he would not have fit within the 1973 lineup.
What he said. They were still young, had talent, and played like a unit. They were top of their form. And drugs added to that. All of the great performances of all the classic bands were drug driven. The 73 tour will be the Stone's greatest live epitaph. And I am sure that the 8 on stage during that tour will agree. Even if they don't remember it.
So is Lisa's tambourine at this point...and I hear it's never done a drug in its little positive life!
Oz yeah. Auckland? Had yer hearing checked lately, lad?
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 11, 2014 20:20
They were (and are) indeed. But I like the balance they had in 1969 better. Best of both worlds.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: July 11, 2014 22:24
I like everything they did together, both Taylor's and Keith's rhythm and lead. I think that's what you are referring to. '73 was different, but still the same players...so it doesn't really matter to me. The greatest R&R band in the world.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 11, 2014 22:30
Quote
LuxuryStones
I like everything they did together, both Taylor's and Keith's rhythm and lead. I think that's what you are referring to. '73 was different, but still the same players...so it doesn't really matter to me. The greatest R&R band in the world.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
filstan
()
Date: July 12, 2014 00:29
I believe it is ludicrous to suggest that Keith and the band were not in top form during the 1973 tour. The notion that Keith was in some sort of decline with his playing is sillly because the tapes suggest the exact opposite. He and MT were fantastic together. It should be understood that this band should have always sounded different as they aged and some of the players changed. The dynamics change and so should the sound. The songs though were still translated the way the band wanted to present them. They could never go back to what once was. They had already done it. Sure I like the live sound from certain tours over others, but they always had that "Stones sound" other bands could never find. Thats is why as fans we still like going to hear them play live. I dare say that every concert they play the audio magic shows up in all its glory. Even if it is for just a few minutes within a certain song. It just comes togther. Regretably, as they have gotten older it is less frequent than it was back in those first 10 years.
Bottom line is the 73 tour was a rockin' deal. Those boys were on top of their game.
Bottom line is the 73 tour was a rockin' deal. Those boys were on top of their game.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 12, 2014 00:45
Quote
filstan
I believe it is ludicrous to suggest that Keith and the band were not in top form during the 1973 tour. The notion that Keith was in some sort of decline with his playing is sillly because the tapes suggest the exact opposite. He and MT were fantastic together. It should be understood that this band should have always sounded different as they aged and some of the players changed. The dynamics change and so should the sound. The songs though were still translated the way the band wanted to present them. They could never go back to what once was. They had already done it. Sure I like the live sound from certain tours over others, but they always had that "Stones sound" other bands could never find. Thats is why as fans we still like going to hear them play live. I dare say that every concert they play the audio magic shows up in all its glory. Even if it is for just a few minutes within a certain song. It just comes togther. Regretably, as they have gotten older it is less frequent than it was back in those first 10 years.
Bottom line is the 73 tour was a rockin' deal. Those boys were on top of their game.
Don't get me wrong, I love this tour. But you didn't say why Keith played better here than in 69 or 78 - with less moments to shine, and more plain rhythm work. In fact, no one has managed to come up with a good explanation other than that Taylor got more room for solos. That's a fair thing, and it's all about taste.
But please explain to me why and how Keith was on top of his game in 73.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
erad
()
Date: July 12, 2014 01:34
The much talked about rambler from brussels is a good example DP,there is a lot of great call and response between keith and taylor, showing that keith did more than just hold down the rhythm during those years.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: July 12, 2014 01:35
Quote
DandelionPowderman
There was only ONE Berry solo left for the 73 tour. Bitch and BBJ were omitted.
The open G-playing was sharper later on, imo. The Ampeg was gone in 77.
Now Look, DP.
In '73 they had a new album with which they were touring.
So 4-5 new songs were in the set.
No-one would or did complain that Bitch and BBJ were ommoiited.
Hardly any going in '73 would have known or cared what was 'being omitted'.
As per Logie's post and per my and others'experiences people were leaving Stones' gigs then in a stunned and dazed state of exhiliarated astonishment and disbelief.
That is why it so irrelevant and irreverent etc etc etc to complain 41 years later that Keith was not doing enough Berry-style soloing.
He was following his own muse and breaking his own barriers.
Hence why Europe '73 was so SPECIAL compared to STP '72 and 'Down Under' '73, (each of those also outstanding too ofcourse).
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: July 12, 2014 07:30
What was (is?) so great about this band is that you can out on Keith: Vintage 69 or Keith: Vintage 73 depending on what mood you are in. He does completely different things on each tour. Both are great. Maybe if I had to choose I would take 69, because the switching back and forth with Taylor was so epic, but his rhythm thing in 73 was incredible. He never drove the band like that again.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
winter
()
Date: July 12, 2014 10:13
Quote
71Tele
What was (is?) so great about this band is that you can out on Keith: Vintage 69 or Keith: Vintage 73 depending on what mood you are in. He does completely different things on each tour. Both are great. Maybe if I had to choose I would take 69, because the switching back and forth with Taylor was so epic, but his rhythm thing in 73 was incredible. He never drove the band like that again.
I think you nailed it right there. Despite a lack of solos, he and his wonderfully distorted amps, drove the band. Yes, there were MT, BK and BPreston solos galore, but Keef's lovely amps were what Charlie and Bill, and thus everybody else, were following. He set the tempo, the dynamics, the feel for the show. MR is the obvious stellar track on Brussels, but to me it's also the amazing crispness of when he stopped each chord's ringing with a precise staccato (like the Angie intro near 0:07) and then as the song rolled along would go into embellishments.
1973 had Keith's tone and instincts at their best even if he was wasted. Jagger, evidenced on GHS, was really opening up his melodies and playfulness vocally, pushed to greater heights no doubt by having Preston's vocals in the band (you can hear this all the way through 1976's Melody), and he was at his most transcendent and androgynous. MJ's stunning low "ooh Yeah"s right into a falsetto "oh baby" almost like playing the Rambler/victim call-and-response on the one microphone around 8:40 on Brussel affair boot is an example. Keyes, Preston and MT (OMG! those soaring lines) gave the band 3 virtuosos on top of this incredible pastiche, Keef's backup vocals kept it earthy, and Bill and Charlie added their special sauce.
Pinnacle of expression, and yes, that radio broadcast mix totally sealed the deal, but it's tough to say how much it actually sounded like that tone wise in the audience. Regardless, the notes they all played and the confluence heard on other 1973 Europe boots are evidence it all really happened; amazing. There is a real progression even from a year prior in 1972 in terms of musical conversations and dynamics. Hot Stuff!
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 12, 2014 11:06
Quote
DeluxtoneQuote
DandelionPowderman
There was only ONE Berry solo left for the 73 tour. Bitch and BBJ were omitted.
The open G-playing was sharper later on, imo. The Ampeg was gone in 77.
Now Look, DP.
In '73 they had a new album with which they were touring.
So 4-5 new songs were in the set.
No-one would or did complain that Bitch and BBJ were ommoiited.
Hardly any going in '73 would have known or cared what was 'being omitted'.
As per Logie's post and per my and others'experiences people were leaving Stones' gigs then in a stunned and dazed state of exhiliarated astonishment and disbelief.
That is why it so irrelevant and irreverent etc etc etc to complain 41 years later that Keith was not doing enough Berry-style soloing.
He was following his own muse and breaking his own barriers.
Hence why Europe '73 was so SPECIAL compared to STP '72 and 'Down Under' '73, (each of those also outstanding too ofcourse).
That's YOUR opinion.
I don't think Keith was "following his own muse" at all.
In 69 their solos were more powerful, because they weren't playing them all the time.
MR is a good example (thank you, erad!), because that's one of the few songs they are actually doing some equal interplay - lead and rhythm by both, unpredictable/improvising/rooted in the blues - a tad too fast for my liking but a lovely version. Luckily, they didn't omit that one.
But they had MR down like this already in 69 (albeit slower), as well as this kind of interplay on more songs (SFTD, LWM etc.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-12 11:15 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
filstan
()
Date: July 12, 2014 15:06
Well DP you offer a decent gaunlet to run regarding asking why Keith was playing so well in 1973 on that Euro tour. For me it ws enough that Keith and Taylor were morphing into this rhythym and lead thing. Keith even in 1972 was taking on the role of assuming the rhythm player. It can be argued of course that because of Keiths heroin dependence he just found it easier to slip into that role of holding down the rhythm, but for me it gave Taylor more room to solo. Something MT was obviously very good at, and Keith was willing to accept. At the time I really loved Keith as a live player because his rhythm "sound" was so powerful and unique. His leads and fills short and sweet. As stated by 71Tele, Winter, and Deluxetone very well Keith was driving the band on those 72 and 73 tour. Sure I missed the Berry covers on the 73 tour. Didn't everyone? So we got Starf&%(@+ instead which great. Live sound with that 5 string he was playing was awesome.
Having been at one of the Essen shows all I can say is the band was in excellent form. Friend I was with was a huge fan, but had never seen the Stones live. He was floored. He kept remarking on the train ride after the show up to Holland that he was knocked out by Keiths rhythym playing being so powerful. I guess that is the point I am trying to make. Keith was willing to defer to Taylor for more solos if he could deepen the sound through his committment to the rhythm.
Don't get me wrong DP about comparing tours. I liked 69 a little better than 72 and 73 because it was the Stones first time back on the road. They were playing lots of stuff we had never heard live before or ever heard at all via the LIB album. It was like a dream come true to see those guys in 1969. I was 16 and had been a fan since I was a little kid. Of course, Keith was doing more solos in 69. 1969 will always be my favorite tour. The sound the Stones were getting in 1969 compared with 1972 and 1973 was different though. More powerful in 72 and 73 I think because of the horns and Keiths rhythm playing.
In the end, those were all great tours. Never topped again although I thought 76 78 for Keith was very good. As I said this band has been slightly different each tour. First 10 years were the best goods for me, but I have enjoyed every concert from them over the years.
Having been at one of the Essen shows all I can say is the band was in excellent form. Friend I was with was a huge fan, but had never seen the Stones live. He was floored. He kept remarking on the train ride after the show up to Holland that he was knocked out by Keiths rhythym playing being so powerful. I guess that is the point I am trying to make. Keith was willing to defer to Taylor for more solos if he could deepen the sound through his committment to the rhythm.
Don't get me wrong DP about comparing tours. I liked 69 a little better than 72 and 73 because it was the Stones first time back on the road. They were playing lots of stuff we had never heard live before or ever heard at all via the LIB album. It was like a dream come true to see those guys in 1969. I was 16 and had been a fan since I was a little kid. Of course, Keith was doing more solos in 69. 1969 will always be my favorite tour. The sound the Stones were getting in 1969 compared with 1972 and 1973 was different though. More powerful in 72 and 73 I think because of the horns and Keiths rhythm playing.
In the end, those were all great tours. Never topped again although I thought 76 78 for Keith was very good. As I said this band has been slightly different each tour. First 10 years were the best goods for me, but I have enjoyed every concert from them over the years.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 12, 2014 15:29
Your post shows that you understand what I am a little puzzled about, filstan - thanks.
I love the slightly more distorted sound Keith had in 73 as well.
I also think you're spot on about Keith going back to rhythm and skipping the more challenging stuff because of substance abuse - as those who followed the band closely on tour also have written about.
I love the slightly more distorted sound Keith had in 73 as well.
I also think you're spot on about Keith going back to rhythm and skipping the more challenging stuff because of substance abuse - as those who followed the band closely on tour also have written about.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
rob51
()
Date: July 13, 2014 07:18
So then the best guitar player would never play at all?
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
winter
()
Date: July 13, 2014 08:59
Quote
rob51
So then the best guitar player would never play at all?
I believe the saying goes:
5 strings are tuned, yet no one does any tuning.
Devoid of Self upon attaining the Stateless state, the Master guitarist ceases to exist.
There is no guitar, no amp, no player.
No notes are played, and yet the music rings out without ceasing!
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: July 14, 2014 06:41
The 1969 tour was fabulous but keep in mind that it was the 1972 tour that CEMENTED their fame and longevity potential.
...Many more US dates with sold out shows.
...The band was thrilled that Stevie Wonder was opening for them. And Stevie
was ecstatic at the opportunity.
...One major problem. The band had to accept that Keith was a full-fledged junkie. This was a constant worry although there were no "band meetings" where this was addressed. Many crossed fingers and prayers within tour personnel.
...Many more US dates with sold out shows.
...The band was thrilled that Stevie Wonder was opening for them. And Stevie
was ecstatic at the opportunity.
...One major problem. The band had to accept that Keith was a full-fledged junkie. This was a constant worry although there were no "band meetings" where this was addressed. Many crossed fingers and prayers within tour personnel.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
HEILOOBAAS
()
Date: April 23, 2015 10:20
Quote
Erik_Snow
I'm familiar to your thoughts, it's an interesting subject.
They threw away the acoustic Sweet Virginia on the European Tour, and also the songs Keith shined on...Bitch and Bye Bye Johnny. Rocks Off was not a Taylor-solo-song in 72...they threw away that one too.
There were only one song left, where Mick Taylor couldn't shine on...Star Star, as Keith did the solo. You'd expect them to come up with a different setlist, if they didn't like Taylor's soloing throughout the songs.
That's a bit odd...
Just making an "but-on-the-other-side"-post, here.
ERIK, Rocks Off is a MT solo song. He plays solo during the bridge, although it's more a brass-oriented song than anything else.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
HEILOOBAAS
()
Date: April 25, 2015 19:06
The 73 European leg has shows sounding like they were phoned in. I mean, the 3 Essen shows... can you really tell them apart? Copenhagen, Rotters, Berlin stand out. But the visual is what was happening. Mathijs told me they got rotten reviews at The Ahoy and the Cloggies complained it was too loud. TOO LOUD? THE ROLLING STONES? NAAAH...
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: April 25, 2015 20:54
Quote
HEILOOBAAS
The 73 European leg has shows sounding like they were phoned in. I mean, the 3 Essen shows... can you really tell them apart? Copenhagen, Rotters, Berlin stand out. But the visual is what was happening. Mathijs told me they got rotten reviews at The Ahoy and the Cloggies complained it was too loud. TOO LOUD? THE ROLLING STONES? NAAAH...
"Rotters", never heard that nick for Rotterdam before!
It was indeed really loud. But the concert I attended was great. I've written some sort of report of the Oct. 13 "Rotters" show:
[keessiedeg.wordpress.com]
I don't recall any negative review, so I would ask Mattijs to show them.
Here's a compilation of the best of the three Rotterdam shows, most songs are from the Oct. 13 show, for audio quality reasons:
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: April 27, 2015 17:57
Quote
HEILOOBAASQuote
Erik_Snow
I'm familiar to your thoughts, it's an interesting subject.
They threw away the acoustic Sweet Virginia on the European Tour, and also the songs Keith shined on...Bitch and Bye Bye Johnny. Rocks Off was not a Taylor-solo-song in 72...they threw away that one too.
There were only one song left, where Mick Taylor couldn't shine on...Star Star, as Keith did the solo. You'd expect them to come up with a different setlist, if they didn't like Taylor's soloing throughout the songs.
That's a bit odd...
Just making an "but-on-the-other-side"-post, here.
ERIK, Rocks Off is a MT solo song. He plays solo during the bridge, although it's more a brass-oriented song than anything else.
Yes he does a solo, but Keith is running the show on Rocks Off
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
Tumblin_Dice_07
()
Date: April 27, 2015 17:59
I remember reading one review online from a show on the '73 European tour that was pretty negative. Can't remember where it was from. I don't think any recordings from that particular show exist (that circulate anyway) but I do remember the reviewer saying Taylor was "useless as a pillar of salt", whatever that means.
After listening to bootlegs from this tour for years, I feel like it was a bit uneven. From memory, the first 2 weeks of the tour were pretty strong. Excellent performances in London. But somewhere in the middle of the tour, they seemed to lose focus a bit or something. Some shows were fairly lackluster. They were playing a similar setlist to the one they have played in North America in '72 and Australia in '73 with a few variations, but they still opened with "Brown Sugar" and "Gimme Shelter", "Happy", and "Tumbling Dice" all appeared early in the set with YCAGWYW and "Midnight Rambler" towards the middle with "All Down The Line" thrown in and then the final charge of "Rip This Joint", "Jumpin Jack Flash", and "Street Fighting Man" at the end. They might have been getting a bit bored with the material or the setlist or something by this time. And I'm sure Keith's substance abuse effected the performances at times. I still believe that in those days, Keith still drove the band.
Now don't get me wrong. I think on their good nights, they were absolutely at their zenith as a live band. This was the apex of the Taylor-era Stones. The London shows were good, the Birmingham Odeon show and at least one of the Berne shows, Rotterdam, Brussels, Berlin, etc... were all really excellent shows. But there were also shows that weren't that great. I haven't listened to them in awhile but I seem to remember some of the German shows were sloppy and lackluster. I think the '73 European tour differed from the '72 American tour in this way. I think in '72 they were far more consistent. Even the off nights were still really good, and there were very few off nights in '72. I think there were more off nights in Europe in '73 in comparison to '72.
It's interesting to note that Keith played very little lead guitar on the '73 European tour. Not sure if that's because his lead playing was deteriorating or if that was just the direction they were moving in. After all, it's not like he played alot of lead guitar in '72.
After listening to bootlegs from this tour for years, I feel like it was a bit uneven. From memory, the first 2 weeks of the tour were pretty strong. Excellent performances in London. But somewhere in the middle of the tour, they seemed to lose focus a bit or something. Some shows were fairly lackluster. They were playing a similar setlist to the one they have played in North America in '72 and Australia in '73 with a few variations, but they still opened with "Brown Sugar" and "Gimme Shelter", "Happy", and "Tumbling Dice" all appeared early in the set with YCAGWYW and "Midnight Rambler" towards the middle with "All Down The Line" thrown in and then the final charge of "Rip This Joint", "Jumpin Jack Flash", and "Street Fighting Man" at the end. They might have been getting a bit bored with the material or the setlist or something by this time. And I'm sure Keith's substance abuse effected the performances at times. I still believe that in those days, Keith still drove the band.
Now don't get me wrong. I think on their good nights, they were absolutely at their zenith as a live band. This was the apex of the Taylor-era Stones. The London shows were good, the Birmingham Odeon show and at least one of the Berne shows, Rotterdam, Brussels, Berlin, etc... were all really excellent shows. But there were also shows that weren't that great. I haven't listened to them in awhile but I seem to remember some of the German shows were sloppy and lackluster. I think the '73 European tour differed from the '72 American tour in this way. I think in '72 they were far more consistent. Even the off nights were still really good, and there were very few off nights in '72. I think there were more off nights in Europe in '73 in comparison to '72.
It's interesting to note that Keith played very little lead guitar on the '73 European tour. Not sure if that's because his lead playing was deteriorating or if that was just the direction they were moving in. After all, it's not like he played alot of lead guitar in '72.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
Tumblin_Dice_07
()
Date: April 27, 2015 18:00
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
HEILOOBAASQuote
Erik_Snow
I'm familiar to your thoughts, it's an interesting subject.
They threw away the acoustic Sweet Virginia on the European Tour, and also the songs Keith shined on...Bitch and Bye Bye Johnny. Rocks Off was not a Taylor-solo-song in 72...they threw away that one too.
There were only one song left, where Mick Taylor couldn't shine on...Star Star, as Keith did the solo. You'd expect them to come up with a different setlist, if they didn't like Taylor's soloing throughout the songs.
That's a bit odd...
Just making an "but-on-the-other-side"-post, here.
ERIK, Rocks Off is a MT solo song. He plays solo during the bridge, although it's more a brass-oriented song than anything else.
Yes he does a solo, but Keith is running the show on Rocks Off
I wouldn't really even call it a "solo". It's more like a fill in my opinion.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: April 27, 2015 18:04
Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
HEILOOBAASQuote
Erik_Snow
I'm familiar to your thoughts, it's an interesting subject.
They threw away the acoustic Sweet Virginia on the European Tour, and also the songs Keith shined on...Bitch and Bye Bye Johnny. Rocks Off was not a Taylor-solo-song in 72...they threw away that one too.
There were only one song left, where Mick Taylor couldn't shine on...Star Star, as Keith did the solo. You'd expect them to come up with a different setlist, if they didn't like Taylor's soloing throughout the songs.
That's a bit odd...
Just making an "but-on-the-other-side"-post, here.
ERIK, Rocks Off is a MT solo song. He plays solo during the bridge, although it's more a brass-oriented song than anything else.
Yes he does a solo, but Keith is running the show on Rocks Off
I wouldn't really even call it a "solo". It's more like a fill in my opinion.
Correct, M.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
HEILOOBAAS
()
Date: May 6, 2015 07:01
Keith plays furious rhythm but Mick T.'s 'fill' kicks in the afterburners. For years I have struggled w/trying to define what it was in 1973 that set the Euro/UK tour apart from the 1972 STP tour. One word - UNINSPIRED. Out of all the 72 shows I've heard, the only one that truly sucks is Ft. Worth #1. For some strange reason Keith doesn't start playing right away, the tidal way excitement leaks out, Mick stands there muttering and the concert is lost. But that show is arguably better than any from the Fall 73 tour. Mick's vocals were pretty awful. I mean, I can't even listen to Angie except for Brussels #1.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
saltoftheearth
()
Date: May 6, 2015 12:15
Quote
HEILOOBAAS
Keith plays furious rhythm but Mick T.'s 'fill' kicks in the afterburners. For years I have struggled w/trying to define what it was in 1973 that set the Euro/UK tour apart from the 1972 STP tour. One word - UNINSPIRED. Out of all the 72 shows I've heard, the only one that truly sucks is Ft. Worth #1. For some strange reason Keith doesn't start playing right away, the tidal way excitement leaks out, Mick stands there muttering and the concert is lost. But that show is arguably better than any from the Fall 73 tour. Mick's vocals were pretty awful. I mean, I can't even listen to Angie except for Brussels #1.
?????
Uninspired? That's the last thing I would say about that tour. Mick's vocals were pretty awful in 1975, but 1973 was simply brillant, whereas it is clear that on any tour there are some 'runthrough' nights, you can't avoid them.We always tend to judge by present standards but in 1973 it was essential to have a guitar hero in the band. As important as Ronnie later was, he would not have fit within the 1973 lineup.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
s083874
()
Date: May 6, 2015 16:25
Quote
filstan
I believe it is ludicrous to suggest that Keith and the band were not in top form during the 1973 tour. The notion that Keith was in some sort of decline with his playing is sillly because the tapes suggest the exact opposite. He and MT were fantastic together. It should be understood that this band should have always sounded different as they aged and some of the players changed. The dynamics change and so should the sound. The songs though were still translated the way the band wanted to present them. They could never go back to what once was. They had already done it. Sure I like the live sound from certain tours over others, but they always had that "Stones sound" other bands could never find. Thats is why as fans we still like going to hear them play live. I dare say that every concert they play the audio magic shows up in all its glory. Even if it is for just a few minutes within a certain song. It just comes togther. Regretably, as they have gotten older it is less frequent than it was back in those first 10 years.
Bottom line is the 73 tour was a rockin' deal. Those boys were on top of their game.
What he said. They were still young, had talent, and played like a unit. They were top of their form. And drugs added to that. All of the great performances of all the classic bands were drug driven. The 73 tour will be the Stone's greatest live epitaph. And I am sure that the 8 on stage during that tour will agree. Even if they don't remember it.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 6, 2015 16:38
<I believe it is ludicrous to suggest that Keith and the band were not in top form during the 1973 tour. The notion that Keith was in some sort of decline with his playing is sillly because the tapes suggest the exact opposite.>
I don't know why this was brought up again, but I think it's hard to tell whether Keith was in top form or not in 73, simply because he only played ultra-basic on that tour.
His showcases were dropped from the setlist, and Taylor increased his dominance of the band's sound.
In 1969, and even more in 1975, Keith would colour the RS sound in a different way than on the 73 tour. More phrasing in his rhythm work, more licks, more playing in standard tuning. Overall, he was more interesting to listen to, and whether he wants it or not, he is of major importance to the band's sound, imo.
I don't know why this was brought up again, but I think it's hard to tell whether Keith was in top form or not in 73, simply because he only played ultra-basic on that tour.
His showcases were dropped from the setlist, and Taylor increased his dominance of the band's sound.
In 1969, and even more in 1975, Keith would colour the RS sound in a different way than on the 73 tour. More phrasing in his rhythm work, more licks, more playing in standard tuning. Overall, he was more interesting to listen to, and whether he wants it or not, he is of major importance to the band's sound, imo.
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: May 6, 2015 16:41
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<I believe it is ludicrous to suggest that Keith and the band were not in top form during the 1973 tour. The notion that Keith was in some sort of decline with his playing is sillly because the tapes suggest the exact opposite.>
I don't know why this was brought up again, but I think it's hard to tell whether Keith was in top form or not in 73, simply because he only played ultra-basic on that tour.
His showcases were dropped from the setlist, and Taylor increased his dominance of the band's sound.
In 1969, and even more in 1975, Keith would colour the RS sound in a different way than on the 73 tour. More phrasing in his rhythm work, more licks, more playing in standard tuning. Overall, he was more interesting to listen to, and whether he wants it or not, he is of major importance to the band's sound, imo.
So is Lisa's tambourine at this point...and I hear it's never done a drug in its little positive life!
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
HEILOOBAAS
()
Date: May 6, 2015 23:56
"The notion that Keith was in some sort of decline with his playing is silly..." I agree 100%. Keith has been a professional musician since 1962. He know when to put the breaks on anything that affects his muse, so to speak. All this talk about Mick and Keith being thwacked out... um... watch the New York hotel footage in CS Blues. Do you think Mick made it through 50-odd shows staying up all night? Please! They were on their 6th American Tour at that point; they know how to live on the road. It's a pity Bobby fv¢ked up in Germany 1973 (was he removed from the tour because he fell asleep onstage or ordered many bottles of vintage champagne to fill his hotel bathtub?). That's clear evidence of excess on the road. Excess at home when you're not recording or rehearsing for a tour, absolutely. Excess on the road? THE BLACK CROWES PEP SQUAD AND HOMECOMING QUEENS REVUE!!
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
DD
()
Date: May 7, 2015 01:36
Hello.
For what it's worth, I reckon Perth 1973 (therefore, a show in between the '72 US tour and the '73 European tour) is the best live album I've ever heard by any band, full stop.
So, actually, all of you debating which of the two aforementioned tours was best are wrong. It was, of course, the Oz and NZ tour. Simple, really.
Declan
For what it's worth, I reckon Perth 1973 (therefore, a show in between the '72 US tour and the '73 European tour) is the best live album I've ever heard by any band, full stop.
So, actually, all of you debating which of the two aforementioned tours was best are wrong. It was, of course, the Oz and NZ tour. Simple, really.
Declan
Re: Deconstructing the 1973 European Tour
Posted by:
HEILOOBAAS
()
Date: May 9, 2015 06:40
Quote
DD
Hello.
For what it's worth, I reckon Perth 1973 (therefore, a show in between the '72 US tour and the '73 European tour) is the best live album I've ever heard by any band, full stop.
So, actually, all of you debating which of the two aforementioned tours was best are wrong. It was, of course, the Oz and NZ tour. Simple, really.
Declan
Oz yeah. Auckland? Had yer hearing checked lately, lad?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BeastyBurdeny , cyclist , georgelicks , Kevinstones78 , kid killowatt , ohmercy61 , Ralleyguy , shawnriffhard1
Guests:
2450
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10