The boots of this tour, based on the radio broadacsts culled from Brussels on Oct. 17 and Wembley on Sept.9, have achieved near-mythic status amongst the fans.

I wish I knew who the sound engineers were for the recordings, as they did a magnificent job of capturing a sound that many regard as the ultimate in a Stones live performance.

There's just one problem -- was this magnificient sound translated to the audience during those shows?

Right now, I'm listening to an audience recording of "Gimme Shelter" from Sept. 9 at Wembley. As recorded/mixed/compressed for radio broadcast, it sounds transcendant.

For those who were there, as judged by the quality of the audience recording, one gets the impression that Mr. Taylor was too loud and was showing his boredom by overplaying. This puts a whole new light on what this tour really meant.

The end of Mr. Taylor's tenure was just a year later. The reasons for this become apparent beginning with this tour, which was his last with the band. The frustrations with being left out of song-credits manifested themselves, IMHO, with these performances. "What about ME? Listen to ME!"

To Mick Taylor's credit, I think he WAS left out of the songwriting loop, whether by design or by MJ's and KR's ego-driven blindness to the creative input of the other band members.

One must remember that they treated Ronnie Wood exactly the same way when he came aboard.

Is there anyone on this board who actually WAS there? What were your impressions of the overall performance?

I hope to not come across as indulging in historic revisionism, but rather to focus the events upon the context of the times.

I was just thinking about Talyor today, as I listened to the entire Get Yer Ya Yas Out...fo' sure it must have been a surprise to the audience,
that there were 4 songs from the not-yet-released Let It Bleed (released Nov 28th) plus You Gotta Move and Little Queenie....
but also that the magnificent Taylor notes was very different from all Stones albums untill then. Stray Cat Blues....Taylor does solo all through the refrain.
I know it hasn't that much to do with 73...but I just wanted to sneak it in to your interesting thread.

Well, Erik, I'll expand upon this theme with the idea that I believe Mick and Keith had more than a few private conversations about the direction the Stones were heading in by 1973.

In concert, they were turning into a conventional 70s hard-rock band with a lead vocalist and a hotshot lead guitarist, a la Led Zeppelin and many others. One can rest assured that neither one of them wanted the Stones to head in that direction.

I'd suspect that Mick Taylor realized this, too, so it was inevitable that he would go his own way. This is not to say that Mick T wasn't a team player, BUT, the public pronoucement that his departure was due to "creative differences" may actually be the truth of the matter.

I apologize for this thread mirroring some of the comments made in the "MT Songwriting Credits" thread. I'm focusing on a particular period, but now realize that the threads are interlinked.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-18 03:54 by Erik_Snow.

I get the impression now that Mick J wasn't the one who objected to Taylor's input -- it was Keith.

Keith and Chuck Berry share much in common, but KR's ego isn't quite so overbearing. Still, I think that Taylor's influence on Jagger may have triggered a bit of jealousy on Keith's part. The principals won't answer honestly, and never will.

All we can do is take the evidence, piece it together, and say "there's a good probability that this is what went down". That's how history is written. LOL

I think the direction to check, if no one comes forward here, would be with original reviews. I do wonder why they went with such a grandiose spectacle in '75, which doesn't really match the raw (or half-assed) performances--could it have been to make up for the sense that they were trying to catch up to the trends in '73 (glitter rock, reggae, funk)?

I agree with your comments on taylor's playing, especially as '73 goes on.

Not sure where you're getting your sense of keith's ego. I would imagine it's pretty huge. We're talking about a spoiled rock star of the first order. Still, I wonder if he really had anything to say about taylor in '73--seems like he was basically out of it on all fronts. His contributions to Goats Head Soup are alarmingly slim.

I saw the Stones play one of the shows in Essen. It was a general admission show at the Grugahalle. I went with a school friend whom I was travelling with and we were in line early. There was no one there until mid afternoon! We went out for numerous beers across the street and then had no where to find toliets or else lose our place in line for hours after. Big mistake. I could barely walk in there when the doors opened. Thought I was gonna burst. The janitor that saw me waddle in was laughing his ass off at my pain. He knew. I thought the show was great. We were in the center, back about 15 meters from the stage. Sound was excellent. This band was in top form and the show had a much more relaxed atmosphere compared to the 2 shows I saw in the US in 72. I liked this change. I remember Keith with a black velvet jacket and Mick with the darker jump suit on. The band played so well. Billy Preston opened and I think Taylor played this set as well. @#$%& stands out as well as YCAGWYW. The boots don't lie. This tour kicked ass. I should have gone to more shows. The tickets were easily had. Idiot...

I was in Wien on opening day. With a parent I was so little; it was my very first show but I already was a fan. I remember ONLY "100 years Ago". Noticing that it was played.
I think you make an intersting point bassplayer, as usual. Was that Keith Harwood engineering yet? Chjip Monck on lights, I know that. Big deal about the mirrors and lights that came from behind.
It is hard to anwser your question basplayer. there was no Net back then. And the serious reviews from Liveshows came a lot later than the actual event. Not like today where it is INSTANTANEOUS. Especially a Europe show that would be reviewed e g in Rolling Stone would come months later. RS was still a real muisc trade paper then. but the mags that were close, in Europe were Pop, Popfoto, Bravo (in germany), Ciao 2001 (in Italy), Melody Maker (In UK) and I think Rock Folk (in France). Now they were mainly photos and gushy kind of writing. Where everyhting was "superb" , "redhot" and "sexy". So there was no critique that I ever read back then that was immediate. Sh*t, we was super glad just to see any thing. I recall when they hit Spain; was that 76 or already 73? But jagger wore a blue jacket with tails in Barcelona and that was the hardest piece of reporting I read about. the rest was all "KEITH! La guitara del diablo!!" No one cared who was loud, late or lewd. As long as they were live! LOL How is that for reporting style?

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

I do not agree that Mick Taylor overplayed on that tour. He was just brillant, and if he was too loud on some of the shows that's rather a problem of the sound engineers. But the London 8 Sep and Copenhagen audience recordings have a balanced sound and show that the soundboards capture the real sound. Besides the classic Brussels/London tracks I really recommend THE STARS IN THE SKY THEY NEVER LIE. - Nevetheless I would really like to know if there are overdubs on the Brussels/London recordings.

I do not know how many musicians were frustrated during their carreer and nevertheless played great music. Remember, it's a really tough job (therefore problems with alcohol and drugs are very common). Therefore you cannot expect musicians to shine only if they are completely happy.

It is still a drag that the greatest live recordings of the Stones ever have never been released officially. It's surely no accident that at present people are so very interesten in those recordings.

Perhaps it shows an undercurrent uneasyness with the current overproduced greatest-hits shows which however are rather sterile and lack any spontaneity. If you listen to Midnight rambler and You can#t always get from the 1973 tour you get the impression that there was more space for improvising than in 1972 or later (do not even think of nowadays). And Mick Taylor took great advantage of it.

I doubt Jagger had an issue about the Stones having a guitar-heroe in their rank. After all, as soon as he went solo, he called on Jeff Beck or Joe Satriani. Even on Spirit, Johnny Rip plays pretty much the solo guy's part.
In fact, however fired Taylor, I'm grateful to him. Great guitar player, but I do prefer the balanced relation between guitars rather than a rhythm/lead dichotomy (but that debate is sooooo overdone now).

Festhalle Berne Switzerland 25 September 1973 - No Photo credits



ROCKMAN

When pointing out Keith's drug problems about that time s a reason
for the things happening; remember also Taylor suffered severe dittos too,
not the least during this time. Maybe some private relation issues,
too, I dont know, but its quite likely.

Great pic of the Berne show Rockman! Anymore eyecandy out there?

Mick taylor is not only a great lead guitarist, he is also a great rhythm guitarist!

I was in Bruxelles At afternoon show (for french fans)

I never Forget ==>in french language (Les Stones m'avaient envouté pour la vie!!)

Anymore eyecandy out there?.....How sweet do ya want it Britney?






ROCKMAN

Ah,

The Stones knew what they were getting when they brought Taylor in. Remember
There was Hendrix, Clapton, Peter Green, Jimi Page, Jeff Beck,etc, etc. on the
music scene at the time (late 1960's) if you didn't have the "best" on stage
"musically" in those days, you didn't "cut it"!!!

This is what Jagger/Richards wanted and they got it!! a kick-ass group of
musicians that cemented the Stones as the #1 R&R band after the Beatles broke up. And remember, Taylor wasn't fired, he quit

And Jagger was so pissed he still hasn't forgiven him to this day. Doesn't
sound like they were looking to move him out to bring Ronnie in...

MLC

I was at the first show at Bronbyhallen (Copenhaegn) and as far as I can rememember, this is really a long time ago, we all thought it was an amazing show! I still remember palying air guitar to Gimme Shelter. It was loud for sure but I can´t rememeber MT playing that loud. I have the boot from that concert and I think it captures the feel rather nicely. About the Brussel Shows. Didn´t MJ actually mix these later?? I think I have read that soemwhere.

Its too bad we don't have a better sounding version of 100 Years Ago. Or any offical live stuff from this period so music fans can hear the Stones during this period.

Taylor really helped the Stones live sound but I disagree that bands needed big time guitarists during the late 60s to be a big time live act. Look at the Doors, Dylan, The Who and so many others. Yeah guys like Robbie Kreiger and Townsend can play but it wasn't like they were with the Hendrixes and Becks of the time.

There is a life before and after Inglewood Benefit Concert jan.'73
After, on european tour '73, too much Billy, too much Micky...honey runny

Masseolle:
"Brøndby-Hallen (Copenhagen)"

Great thread.

I honestly think Taylor overplayed during the 73 Tour. Perhaps it was the boredom, as somebody has stated. Perhaps the drugs. Who knows? It is true that the "lead singer & flashing lead guitar player" combo ruled the rock scene those days. But it is also true that only three years later this very same combo became a self parody, sinking into indulgence (see Led Zep as the epithome of dinosaur). Were the Stones at risk of becoming a (greater) dinosaur if Taylor had stayed? I believe so.

This can lead to the point that not only Wood saved the band becoming the subsitute of Taylor, but in some way the own Taylor saved the band of becoming a parody by leaving and breaking the "over-six-minutes-guitar-solo" tendence the band was somewhat getting into (at the price of being lost in his musical indulgence until...).

Note that there is not a hint of criticism about Taylor abilities as player, but about his playing not suiting the band as it did from 69 to 72. This 1972 is my musically favourite tour in a good part because of the own Taylor: his solos were perfectly put where they should be, not all over the place. In my opinion in the 73 Taylor somewhat forgot the rule that a great guitarist is because of what is not played rather than what is actually played (or something like that, LOL!)

[There'll be no wedding today...]

I've read from several sources that Mick Jagger mixed the Brussels and Wembley tapes for radio broadcast himself. I say this because somebody mentioned it earlier in the thread.

forest73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was in Bruxelles At afternoon show (for french
> fans)
>
> I never Forget ==>in french language (Les Stones
> m'avaient envouté pour la vie!!)


I was there too. It's difficult to write a precise report so many years after, aside from the fact of my english being too short. But it's still deep in my heart to have been able as a youngster to see and hear the Stones at their peak in terms of creativity and musicality. How can you forget these moments of pure magic. The savageness of MR, the grandiosity of GS and TD, the magnificence of YGAGWYW. What is the purpose of deconstructing ? Why going along about a pseudo-rivalvry between Keith and MickT. Onstage it was not an evidence. All I think is that the departure of MickT was a trauma for many of Stones fans in the sense that the golden years in terms of smash hits were to be gone. Apart from SMU and MY, that turned out to be true, in my humble opinion. Hopefully came Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle. These past monthes I have been dreaming of what if MickT had played on ABB ? It think it would have stimulate Keith to surpass himself. With such a great material, they could have issued a BB or SF alike.

Rockman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anymore eyecandy out there?.....How sweet do ya
> want it Britney?
>
>
> [i9.photobucket.com]
> IMMERBOY%202/GLIMMERBOY%203/EYECANDY.jpg

Instant sugarcoma please, Rockdude....
Jagger really looked the part in those days in them jumpsuits

OK

Somewhere in 73



ROCKMAN

A thought provoking post bp.

Whatever one thinks about Taylor's playing in '73 I have No Doubt that it was played with the full support, encouragement and approval of Jagger. You hear it time and time again on any boot. But let's look at the tour from the other side of the stage....

I think you can see signs of the coming riff between Keith and Jagger. Taylor stated when he left the band Jagger and Keith were not getting along and he did not think it would survive. Taylor and Jagger were collaborating on songs. Keith was sometimes absent. Jagger was trying to move his music in a more adventurous direction. Let's face it, Keith was a great guitarist within narrow limits, but where is the Keith guitar part in 100 Years Ago or Heartbreaker? To me SF always felt like a retro Chuck Berry knockoff thrown in to give Keith something he can solo on. It's almost patronizing. Since early in the '69 tour the role of his guitar in '73 is severely limited to mostly rhythm accompaniment.

When I first heard Brussels I was a complete novice to boots and Stones boots. That recording hit me like a left hook out of nowhere. I have seen the band with Taylor three times and knew he was a good guitarist, but to be able sit down and listen....My God! It took me two weeks to get through that cassette and digest what was going on. My first impression was...here were combative guitars, that Keith was playing rhythms so fast and hard that he was trying to knock Taylor off the stage; or at least to give him little room to play. I have backed off from that opinion, but I still recall that initial impression. My point is that perhaps it is Keith who is trying to assert his relevance in the band by doing his best at what he does best...juiced up rhythm guitar playing. After all, tunes are being recorded without him; music is being recorded that does not suit his abilities; and the lead guitarist across the stage is a Monster player.

The Jagger/Keith friction would breakup the band in the '80's. It was only when Keith gave up the fight, rejoined the band and hitched his wagon to Jagger that the band continued. The two of them are riding into the sunset and the band is playing a lot of Jagger pop. ABB sounds to me as a Jagger solo album, but with Keith.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I get the impression now that Mick J wasn't the
> one who objected to Taylor's input -- it was
> Keith.
>
> Keith and Chuck Berry share much in common, but
> KR's ego isn't quite so overbearing. Still, I
> think that Taylor's influence on Jagger may have
> triggered a bit of jealousy on Keith's part. The
> principals won't answer honestly, and never will.
>
>
> All we can do is take the evidence, piece it
> together, and say "there's a good probability that
> this is what went down". That's how history is
> written. LOL

I think your right on this bassplayer, it did look like Keith wasn't the first guitar player anymore.

__________________________