I saw them in Essen that tour. A general admission gig that was very laid back compared with the insanity that went along with the N America gigs in 72. Crowd was good in Essen athough compared with the Chicago gig I went to in 72 it was calm in a nice sort of way. I waited in line with a friend I was travelling with that afternoon , and we were surprised there were so few people waiting so we went nearby Gruggahalle for a few beers. Went back and the line was just starting to build so we stayed and waited for doors to open. Again, all very relaxed. I recall Billy Preston opening up the show. Mick Taylor stood in and played which was a bonus. The boys took the stage and put on a great show. Much like the 72 tour, but with some tweeks to the setlist. Band firing on all cylinders. Sound was really good from where we stood and and sat center front maybe back 20-30 feet. Waiting in line paid off in that respect. Taylor clearly had gained even more confidence in his live playing. He and Keith really had a great rhythm and lead role thing down pat. Clearly some of the songs like YCAGWYW had also been given some extra polish and room to breathe on the 73 tour which was cool. The GHS numbers mixed in were very good. Star&%*&^ was especially killer with Keith ripping it up pretty good. Somehow I remember Keith wearing a black velvet jacket. I recall also thinking that if Keith is so strung out on junk, how could this guy be playing so well. Never mind the bourbon....The recordings from the 73 say the band was in top form. My memory of the that show says the tapes don't lie. This was first of what would be many Stones shows I was able to see over the years. Just felt lucky to be there, and tickets were really cheap. Should have chased that tour. One of my great regrets.

Meant to say the first of many shows in Europe I ended up seeing...sorry. First tour for me was 1969 and haven't missed a N.American tour since.

I was at a Wembley show - right at back in far corner - nosebleeds.
Yes, sound was amazing. I do remember - more than at any Stones show since - being astonished by prominence of Bill's playing and sound + his imaginitive dexterity - compared to his album contributions generally (nad he hardly plays on GHS, if at all?).

Regards Taylor - I've said before in '73 threads - it was at the time DE RIGEUR to have a 'hotshot' lead guitar to the fore. Think Focu and jans hammer for example. Stones (Mick and Keith) simply 'exploiting' Taylor to the max to be as current as possible. Taylor didn't pull the shots then any more than he does now.
The added benefit was that we got the best rhythm guitar ever from Keith's '72 -'73 Exile period.

Remember too that although by '75-76 Keith had did more lead work again, this did not mean that extended soloing was out of fashion - Ronnie's solos on YGAGWYW are far longer and more self-absoebed than anything Taylor did. This is still Hotel
California 'country' - and how was that for lead guitar 'weaving'. Taken about as far as it could go, (over the hills and afr away ....)

Cue Punk Rock. Short and sweet, Less is More etc. Whose influence would bring us songs like Hang Fire, Little T&A, Wanna Hold You, Dirty Work .........



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-07 02:24 by Deluxtone.

Quote
pmk251
<<As brilliant as Mick Taylor was with the Stones however, it could reasonably be argued that had he remained with the band, his virtuoso style of playing might have actually hindered their progression towards formulating their more consumer-friendly, one-size-fits-all stage production that we still see today. Conversely, it could be contested that in choosing to venture down such a road towards stadium tours and commercial mass market appeal, the Rolling Stones lost much of the musical and artistic credibility that Taylor had played such a significant part in helping them to establish.>>

On the mark and nicely put. "...hindered their progression..." :-) Indeed!

I am so happy to see the original quote, above, by LOGIE. I remember it, but thought it lost forever. It is insightful and as concise a summation of the later years as one can make. It points out the clear choice the band made, artistically and otherwise.

PMK251, Yes! Logie was a big loss to IORR and I admire him for how he handled his photos and his departure.

Just looked at some of YOUR recent posts. The one about Sinatra and Ella was fabulous! The TV special Sinatra and Ella did together (it's still available on TV every so often) was...is magical!

A lovely tour (judging from bootlegs) from a lovely era which they took as far as they could. In a way it ended with the 1976 tour.

Then, like so many times before, they evolved and brought in more current music in the mix. And Keith became more active on stage again, which is always a good thing for the Stones, imo.

Quote
Deluxtone

Regards Taylor - I've said before in '73 threads - it was at the time DE RIGUEUR to have a 'hotshot' lead guitar to the fore.

Stones (Mick and Keith) simply 'exploiting' Taylor to the max to be as current as possible. Taylor didn't pull the shots then any more than he does now.

Very interesting comment... I suspect it also worked the other way around. MT used the band to build his own fame. When he thought they couldn't give anything (1974) he left to create this superband with Jack Bruce.

Bad decision but back then wasn't he leaving a sinking ship (the Stones) to jump on a bold new boat?

Quote
dcba

Quote
Deluxtone

Regards Taylor - I've said before in '73 threads - it was at the time DE RIGUEUR to have a 'hotshot' lead guitar to the fore.

Stones (Mick and Keith) simply 'exploiting' Taylor to the max to be as current as possible. Taylor didn't pull the shots then any more than he does now.

Very interesting comment... I suspect it also worked the other way around. MT used the band to build his own fame. When he thought they couldn't give anything (1974) he left to create this superband with Jack Bruce.

Bad decision but back then wasn't he leaving a sinking ship (the Stones) to jump on a bold new boat?

Good point.

I think that he was leaving a ship which (he considered) no longer had a clear and desirable point of steerage/destination. Would there really be any creative pleasure in working with a junked-out Keith and more dominant fashion-hungry Jagger - without receiving any cerdit or joy from either. Caught between two camps already.

He WAS a big name. He enjoyed the freedom of working with Oldfield and doing ad-hoc stuff on Ronnie's album. I think he saw the Stones as a creative dead-end and Bruce's band as a creative force for the future. Well he was wrong on the latter count (from frying pan to fire) - but he can't be blamed for realising that the Stones' most creative days were behind them and that the band's social cohesion was failing, (Bill already doing his own work for example).

Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Quote
Deluxtone
I think he saw the Stones as a creative dead-end and Bruce's band as a creative force for the future.

Yup I agree. But like many others he didn't see the Stones as they truly are that is a musical phoenix. Think they're finished? Wham Bam they come back and they surprise you.
1978's SG was a resurrection. The 1989 tour was another one as well as the 2012-14 shows (aka the "post-coconut comeback).

Taylor thought logically : "it's 74 thye're dry. The new album is stale. I'd better leave". With the Stones conventional thinking doesn't work.

Quote
dcba

Quote
Deluxtone
I think he saw the Stones as a creative dead-end and Bruce's band as a creative force for the future.

Yup I agree. But like many others he didn't see the Stones as they truly are that is a musical phoenix. Think they're finished? Wham Bam they come back and they surprise you.
1978's SG was a resurrection. The 1989 tour was another one as well as the 2012-14 shows (aka the "post-coconut comeback).

Taylor thought logically : "it's 74 thye're dry. The new album is stale. I'd better leave". With the Stones conventional thinking doesn't work.

+1

But I'm not sure if he thought the album where he supposedly had the most creative input, and which includes the guitar playing/solos he's most proud of was stale...

A bird whispered in my ear that the third guitar (the syncopated one) on Luxury is Taylor, btw.

Quote
forest73
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 at the evening show for Begians fans. Very young fan! I had Get Ye Ya Yas all over my blood and was juging everything from that benchmark.
I could have done without Billy Preston, I remember I felt he was spoiling things a bit. I had Jean Bernard Hebey (french critic) near me listenning without moving.
Was it a great show? This was the Rolling Stones live, what kind of question is that!
Clic here if you understand french.

Let's not ruin a great thread with fantasies of what Mick Taylor's private thoughts were.

You're on a quite a wrong track there.

It's not fantasy, it's what Nick Kent witnessed back in 74...
MT's semi-official reason he gave was he needed to get away from the drug use in the band... Getting away from that to team up with a full-blown H addict like Jack Bruce...? Cmon, Mick there must have been another reason.

Otherwise I agree about the "great thread" part.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-07 16:03 by dcba.

My first ever concert was the Birmingham odean 73 and the way Logie describes it, is exactly how i feel about the concert.

Billy preston was the best suport act that i have seen for the stones.

There was two concerts that day with the first one around 17.30 and the one i went to was around 20.30.

I remember staying out all night outside the odeon to get a ticket, i remember everybody seemed to be older than me.

Quote
stonesrule
Let's not ruin a great thread with fantasies of what Mick Taylor's private thoughts were.

You're on a quite a wrong track there.

+1

Quote
dcba

Quote
Deluxtone
I think he saw the Stones as a creative dead-end and Bruce's band as a creative force for the future.

Yup I agree. But like many others he didn't see the Stones as they truly are that is a musical phoenix. Think they're finished? Wham Bam they come back and they surprise you.
1978's SG was a resurrection. The 1989 tour was another one as well as the 2012-14 shows (aka the "post-coconut comeback).

Taylor thought logically : "it's 74 thye're dry. The new album is stale. I'd better leave". With the Stones conventional thinking doesn't work.

From '72 to '74 Mick T would have seen Keith's decline.
Keith's bust saved the band.
Even then it took Keith another 8 years or so to be fully re-invigorated / re-born. By that time his personal and creative relationship with Mick was irretrievably damaged.

If he had cleaned up for good in '73 - instead of just for the start of the tour - then maybe he and Mick J and he and Mick T would have kept it all together.

Not many would have wanted to or could have kept up with Keith's habit except Anita. It alienated Bill, it messed up Taylor and it lalmost destroyed the band.d. destroyed. Ronnie could = and Mick J could work with Ronnie. Keith's addiction led to his giving up artistic (GHS and IORR onwards) and business control to Mick. Mick HAD to take control - and Keith has ultimayely resented him for wanting to keep it. But
Keith lost his control to Heroin and not to Mick.

Quote
stonesrule
Let's not ruin a great thread with fantasies of what Mick Taylor's private thoughts were.

You're on a quite a wrong track there.

And who was this meant for?

Deluxetone:

Taylor also saw his own decline, as well as that of the producer, the engineers and lots of others associated with the Stones. Your description is far too black and white, imo.

There are many aspects and layers here. My guess is that what Taylor wanted to achieve musically, and what was offered for him, simply didn't match - drugs or not.

Quote
stonesrule
PMK251, Yes! Logie was a big loss to IORR and I admire him for how he handled his photos and his departure.

Wait wait... I just caught this thread and have finally caught up to this point. Logie's post, like many contributors, was an amazing read! Why did he leave??

When I first began collecting boots I started with Leeds 71 and went from there. 72 and 73 were nothing short of a revelation. To this day I find out difficult to enjoy any modern era version of Gimme Shelter. The band in full pandemic mode completely slays any version with Lisa smiling about rape and murder. (Don't turn this into a Lisa debate please.) Bye Bye Johnny from Nasty Music influenced my desire to produce albums and run live sound for concerts.

I also wonder whether Taylor's answer for leaving was a bit dishonest... maybe it just wasn't fun anymore. If you like the folks you are working with then it makes the low times more bearable. It might have just been incredibly difficult to perform and write with them at that time. Credits and other issues aside, I imagine it boils down to whether he felt at home or not.

I had never given heavy consideration to 73 vs 72. As a 31 year old who was not there I always felt 73 with its GHS tracks always felt a bit more subdued compared to the 72 performances. Heartbreaker and Dancing With Mr D are both far more serious songs than the vast majority of songs included in the previous sets. This is very likely why GHS is not more highly regarded. Difficult, deep and dense material for certain.

BRILLIANT thread.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Deluxetone:

Taylor also saw his own decline, as well as that of the producer, the engineers and lots of others associated with the Stones. Your description is far too black and white, imo.

There are many aspects and layers here. My guess is that what Taylor wanted to achieve musically, and what was offered for him, simply didn't match - drugs or not.

Hey I agree with you on both counts - except the black and white bit.
Jimmy Miller, Bobby Keys .... Nick Kent.
i think it all started with Anita really. Not white.

It's a dilemma ofcourse because we are all really in love with what the Stones and others made to look like a glamorous Rock'n'Roll lifestyle. Exile On Main Sstreet YEaH YEAH YEAH.

In The Beginning ........... R&R was just a sexual term ...... but by end of sixties and early seventies it had taken on much more dangerous and darker associations and connotations. Led Zep and Alisatir Crowley too. Excess, Hedonism.

But it did a lot of people not a lot of good on a personal level - yes, including Taylor.

And The Main Offender has lived on into his seventies as a fatherly loveable old rogue!

Paradoxes, paradoxes ........

Another one is how Cliff Ricahrd. Common in name only, I beiieve.

Quote
LOGIE
As brilliant as Mick Taylor was with the Stones however, it could reasonably be argued that had he remained with the band, his virtuoso style of playing might have actually hindered their progression towards formulating their more consumer-friendly, one-size-fits-all stage production that we still see today. Conversely, it could be contested that in choosing to venture down such a road towards stadium tours and commercial mass market appeal, the Rolling Stones lost much of the musical and artistic credibility that Taylor had played such a significant part in helping them to establish.

Quote
pmk251
On the mark and nicely put. "...hindered their progression..." :-) Indeed!

It's a bit misleading to only quote half of LOGIE's comment here.
He said: "hindered their progression towards (formulating) their more consumer-friendly, one-size-fits-all stage production that we still see today.

And in the next paragraph he explains why not everyone would actually call this 'progression'.

It's like a Michelin star awarded restaurant making changes to their menu in an effort to appeal to the masses. The Rolling Stones succeeded in doing that and are now the McDonalds of popular music. You go to a Stones concert and you know exactly what you're going to get.

Needless to say, their maître d' from back in the day would have been a hindrance during this transformation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-08 23:17 by Chacal.

Quote
Deluxtone
Regards Taylor - I've said before in '73 threads - it was at the time DE RIGEUR to have a 'hotshot' lead guitar to the fore. Think Focu and jans hammer for example. .

I assume you meant 'de rigueur' ? (= strictly obligatory, or required)

Also: Focu -> Focus ? Jans Hammer -> Jan Hammer ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-08 23:28 by Chacal.

Taylor did nothing after leaving the stones

Quote
Chacal

Quote
LOGIE
As brilliant as Mick Taylor was with the Stones however, it could reasonably be argued that had he remained with the band, his virtuoso style of playing might have actually hindered their progression towards formulating their more consumer-friendly, one-size-fits-all stage production that we still see today. Conversely, it could be contested that in choosing to venture down such a road towards stadium tours and commercial mass market appeal, the Rolling Stones lost much of the musical and artistic credibility that Taylor had played such a significant part in helping them to establish.

Quote
pmk251
On the mark and nicely put. "...hindered their progression..." :-) Indeed!

It's a bit misleading to only quote half of LOGIE's comment here.
He said: "hindered their progression towards (formulating) their more consumer-friendly, one-size-fits-all stage production that we still see today.

And in the next paragraph he explains why not everyone would actually call this 'progression'.

It's like a Michelin star awarded restaurant making changes to their menu in an effort to appeal to the masses. The Rolling Stones succeeded in doing that and are now the McDonalds of popular music. You go to a Stones concert and you know exactly what you're going to get.

Needless to say, their maître d' from back in the day would have been a hindrance during this transformation.

I think this is way too harsh. If Taylor had played on ten songs, it would still be "consumer-friendly". They're doomed to offer a Big Mac vs. a Quarter Pounder anyway we look at it

Understood DP. LOGIE's sarcasm was not lost on me. That is what I enjoyed about the post.

Quote
Stranger09
This seems a good a place as anywhere to mention there's a brilliant live 73 selection of King Biscuit soundboard recordings just added to trader's den.

I think this comment sums it up...

"Thanks! This is by far the best sounding version of this material I've heard. No distortion, clipping or compression. Very nice"

Did I miss this post on TTD? Or was it posted here on IORR?

Quote
pmk251
Understood DP. LOGIE's sarcasm was not lost on me. That is what I enjoyed about the post.

But when I quoted Chacal much of the nuances and the sarcasm were gone

I later read the whole of LOGIE's post. Thanks

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Taylor also saw his own decline, as well as that of the producer, the engineers and lots of others associated with the Stones.

Taylor was too modest then, unfortunately not aware of it. I don't hear a decline during his tenure with the Stones.

Why de-construct it? With Mick Taylor back in tow we should be talking about re-constructing it. ><

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Taylor also saw his own decline, as well as that of the producer, the engineers and lots of others associated with the Stones.

Taylor was too modest then, unfortunately not aware of it. I don't hear a decline during his tenure with the Stones.

Physical and mental decline, something he has brought up numerous times himself