1972 by a mile. The one knock on 72 is the number of songs. Anyway, I never cared for 81 much. I'll take 78 over 81 anyday.

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

I think 81 is the first time Mick and Keith arent in love with eachother and you can feel and see that. Or maybe it's just Keiths first concert off Heroin. He's a God on that tour but it is the first tour where they "represent themselves" - at least Mick and Ron, compared to the 72 tour where they just are themselves. A new distance. Maybe it's Mick and sometimes Ron, being clowns.

only show i passed on was the 81ish los angeles coliseum .. whats his face jack'd up running around in a football outfit was obnoxiously corny, un-funny joke..

isnt after that, keith told him 'ya dont move me anymore', an something called dirty work was released, which was awfull, an a break up was rumored??? ...

the whole stones image took an unexpected turn towards decline,,,

, , to me, the recordings took a twist too, where the stones werent fronting jagger anymore, but jagger fronting the stones,,, today, the mix's drives me crazy, to much voice up front, not enough music blend and band unity.. . no need to comment on the 72 shows, i didnt miss any of the seventies forum 'gigs'...

Mick and Keith wasn't even thirty in 72...I remember the 81 tour cause it was the first time I saw them live..Can they still rock this aged band I thougt then, 26 years ago...Hippest band around 81 must have been Pixies...

2 1 2 0

It is the subtle difference between playing and creating music and merely performing it. Where you draw that line is difficult, but the two are worlds apart. You instinctively feel it in your gut. In '72 the band was a guitar band, playing TO the audience. As time went on it became a performance band, playing FOR the audience. It became a facsimile of itself.

This is a joke, isnt it....Two completely different bands...

72 by light years...

Two completely different bands in two completely diiferent eras.

1981 v 1989? on and on.....

I know '72 was great but where can I find a dvd of Ladies and Gentlemen?
Can't find it anywhere, I am from south Louisiana and can't find it here

drummer_dude

I was at both 72 and 81 in Philly.

1972 was unimaginably great and intense... musical and crowd energy combined to this fever level... the Spectrum seemed to be throbbing with the audience as they played. That's why so many of the songs sound so fast, I think. The energy of the band and crowd... it's like feedback on a song's tempo, or something. I've never experienced that before or since at a concert. Stones or anyone else.

Some may say that the Stones were great on the 81 tour... many recordings bear witness to that... Many also know about how sloppy they were for the first show of the tour in Philly. When I saw them at JFK in 81 they were pretty sloppy.

Keith always talks about playing together with another guitar playing, the whole weaving bit, and that is often considered the Stones sound. But with Taylor and much more of a line between lead and rhythm, the band as a whole is actually better. Keith and Taylor do mix up the parts some, like on Bitch where Keith takes the lead, but for the most part Keith is playing rhythm and Taylor lead. The engine room is already so tight with Watts and Wyman and then you let Keith concentrate on playing with them. Its tight. Then you have Taylor flying with solos over the top of that. Mick's voice is great, you throw in some of the brass and paino and its the Stones at their best live... at their best when there IS that line between lead and rhythm.

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

Here you go...

[cgi.ebay.com]

[cgi.ebay.com]

schillid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was at both 72 and 81 in Philly.
>
> 1972 was unimaginably great and intense... musical
> and crowd energy combined to this fever level...
> the Spectrum seemed to be throbbing with the
> audience as they played. That's why so many of the
> songs sound so fast, I think. The energy of the
> band and crowd... it's like feedback on a song's
> tempo, or something. I've never experienced that
> before or since at a concert. Stones or anyone
> else.
>
> Some may say that the Stones were great on the 81
> tour... many recordings bear witness to that...
> Many also know about how sloppy they were for the
> first show of the tour in Philly. When I saw them
> at JFK in 81 they were pretty sloppy.


I have the Philly '72 boot (though not sure all songs are actually from Philly)
that was an AMAZING show.

Scillid--the great thing about Philly '81 was that it was the start of the tour, they had just released a killer record and they came out with a set list that was mind-blowing. Was, it sloppy? I suppose, but it was SO great just to be there.

stone-relics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here you go...
>
> [cgi.ebay.com]
>
> [cgi.ebay.com]

Or you can go the 4reel website to make sure it's an original, [www.shroomangel.com]

> Was, it sloppy? I
> suppose, but it was SO great just to be there.

Sounds like every show since 89.

It was pretty sloppy at times... it was still a blast.

See [www.iorr.org]

Plus I got to watch them in my neighborhood in NYC shooting Waiting on a friend video in the summer on 81.

72 vs 78 would be a closer contest. 81 was ok but when i go to see the stones i don't expect a sax to take every lead break.

For me '72 and '75 were the best tours ever! Mick was sexy, ( as he always is but he oozed sexuality then, quite on purpose with the postering), the band was LOUD, and frenzied like they should be! Yes, the set was too short in '72, agreed but it was a little slower and a bit longer by '75. Seeing Mick Taylor with the Stones was one of the musical highlights of my life; he really WAS that great! I just recently watched my copy of Ladies and Gentlemen( Go to Ebay for a copy) and watching Mick Taylor deliver " Love In Vain " was awe-inspiring, to say the least. So fluid, his fingers were not only fast but he had such a touch, such an unusual way of sustaining notes. Perfect blues! I used to play blues guitar and I always said I'd want to be able to play 1/4 as good as him. The '75 tour knocked me out as well; great song selection, includng a great version of " Fingerprint File" and I always loved Ollie Brown and Billie Prestons' contributions to that line-up. Now '78 was the ONLY tour I did not LOVE! Perhaps because, as I've said many times before, I did not love Some Girls, hated the punk influence on them! By '81 I was relieved that they were back to blues/rock basics. I love Tattoo You, and I think it is very under-rated! Worried About You, Black limosine, Heaven, are all great tunes and even the more commercial Waiting On A Friend is good! I loved Steel Wheels, liked that tour even though Mick did growl a bit and his hair was way too short. I loved the Uptown Horns with them; a friend of mine is in that ensemble. ( Crispin) The rest of the tours I loved alot, no complants! No Security was INCREDIBLE!! Really amazing set list changes!

keithfan64 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 72 vs 78 would be a closer contest. 81 was ok but
> when i go to see the stones i don't expect a sax
> to take every lead break.

I recall reading a review of the Sheffield Show of 1995. The reviewer wrote the show was great until the Stones were forced to do something they are not capable doing - a decent solo. This is what they lost when they lost Taylor. Now I don't like the 25 minute self indulgent solos from the 70s any more than anyone else, but Taylor did a dimension to what was once a guitar band.