now thats its 30 years on june 10 2008 when this tour happened are we going to get more soundboard tapes and video from this tour. rape the vaults please.

My first show was in '78.
I doubt they will release anything just for the 30th anniversary.

what a shame that this tour has been pretty much ignored, even the stones ignored it on 25x5 wtf

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what a shame that this tour has been pretty much
> ignored, even the stones ignored it on 25x5 wtf
and in the "a life on the road book".

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what a shame that this tour has been pretty much
> ignored, even the stones ignored it on 25x5 wtf

This tour has taken on a new popularity on the forum. Do a quick search and you'll find many many references to it.

I will posit this theory about the '78 minitour: if it hadn't been for the amazing "Handsome Girls" set, it may have been consigned as a footnote in the Stones' touring career, between the megatours of 75-76 and 81-82.

have a look
[www.doctorstones.net]

What IS it about this tour that provides such fascination? The performances were erratic, and the reviews were mixed. Is it the nostalgia quotient? The touring band was definitely a stripped-down crew, with the basic band plus two keyboardists and Bobby Keys.

The Faces connection was there, what with Ian McLagan being aboard.

Most of the set revolved around the recently-released Some Girls, and much then-new material was being offered.

I can't help but think that the passage of time has elevated this tour into something more than it was considered as it was happening.

If the Stones sounded like this NOW, it would be slagged mercilessly. "Ragged, sloppy, amateurish" -- be honest, that's what folks would be saying.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the Stones sounded like this NOW, it would be
> slagged mercilessly. "Ragged, sloppy, amateurish"
> -- be honest, that's what folks would be saying.


Why are you labeling all of us as idiots, bassplayer?

who seen them in south carolina that year i think it was june 23 is there any pics from this show never seen any.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What IS it about this tour that provides such
> fascination?

pure rock and roll, guitars upfront in the mix and carrying the music, setlist a great mix of MANY!!! exciting new songs which did not disgrace the Stones legacy & fame, some (SOME!!!) warhorses and GREAT Chuck Berry covers, rock'n'roll performances-concerts and NO "shows", band firing on all cylinders


> The performances were erratic, and
> the reviews were mixed.

Erratic? as mentioned, the Stones were firing on all cylinders as if there was no tomorrow (or tomorrows concert to save a voice or some energy for), again, no "show", but heartfelt right-in-yer-face rock and roll, incredible energy, Stones reinventing themselves fuelled by the power of punk (maybe american revievers did not understand what was going on ... amidst all this easy listening Eagles-America-and whatever perfect sounding mainstream groups who were mistaken as "rock" or even "rock and roll")


> Is it the nostalgia
> quotient?

no its the simple truth, recorded evidence is out there for everyone to listen again and again


> The touring band was definitely a
> stripped-down crew, with the basic band plus two
> keyboardists and Bobby Keys.

I like it that way! no Stones "orchestra", just a stripped-down crew, rocking their hearts out!!!


> Most of the set revolved around the
> recently-released Some Girls, and much then-new
> material was being offered.

good!!! good!!! good!!! those were the times when the Stones actually cared about their new music, and proudly played it for their audiences


> I can't help but think that the passage of time
> has elevated this tour into something more than it
> was considered as it was happening.

something more than it was ??? no, what actually happened was already breathtaking


> If the Stones sounded like this NOW, it would be
> slagged mercilessly. "Ragged, sloppy, amateurish"
> -- be honest, that's what folks would be saying.

what folks? those 40 Licks Stones fans?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-06 00:52 by alimente.

Maybe today's critics would think of a '78-like performance as sloppy, but I find it hard to imagine '78 being sloppier than today's Stones. And critics today are often fans of dirty, punky music with a artistic and historical content -- exactly like the Stones of '78.

Anyway, I believe the tour of '78 is popular today because:

* It was back to basics in many ways. Stones classics, Berry numbers and great new material, done stripped down and punky. And no Billy Preston, just the classic '72 "swing band" with piano and a bit of brass.

* They played lots of brand new material which makes it fresh and original, still today. Even '75-76 felt more nostalgic and slightly incoherent in comparison.

* Ronnie Wood was an integrated part of the band and I think many fans see it as a definite high of his career. He filled Taylor's (and Richards'!) shoes well in '75-76, but in '78 he came to the fore even more and at the same time did that (in)famous weaving so well with Keith. His solo in Beast of Burden is enough to convince anyone of his qualities as a guitarist.

* With no official release (such as Live You Live or Still Life before and after), but many good bootlegs exposing this tour, I think many fans like to remind people about its greatness, so it gets all raved about on a board like this. It's well deserved, in my opinion.

LieB Wrote:
-
>
> * It was back to basics in many ways. Stones
> classics, Berry numbers and great new material,
> done stripped down and punky. And no Billy
> Preston, just the classic '72 "swing band" with
> piano and a bit of brass.
>
you got it LIEB,and NO BILLY PRESTON

alimente Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bassplayer617 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -.
>
> good!!! good!!! good!!! those were the times when
> the Stones actually cared about their new music,
> and proudly played it for their audiences
>
>
> Yes indeed! Because that's the last great music they made! And people wonder why they pretty much ignored ABB songs on their latest tour
>
>
>

alimente Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bassplayer617 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What IS it about this tour that provides such
> > fascination?
>
> pure rock and roll, guitars upfront in the mix and
> carrying the music, setlist a great mix of MANY!!!
> exciting new songs which did not disgrace the
> Stones legacy & fame, some (SOME!!!) warhorses and
> GREAT Chuck Berry covers, rock'n'roll
> performances-concerts and NO "shows", band firing
> on all cylinders
>
>
> > The performances were erratic, and
> > the reviews were mixed.
>
> Erratic? as mentioned, the Stones were firing on
> all cylinders as if there was no tomorrow (or
> tomorrows concert to save a voice or some energy
> for), again, no "show", but heartfelt
> right-in-yer-face rock and roll, incredible
> energy, Stones reinventing themselves fuelled by
> the power of punk (maybe american revievers did
> not understand what was going on ... amidst all
> this easy listening Eagles-America-and whatever
> perfect sounding mainstream groups who were
> mistaken as "rock" or even "rock and roll")
>
>

Not all shows were Handsome Girls. Some of the ones I heard were absolutely dreadful, more like firing on one or two cylinders.

"maybe american revievers did
> not understand what was going on "

Sloppy, underrehearsed, overdoped and, yes, erratic, is not too hard to understand at all.

>
> If the Stones sounded like this NOW, it would be
> slagged mercilessly. "Ragged, sloppy, amateurish"
> -- be honest, that's what folks would be saying.


That IS what people say about them now. AND have been saying about them for 45 years.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

keef_nerd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LieB Wrote:
> -
> >
> > * It was back to basics in many ways. Stones
> > classics, Berry numbers and great new material,
> > done stripped down and punky. And no Billy
> > Preston, just the classic '72 "swing band" with
> > piano and a bit of brass.
> >
> you got it LIEB,and NO BILLY PRESTON

This tour rolled into Buffalo on July 4th and for Americans that in itself is already a huge festive holiday. It was also my first time seeing the Stones. The first disappointment was having the show in the middle of the day. For me, a concert in the afternoon loses its intensity.

Second disappointment was the long string of songs from Some Girls. As a first time fan I was really hoping to hear some more older stuff. What did they play, 8 or so songs from the album. For a lot of people that was too much. Sure looking back now as we know these songs by heart, it is a different feeling. But at the time, except for the really hard-core fans that was distracting. Now that is what my friends and I thought after the show.

This album was a change of direction for the band and they were out to prove prowess no matter what anyone thought. Their pertinacious resolve to shove this down everyone's throat was somewhat selfish. The punk and disco feels to some of the material contrasted to their previous work, and it almost felt as though they were overplaying it to force acceptance.

As for Billy Preston, I thought that he brought a funk and groove to the band that they badly needed and wanted. Its IMO the black effect. Bringing in someone with a different style (Preston was not shy about interjecting his persona into this mix) sort made him a leader that allowed the Stones to feed off of. I think they had a lot of fun playing with him. The fans seemed to enjoy it. Listen to the applauds he receives after his songs. Even Charlie had to play his arse off on Outta Space.

<<Even Charlie had to play his arse off on Outta Space>>

It's just that Ollie Brown played drums on the Billy Preston songs in '75 and '76

Like here:





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-06 07:04 by Sohoe.

the some girls album and 78 tour has a unique energy and thats what I like the most about it... it has a feeling of rebirth and renewal. The stones IMO were among the origionators of what became punk. But theres no question they were being influenced by it in 78. I compare it to Otis Reddings' cover of Satisfaction influincing how they played live it in later years. they were like "we can do this too because we invented it". as always they adopted what made sense for them to adopt do while maintaining their own identity. for one thing they swing more than punk music. it was more about dancing to it than head-banging, crowd surfing, ect.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-06 07:50 by ryanpow.

A lot of weirdness in the above posts, as I should've expected.

To you, Erik Snow: not ONCE did I accuse anyone of being idiots. Where did that outburst of yours originate? I'm afraid to ask LOL.

To Dan: you hit the truth -- "Not all (78) shows were Handsome Girls". That only reinforces my original premise.

To sweetcharmedlife: then why in the hell do some folks slag the last two tours?

To everyone: the "good old days" weren't all that great if you lived through them. One tends to shut out the negative stuff, which is natural, and accent old happy memories. Keep this in mind as we celebrate 30 years since 1978.

would be great if somebody in the stones camp put out a whole concert on dvd for the 30 years .

jeanmarie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> have a look
> [www.doctorstones.net]


I highly recommend this book.

JumpingKentFlash

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What IS it about this tour that provides such
> fascination? The performances were erratic, and
> the reviews were mixed. Is it the nostalgia
> quotient? The touring band was definitely a
> stripped-down crew, with the basic band plus two
> keyboardists and Bobby Keys.
>
> The Faces connection was there, what with Ian
> McLagan being aboard.
>
> Most of the set revolved around the
> recently-released Some Girls, and much then-new
> material was being offered.
>
> I can't help but think that the passage of time
> has elevated this tour into something more than it
> was considered as it was happening.
>
> If the Stones sounded like this NOW, it would be
> slagged mercilessly. "Ragged, sloppy, amateurish"
> -- be honest, that's what folks would be saying.


What kind of fuckery is this??!!

Fuckery Rooster...?? I'm going to have great trouble not to include the literal translation of it into my everyday vocabulary... neukerij... imagine saying that somewhere... ;-) Great word-choice! :-))

Everything alright in this great great sunny weather?

Cheers,

Jelle

Cheers Jelle...thats been a long time...hope your doing good! I learn bad words from Amy! Have a good Sunday groeten uit Den Haag!

Yeah, thanx, I'm doing fine... some things to sort out, some work to do and then afterwards i'm going to submerge myself again in the deep and endless pool of knowledge here on IORR, never to surface again!!

playing Winter right now, what can go wrong? Thinking of it, maybe I should think about Amy during this song... ...and burn a candle for her...

Jelle

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To you, Erik Snow: not ONCE did I accuse anyone of
> being idiots.

But you do, bassplayer, by saying what you did.

dariog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> would be great if somebody in the stones camp put
> out a whole concert on dvd for the 30 years .


that would make my year!!!!!!!!!

Hmm -- apparently, some of you think that I didn't like this tour. As a matter of fact, "Handsome Girls" is one of my all-time favorite bootlegs.

However, I DO think that '78 is now being over-rated. Most of that, as I previously stated, is simply because HG captured some of the best performances, in outstanding quality.

On the flip side, the video version we have of the Ft. Worth "Let It Rock" isn't that good -- MJ flubs the lyrics, and Ronnie's solos were a bit shaky. Fortunately, we also have the Detroit version on HG, which is simply fantastic.

Of course, we also have that notorious SNL performance, in which MJ was hoarse and simply terrible.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmm -- apparently, some of you think that I didn't
> like this tour. As a matter of fact, "Handsome
> Girls" is one of my all-time favorite bootlegs.
>
> However, I DO think that '78 is now being
> over-rated. Most of that, as I previously stated,
> is simply because HG captured some of the best
> performances, in outstanding quality.
>
> On the flip side, the video version we have of the
> Ft. Worth "Let It Rock" isn't that good -- MJ
> flubs the lyrics, and Ronnie's solos were a bit
> shaky. Fortunately, we also have the Detroit
> version on HG, which is simply fantastic.
>
> Of course, we also have that notorious SNL
> performance, in which MJ was hoarse and simply
> terrible.

bassplayer617,

no pun intended! my remarks were -hope you noticed it- deliberately (slightly) over the top, but of course I agree that its to each their own and I have no problem to respect other opinions. at the time (1978) I was a Stones fans since a decade already and the Some Girls album and tour somehow managed to push my fandom to new hights. I thought at the time that the Stones were out of this world because such an "old" band sounded so young and fresh. one has to keep in mind that in Europe as early as 1973 and 1976 newspapers announced their tours like "this could be the last time" because by some the Stones were already considered as "oldies". but no, they did not retire, they came back with Some Girls album and a tour that left only one conclusion, and that was that they simply reinvented themselves. I was so @#$%& proud of these guys back then!

I saw the Buffalo 78 show and at the time left somewhat disappointed that it did not measure up to the 75 shows in terms of set lists or spectacle. Good thing there was no Internet back then or Some Girls would have caused a lot of set list whining!!!