OK folks -- we are going on about our personal opinions here. That is fine. That's what we normally do. That is why this board exists.

But, but, but, Question, kind sirs and madames: is there any evidence indicating the Stones thinking on this question, or related questions such as which is the greatest "period" of the band's existence, Mr. Taylor vs. Mr. Wood, etc.

Of course, they would never consciously, publically, maybe even privately, voice such utterings and musings. Think how disastrous that would or could be.

But one might venture to think that at some point somewhere someone slipped and let something out, or someone overheard something, or SOME avenue by which we have an indication of their (each and every one of them including Mr. Taylor) thoughts on these matters.

Well ???


plexi



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-02 02:44 by timbernardis.

personally i think 75-76 were the worst the stones ever sounded 72 is my favorite

I saw 'em in Knoxville in '72 and in Memphis in '75 and, in my opinion, '72 was better because... it just was. Knoxville '65 was the most fun.

This is a joke, right?

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

my opinion.......'72 was better than '75.


That's not to say that I don't like the '75 tour. I do. It's one of my favorites and there were some absolutely great performances. But I personally take the '72/'73 tours over all other Stones tours. 1978 was great too, as was 1970.

1972 Philadelphia concert was
(and will probabaly always be)
the best concert I've ever seen...

By the Rolling Stones or anyone.

Quote
timbernardis
yeah but the only backup musicians in 75 were Ollie Brown and Billie Preston.
72 had a horn section comprised of Bobby Keys and Jimmy Miller and also someone on keyboards, cant recall who. So that is 3 as opposed to 2.
And wouldnt no horns = more stripped down?
plexi

It was Jim Price, not Jimmy Miller.

For me the question is not stripped down or not, but whether the back up musicians are intrusive or somehow add to the presentation. In general, the horns seem to have been organically included in '72. The horns of '72 were not the intrusive, show-carrying horns of the 2000s. Except for some boisterous flugelhorn-like playing in ADTL at a few shows, the horns did not overshadow the guitars, they conveyed the songs. On the other hand, the percussionist in '75 was intrusive.

More generally, I don't think you can go by merely the number of back up players. Would you say that adding background vocals to YGTM in '75 made '75 better or worse? In my view, that staging made the song better than it was in '69, at least for listeners many years later. If you prefer the 1969 approach, would you prefer to hear less of Charlie and Bill in general because that is more "stripped down"?

Nicky Hopkins' piano was very prominent in the mix at some shows in '72, but it is not clear that was much different from Preston's prominence in '75. Hopkins, however, did not play two of his songs per show or dance with Jagger as Preston did, which seem more distracting than anything Hopkins did.

I prefer Keys' playing to Wood's mandolin-like solo in BS or 8-minute solo in YCAGWYW in 1975. In the end, it's just a matter of personal preference. YMMV

Quote
timbernardis
is there any evidence indicating the Stones thinking on this question, or related questions such as which is the greatest "period" of the band's existence, Mr. Taylor vs. Mr. Wood, etc.

Of course, they would never consciously, publically, maybe even privately, voice such utterings and musings. Think how disastrous that would or could be.

But one might venture to think that at some point somewhere someone slipped and let something out, or someone overheard something, or SOME avenue by which we have an indication of their (each and every one of them including Mr. Taylor) thoughts on these matters.
Well ???
plexi

Jagger seems to always say the current incarnation is the best, which is understandable.

In a 1995 interview in Rolling Stone, he indicated that he couldn't say the Taylor period was the best because that would trash then-current band.

Quote
HEILOOBAAS
I have all the '73 shows.

Could you please make Aarhus accessible?

IMHO, the 72 show and band, night in and night out blew away the 75 band, period.

75 brought the ill-effects of years of the coke abuse - just listen to Jagger's phrasings and the sheer volume of shows that were dialed-in by the band.

1972 was a tour where any given night, with an exception or two, one paid for and one got the Greatest R&R band in the whole wide world.

Even song selection was better in 72 than 75.

72 if only for Keiths solo on Bye Bye Johnny- makes the hair stand up on my neck everytime!

I like 75 because Ronnie`s there and I happen to be a Ronnie-man. Also, Billy Preston, longer and better (in my opinion) setlists, and so on. However I prefered the 72 Mick.

Was 75 better than 72. No doubt "73 was well over 76" by a Stones times.

Ladies & Gentlemen ........ 1972

holding a ticket back in 72 it was town news for me, friends envyed me , & their was such a big buzz about this tour " everyone wanted in ", then when i got to philly on show day people there are tellin me im going into see the " White Hendrix " meaning Taylor ..

holding a ticket back in 75 , to most people , it was just a ticket

Quote
chippy
Ladies & Gentlemen ........ 1972

holding a ticket back in 72 it was town news for me, friends envyed me , & their was such a big buzz about this tour " everyone wanted in ", then when i got to philly on show day people there are tellin me im going into see the " White Hendrix " meaning Taylor ..

holding a ticket back in 75 , to most people , it was just a ticket

lol, i like the 'white hendrix' thing...is that what people really thought at the time?

i find it fascinating what the average guitar fan of that era thought of Taylor

I find it fascinating anyone ever felt that way about Clapton (Clapton is god- gimme a break!) Taylor in his prime could play rings around Clapton in his!

Quote
chippy


holding a ticket back in 75 , to most people , it was just a ticket

I never saw this poll, was it published?

In 1972 there was no plexi glass next to charlie, nor was there in 75. But perhaps it was there all along, it just hand't materialized in the physical sense.

Of course no one seems to notice that there's a great film of the 72 tour (Ladies and Gentlemen) and nothing but a sh*tty video of a sh*tty night (second LA Forum show I believe, one of the 3 middle ones whatever) so, of course, that might have something to do with why people prefer 72. I think you should state if you saw both tours live. In my case I saw 2 '72 Shows (1 was 6th row, B section (that's 6 rows from the stage) - LA Forum) and saw the opening and last show of the Forum 75 shows (had very good seats but not like 72). I also went to the 73 LA FORUM benefit show and THAT was better than the 72 show - better set list with - ROUTE 66/ALL OVER NOW/STRAY CAT BLUES/DEAD FLOWERS/NO EXPECTATIONS/a cookin' MIDNIGHT RAMBLER (encore) but still keeping most of the 72 set list. 72 was really the first time the Stones went "Show Biz" with that "Greatest Rock and Roll Band" stuff from Sam Cutler and Ya-Ya's and I think Jagger was a bit full of himself. Maybe in 72 they were the kings cause the Beatles were gone and Zep was still climbing. By 75 they had Zeppelin and Bowie knocking at their front door - it was different and Jagger was much more fun to watch.... The 75 set list was SO MUCH BETTER on top of it all....

Nice Stones resume ya have there Helter...tip my hat to ya...



ROCKMAN

75 had its moments but really is not even on the same planet as 72, same goes for 76 compared to 73

quick rant and response. uh oh, feel another one comin' on... in regard to HS' usual ignorant frothing.
actually zep had released their first four albums before '72.
dohhhhh.
i personally saw shows in '72 and '75 in msg, really good floor seats each time. thrilled to be there but fans of all generations and ages can experience this material and their own fair assessments, without having to 'be there'.
i never saw elvis live, nor robert johnson, nor otis nor the wicked pickett, nor ray charles. nor a lot of musicians i totally adore.

to say they went 'show biz' in '72 and '69 was so kind of pure, when we can all see the cape and tights and top hat, ahem...much less 'show biz' than a jumpsuit? oh kaayyyyy.
jagger was playing it straight and hard with the new eoms and sf stuff, um, pretty good albums; no room to do anything except really put it out there hard and sweet. 70 minutes on full power, take no prisoners

imagine following stevie wonder and wonderlove in his prime and still blowing everyone away! that's not a task for mortal men. (tho they did it at TAMI show after James, tho it scared mick a bit; if that was anybody else, they'd still be at the santa monica civic throwing up in terror backstage. he pulled it off tho. got to love the rolling stones.

i think mick is the most excellent singer right now these days in many ways, i especially like the msg '03 hbo show. you can hear how pure and rich his instrument is...and on 'evening gown' and a lot of Stones stuff on ABB legs.
i was not pissed off or disappointed particuarly in '75; i like being in the room with the boyz, but i was not blown away.

probably their earlier tours with brian, which i never saw personally, except on tv and on film clips, were probably among their best. those first several years were consistently astounding, even with all the pandemonium teeny bopper crowds imo.
there's no winner and no prize in any of this; when it turns savaging the stones or their fans on one tour or another, i opt out.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 23:36 by Beelyboy.

Dearest Beely, I never said (or would EVER say) 69 was a "show biz" tour. Those were my first serious concerts - 1st and 2nd show at the LA Forum, Nov. 8th - same night (early and late show) and 1969 was MAGIC, nothing has ever touched those shows (even though in a very strange way the 1999 NO SECURITY TOUR kinda had some similar vibs in a strange way - arena show, stripped down, very interesting set list Of course we're talking 30 years apart so it can only go so far on the similarities list. There is a good boot (on vinyl) of the entire FORUM EARTHQUAKE BENEFIT 73 SHOW sans Midnight Rambler but I don't know if it's on CD. As far as Zeppelin go I would say that they really hit the top when PHYSICAL GRAFFITI came out in 75 and it was such a killer double album. They did 3 nights at the forum in 75 I believe and could have done 9 or 10. I think the Stones felt it. You remember those days, ZEP, ELTON, BOWIE, STONES were all very big. I see 75 and on as the "Andy Warhol" years and I like that period - Jagger acted like he didn't give a shit and was a big goof ball on stage. EL MOCAMBO kicks ass on LOVE YOU LIVE and should have been released in full. What a great set list one of those shows was from the 2 or 3 they did.
I gotta go, have some company here, I'll finish the rest later.......

x



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-05 06:34 by Beelyboy.

Quote
casinoboogie
lol, i like the 'white hendrix' thing...is that what people really thought at the time?

i find it fascinating what the average guitar fan of that era thought of Taylor

I never heard it or thought it, personally. As to what I thought of him at the time, I thought he was a really good guitarist doing probably his best work...He was well known among guitar fans, but not really famous, before his work with the Stones. Personally, I didn't know anyone that went to see them in '72 specifically to see Taylor.

No use to talk about it anymore;

Brian Jones was in the band for five years and they had their genuine sound.
Mick Taylor was in the band for five years and they had their soulful sound. Ron Wood will be in the band for the rest of their time(time to move Ron,give another player a chance?).It's all about money and for certain they don't have to look for another guitar player anymore.The spirit has gone,how predictable and boring.

I wasn't there but based on the bootlegs I've heard plus the videos I've seen and of course Love You Live the 1972 and 1973 Rolling Stones live blows away anything past that time period.

1975-76 they were just slopping their way through.

1978 they were just smashing their way through - a ton of energy.

1981-82 they were going as fast as they could - daytime shows help to support this opinion - to get the money and get...ha ha

1989-90 Yes, very tight but damn, such a by the numbers performance...

1994-95 (& 96?) A little more ragged than 89 with some similarities to 81-82 only better.

1997-98-99 Um, probably the best they've sounded in eons...

Licks - good and bad - Monkey Man vs. Slop Me Up, I mean Start Me Up...

Bang - I dunno, haven't really had a chance yet other than youtube videos. Don't have the DVD yet...but they seem really sloppy...the most grunting from Mick since the Tattoo You tour...to me.

1972 is obviously one of the best tours ever.....hard to compare anything with 72.
Nevertheless, 1975 is the tour I've spent the most time listening to. It's a spectacular, awesome tour....I think a lot of the people who dislike it, or even worse - who compare it with 1976 - simply haven't heard the greater shows of TOTA 1975.
Just like 1978, the concerts varied a lot, and no more than 30% of the shows are 10 star performances, I'd say.

I watched L&G yesterday, and what strikes me is that I prefer watching the 21st century Mick J over the 1972 Mick J. Arguably, he even sings better NOW than he did THEN.

Other than that, it's a classic apples/oranges comparison.

As for 1975/76, the band was good (usually), but I hated Mick's vocals. The affectations became self-parody.

Quote
ryanpow
In 1972 there was no plexi glass next to charlie, nor was there in 75. But perhaps it was there all along, it just hand't materialized in the physical sense.

RYANPOW IS SPIRITUALLY CORRECT AND STANDS IN THE LIGHT OF GRACE.

Your wisdom and insight are truly remarkable. You are correct -- THE PLEXIGLASS has always existed since time immemorial. During the 72 and 75 tours, it was only a SPIRITUAL presence, only later did it assume its CORPOREAL form.

However, I must say that at my first show on Wednesday, July 16, 1975 at the Cow Palace in San Francisco, it seemed I saw just a brief, shiny glimmer on either side of Charlie which, as I (the Plexiglass Prophet) today interpret this to have been THE PLEXIGLASS in its nascent form, both in my mind (had not yet been enlightened) and in its physical form, as yet unassumed.

However, full enlightenment in me and the masses did not begin until 2006 and the Good News of THE PLEXIGLASS continues today and until the end of time.


Spread the Good News of THE PLEXIGLASS, take heart and heed Ryanpow's example to us all!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-03 21:30 by timbernardis.

Quote
bassplayer617
I watched L&G yesterday, and what strikes me is that I prefer watching the 21st century Mick J over the 1972 Mick J. Arguably, he even sings better NOW than he did THEN.

Other than that, it's a classic apples/oranges comparison.

As for 1975/76, the band was good (usually), but I hated Mick's vocals. The affectations became self-parody.

I agree on the vocals. I think no smoking,less drinking and less drugs has a lot to do with it but also the leaps and bounds in technology that can make anyone sound better!(theres lots of examples of that amongst young performers).
On the 75/76 tour maybe the coke had alot of effect. Ever notice on the 75 Led Zep tour Plant can hardly sing on Rock and Roll(the opener) then his voice straightens out as they go on!!I guess its hard to hit those notes with a numb throat!

anybody out there whos brave enough to tell timbernardis that repeating jokes destroys all the fun (in case there ever was one, what I doubt in this case)?

ok, nobody. I see its my task then:

TIMBERNARDIS, THIS PLEXIGLASS SHIT AINT FUNNY ANMORE!!!!!!!!!


sorry, but somebody had to tell you before you make a complete clown out of yourself.