Hey I saw them in 72 & 73 (benefit show at the forum) and in 1975 Ronnie's 1st
tour.

Beely has it right on point!!!

Like driving a Ferrari (72,73) then a Mustang (75)

no comparison, IMO

MLC

let me guess... Vibrato?

talent.... some have it more than others...

Keith & Taylor where "magical" together, with Bill & Charlie holding down
a monster backing beat!!!

MLC

The best thing about '75 is that Keith is playing some nice leads, (but NOTHIN has as good as '69). But that's about the the best of it.

'75, Jagger's 'singing' is bad, and he's become a circus performer.
Watts and Wyman were OK but not a patch on their direct-drive of '72. This is due to the Ollie Brown clutter effect and also to a less urgent, 'driven' Keith.
Keith is far more wasted in '75 and he is not in control as he was in '72. Beely sums up the King Keith performance of '72. In '75 Keith was messing up Happy vocally, (late on Q, and forgetting lines).
Ronnie's rhythm work is no replacement for Keith's and his leads are generally following Taylor's script and, well, let's say he's a looser player, and so the tight dynamics are gone. Some nice touches in places, but generally not tightly integrated. Far better in '78 ofcourse.

Bill Wyman said of the '75 tour at the time that it was a 'fun' tour, with Ronnie aboard. Maybe it was 'fun' and larks (and imo resting/relaxing on laurels of the GRRBitW title) but it was not great, genuine, no-holds-barred, taking no prisoners stuff of three years earlier, with a top-form band as unit with virtually impeccable guitars, stretching themselves to the limits - with virtual unconscious ease.

But that was probably unsustainable.

You nailed it - 4 Stone!!!

MLC

i liked Ronnie's leads on the 75 and 76 tour, but they never quite seemed to fit as well as Taylor's...it sounds forced...almost like hey! here's the new guy playing just like the old guy - cept bless Ronnie, he can't play the same as MT..it sounds like he's all over the place on JJF, SFM etc (saying that i do like his Wild Horses Knebworth performance alot, just lovely)

he finally found his niche and the 'weave' thing with the 78 tour, and i reckon that tour, along with 81/82 was the Stones MkIII live epoch

exceptional double guitars playing in total sync with each other; infectious, jangly, aggressive; and then a stinging, whining, ultra hot lead. bass is doing tremendous work. all 5 of totally on it. great harmony vokes; good beat and you can dance to it; how bout that '64 tour?

I certainly agree that Jagger's singing was better in '72.

Quote
texas fan
I certainly agree that Jagger's singing was better in '72.

i agree , but
Jagger's jumps were far up

Beely - Did you see the entire concert here??

The stones followed James Brown and Jagger looked so funny with these goofy
steps after James ripped up the place with his foot-work. The Stones were
watching from back-stage, in awe, and really looked like amateurs after Mr.
Brown's set...

MLC

Quote
Beelyboy
exceptional double guitars playing in total sync with each other; infectious, jangly, aggressive; and then a stinging, whining, ultra hot lead. bass is doing tremendous work. all 5 of totally on it. great harmony vokes; good beat and you can dance to it; how bout that '64 tour?

...thats amazing..forgive the pretentiousness, but it moved me to tears it was THAT damn good. look at bill go on the bass!
those harmonies are angelic...Keith with the beloved Les Paul too

exceptional stuff...reaffirms why i think this band are the best and always will be. god, i just wanna dance to this stuff!

Quote
MCDDTLC
Beely - Did you see the entire concert here??

The stones followed James Brown and Jagger looked so funny with these goofy
steps after James ripped up the place with his foot-work. The Stones were
watching from back-stage, in awe, and really looked like amateurs after Mr.
Brown's set...

MLC

didn't get to cali to much later on and was just a leetle kid at the time but i've seen the clips many times...did YOU see it live?!

was this from that night? pretty sure somewhere in '64: the master of time space and gravity; makes cirque de soleil look clumsy; i bet the band was a bit nervous about following James. 1:37 of incredible right here...this is how the walks offstage? holy moly. love the stones performance tho; everybody in showbiz (and NASA rocket engineers) looked amateur compared to James at this stage in his career.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-05 00:31 by Beelyboy.

What extraordinary behaviour on the part of Mr Brown.

A kind of primitive sexual display act perhaps.

He's certainly in need of psychiatric assistance.

hey YEAH casino boogie; what a beautiful post!

and tho already familiar with it, i really listened to it again over and over before posting. didn't want to make joke, (tho some humor was intended because it's the '72/'75 thead)...
it's already totally there in '64, isn't it. my my...

OK, I haven't counted, but the vote seems to be 75% or so in favour of '72.

Thus, the question begs, with all the comments made, should they have have even gone on after Taylor resigned?

Has Ronnie done any worthwhile work ever since he has been with the band in '75, either recorded or live or both? And what might that be, if so? Name specifics, please - piece of guitar work, song, album, concert, tour.

Has there been ANYTHING he has done that is as good or possibly even better than Taylor - specifics, please.


Why did u continue to listen to them after that(if u did), rather than just going on to another group?

Was there much (I didnt say 'anything') after that that was worth listening to or watching?

And why (if u do), do u continue to listen and/or watch today?

There are various questions here - respond to one, to all, to a piece or an overall answer -- YOU CHOOSE!!


plexi



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-05 04:48 by timbernardis.

I don't follow your questions, plexi. Simply because the band reached a peak doesn't mean it should have quit. And how would they have known they had reached a peak before they tried to do better?

Too much of a curve ball for the kids of jump suits, shag haircuts, glitter eye shadow , and rolled up socks timbernardis - they be stumped !! 75 RULES !!!

Quote
cc
I don't follow your questions, plexi. Simply because the band reached a peak doesn't mean it should have quit. And how would they have known they had reached a peak before they tried to do better?

Well, I think a lot of people on this board decided YEARS ago that 72/3 was the peak. If there have been literally years of disappointment since then or, put another way, subpar music and performances, why bother to continue listening to and following the Stones?

I suppose some did just opt out, quit following them.


plexi

IMO it's just the typical "fan shit": '72 WAS tighter, more powerful and more on the spot. Classic Stones. KILLER. You can't argue about that, can you?

'75 was surely rocking and funky, but also self-indulgent and bit overstretched. In the end many of us just grew a little bored with the '72 shows and '75 provided interesting new ground. Understandable, but...ultimately not convincing to my ears.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-05 19:22 by Greenblues.

I have been listening to Boston '72 #2 followed by Sympathy/GS from LA 13/7/75. The difference in the playing is phenomenal. Boston is just intense and spot on, LA is slop slop sloppy and Ronnie's leads go nowhere and they're spiky sounding. It's like mercury on a sphere. Taylor's leads just flow and weave. So now my position is that '72 was much better than '75.

'72

'75 (except for Seattle and a handful of other great concerts )

Quote
Beelyboy
hey YEAH casino boogie; what a beautiful post!

and tho already familiar with it, i really listened to it again over and over before posting. didn't want to make joke, (tho some humor was intended because it's the '72/'75 thead)...
it's already totally there in '64, isn't it. my my...

oh i totally agree...
there's something so raw, primal and infectious about it isnt there? these guys truly were the 'first punks' - i mean everything about it screams to me that they were revolutionaries, i listen to velvet underground stuff and hear the same kind of jangly guitar going on; urgent soloing; that hammering back beat...they influenced so many people!
been listening to this one all day, i'm beginning to like it more than the studio version! i adore the chorus and how mick delivers the 'but its all over now' bit, sends shivers through me...and the ending too!
pure class

Quote
timbernardis

Quote
cc
I don't follow your questions, plexi. Simply because the band reached a peak doesn't mean it should have quit. And how would they have known they had reached a peak before they tried to do better?

Well, I think a lot of people on this board decided YEARS ago that 72/3 was the peak. If there have been literally years of disappointment since then or, put another way, subpar music and performances, why bother to continue listening to and following the Stones?

I suppose some did just opt out, quit following them.


plexi

simply Because there are still new and interesting things that can be done after the peak, its still worth seeing. Its like Seinfeld. they peaked during the 1992-93 season. But the famous "Soup Nazi" episode, a fan favorite, that was from around 95 or 96.
plus, call me naive, but I think the stones have always tried to put on the best show possible.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-06 05:29 by ryanpow.

Did the Soup Nazi serve Goats Head Soup?

I dont know. ask elane bennis. She has all the recipies now.

is that lima bean, ahh ahh

duck geese!!!!!!!!! duck geese??????????