Was the 75 tour better performed than 72? I liked the versions of songs they did in 75..especially You Can't ....Want. Course then the back up band wasn't as big as it is today. In my opinion the sound was better back then thann now.

IMO 72 was "better" then 75.....(because I really like that guitarsound....that heavy r&r.....75 and also 89 and beyond is more like a "musical' .....too much show....) I just like the raw sound of 69-72, 78-82

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

Quote
tippy2toes
Was the 75 tour better performed than 72?

No

I always liked the 72 tour better because I thought the band was tighter and actually the 75 set list was a little long for me. The extra percussion seems to cause a cluttered sound but thats just me!!!

Are u drunk? No comparison - 72 by a million miles

'72 and '73 imo

yes it was, 69 was the best though

'75 seems like it was better to watch and had more sophisticated public relations/press coverage. '72 is much better to listen to and information is a little harder to come by through mainstream sources, though it was a celebrity event at the time, with backstage hangers-on and hype.

I do totally/completely agree with you cc (rider?)

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.

You can't recall Nicky Hopkins?

Quote
timbernardis
And wouldnt no horns = more stripped down?

Slightly more of a stage spectacle in 75 than in 72, no?

Quote
scottkeef
I always liked the 72 tour better because I thought the band was tighter and actually the 75 set list was a little long for me. The extra percussion seems to cause a cluttered sound but thats just me!!!

Jagger was also just starting to dip his toes into the murky waters of River Parody by 1975 (he almost drowned in it by 1976)

75 was a better for one reason and one reason only. Keith was able to coast through 72 w/Mick Taylor pretty much holding things down. Keith had to pretty much watch Ronnie all through 75. Also, you WILL notice Keith and Mick T. only interacted when they shot up together offstage. Keith and Ronnie were in each other's faces fo much of the two hour show in 75. Keith also seemed altert and awake. And the focus was much more on the band in 75 whereas in 72 it seemed like it was MICK JAGGER and the rolling stones.

but I adore the way jagger moved on stage in 75!

I like 75 more beacause I prefer Woody to Taylor, then keith in 75 was cooler then ever.

Keith "coasting" in 72????!! Are u insane. Watch Ladies and Gents. I was there and he was top. Listen to Bitch solo. Wher u getting this from???!!!

Of course, nowadays that's all Keith does - Coast. Does he play the guitar anymore?

Quote
aslecs
Keith "coasting" in 72????!! Are u insane. Watch Ladies and Gents. I was there and he was top. Listen to Bitch solo. Wher u getting this from???!!!

Of course, nowadays that's all Keith does - Coast. Does he play the guitar anymore?

Smacked out of his brain = coasting imho. He was great in 72 but in 75 he sounded like a totally different guitar player. But I totally agree, aslecs, he's brilliant. I was listening to LA 13/7/75 in my car and Keith's guitar on GS just pierces the air.

aslecs talking nonsense as usual.....Keith could coast in 72, not so easy in 75.....

75 was much better than 72 (even though I am a big MT fan) the show was longer, the set list was better, and Jagger was looser (there was a "stiffness/self parody to his moves on the 72 tour) yep, 1975 RULES !!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-01 23:22 by HelterSkelter.

Is this thread for real....c'mon....no comparison...72 RULED over 75.....but as someone said above, the 1969 tour was the best, of the modern era....the modern era being everything after Brian....

JR

Quote
stone-relics
Is this thread for real....c'mon....no comparison...72 RULED over 75.....but as someone said above, the 1969 tour was the best, of the modern era....the modern era being everything after Brian....

JR

Naw JR, it goes like this: Best shows/tours to not bad but not the best - (basically the 70's - with a little spill over):

#1. 1969 Tour

#2. 1975 Tour

#3. 1973 January Show (Benefit show at the Forum) set list was better/longer than 72 Tour

#4. 1972 Tour

#5 1978 Tour

#6 1981 Tour

It seems in 72 Mick at least tried to remember the lyrics and tried to sing on key. Also it gets to be a bit much watching him and Billy Preston chase each other like a couple of school girls!!

Yeah but swinging out over the audience on that rope was PRICELESS !!!

Healter Skelter talking huge nonsense but we expect that.

Swinging over the crowd? Oh, is THAT what you go for?

Sorry, 72 was about the music. Tight/concise, ridiculous playing. 75 was indulgent/making you wait for HOURS before they came on stage/ the stupd steel band at the end during SFTD. The excess of Ollie and Preson. What you be smoking boy?

....you got it ALL wrong... the 69 tour was the one where they made you wait for hours.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-02 00:30 by HelterSkelter.

I totally agree, Jagger in 1975 looked ridiculous, was a parody of himself, and did not sing in key, he did not sing at all, just growiling and shouting. simply GREAT.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-02 00:33 by farawayeyes2.

I did not wait long in Mad Sq Garden in '69.

Sure wish jagger "swung" over the audience in that one. you know, like david Lee Roth or maybe Ted nugent. That would have been so cooool!

Quote
farawayeyes2
I totally agree, Jagger in 1975 looked ridiculous, was a parody of himself, and did not sing in key, he did not sing at all, just growiling and shouting. simply GREAT.

Yop, that's why I said the one and only reason 75 is better than 72 is Keith's playing.

keith no way plays better in 75 than 72. His lead work on "Bye Bye Johnny" and "Bitch" tears a new @#$%& on anything he played on the 75 tour. Most nights the band was sloppy and if Mick swinging over the Aud. is what makes a concert for you then go to the circus! Self indulgent to the max. And before you ask yes I am on drugs! Thats why I have such clarity! BUT this is all speculation on my part. The 75 believers are entitled to their opinion(as am I) even when they are wrong.

Quote
HEILOOBAAS
75 was a better for one reason and one reason only. Keith was able to coast through 72 w/Mick Taylor pretty much holding things down. Keith had to pretty much watch Ronnie all through 75. Also, you WILL notice Keith and Mick T. only interacted when they shot up together offstage. Keith and Ronnie were in each other's faces fo much of the two hour show in 75. Keith also seemed altert and awake. And the focus was much more on the band in 75 whereas in 72 it seemed like it was MICK JAGGER and the rolling stones.

Hi Heiloobaas: I must respectfully disagree. sorry in advance for the longass rant but i feel one coming. this is a pivotal issue, as the nature of their shows changed extraorinarily, for the most part, between the '72/'73 tours & '75.

I saw them several times in '72 and once in '75, but don't claim to be an expert, just another fan with an opinion. I do also have some INCREDIBLE boots from '73. (and '72) Good gawd, Keith is SO brilliant on guitar in '72 and '73. his licks, occasional leads and his incredibly, absolutely definitional rock and roll rhythm guitar. Totally savage and thick toned perfection. so rich. so rich. and precise too. he was in charge.
You said (direct quote)

"Also, you WILL notice Keith and Mick T. only interacted when they shot up together offstage"
did not seem that way to me. the stage presence of each indivdual was part of the charm for me. taylor might have stood in one place looking down at his guitar but he was so attuned, integral every moment. same with bill. love that band man. love it. nicky and stu no little part of all this of course.

they were doing incredible material that was all pretty current and all worked up by the same crew from rehearsals, wriing, basics to mixes and out onto the stage. also less clutter; just bobby and him price on horns. enough. no bg singers, but they weren't missed by me.

Taylor's brilliance provided exceptional room for Keith to be the Total General on the stage with incredibly thick, focused, savage but warm and incredibly rich tones. primal and so beautiful.
Have you any '73 shows btw? If you don't, please try to get a few. (I have London and Perth and some others, and of course Brussels.)

Keith, so very brilliant. i don't know or care how much H he was on at the time; he was so into that guitar, he and it were the same beast. absolutely. He is precise and perfect. he and the instrument the same beast, and the dual gits were so explosively perfect imo. Keith ruled incredibly. Just devastingly the greatest and bestest.

All that showy stuff, lotus stage, mick bouncing on the balloon; very photogenic for the rock mags and such; all that jet set swag and circus stuff in '75 were more a distraction and the actual music seemed a bit more scattered to me, tho i know there were some great shows in '75. i think they went a little too crazy with the coke that tour too. they can always explode on you from song to song or night to night tho. and charlie and bill were ALWAYS on it. that's a whole other thread. charlie is still uber consistent. a total wonder.

i think it sorta took until El Macombo (i love the out-takes i've heard especially) and of course HG a little later on from there, for me to really be able to appreciate Ronnie in the band; he had sort of a rough start imo, not because of ron's playing so much as the band and the material were in a different 'space,' in '75...seemed to me anyway...further away from the genesis and evolution and explosion of the material they were still doing.
...could be that the tough stripped punk scene (pistols especially) made them ante up bigtime again '77, '78. and they sure did.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-02 09:22 by Beelyboy.

Beelybaby, rant away, me old cock robin. I respect your opinion. And I stand by everything I said. I have all the '73 shows. They're horrible. If I was offered a choice between being right up front in Seattle 75 (wh. I was) and seeing a 72 show from the nose bleedies, I take 72 in a heartbeat.

"Was 75 tour better than 72"

In a word....No.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!