4

  • May 16, 2016 at 6:18 pm #47466
    StrongBeach
    Participant

     

    4

    May 16, 2016 at 7:35 pm #47467
    munichhilton
    Participant

    Have to think about it some more but Whip comes instantly to mind. The 78 and 81 were great! I also think the live versions of various Ramblers kick ass on the studio version with maybe the best being 73. It’s all opinion based so who’s wrong or right?

    May 16, 2016 at 7:51 pm #47468
    StrongBeach
    Participant

    Have to think about it some more but Whip comes instantly to mind. The 78 and 81 were great! I also think the live versions of various Ramblers kick ass on the studio version with maybe the best being 73. It’s all opinion based so who’s wrong or right?

    No wrong or right, Munchen. But sometimes a critical consensus develops. In addition to “Whip” perhaps being better in ’81, I’ve also heard it said “Shattered” ’81 is superior to the ’78 version.

    May 16, 2016 at 8:42 pm #47469
    Upgreydd
    Participant

    As a general rule for me,  for  a live song by song comparison:  69 < 72  and 78> 81. But keep in mind that’s being awfully picky.   Re: All down the line,  never sounded better than 72-73, but in 75 it still packed a real punch and I like the ragged 78 version.   It started getting a little too ragged in ’81 though.

    May 16, 2016 at 10:03 pm #47470
    munichhilton
    Participant

    Have to think about it some more but Whip comes instantly to mind. The 78 and 81 were great! I also think the live versions of various Ramblers kick ass on the studio version with maybe the best being 73. It’s all opinion based so who’s wrong or right?

    No wrong or right, Munchen. But sometimes a critical consensus develops. In addition to “Whip” perhaps being better in ’81, I’ve also heard it said “Shattered” ’81 is superior to the ’78 version.

    Shattered had a great groove in 81 that was far too rushed in 78. I’m glad Lies didn’t jump tours because they never hit that right…you being a deaddude, what did you think of the unorganized jams they made of JJF and Satisfaction in 81? I think they’re absolutely the hieght of fantasticalism…even Imagination could clock in at what 12 minutes if they were feeling it!! Great versions…

    May 16, 2016 at 11:33 pm #47473
    stonehearted
    Participant

    The best live versions were never recorded — because those were the club circuit gigs before they became famous. The first studio album, which was recorded live in studio, does, however, capture the vibe of their club set list of the time. The screaming and the riots ruined their potential for progression as live performers, drugs and stardom spoiled them into assuming posing personas upon their return to the concert stage in 1969, following trends and continued fawning god-like worship corrupted them further thereafter. So, the best live Stones were never captured, when they were truly hungry and astutely faithful to their core influences. However, the BBC full stereo experiment from Camden Theatre in March 1964 comes close to capturing this live. Listen to how well Brian Jones and Keith Richards play together, the whole band is cooking, and the performances are as solid, polished, and flawless as the studio recorded counterparts.

    May 17, 2016 at 4:19 am #47476
    Doxa
    Participant

    A good topic, covering a lot of ground.

     

    I think one thing to notice about Beggars Banquet/Let It Bleed and 1969 tour in comparison to the following albums and tours is that there never has been a bigger need to re-arrange the songs to fit to a rock and roll show, as it was in 1969. Both Bleed and Beggars are made by a full-grown studio band who were thinking the music solely in terms of perfect recordings, not as any templates to be played live. There is a lot of things going on those  albums that would be impossible by the means of the times to be replicated live, starting with the heavy use of acoustic guitars. Of course, having a new gun in the band – and not just being a proper second guitarist for some time, but being able to create things unhearable for the band by then – had a huge role in shaping the new live sound of the band (and thereby the nature of the live versions).

     

    I generally agree with Stonehearted in describing the degeneration of their live performances from the early days when they initially were a damn tight group. Taking the equipment of the time and the chaotic response and nature of their audiences, there actually wasn’t any other option than ‘turn a serious studio band’ – like the Beatles – as far taking music seriously go. Performing live was secondary, even though the rare instances we are able to listen the shows are fun, energetic and everything, though not probably musically very memorable but more like rushed deals ‘let’s get this thing done as quickly as possible and run home’. It was rather natural for them quitting playing live early 1967. Which actually was a good thing. Like the Beatles, they put all their creativity into developing and perfecting the art of albums, and thereby contributing in taking the whole realm of pop music to the level of artistically respected ‘rock’.  But at the time when Mick Taylor joined in, we can only imagine what a rusty live act – that is: actually playing live, performing whole songs as an unit by the four/five/six of them – they might have been (the act and takes for television cameras on Rock’n’Roll Circus is not so bad, after-all, but judging the Stones in the Park still makes some sense of Taylor’s initial surprise of ‘how such a lousy band can make such great records’). The route to the convincing, ‘matured’ sounds of the (latter part) of American Tour 1969 took some time (in achieving that, we should not either underestimate Charlie’s words of Taylor bringing them “professionalism”).

     

    As far as creativity go, I think Beggars and Bleed are their biggest masterpieces as recording artists. That was the peak of Mick and Keith as song-writers, and the band would never again take so much time and dedication and imagination – plus pure inspiration – in perfecting their recordings. It could be that Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street might be even better albums as a whole, but – especially with the latter – the results start to sound more like a hot rock and roll band ‘just’ relying on the sound of them as a live act, of which they had gained experience by then. The wildest days of crazy studio experimentalism were by then gone. The result is also that of that the songs doesn’t need as much re-arranging to live surroundings as the Beggars/Bleed material (of course, they would still do things like “Moonlight Mile”, which is pure studio artefact they didn’t even dream of performing live for decades).

     

    So did the Beggars/Bleed material sound better in 1969 as it did later? Pretty difficult to say, but there is that kind of freshness, even experimentalism going through the performances, sometimes with a funny feeling of ‘hey, what we are gonna do with this number?’ or ‘shit, we have dangerous stuff in our hands now, and we need to keep our head cool if it didn’t explode’.  Those songs, with so little posing (and whatever bull-shitting) might not ever sound so powerful and threatening again. The attitude towards that material would change in the following tours as the songs would not be so ‘relevant’ anymore (but just well-known, signature, classical, etc.) and also them recognizing that plus of approaching them differently with their gained experience (which I think would later develop into almost bored, indifferent and degenarated attitude in 1975/76, especially by Mick). Now listening, the versions from 1969 are much closer to their original recordings as they would be in the following tours (but then again, we are still talking about the difference of Ya-Ya’s “Sympathy” to Beggars’ “Sympathy”!), but the latter (going more far from the originals) sounds like a natural development of playing the songs by reflective musicians.  More experience with playing together, taking more freedoms, but still remaining incredibly tight, maybe adding a bit more circus and technical excellence, and all that kind of things. Especially different versions of “Midnight Rambler” from the steady, almost ‘lame’  versions from 1969  to the extreme showcases of 1973 reflects the development nicely. If ever, prefering one over other is really a matter of taste.

     

    • Doxa

     

     

    May 17, 2016 at 10:37 am #47482
    Breath
    Participant

    I don’t think it really has much, if anything, to do with how closely the live versions follow the studio release. the key factor is the chemistry and capabilities of the band, which most of us realize dramatically collapsed after long lapse of the 80’s.  on the other hand, you can pretty much gimme any performance from 69-73 and it’s hard for me to find a version post ’73 rendition that I like better. remember, however, there are no goods and bads in music, only stuff we like or don’t like.

    May 17, 2016 at 10:53 am #47484
    Breath
    Participant

    and in general, being a huge Dead fan as well, I agree with the assessment of the Dead vis-à-vis the Stones as a live act.  there’s virtually no difference in the presentation of the basic stones repertoire since the vegas era began. performances themselves have methodically diminished as the band has aged, but there are virtually no discernible variances otherwise.  even through some of the leaner, latter years of the Dead, you could always find a gem of one of their classics buried in a show…that’s what kept the faithful interested.

    May 17, 2016 at 12:04 pm #47492
    Z
    Participant

    Shit! Two long posts in a row without a punch, not a shadow of a joke. See what you’ve done now, Riff? You turned him to a Doxa! I told you he’s too sensitive. Are we doomed to bore ourselves to death with serious discussion from now on? I’m outta here.

    May 17, 2016 at 12:15 pm #47495
    Breath
    Participant

    Shit! Two long posts in a row without a punch, not a shadow of a joke. See what you’ve done now, Riff? You turned him to a Doxa! I told you he’s too sensitive. Are we doomed to bore ourselves to death with serious discussion from now on? I’m outta here.

    settle down. i’d have to expand my posts 100x, and attempt to say in 40,000 words what could easily be articulated in 3 or 4 sentences. i’m not capable of such herculean feats.

    May 17, 2016 at 12:29 pm #47497
    Marianita
    Participant

    Don't you think it's sometimes wise not to grow up?

    May 17, 2016 at 12:33 pm #47498
    StrongBeach
    Participant

    Have to think about it some more but Whip comes instantly to mind. The 78 and 81 were great! I also think the live versions of various Ramblers kick ass on the studio version with maybe the best being 73. It’s all opinion based so who’s wrong or right?

    No wrong or right, Munchen. But sometimes a critical consensus develops. In addition to “Whip” perhaps being better in ’81, I’ve also heard it said “Shattered” ’81 is superior to the ’78 version.

    Shattered had a great groove in 81 that was far too rushed in 78. I’m glad Lies didn’t jump tours because they never hit that right…you being a deaddude, what did you think of the unorganized jams they made of JJF and Satisfaction in 81? I think they’re absolutely the hieght of fantasticalism…even Imagination could clock in at what 12 minutes if they were feeling it!! Great versions…

    Yeah, in 78 Shattered was more a riff than a song. I don’t see The Stones as a band—in general—who in the post-Taylor years excelled in extended “jams.” Can you point to an 81 extended version that you think is good? I’d happily check it out. To my ears, when they lengthen a song post-Taylor they tend to just kind of vamp in place (albeit sometimes with thundering intensity) rather than try to take a song somewhere “else.”

    May 17, 2016 at 12:34 pm #47499
    StrongBeach
    Participant

    The best live versions were never recorded — because those were the club circuit gigs before they became famous. The first studio album, which was recorded live in studio, does, however, capture the vibe of their club set list of the time. The screaming and the riots ruined their potential for progression as live performers, drugs and stardom spoiled them into assuming posing personas upon their return to the concert stage in 1969, following trends and continued fawning god-like worship corrupted them further thereafter. So, the best live Stones were never captured, when they were truly hungry and astutely faithful to their core influences. However, the BBC full stereo experiment from Camden Theatre in March 1964 comes close to capturing this live. Listen to how well Brian Jones and Keith Richards play together, the whole band is cooking, and the performances are as solid, polished, and flawless as the studio recorded counterparts.

    <iframe id=”fitvid0″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/MjBft9rc2fc?feature=oembed&wmode=transparent” width=”300″ height=”150″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”></iframe>

    Am at a noisy-ass Starbucks right now, writing about Moby-Dick and Donald Trump, but will check this out as soon as I get home; thanks, SH.

    May 17, 2016 at 12:42 pm #47501
    Breath
    Participant

    long versions of short stones songs just don’t work – I think Mick would say they just don’t have that much jam…

    May 17, 2016 at 12:46 pm #47503
    StrongBeach
    Participant

    I think Beggars and Bleed are their biggest masterpieces as recording artists. That was the peak of Mick and Keith as song-writers, and the band would never again take so much time and dedication and imagination – plus pure inspiration – in perfecting their recordings. It could be that Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street might be even better albums as a whole, but – especially with the latter – the results start to sound more like a hot rock and roll band ‘just’ relying on the sound of them as a live act, of which they had gained experience by then. The wildest days of crazy studio experimentalism were by then gone.

    […]

    … the latter (going more far from the originals) sounds like a natural development of playing the songs by reflective musicians. More experience with playing together, taking more freedoms, but still remaining incredibly tight, maybe adding a bit more circus and technical excellence, and all that kind of things. Especially different versions of “Midnight Rambler” from the steady, almost ‘lame’ versions from 1969 to the extreme showcases of 1973 reflects the development nicely.

    Nice take, Doxa. Couple of observations: I’m not sure their “crazy studio experimentalism” disappeared after Let It Bleed. Tracks like “Sway,” “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking,” “Sister Morphine,” “Moonlight Mile,” “Sweet Black Angel,” “Just Wanna See His Face,” “Let it Loose,” “100 Years Ago,” “Coming Down Again,” “Winter,” “Can You Hear the Music,” “Time Waits for No One,” “If You Really Want to Be My Friend,” and “Fingerprint File” either never were performed live or never became staples of the set list and each one can be described as having some element of “unusual-ness” in its structure and/or recording. I think the key element when it came to any “experimentalism” the band displayed was obviously Taylor. When he left, they became a different kind of band.

    I think he’s the reason why “Rambler” developed as it did between 69 and 73, and why “Love in Vain” was arguably “better” in 72 than in 69; he made it possible for the band to “improve” its versions of live performances because he was impatient, pushing, inquisitive. In the Wood years, it’s been more about hewing to a formula and recreating a particular experience, i.e., having a party, than about stretching musical boundaries.

    May 17, 2016 at 12:48 pm #47504
    StrongBeach
    Participant

    I don’t think it really has much, if anything, to do with how closely the live versions follow the studio release. the key factor is the chemistry and capabilities of the band, which most of us realize dramatically collapsed after long lapse of the 80’s. on the other hand, you can pretty much gimme any performance from 69-73 and it’s hard for me to find a version post ’73 rendition that I like better. remember, however, there are no goods and bads in music, only stuff we like or don’t like.

    Agreed. And I would posit that Taylor’s presence was the main reason for the general superiority of those live perfs from 69-73, not just for musicianship but for a sense of exploration, for a sense of it being about the music.

    May 17, 2016 at 12:50 pm #47505
    StrongBeach
    Participant

    and in general, being a huge Dead fan as well, I agree with the assessment of the Dead vis-à-vis the Stones as a live act. there’s virtually no difference in the presentation of the basic stones repertoire since the vegas era began. performances themselves have methodically diminished as the band has aged, but there are virtually no discernible variances otherwise. even through some of the leaner, latter years of the Dead, you could always find a gem of one of their classics buried in a show…that’s what kept the faithful interested.

    Yeah, it’s amazing how even into the late 80’s and early 90’s in the middle of an otherwise drudgy show, they could rally for something exquisite in the middle of a set, as if they had suddenly remembered what they hell they were doing up there. Marvelous stuff.

    May 17, 2016 at 12:52 pm #47506
    Breath
    Participant

    I don’t think it really has much, if anything, to do with how closely the live versions follow the studio release. the key factor is the chemistry and capabilities of the band, which most of us realize dramatically collapsed after long lapse of the 80’s. on the other hand, you can pretty much gimme any performance from 69-73 and it’s hard for me to find a version post ’73 rendition that I like better. remember, however, there are no goods and bads in music, only stuff we like or don’t like.

    Agreed. And I would posit that Taylor’s presence was the main reason for the general superiority of those live perfs from 69-73, not just for musicianship but for a sense of exploration, for a sense of it being about the music.

    A Nadine paws at me, I couldn’t possibly take pause at your posit

    May 17, 2016 at 12:53 pm #47507
    StrongBeach
    Participant

    Shit! Two long posts in a row without a punch, not a shadow of a joke. See what you’ve done now, Riff? You turned him to a Doxa! I told you he’s too sensitive. Are we doomed to bore ourselves to death with serious discussion from now on? I’m outta here.

    settle down. i’d have to expand my posts 100x, and attempt to say in 40,000 words what could easily be articulated in 3 or 4 sentences. i’m not capable of such herculean feats.

    Ahh, I see. So calling Doxa a wordy windbag is not a personal insult (which is rightly verboten here) since you’ve couched it in some semblance of a hyperbolic “joke”?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Forum Statistics

Registered Users
2,902
Forums
1
Topics
1,245
Replies
45,775
Topic Tags
270

Recently Active Members

Profile picture of Marianita
Profile picture of Cocaine Eyes
Profile picture of DandelionPowderman
Profile picture of jasona93
Profile picture of Socrates
Profile picture of stonehearted
Profile picture of angee
Profile picture of OldSoul
Profile picture of keefriffhards
Profile picture of treaclefingers
Profile picture of goo
Profile picture of devdev
Profile picture of StrongBeach
Profile picture of D
Profile picture of Doxa
Profile picture of Z
Profile picture of Nikkei
Profile picture of tauk
Profile picture of Ale Lacasa
Profile picture of Stoneburst
Profile picture of Upgreydd
Profile picture of andrew t
Profile picture of Roll Me
Profile picture of SelenePhoenix
Profile picture of ReginaPhalange
Profile picture of illusion
Profile picture of Ebling
Profile picture of MidnightPeanut
Profile picture of Redhotcarpetred
Profile picture of bluzdude
Profile picture of VT22
Profile picture of detroitken
Profile picture of hwkn
Profile picture of mgarciaisaia
Profile picture of two4fun111
Profile picture of Chris

Mission Statement

This forum is dedicated to an open discussion of all things Rolling Stones.  From new fans to hardcore veterans, everyone is welcome.  Forum is moderated lightly.  The golden rule is in effect. Let the discussions run rampant, as long as personal insults stay at the door!