Quote
LieB

Quote
71Tele
He was trying to step into Taylor's shoes and not measuring up. Things improved in '78 when the band incorporated Wood's style of playing into their newer material - that is until the "Vegas" era where they were relying more on older hits.

Agreed. That's why I prefer Texas '78 and Hampton '81 to the LA '75 album. But I love 'em all. Now just hoping for more Taylor or a good Brian show.

Quote
His Majesty
^ Liar.

Quote
flacnvinyl
Wyman is a beast on Fingerprint File.

Quote
flacnvinyl
Wyman is a beast on Fingerprint File. LA Friday was the ONLY bootleg I liked from the 75/76 tour. This is just awesome!

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
all i am getting at is that most fans on this board have always said Brussels was better than LA '75...and now people are changing their minds based on a new bootleg release...which I think it the sign of the times..i.e. people desperate for the vaults.

No disrespect, but I think you missed my points

'Cos I think the fact that "most people" have always preferred Brussels over in LA is simply because a lot more people have heard Brussels; and also because Brussels has always been available in perfect quality. Most people are interested in the so called "soundboard recordings", and don't care for "audience recordings". Only SOME of us do.

IOW; if we have had LA 1975 in the same quality as of now, ever since 1975 (like Brussels have); then maybe LA would have been preferred by "the common guy" over Brussels, for 37 years. So your point about "them playing better in 1973" really don't hold up, as there's so many other factors mattering in what makes the band sound good together - and also; the material they have, and the mood they create.

i dont agree with your comments about Brussels.
People liked Brussels because it is amazing, and a great show.
Every band member is at their peak.

Now if you listen more closely to LA 1975 there's plenty of sloppiness in the band's playing...you obviously like that type of performance from the band ?
The mix is very good (better than Brussels)..and perhaps people are simply amazed at finally getting this show mixed so well that they are over-reacting to the performance (see my first post).

Keith was not at his peak in 1973, he became a noticable better guitar player during the 70s, and LA Friday proves that easily.

Keith is also a very important factor to how a Stones show sounds.

Well, I guess everyone here agrees wholeheartedly with that last sentence of DP.

I also think everyone agrees with Eleanor that LA Friday has a much better mix and sound quality than Brussels, which is an important factor to how a Stones show sounds as well.

That said, I also think everyone is entitled to his/her own preference and enthusiasm. Nothing wrong with that, so no need to convince others or to 'prove' someone is right or wrong. That leaves the question why someone has his/her preference. Here's my extremely humble opinion.

It won't surprise anyone that I prefer Brussels to LA and LA to Hampton, just like I preferred Rotterdam 73 to The Hague 76 and The Hague 76 to Rotterdam 82.

Three different bands, Bill and Charlie being the constant factor. As for Jagger, his singing on LA is indeed artificial and campy, but it doesn't bother me that much. On Hampton his barking is more annoying to me, but I can live with it.

Then Keith. In 73 he was, just like in 72, in his comfort zone, being responsible for the riffs. He confirmed that in the LA Friday-promo interview.

So in 73 he also did what he was best at: keeping the rhythm going, providing those great riffs and adding, though in a lesser degree, to the melody as well. Meanwhile his interplay with Taylor was obvious, interesting and at times exciting (listen to the counterpoint on GS and the interplay on MR).

On LA Keith's range is broader, but also weaker, because he's playing less controlled and focused, having left his comfort zone. But it's not a main obstacle.

The biggest difference is Ronnie. He's really trying to fill Taylor's shoes adequately, soloing even more than Taylor ever did (for example on YCAGWYW and JJF), but he's got no clue. His solos are clueless and clumsy, missing head and tail. That doesn't make them surprising, but rather annoying and boring. They don't add anything special to the songs. That has to do with creativity and musicality and 'feeling the song'. He sounds disconnected and when you would listen to his solos separately, it would not be easy for non-trained ears to tell to which song they belong. Some people call that raunchy, sloppy and very rock & roll. I call it lack of musicianship in that department. Some people dismiss Taylor because of his "endless noodling". I don't agree with the 'endless noodling' or 'guitar god' myth at all, but even if he did and was, he always stayed connected with the song, sometimes even producing the essence of it. At least his solos were always consistent and creative. They tell us a story where Ronnie seems to mix up many words without saying anything coherent. Notice how many times Ronnie produces repeated squeaking sounds, as if he's stuttering, unable to say anything meaningful but desperately trying to. That adds to feelings of sympathy for him, but not to the musical quality.

On Hampton Keith's and Ronnie's roles are different. Ronnie isn't the main lead guitarist anymore, the so called weaving has entered the scene, Keith and Ronnie "trading licks back and forth". But in reality Keith is playing the main role and the showing, smoking and posing on stage increase. Besides one can hear the stadium rock in its full glory, which results in more distance and less intimacy.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
all i am getting at is that most fans on this board have always said Brussels was better than LA '75...and now people are changing their minds based on a new bootleg release...which I think it the sign of the times..i.e. people desperate for the vaults.

No disrespect, but I think you missed my points

'Cos I think the fact that "most people" have always preferred Brussels over in LA is simply because a lot more people have heard Brussels; and also because Brussels has always been available in perfect quality. Most people are interested in the so called "soundboard recordings", and don't care for "audience recordings". Only SOME of us do.

IOW; if we have had LA 1975 in the same quality as of now, ever since 1975 (like Brussels have); then maybe LA would have been preferred by "the common guy" over Brussels, for 37 years. So your point about "them playing better in 1973" really don't hold up, as there's so many other factors mattering in what makes the band sound good together - and also; the material they have, and the mood they create.

i dont agree with your comments about Brussels.
People liked Brussels because it is amazing, and a great show.
Every band member is at their peak.

Now if you listen more closely to LA 1975 there's plenty of sloppiness in the band's playing...you obviously like that type of performance from the band ?
The mix is very good (better than Brussels)..and perhaps people are simply amazed at finally getting this show mixed so well that they are over-reacting to the performance (see my first post).

Keith was not at his peak in 1973, he became a noticable better guitar player during the 70s, and LA Friday proves that easily.

Keith is also a very important factor to how a Stones show sounds.

Well, I guess everyone here agrees wholeheartedly with that last sentence of DP.

I also think everyone agrees with Eleanor that LA Friday has a much better mix and sound quality than Brussels, which is an important factor to how a Stones show sounds as well.

That said, I also think everyone is entitled to his/her own preference and enthusiasm. Nothing wrong with that, so no need to convince others or to 'prove' someone is right or wrong. That leaves the question why someone has his/her preference. Here's my extremely humble opinion.

It won't surprise anyone that I prefer Brussels to LA and LA to Hampton, just like I preferred Rotterdam 73 to The Hague 76 and The Hague 76 to Rotterdam 82.

Three different bands, Bill and Charlie being the constant factor. As for Jagger, his singing on LA is indeed artificial and campy, but it doesn't bother me that much. On Hampton his barking is more annoying to me, but I can live with it.

Then Keith. In 73 he was, just like in 72, in his comfort zone, being responsible for the riffs. He confirmed that in the LA Friday-promo interview.

So in 73 he also did what he was best at: keeping the rhythm going, providing those great riffs and adding, though in a lesser degree, to the melody as well. Meanwhile his interplay with Taylor was obvious, interesting and at times exciting (listen to the counterpoint on GS and the interplay on MR).

On LA Keith's range is broader, but also weaker, because he's playing less controlled and focused, having left his comfort zone. But it's not a main obstacle.

The biggest difference is Ronnie. He's really trying to fill Taylor's shoes adequately, soloing even more than Taylor ever did (for example on YCAGWYW and JJF), but he's got no clue. His solos are clueless and clumsy, missing head and tail. That doesn't make them surprising, but rather annoying and boring. They don't add anything special to the songs. That has to do with creativity and musicality and 'feeling the song'. He sounds disconnected and when you would listen to his solos separately, it would not be easy for non-trained ears to tell to which song they belong. Some people call that raunchy, sloppy and very rock & roll. I call it lack of musicianship in that department. Some people dismiss Taylor because of his "endless noodling". I don't agree with the 'endless noodling' or 'guitar god' myth at all, but even if he did and was, he always stayed connected with the song, sometimes even producing the essence of it. At least his solos were always consistent and creative. They tell us a story where Ronnie seems to mix up many words without saying anything coherent. Notice how many times Ronnie produces repeated squeaking sounds, as if he's stuttering, unable to say anything meaningful but desperately trying to. That adds to feelings of sympathy for him, but not to the musical quality.

On Hampton Keith's and Ronnie's roles are different. Ronnie isn't the main lead guitarist anymore, the so called weaving has entered the scene, Keith and Ronnie "trading licks back and forth". But in reality Keith is playing the main role and the showing, smoking and posing on stage increase. Besides one can hear the stadium rock in its full glory, which results in more distance and less intimacy.

Bollocks, imo, on songs like Happy and Tumbling Dice Ronnie creates a melody that suits the songs a lot better than Taylor did.

Of course, there are solos that Taylor did way better than Ronnie, but that goes the other way, too. + the fact that there are lots more songs on LA than that of Brussels AND the fact that Ronnie was the new kid.

You can´t blame him for soloing a lot either, since obviously that was what Mick and Keith wanted him to do.

GS on LA Friday is the best version I´ve heard, included Taylor versions.

We have the GHS-tracks on LA as well + the IORR-tracks. That´s why I like this show the most. I don´t miss Dancing With Mr. D, never did. Fingerprint File is a masterpeice - wow! Love it

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
all i am getting at is that most fans on this board have always said Brussels was better than LA '75...and now people are changing their minds based on a new bootleg release...which I think it the sign of the times..i.e. people desperate for the vaults.

No disrespect, but I think you missed my points

'Cos I think the fact that "most people" have always preferred Brussels over in LA is simply because a lot more people have heard Brussels; and also because Brussels has always been available in perfect quality. Most people are interested in the so called "soundboard recordings", and don't care for "audience recordings". Only SOME of us do.

IOW; if we have had LA 1975 in the same quality as of now, ever since 1975 (like Brussels have); then maybe LA would have been preferred by "the common guy" over Brussels, for 37 years. So your point about "them playing better in 1973" really don't hold up, as there's so many other factors mattering in what makes the band sound good together - and also; the material they have, and the mood they create.

i dont agree with your comments about Brussels.
People liked Brussels because it is amazing, and a great show.
Every band member is at their peak.

Now if you listen more closely to LA 1975 there's plenty of sloppiness in the band's playing...you obviously like that type of performance from the band ?
The mix is very good (better than Brussels)..and perhaps people are simply amazed at finally getting this show mixed so well that they are over-reacting to the performance (see my first post).

Keith was not at his peak in 1973, he became a noticable better guitar player during the 70s, and LA Friday proves that easily.

Keith is also a very important factor to how a Stones show sounds.

Well, I guess everyone here agrees wholeheartedly with that last sentence of DP.

I also think everyone agrees with Eleanor that LA Friday has a much better mix and sound quality than Brussels, which is an important factor to how a Stones show sounds as well.

That said, I also think everyone is entitled to his/her own preference and enthusiasm. Nothing wrong with that, so no need to convince others or to 'prove' someone is right or wrong. That leaves the question why someone has his/her preference. Here's my extremely humble opinion.

It won't surprise anyone that I prefer Brussels to LA and LA to Hampton, just like I preferred Rotterdam 73 to The Hague 76 and The Hague 76 to Rotterdam 82.

Three different bands, Bill and Charlie being the constant factor. As for Jagger, his singing on LA is indeed artificial and campy, but it doesn't bother me that much. On Hampton his barking is more annoying to me, but I can live with it.

Then Keith. In 73 he was, just like in 72, in his comfort zone, being responsible for the riffs. He confirmed that in the LA Friday-promo interview.

So in 73 he also did what he was best at: keeping the rhythm going, providing those great riffs and adding, though in a lesser degree, to the melody as well. Meanwhile his interplay with Taylor was obvious, interesting and at times exciting (listen to the counterpoint on GS and the interplay on MR).

On LA Keith's range is broader, but also weaker, because he's playing less controlled and focused, having left his comfort zone. But it's not a main obstacle.

The biggest difference is Ronnie. He's really trying to fill Taylor's shoes adequately, soloing even more than Taylor ever did (for example on YCAGWYW and JJF), but he's got no clue. His solos are clueless and clumsy, missing head and tail. That doesn't make them surprising, but rather annoying and boring. They don't add anything special to the songs. That has to do with creativity and musicality and 'feeling the song'. He sounds disconnected and when you would listen to his solos separately, it would not be easy for non-trained ears to tell to which song they belong. Some people call that raunchy, sloppy and very rock & roll. I call it lack of musicianship in that department. Some people dismiss Taylor because of his "endless noodling". I don't agree with the 'endless noodling' or 'guitar god' myth at all, but even if he did and was, he always stayed connected with the song, sometimes even producing the essence of it. At least his solos were always consistent and creative. They tell us a story where Ronnie seems to mix up many words without saying anything coherent. Notice how many times Ronnie produces repeated squeaking sounds, as if he's stuttering, unable to say anything meaningful but desperately trying to. That adds to feelings of sympathy for him, but not to the musical quality.

On Hampton Keith's and Ronnie's roles are different. Ronnie isn't the main lead guitarist anymore, the so called weaving has entered the scene, Keith and Ronnie "trading licks back and forth". But in reality Keith is playing the main role and the showing, smoking and posing on stage increase. Besides one can hear the stadium rock in its full glory, which results in more distance and less intimacy.

Bollocks, imo, on songs like Happy and Tumbling Dice Ronnie creates a melody that suits the songs a lot better than Taylor did.

Of course, there are solos that Taylor did way better than Ronnie, but that goes the other way, too. + the fact that there are lots more songs on LA than that of Brussels AND the fact that Ronnie was the new kid.

You can´t blame him for soloing a lot either, since obviously that was what Mick and Keith wanted him to do.

GS on LA Friday is the best version I´ve heard, included Taylor versions.

We have the GHS-tracks on LA as well + the IORR-tracks. That´s why I like this show the most. I don´t miss Dancing With Mr. D, never did. Fingerprint File is a masterpeice - wow! Love it

Youthful enthusiasm, I guess. When people use the word "bollocks" it's almost always because they know it's true but don't want to accept that.

I don't blame Ronnie for soloing more than Taylor. I noticed that because people always say it's the other way round, whereas in fact it isn't. Just to unmask the stubborn 'Taylor the soloing, noodling prima donna' myth.

I also explained why I don't dig Ronnie's soloing. No need to repeat that. If you think you've heard the best GS-version ever on LA Friday it's fine with me. But to me that's incomprehensible. So it must be a matter of inexplicable taste.

Speaking about GS: I started a 'kleermaker's weekly GS version' on YT. From all 1972 and 1973 tours. Here's the first one, but don't forget the Washington version, which precedes the weekly series. To have thát in the same mix and sound quality as LA Friday!

Quote
kleermaker

Just to unmask the stubborn 'Taylor the soloing, noodling prima donna' myth.

Quote
tkl7
IMO, this new show is probably the most important release so far, the best release in that we didn't have anything from 1975 that remotely came close to sounding as good.

That said, I don't understand the love for it over Brussels, which was a much better performance. Many of the songs on LA Friday are poorly executed. Ronnie is trying too hard, and Keith is nowhere near the level he was on Brussels. LA Friday is so sloppy that it derails in many places. Midnight Rambler better here than Brussels? Are you kidding me? This is the worst performance of the song that I have heard, while Brussels is the best, rivaled only by the Ya Ya's version. Angie, Wild Horses, and the IORR tracks are the standouts, but everything else is slightly above average at best, and terrible at worst.

This is not to say I dislike the release. I hope for more releases of previously unheard shows, or shows that were only available as Audience recordings, but to say the performance is better than Brussels is utterly mind-boggling. For Ronnie era, one needs only to look to Some Girls Live in Texas, or the rest of the material from the 1978 tour to know that 1978 was the best representation of him as member of the Stones. Some Girls Live blows his playing here away, if you ask me.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
tkl7
IMO, this new show is probably the most important release so far, the best release in that we didn't have anything from 1975 that remotely came close to sounding as good.

That said, I don't understand the love for it over Brussels, which was a much better performance. Many of the songs on LA Friday are poorly executed. Ronnie is trying too hard, and Keith is nowhere near the level he was on Brussels. LA Friday is so sloppy that it derails in many places. Midnight Rambler better here than Brussels? Are you kidding me? This is the worst performance of the song that I have heard, while Brussels is the best, rivaled only by the Ya Ya's version. Angie, Wild Horses, and the IORR tracks are the standouts, but everything else is slightly above average at best, and terrible at worst.

This is not to say I dislike the release. I hope for more releases of previously unheard shows, or shows that were only available as Audience recordings, but to say the performance is better than Brussels is utterly mind-boggling. For Ronnie era, one needs only to look to Some Girls Live in Texas, or the rest of the material from the 1978 tour to know that 1978 was the best representation of him as member of the Stones. Some Girls Live blows his playing here away, if you ask me.

Of course there are some sloppy numbers here (WH being one of them, and I love this version very much despite the sloppiness), and I agree that this MR is not the best I´ve heard (but I´ve probably heard 30 worse versions during many tours.

The main reason I think this release is superior is the vast number of songs, and the setlist (both GHS-songs and IORR-songs, better executed than on the albums) + of course the fantastic energy this show has.

I think you miss to mention songs like GS, ADTL, the best version ever of Heartbreaker, ditto of SFTD, the warhorses (which are all brilliant here, maybe with HTW as the exception) and GOOMC - all excellent versions, imo.

Quote
silkcut1978_

Quote
kleermaker

Just to unmask the stubborn 'Taylor the soloing, noodling prima donna' myth.

For me the "myth" has benn proven long ago. As much as I like the vitality of the Brussels show(s) I don't want to hear it anymore because of the endless noodling by Mr.Taylor. I'm really enjoying his contribution until the so called "Winter Tour 1973" but the European Tour 1973 was/is a bad joke to listen to - at least for me. It's way too much over the top noodling of a seemingly bored guitar player. Personally I think he did the right move in quitting the Stones.

You may call it youthful enthusiasm again (but I'm heading 50 by the way), or bad education or whatever. But the TOTA 1975 has always been my favourite tour (on the contrary to the lame 76 tour) and I've played my vinyl-boots of LA 75 way more often than the Bedspring ones. Right now I'm listening for the 6th or even 7th time to the LA-download, not sure - I've played Brussels only 3 times. 1st the download, then the LP-boot, then the CD-boot, and now I'm done with it.

As you wrote - it must be a matter of taste. Inexplicable is your behavior to present your very own taste as objective and state of the art, kleermaker. Maybe you're the one with the youthful enthusiasm?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
silkcut1978_

Quote
kleermaker

Just to unmask the stubborn 'Taylor the soloing, noodling prima donna' myth.

For me the "myth" has benn proven long ago. As much as I like the vitality of the Brussels show(s) I don't want to hear it anymore because of the endless noodling by Mr.Taylor. I'm really enjoying his contribution until the so called "Winter Tour 1973" but the European Tour 1973 was/is a bad joke to listen to - at least for me. It's way too much over the top noodling of a seemingly bored guitar player. Personally I think he did the right move in quitting the Stones.

You may call it youthful enthusiasm again (but I'm heading 50 by the way), or bad education or whatever. But the TOTA 1975 has always been my favourite tour (on the contrary to the lame 76 tour) and I've played my vinyl-boots of LA 75 way more often than the Bedspring ones. Right now I'm listening for the 6th or even 7th time to the LA-download, not sure - I've played Brussels only 3 times. 1st the download, then the LP-boot, then the CD-boot, and now I'm done with it.

As you wrote - it must be a matter of taste. Inexplicable is your behavior to present your very own taste as objective and state of the art, kleermaker. Maybe you're the one with the youthful enthusiasm?

As has been pointed out by others, Wood "noodles" as much as Taylor -- particularly in the later tours. Only his noodling is pointless, random, and often incoherent, where Taylor's solos and parts had a beginning, middle, and end. So I suppose some people prefer a guitarist noodling while closing their eyes and clenching up their face and appearing to expend a great deal of effort, to "noodling" by someone who looks "bored" and just stands there. I'll take the better playing any day.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
silkcut1978_

Quote
kleermaker

Just to unmask the stubborn 'Taylor the soloing, noodling prima donna' myth.

For me the "myth" has benn proven long ago. As much as I like the vitality of the Brussels show(s) I don't want to hear it anymore because of the endless noodling by Mr.Taylor. I'm really enjoying his contribution until the so called "Winter Tour 1973" but the European Tour 1973 was/is a bad joke to listen to - at least for me. It's way too much over the top noodling of a seemingly bored guitar player. Personally I think he did the right move in quitting the Stones.

You may call it youthful enthusiasm again (but I'm heading 50 by the way), or bad education or whatever. But the TOTA 1975 has always been my favourite tour (on the contrary to the lame 76 tour) and I've played my vinyl-boots of LA 75 way more often than the Bedspring ones. Right now I'm listening for the 6th or even 7th time to the LA-download, not sure - I've played Brussels only 3 times. 1st the download, then the LP-boot, then the CD-boot, and now I'm done with it.

As you wrote - it must be a matter of taste. Inexplicable is your behavior to present your very own taste as objective and state of the art, kleermaker. Maybe you're the one with the youthful enthusiasm?

As has been pointed out by others, Wood "noodles" as much as Taylor -- particularly in the later tours. Only his noodling is pointless, random, and often incoherent, where Taylor's solos and parts had a beginning, middle, and end. So I suppose some people prefer a guitarist noodling while closing their eyes and clenching up their face and appearing to expend a great deal of effort, to "noodling" by someone who looks "bored" and just stands there. I'll take the better playing any day.

Some people prefer what they perceive as instinctive and heartfelt playing - other like more formulaic, but still heartfelt, playing.

Some people like both...

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
silkcut1978_

Quote
kleermaker

Just to unmask the stubborn 'Taylor the soloing, noodling prima donna' myth.

For me the "myth" has benn proven long ago. As much as I like the vitality of the Brussels show(s) I don't want to hear it anymore because of the endless noodling by Mr.Taylor. I'm really enjoying his contribution until the so called "Winter Tour 1973" but the European Tour 1973 was/is a bad joke to listen to - at least for me. It's way too much over the top noodling of a seemingly bored guitar player. Personally I think he did the right move in quitting the Stones.

You may call it youthful enthusiasm again (but I'm heading 50 by the way), or bad education or whatever. But the TOTA 1975 has always been my favourite tour (on the contrary to the lame 76 tour) and I've played my vinyl-boots of LA 75 way more often than the Bedspring ones. Right now I'm listening for the 6th or even 7th time to the LA-download, not sure - I've played Brussels only 3 times. 1st the download, then the LP-boot, then the CD-boot, and now I'm done with it.

As you wrote - it must be a matter of taste. Inexplicable is your behavior to present your very own taste as objective and state of the art, kleermaker. Maybe you're the one with the youthful enthusiasm?

As has been pointed out by others, Wood "noodles" as much as Taylor -- particularly in the later tours. Only his noodling is pointless, random, and often incoherent, where Taylor's solos and parts had a beginning, middle, and end. So I suppose some people prefer a guitarist noodling while closing their eyes and clenching up their face and appearing to expend a great deal of effort, to "noodling" by someone who looks "bored" and just stands there. I'll take the better playing any day.

Some people prefer what they perceive as instinctive and heartfelt playing - other like more formulaic, but still heartfelt, playing.

Some people like both...

I like heartfelt and instinctive too. I don't like disjointed and incoherent. Wood at his best is as enjoyable as Taylor. But after 1981 we rarely got Wood at his best anymore, in my opinion.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
silkcut1978_

Quote
kleermaker

Just to unmask the stubborn 'Taylor the soloing, noodling prima donna' myth.

For me the "myth" has benn proven long ago. As much as I like the vitality of the Brussels show(s) I don't want to hear it anymore because of the endless noodling by Mr.Taylor. I'm really enjoying his contribution until the so called "Winter Tour 1973" but the European Tour 1973 was/is a bad joke to listen to - at least for me. It's way too much over the top noodling of a seemingly bored guitar player. Personally I think he did the right move in quitting the Stones.

You may call it youthful enthusiasm again (but I'm heading 50 by the way), or bad education or whatever. But the TOTA 1975 has always been my favourite tour (on the contrary to the lame 76 tour) and I've played my vinyl-boots of LA 75 way more often than the Bedspring ones. Right now I'm listening for the 6th or even 7th time to the LA-download, not sure - I've played Brussels only 3 times. 1st the download, then the LP-boot, then the CD-boot, and now I'm done with it.

As you wrote - it must be a matter of taste. Inexplicable is your behavior to present your very own taste as objective and state of the art, kleermaker. Maybe you're the one with the youthful enthusiasm?

As has been pointed out by others, Wood "noodles" as much as Taylor -- particularly in the later tours. Only his noodling is pointless, random, and often incoherent, where Taylor's solos and parts had a beginning, middle, and end. So I suppose some people prefer a guitarist noodling while closing their eyes and clenching up their face and appearing to expend a great deal of effort, to "noodling" by someone who looks "bored" and just stands there. I'll take the better playing any day.

Some people prefer what they perceive as instinctive and heartfelt playing - other like more formulaic, but still heartfelt, playing.

Some people like both...

I like heartfelt and instinctive too. I don't like disjointed and incoherent. Wood at his best is as enjoyable as Taylor. But after 1981 we rarely got Wood at his best anymore, in my opinion.

Wood at his best is actually copying Taylor! That why 1975 has made him some new fans here imho. peace

Quote
Mathijs
So we finally have proof of something we thought for 20 years: Jesse Ed Davis did guest on Sympathy, July 13, 1975. He enters at 5:05.

Mathijs

Quote
dcba
So Herr Zentgraf was right!

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
dcba
So Herr Zentgraf was right!

That was me, actually...

Mathijs

Quote
vudicus

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
dcba
So Herr Zentgraf was right!

That was me, actually...

Mathijs

Dressed as me