Quote
Munichhilton
Jesse Ed Davis? Is that who that is?

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Munichhilton
Jesse Ed Davis? Is that who that is?

well, by process of ilimination. There's this one picture available on stage with the Stones. But there was also talk of Dave Mason being a guest in LA.

Mathijs

Quote
vudicus
Jesse was part of the original Taj Mahal group (as seen in the Rock 'n' Roll Circus). He later became an in demand session player.

Quote
Munichhilton
Also with Jackson Browne?

Quote
vudicus
Jesse was part of the original Taj Mahal group (as seen in the Rock 'n' Roll Circus). He later became an in demand session player.

Quote
Mathijs

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

PS: Why are you so determined to spoil the fun for the thousands of fans that enjoy this release?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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
dcba

Compulsory listens : the 1st Baton Rouge, the 1st Boston, Cleveland, the 1st NYC, and Jacksonville come to mind. Then you're set to assess the July 13 gig.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
dcba

Compulsory listens : the 1st Baton Rouge, the 1st Boston, Cleveland, the 1st NYC, and Jacksonville come to mind. Then you're set to assess the July 13 gig.

Er, why would you want to listen to these shows? Baton Rouge is quite bad, Cleveland not the best sound quality, and MSG 1st might be the worst show of the tour due to the sound system problems....

Mathijs