Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
Sorry to revive the Taylor/Wood thing, but the comparison between these two versions puts to lie to the Woodites' contention that Taylor was all about soloing. Keith plays ALL the solos on the Leeds version, and the two guitars chug along together on this like nobody's business, driving the song FAR better than in '78 in my opinion, the same way they do on the two Berry covers on Ya Yas. In 1978 they used the songs as a sort of warm up. It's fine, but has none of the drive, groove, and majesty of the Leeds version. Every single element is better on the earlier version.

Disagree -I prefer about everything of the '78 version over the '71 version except for Richards second solo on the Leeds version. But in '78 drums and bass where better, it rocked harder and the groove was much better. Sure '71 was good time R&R, but it really misses the filth I like so much in the Stones.

And to note: Taylor's rhythm guitar on LQ from Ya-Ya's was overdubbed by Richards.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
Sorry to revive the Taylor/Wood thing, but the comparison between these two versions puts to lie to the Woodites' contention that Taylor was all about soloing. Keith plays ALL the solos on the Leeds version, and the two guitars chug along together on this like nobody's business, driving the song FAR better than in '78 in my opinion, the same way they do on the two Berry covers on Ya Yas. In 1978 they used the songs as a sort of warm up. It's fine, but has none of the drive, groove, and majesty of the Leeds version. Every single element is better on the earlier version.

Disagree -I prefer about everything of the '78 version over the '71 version except for Richards second solo on the Leeds version. But in '78 drums and bass where better, it rocked harder and the groove was much better. Sure '71 was good time R&R, but it really misses the filth I like so much in the Stones.

And to note: Taylor's rhythm guitar on LQ from Ya-Ya's was overdubbed by Richards.

Mathijs

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
Sorry to revive the Taylor/Wood thing, but the comparison between these two versions puts to lie to the Woodites' contention that Taylor was all about soloing. Keith plays ALL the solos on the Leeds version, and the two guitars chug along together on this like nobody's business, driving the song FAR better than in '78 in my opinion, the same way they do on the two Berry covers on Ya Yas. In 1978 they used the songs as a sort of warm up. It's fine, but has none of the drive, groove, and majesty of the Leeds version. Every single element is better on the earlier version.

Disagree -I prefer about everything of the '78 version over the '71 version except for Richards second solo on the Leeds version. But in '78 drums and bass where better, it rocked harder and the groove was much better. Sure '71 was good time R&R, but it really misses the filth I like so much in the Stones.

And to note: Taylor's rhythm guitar on LQ from Ya-Ya's was overdubbed by Richards.

Mathijs

mathijs- i always respect your opinion but i'm a little suprised by this one.i saw a few shows on that 78 tour. i lovingly call it the "how f/cked up can you get and still perform"tour

better than leeds?? really??

and ya ya's is untouchable,all live records have overdubs.you guys call it the big 4,i call it the big 5 because of ya ya's.the greatest live rock and roll record ever made.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
Sorry to revive the Taylor/Wood thing, but the comparison between these two versions puts to lie to the Woodites' contention that Taylor was all about soloing. Keith plays ALL the solos on the Leeds version, and the two guitars chug along together on this like nobody's business, driving the song FAR better than in '78 in my opinion, the same way they do on the two Berry covers on Ya Yas. In 1978 they used the songs as a sort of warm up. It's fine, but has none of the drive, groove, and majesty of the Leeds version. Every single element is better on the earlier version.

Disagree -I prefer about everything of the '78 version over the '71 version except for Richards second solo on the Leeds version. But in '78 drums and bass where better, it rocked harder and the groove was much better. Sure '71 was good time R&R, but it really misses the filth I like so much in the Stones.



And to note: Taylor's rhythm guitar on LQ from Ya-Ya's was overdubbed by Richards.

Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
Sorry to revive the Taylor/Wood thing, but the comparison between these two versions puts to lie to the Woodites' contention that Taylor was all about soloing. Keith plays ALL the solos on the Leeds version, and the two guitars chug along together on this like nobody's business, driving the song FAR better than in '78 in my opinion, the same way they do on the two Berry covers on Ya Yas. In 1978 they used the songs as a sort of warm up. It's fine, but has none of the drive, groove, and majesty of the Leeds version. Every single element is better on the earlier version.

Quote
shawnriffhard1
Mahis-"And to note: Taylor's rhythm guitar on LQ from Ya-Ya's was overdubbed by Richards."


Hey Mathis, Not doubting you, but this is pretty big news to me as I've informed many Ya Yas debaters (maybe a little too authoratatively) that the ovedubbing on GYYO is way overstated. According to Chris M's research, he says 6 vocal overdubs and one POSSIBLE guitar overdub on Carol. Do you have another source? I know LQ was re-done so MJ's vocals would match up to Keith's backup vocal, but no mention of guitar that I know of.

Quote
VT22
+1

In '71 the Stones were a rock band, in '78 they were clearly punk influenced, perfectly aware their act sells..

Quote
buffalo7478
I only saw the perform Let It Rock once, in Buffalo in 1978. It was a mess, very much sound, Jagger kind of shouting lyrics. 79,990 out of the 80,000 in attendance wondering what the f#*k was being played. The boot I have heard of the Buffalo show are actually quite accurate to my memory of how they sounded - which was pretty crappy.They flew threw their set and left a chunk of the crowd scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened to the world's greatest rock n roll band.

1978 was more about attitude than anything else. Maybe they were trying to keep up with the punks?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
VT22
+1

In '71 the Stones were a rock band, in '78 they were clearly punk influenced, perfectly aware their act sells..

We shouldn't over-interpret the punk-thing. If we actually listen to the music from the 78 tour, it's not really very punk-influenced. The influence had more to do with the attitude, especially that of Mick's.

Many songs reached their peaks on the 78-tour, and Let It Rock was one of them. Other ones were Star Star, All Down The Line and HTW + the best of the SG-tracks.

There is nothing punk-ish about this, and this is a typical 78-number. Jagger have never been singing better than this, imo:

Quote
VT22

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
VT22
+1

In '71 the Stones were a rock band, in '78 they were clearly punk influenced, perfectly aware their act sells..

We shouldn't over-interpret the punk-thing. If we actually listen to the music from the 78 tour, it's not really very punk-influenced. The influence had more to do with the attitude, especially that of Mick's.

Many songs reached their peaks on the 78-tour, and Let It Rock was one of them. Other ones were Star Star, All Down The Line and HTW + the best of the SG-tracks.

There is nothing punk-ish about this, and this is a typical 78-number. Jagger have never been singing better than this, imo:

No use arguing about this ...it's typically their '78 sound, whether you like it or not. My definition of a rock band requires different standards.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
buffalo7478
I only saw the perform Let It Rock once, in Buffalo in 1978. It was a mess, very much sound, Jagger kind of shouting lyrics. 79,990 out of the 80,000 in attendance wondering what the f#*k was being played. The boot I have heard of the Buffalo show are actually quite accurate to my memory of how they sounded - which was pretty crappy.They flew threw their set and left a chunk of the crowd scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened to the world's greatest rock n roll band.

1978 was more about attitude than anything else. Maybe they were trying to keep up with the punks?

Bollocks. Sure there where some terrible '78 shows -Buffalo comes to mind, Philadelphia, the Lakeland opener. There where some good shows, and there where some excellent show. Fort Worth is a good show, not even an excellent one like Memphis, Lexington or Detroit. 1969 had some bad shows as well: in fact Jagger was right saying they never got it until Detroit. 1970 is quite sloppy at times, the first 8 or so shows from the 1972 tour aren't very good. Does that make the 1972 tour a bad tour? I don't think so.

I don't like Leeds at all. The playing is sloppy, the guitars too clean, Taylor overpowers with his leads, the brass too funky for the Stones. And, but that's just my own opinion, the way the Stones played in '71 sounds just very old fashioned these days. It's typical Rolling Stones rock, and I am bored with that. And that also goes for the 72 and 73 tours: I have listened enough to those tours. I find it quite old fashioned 70's rock that doesn't move me as much as it did anymore.

That's why I like the 1975, 78 and 81 tours so much more: much less classic rock, with many more influences than only rock. I prefer the attitude much better of these tours: it wasn't about perfectly executed solo's, but about attitude, swagger, groove and swing.

Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
buffalo7478
I only saw the perform Let It Rock once, in Buffalo in 1978. It was a mess, very much sound, Jagger kind of shouting lyrics. 79,990 out of the 80,000 in attendance wondering what the f#*k was being played. The boot I have heard of the Buffalo show are actually quite accurate to my memory of how they sounded - which was pretty crappy.They flew threw their set and left a chunk of the crowd scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened to the world's greatest rock n roll band.

1978 was more about attitude than anything else. Maybe they were trying to keep up with the punks?

Bollocks. Sure there where some terrible '78 shows -Buffalo comes to mind, Philadelphia, the Lakeland opener. There where some good shows, and there where some excellent show. Fort Worth is a good show, not even an excellent one like Memphis, Lexington or Detroit. 1969 had some bad shows as well: in fact Jagger was right saying they never got it until Detroit. 1970 is quite sloppy at times, the first 8 or so shows from the 1972 tour aren't very good. Does that make the 1972 tour a bad tour? I don't think so.

I don't like Leeds at all. The playing is sloppy, the guitars too clean, Taylor overpowers with his leads, the brass too funky for the Stones. And, but that's just my own opinion, the way the Stones played in '71 sounds just very old fashioned these days. It's typical Rolling Stones rock, and I am bored with that. And that also goes for the 72 and 73 tours: I have listened enough to those tours. I find it quite old fashioned 70's rock that doesn't move me as much as it did anymore.

That's why I like the 1975, 78 and 81 tours so much more: much less classic rock, with many more influences than only rock. I prefer the attitude much better of these tours: it wasn't about perfectly executed solo's, but about attitude, swagger, groove and swing.

Mathijs

I get your point. The older you get the wiser you become though. Finally you end up listening or playing rock, funk or jazz etc just to find out that "old fashioned bands" like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, the early Stones or even Wes Montgomery, Django Reinhardt, Chuck Berry, B.B.King and Bootsy Collins are the ones that inspired you most. History rewrites itself.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
VT22
+1

In '71 the Stones were a rock band, in '78 they were clearly punk influenced, perfectly aware their act sells..

We shouldn't over-interpret the punk-thing. If we actually listen to the music from the 78 tour, it's not really very punk-influenced. The influence had more to do with the attitude, especially that of Mick's.

Many songs reached their peaks on the 78-tour, and Let It Rock was one of them. Other ones were Star Star, All Down The Line and HTW + the best of the SG-tracks.

There is nothing punk-ish about this, and this is a typical 78-number. Jagger have never been singing better than this, imo:

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
buffalo7478
I only saw the perform Let It Rock once, in Buffalo in 1978. It was a mess, very much sound, Jagger kind of shouting lyrics. 79,990 out of the 80,000 in attendance wondering what the f#*k was being played. The boot I have heard of the Buffalo show are actually quite accurate to my memory of how they sounded - which was pretty crappy.They flew threw their set and left a chunk of the crowd scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened to the world's greatest rock n roll band.

1978 was more about attitude than anything else. Maybe they were trying to keep up with the punks?

I don't like Leeds at all. The playing is sloppy, the guitars too clean, Taylor overpowers with his leads, the brass too funky for the Stones. And, but that's just my own opinion, the way the Stones played in '71 sounds just very old fashioned these days. It's typical Rolling Stones rock, and I am bored with that. And that also goes for the 72 and 73 tours: I have listened enough to those tours. I find it quite old fashioned 70's rock that doesn't move me as much as it did anymore.

That's why I like the 1975, 78 and 81 tours so much more: much less classic rock, with many more influences than only rock. I prefer the attitude much better of these tours: it wasn't about perfectly executed solo's, but about attitude, swagger, groove and swing.

Mathijs

Quote
Jaggerbarking
Taylor doesn't "weave" as well as wood on this number and I think Charlie swings more in 1978 at least there is no bearded one on either he doesn't "boggie woggie" like Stu.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
VT22
+1

In '71 the Stones were a rock band, in '78 they were clearly punk influenced, perfectly aware their act sells..

We shouldn't over-interpret the punk-thing. If we actually listen to the music from the 78 tour, it's not really very punk-influenced. The influence had more to do with the attitude, especially that of Mick's.

Many songs reached their peaks on the 78-tour, and Let It Rock was one of them. Other ones were Star Star, All Down The Line and HTW + the best of the SG-tracks.

There is nothing punk-ish about this, and this is a typical 78-number. Jagger have never been singing better than this, imo:

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
VT22
+1

In '71 the Stones were a rock band, in '78 they were clearly punk influenced, perfectly aware their act sells..

We shouldn't over-interpret the punk-thing. If we actually listen to the music from the 78 tour, it's not really very punk-influenced. The influence had more to do with the attitude, especially that of Mick's.

Many songs reached their peaks on the 78-tour, and Let It Rock was one of them. Other ones were Star Star, All Down The Line and HTW + the best of the SG-tracks.

There is nothing punk-ish about this, and this is a typical 78-number. Jagger have never been singing better than this, imo:

All the songs you mentioned were better in '72 and '73 - by far.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
buffalo7478
I only saw the perform Let It Rock once, in Buffalo in 1978. It was a mess, very much sound, Jagger kind of shouting lyrics. 79,990 out of the 80,000 in attendance wondering what the f#*k was being played. The boot I have heard of the Buffalo show are actually quite accurate to my memory of how they sounded - which was pretty crappy.They flew threw their set and left a chunk of the crowd scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened to the world's greatest rock n roll band.

1978 was more about attitude than anything else. Maybe they were trying to keep up with the punks?

I don't like Leeds at all. The playing is sloppy, the guitars too clean, Taylor overpowers with his leads, the brass too funky for the Stones. And, but that's just my own opinion, the way the Stones played in '71 sounds just very old fashioned these days. It's typical Rolling Stones rock, and I am bored with that. And that also goes for the 72 and 73 tours: I have listened enough to those tours. I find it quite old fashioned 70's rock that doesn't move me as much as it did anymore.

That's why I like the 1975, 78 and 81 tours so much more: much less classic rock, with many more influences than only rock. I prefer the attitude much better of these tours: it wasn't about perfectly executed solo's, but about attitude, swagger, groove and swing.

Mathijs

And by your measure of "attitude" and "swing" I still think '69, '72, and '73 were far better. 1978 is where the slop really started to set in (can't believe you think '78 is less sloppy. Start with Jagger not remembering the words in '78). Some shows were brilliant, some horrible. But the musical standards of the band degenerated. I don't know what you mean by "classic rock". The Stones never were a classic rock band, thank God.

We know your preference for the Wood years. Fine. But your efforts to minimize everything from the Taylor era from Ya Yas to Exile, and to exaggerate the importance of half-baked stuff from the Wood era like Undercover has gotten overly familiar. It frankly feels quite strained at the time, like you have some kind of agenda.