I've been REALLY enjoying the Live in Texas '78 DVD. The footage and sound show the Stones in top form. The concert can stand with the best live Stones offerings out there (Ya Yas, Ladies And Gents, Brussels, etc.) but the SNL performance from the same year? Yikes. Awful. The sound of the band is weak, Mick's voice is totally shot, and he's acting just WEIRD. Drugs? Out of his comfort zone on the SNL stage? Overcompensating for his voice? Hamming it for the camera? Who knows? While Jagger's often camp stage personae isn't for everybody, I've always loved it...except here. It just seems so forced and over the top. They are as bad on SNL as they were great in Ft. Worth. In my opinion, of the various footage I've seen (bootlegs, official releases covering over 40 years of stage shows) this is the absolute nadir of the Stones live career. Your thoughts?

I am really surprised they put this on there, I would have preferred some other footage from '78. "Lies" and "Hound Dog" wer also played on that tour and good fun.

i like it....in retrospect, i like Jagger's thrashed vocal chords more now than i did in '78..also really enjoy Jagger's stage antics...they played with a renewed vigor in '78..the "new" songs were strong

I think 1976 was the low point in terms of touring.

He was stoned....and I'll say it again, going through divorce and dealing with all the Keith shit, so he may have been a bit frazzled. It also sounds like he's got a cold.
But I loved this when I was 13. This was the most raw, most real thing I'd ever seen in my life. The SNL appearance was that first Stones kiss for me that started it all...that first visceral moment as a new, wide-eyed Stones fan.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-16 03:00 by stupidguy2.

the only thing bad about it is the sound Mix, the guitars are really low. That's not the stones fault its NBC's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-16 02:58 by ryanpow.

There are some excellent conversation threads here on IORR regarding the issues regarding the SNL show and talking about how the rehearsals for SNL are much better than the actual show and it is explained that was because by the time the show came they had been partying their balls off and other factors... do a search for the threads here... they are worth reading, I thought so any way.

Yeah they had been up all night partying with Belushi! Mick was toast! And that is pretty much how his voice sounded the entire '81 tour!

Stupidguy2, your comment is right on in regards to my 'first stones kiss'. Saw it live also(I was 12). It was SOOO bigger than life and,hell,how do I say it,in my face!!!! Stones at thier sloppiest and I @#$%& loved it....there, I said it! I LOVED IT!!! '78 was great!!

As indicated by Max's, it has been suggested the Stones were quite drunk (and whatever else) by the time of the actual performance. The first "Saturday Night Live" book might have gone into this in a bit of detail, I don't recall exactly where I read about it.

Jagger's voice was shot on and off for 1978 as well, and certainly it was for the show.

That said, it was a VERY BIG deal the Stones were doing the show at the time. I recall that NYC Mayor Ed Koch was the host that evening. Mick bowed down and kissed his ring or hand or something. It all reinforced the New York connection with the Some Girls album.

Oddly enough the Stones skipped New York City on that tour, except for an unannounced performance at the Palladium.

What else?

The Stones were perhaps the first musical guest at the time, (or at least one of the very few) allowed to do their songs in just ONE set rather than breaking it into two segments.

Jagger had a that nice skit with Dan Aykroyd who was portraying Tom Snyder. "Miss You" was either played by the house band or else the recording was played when that skit opened.

Ron Wood and Charlie Watts made it into a Belushi sketch in non-speaking parts (maybe one of the Cheeseburger/Cheeseburger - Pepsi/Pepsi skits?)

I believe it was reported that Keith Richards and Bill Murray got into conflict (or perhaps that was another time?)

A few critics did pan The Stones performance on the show, but it was also reportedly defended by many in the audience who were apparently satisfied.

And finally, at the time, and for some time thereafter, The Stones "appearance" if not necessarily the performance itself, was felt by a number of TV reviewers to coincide with perhaps the pinnacle for the Saturday Night Live show as well.

Certainly TV Guide, which at the time had the largest circulation of any periodical in the US, gave it a glowing preview.

In a Perfect Stones World:

They would have appeared on the show, as promised that night....and done only ONE song: "Shattered." That would have demonstrated exactly how shot Mick's voice was that night, and then they would have gotten credit for being professional and soldiering on anyway.


Two weeks later they would appear again, this time fresh and rested (the way Jagger looked when he guested with Peter Tosh on SNL shortly after the Stones debacle. )

They could have done "Beast of Burden" "Respectable" and the NY song of the summer, "Miss You."

That would have been the ultimate win-win: NBC would have scored with TWO Stones appearances, and the Stones would have their reputation intact.

There cant have been many acts on SNL who got to do three songs - Dylan and Bowie in '79 were a couple of others.

There was also a sketch which was dropped because of 'drug' content, featuring Keith going to get his blood changed or something (I think theres a photo of it in Karnbach's book)

Obviously, not living in the US I've only seen this in edited reruns, but I think there was also a skit (not featuring the Stones) featuring Aykroyd, Murray and Belushi which portrayed Jimmy Carter negotiating a 'Camp David' style Lennon and McCartney summit and announcing a Beatles reunion.

And if I'm not mistaken, Mick did actually sing 'Dont f**k my wife' during 'Respectable'. Payback of sorts for being censored on the Ed Sullivan Show in the past!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-16 03:54 by Gazza.

Quote
rainhog
Stupidguy2, your comment is right on in regards to my 'first stones kiss'. Saw it live also(I was 12). It was SOOO bigger than life and,hell,how do I say it,in my face!!!! Stones at thier sloppiest and I @#$%& loved it....there, I said it! I LOVED IT!!! '78 was great!!

If you've read the Patti Smith Jagger opus, Jaguar of the Jungle, about her reaction to seeing the Stones perform on tv for the first time in the mid-60s.....
well, this was my Jaguar of the Jungle.
I had only known top 40, nice stuff. I caught this when the episode reran a few months later...my family was holding some church get-together and I snuck into my parents' room to watch it and I can remember feeling like I was watching something elicit. I was just hoping no one would come in and break the spell...it was in your face and Jagger looked positively predatory and exciting at the same time. It was cold in the room but my palms were sweaty and I was entranced. I didn't see it as such then, but now I look back and I can say that there was a sensual buzz I was getting.....I had been gradually becoming intrigued with the Stones, but this did it. After usually seeing people like Olivia-Newton John and Cher on TV, Mick thrusting his entire body into my face and sneering and leering was just explosive for me.
I was never the same...(musically speaking of course)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-16 04:47 by stupidguy2.

Quote
whitem8
Yeah they had been up all night partying with Belushi! Mick was toast! And that is pretty much how his voice sounded the entire '81 tour!

\

Ive noticed that too and found it interesting. Micks Laryngitis made him discover a new sound and style he could use and did so in 81.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-16 04:46 by ryanpow.

that SNL 78 performance was vintage stones at their sloppy raunchy best, i really cant understand how it is disliked by many

Probably because for all of what you're saying, its pretty hard to disguise the fact that Mick's voice doesn't make for comfortable listening.

Saying that, it wasn't the worse ever case of laryngitis to have been broadcast on SNL.

His ex-girlfriend's performance a year or so later takes that dubious honour by some distance!

Too much coke with the SNL crew, Beast of Burden is even transposed a whole step to compensate his horse voice.

Quote
Gazza
Probably because for all of what you're saying, its pretty hard to disguise the fact that Mick's voice doesn't make for comfortable listening.

Saying that, it wasn't the worse ever case of laryngitis to have been broadcast on SNL.

His ex-girlfriend's performance a year or so later takes that dubious honour by some distance!

I didn't see Marianne's performance on SNL, but could it be
worse that Jerry Hall's appearance in the mid-80s in promotion of her book?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-16 05:26 by stupidguy2.

The band ain't bad on SNL, but Jagger never sounded worse. The band sounded a whole lot worse in Oshawa six months later and in the early shows of the '81 tour.

You're certainly right about Marianne's performance on SNL. I still remember it - shocking! In her bio I think she said she had severe stage fright and her throat closed right up, poor girl.

Quote
tornandfrayed72
and he's acting just WEIRD. Drugs? Out of his comfort zone on the SNL stage? Overcompensating for his voice? Hamming it for the camera? Who knows? While Jagger's often camp stage personae isn't for everybody, I've always loved it...except here. It just seems so forced and over the top.

You don't think he acts weird in Live in Texas? I think he's brilliant on Beast of Burden on SNL. from a technical stand point his singing isn't great because of the shape his voice is it but I still think this is a top notch performance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-16 07:13 by ryanpow.

Like stupidguy2 and rainhog have said, it was a crucial experience for me, age 13. I had a hockey game early the next morning so my parents wouldn't let me stay up to watch it. I waited until they went to bed and literally crawled past their bedroom( creaking floor!) donwstairs to the basement and sat right in front of the T.V. with the volume turned way down. I thought it rocked at the time. I think I had only bought Made in the Shade and Some Girls at that early stage of my growing music obsession but after watching that the Stones albums started to come quick-like.

Yes indeed the rehearsals were much better
The only thing that makes the SNL performance "poor" (I still like it though) is Jagger's voice. Who can blame him for partying the days before, if they had good fun?
I think most bands & artists would have cancelled the performance when having a voice like Jagger has there. Cool of them, to play anyway. And since the thrat problems were "self-caused"....I guess Jagger felt that it was his duty to perform in spite of his voice.

THe nadir of Stones live....before the more recent tours; that would be 1976 IMO
Meanwhile the famous Paris shows were OK - there were some real horrible concerts that year; in which Jagger sounds like he'd rather be in bed than on stage. Examples are for instance the London shows and the 2nd show in Cologne

I'll never forget how excited I was when I heard they were going to be on SNL. I had just seen them live for the first time not long before that on the '78 tour. I was a college freshman, sharing an apt / dorm with about four other guys. They knew I was a huge Stones fan. They were not. Here was my chance to show them how great the Stones were live. While I was personally thrilled to see them on TV, the show didn't help my friends gain any appreciation for the Stones. I thought their playing was fine except Ronnie seemed to forget how to play a solo on Shattered, but Mick's voice was shot and gave my roomies fresh ammo to say the Stones suck live. Keith's backing vocals were likewise much hoarser than usual. I then tried to explain that this was a very non-typical performance from the usually great Stones. Of course, I read years later about how they were really great in rehearsals but they partied heavily with Belushi, et al and did a boatload of coke and smoke, which may explain the ravaged throats. It was good to see Jagger in better form with Peter Tosh later and then years later Keith nailed it with the Winos.

For those who did not watch it on TV the SNL certainly was the nadir.

I only know it from the old bootleg (Whatsisname?) and it sounded horrible, as bad as the Oshawa CNIB benefit which I heard years later.

I too remember watching it. I was a relatively new stones fan. My first album I got was Some Girls, and I was thrilled to have a new incredible band to start collecting. I wanted to soak up all things Stones. I vividly remember staying up late on Saturday, still in Middle School, thrilled to be up so late and thrilled to see this raunchy comedy show that I had heard so much about. I was hypnotized by the adultness of it all. And I was getting it. Then the thrill of hearing on the TV, "The Rolling Stones!" and the explosion of guitar and movement. It sounded incredible even with Mick's singing being hoarse. I thought, "he is doing that on purpose! He is trying to be that way, to be a punk..." I will never forget the thrill of it all, and seeing Mick lick Ronnie was the ultimate taboo on national TV, The Stones were indeed the bad boys of rock and I was hooked.

Now decades later, it is a fine memento of the summer of 78. And it sure sounds awful, but still thrilling none the less.

Worst Stones TV appearance ever


Yet I have seen bootlegs of the SNL rehearsals, and they sound fine

Quote
saltoftheearth
For those who did not watch it on TV the SNL certainly was the nadir.

I only know it from the old bootleg (Whatsisname?) and it sounded horrible, as bad as the Oshawa CNIB benefit which I heard years later.

The old bootleg LP with it was just called 'Saturday Night Live'. Side 2 featured a few songs from Lakeland, the tour opener.

There was another one later on called 'Sucking Don on Saturday Night Live' which was (I think) the Don Kirshner Show promos plus SNL.

The Stones were perfect....They sounded rough & Wild.... Jagger & co.acted, sounded and looked like
the bad boys of rock/punk to the younger fans watching the show..

If they were just perfect and looked "staged" then most people would say oh they are good!!
And then we would have just forgot about it...It showed that the Stones were not just some old boring
Pop act from the 60's!!

It showed what Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll looked and sounded like!

They outpunked all the rockers of the day.

What? its a rough rocknroll performance and ive always liked it. Its the man behind the soundboard whos got a bad day at work.