Which American tour of the Stones peak do you prefer--1972 or 1975?
Personally as much as I love Mick Taylor, I'm going to have pick 1975. 1972 was decadent and Roman-esque, but 1975 was a lurid spectacle, yet still raw and gritty--A perfect mix of Rock N' Roll and Spectacle. And Ronnie, while not anywhere near the guitarist MT is, has a much better stage presence.

And the 1975 "press conference" was amazing and utterly unique for the time. Were any Rock's Off people there in New York on that day in May 1975? Anyone here witness it? Is there any full video of it? My father believes he might've been there, but then again most of the '70s are a blur for him (for reasons you can probably guess). He remembers that he was in Manhattan and one girl erroneously had told him it was Sly and the Family Stone performing up the block, and he was surprised when he went to look that it was the Stones. I wouldn't be born for another fifteen years.

Off topic but does anyone know why, since 1989, the Stones have elected to perform very Vegas-y, big tours? I mean in '89, 1990, they were still fairly young men--Couldn't they still have rocked it like they did before?

75 tour was a totally different kettle of fish. Their funk influence set them apart from purely white guys kinda music like Elton, Bowie, The Who, Zep & the eternal agonising of Floyd. I really think they were brave, but i feel they lost alot of fans, particularly the white t-shirt, Adidas Rome wearing, tight blue jeans, long haired, white trash who found double neck guitars more alluring than Jagger shaking asses with a big black dude in a afro wig.

I hope the 75 tour is next of the rank to get a digital revolution make over and be released on dvd. The L.A. Forum show for starters.

And dont forget, and this is something that i think alot of people over look. KISS were beginning to be huge around this time. America's answer to "glam" that was huge in the U.K. & Australia. Though we were also into "pub" rock with tough bands like Ac/dc and other home grown acts that none of you have ever heard of.

P.S. The Saints were really the 1st punk band!

i thank you. Back to normal transmission.

corgi37 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 5:18am:

75 tour was a totally different kettle of fish. Their funk influence set them apart from purely white guys kinda music like Elton, Bowie, The Who, Zep & the eternal agonising of Floyd. I really think they were brave, but i feel they lost alot of fans, particularly the white t-shirt, Adidas Rome wearing, tight blue jeans, long haired, white trash who found double neck guitars more alluring than Jagger shaking asses with a big black dude in a afro wig. I hope the 75 tour is next of the rank to get a digital revolution make over and be released on dvd. The L.A. Forum show for starters. And dont forget, and this is something that i think alot of people over look. KISS were beginning to be huge around this time. America's answer to "glam" that was huge in the U.K. & Australia. Though we were also into "pub" rock with tough bands like Ac/dc and other home grown acts that none of you have ever heard of. P.S. The Saints were really the 1st punk band! i thank you. Back to normal transmission.

1975 was an interesting year for music. You still had the big bands like the Stones and Led Zeppelin, but like you said, you also had acts like KISS coming into play along with Elton John, Peter Frampton, and the like. Disco began it's rapid ascent in '75, and on both sides of the Atlantic in the grimier sections of the cities, Punk was beginning to rise up from it's underbelly. And there was the big metal bands of the future--AC/DC, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, and the like, all beginning to be born around this time.

Very much an interesting yet transitional year for music.

I don't think any movies were made from the 1975 tour...So sadly I doubt there'll be any DVD release of any of the shows. I wish there were, the LA Forum shows are indeed great. I'd include an HD touch up of the May 1st Press Conference as a Bonus feature to a '75 Tour DVD. That'd be a nice special feature/Bonus.

1972 – though I would argue that he Euro/UK shows in ’73 were better.

'75 is marred by Jagger's shouty vocals.

Honky Tonk Man wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 5:40am:

1972 – though I would argue that he Euro/UK shows in ’73 were better. '75 is marred by Jagger's shouty vocals.

My opinion on the 75 tour is the same.  Mick is barking all over the place and while the shows seemed like they had a great deal of energy, I just don't get the allure of his performance.  

I'll take 72.

corgi37 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 5:18am:

75 tour was a totally different kettle of fish. Their funk influence set them apart from purely white guys kinda music like Elton, Bowie, The Who, Zep & the eternal agonising of Floyd. I really think they were brave, but i feel they lost alot of fans, particularly the white t-shirt, Adidas Rome wearing, tight blue jeans, long haired, white trash who found double neck guitars more alluring than Jagger shaking asses with a big black dude in a afro wig.

That's brilliant stuff there. Reminds me of Christgau. Corgi says it was the Stones' period of homophobe-baiting, and Christgau blames (praises) their overall ethos of cynicism. But the result is the same: "...their following will never be as huge as the high-spirited Beatles (or of a techno-cosmic doomshow like Led Zeppelin, either)."

Yes, listening to a boot or listening to Love You Live isn't nearly as enjoyable as L&G.  But those '75 shows I've seen (love the LA Forum DVD) looked like a freakin' BLAST.  Fingerprint File live?  You bet.  Hand of Fate?  The sets were long and pretty solid.  And they did the best version of Brown Sugar ever.

Throwaway wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:11pm:

Yes, listening to a boot or listening to Love You Live isn't nearly as enjoyable as L&G.  But those '75 shows I've seen (love the LA Forum DVD) looked like a freakin' BLAST.  Fingerprint File live?  You bet.  Hand of Fate?  The sets were long and pretty solid.  And they did the best version of Brown Sugar ever.

sounds great up till the last line!!!

:aimama

Hard question, all the tours of the 70s were GREAT (in upper case), but to select one from 72 or 75 I will go for 72 (Mick Taylor and Nicky Hopkins together!!!)

'72 for me too.

Honky Tonk Man wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 5:40am:

1972 – though I would argue that he Euro/UK shows in ’73 were better. '75 is marred by Jagger's shouty vocals.

Agree with all of that. The pouting and arse wiggling erred on the wrong side of self-parody for me for the 1975-76 era.

'75 was much better than '76 though. The nadir of the Stones career as a performing act apart from parts of the last tour.

StickyStones wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 3:31am:

Off topic but does anyone know why, since 1989, the Stones have elected to perform very Vegas-y, big tours? I mean in '89, 1990, they were still fairly young men--Couldn't they still have rocked it like they did before?

They certainly werent considered that way in 1989. Like every tour from about the mid 70s on, they were performing at an age that was considered ancient by comparison with most other premier rock acts. (You have to get it in some kind of context - the first Stones concert I ever saw was in 1982, two days before Mick turned 39. Everyone I knew was convinced that this would be their last tour. It was considered inconceivable to put on an intense rock show for two hours once you turned 40. It sounds absurd now, but the logic was that if a footballer or any sportsman was considered past it by the time they were in their mid 30's, then it was inconceivable for a rock n roll performer to be bouncing about the stage like a hyperactive bunny when he got beyond that age)

My everlasting memory of that show at Slane Castle in 1982 is seeing him run the width of the stage at full speed during the penultimate song (Jumpin Jacl Flash) and thinking "You wont be able to do THAT in two years time, mate!". Twenty five years later I was at the same venue, two hours into the show and watching him sprint past me to the very end of the b stage and back again and remembering my naivety from a generation earlier.

To get back to the 'Vegasy' thing - presume you mean the way they've filled out the sound and added musicians etc. Basically, its an extension of what Jagger did on his '88 tour. Having a bigger band gives them more room for expanding the sound and making it sound more like the records - and sounding more like the original records (instead of reinventing themselves as performing artists year after year as some other acts have done) seems to be the plan that they chose to go for. I suppose its a bit of creative laziness, but I guess some people prefer this option.

mojoman wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 9:15pm:

Throwaway wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 8:11pm: Yes, listening to a boot or listening to Love You Live isn't nearly as enjoyable as L&G.  But those '75 shows I've seen (love the LA Forum DVD) looked like a freakin' BLAST.  Fingerprint File live?  You bet.  Hand of Fate?  The sets were long and pretty solid.  And they did the best version of Brown Sugar ever. sounds great up till the last line!!! :aimama

I know, it's a bit fast.  But when you listen to it now, you wonder who that guitarist is and what did he do with Ronnie?

Is there ever any chance of any of the 1975 shows ever officially being released on DVD?
I personally don't believe there is...But I'd love a more educated opinion.

Gazza wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 5:38pm:

StickyStones wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 3:31am: Off topic but does anyone know why, since 1989, the Stones have elected to perform very Vegas-y, big tours? I mean in '89, 1990, they were still fairly young men--Couldn't they still have rocked it like they did before? They certainly werent considered that way in 1989. Like every tour from about the mid 70s on, they were performing at an age that was considered ancient by comparison with most other premier rock acts. (You have to get it in some kind of context - the first Stones concert I ever saw was in 1982, two days before Mick turned 39. Everyone I knew was convinced that this would be their last tour. It was considered inconceivable to put on an intense rock show for two hours once you turned 40. It sounds absurd now, but the logic was that if a footballer or any sportsman was considered past it by the time they were in their mid 30's, then it was inconceivable for a rock n roll performer to be bouncing about the stage like a hyperactive bunny when he got beyond that age) My everlasting memory of that show at Slane Castle in 1982 is seeing him run the width of the stage at full speed during the penultimate song (Jumpin Jacl Flash) and thinking "You wont be able to do THAT in two years time, mate!". Twenty five years later I was at the same venue, two hours into the show and watching him sprint past me to the very end of the b stage and back again and remembering my naivety from a generation earlier. To get back to the 'Vegasy' thing - presume you mean the way they've filled out the sound and added musicians etc. Basically, its an extension of what Jagger did on his '88 tour. Having a bigger band gives them more room for expanding the sound and making it sound more like the records - and sounding more like the original records (instead of reinventing themselves as performing artists year after year as some other acts have done) seems to be the plan that they chose to go for. I suppose its a bit of creative laziness, but I guess some people prefer this option.

I can understand the context...but the shows lack that sort of raw, "we're druggy rock stars" intensity...you know what I mean? That, almost punk-like sleazy sort of edginess that for example the 1972 tour had. The guitars sound duller, somehow. I can't place it. It just feels sort of dull in comparison to the razor sharp attack of most of the '70s-1982.

And Mick's voice really changed between 1982 and 1989...In 1982 he sounded well like...Mick...But in 1989 and since then he's sounded like Mick but with a voice that's deeper.

IF they would release something from this period,my guess is,it would be Paris set on dvd.Maybe a live Cd from 75 with the box set.I prefer 75 tour,to me it defines perfect rock n roll swing.There was also big improvement on sound system,,and you can hear this from bootlegs.

Now if we get to the 89/90 tour, 3 things bug me, and it aint the "Vegas" part of it.

1. Jagger's haircut
2. The disgusting use of plastic guitars.
3. They didnt tour Australia.

corgi37 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 5:07am:

Now if we get to the 89/90 tour, 3 things bug me, and it aint the "Vegas" part of it. 1. Jagger's haircut 2. The disgusting use of plastic guitars. 3. They didnt tour Australia.

You probably would have forgiven the first 2 if they did the last one right? :willya

corgi37 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 5:07am:

Now if we get to the 89/90 tour, 3 things bug me, and it aint the "Vegas" part of it. 1. Jagger's haircut 2. The disgusting use of plastic guitars. 3. They didnt tour Australia.

The biggest crime of the lot was Matt Clifford's keyboard imitating a harmonica on 'Miss You'.

Every so often, just thinking about it brings me out in hives.

StickyStones wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 2:08am:

Is there ever any chance of any of the 1975 shows ever officially being released on DVD? I personally don't believe there is...But I'd love a more educated opinion.

Well, they're starting to open the vaults as of the last year or two.  'Some Girls' will be next.

'75-'76 just wouldnt be a high priority as its not see by too many people as an 'essential' or 'iconic' era in their history.

When they're done as a working band, I'd imagine that eventually you'll get archive material from pretty much every era.

My vote goes to 1975.  Better setlists, longer shows, greatest stage show ever.  Billy P was a great addition despite the "cock dance".  The earlier in the tour the better.

The 72 tour was my first Stones show, the last night of that tour at MSG & MICK's birthday. The band made a lasting impression on my young virgin mind! I fell in love with the 2 MICKS that night, they captured my attention and imagination sparking a life long obsession.  In 1975 when Ronnie was introduced, I watched the flatbed truck rolling down 5th Avenue in NYC playing Brown Sugar. Ronnie was very likable and more outgoing and amusing than Taylor.  The 1975 tour introduced the guitar weaving and Woody & Keef were rocking the stage looking very cool together. In 1975 MICK had became an acrobat, jumping, twirling and amping up his act.  72 setlists were short, 75 they were playing longer shows. I choose 1972 because it was my first and Mick T was special, but I think 75 was a better tour all around!