I am not a fan of bootlegs anymore but I did have a copy of Liver Than You'll Ever Be once. However it was of very poor sound quality. I have since heard alt least one other copy which sounded a lot better. In 1969, there was an AM radio station near my family's cottage which use to play unusual stuff at night. I remember hearing live Stones from the '69 tour from bootlegs. Great days! They certainly had most of their best albums with Mick Taylor on board. Great story about Mick Taylor. Some years ago, a guy who had a cottage in Muskoka, Ontario (a popular area for summer cottages) who use to organize small concerts, once signed Mick Taylor to play. Unfortunately It didn't come to pass as I think Mick was experiencing health problems at the time.
Don't see Beggars as any sort of return to their roots. It was as radical a departure from their 64-66 sound as Satanic Majesties was. What had they done based on an acoustic country blues sound before that? Let It Bleed brought them closer to their 64-66 sound IMO, though updated with more modern electric guitar sounds.
I don't know if its one or the other. BB>LiB was a hell of a one-two punch, and as others have noted, the JJF single sealed the deal.
Beggars Banquet...there was even a big write-up on it in Time magazine. LIB is my least favorite album from their classic album yrs. After Shelter & Rambler it's kinda boring to me. Something missing. Was probably a combination of things. Resume touring, JJF, Beggars, LIB, HT Woman...Beatles broke up.
Little Red Rooster, I Can't Be Satisfied, Mona, Honest I, Do King Bee, Confessin The Blues, Time Is On My Side, Good Times Bad Times, Pain In My Heart, Heart Of Stone, Down Home Girl, Thats How Strong My Love, Is Cry To Me, Play With Fire this was their r n b at the start...blues largely due to Brian......Brian was the roots guy way more than any of them I think Mick and Keith got there because of Brian....and left there because of Brian....he liked the blues the classic blues....and much of British movement of those times was blues tunes with electric instruments but the problem, at least to Mick and Keith...and Andrew....was blues and blues/rock covers only get you so far....most people do not want to hear it over and over...that was one of Jeremy Spencers problems in The Mac....nobody wants to here 4 Elmore James songs in a row...heard 1 heard them all after a while. Greeny and Danny loved blues...but were smart, experimental.....and could write....as Mick and Keith found they could write. The Brians and Jeremys of the world that couldn't write....could only play along as sidemen. Brian was a great multi instrumentalist, so he added so much flair to the songs Mick and Keith wrote....but he was not happy with the pop music...again he loved being the blond handsome pop star that he was....he was a dandy in a band of uglies....yet at the same time he was a lovely little petunia in an onion patch! They hit that power pop single period and went too far (though it was trendy at the time) with SM....they were anything but a SF acid band...or a Sgt Pepper style band....so they do Beggars which got them back to their roots....with some acoustic but electric as well....Sympathy Stray Cat Jigsaw....Shelter Rambler Monkey Man Live with Me....this was their roots coming through but not covers...THEIR music they wrote as influenced by their beginnings.....with Mick Taylor their music took off....Mick and Keith found that niche again with Beggars...and Brian, when sober probably enjoyed much of it....it was a new beginning that expanded through LIB YYs Sticky and Exile....with Mick Taylor adding the brilliance that Brian added during his time....Brian on many instruments....Mick T on the one that combined with Micks lyrics Keefs riffs, Charlie Bill....and Bobby Jim P and Nicky Hopkins They were at the crossroads with Beggars....yes TSMR charted....but how many of those song were they gonna do live...2000 and Rainbow much much much later...but was Bill gonna sing In Another Land....were they going to do Gomper Citadel.....its a good listenable album...but this was not the Stones....I think they all hated it....its Beatles Pepper to the extreme...on some really strong acid...its much more out there and unstructured than SP....and nowhere near that masterpiece...its ok...I like it but I'm not enthralled with it!!!! At this point they were popular....well liked....don't know if they were made....but they would not be the legends they are today without the return to their r n b blues rock based roots, a return to touring...on a much larger scale...(they were the first) and playing to audiences that came to listen to the music (not teeny boppers throwing candy crying screaming peeing in their pants) with great songs and music meant to be played live with an incredible band, great rhythm section, great additonal players that really filled out the sound, a performer out front....and the meanest one two punch dialed up locked in with MT and Keith.....they never go as far as they have without Taylor....he added the final ingredient that powered them from a really good band to TGRRBITW from 69 to 73....JMO
For me, Beggars Banquet elevated the Stones to the level of "brilliant". Let It Bleed proved that BB wasn't a fluke. So for me it was LIB that "made" the Stones - assured their place in the top five of classic rock bands. Sticky Fingers only further cemented that position.
Great question. I'll bet the general public says Beggar's Banquet was a better, more iconic album. But my money and opinion much favors Let It Bleed. That was actually the last Stones album that I liked. I never liked and never bought Beggar's Banquet. The British Rolling Stones No. 2 album is still my favorite.
While I think that the groups output up to Beggars Banquet was very good music, I do think that they had gone about as far as they could go with the original lineup. Brian was destined, almost determined to die....and they were really up against the wall, coming off the making of TSMR. It charted, and its ok, but you were not going to take it on the road, and I think that was the plan in 1968, to get prepared to get back out there playing live. I have never thought of The Stones as a studio band; they have made some good studio albums, and Beggars to Exile are great studios..(along with YYs live) but the plan is always for album and tour....been at it for long time since Beggars; 85-88 a lull. Regardless of the album they make....you want to see them live...thats their arena; as good as it gets. I think that's what McCartney meant when he called them a bar band....that's them playing live....and he wished he could have gotten his band to play live; it was never their cup of tea. Brian made some really nice contributions to Beggars but it was the end for him. There had to be a change as he was so out of it there was no way for him to even think of going on the road; his mental and physical health was irreversible, and he could not have gotten a visa due to drug legal problems. so they have the tunes from Beggars and LIB ready for the road; they got to have a guitar player. MT was THE perfect fit for them; I do not know who else would have fit in so easily. I do think this; had Brian pulled out of his nosedive and gotten back to his old form, or had he been replaced by anyone else, 1969 tour does not happen, and 69-73 era that DID make them as a result of the springboard from JJF Beggars HTW and LIB never happens. Taylor was the piece that makes 1969-1973-74 their legacy. This is when they really rose to the top. I cannot see Sticky YaYas or Exile being what they are with anyone else......Brian and Keith or Keith and any other player...and the live shows from 69-73 that vaulted them to Olympus would not have happened. It had to be Taylor, the lps and singles mentioned, the band and supporting musicians, and Mick and Keiths songs......the perfect storm the perfect mix that made them the GRRBITW.
Both albums are indispensable. I find myself gravitating towards BB more. It’s just so nasty. But if you asked me what album embodies all things Rolling Stones, I’d have to say Let It Bleed with Sticky Fingers coming in a close second.
I wasn’t there, but my understanding is that instead of fading into obscurity after the less than loved at the time Satanic Majesties and failed attempt to ride off the psychedelic era trend, they bounced back big with Jumpin Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet. That was the key turning point. Let it Bleed and all their other successful output after 1968 just solidified their status but Beggars Banquet was the x-factor not Let it Bleed
The only fundamentally correct answer. The singles forced the visibility of "Let It Bleed." And it was those two singles that lit the fuse for the 1969-onward rocket ship of The Rolling Stones. They took over the vacancy left by The Beatles and pushed forward as hard as anybody ever has, commanding the attention of the music world and the media.
For the purists, BB was a significant step in The Stones returning to form after the psychedelic adventures if the previous period. Not only did it bring them back to form stylistically , it took them to a whole other level as writers and as a studio band. The question was whether or not they could sustain this next level of “artistry”; they answered this question with LIB.
Jagger on the direction early 1968. Sideways On the phone with Tokyo When will you tour Japan? (1990) They didn't tour between recording these albums.... Who knows when the Let it Bleed songs were written Gimmie Shelter during the filming of Performance in 1968 You Can' Always Get was performed on The Circus in 1968
I don’t think the Stones were at a “make or break” point with either of those albums. However, I would argue that the turning point for the band, in terms of becoming a truly great band, was not Beggar’s Banquet or Let It Bleed, but the single Jumping Jack Flash.
True. I also rate LiB > BB Usual suspects 1 Exile 2 SF 3 LiB + single 4 BB +single "With the single they are all equally good."
I think they were good and made good music...and they were the flip side of The Beatles....they were bad guys...punks....and only Lennon was kinda a punk....or at least wanted to be.....but they had not found their real identity......they lived in the shadow of The Beatles and everyone reminded them of that..r nad b early on to The Beatles pop....then the power pop singles like them...then TSMR.....but come JJ Flash Beggars Honky Tonk Let It Bleed....the critical addition of MT and the barnstorming 69 tour....The Beatles were waning and Bob was out in the country....they blew by both of them to assume their rightful crown as The Greatest Rock and Roll Band In The World......nobody played rock music like them from 69-73.....they were the rightful heirs to the throne ....The Beatles and Bob could only wish they could rock as hard as the boys from 69-73....The Stones.....yes just a bar band.....but the greatest bar band ever....they assumed the role of the mighty....JMO
Ya, I don't usually compare the Beatles and Stones (I know you weren't either,) they were both great, but the Stones were a Rock band. The Mick Taylor era was the best (imo).
Or was it the end of a wonderful trajectory? The Brian era was the tack off and leaving our atmosphere with Satanic. Beggars through to Exile brought them to the zenith or their crest and then they peaked and slowly turned and headed back to earth. Now they are an oldies tour, but the best one ever.
