Hi Gang-

A little something to discuss. Apologies if this has been pondered before.

Never been a huge fan of Got Live If You Want It until recently when I tried to really give it a good listen. I know there was a lot of studio enhancement done to this, but regardless of all that, one thing that really strikes me is how aggressive the "performances" really are.

The versions of a lot of these songs - Under My Thumb, Get Off My Cloud, The Last Time, even Not Fade Away - are like a blitzkrieg compared to the studio versions...from both an instrumental and vocal standpoint.

Could this be one of the first Punk records.....??????

To me this is the weakest album in the entire Rolling Stones catalog.

it could be, but it's not

Quote
T&A
it could be, but it's not

Funny, but this album turned a friend of mine on to the Stones - before that, he was the type of music fan who believed that good music simply did not exist before 1977!

I've always loved this album.

In spite of the two studio tracks with audience noise tacked on, it's still a massive dose of energy. Lots of little screw ups/timing glithches (what? a rock n' roll band not playing like the New York Philharmonic?), but Jagger's voice is so effortless and the band just attack the songs.

I wish they could have somehow reduced the annoying crowd screaming, but I say it's as ferocious as The Clash, Dolls, Replacements and and any of the best pure rock n' roll bands.

Whether or not it's "punk", defends on your definition of it. All the bands mentioned above I've always just considered great rock n' roll bands. "Punk" I've always considered to be an attitude, rather than a musical style, and by that definition the Stones were and still are a "punk" band. I guess...

nothing says punk like SOL

What's SOL again? (sorry, always have a tough time with the acronyms when I first join a board).

I know it means "shit outta luck", but I've got to mentally go through the Stones entire catologue to figure out what it means!

Streets of Love - AKA "The Punk Anthem"

The highlight on that album for me has got to be when Charlie join in on Lady Jane and The Last Time with "wrong" intro. I like it - the roughness and tension.

I guess that this album could be some kind of proto-punk.

Nice to hear all the kudos. This was the first Stones album I ever owned - got it in 1968 and it sealed my fate. I've been a Stones fan ever since and Got Live remains my favorite Stones album, even with all its flaws. The raw energy dominates all else for me. Hearing the speeded up versions of Last Time and 19th Nervous Breakdown remind me of just how much energy those guys put out back in the crazy and wild '60s.

Quote
T&A
Streets of Love - AKA "The Punk Anthem"

Ah, thanks.

I quite like Streets of Love, though it's not nearly as punk as Lady Jane or Anyway You Look at It.

Quote
Muppet HiFi
I've always loved this album.

In spite of the two studio tracks with audience noise tacked on, it's still a massive dose of energy. Lots of little screw ups/timing glithches (what? a rock n' roll band not playing like the New York Philharmonic?), but Jagger's voice is so effortless and the band just attack the songs.

I wish they could have somehow reduced the annoying crowd screaming, but I say it's as ferocious as The Clash, Dolls, Replacements and and any of the best pure rock n' roll bands.

Whether or not it's "punk", defends on your definition of it. All the bands mentioned above I've always just considered great rock n' roll bands. "Punk" I've always considered to be an attitude, rather than a musical style, and by that definition the Stones were and still are a "punk" band. I guess...

yeah what he said,,,

Quote
tonterapi
The highlight on that album for me has got to be when Charlie join in on Lady Jane and The Last Time with "wrong" intro. I like it - the roughness and tension.

I guess that this album could be some kind of proto-punk.

Could be? It IS the ultimate proto-punk.

Personally, I much prefer the two live tracks on December's Children ("Route 66" and "I'm Moving On") to anything on "Got Live...". To me, the two aforementioned songs, recorded in March 1965, are definitely "punkish".

I never really liked the Got Live LP. The EP on the other hand is just brilliant imo, and - along with the PAris 65-67 stuff - is a much better document of the mid-sixties live Stones.

The Stones have REALLY GOT TO DO SOMETHING NEW.

God DAMN this is bad.

Quote
skipstone
The Stones have REALLY GOT TO DO SOMETHING NEW.

God DAMN this is bad.

Don't hold your breath skipstone...

Quote
skipstone
The Stones have REALLY GOT TO DO SOMETHING NEW.

God DAMN this is bad.

which is bad- 'Got Live...' or the Stones just doing their standard same-old thing for a while now?

The Got Live EP and LP, along with The Kinks at Kelvin Hall, are both raw excellent documents of their time. The Kinks set might even be rawer than the Got Live releases.

Don't forget Five Live Yardbirds and The Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl.
No overdubs there. Just turn the amps up and go for it (like the Got Live EP).

I sure do like that loud, noisey, tuneful, catchy rock n' roll!

At least when they do something new it's real, as opposed to GLIYWI! So...yeah...gimme new Stones over that so called album.

Hell, gimme REWIND!

The 1965 ep of the same name is incredible .Route 66 is one of my alltime favourites...........oh let me hear you say yeah !

scuk

While not my favorite Stones' live album by any means, I still love this album.

One of the things I find the most striking about it is Bill & Brian's backup singing...absolutely stellar harmonies, and their singing has a weirdly 'psychedelic' energy to it...I don't know quite else how to describe it. I'll sometimes listen to this disc loud with headphones just to listen to their back up vocals closely.

In his "Stone Alone" book, Bill Wyman said that the Stones management in the late 60s told him and Brian to quit doing the back-up vocals, and let Keith take them over. If memory serves, Wyman said that as the seventies progressed, and the Glimmer Twins' persona emerged more prominently, he could see the marketing wisdom in this, but at the time it rankled him.

I love the sound and character of Keef's voice, but I think it was a shame that Bill & Brian quit doing backing vocals, they definitely had a good thing going there, as a close listen to GLIYWI demonstrates.

Got Live If You Want It is a cynical marketing ploy that was perpertrated by ALH. It's a studio album with an audience overdub.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

Personally, I think Jerry Lee Lewis' 'Wild One' might be the 1st Punk record.

"Got Live If You Want It - A predecessor to punk?"

A predecessor to amateur bootleg recordings I'd say

Quote
skipstone
The Stones have REALLY GOT TO DO SOMETHING NEW.

God DAMN this is bad.

...agree completely..

for the album to have any credibility the album needs a new mix with the live screaming mixed down , the fake live songs removed and the songs from the u.k. ep album added to the set.

It's a fine record but it was recorded at the time when producers still hadn't figured out how the live album should be recorded.Many of the songs are marred by terrible mix and audience's screaming turned up too high.The band sounds a bit too rushed but some of the faster and more rocking tracks like The Last time And 19th nervous breakdown even seem to benefit from it.On the other hand studio version of Under my Thumb is vastly superior for the very opposite reason.It's simply a song that requires a more detailed approach and less speed.

Anyway, I haven't listened to this album in quite a long time.I remember that I loved every second of it when I first got it but I think that the more I listened to it the more evident its flaws were.I think that the album should find its place in any stones collection but it could have been far better with a different mix.I don't have many bootlegs so I have no idea what the stones sounded like at the time other than the one based on Got live.I remember hearing some bootleg recorded at one of their club shows in 1964 or 1965 where they sounded far superior and technically proficient so I assume that they couldn't give their best in 1966 due to the fact that there was constant tension involved at their shows because of all the hysteria surrounding them.