I was listening to the deluxe reissue of Ya Yas today and I thought of a question I have long had regarding the choice of material at the time the original release was put together. There were so many great songs played in '69. Obviously there was the time limitation of vinyl records, but why leave off the blistering version of Satisfaction? Was it felt that that song was over-exposed already? Or just not "current" enough? (same with Under My Thumb/I'm Free). And TWO Chuck Berry songs? Was the intent to throw some publishing royalties Chuck's way? Just wondering if anyone can shed a little light on this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-03 05:13 by 71Tele.

I have always assumed it was because the song was not "current" enough, as you say. The music scene was moving at such an incredible speed in the mid-to-late 60s, and there was tremendous pressure to be at the vanguard of that (unless you were Dylan, who made his own rules). Note that the Beatles "Get Back" live project did not include an official release of revisited Lennon/McCartney hits.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-03 05:45 by bolexman.

Quote
bolexman
I have always assumed it was because the song was not "current" enough, as you say. The music scene was moving at such an incredible speed in the mid-to-late 60s, and there was tremendous pressure to be at the vanguard of that (unless you were Dylan, who made his own rules). Note that the Beatles "Get Back" live project did not include an official release of revisited Lennon/McCartney hits.

I don't think Get Back is a good comparison. The intent of Get Back was always to record a live album of new material while Ya Yas was a document of the 1969 tour.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-03 18:51 by stones78.

The two Berry covers were just probably a salute to the man. And the originals on the album are all 68/69 material. I guess Satisfaction wouldn't "fit"

Sorry about the double post, how can I delete it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-03 06:55 by stones78.

you can't delete it, but editing it to delete all the text would probably make it less confusing.


as for the topic, people sometimes say the old songs were avoided for royalty purposes. But weren't all Jagger/Richards songs under the same deal at this point?

the inclusion of 2 Berry numbers on single LP has always puzzled me, too. Not that I mind while I'm playing the record, but... as you say, it's a question of what's missed.

I always assumed that they left off Satisfaction and Under My Thumb because they had already released live versions of those songs on Got Live If You Want It!

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bolexman
I have always assumed it was because the song was not "current" enough, as you say. The music scene was moving at such an incredible speed in the mid-to-late 60s, and there was tremendous pressure to be at the vanguard of that (unless you were Dylan, who made his own rules). Note that the Beatles "Get Back" live project did not include an official release of revisited Lennon/McCartney hits.

I don't think Get Back is a good comparison. The intent of Get Back was always to record a live album of new material while Ya Yas was a document of the 1969 tour.

The reason you don't see the comparison is because you are discounting the influence of music trends at the time. By 1969 those artists were demonstrating the influence of both the London blues scene and the American roots revival. Whilst also, paradoxically, participating in counter-culture ideals (politics, fashion, philosophy). Basically, this meant there were lots of blues-rock live albums at the time. Major artists like The Who (Live At Leeds), The Beatles (Let It Be) and The Stones (GYYYO) focused on their recent original songs and threw in some rock covers. The old covers reflected the "roots" concern, and the recent original songs reflected the "counter culture" concerns. All those albums were created around the same time, just as all the psychedelic albums had been created at the same time. It was just a trend, that's all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-03 09:12 by bolexman.

All versions of Satisfaction from MSG we know off have Keith Richards fairly out of tune. This is of a lesser problem in a movie, but it will stick out like a sore thumb on record. Under My Thumb, I'm Free and the outtake of Carol also are a bit out of tune -it's that damn Ampeg Dan Armstrong that's so often out of tune!

And, the great version of Satisfaction from GS is actually two shows edited together.

Mathijs

I would say that had the Stones really wanted "Satisfaction" on there, they could have made it happen; seeing just how liberal they were about overdubbing . Granted - a lead guitar is a different animal than a vocal.
I see the reason more as "Satisfaction" and "Thumb" must have been part of the "old guard" to them; of Stones Mach I. This was Stones Mach II now; the new originals are obvious, and the Berry tunes have a very different feel from the Brian era Berry cuts - slower, the leads are a different kind of lead.

Concerning "Satisfaction": All of the three versions done in NY aren't faultless, either MJ sings out of tune or the guitar tuning isn't okay. UMT/I'm free: On Deluxe MJ sings out of tune, too. All the tracks need therefore vocal overdubs, "Satisfaction" guitar overdubbing, too. But I think it's essential that they want to make their blues and old Rock'n Roll profile more prominent. This is the reason why the select the Berry tracks and LIV.

In general I've never understood the decision to select only material (except LIV) from the NY gigs. Some concerts of this tour are essentially better than the three ones in NY, e.g. the show in Boston.

happy NY to you all...

this was discussed about a year ago I think...great topic.

Can't understand why Satisfaction was left off the album (arguably the band's best song on the tour). Perhaps Mathijs points are relevant, but someone believed (in the initial thread) the duration of the album put this song off the record - Midnight R & Sympathy were givens for the record already...a third "long song" would not fit.

Personally one of the Berry songs should go for either UMT or Satisafaction.

Be nice to know what the thought process was for picking the songs for the album.

Quote
RobertJohnson

In general I've never understood the decision to select only material (except LIV) from the NY gigs. Some concerts of this tour are essentially better than the three ones in NY, e.g. the show in Boston.

They only recorded part of Baltimore and the three New York gigs for a future release.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs
All versions of Satisfaction from MSG we know off have Keith Richards fairly out of tune. This is of a lesser problem in a movie, but it will stick out like a sore thumb on record. Under My Thumb, I'm Free and the outtake of Carol also are a bit out of tune -it's that damn Ampeg Dan Armstrong that's so often out of tune!


Mathijs

I wonder why Keith never changed to another guitar while he knew the ADA is getting out of tune in advance,in front of so many people and gigs??
He even didn't try to get it in tune during a song. At least I never saw it.

He could have switched to a Tele,Strat, or a Les Paul.
Adjusting the g-string mostly does the trick.

Quote
bolexman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bolexman
I have always assumed it was because the song was not "current" enough, as you say. The music scene was moving at such an incredible speed in the mid-to-late 60s, and there was tremendous pressure to be at the vanguard of that (unless you were Dylan, who made his own rules). Note that the Beatles "Get Back" live project did not include an official release of revisited Lennon/McCartney hits.

I don't think Get Back is a good comparison. The intent of Get Back was always to record a live album of new material while Ya Yas was a document of the 1969 tour.

The reason you don't see the comparison is because you are discounting the influence of music trends at the time. By 1969 those artists were demonstrating the influence of both the London blues scene and the American roots revival. Whilst also, paradoxically, participating in counter-culture ideals (politics, fashion, philosophy). Basically, this meant there were lots of blues-rock live albums at the time. Major artists like The Who (Live At Leeds), The Beatles (Let It Be) and The Stones (GYYYO) focused on their recent original songs and threw in some rock covers. The old covers reflected the "roots" concern, and the recent original songs reflected the "counter culture" concerns. All those albums were created around the same time, just as all the psychedelic albums had been created at the same time. It was just a trend, that's all.

That's a much broader point, and I understand it, but not really what I was asking about.

Quote
Mathijs
All versions of Satisfaction from MSG we know off have Keith Richards fairly out of tune. This is of a lesser problem in a movie, but it will stick out like a sore thumb on record. Under My Thumb, I'm Free and the outtake of Carol also are a bit out of tune -it's that damn Ampeg Dan Armstrong that's so often out of tune!

And, the great version of Satisfaction from GS is actually two shows edited together.

Mathijs

Good point. He was really out of tune a lot on that tour! But why put two Chuck Berry songs on a document of the 1969 tour?

I assume that the biggest reason for leaving "Satisfaction/Under My Thumb/I'm Free" out was not them being current enough. The point of YA-YA'S was to emphasize the current, post-Jumpin' Jack Flash nature of the band which doesn't look back. Besides, "Satisfaction" and "Under My Thumb" were profilic numbers of GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! which had just relaesed three years earlier in the US market. Like said, there was too much Mach I in them...

The inclusion of two Berry mumbers is still a it bit odd though. Perhaps that was something to do with the "greatest rock and roll band of the world" claim, and making some kind of statement of historical continuum with the origin of their music. That despite that they had just opened a new fascinating page in rock music, they wanted to show that they knew where they come from, and they still were loyal to their roots (a kind of thing Lennon would do later with his ROCK&ROLL album). Besides, those Berry numbers make an interesting contrast to the red and hot brandnew 68-69 material! Great decision, in any case.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-03 15:19 by Doxa.

It seems it's mostly Mick Taylor's guitar that is out of tune from the MSG spliced together version of Satisfaction, and it appears it's mostly him noodling around with the main lead parts of the song. In fact you can see him trying to re-tune his guitar during the video at the 3:40 mark in the video. Despite the somewhat out of tune guitar, which is fairly common for Stones recordings - even studio takes, it's a truly blistering version of the song and should have been included on the album.

Should have included the link:

Quote
Doxa
I assume that the biggest reason for leaving "Satisfaction/Under My Thumb/I'm Free" out was not them being current enough. The point of YA-YA'S was to emphasize the current, post-Jumpin' Jack Flash nature of the band which doesn't look back. Besides, "Satisfaction" and "Under My Thumb" were profilic numbers of GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! which had just relaesed three years earlier in the US market. Like said, there was too much Mach I in them...

The inclusion of two Berry mumbers is still a it bit odd though. Perhaps that was something to do with the "greatest rock and roll band of the world" claim, and making some kind of statement of historical continuum with the origin of their music. That despite that they had just opened a new fascinating page in rock music, they wanted to show that they knew where they come from, and they still were loyal to their roots (a kind of thing Lennon would do later with his ROCK&ROLL album). Besides, those Berry numbers make an interesting contrast to the red and hot brandnew 68-69 material! Great decision, in any case.

- Doxa

Agree with your view here. I'd say it was artistic considerations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-03 15:33 by bolexman.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bolexman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bolexman
I have always assumed it was because the song was not "current" enough, as you say. The music scene was moving at such an incredible speed in the mid-to-late 60s, and there was tremendous pressure to be at the vanguard of that (unless you were Dylan, who made his own rules). Note that the Beatles "Get Back" live project did not include an official release of revisited Lennon/McCartney hits.

I don't think Get Back is a good comparison. The intent of Get Back was always to record a live album of new material while Ya Yas was a document of the 1969 tour.

The reason you don't see the comparison is because you are discounting the influence of music trends at the time. By 1969 those artists were demonstrating the influence of both the London blues scene and the American roots revival. Whilst also, paradoxically, participating in counter-culture ideals (politics, fashion, philosophy). Basically, this meant there were lots of blues-rock live albums at the time. Major artists like The Who (Live At Leeds), The Beatles (Let It Be) and The Stones (GYYYO) focused on their recent original songs and threw in some rock covers. The old covers reflected the "roots" concern, and the recent original songs reflected the "counter culture" concerns. All those albums were created around the same time, just as all the psychedelic albums had been created at the same time. It was just a trend, that's all.

That's a much broader point, and I understand it, but not really what I was asking about.

Hmmm. I thought you asked why they left off Satisfaction and included two Chuck Berry numbers...? So just to clarify- what are you asking about?

Quote
71Tele
I was listening to the deluxe reissue of Ya Yas today and I thought of a question I have long had regarding the choice of material at the time the original release was put together.

Probably the simple answer for Satisfaction and Thumb is that these two were already included in the Got Live album, which at the time was hardly 3 and 1/2 years old.

What I never understood is why was Devil kept so early in the set list (here the Ya Ya's set list makes more sense). And, second, how could the band turn down from the super excitement of Devil to the slowed down tempo of stray cat? Bho!

C

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs
All versions of Satisfaction from MSG we know off have Keith Richards fairly out of tune. This is of a lesser problem in a movie, but it will stick out like a sore thumb on record. Under My Thumb, I'm Free and the outtake of Carol also are a bit out of tune -it's that damn Ampeg Dan Armstrong that's so often out of tune!

And, the great version of Satisfaction from GS is actually two shows edited together.

Mathijs

Good point. He was really out of tune a lot on that tour! But why put two Chuck Berry songs on a document of the 1969 tour?

I guess they simply really liked these numbers and these versions! They would continue to play lots of Berry until '73, with BBJ, Roll Over Beethoven, LQ, Let it Rock. And don't forget, the original idea was a double album that included You Gotta Move and Prodigal Son, two more covers.

Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
I was listening to the deluxe reissue of Ya Yas today and I thought of a question I have long had regarding the choice of material at the time the original release was put together. There were so many great songs played in '69. Obviously there was the time limitation of vinyl records, but why leave off the blistering version of Satisfaction? Was it felt that that song was over-exposed already? Or just not "current" enough? (same with Under My Thumb/I'm Free). And TWO Chuck Berry songs? Was the intent to throw some publishing royalties Chuck's way? Just wondering if anyone can shed a little light on this.

interesting question but it might have a simple answer.

maybe it's like a painter......his favorite color might be blue....but he doesn't choose to use it in every painting.
know what i mean?

the intent was probably a nice single album to document the tour...so it featured things unique to that
tour which hung together nicely on one record. unlike LOVE YOU LIVE with tried to include everything.
(just an opinion)

but i am surprised that other songs (satisfaction & umt) didn't surface as b-sides.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-03 17:35 by sweet neo con.

Everyone seems to be making a valid point. But I wish that had put them on. I happen to like the verions of UMT and Satisfaction very much from what I saw and heard on Gimme Shelter . Under my Thumb was just a haunting version from ther movie but I love the grove they did on it.

Good question Tele, and let's not forget the 1970 tour had even more Berry(-like) songs (Live With Me included). Both the 1972 and certainly the European 1973 Tour have considerably less 'Berry'. I think because it was really too much out of time in those years. But still I'm surprised they had so much Berry(-like) songs in their 1969 and 1970 setlists. Actually those were anachronistic songs at that time to include and their number on Ya Ya's (3 of 10) is quite much and an over-representation imo.

They certainly could have included Satisfaction, because they played a modernized version during the 69 tour, and especially the slow, Oakland-like version of I'm Free with Taylor's meandering guitar would have fit very well, song-wise and in the spirit of the time. Also Gimme Shelter would have been an excellent choice.

I think the opening riff on "Satisfaction" is horrible throughout the 69 tour and does not have the sound or feel of the studio version. It makes me cringe.

Quote
bolexman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bolexman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bolexman
I have always assumed it was because the song was not "current" enough, as you say. The music scene was moving at such an incredible speed in the mid-to-late 60s, and there was tremendous pressure to be at the vanguard of that (unless you were Dylan, who made his own rules). Note that the Beatles "Get Back" live project did not include an official release of revisited Lennon/McCartney hits.

I don't think Get Back is a good comparison. The intent of Get Back was always to record a live album of new material while Ya Yas was a document of the 1969 tour.

The reason you don't see the comparison is because you are discounting the influence of music trends at the time. By 1969 those artists were demonstrating the influence of both the London blues scene and the American roots revival. Whilst also, paradoxically, participating in counter-culture ideals (politics, fashion, philosophy). Basically, this meant there were lots of blues-rock live albums at the time. Major artists like The Who (Live At Leeds), The Beatles (Let It Be) and The Stones (GYYYO) focused on their recent original songs and threw in some rock covers. The old covers reflected the "roots" concern, and the recent original songs reflected the "counter culture" concerns. All those albums were created around the same time, just as all the psychedelic albums had been created at the same time. It was just a trend, that's all.

That's a much broader point, and I understand it, but not really what I was asking about.

Hmmm. I thought you asked why they left off Satisfaction and included two Chuck Berry numbers...? So just to clarify- what are you asking about?

OK, never mind. You threw me off with "Get Back". My fault.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bolexman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bolexman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bolexman
I have always assumed it was because the song was not "current" enough, as you say. The music scene was moving at such an incredible speed in the mid-to-late 60s, and there was tremendous pressure to be at the vanguard of that (unless you were Dylan, who made his own rules). Note that the Beatles "Get Back" live project did not include an official release of revisited Lennon/McCartney hits.

I don't think Get Back is a good comparison. The intent of Get Back was always to record a live album of new material while Ya Yas was a document of the 1969 tour.

The reason you don't see the comparison is because you are discounting the influence of music trends at the time. By 1969 those artists were demonstrating the influence of both the London blues scene and the American roots revival. Whilst also, paradoxically, participating in counter-culture ideals (politics, fashion, philosophy). Basically, this meant there were lots of blues-rock live albums at the time. Major artists like The Who (Live At Leeds), The Beatles (Let It Be) and The Stones (GYYYO) focused on their recent original songs and threw in some rock covers. The old covers reflected the "roots" concern, and the recent original songs reflected the "counter culture" concerns. All those albums were created around the same time, just as all the psychedelic albums had been created at the same time. It was just a trend, that's all.

That's a much broader point, and I understand it, but not really what I was asking about.

Hmmm. I thought you asked why they left off Satisfaction and included two Chuck Berry numbers...? So just to clarify- what are you asking about?

OK, never mind. You threw me off with "Get Back". My fault.

well, bxman's theory is still somewhat too broad-- it's valid but so broad as to explain virtually any song being on the album. It doesn't account for having 2 Chuck Berry songs, which to me is the main mystery. Wouldn't one have satisfied the "roots" concern? Also, the Who's Live at Leeds includes old originals, like "My Generation" and "Substitute," clashing with the theory.

it's true that there was a roots revival at the end of the '60s (Sha Na Na at Woodstock) but that doesn't explain 2 nearly identical songs on this Stones live album.

Tele, it's a fair question about the 2 Berry numbers, but I sure am glad we got both.