Quote
S.T.P
I guess most of it is already said, but anyway, after being away on a holyday trip and then actually catching up on all 26+ pages, I’d like to give it a try. LA Friday was one of my first boots, and I’ve always been thinking that the 1975 tour was their last really great one. The band still sound bluesy, and it’s pure gritty rock’n roll. To me this is using the possibilities that the official bootleg format gives. It’s perfect because it shows a performance with both ups and downs. It’s a straight forward full show with no overdubs, and at it’s best, it’s showing a band that’s really swinging. Ronnie is driving the band at times, and especially on GS. His solo on HTW is also wonderful, so is his base playing on Fingerprint. As Mick T. said in 5x25: “The Rolling Stones pulled out the best in me – as a guitar player”, and I think they did that at times with Ronnie too, and it can be heard on the 1975 tour of the Americas. Also, both Wood and Taylor, at their best, trigged the band to create that extra energy and vitality that only the Rolling Stones is capable of. I’m sure they could have picked an even better ’75 show, like some of those early shows in Buffalo or Toronto etc. Still, this is the real thing because at it’s best, the concert reveals a band that deliver pure magic and remind us why they are called “the greatest rock’n roll band in the world”. Considering God knows how many hours I’ve spent listening to this exact performance, it would be really strange if I got to hear another ’75 show in perfect boot sound before this one. Anyway, like many others, I don’t fully appreciate Jaggers approach. His singin on IE. the ’72-’73 tours is IMO fitting the songs much better. To me it just sounds like he’s not going for it all the way, as he did on the previous tours with Taylor. The whole band seems to be more caricature than real, but somehow it still works. I think Jaggers voice adds to the scandal effect – in a good way. This release is the real deal, and I hope they continue to release gems like it. There are plenty of boots that have the similar qualities, like El M. ’77, Sydney/Perth ’73 etc. I also hope that they make room for regular official releases that don’t fit into the bootleg category , such as Ladies and Gentlemen ’72. Everything seems possible now –keep’em coming!

Quote
dcba
"I find this to be the weakest of the releases"

So do I and bootleggers as early as 2001 (!) had the explanation. Look what the makers of the "Complete LA Friday Tapes" on Dandelion wrote in the booklet :
.....

"So until the Rolling Stones release their "best-of" from L.A.in official form"...

That's the key here : there's not one single 75 that's great from start to finish. There are weak spots (in great shows) or there are entire sequences of boredom (in bad shows).
They/Jagger should listened to all the L.A. shows and pick the best rendition for each song.
They could have labelled it "L.A. Redux" and everyone would have been fine!

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*OK you don't care. So just sit there and be happy. Us others are having a discussion cos we are interested.* (eric snow)

- yep, I don't really care when it comes to all this arguing and assessing about what gig was 'better,' what tour was 'better,' who is 'better' Ronnie or MT, none of it matters. its all subjective. one guy's worst gig or song version is another guys best, so its all futile and frankly, a boring read. what's it to you, anyway, what I think? ? I'm very interested, I've been a stones fan for over 35 years. are you even that old? there's good gigs, there's bad gigs, there's good tours, there's bad tours. some gigs have good parts, good sections, other sections in it are train wrecks. so what? its rock and roll and its not supposed to be perfect. all you guys arguing about the 'perfect' take, the 'perfect' version is hilarious to me. who cares? it is what it is. analyize your butts off it that's what you are all about, but me, i'll just take it as it is, listen and enjoy, the highs, the lows and the warts and all. its only rock and roll. peace.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*OK you don't care. So just sit there and be happy. Us others are having a discussion cos we are interested.* (eric snow)

- yep, I don't really care when it comes to all this arguing and assessing about what gig was 'better,' what tour was 'better,' who is 'better' Ronnie or MT, none of it matters. its all subjective. one guy's worst gig or song version is another guys best, so its all futile and frankly, a boring read. what's it to you, anyway, what I think? ? I'm very interested, I've been a stones fan for over 35 years. are you even that old? there's good gigs, there's bad gigs, there's good tours, there's bad tours. some gigs have good parts, good sections, other sections in it are train wrecks. so what? its rock and roll and its not supposed to be perfect. all you guys arguing about the 'perfect' take, the 'perfect' version is hilarious to me. who cares? it is what it is. analyize your butts off it that's what you are all about, but me, i'll just take it as it is, listen and enjoy, the highs, the lows and the warts and all. its only rock and roll. peace.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*I have the impression that some people here can never be satisfied, regardless of what you offer them. If they would release all shows ever in superb soundboard quality they would still find something to criticize... *

- agreed!! as far as a live act, the Stones still fill stadiums, no matter that they are approaching their 70th birthdays. over the last 50 years they've perfected the art of the concert; practically invented it. a Stones concert appearance is a still a major event, even now. or when it happens next. their 1969 tour proved that rock and roll can work in hockey arenas and their legendary tours of 1972 and even 1975 rank up amongst the greatest in rock history. sure, they weren't always firing on all cylinders, but so what? other times the performances are so great they literally bludgeon you into a state of bliss. I come here not to bury the Stones, but to praise them. I'm not about to join the chorus of the same tired cliches explaining why the Stones should hang up their rock`n'roll shoes - or complain that some tours and song versions in them were better than on other tours, or they're too old, they're too rich; or that they just don't matter anymore. or they can't play anymore. enough already. its irrelevant. all these arguments are crap. their relevance? the Stones' "relevance" is based on past accomplishments. and even if they are PAST accomplishments, they are accomplishments no rock band today or from yesterday will ever make, and I'll swear by that as surely as I'll swear that in 2015, 2020 or 2025 the opening riff from "Brown Sugar" (or "Satisfaction," or "The Last Time," or "Jumping Jack Flash" or many others) will still sound great, long after the current crop of today's hot modern rockers/flash in the pans and critical faves have faded into memory, nostalgia, and/or well-deserved oblivion. also, and importantly, the stones introduced us to the blues. yes they did. shut up and listen. they got their start as a bunch of British schoolboy upstarts playing blues and r&b (I'm not going to delineate their whole history; it's too well-known). but their taste was impeccable: Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, Slim Harpo, Solomon Burke. and frankly, to the white rock kids who got turned on by the Stones in the mid-sixties, kids too young to have been fired up by rockabilly and r&b in the 50's, for the most part, they were just as exotic. and it goes without saying that to successive generations, for whom hearing blues and r&b on the radio was something rare or even impossible, they were also exotic. For me, hearing the early Rolling Stones albums was my first introduction to this music. I would never have discovered Muddy or Bo Diddley or Chuck Berry or Howlin' Wolf or, for that matter, country music, if it hadn't been for the Stones. for that alone, I am forever in their debt. those artists gained a whole new audience thanks to the Stones. the Stones are not and were not the only white band to play the blues but they were, and remain, the best. I have no hesitation about saying that. yeah, fans will scream about their various faves from today and yesterday-- Paul Butterfield, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Joe Bonnamassa, Black Crowes, Blues Traveller, White Stripes, John Mayall, Fleetwood Mac w/ Peter Green), The Yardbirds, Canned Heat or The Animals, etc. and what about Eric Clapton? well... you can keep them. many of these people made fine music and many of them helped introduce the blues to a wider audience, but none of `em ever captured the feel of the blues the way the Stones did. Butterfield were at best as a jamming band, Stevie Ray owed a lot more to Jimi Henrix than Jimmy Reed, The Yardbirds were best at turning up the juice and freaking out, and Clapton... well, he's a fine guitarist and an okay vocalist, but none of his blues covers even comes close to the Stones, in my book, either as blues covers or even taken in their own right. one thing that set the Stones apart was their rhythm section, the finest ever in rock`n'roll. they understood how the music worked in a way that went much deeper than the superficialities that most white blues guys have keyed in on. the Stones are and always have been an outstanding group of musicians collectively. in the 60's so many of their songs just resonate in the memory banks and always will, or in the 70's where on "Loving Cup" and "Tumbling Dice" where Charlie just sounds so HUGE you can't possibly ignore him; Keith all over the place, punching out signature riffs that still hit the nervous system square on no matter how many times he's recycled them; Mick's harmonica playing just about every time he picks it up; Mick Taylor's soaring guitar lines; Ron Wood's bump`n'grind with Keith; and earlier on with Brian Jones' experiments with anything he could get his hands on. just the first quarter of their career represents a larger body of consistently excellent work than most artists ever produce in their entire careers. this is why I don't particularily care if 'they played such and such a song better on the '72 tour than on the 75 one.' or whatever. it doesnt matter to me. That's how much I am INTERESTED. and if I'm wrong, I'll eat my copy of Goat's Head Soup.

'everything all right in the critics section?'

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*I have the impression that some people here can never be satisfied, regardless of what you offer them. If they would release all shows ever in superb soundboard quality they would still find something to criticize... *

- agreed!! as far as a live act, the Stones still fill stadiums, no matter that they are approaching their 70th birthdays. over the last 50 years they've perfected the art of the concert; practically invented it. a Stones concert appearance is a still a major event, even now. or when it happens next. their 1969 tour proved that rock and roll can work in hockey arenas and their legendary tours of 1972 and even 1975 rank up amongst the greatest in rock history. sure, they weren't always firing on all cylinders, but so what? other times the performances are so great they literally bludgeon you into a state of bliss. I come here not to bury the Stones, but to praise them. I'm not about to join the chorus of the same tired cliches explaining why the Stones should hang up their rock`n'roll shoes - or complain that some tours and song versions in them were better than on other tours, or they're too old, they're too rich; or that they just don't matter anymore. or they can't play anymore. enough already. its irrelevant. all these arguments are crap. their relevance? the Stones' "relevance" is based on past accomplishments. and even if they are PAST accomplishments, they are accomplishments no rock band today or from yesterday will ever make, and I'll swear by that as surely as I'll swear that in 2015, 2020 or 2025 the opening riff from "Brown Sugar" (or "Satisfaction," or "The Last Time," or "Jumping Jack Flash" or many others) will still sound great, long after the current crop of today's hot modern rockers/flash in the pans and critical faves have faded into memory, nostalgia, and/or well-deserved oblivion. also, and importantly, the stones introduced us to the blues. yes they did. shut up and listen. they got their start as a bunch of British schoolboy upstarts playing blues and r&b (I'm not going to delineate their whole history; it's too well-known). but their taste was impeccable: Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, Slim Harpo, Solomon Burke. and frankly, to the white rock kids who got turned on by the Stones in the mid-sixties, kids too young to have been fired up by rockabilly and r&b in the 50's, for the most part, they were just as exotic. and it goes without saying that to successive generations, for whom hearing blues and r&b on the radio was something rare or even impossible, they were also exotic. For me, hearing the early Rolling Stones albums was my first introduction to this music. I would never have discovered Muddy or Bo Diddley or Chuck Berry or Howlin' Wolf or, for that matter, country music, if it hadn't been for the Stones. for that alone, I am forever in their debt. those artists gained a whole new audience thanks to the Stones. the Stones are not and were not the only white band to play the blues but they were, and remain, the best. I have no hesitation about saying that. yeah, fans will scream about their various faves from today and yesterday-- Paul Butterfield, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Joe Bonnamassa, Black Crowes, Blues Traveller, White Stripes, John Mayall, Fleetwood Mac w/ Peter Green), The Yardbirds, Canned Heat or The Animals, etc. and what about Eric Clapton? well... you can keep them. many of these people made fine music and many of them helped introduce the blues to a wider audience, but none of `em ever captured the feel of the blues the way the Stones did. Butterfield were at best as a jamming band, Stevie Ray owed a lot more to Jimi Henrix than Jimmy Reed, The Yardbirds were best at turning up the juice and freaking out, and Clapton... well, he's a fine guitarist and an okay vocalist, but none of his blues covers even comes close to the Stones, in my book, either as blues covers or even taken in their own right. one thing that set the Stones apart was their rhythm section, the finest ever in rock`n'roll. they understood how the music worked in a way that went much deeper than the superficialities that most white blues guys have keyed in on. the Stones are and always have been an outstanding group of musicians collectively. in the 60's so many of their songs just resonate in the memory banks and always will, or in the 70's where on "Loving Cup" and "Tumbling Dice" where Charlie just sounds so HUGE you can't possibly ignore him; Keith all over the place, punching out signature riffs that still hit the nervous system square on no matter how many times he's recycled them; Mick's harmonica playing just about every time he picks it up; Mick Taylor's soaring guitar lines; Ron Wood's bump`n'grind with Keith; and earlier on with Brian Jones' experiments with anything he could get his hands on. just the first quarter of their career represents a larger body of consistently excellent work than most artists ever produce in their entire careers. this is why I don't particularily care if 'they played such and such a song better on the '72 tour than on the 75 one.' or whatever. it doesnt matter to me. That's how much I am INTERESTED. and if I'm wrong, I'll eat my copy of Goat's Head Soup.

'everything all right in the critics section?'

wow.....now that was all over the place. I have no clue how any that relates to the Stones L.A. '75 Archive release but whatever....Nobody's questioning whether you're a fan of the band or not.

Quote
MileHigh

What I find is that they sound much better without the visuals! Mick's prancing around and slurring vocals and quasi-parody wasn't the "intense rock'n'roll Mick" that we love from the earlier tours. So watching him "slop around" for me somehow took away from the music. I don't know if that will make any sense to anybody else reading this.


MileHigh

Quote
midnrambler
I have the impression that some people here can never be satisfied, regardless of what you offer them. If they would release all shows ever in superb soundboard quality they would still find something to criticize...

Here's what I wished in December last year:
[www.iorr.org]
Somehow they heared me

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think you miss to mention songs like GS, ADTL, the best version ever of Heartbreaker, ditto of SFTD, the warhorses (which are all brilliant here, maybe with HTW as the exception) and GOOMC - all excellent versions, imo.

"best version ever of Heartbreaker, ditto of SFTD"

I've only recently come to terms with Mick's vocals on Heartbreaker, but BEST EVER VERSION? People,I dig your enthusiasm, but please let's not get carried away,stay reasonable. Ditto SFTD!

Please explain to me which Heartbreaker-version that is better, then. With better I mean playing-wise, and that swings the most.

No version from 1973 (or later) has better playing from TWO guitarists, surely not the versions from Brussels.

The funk session in the middle is unsurpassable.

This one is unsurpassed in my absolutely humble opinion (and with no intent at all to spoil anyone's fun; how could I anyway?)

Aah, now we agree. This indeed is the absolute best version. Actually, this one and Gimme Shelter, Happy and SFM from this show are absolute best versions ever. An exceptional night.

Mathijs

Well folks, this time Mathijs and kleermaker agree wholeheartedly!

Quote
Bricklayer
Well not be friends, we get a good '73 show (remember this is the year Keith's heroin habit kicked into high gear and Mick T. admitted being bored with the music), a '78 show?!?! ( a scrappy tour that had its' moments but please!), and now clunker from '75 (Ronnie admitted that he barely knew the songs on this tour).

Quote
Bricklayer
Like the rest of you I'm a huge fan who's spent a lot of time (probably too much time) listening to, reading about, thinking about, or trying play Stones music. So when the band announced the bootleg series I was intrigued.....imagine the possibilities! A plum from the '69 tour, a gem from the '70 tour, a nugget from the '71 tour, or a rarity from the '72 tour. Well not be friends, we get a good '73 show (remember this is the year Keith's heroin habit kicked into high gear and Mick T. admitted being bored with the music), a '78 show?!?! ( a scrappy tour that had its' moments but please!), and now clunker from '75 (Ronnie admitted that he barely knew the songs on this tour).

Obviously the Stones (like every band) have a far different take on their music than their fans do. Why not assemble the top twenty bloggers from this site to pick the next three releases?

Quote
falo01

Quote
Bricklayer
Like the rest of you I'm a huge fan who's spent a lot of time (probably too much time) listening to, reading about, thinking about, or trying play Stones music. So when the band announced the bootleg series I was intrigued.....imagine the possibilities! A plum from the '69 tour, a gem from the '70 tour, a nugget from the '71 tour, or a rarity from the '72 tour. Well not be friends, we get a good '73 show (remember this is the year Keith's heroin habit kicked into high gear and Mick T. admitted being bored with the music), a '78 show?!?! ( a scrappy tour that had its' moments but please!), and now clunker from '75 (Ronnie admitted that he barely knew the songs on this tour).

Obviously the Stones (like every band) have a far different take on their music than their fans do. Why not assemble the top twenty bloggers from this site to pick the next three releases?

I´m sure those top bloggers would definetly choose a 75 show....

Quote
monkeymark

Quote
Bricklayer
Well not be friends, we get a good '73 show (remember this is the year Keith's heroin habit kicked into high gear and Mick T. admitted being bored with the music), a '78 show?!?! ( a scrappy tour that had its' moments but please!), and now clunker from '75 (Ronnie admitted that he barely knew the songs on this tour).

The second show released was from the 1981 tour......

Quote
Bricklayer

Quote
monkeymark

Quote
Bricklayer
Well not be friends, we get a good '73 show (remember this is the year Keith's heroin habit kicked into high gear and Mick T. admitted being bored with the music), a '78 show?!?! ( a scrappy tour that had its' moments but please!), and now clunker from '75 (Ronnie admitted that he barely knew the songs on this tour).

The second show released was from the 1981 tour......

Thanks for the correction, I would term the '81 tour "sloppy".[/quote

no much good tours left then