Quote
Koen

Quote
Gazza
How are non-US fans hearing this show when its only available on google music in the US until it's available via the stonesarchive.com site?

There are preview clips on GM, or are those also not accesible for non-US surfers?

I thought, and I could be wrong, that the entire site was just off-limits to non-US surfers. When Hampton came out some non-US fans were accusing us of playing a prank and didn't believe it was really Hampton '81 as the next show as they had yet to hear anything. We tried to link them to the page and they couldn't access it, so I put up some screenshots to show them the page Hampton '81 was on.

Quote
Koen

Quote
Gazza
How are non-US fans hearing this show when its only available on google music in the US until it's available via the stonesarchive.com site?

There are preview clips on GM, or are those also not accesible for non-US surfers?

We cant access them at all.

i cant get this till tomorrow, but can anyone share any photos of this show to get me in the mood?
thank you!

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Koen

Quote
Gazza
How are non-US fans hearing this show when its only available on google music in the US until it's available via the stonesarchive.com site?

There are preview clips on GM, or are those also not accesible for non-US surfers?

We cant access them at all.

Tuesday it is available to us. Can't wait



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-02 23:21 by barbabang.

Quote
flairville
This has already been listed on another thread but MRD8 at Rocks Off has confirmed it as LA 75. It's available on Google Music now, sadly anyone outside the US cant even have a look.
Screen shots etc will be greatly received! I must also eat humble pie as I was adamant they'd never release a 75 show.

I live in the US and went to GM. I don't see it on the site nor on stonesarchive Can you post the link ?

[play.google.com].

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
Gazza

How are non-US fans hearing this show when its only available on google music in the US until it's available via the stonesarchive.com site?

I guess somebody is sharing it.

What?!
Who would do such a thing!

Quote
crumbling_mice
As a matter of interest, how much are they charging for it in the US? Does anyone know what they will charge in the UK?

According to what I see on my screen, it's 99 cents a song but $4.99 for the entire thing (??!!?).

Great sound. Wow. They even kept the botched version of Happy. Ron Wood sounds fantastic.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
mickijaggeroo

Save your complaints about others untill you are get degraded to joining the traffic force. Opinions are ALL THAT MATTERS when it comes to music.

School lectures and messageboard-authorities when it comes to music-opinions make me wanna puke.

I'm not complaing BTW. I love the LA Sunday show.

Sorry you took it personal, it was a bit of a joke, since there´s people complaining that have´nt heard it yet..well, well...

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Quote
tomk

Quote
crumbling_mice
As a matter of interest, how much are they charging for it in the US? Does anyone know what they will charge in the UK?

According to what I see on my screen, it's 99 cents a song but $4.99 for the entire thing (??!!?).

Great sound. Wow. They even kept the botched version of Happy. Ron Wood sounds fantastic.

They have all followed that pricing, haven't they?

Nice way to start my lunch break. I'm so excited and I just can't hide it.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker
The mix of the Brussels official isn't good, it's worse than the bootleg Brussels. It's flat and it doesn't breath. Besides Taylor is too low in the mix. I'm not the only one who noticed that. It's also not a very good show, compared to Rotterdam, the first Brussels, some London shows, Berlin and even more.

Recall your own words when you said that Brussels second was inferior, before it was an official bootleg. You forgot that the moment it was officially released. Well, what happened to your ears?

Your remark that Taylor doesn't add much when he's not playing lead is the biggest nonsense I ever heard (not to say bollocks). It's only much too low in the mix.

It's actually quite funny that you even copy my text (bollocks) and opinions (Berlin, London and first Brussels being better).

Anyway, where you do get wrong is that I said the second Brussels was inferior. What I said is that I think the bootlegs as we knew them so well are better as they feature a mix of shows -they took the best performances of various shows, like GS, Heartbreaker, Happy and SFM from the Wembley show, and some songs simply are better from the 1st show, like Dancing WMD. I also said that you have to get used to the new songs, as we've been listening to the first show for 25 years.

But what I said is that the official Brussels release really is and was the best thing we could ever hope for -an excellent 1973 show in superb quality. The mix is fantastic in my opinion, with everything bright and clear. Taylor certainly isn't down in the mix -in fact, he is louder in the mix than on most boots. All his little fills and riffs can finally be heard properly. And yes, I am of the opinion that Taylor was a fantastic lead player, but not much of a rhythm guitar player. His rhythm guitar playing actually is quite absent on tracks like Happy, Mr. D., Brown Sugar and RTJ. I prefer the drive Wood ads to Midnight Rambler by teaming up with Richards wih the main riff, over what Taylor did rhythmically with Rambler -Taylor added not much until he could play lead over the middle section.

Mathijs

Here we go again with Taylor not being a good rhythm player, leaving out of course Ya-Ya's, "Bitch", his great playing on "Let It Rock" and the other Berry tunes, "Shake Your Hips", etc., etc. yeah, he was simply a terrible rhythm player. Horrible.

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
Gazza

How are non-US fans hearing this show when its only available on google music in the US until it's available via the stonesarchive.com site?

I guess somebody is sharing it.

What?!
Who would do such a thing!

It's no hanging matter. It's no capital crime.

Like this version of Wild Horses. It's interesting with the mid-70's Fingerprint File-ish flange sound. Maybe not the sound I would have gone with, but it's different.

And just for reference: [www.rollingstonesnet.com]

Mick seems to be saying "C'mon muthafucka(s)" quite a bit in this show. Was Buddy Guy at this show or something?

>"Mick seems to be saying "C'mon muthafucka(s)" quite a bit in this show. Was Buddy Guy at this show or something? "




lol. he says that on TD on brussels too. I guess it was an early to mid 70's thing



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-02 22:36 by ryanpow.

Quote
ryanpow
>"Mick seems to be saying "C'mon muthafucka(s)" quite a bit in this show. Was Buddy Guy at this show or something? "




lol. he says that on TD on brussels too. I guess it was an early to mid 70's thing

Yeah, I've heard that. He's said it 3-4 times in this show so far I think, and I have 6 songs to go.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker
The mix of the Brussels official isn't good, it's worse than the bootleg Brussels. It's flat and it doesn't breath. Besides Taylor is too low in the mix. I'm not the only one who noticed that. It's also not a very good show, compared to Rotterdam, the first Brussels, some London shows, Berlin and even more.

Recall your own words when you said that Brussels second was inferior, before it was an official bootleg. You forgot that the moment it was officially released. Well, what happened to your ears?

Your remark that Taylor doesn't add much when he's not playing lead is the biggest nonsense I ever heard (not to say bollocks). It's only much too low in the mix.

It's actually quite funny that you even copy my text (bollocks) and opinions (Berlin, London and first Brussels being better).

Anyway, where you do get wrong is that I said the second Brussels was inferior. What I said is that I think the bootlegs as we knew them so well are better as they feature a mix of shows -they took the best performances of various shows, like GS, Heartbreaker, Happy and SFM from the Wembley show, and some songs simply are better from the 1st show, like Dancing WMD. I also said that you have to get used to the new songs, as we've been listening to the first show for 25 years.

But what I said is that the official Brussels release really is and was the best thing we could ever hope for -an excellent 1973 show in superb quality. The mix is fantastic in my opinion, with everything bright and clear. Taylor certainly isn't down in the mix -in fact, he is louder in the mix than on most boots. All his little fills and riffs can finally be heard properly. And yes, I am of the opinion that Taylor was a fantastic lead player, but not much of a rhythm guitar player. His rhythm guitar playing actually is quite absent on tracks like Happy, Mr. D., Brown Sugar and RTJ. I prefer the drive Wood ads to Midnight Rambler by teaming up with Richards wih the main riff, over what Taylor did rhythmically with Rambler -Taylor added not much until he could play lead over the middle section.

Mathijs

Here we go again with Taylor not being a good rhythm player, leaving out of course Ya-Ya's, "Bitch", his great playing on "Let It Rock" and the other Berry tunes, "Shake Your Hips", etc., etc. yeah, he was simply a terrible rhythm player. Horrible.

The Berry-tunes are not a good example of good rhythm playing from Taylor, imo. The Stones are different than other rock bands rhythm-wise. Taylor is not, imo, and that is evident on the simplest tunes. The boogie tends to come across machine-like, instead of focusing on adding extra chords in special places, syncopated stuff etc. Carol is a good example here, imo.

Shake Your Hips is good, but there both Keith and Taylor play licks, so it´s more like how the Stones played later on in the 70s and early 80s.

It´s true that Taylor played more rhythm in 1969, and was sticking to the band´s sound, instead of playing licks, melody lines or even lead lines in various places in the songs. I love that sound!

Bitch sounds really good on the studio version. Live it doesn´t come across in the same way at all. He plays it differently, and it´s dragging a bit, imo.

Of course he´s not a downright bad rhythm player, but it´s clearly not his forte either.

Just my two cents, and I´m not bashing Taylor here - just trying to explain why many people don´t regard him as a brilliant rhythm player.

My guess is that Taylor would be the first to admit it himself.

Quote
71Tele

Here we go again with Taylor not being a good rhythm player, leaving out of course Ya-Ya's, "Bitch", his great playing on "Let It Rock" and the other Berry tunes, "Shake Your Hips", etc., etc. yeah, he was simply a terrible rhythm player. Horrible.

Never said he was a terrible rhythm player. I said he wasn't a very good rhythm player. One whom simply doesn't rock my boat. And indeed the Berry tunes are a good example of this. Instead of driving it, pusing the rhythm forward Taylor lacks behind, his right hand seems 'soft' is maybe a good expression. Keith Richards seemed to agree, as he overdubbed Taylor's rhythm part on Carol and Queenie from Ya-Ya's. The studio version of Bitch is fantastic, but live the riff never seemed to work right, at least not until the brass comes in. Live the riff also misses that drive. Tumbling Dice: Taylor plays some jazzy chords in the verses, but that just never really worked for me, I just prefer the way Wood plays against the beat. And on many tracks Taylor plays fantastic, but never much of rhythm guitar. Dancing WMD is one big solo, with little fills and runs in the verses. Rambler doesn't have any rhythm playing at all, it's all lead guitar. It's great, it's fantastic, but I simply prefer how Wood pushes against Richards by playing the same kind of rhythm guitar, but just different. I don't dare say weaving, but it is.

Mathijs

Quote
jsz1002

Quote
tomk

Quote
crumbling_mice
As a matter of interest, how much are they charging for it in the US? Does anyone know what they will charge in the UK?

According to what I see on my screen, it's 99 cents a song but $4.99 for the entire thing (??!!?).

Great sound. Wow. They even kept the botched version of Happy. Ron Wood sounds fantastic.

They have all followed that pricing, haven't they?

Yes, sorry guys, I;ve been back on and both 72 and Hampton are $9.00, which works out at about five English pounds...what a bargain, long may these boots keep emerging. Ron Wood is on fire on this one!

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
liddas
This is just fantastic!!!

I think that these Archive releases have laid the basis for finally settling the enldess Wood/Taylor debate: as a matter of fact the band was red hot 69 - 82!!!

C

What did we get from the Taylor era? After Ladies & Gentlemen in a very bad sound quality? Only an inferior Brussels show, with Taylor way too low in the mix. That's all. The best from the Taylor era will never be released, but if so, Taylor will always be very low in the mix, so it will never be the best.

The band I heard in 76 and 82 wasn't a shadow of the band I heard in 73. Case closed.

hahaha, that's really sad actually! First we finally get a truly superb recording of a super show with Taylor. It shows that, although Taylor is fantastic, he in the end isn't god. Then we get some super shows with Ron Wood (Texas 78, Hampton 81, now LA 75), which really shows that the Wood shows where quite fantastic, and certainly on par with Taylor shows.

And what do you say? It's the sound that's not making Taylor shine. Man, how sad. The mix of Brussels is fantastic, just as the mix from LA and Hampton are fantastic. Sure, Taylor is subdued at times, because when he doesn't play lead he doesn't really add much to the sound. When Wood doesn't play lead, he plays great rhythm and really fills up the sound.

Mathijs

I have slowly been changing my learned opinion from one of loving Taylor and liking Wood to a bit more complex theory. After hearing this "75 LA show I am even more convinced.

There was a day when Taylors style of endless and sometimes brilliant soloing over the songs did something for me but I have come to dislike that approach more and more as my ear matures. Ronnie was working hard to fit in in 1975, and that really shows here in this LA release. His slide work is really good, better than the later day Wood. I wonder what happened to Ronnie. Maybe drugs did take their toll on him.

My current view is that I prefer Taylor on the recorded material and prefer Wood on the live material. Taylor always seemed too loud or off in his own world during the live recordings, but his genius really iced the cake in the studio, where the levels could be mixed to everyone's satisfaction. This '75 release really upped my opinion of Ronnie. Maybe he just got too lazy, bored or "holed in" by the HUGE personalities of Keith and Mick in later years. Decided that if he wanted to stay a vital member of this band he had better be a "pleaser" and let Mick and Keith dictate his level of musical involvement.

But here in 1975 he was out on a limb, playing Taylors parts with style and really adding something. Maybe it's because we can really HEAR him in this release. He's often taking great risks, on this night they all landed with great effect. I wish I could nail it down more. I'll bet after Mick and Keith are gone (many years from now hopefully), Ronnie will talk more freely about the constraints the Glimmer Twins put on him in his later years with them. Certainly his financial problems and drug problems pushed him more toward NEEDING to comply. Back in 1975 he was a star in his own right and this releasae really shows it. Great work Ronnie!! Whoo Hoo! peace

Quote
Naturalust

I have slowly been changing my learned opinion from one of loving Taylor and liking Wood to a bit more complex theory. After hearing this "75 LA show I am even more convinced.

There was a day when Taylors style of endless and sometimes brilliant soloing over the songs did something for me but I have come to dislike that approach more and more as my ear matures. Ronnie was working hard to fit in in 1975, and that really shows here in this LA release. His slide work is really good, better than the later day Wood. I wonder what happened to Ronnie. Maybe drugs did take their toll on him.

My current view is that I prefer Taylor on the recorded material and prefer Wood on the live material. Taylor always seemed too loud or off in his own world during the live recordings, but his genius really iced the cake in the studio, where the levels could be mixed to everyone's satisfaction. This '75 release really upped my opinion of Ronnie. Maybe he just got too lazy, bored or "holed in" by the HUGE personalities of Keith and Mick in later years. Decided that if he wanted to stay a vital member of this band he had better be a "pleaser" and let Mick and Keith dictate his level of musical involvement.

But here in 1975 he was out on a limb, playing Taylors parts with style and really adding something. Maybe it's because we can really HEAR him in this release. He's often taking great risks, on this night they all landed with great effect. I wish I could nail it down more. I'll bet after Mick and Keith are gone (many years from now hopefully), Ronnie will talk more freely about the constraints the Glimmer Twins put on him in his later years with them. Certainly his financial problems and drug problems pushed him more toward NEEDING to comply. Back in 1975 he was a star in his own right and this releasae really shows it. Great work Ronnie!! Whoo Hoo! peace

Yeah, I don't really want to get in on Taylor vs Wood, but that's kind of my feeling as well. I think which one I like depends on my mood. Sometimes I'm just not in the mood for Taylor's endless noodling, and sometimes I am. He's astonishingly good, but he can sometimes make songs too damn busy. There have been times I wondered if Taylor actually knew how to play the song, or if he just knew the key and soloed all over it. I think he's much better on live songs that were recorded during his time in the band. I still can't get enough of Heartbreaker from Brussels Affair. His lead guitar accentuates the song as opposed to overpowering it. But of course he's great on some songs recorded prior to him, Stray Cat Blues (although re-worked from the studio version) and SFTD from Ya-Ya's he is great on. When I'm in the mood for him he's great, but when I'm just relaxing and listening to some tunes (as opposed to putting on the headphones and wanting to really focus on some lead guitar) he makes songs to cluttered for my liking. He can make my ears tired sometimes. I do love him though, he just sometimes takes things a bit far in my opinion.

By the way pay attention to Sympathy for Slowhand DAC 75. It is better than LA FRIDAY. I have both silver cd's ripped in flac. Easy to compare.
Ny would have been a great one for a release too.

"we know it's a bit late but we hope you don't mind if we stay"

Listened already to Heartbreaker and Midnight Rambler and both send shivers down my spine. No need for me to compare Taylor and Wood again and again. Both, Brussels 73 and LA 75 have been the best releases for ages and I'm glad I'm still alive to be able to enjoy them

Quote
silkcut1978_
...No need for me to compare Taylor and Wood again and again. Both, Brussels 73 and LA 75 have been the best releases for ages and I'm glad I'm still alive to be able to enjoy them

wise words and so true

HMN

Sorry but Taylor was perfect in studio and on stage. That's just the way it is. I love the sleaziness of 1975 and 1976 and me think Ronnie was great at the Mocambo too but generally Taylor was much much better.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Sorry but Taylor was perfect in studio and on stage. That's just the way it is. I love the sleaziness of 1975 and 1976 and me think Ronnie was great at the Mocambo too but generally Taylor was much much better.

Nobody´s perfect

I really like the Brussels release, but I believe that this is the best of the official boot series thus far. This takes me back to when I was seventeen and had dark hair.

Rock and Roll!!!