It has a lot to do with your age when something first hits you. If you first got into the Stones at a young age, you most likely fell in love with that version of the band that was happening when you were at that age where awe and wonder are so easy to feel. It's easy to see why someone first struck by the '89 Stones would have a hard time digesting the Stones of Love You Live. Unfortunately, even though the Stones offered much from '89 on in terms of solid performances, being struck at first with that version of the band can lead one to miss what the Stones were really all about and what made them such a huge concert draw in the past. From - say - '69 - '81, a Stones show was a radically different experience than from '89 on. Back in those days, the arrangements weren't "BS'd through." The whole concept of the Stones onstage was improvisation, a tradition carried over from blues and jazz. Everyone knew the basic sketch of the chord changes but there was tremendous freedom to improvise within those chord structures. That's why you could see the Stones multiple times and never hear anything exactly the same way twice; something that thrilled many of us. Some nights solos might be short. Some nights solos might evolve into a thunderous jam that lifted everyone to dizzying heights. I'll admit LYL doesn't capture the Stones at their best during that period, but it gives a glimpse. LA Friday captures it better. Personally, I sort of tune out Jagger's shouting and slurring during that phase and concentrate on the band. Just listen to the interplay between everybody and remember that for the most part they are improvising - making things up on the spot - and it's brilliant! Jazz and blues people know what I mean. You could listen to bootlegs of other shows from '75 - '76 and nothing will be played exactly the same as what you hear on LA Friday or LYL..or other boots from said tours. I still like hearing the Stones in later days but at Jagger's behest, the arrangements are much stricter with very little room for improvisation. As a result we still got great and solid, often soulful performances, but we lost one of rock's great improvisational bands which is sad to me. LYL could have been much better but it does catch some magic moments. I prefer stuff from '78 and '81 where Jagger returned to singing more than slurring and shouting and the band was still hotly improvisational. I think LA Friday shows how great LYL could have been if they used different shows and such as source material.

Quote
Munichhilton
The comparisons between 1975 and 1976 show a deep lack of attention to these separate tours.

75 was far superior. ...and it's spelled Mocambo

+1. Yes those are two different tours.

Decising between LOVE YOU LIVE and FLASHPOINT speaks a lot of the listener and what one expects from the band. They are extreme cases. LOVE YOU LIVE presents the dirtiest, the most decadent, sloppiest, musically most dangerous Rolling Stones ever to be heard, and FLASHPOINT the cleanest, most professional, musically safest Rolling Stones ever to be heard. Whatever else they have done belong between those two extremes.

For example, GET YER YA-YA'S OUT is the professional and non-sloppy version of LOVE YOU LIVE, while SHINE A LIGHT offers a horrible, degenarated sloppy version of FLASHPOINT.

I think we should actually compare YA-YA'S and FLASHPOINT to each other as 'perfect models' of the band sound, both sort of starting points of an era, and then LOVE YOU LIVE and SHINE A LIGHT as perfect examples of 'what then happened', how far they got from the ideal...

Or something...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-24 11:36 by Doxa.

"A very unevern period that was at it's worst in '75"

I don't agree. There were lovely shows in 75 (Toronto being one of them) as there were great 1976 gigs.

"That tour deserved a better official recording"
We didn't get it with the last L.A. believe me!

Quote
with sssoul
ah - time for the bimonthly "love/hate LYL" already?? it's becoming a semi-monthly!
most of LYL shakes my tailfeather just fine, to the extent that i don't get why the Mick's "sloppy" enunciation bothers anyone.
listen to the guitars, and enjoy the Mick's voice as a rhythm instrument

"and enjoy the Mick's voice as a rhythm instrument"

Thank you.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
with sssoul
ah - time for the bimonthly "love/hate LYL" already?? it's becoming a semi-monthly!
most of LYL shakes my tailfeather just fine, to the extent that i don't get why the Mick's "sloppy" enunciation bothers anyone.
listen to the guitars, and enjoy the Mick's voice as a rhythm instrument

"and enjoy the Mick's voice as a rhythm instrument"

Thank you.

Good point indeed. I have always seen Jagger's 75/76 voice as an artistic choice (for example, he did vocal over-dubs to LOVE YOU LIVE with that voice). He wanted to do something different, and was partly tired with his old style of expression in singing "Brown Sugar", "Jumping Jack Flash", and all the the rest - the songs had been singing 'for ages' at the time that started to sound a bit dated (yes, they did - nowadays that doesn't matter because.. it doesn't). Like the whole band. But they were a living and a breathing band still, and creative people do and reflect that kind of things. We can, of course, have different opinions if that was a good artistic choice or not.

I think Jagger at the same time wanted to express that he also knows that he has been quite a long time around, and that the songs aren't that relevant anymore, and that he doesn't take himself too seriously. He played with the fire, for sure.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-24 11:59 by Doxa.

Quote
stonesdan60
It has a lot to do with your age when something first hits you. If you first got into the Stones at a young age, you most likely fell in love with that version of the band that was happening when you were at that age where awe and wonder are so easy to feel. It's easy to see why someone first struck by the '89 Stones would have a hard time digesting the Stones of Love You Live. Unfortunately, even though the Stones offered much from '89 on in terms of solid performances, being struck at first with that version of the band can lead one to miss what the Stones were really all about and what made them such a huge concert draw in the past. From - say - '69 - '81, a Stones show was a radically different experience than from '89 on. Back in those days, the arrangements weren't "BS'd through." The whole concept of the Stones onstage was improvisation, a tradition carried over from blues and jazz. Everyone knew the basic sketch of the chord changes but there was tremendous freedom to improvise within those chord structures. That's why you could see the Stones multiple times and never hear anything exactly the same way twice; something that thrilled many of us. Some nights solos might be short. Some nights solos might evolve into a thunderous jam that lifted everyone to dizzying heights. I'll admit LYL doesn't capture the Stones at their best during that period, but it gives a glimpse. LA Friday captures it better. Personally, I sort of tune out Jagger's shouting and slurring during that phase and concentrate on the band. Just listen to the interplay between everybody and remember that for the most part they are improvising - making things up on the spot - and it's brilliant! Jazz and blues people know what I mean. You could listen to bootlegs of other shows from '75 - '76 and nothing will be played exactly the same as what you hear on LA Friday or LYL..or other boots from said tours. I still like hearing the Stones in later days but at Jagger's behest, the arrangements are much stricter with very little room for improvisation. As a result we still got great and solid, often soulful performances, but we lost one of rock's great improvisational bands which is sad to me. LYL could have been much better but it does catch some magic moments. I prefer stuff from '78 and '81 where Jagger returned to singing more than slurring and shouting and the band was still hotly improvisational. I think LA Friday shows how great LYL could have been if they used different shows and such as source material.

Spot on.

- Doxa

I wasn't at the gigs from which Love You Live was taken, and my first experience of the Stones live was Wembley Stadium on the Urban Jungle tour.

My memories of the gig were of an over-choreographed 2000 Light Years from Home, and a great version of I Just Wanna Make Love to You.

However, Love You Live may have its detractors, and I am not one of them. Love You Live is sloppy, but bear in mind it's the Stones meet the Faces, with the arrival of Ronnie Wood. It is also the follow up to Get Yer Ya Yas Out, which means that the guys had a seriously tough act to follow.

It is one of my favourite live albums, and the sloppiness both on it, and the 1975 Bootleg, LA Sunday, possess an endearing quality.

I would add that The Allman Brothers Band were also pilloried for releasing Wipe The Windows, Check The Oil, Dollar Gas, when their previous live album was the Fillmore Live album. Another illustrious album to follow.

If you were in the audience in 1976 then you would not know what they were playing half the time - I'm amazed the band held it together as much as they did on stage.

The sound through the PA was shockingly bad.

They were trying to break indoor decibel records at the time.

Charles Sharr Murray in the NME said he was screaming at them to turn it down on one of the earlier gigs - they didn't turn it down when I saw them at Stafford.

Horrendous white noise.

Well at least being there was an experience anyway and I told everyone they were great!

Young and stupidly infactuated with this band (now I am old but still stupid).

I was about 20 when LYL came out and at my record buying peak. I bought it right away because it was the first concert album that had tracks from the albums I associated with - Sticky Fingers, Exile, Goats Head and IORR. Plus, it was current and relevant. Sounds funny now, but at the time 1969 and Ya-ya's seemed like a long time ago - yesterday's news with those oldie C. Berry songs ( I was young AND dumb). I didn't even own Ya-ya's at the time.

I didn't think the album was great, but I loved most of the tracks - IORR, Star star and that monster guitar-driven sound. It was great 'cruising around' music. When I went to my first Stones concert the following year and heard those thin, tinny sounding guitars, I wondered what the hell happened.

Playing along with LYL greatly improved my guitar playing skills. So yes, it formed me and I love it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-24 18:17 by Koen.

I just remember really disliking the lazy MJ vocals. That spoiled it for me. The band was also sloppy but they sounded fine.

I remember the first time hearing Honky Tonk Women and being disappointed in the 'Honky Tonk, Honky Tonk Women', as opposed to the way he sings it on the studio version.

I got over that, but still prefer the sustained 'singing' of it in the studio version than the more staccato repeating of it on LYL.

Quote
Koen
Playing along with LYL greatly improved my guitar playing skills. So yes, it formed me and I love it.

I learned how to play guitar from Ya Yas. I think if it had been LYL I would be a far worse guitar player.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Koen
Playing along with LYL greatly improved my guitar playing skills. So yes, it formed me and I love it.

I learned how to play guitar from Ya Yas. I think if it had been LYL I would be a far worse guitar player.

And I learned from LYL

Having became a Stones freak in 1976 with Black and Blue (and after hearing the double live albums of the period - KISS Alive, Frampton, One More From The Road, etc), I was really excited about LYL coming out. I had never heard Ya-Yas.

I remember loving the drumming at the beginning of HTW - still do. Tumbling Dice was a shock with gospel organ. Hot Stuff wasn't the crisp version of BAB. YCAGWYW - WTF with that Ronnie Wood lead?

But, man, did I dig the El Mocambo side.

Other than the kick-ass version of IORR, side 4 was poorly played, sung, and produced.

I listened to this thing ad nauseum for months.

One thing I neglected to say about LYL and what I liked so much about it is how different these tracks are from their studio counterparts. Get Off My Cloud especially, but even just the classic sloppy warp-speed finale on side 4, and the lazy renditions of some of the other tunes... I just liked that the songs took on such a different form on this live album, more so that any other.

El Mocambo is great. The rest of Love You Live is difficult to enjoy. I listened to LA Friday 75 once and I feel that I will likely never return to it. That show was the only audience recording from 75 worth having.. The setlist, on paper, looks pretty solid.. but the performance is like you said... Jagger is just screaming the whole time. Guitars are really thin, Billy's playing is inappropriate on many songs (IORR comes to mind)..

75 and 89 are the two tours that I have a hard time enjoying. 75 due to the playing/singing. 89 due to the horrible live sound mixing! Sad Sad Sad is a great track... I have yet to hear a great live performance where it was all guitar based. Keyboards are way too loud and guitars too thin on every single 89/90 recording I've heard. Just a missed opportunity.

I am certain I would feel differently had I been there! 78 is still the pinnacle for me. Live In Texas getting released in my lifetime is by far the best thing that could happen to a fan like myself. The only things that could potentially top that would be something like 1995 Paradiso, a different complete 69 show (MSG?), or more 72 stuff...

Keiths HTW solo on LYL is the definitive version.

No question.

Was it dubbed?

..the greatest live version of "Its only rock 'n roll"...especially the coda......

Quote
GravityBoy
Keiths HTW solo on LYL is the definitive version.

No question.

I question it, so there's a question.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-25 04:20 by 71Tele.

Ya Yas was like a fine meal prepared by a magnificent chef, with balanced flavors and spices, and excellent pacing and balance. LYL was like a truck stop meal on the run, filling but not especially memorable.

Quote
Doxa
Decising between LOVE YOU LIVE and FLASHPOINT speaks a lot of the listener and what one expects from the band. They are extreme cases. LOVE YOU LIVE presents the dirtiest, the most decadent, sloppiest, musically most dangerous Rolling Stones ever to be heard, and FLASHPOINT the cleanest, most professional, musically safest Rolling Stones ever to be heard. Whatever else they have done belong between those two extremes.

For example, GET YER YA-YA'S OUT is the professional and non-sloppy version of LOVE YOU LIVE, while SHINE A LIGHT offers a horrible, degenarated sloppy version of FLASHPOINT.

I think we should actually compare YA-YA'S and FLASHPOINT to each other as 'perfect models' of the band sound, both sort of starting points of an era, and then LOVE YOU LIVE and SHINE A LIGHT as perfect examples of 'what then happened', how far they got from the ideal...

Or something...

- Doxa

I get your point. However, I think NO SECURITY might be the more realistic reference - but maybe I'm missing the point overall.

FLASHPOINT is the Stones doing Stones by the number pefectly (however THAT can be interpretted). Perhaps that is the point (although they did change some songs up bigtime on that tour that sounded nothing like the LP versions - Start Me Up, 2000 Light Years and SFTD to name three yet alone making JJF and Satisfaction a cruise through the nearest mall snoozefest). NO SECURITY revealed a "new" version of the Stones at their peak. I guess.

Perhaps the Licks tour was the actual peak? It certainly sounds like it. I love NO SECURITY and I like LIVE LICKS - to a point. It's not as good as NS overall but disc 2 is certainly worth owning the ablum for regardless.

You know? Or, like, you know, like, something...

Adain for me I can deal with the band's sloppiness but I have a hard time with Mick's vocals.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Doxa
Decising between LOVE YOU LIVE and FLASHPOINT speaks a lot of the listener and what one expects from the band. They are extreme cases. LOVE YOU LIVE presents the dirtiest, the most decadent, sloppiest, musically most dangerous Rolling Stones ever to be heard, and FLASHPOINT the cleanest, most professional, musically safest Rolling Stones ever to be heard. Whatever else they have done belong between those two extremes.

For example, GET YER YA-YA'S OUT is the professional and non-sloppy version of LOVE YOU LIVE, while SHINE A LIGHT offers a horrible, degenarated sloppy version of FLASHPOINT.

I think we should actually compare YA-YA'S and FLASHPOINT to each other as 'perfect models' of the band sound, both sort of starting points of an era, and then LOVE YOU LIVE and SHINE A LIGHT as perfect examples of 'what then happened', how far they got from the ideal...

Or something...

- Doxa

I get your point. However, I think NO SECURITY might be the more realistic reference - but maybe I'm missing the point overall.

FLASHPOINT is the Stones doing Stones by the number pefectly (however THAT can be interpretted). Perhaps that is the point (although they did change some songs up bigtime on that tour that sounded nothing like the LP versions - Start Me Up, 2000 Light Years and SFTD to name three yet alone making JJF and Satisfaction a cruise through the nearest mall snoozefest). NO SECURITY revealed a "new" version of the Stones at their peak. I guess.

Perhaps the Licks tour was the actual peak? It certainly sounds like it. I love NO SECURITY and I like LIVE LICKS - to a point. It's not as good as NS overall but disc 2 is certainly worth owning the ablum for regardless.

You know? Or, like, you know, like, something...

Yes, nice having disc 2, 'cept for that 'edit' in Rocks Off.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Doxa
Decising between LOVE YOU LIVE and FLASHPOINT speaks a lot of the listener and what one expects from the band. They are extreme cases. LOVE YOU LIVE presents the dirtiest, the most decadent, sloppiest, musically most dangerous Rolling Stones ever to be heard, and FLASHPOINT the cleanest, most professional, musically safest Rolling Stones ever to be heard. Whatever else they have done belong between those two extremes.

For example, GET YER YA-YA'S OUT is the professional and non-sloppy version of LOVE YOU LIVE, while SHINE A LIGHT offers a horrible, degenarated sloppy version of FLASHPOINT.

I think we should actually compare YA-YA'S and FLASHPOINT to each other as 'perfect models' of the band sound, both sort of starting points of an era, and then LOVE YOU LIVE and SHINE A LIGHT as perfect examples of 'what then happened', how far they got from the ideal...

Or something...

- Doxa

I get your point. However, I think NO SECURITY might be the more realistic reference - but maybe I'm missing the point overall.

FLASHPOINT is the Stones doing Stones by the number pefectly (however THAT can be interpretted). Perhaps that is the point (although they did change some songs up bigtime on that tour that sounded nothing like the LP versions - Start Me Up, 2000 Light Years and SFTD to name three yet alone making JJF and Satisfaction a cruise through the nearest mall snoozefest). NO SECURITY revealed a "new" version of the Stones at their peak. I guess.

Perhaps the Licks tour was the actual peak? It certainly sounds like it. I love NO SECURITY and I like LIVE LICKS - to a point. It's not as good as NS overall but disc 2 is certainly worth owning the ablum for regardless.

You know? Or, like, you know, like, something...

Yes, nice having disc 2, 'cept for that 'edit' in Rocks Off.

Ohhhhhhhhh you just HAAAAAAAAAD to bring THAT up didn't you ah ha ha ha ha hah ha

Quote
stonesdan60
I still like hearing the Stones in later days but at Jagger's behest, the arrangements are much stricter with very little room for improvisation. As a result we still got great and solid, often soulful performances, but we lost one of rock's great improvisational bands which is sad to me.

I understand what you mean, but I don't think it was really a choice they've made, but one
of the issues that come with attracting too big an audience. Being forced to play the biggest
stadiums to meet the demand for tickets, they had to bring a show that would be interesting
for those in the seats more than 100 meters from the stage. So the big stages, programmed
light shows and movie clips come in. The majority of the audience loves those.

But the price to pay is a great loss of intimacy. And intimacy is what is needed to enjoy
improvisations. Though I am not an artist, I think it is very hard to receive creative vibes
on a stage in the middle of a huge stadium. Energy, yes, but brilliant new ideas? I doubt that.

For those of us who were lucky enough to catch up with them at a smaller venue, I think it
is clear they still had the skills to give a show based on less choreography and more on
creativity. That's what I liked about the Licks Tour. That's when I swore I would never set
a foot in a stadium ever again. Not because I don't love the Stones, but because I hate
how a stadium destroys creativity.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Koen
Playing along with LYL greatly improved my guitar playing skills. So yes, it formed me and I love it.

I learned how to play guitar from Ya Yas. I think if it had been LYL I would be a far worse guitar player.

Yeah, the YCAGWYW-solo is really bad. I bet you can do that in your sleep today

Same with the shaky slide guitar on Little Red Rooster, I presume...

Seriously, there are lots of great guitar playing to pick up off Love You Live.

One of the first things I learned myself was Keith's part of You Gotta Move. Some months later, I played If You Can't Rock Me - yeah, good times, good times



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-25 11:12 by DandelionPowderman.

The guitar lesson on LYL is Keiths rhythm.

Quote
marcovandereijk

Quote
stonesdan60
I still like hearing the Stones in later days but at Jagger's behest, the arrangements are much stricter with very little room for improvisation. As a result we still got great and solid, often soulful performances, but we lost one of rock's great improvisational bands which is sad to me.

I understand what you mean, but I don't think it was really a choice they've made, but one
of the issues that come with attracting too big an audience. Being forced to play the biggest
stadiums to meet the demand for tickets, they had to bring a show that would be interesting
for those in the seats more than 100 meters from the stage. So the big stages, programmed
light shows and movie clips come in. The majority of the audience loves those.

But the price to pay is a great loss of intimacy. And intimacy is what is needed to enjoy
improvisations. Though I am not an artist, I think it is very hard to receive creative vibes
on a stage in the middle of a huge stadium. Energy, yes, but brilliant new ideas? I doubt that.

For those of us who were lucky enough to catch up with them at a smaller venue, I think it
is clear they still had the skills to give a show based on less choreography and more on
creativity. That's what I liked about the Licks Tour. That's when I swore I would never set
a foot in a stadium ever again. Not because I don't love the Stones, but because I hate
how a stadium destroys creativity.

You make good points. While I sometimes feel pissed at Mick for stifling the creativity of the band by insisting on album-based arrangements from '89 on, there was a certain wisdom in his thinking. He knew the Steel Wheels Tour was going to be a huge deal after the long layoff. He knew critics and naysayers were already chomping at the bit to write the Stones off as sucking because they were "too old," etc. Mick knew damn well that the freedom to jam at will created moments of inspired brilliance in the past. But he also knew that when it didn't work, it could be a trainwreck, and with all the money at stake he opted for a formula that would insure more solid, repeatable, consistent performances and not give critics the chance to see the Stones fall off the rails in front of stadiums full of people. So, those of us who still loved the Stones anyway had to take a trade-off. We got to see the Stones give very solid performances that gave the critics very little fodder for "Stones can't play anymore" articles, but we lost the chance to thrill to seeing the Stones evolve a simple guitar solo into one of those exhilerating jams that we used to hope for at a live show. I've enjoyed seeing the Stones a few times since '89 and they were very good and enjoyable shows but I miss the "jamming" Stones. I'm glad I got to see them in '78 and '81 when they were unafraid to take the chance of making mistakes in front of 90,000 people in pursuit of the transcendant jam. I forget who's quote it is, but back then they truly were "a jazz band masquerading as a rock band."

I got love you live as a gift when all I'd heard to that point was the 60s stuff and steel wheels. I thought it was terrible at first, I just didn't get the sound they were making on this tour.
Then I bought a couple 70s albums, and started liking it. I got Exile, and at first I didn't like the studio Tumbling Dice because I'd started to really like the one on LYL. Someone early on mentioned the way the babys are yelled out, when i heard the studio version with the polished backup singers, it felt too "clean" which is funny since exile is not a clean album.

In short, I think this tour overall was an acquired taste for me. It is what it is, it's not the polish of the Mick Taylor prime tours, and it's sloppier than the 78 tour where they achieved perfection with the Ronnie lineup.
I still listen to love you live a lot though.