I'm sure this has been asked and answered on here many times but the question just came to me. I'm listening to Live Licks and I always hate how that version cuts out a section in the middle. And it seems odd because they play that section on the Stadium disc of Four Flicks, and thats where I assume this recording came from. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems odd that they'd play that abbreviated version live. I don't know why they'd do it for a CD. Was there a problem with someones vocals or playing? Sounds fine on the DVD.

Sloppy editing and proof that none of the artists involved with this shoddy 'product' bothered listening to it before approving it for release as it sticks out like a dog's balls.

Its really as simple as that? Doesn't even seem like there was any initial reason to edit anything. Wouldn't it have just been easier for them to just rip the audio and stick it on there? No work necessary lol. But yeah, it always throws me because I'm not used to that change and it doesn't work well either. Also, its the only live version of Rocks Off I have so its a bit disappointing. I know there are others I could download, but I already have too much Stones as it is.

this has been discussed before. during the london concert the band got out of time and the song fell apart, so they included that performance but cut the flub. don't ask me why they didn't just use a performance from a different night.

Quote
Send It To me
this has been discussed before. during the london concert the band got out of time and the song fell apart, so they included that performance but cut the flub. don't ask me why they didn't just use a performance from a different night.

I see. Makes sense, but yeah, your suggestion is better. Or not include it. There was certainly more they could have chosen from. Thanks for the answer.

The ultimate live version of Rocks Off is from their Australia 1973 tour. I have an audio version of Rocks Off from Perth Australia 1973 on a bootleg CD called Attackxile on Main Street.



Or, you can download a full set from the 1973 Australia show here:

rockpopbootlegs.blogspot.com/2011/02/rolling-stones-1973-02-24-perth.html

Quote
RollingFreak
Its really as simple as that? Doesn't even seem like there was any initial reason to edit anything. Wouldn't it have just been easier for them to just rip the audio and stick it on there? No work necessary lol. But yeah, it always throws me because I'm not used to that change and it doesn't work well either. Also, its the only live version of Rocks Off I have so its a bit disappointing. I know there are others I could download, but I already have too much Stones as it is.

Yep, that simple.

Live Licks was originally meant to have something like 33 songs on it. There was a track listing on the internet when the album was announced. As you can imagine, fitting that many songs onto two discs of 80 minutes apiece - considering a Stones gig is about two hours and 20 songs long at best - would have required several songs to be edited (Pretty much every Stones live album features several edited songs, and this one was no exception)

In the end (presumably after the work had been done) they chose to release a 23-song double CD clocking in at about 110 minutes - and appear to have left in the 'doctored' versions despite having 70 minutes of disc space to play with.

Theres simply no way any of them listened to that release before approving it. Even Helen Keller could have noticed that aberration on 'Rocks Off'. People were actually bringing the album back to the shops in the belief that there was a flaw at the pressing stages.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-14 22:23 by Gazza.

It's because "the sunlight days out of me" was omitted" and some fan over filmed.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
RollingFreak
Its really as simple as that? Doesn't even seem like there was any initial reason to edit anything. Wouldn't it have just been easier for them to just rip the audio and stick it on there? No work necessary lol. But yeah, it always throws me because I'm not used to that change and it doesn't work well either. Also, its the only live version of Rocks Off I have so its a bit disappointing. I know there are others I could download, but I already have too much Stones as it is.

Yep, that simple.

Live Licks was originally meant to have something like 33 songs on it. There was a track listing on the internet when the album was announced. As you can imagine, fitting that many songs onto two discs of 80 minutes apiece - considering a Stones gig is about two hours and 20 songs long at best - would have required several songs to be edited (Pretty much every Stones live album features several edited songs, and this one was no exception)

In the end (presumably after the work had been done) they chose to release a 23-song double CD clocking in at about 110 minutes - and appear to have left in the 'doctored' versions despite having 70 minutes of disc space to play with.

Theres simply no way any of them listened to that release before approving it. Even Helen Keller could have noticed that aberration on 'Rocks Off'. People were actually bringing the album back to the shops in the belief that there was a flaw at the pressing stages.

Wow, really interesting to know. Always something I've wondering and glad to finally have the answer. Idiotic reason, but if thats the answer its the answer. Thanks for all the responses in the thread!

there are several tracks on that release that are butchered. Paint it black, rocks off, cant always get.....and everybody needs somebody(although i like that version, it mixes the LA with Soloman Burke, with the paris olympia version)......the one thing i never ever understood about that album, is that it opens with the intro and then brown sugar, however, the version of brown sugar is not the "opening version", its infact the b-stage version done at the garden on 1-18-03.....never understood that...

Quote
Beast of Babylon
there are several tracks on that release that are butchered. Paint it black, rocks off, cant always get.....and everybody needs somebody(although i like that version, it mixes the LA with Soloman Burke, with the paris olympia version)......the one thing i never ever understood about that album, is that it opens with the intro and then brown sugar, however, the version of brown sugar is not the "opening version", its infact the b-stage version done at the garden on 1-18-03.....never understood that...

Right, now that you say it, I believe Brown Sugar is cut pretty stupidly also. Its a much shorter version than what was played as it goes right into the Yeah Yeah Yeahs at the end and then ends it pretty quickly. I guess the only glaring ones to me where Rocks Off, and Brown Sugar now that you mention it.

I actually returned mine to store and got a replacement. I knew it had to be a mistake. Whoops.

Make you own copy by ripping the Four Flicks-version of Rocks Off, and replace the butchered track on you CDR.

Luckily, that one isn't edited

Quote
Gazza
Sloppy editing and proof that none of the artists involved with this shoddy 'product' bothered listening to it before approving it for release as it sticks out like a dog's balls.

Oh boy. I'm glad I had just finished my cup of coffee when I read that. Goddamn that's funny.

Quote
Send It To me
this has been discussed before. during the london concert the band got out of time and the song fell apart, so they included that performance but cut the flub. don't ask me why they didn't just use a performance from a different night.

Why didn't they just use a performance from a different night?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-15 16:00 by WeLoveToPlayTheBlues.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Send It To me
this has been discussed before. during the london concert the band got out of time and the song fell apart, so they included that performance but cut the flub. don't ask me why they didn't just use a performance from a different night.

Why didn't they just use a performance from a different night?

Or the same performance unedited, like they did on FF...

I was at that gig and can confirm 100% that the middle bit was totally ballsed up. I think the four flicks version must be edited.

Quote
sjs12
I was at that gig and can confirm 100% that the middle bit was totally ballsed up. I think the four flicks version must be edited.

I think you're right, but they still had that edit finished.

They probably had to shorten the song to make room for as many songs as possible on the album, but why cut away the highlight of the song??