You've all heard the bootlegs, and you know that this would have been the greatest live rock album of all time. I don't think it will ever come out. Why? For the same reason we will never get an expanded "deluxe" version of Ya-Ya's. Ya-Ya's features extensive studio "fixing" that makes the original, un-fixed tapes sound too "raw" by comparison, and after 35 years, it's a little late to bring Wyman and Taylor into the studio to rerecord their "mistakes".

As a lifelong Who fan, it grieves me to tell you that when the Who recently released an expanded "deluxe" version of Live At Leeds, Roger Daltrey DID go into studio, and he rerecorded some of his vocals, MORE THAN 30 YEARS after the original concert! God, it's hard to keep being a Who fan sometimes!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-13 14:50 by tatters.

I never knew that! How extensive was the overdub? I've given up on the new who cause its just one dissapointment after the other....

Old Who rock though!

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never knew that! How extensive was the overdub?

Which overdub are you asking about? The Stones or the Who?
>





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-13 15:16 by tatters.

There are no overdubs on Ya-Ya's except for the vocals. This has been discussed on this forum ad infinitum. I have no time to search for the threads, but they should be easy to find.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-13 15:21 by Greg.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are no overdubs on Ya-Ya's except for the
> vocals. This has been discussed on this forum ad
> infinitum. I have no time to search for the
> threads, but they should be easy to find.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Wrong. Compare it to any bootleg from the '69 tour to hear just how extensive the rerecording was. Even Keith has admitted that there was a LOT of fixing. This is standard procedure on commercially released live albums. It's just one of the many reasons some people prefer bootlegs.

Tatters...The Who. I thought they prided themselves on 'at Leeds' haveing no overdubs....

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tatters...The Who. I thought they prided
> themselves on 'at Leeds' haveing no overdubs....

The overdub was minimal, I think it was just on Listening To You, if I remember correctly. But why do it at all? Especially after 30 years? The problem is they never do anything new, so they have to busy themselves by looking backwards and tinkering around with the old stuff. They just can't leave it alone. And, of course, they like to keep thinking up new ways to sell us the same album over and over ....

tatters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Wrong. Compare it to any bootleg from the '69
> tour to hear just how extensive the rerecording
> was.

Funny you mention it. When you compare the Ya-Ya's version with the audience sources of two of the three MSG shows, you hear that the only overdubs that have been done are 1. all Keith's background vocals except for Honky Tonk Women and 2. About 50% of Jaggers lead vocals. Futher some cutting was done on for example the third verse of Sympathy

That's it. No guitars are overdubbed, no drums or bass have been altered. They did try for a brief moment (hence an extra Keith solo on JJF on the Apple Acetate), but apperently it wasn't to their satisfaction as the final product only features vox dubs.

Mathijs

Good point. I had the original Live at Leeds obviously, then bought the first extended cd but couldn't bring myself to fork out again for the full version. The Who's re-issue programme has been dodgy on the whole releasing the same cd twice with extra tracks on. Exception has to be My Generation as the Deluxe version was top.

I like it that the stones try and keep looking ahead.

Keep things fresh as knocking out old concerts etc tends to mean your not relevant to todays music ie: Zepplin, Beatles, Who etc. etc

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tatters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Wrong. Compare it to any bootleg from
> the '69
> > tour to hear just how extensive the
> rerecording
> > was.
>
> Funny you mention it. When you compare the Ya-Ya's
> version with the audience sources of two of the
> three MSG shows, you hear that the only overdubs
> that have been done are 1. all Keith's background
> vocals except for Honky Tonk Women and 2. About
> 50% of Jaggers lead vocals. Futher some cutting
> was done on for example the third verse of
> Sympathy
>
> That's it. No guitars are overdubbed, no drums or
> bass have been altered. They did try for a brief
> moment (hence an extra Keith solo on JJF on the
> Apple Acetate), but apperently it wasn't to their
> satisfaction as the final product only features
> vox dubs.
>
> Mathijs

correct...and IMO there's not alot "wrong" with the proper vocals from the original audience recordings....another example of the Stones being perfectionists.

Esky

I agree, I have recordings of the NYC shows and didn;t notice much work on the guitars.

As to the orginal question.....why haven't they released a live version of All Down the Line and Rip This Joint? These are great performances from that era.

I mean, we have 32,576.3 version of Honky Tonk Women already. While I didn't like the sound of the guitars on No Secruity, I liked the fact that they put on a lot of differnt stuff.

Realistically though, with all of the boots out there, do we really need another officially released live album?

Cafaro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Realistically though, with all of the boots out
> there, do we really need another officially
> released live album?

YES! At least something to show the world of how good the band were on the 1972/73 Tours! I mean we all know how good they were, but others don't.

Ya Ya's was a great album, but the guitar work of the 72/73 Tour would leave most (if not all) bands for dead....it's a pity that many people did not hear Mick Taylor at his best....

Esky

Good point Esky,
The greatest live disc would be if they released a live compilation of 68-73 shows of previously unreleased material. I don't think we neeed a live disc of a 05-06 tour.

I agree with you, people are missing out on the Stones at the best.

Yeah Guys, I wonder what the Stones have in their "vaults" from that era??

Know they have that: "Sympathy for the Devil" on video from 1969, they were
"thinking" on including it on the last release of Gimme Shelter - Bonus Tracks
but....

I wonder what other Video they might have of the 1973 tour??? that's what
I'd like to SEE... MLC

Dodgy makeup, socks down trousers and Keef falling over I'd guess!!!....only jokin.

'How the West was won' did good business for Zep. Wonder if there considering the same thing? Isn't a Who doc/dvd coming out next year inc. stuff from there best periods?

I'd love to see Midnight Rambler, Angie, and Heartbreaker from that tour. The jam they do on Heartbreaker from Brussel's would be cool to see. Why not show us the entire Brussel's show?

Cafaro - The big question is.. did they "record" any of that tour on Video??

I've got a version of Street Fighting Man from 1973, Taylor & Keith sound
incredible together on that one, heard that was from a TV crew who were just
there to catch a glimse for a TV spot?? wonder how much they actually filmed?

MLC

Hei! Just Wanted to add that according to several books I've read, the unreleased live album from '72 is supposed to be finished overdubed, mixed and even prodused!

For sure they did overdubs and mixing in October 1972 (Olympic Sound). Don't know if they finished the album. Some raw mixes were broadcasted as soon as August 1972 by a radiostation in the US!

S.T.P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hei! Just Wanted to add that according to several
> books I've read, the unreleased live album from
> '72 is supposed to be finished overdubed, mixed
> and even prodused!

Yes, I've heard that, too. It was supposed to be a double LP with the first disc filled by opening act Stevie Wonder. Don't know what shows the Stones tracks were taken from. Maybe it's the same tracks as the Ladies and Gentlemen soundtrack? I thought I remember something about the cover art being the same illustration that was used for the "Welcome To New York" bootleg. Anyone know why it was never released? I have a bootleg from that tour called "Ureleased Decca Live Album 1972" and while it's obviously just a mis-mash of tracks taken from other bootlegs, it begs the question; Would Decca have had rights to a 1972 live Stones album? Does that have something to do with why it was never released?

By the way, Ya-Ya's was also supposed to be a double LP, with Ike and Tina Turner getting the whole first disc. Decca/London said "F--k that!" and the Stones had to reluctantly drop the idea. Could be they refused to compromise on Stevie, and that's why '72 remains unreleased?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-13 19:49 by tatters.

Hei tatters!I've heard that the album wasn't released due to legal rights to a few songs that Decca could clame until 1976. Brown Sugar etc. Jagger tried to release the album in november '72 and a second time without the Stevie Wonder material just before the upcoming tour in 1975. Both times Allen Kline stopped it. The songs are supposed to be from Fort Worth, Huston, Philadelphia and Pittsburg, including the version of Happy from the movie with the same name as the album. Don't know anything about the cover...

So what if Daltrey fixed a mistake on Live At Leeds? It's a @#$%& great album whichever way yoou look at it. Same with Ya-Yas and Thin Lizzy's Live & Dangerous, which was barely live. If you want the raw untampered original get yourselves some bootlegs and shaddup already damn!

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what if Daltrey fixed a mistake on Live At
> Leeds? It's a @#$%& great album whichever way
> yoou look at it. Same with Ya-Yas and Thin
> Lizzy's Live & Dangerous, which was barely
> live. If you want the raw untampered original get
> yourselves some bootlegs and shaddup already damn!

Speaking of mistakes, too bad your parents didn't fix theirs.

I don't see the problem in having two thoughts in the head at the same time. Neither did the Stones. After doing the "makeups" on the live album, they put out "Ladies" with no overdubs, and even strippt it down to a barely audiable horn section

Sorry, that's beeing the film I'm refering too

The 72 Live album will likely never be "officially" releases, but great Alternates are the Royal Sound 2 LP set, Philadelphia Special, as well as the soundtrack from Ladies and Gentlemen the Rolling Stones, which circulates freely amongst collectors. This "gets MY Ya Ya's" off just fine for GREAT quality soundboards from the 72 tour.

Also, near complete 72 Fort Worth shows are widely available. Who needs the official stuff when these are likely better than the Stones themselves would release.

Seek them out. They both are KILLER!

JR

I play my boots from '72 and many of the other tours regularly, but nothing compares to what the Stones themselves put out...

Guess of the century: Guess what you think ABCKO will release during the tour?
Lead: This thread.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

S.T.P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hei tatters!I've heard that the album wasn't
> released due to legal rights to a few songs that
> Decca could clame until 1976. Brown Sugar etc.
> Jagger tried to release the album in november '72
> and a second time without the Stevie Wonder
> material just before the upcoming tour in 1975.
> Both times Allen Kline stopped it. The songs are
> supposed to be from Fort Worth, Huston,
> Philadelphia and Pittsburg, including the version
> of Happy from the movie with the same name as the
> album. Don't know anything about the cover...


Thanks for your expertise, S.T.P. I've got another question for you:

Why are Brown Sugar and Wild Horses included on Hot Rocks and the Abkco Singles Collection? Does that have something to do with the CS Blues debacle? The story on that, as far as I know, was that in 1970 the Stones had a contractrual obligation to provide Decca with one more single, and, as a giant FU, submitted an unreleaseably bawdy blues. A single track, but presumably, it could have been divided in half with Part I on the A side and Part II on the B side. My question is this: Did the fact that CS Blues was so obviously unfit for commercial release make Decca entitled to seize the rights to the first two Stones A sides released on Rolling Stones Records?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-13 21:49 by tatters.

I think it has to do when they secured the publishing rights. It took 17 months before they released it on RSR, so 17 months earlier they were still with Decca. The reason it tokk so long was that Atlantic and Decca had to come to an agreement, and I think they had to give up the rights to BS and WH. Fotnote: The first versions of Hot Rocks had the wrong version of BS. Without sologuitar (yes, Mr Vibrato) and the brass-section I think.
Correct me if I am wrong.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings