For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
GJV
Not quite! I have it and I live in The Netherlands.
Quote
Redhotcarpet
I love this concert but of course there are far far better choices from that year. I'd love to see a dvd of the best of the best with lots of backstage material and the PR flat bed truck gig, the Munich interviews etc.
I love Keiths attitude in the 70s but had I been Mick (also high from various drugs) I'd be nervous because this particular concert features one Keith Richards almost nodding off. He's tuning his guitar before JJF and during JJF. That is rock n roll of course and I love it but I guess Mick wasn't too pleased.
Quote
GJV
No, from another Japanese online shop. See a couple of pages back.
Quote
GJVQuote
muenkeQuote
GJV
Got my Hampton and L.A. Japanese Ward boxsets this afternoon, but didn't find the time to get them out of the boxes (it was my girlfriend's birthday), which in they were send to me.
Strangely only one I had to pay tax for: 30 euro
But yeah.... L.A. is released too right now!!
Hi GJV, do you have the box with both Shows on CD (the one we already know from the download and the "Soundtrack" from the DVD)? That´s what I´m looking for ... !
Yep! You get the dvd of the 12th (aka the 11th), the complete show of june the 13th on 4(!)LP's and four cd's with both shows of the 12th and 13th.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GJVQuote
muenkeQuote
GJV
Got my Hampton and L.A. Japanese Ward boxsets this afternoon, but didn't find the time to get them out of the boxes (it was my girlfriend's birthday), which in they were send to me.
Strangely only one I had to pay tax for: 30 euro
But yeah.... L.A. is released too right now!!
Hi GJV, do you have the box with both Shows on CD (the one we already know from the download and the "Soundtrack" from the DVD)? That´s what I´m looking for ... !
Yep! You get the dvd of the 12th (aka the 11th), the complete show of june the 13th on 4(!)LP's and four cd's with both shows of the 12th and 13th.
This is incredible
Why not the whole show on 4 LPs in the rest of the world? Why not both shows on CDs?
Quote
HEILOOBAAS
I may get flamed for saying this but remember I'll be all warm and you'll be flamed out! haha
I originally acquired the soundtrack to this show in 1978. Since then I have tried to watch the entire concert, only to give up somewhere around Billy's turn.
I'll provide a partial list of why I can't watch it.
1) Mick doesn't speak to the audience beyond monosyllabic utterances. When it's a good show (Seattle was a good show. I was in the front) Mick chats w/the audience between numbers and frequently one sees how funny, clever and witty he is. That's because he is relaxed that it's a good night.
If you watch closely (I watched this sober under the influence of nothing more powerful than Irish Breakfast Tea), his face is a hard grimace.
The first time things lighten up is before Tumbling Dice when Mick turns to face Charlie and smiles for the first time that night. It seems that things don't get any worse for him after that.
The only thing that stands out as to why Mick's attitude is bad is that I noticed during You Gotta Move, if Keith knew where he was, I would've been surprised. I've seen Keith play before (film, where closeups are possible) & although I knew he was gacked Higher than God, he was present.
In the LA75 film he's not present. & I think Mick was pissed because he saw himself carrying the show once again whilst Keith was out of it.
Billy Preston was Mick's touchstone in these cases, but even Billy appeared to have been fried.Ronnie was too new for Mick to place any burden on his shoulders other than the one he already had. So for the first hour, up through TD, it was Mick, Charlie and Bill.
Also, because The Rolling Stones are a band, they aren't Mick's backup band. Bu who could have listened to the music if this was the first time seeing them live? Mick doesn't attempt to steal the limelight from any band member; he's just one of history's legendary frontmen. But even though I make no claims to be a music critic like Mathijs, I can say there were wrong notes all over the place.
They all seemed tired. The natural response to that is that this film is of the 4th of 5 concerts in a row. However, in the entertainment biz, a pro never appears tired, they take care to rest enough so they can give the audience their money's worth. Yes, I know we're talking LA in 1975 and the druggie go round. That excuses nobody from getting so out of it and not sleeping so that their performance is well below standard.
The 13th has my favourite versions of HTW, YGTM, IORR & SFTD (I think the shrieks Mick lets out at the end of STFD's 13th performance is the cue to the stage crew to bring the stage back into the 'petals up' position).
It's sadly ironic that Seattle and Ft. Collins, two of the shows following LA w/in a week, were to drenched in vitality and bonhamie.
This isn't a criticism of the Stones, my band of choice 1973 - 1981 as much as it is a commentary on them being caught w/the trousers down on film in living colour.
I do wonder why Mick, whose drugs of choice are live performance and control (in that order) would allow a product I deem unacceptable even as a bootleg, to be officially released. Is it the € he needs?
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<and its a myth that 69-73 was any different>
I wasn't at those shows, but that is my impression too, judging from the bootlegs.
Quote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowderman
<and its a myth that 69-73 was any different>
I wasn't at those shows, but that is my impression too, judging from the bootlegs.
Explain please?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowderman
<and its a myth that 69-73 was any different>
I wasn't at those shows, but that is my impression too, judging from the bootlegs.
Explain please?
Jagger is not singing, but shouting - and the band shows some of the same kind of sloppiness (All Down The Line and others from Brussels etc).
Not necessarily a bad thing, but the Stones has always been sloppy - even in 1973.
Quote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowderman
<and its a myth that 69-73 was any different>
I wasn't at those shows, but that is my impression too, judging from the bootlegs.
Explain please?
Jagger is not singing, but shouting - and the band shows some of the same kind of sloppiness (All Down The Line and others from Brussels etc).
Not necessarily a bad thing, but the Stones has always been sloppy - even in 1973.
Agree with some parts of 1973...but to say 1969-1973 is a bit rich
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowderman
<and its a myth that 69-73 was any different>
I wasn't at those shows, but that is my impression too, judging from the bootlegs.
Explain please?
Jagger is not singing, but shouting - and the band shows some of the same kind of sloppiness (All Down The Line and others from Brussels etc).
Not necessarily a bad thing, but the Stones has always been sloppy - even in 1973.
Agree with some parts of 1973...but to say 1969-1973 is a bit rich
Throw in some parts of 1972 as well, and you've got a deal
Quote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowderman
<and its a myth that 69-73 was any different>
I wasn't at those shows, but that is my impression too, judging from the bootlegs.
Explain please?
Jagger is not singing, but shouting - and the band shows some of the same kind of sloppiness (All Down The Line and others from Brussels etc).
Not necessarily a bad thing, but the Stones has always been sloppy - even in 1973.
Agree with some parts of 1973...but to say 1969-1973 is a bit rich
Throw in some parts of 1972 as well, and you've got a deal
Nah..i'll only give you the auckland show from early 1973...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowderman
<and its a myth that 69-73 was any different>
I wasn't at those shows, but that is my impression too, judging from the bootlegs.
Explain please?
Jagger is not singing, but shouting - and the band shows some of the same kind of sloppiness (All Down The Line and others from Brussels etc).
Not necessarily a bad thing, but the Stones has always been sloppy - even in 1973.
Agree with some parts of 1973...but to say 1969-1973 is a bit rich
Throw in some parts of 1972 as well, and you've got a deal
Nah..i'll only give you the auckland show from early 1973...
That's close enough..
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's sloppy, and that MR is wild. Keith is up in the stratosphere...
Still, they manage to pull off some great versions of Wild Horses, Tumbling Dice, Fingerprint File and others.
Keith is a little slow in his timing up till TD (ADTL and IYCRM are great). After that he's very good (save JJF).
A fun show, but nowhere near the show from the 13th, imo.
PS: Maybe it's the Christmas spirit, Eleanor?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowderman
<and its a myth that 69-73 was any different>
I wasn't at those shows, but that is my impression too, judging from the bootlegs.
Explain please?
Jagger is not singing, but shouting - and the band shows some of the same kind of sloppiness (All Down The Line and others from Brussels etc).
Not necessarily a bad thing, but the Stones has always been sloppy - even in 1973.
Quote
RoughJusticeOnYaQuote
HEILOOBAAS
I may get flamed for saying this but remember I'll be all warm and you'll be flamed out! haha
I originally acquired the soundtrack to this show in 1978. Since then I have tried to watch the entire concert, only to give up somewhere around Billy's turn.
I'll provide a partial list of why I can't watch it.
1) Mick doesn't speak to the audience beyond monosyllabic utterances. When it's a good show (Seattle was a good show. I was in the front) Mick chats w/the audience between numbers and frequently one sees how funny, clever and witty he is. That's because he is relaxed that it's a good night.
If you watch closely (I watched this sober under the influence of nothing more powerful than Irish Breakfast Tea), his face is a hard grimace.
The first time things lighten up is before Tumbling Dice when Mick turns to face Charlie and smiles for the first time that night. It seems that things don't get any worse for him after that.
The only thing that stands out as to why Mick's attitude is bad is that I noticed during You Gotta Move, if Keith knew where he was, I would've been surprised. I've seen Keith play before (film, where closeups are possible) & although I knew he was gacked Higher than God, he was present.
In the LA75 film he's not present. & I think Mick was pissed because he saw himself carrying the show once again whilst Keith was out of it.
Billy Preston was Mick's touchstone in these cases, but even Billy appeared to have been fried.Ronnie was too new for Mick to place any burden on his shoulders other than the one he already had. So for the first hour, up through TD, it was Mick, Charlie and Bill.
Also, because The Rolling Stones are a band, they aren't Mick's backup band. Bu who could have listened to the music if this was the first time seeing them live? Mick doesn't attempt to steal the limelight from any band member; he's just one of history's legendary frontmen. But even though I make no claims to be a music critic like Mathijs, I can say there were wrong notes all over the place.
They all seemed tired. The natural response to that is that this film is of the 4th of 5 concerts in a row. However, in the entertainment biz, a pro never appears tired, they take care to rest enough so they can give the audience their money's worth. Yes, I know we're talking LA in 1975 and the druggie go round. That excuses nobody from getting so out of it and not sleeping so that their performance is well below standard.
The 13th has my favourite versions of HTW, YGTM, IORR & SFTD (I think the shrieks Mick lets out at the end of STFD's 13th performance is the cue to the stage crew to bring the stage back into the 'petals up' position).
It's sadly ironic that Seattle and Ft. Collins, two of the shows following LA w/in a week, were to drenched in vitality and bonhamie.
This isn't a criticism of the Stones, my band of choice 1973 - 1981 as much as it is a commentary on them being caught w/the trousers down on film in living colour.
I do wonder why Mick, whose drugs of choice are live performance and control (in that order) would allow a product I deem unacceptable even as a bootleg, to be officially released. Is it the € he needs?
And what fans that saw the band "earlier" don't seem to realise is, that the thrill of the moment might just have blured the vision of it a little bit... - and that, for the sake of their memories, they lift that (or those) moment(-s) in time to an almost divine & sacred level; creating some sort of 'holy grail'... Whereas people who don't have such memories to preserve, have a more distant, more objective vision of it all - they are able to see the whole picture. (Just a general reaction to your statement, HEILO; nothing personal.)
I don't need to have been around in de '60s or early '70s (I WAS, however, 'around' ever since the second half of the seventies, mind you - I know ALL there is to know about the 'raunchiness' of rock'n'roll in those days of old...) to know what the band sounded like; there's tapes & videos & ... - plenty to go by. Just like I don't need to have been around in the '30s, to appreciate Charlie Patton, or in the '50s, to know about 'the real' Muddy Waters. And I said it before, and I 'll say it again: their 1975 tour was shambles, musically; and especially this LA Forum performance was by no means a good gig. In fact: it was shameful by Rolling Stones standards; thru and thru.
Just MY opinion; feel free to disagree - but I'll stand by it.