Not quite! I have it and I live in The Netherlands.

Quote
GJV
Not quite! I have it and I live in The Netherlands.

And you ordered it directly from the shop in Japan?

No, from another Japanese online shop. See a couple of pages back.

I found this:

"Thank you very much for your order, however due to contractual reasons, your order below is not available for overseas shipping and it could only be shipped within Japan.
If you do not have a local address which we could ship your order to, your order will be cancelled.
Please kindly let us know if you could provide a shipping address in Japan.
We apologize for the inconvenience."

But, hey, let's give it a try.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-05 01:47 by DandelionPowderman.

GJV would you mind sharing the exclusive CDs somewhere ?

How come Clearmountain didn't get a credit in the booklet for mixing the CDs and why didn't he mix the DVD,considering he did so on the Hampton release?

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?

what fans who have only seen the band in the "professional" days dont understand is that this is what it was like seeing the stones in the 70's-

if you were looking for a certain musical perfection it was a crapshoot-and its a myth that 69-73 was any different.

they would just throw it out there,most of the time it worked and was magic but it could fall apart in a heap very easily.what i'm trying to say is the lows were worse than anything you'll ever see now but the highs were something that could never be touched by anyone in rock and roll-an undefined magic.

it makes me laugh how modern day fans on the internet make the stones into these warm and fuzzy charactors.back then we just took it for granted they were a bunch of arrogant pricks.if you saw them interviewed they nearly blew smoke in the guys face they were talking to and acted as if they were being bothered by speaking,getting an encore out of them almost never happened.
they didnt pander to the audience or try to please them in any way,they played the show they were going to play and by paying your money you were allowed to watch.
the swagger they had was beyond belief-the music needs to be seen and heard in that context-look,attitude,sound,vision,feel,groove,things you cant put your finger on or find the word for...just rock and roll to the bone.

when i see someone saying."i dont like the way mick is phrasing his words" keith missed a note on the third verse of the second song.." if you're thinking about that stuff ya missed the point kid.

<The natural response to that is that this film is of the 4th of 5 concerts in a row.>

The third of the five LA concerts - as they had shows the 12th and the 13th as well.

I agree partially about Keith, but I think he starts promising, has a dip round Happy (and on MR he's on another planet, but a good planet ) and picks it up again from TD and on.

<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.

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.

He wakes up when Mick bumps into his bottle of Jack, though.

Freeze the picture and watch Keith's expression when that happens - it's hillarious! ><

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.

you're maybe seeing mick through the prism of the modern day mick-back then he was in the same condition as keith most of the time.they both did coke non-stop and drank jack.even though its mostly keith you see with the bottles on his amp and in photos, mick was always drinking it saying it was "good for his throat" they both did heroin but mick just did lines of it to smooth out if he was too wired.my point is he probably didnt care if keith was out of control-it was just another night on the road.if he had any concern it was probably fleeting at best.

Lem Darling,

Don't get your best tongue emblazoned knickers in a royal twist over me. I'm going to be 56 in a couple of months and I agree about the internet fans seeking perfection for Stones shows 40 odd years ago.

But as a fan who has heard God knows how many boots from the 60s and 70s, & saw them a week later in Seattle when they were excellent, AS I SAID, my opinion is just that.

That this show is not up to standard and surely there are others that are better?

I'm glad my post has generated some really interesting and well informed feedback.

Quote
GJV

No, from another Japanese online shop. See a couple of pages back.

See here: [www.iorr.org] .

Quote
GJV

Quote
muenke

Quote
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?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-05 13:17 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GJV

Quote
muenke

Quote
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?

That is the actual question!

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?

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.

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.

Explain please?

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

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.

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.

Does anyone know how Baton Rouge and Fort Collins went off performance-wise? Those supposedly decent audience recordings, maybe there's some magic there!!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

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.

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.
Afterall, most shows between 1969 and 1973 are some of the most polished the band has ever been..and other incarnations have never come close.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-05 16:52 by Eleanor Rigby.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

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.

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
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

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.

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
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

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.

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

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

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.

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..

Dont tell me we agree?

We should get back on topic..

This show is sloppy but also rock n roll. Its pretty good Stones..but you could argue there are many flaws. I guess its horses for courses...

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?

Back in the day the fans were as high as the Stones!

Most of us drank and many were high on something. It was
A GREAT rock and roll party.

My 1st concert was seeing the Stones in 75 and
I didn't listen to the notes they played. Too busy singing
along with Jagger.

I had front row seats in 75 in Philly and I remember trying to
take a picture of Mick with my cheap camera. The flash
wasn't going off and Mick stayed and waited for it to go off.
Then he took off..

Nice guy...I didn't see him out of it but looked to be in full control.
Or as good as I was at the time..haha.

The Stones played like every Hard rock band at the time but only better.

The fans came to party and to cheer on the Stones for coming to America.

After the concert the fans were pumped and almost every press coverage at the
time said the Stones still have it.

Great reviews for a great tour. I think the Stones are more about feeling.
How you feel AFTER you leave a concert.

At 57 I miss the Stones of 69-81...The hay day of real rock and roll.

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?

Agreed

But that can change pretty quick!

Yeah you are a bit fussy on Keith there...but fair enough.
Just think the whole "scene" is completely different after the halcyon days...which is fine...just a different attitude and feel.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

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.

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.

Yes, his howling, growling, barking and shouting years began in 73 and ended in 81. In respect to the sloppiness, it is the prize that the band (and we) pay(s) for the moments of ingenuity. Meanwhile I find this sloppiness charming, e. g. it's a great feat to butcher Happy on the 11th and on the 13th, but the Stones manage it with ease.

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa

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?

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.

I get tired of people justifying a bad show by saying, "but it's Rock'n'Roll".

Ludicrous. This show doesn't hold a candle to most other good shows. Can you honestly say it's on the same level as Brussels?

There are some ok things about it, and I enjoy it for what it is, but I greatly reduce my expectations. It's an interesting curio, but if I want something to enjoy listening to, heck, something I'll play when friends are over, it most certainly won't be this show.