Quote
treaclefingers

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.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

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.

The thing with Stones shows is that there always is something to enjoy.

Firstly, Brussels isn't a show, merely some songs from a show + selected performances from London.

Some of the things from Brussels, though, are not that great. All Down The Line, for instance, is butchered and Gimmie Shelter has a painful out of tune-guitar throughout (hence it was replaced with the London? version on other Europe 73-releases.

My point? There are great performances on LA 75 as well, that matches Brussels. However, the WHOLE show is too uneven to be classified as great.

Then again, that was probably the case with Brussels, too?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

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.

The thing with Stones shows is that there always is something to enjoy.

Firstly, Brussels isn't a show, merely some songs from a show + selected performances from London.

Some of the things from Brussels, though, are not that great. All Down The Line, for instance, is butchered and Gimmie Shelter has a painful out of tune-guitar throughout (hence it was replaced with the London? version on other Europe 73-releases.

My point? There are great performances on LA 75 as well, that matches Brussels. However, the WHOLE show is too uneven to be classified as great.

Then again, that was probably the case with Brussels, too?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I don't like the TD-version.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I don't like the TD-version.

Just curious, but what's the wrong with it? You call it "butchered" but I don't get what you mean by that. "Motherf....s, c'mon" says Jagger in it to the band, when they are heading to the groove in the long outro... too rough?

To me it sounds majestic.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I don't like the TD-version.

Just curious, but what's the wrong with it? You call it "butchered" but I don't get what you mean by that. "Motherf....s, c'mon" says Jagger in it to the band, when they are heading to the groove in the long outro... too rough?

To me it sounds majestic.

- Doxa

I don't call it butchered, that's ADTL - and obviously because of the mistakes.

TD is just a little too slow and lagging for my tastes + I don't think the country-ish guitar bends all over it do any good for the chore of the song: the riff.

Don't get me wrong, I love the original Brussels Affair, but I find another live compilation: Europe 73 even better (GS and Happy and maybe more from other shows).

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree, treacle. But somehow we're forgetting the warts on the songs (about half a set compared to the LA-show) from Brussels as well.

Eleanor, ADTL crash-landed in Brussels, and was better in LA, imo. MR from Brussels is of course excellent. Same with Angie, Dancing With Mr. D and RTJ. I don't like the TD-version.

Quote
shadooby
Is it safe to say Atlantic City 1989 is next since that's the video that's been on the Stones Vault site front page along side Hampton and LA?

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
shadooby
Is it safe to say Atlantic City 1989 is next since that's the video that's been on the Stones Vault site front page along side Hampton and LA?

Please no. Please more from the 70s and 60s. More more more

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
shadooby
Is it safe to say Atlantic City 1989 is next since that's the video that's been on the Stones Vault site front page along side Hampton and LA?

Please no. Please more from the 70s and 60s. More more more

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
shadooby
Is it safe to say Atlantic City 1989 is next since that's the video that's been on the Stones Vault site front page along side Hampton and LA?

Please no. Please more from the 70s and 60s. More more more

I agree 100%, but if it must be a recording of the Vegas era, it should be Atlantic. The guitars are mixed upfront, at least on the boot.

Quote
midnrambler
Yes, it is also my opinion that the date on the cover of the release is correct: Saturday, July 12 for the DVD show (and NOT July 11!). It was us fans and many bootleggers who misdated it for years.

Quote
shadooby
Is it safe to say Atlantic City 1989 is next since that's the video that's been on the Stones Vault site front page along side Hampton and LA?

Quote
flairville

Quote
shadooby
Is it safe to say Atlantic City 1989 is next since that's the video that's been on the Stones Vault site front page along side Hampton and LA?

It's not Atlantic City on the website, it's from At The Max.
I'm still hopeful the next one will be Leeds '82 or Tokyo '90 which is a brilliant stadium show.

Quote
flairville
I'm still hopeful the next one will be Leeds '82 or Tokyo '90 which is a brilliant stadium show.

Quote
24FPS
I wish they'd get off this neurotic need to release full concerts. Just find the best clips from any time, tie them together cleverly, and release them. If there's only a few songs from Brussels that were filmed, so be it.

Quote
midnrambler

Quote
exilestones

For years, the video has been mistakenly dated as July 11 by bootleggers, but it is from the Saturday show verified through Mick's costumes eye witness accounts. Maybe no-one ever looked at a 1975 calender. It is so easy now with computers. The 1975 shows have always been mislabeled- "LA Friday" Ha! Even the box set from "Mike the Mic" Millard's recordings "Whores...and a Bottle of Jack" or something like that are misdated..
[/color]

Yes, it is also my opinion that the date on the cover of the release is correct: Saturday, July 12 for the DVD show (and NOT July 11!). It was us fans and many bootleggers who misdated it for years.

BTW, Empress Valley was the only label wot got the dates right on their release "Whores, Cocaine And A Bottle Of Jack"! They mixed up the order of the shows on the CDs, but their dates are correct! They probably copied the dates from Millard's cassettes, and Millard was known for labelling his recordings accurately.