Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).

As a subjective statement based on your own personal taste I can live with that. However, trying to make it sound like an objective judgement ("one cannot" instead of "I cannot") is foul play in my book. It is debatable whether the versions you mentioned are superior or not, but that leads to nothing because one's personal taste is just that - one's personal taste. In my (personal, of course) book YaYa's is the perfect version (and that includes the vocals!), but the other versions are great too. I would not put down any of them with a mediocre rating.

See my reply to Turner above. I agree, the way I formulated it was clumsily indeed

That said, it is also foul play saying that «Stones isn't my thing» if I rate the Leeds or Roundhouse LIV 10/10 and the Ya Ya's version 7/10.

After all, when looking at this a bit more analytically, there are wrong key changes (Bill) on the Ya Ya's version, which doesn't happen on the other versions + the vocal crescendos are missing on the Ya Ya's version. If you care about stuff like that, which I'm sure that many do when they rate a version, I'd say you're a good listener, not a Stones novice

Well, "good listeners" or "analyzers" who get aroused or at least irritated by technical mistakes should better go for Pink Floyd or Genesis, I'd say. My personal preference is the feeling in any given performance - it either lets my neck hairs stand up or leaves me more or less cold, but to each their own, of course.

The favoritism of the GYYO version might have alot to do with the familiarity and sentimentality of it.
Growing up while listening to it thousands of times and knowing how great it is makes it difficult to hear anything that might be a technically 'better' version.
There's absolutely NO doubt that the GYYO version is the best live version......................imo.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman
One cannot give LIV 9/10 when there are other superior versions out there (The studio version, Leeds 71, Texas 72, Texas 78 etc.).

As a subjective statement based on your own personal taste I can live with that. However, trying to make it sound like an objective judgement ("one cannot" instead of "I cannot") is foul play in my book. It is debatable whether the versions you mentioned are superior or not, but that leads to nothing because one's personal taste is just that - one's personal taste. In my (personal, of course) book YaYa's is the perfect version (and that includes the vocals!), but the other versions are great too. I would not put down any of them with a mediocre rating.

See my reply to Turner above. I agree, the way I formulated it was clumsily indeed

That said, it is also foul play saying that «Stones isn't my thing» if I rate the Leeds or Roundhouse LIV 10/10 and the Ya Ya's version 7/10.

After all, when looking at this a bit more analytically, there are wrong key changes (Bill) on the Ya Ya's version, which doesn't happen on the other versions + the vocal crescendos are missing on the Ya Ya's version. If you care about stuff like that, which I'm sure that many do when they rate a version, I'd say you're a good listener, not a Stones novice

Well, "good listeners" or "analyzers" who get aroused or at least irritated by technical mistakes should better go for Pink Floyd or Genesis, I'd say. My personal preference is the feeling in any given performance - it either lets my neck hairs stand up or leaves me more or less cold, but to each their own, of course.

What I'm trying to say is that when I find several other versions, with both great feel and great singing, clearly better - the scale only goes to ten - hence it can't get top score like the others.

That shouldn't be very controversial? The vocals are very important for me to really enjoy a stripped down country blues like LIV.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-30 20:18 by DandelionPowderman.

I think there is a disagreement about the scores that is causing this.

To me, a score is a rating of absolute not relative merit. Two guitarists can be a 10/10. Just because one is a 10 doesn't mean another can't be.

Dandelion it sounds like for you it is more of a relative scale?
If a version of LIV was unearthed that was superior to all you currently know about, would the ones you like best now go down in rating?

For example: I think the GYYYO Jjf is the best and a 10/10. However I would also give a 10 to Rnr circus. In case you think I'm an easy grader, I wouldn't give anything since 81 that I have heard more than a 7.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-30 23:03 by Turner68.

It is a good point, but no I wouldn't scale down anything just because I heard a better version.

I liked the Ya Ya's version the first time I heard it, and I still do. However, I was somewhat disappointed because I had heard the studio version first. For me, that version is perfection: the key, the feel, the longing, the vocals and those three wonderful string instruments.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It is a good point, but no I wouldn't scale down anything just because I heard a better version.

I liked the Ya Ya's version the first time I heard it, and I still do. However, I was somewhat disappointed because I had heard the studio version first. For me, that version is perfection: the key, the feel, the longing, the vocals and those three wonderful string instruments.

I think you're right, the context is extremely important. I heard Ya-Yas first, and then the studio version, the whole way we think about the songs is probably completely different because of that. (and the fact that you know music and i don't ;-) )

Indeed, i was so blown away by LIV on GYYYO i went out and bought the robert johnson album. So the LIB version was the 3rd version of the song I heard. for me, when i hear LIV done acoustically, all I can conjure up is Robert Johnson, I have to go back to LIB to remember the Stones' take.

I should have bought LIB sooner - I had hot rocks and more hot rocks and figured that it covered those years pretty well. Ya Ya's is actually what inspired me to get LIB. (These events all happened when I was 13 or 14... budget was an issue!)

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It is a good point, but no I wouldn't scale down anything just because I heard a better version.

I liked the Ya Ya's version the first time I heard it, and I still do. However, I was somewhat disappointed because I had heard the studio version first. For me, that version is perfection: the key, the feel, the longing, the vocals and those three wonderful string instruments.

I think you're right, the context is extremely important. I heard Ya-Yas first, and then the studio version, the whole way we think about the songs is probably completely different because of that. (and the fact that you know music and i don't ;-) )

Indeed, i was so blown away by LIV on GYYYO i went out and bought the robert johnson album. So the LIB version was the 3rd version of the song I heard. for me, when i hear LIV done acoustically, all I can conjure up is Robert Johnson, I have to go back to LIB to remember the Stones' take.

I should have bought LIB sooner - I had hot rocks and more hot rocks and figured that it covered those years pretty well. Ya Ya's is actually what inspired me to get LIB. (These events all happened when I was 13 or 14... budget was an issue!)

Same here, we must be of the same age, at least roughly! After getting used to LIV from YaYa's for a couple of months I always found the studio version a bit lame and even dragging in comparison, possibly because I did not expect this acoustic arrangement after the "electrified" live version I heard first. But whatever, for me the feeling of the YaYa's-version is just perfect, from everybody on stage, not just Taylor's solo, plus Jagger's vocals sound most sincere here, not "staged" at all. So there are "wrong key changes" by Wyman? WTF, they don't spoil me at all.

And it must be said that Taylor's solo work on this one is simply out of this world - the sound, the feeling, not a single note too few, not a single note too much, and the way Jagger interacts with him in the final part is a treat to be heard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-01 04:31 by alimente.

The chord change-thing was a reply to the claim of LIV here being «flawless».

You shouldn't bother too much about that in this context. There are many «flawed» versions I consider my favourites

Doxa is spot on about love in vain. They dared slow things down to something comparable to velvet and heroin at the hilltop 1969.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Doxa is spot on about love in vain. They dared slow things down to something comparable to velvet and heroin at the hilltop 1969.

Why is it comparable to Heroin? I can see the SCB comparison (and they slowed that one down as well). But LIV?

Immortal, the only Stones album that never leaves my MP3-player. It's not just the playing and tempi, but also the full, fat, leathery sound.

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

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

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The chord change-thing was a reply to the claim of LIV here being «flawless».

You shouldn't bother too much about that in this context. There are many «flawed» versions I consider my favourites

agreed. i took the chord change comment as just a way of showing that different listeners will hear and look for different things.

there is nothing "flawless" about the rolling stones in any sort of strict musical sense ;-)

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The chord change-thing was a reply to the claim of LIV here being «flawless».

You shouldn't bother too much about that in this context. There are many «flawed» versions I consider my favourites

agreed. i took the chord change comment as just a way of showing that different listeners will hear and look for different things.

there is nothing "flawless" about the rolling stones in any sort of strict musical sense ;-)

And if it is it's songs like Saint Of Me or others where they rely heavily on sessions musicians

Ya Ya´s is an average Stones-live-album, imo. I prefer almost any other live-album, especially everything from the vaults.

I do even prefer Live Licks and Shine A Light. Both have more punch than YaYa´s. Some classic Stones-songs like SFTD or JJF sound kind of boring on Ya Ya´s. But I have to admit that I like the sound of the drums on Ya Ya´s. It´s not a bad album after all, but most of their other live albums are superior.

Unique album. Laidback, but still tight playing creates this very special atmosphere - it's all about groove and having a good time. Hard to imagine such a sound nowadays when it's all about show. It's a club gig.

Album could be a superb if only:

a) would include "Gimme shelter" version of "Jumpin' Jack Flash". Album version seems quite weak and dull compared to the mighty freight train of MSG.
b) all the songs and, what is most important, in the right order
c) would include "I am free" from San Diego or Oakland (does not matter from which gig, just THAT redition of song matters) instead of the one we got with deluxe edition of "40th anniversary"

Quote
HMS
Ya Ya´s is an average Stones-live-album, imo. I prefer almost any other live-album, especially everything from the vaults.

I do even prefer Live Licks and Shine A Light. Both have more punch than YaYa´s. Some classic Stones-songs like SFTD or JJF sound kind of boring on Ya Ya´s. But I have to admit that I like the sound of the drums on Ya Ya´s. It´s not a bad album after all, but most of their other live albums are superior.

Dude - April is 5 months away. Lay off the April Fool's crap.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Ya Ya´s is an average Stones-live-album, imo. I prefer almost any other live-album, especially everything from the vaults.

I do even prefer Live Licks and Shine A Light. Both have more punch than YaYa´s. Some classic Stones-songs like SFTD or JJF sound kind of boring on Ya Ya´s. But I have to admit that I like the sound of the drums on Ya Ya´s. It´s not a bad album after all, but most of their other live albums are superior.

Dude - April is 5 months away. Lay off the April Fool's crap.

><

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Ya Ya´s is an average Stones-live-album, imo. I prefer almost any other live-album, especially everything from the vaults.

I do even prefer Live Licks and Shine A Light. Both have more punch than YaYa´s. Some classic Stones-songs like SFTD or JJF sound kind of boring on Ya Ya´s. But I have to admit that I like the sound of the drums on Ya Ya´s. It´s not a bad album after all, but most of their other live albums are superior.

Dude - April is 5 months away. Lay off the April Fool's crap.

this is a strong post.

Quote
Doxa
Beautifully put, whitem8. It is still unbelievable to think, if compared to GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT!, how much the band and the whole rock music had changed in just three years in terms of professionalism, approach and artistic seriousness.

- Doxa

While I agree with your statement in general, Doxa, I must say that I hear a lot of artistic seriousness already in Live 1965 and a lot of their early studio, in particular (but not only) Chess recordings. Releasing a blues tune like Little Red Rooster as a single in those times is as brave and artistically serious as it can get, or if I think of doing such a great version of a relatively obscure tune like "Cops & Robbers" in a live broadcast as early as 1964... One thing that always impressed me about the Stones was how incredibly mature (and serious) they sounded already in this early stage of their career (Mona, Around And Around, Confessin' The Blues, That's How Strong My Love Is... you name 'em). They clearly had a very strong artistic vision right from the start, and this (amongst other factors) was one thing that put them ahead of almost all of their competitors.

Quote
alimente

Quote
Doxa
Beautifully put, whitem8. It is still unbelievable to think, if compared to GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT!, how much the band and the whole rock music had changed in just three years in terms of professionalism, approach and artistic seriousness.

- Doxa

While I agree with your statement in general, Doxa, I must say that I hear a lot of artistic seriousness already in Live 1965 and a lot of their early studio, in particular (but not only) Chess recordings. Releasing a blues tune like Little Red Rooster as a single in those times is as brave and artistically serious as it can get, or if I think of doing such a great version of a relatively obscure tune like "Cops & Robbers" in a live broadcast as early as 1964... One thing that always impressed me about the Stones was how incredibly mature (and serious) they sounded already in this early stage of their career (Mona, Around And Around, Confessin' The Blues, That's How Strong My Love Is... you name 'em). They clearly had a very strong artistic vision right from the start, and this (amongst other factors) was one thing that put them ahead of almost all of their competitors.

Impressed me, too. The essential difference is due to the recording equipment, the stage equipment and last but not least: MT. You can't compare GOT LIVE .. to later live recordings. The sound quality is lousy over all. Thus one can't evaluate what happened on stage really.

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
alimente

Quote
Doxa
Beautifully put, whitem8. It is still unbelievable to think, if compared to GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT!, how much the band and the whole rock music had changed in just three years in terms of professionalism, approach and artistic seriousness.

- Doxa

While I agree with your statement in general, Doxa, I must say that I hear a lot of artistic seriousness already in Live 1965 and a lot of their early studio, in particular (but not only) Chess recordings. Releasing a blues tune like Little Red Rooster as a single in those times is as brave and artistically serious as it can get, or if I think of doing such a great version of a relatively obscure tune like "Cops & Robbers" in a live broadcast as early as 1964... One thing that always impressed me about the Stones was how incredibly mature (and serious) they sounded already in this early stage of their career (Mona, Around And Around, Confessin' The Blues, That's How Strong My Love Is... you name 'em). They clearly had a very strong artistic vision right from the start, and this (amongst other factors) was one thing that put them ahead of almost all of their competitors.

Impressed me, too. The essential difference is due to the recording equipment, the stage equipment and last but not least: MT. You can't compare GOT LIVE .. to later live recordings. The sound quality is lousy over all. Thus one can't evaluate what happened on stage really.

By many accounts, including Stanley Booth's, a big factor in the change wasn't within the Stones- the audiences had changed. As many have put it "they were actually listening to the music". When you watch the faces in the crowds on the 69 tour it's clear they are listening carefully. The audience taking the music seriously causes the band to take the music more seriously too.

Quote
alimente

Quote
Doxa
Beautifully put, whitem8. It is still unbelievable to think, if compared to GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT!, how much the band and the whole rock music had changed in just three years in terms of professionalism, approach and artistic seriousness.

- Doxa

While I agree with your statement in general, Doxa, I must say that I hear a lot of artistic seriousness already in Live 1965 and a lot of their early studio, in particular (but not only) Chess recordings. Releasing a blues tune like Little Red Rooster as a single in those times is as brave and artistically serious as it can get, or if I think of doing such a great version of a relatively obscure tune like "Cops & Robbers" in a live broadcast as early as 1964... One thing that always impressed me about the Stones was how incredibly mature (and serious) they sounded already in this early stage of their career (Mona, Around And Around, Confessin' The Blues, That's How Strong My Love Is... you name 'em). They clearly had a very strong artistic vision right from the start, and this (amongst other factors) was one thing that put them ahead of almost all of their competitors.

Yeah, that's very important addition, ands thanks for stating that! - The Stones surely had a lot of "artistic seriousness", starting from the days of club circuit in London; their approach playing the blues, and believing (mostly) on their own intuition, no matter what happens, speaks big volumes of that. And this could be also hear on their recordings. Not probably much instrumental sophistication, despite some Brian Jones moments, but their dedication compansated a lot. This, I think, taking damn seriously what they do and believing on that, laid the foundation for their career ever since. Also the dedication with which Jagger and Richard started to write their own stuff, and develop it further, some of it just by their sheer will power, is an act of artistic seriousness.

What I have in my mind was just comparing those two albums as examples of pop music, the whole scene - the artists, the audience - having changed a lot within, say, three-four years - with what kind of products they thought they try to sell. GOT LIVE! really is 'get the money and run' kind of product; as Bill Wyman remarked in ROLLING WITH THE STONES, it was mostly an attempt to milk out the market while it still was hot. In 1966 there really was no certainty that they would even exist or even remembered in two years time. They surely were the world's second hottest band at the time, but the things could be very different soon - no one had any experience of pop stars lasting much over a couple of years or so on top (and to remembered after that). The idea of including there old studio tracks, mixed with screaming audience, was surely not made from a big artistic impulse, or with the idea that this might have some sort of significance in the long run, surely not occurred to mind... Compare to that, the artistic statement of YA-YA'S! is totally something else, and big time. The seriousness and control over artistic value was totally in a different level. The technologcal development - which offered better means to perform and record the music - was, of course, a crucial factor, but there was also - going to an extent with that - steps taken in musicianship, both technically and approach-wise. The pop music has changed into a form of art called rock music (and rock music would probably not be ever so 'serious' as it was late 60's/early 70's, after the emergance of ambitious albums like SGT. PEPPER or superb talents like Jimi Hendrix).

I just find it funny how clearly we can hear that the change - in different levels (just listen the reaction of audience - or how it is presented in the whole!) - when comparing GOT LIVE! to YA-YA'S! But like always, something is also lost in the process - that innocent, careless youthful energy and joy, amateurish rawness, is gone...

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-01 21:20 by Doxa.

Towards your to some extent contrasting views, if I may: My alternative formulation is rather to say that they started out with a seriousness and dedication to their music, that hardly can be doubted. It was there from the beginning (not in any way stating that they were opposed to every adaption to commercialism). Then later on, with the arrival of Mick Taylor was filfilled, what had started in their studio work earlier, that which I also before have liked to call an artistic turn.

In other words, dedication and seriousness during the first period(s). Artistical ambition and approach during that later (third) period.

Quote
Doxa
Doxa
Beautifully put, whitem8. It is still unbelievable to think, if compared to GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT!, how much the band and the whole rock music had changed in just three years in terms of professionalism, approach and artistic seriousness.

I agree to some extent.But some years later it was all about punk. An extremely important era in the history of popular music. An era where musical professionalism wasnt considered important at all. An extremely important era because it was both a musical and social movement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-02 12:11 by Tops.

Quote
alimente

Quote
Doxa
Beautifully put, whitem8. It is still unbelievable to think, if compared to GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT!, how much the band and the whole rock music had changed in just three years in terms of professionalism, approach and artistic seriousness.

- Doxa

While I agree with your statement in general, Doxa, I must say that I hear a lot of artistic seriousness already in Live 1965 and a lot of their early studio, in particular (but not only) Chess recordings. Releasing a blues tune like Little Red Rooster as a single in those times is as brave and artistically serious as it can get, or if I think of doing such a great version of a relatively obscure tune like "Cops & Robbers" in a live broadcast as early as 1964... One thing that always impressed me about the Stones was how incredibly mature (and serious) they sounded already in this early stage of their career (Mona, Around And Around, Confessin' The Blues, That's How Strong My Love Is... you name 'em). They clearly had a very strong artistic vision right from the start, and this (amongndst other factors) was one thing that put them ahead of almost all of their competitors.

Brilliant post, spot on!

This concept of artistic seriousness has me laughing a bit. What recording artist doesn't have "artistic seriousness"? Especially in the early 60's where recording contracts were hard to come by. If somebody is willing to invest in you to record a record of course you are going to be serious about the art.

But reading the stories of Keith, Mick and Brian digesting and dissecting those early blues records day and night you do get the feeling they were serious about learning just what it took to get music to sound like that. They were downright possessed with sounding like those older masters, that's what gave them a sense of maturity, imo. They obviously took away enough technique and tricks that they were able to copy quite well some of the things we associate with more mature artists. Playing lots of gigs early on sure helped too.

I tend to think the real change in the art came about mostly due to the lead of the Beatles. Writing their own material and good stuff at that. That along with the drugs which opened peoples minds to the possibilities, it not only effected the music but the entire youth culture. The Stones were right in the middle of it buy without The Beatles to lead the way I'm not so sure they would have done it on their own.

One thing is clear, by the time they recorded Ya Ya's the path was laid bare, no turning back, this would be their modus operandi for the next 45 years!

Naturalist I hate agreeing with you, but I do!

Quote
Naturalust
This concept of artistic seriousness has me laughing a bit. What recording artist doesn't have "artistic seriousness"? Especially in the early 60's where recording contracts were hard to come by. If somebody is willing to invest in you to record a record of course you are going to be serious about the art.

But reading the stories of Keith, Mick and Brian digesting and dissecting those early blues records day and night you do get the feeling they were serious about learning just what it took to get music to sound like that. They were downright possessed with sounding like those older masters, that's what gave them a sense of maturity, imo. They obviously took away enough technique and tricks that they were able to copy quite well some of the things we associate with more mature artists. Playing lots of gigs early on sure helped too.

I tend to think the real change in the art came about mostly due to the lead of the Beatles. Writing their own material and good stuff at that. That along with the drugs which opened peoples minds to the possibilities, it not only effected the music but the entire youth culture. The Stones were right in the middle of it buy without The Beatles to lead the way I'm not so sure they would have done it on their own.

One thing is clear, by the time they recorded Ya Ya's the path was laid bare, no turning back, this would be their modus operandi for the next 45 years!

This should have been their modus operandi for the next 45 years ... unfortunately they didn't match that level on official live releases, only on the vault and archive releases in the last four years or so.

Quote
Naturalust
This concept of artistic seriousness has me laughing a bit. What recording artist doesn't have "artistic seriousness"? Especially in the early 60's where recording contracts were hard to come by. If somebody is willing to invest in you to record a record of course you are going to be serious about the art.

But reading the stories of Keith, Mick and Brian digesting and dissecting those early blues records day and night you do get the feeling they were serious about learning just what it took to get music to sound like that. They were downright possessed with sounding like those older masters, that's what gave them a sense of maturity, imo. They obviously took away enough technique and tricks that they were able to copy quite well some of the things we associate with more mature artists. Playing lots of gigs early on sure helped too.

I tend to think the real change in the art came about mostly due to the lead of the Beatles. Writing their own material and good stuff at that. That along with the drugs which opened peoples minds to the possibilities, it not only effected the music but the entire youth culture. The Stones were right in the middle of it buy without The Beatles to lead the way I'm not so sure they would have done it on their own.

One thing is clear, by the time they recorded Ya Ya's the path was laid bare, no turning back, this would be their modus operandi for the next 45 years!

Perhaps it's based on how Keith has said they used to play Popeye The Sailor Man because no one could hear anything regarding how they were, as you laugh at regarding "artistic seriousness"!

True, they were a serious group. But something certainly changed between their early 1967 tour and the 1969 tour along with the audiences listening instead of wigging out: the music "grew up" and got a lot of muscle. They sounded completely different. They got heavy. And they were better musicians.

Maybe that's what is meant by artistic seriousness. It is a funny... term. It may be the wrong term but I think it gets the point across.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Perhaps it's based on how Keith has said they used to play Popeye The Sailor Man because no one could hear anything regarding how they were, as you laugh at regarding "artistic seriousness"!

True, they were a serious group. But something certainly changed between their early 1967 tour and the 1969 tour along with the audiences listening instead of wigging out: the music "grew up" and got a lot of muscle. They sounded completely different. They got heavy. And they were better musicians.

Maybe that's what is meant by artistic seriousness. It is a funny... term. It may be the wrong term but I think it gets the point across.

Well there is that. It's actually called Sailor's Hornpipe and is quite a challenging and serious bluegrass tune when played correctly. Seems a bit out of Keith's league in fact, love to hear how they pulled it off. But I understand it might have been hard to be serious during the early screaming and fan riot period!

I can think of a couple other reasons they (and the audiences) changed so much between 1967 and 1969...a little molecule called LSD and a big producer named Jimmy Miller.