Tell Me :
Talk
But Ronnie never was my favourite guitar player
I know that Keith is your favourite Rolling Stones guitar player.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-29 22:17 by TheflyingDutchman.
Honky Tonk Women - perfection, not sloppy
Hot Stuff - not sloppy really but too much going on, too fast
IORR - nothing sloppy with this one
You Gotta Move - nothing sloppy with this one
YCAGWYW - nothing sloppy with this one
SFTD - the business makes it sloppy; it misses the element of 1969's crispness
If You Can't Rock Me - The singing makes it sloppy...
Happy - fast and sloppy as shit - all that caterwauling...
Tumbling Dice - How can you not hear the slop?!? Sounds like it's being dragged down a gravel road by an old pickup truck that somehow picks up speed!
Fingerprint File - The band is great; it's Jagger that slops!
Agreed.
SFTD has a somewhat different arrangement, but it's not sloppy.
TD is similar to the 1973 version. Not my favourite, but the rhythm section makes it swing. I don't hear bum notes or tempo issues.
Mick is Mick and whatever he does is a different thing than sloppy, imo. With that logic, SFM from Brussels would be super sloppy
The Stones's rhythm section was excellent in 1975/76. Å guitar solo doesn't make a band sloppy.
I'm not sure where all of your hostility is coming from, and all the arrogance seems to be coming from your replies in disagreeing with my opinion.
Saying "narrow" and "the dumbest" in regards to my opinion is the epitome of arrogance as well as condescending - as if I don't have a clue and you know better than anyone.
What first started as a simple remark saying I prefer YaYa's vs LYL, evolved into me saying I prefer anything with Mick Taylor live vs anything with Ronnie live. You discount everything Mick Taylor added to YaYa's while at the same time pushing your agenda that Ronnie is better at certain times. I never said you were dumb and narrow for thinking that (though I might of thought it), so can't understand why you would label anything I say in that way. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is - IMO Mick Taylor's style of playing fits in better with the Stones than Ronnie's style of playing in a LIVE setting.
If you feel offended that I labeled Ronnie the McDonalds of guitar players vs. Mick Taylor being a museum masterpiece, I apologize.
Meanwhile, I'll listen to YaYas in all it's glory, as well as a few of the guest spots with Mick Taylor from several years ago - nothing can compare imo.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
I'm not hostile, and there are many ways of being arrogant.
I tried to nuance this a bit, but I see now that it served no purpose.
No hard feelings, and I didn't really mean to be hostile
Ditto pretty much everything you said...
Regarding your quote: "There's some Stones fans that prefer it over YaYa's? Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has said that in this thread."
It may have not been stated directly on this particular thread, but I have read other fans comments on various Stones boards over the years where fans have made their preference of Love You Live over YaYas. To each his/her own, but in my opinion-Love You Live is second rate (and with the possible exception of the El Mocambo side) a throw-away album....
It's stated in the very first post.
EDIT: And now in z's post
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 11:43 by DandelionPowderman.
This is one of the oddest claims I ever heard in IORR... The version of "Honky Tonk Women" is not anything particular at all, and probably the only cut in YA-YA'S that is not distinctive and a little artistic statement of its own, to give some real justification to the claim 'the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world' - the very daring and arrogant statement of the album. It will took till following tours that they could give "Honky Tonk Women" a distinguished live reading. In YA-YA'S it sounds a bit teethless and 'gentle' - like they didn't quite dare to utilize all the potentia the masterpiece song has, but play it just through with silky hands. By contrast, the versions to be heard in BRUSSELS and LOVE YOU LIVE are both excellent.
But as far as "Street Fighting Man" go - to me the YA-YA'S version is simply definitive as far as live versions go. So distinctive, so threatening, so powerful, so majestic - a showcase like all the forces of darkness and anger in use - The Stones simply going transcendental. I never heard any other live version to give me that impression. Keith's riff/rhythmn guitar is so mean and and edgy - and in a perfect synch with Jagger's vocals - the way he communicates with Mick in the verses - every damn hit and timing with a perfect vocal correspondence is simply is like a strong and daring statement of its own - then to be orgastic like exploding in every chorus... and Mick actually singing/shouting the songs like his life depending on it - without fooling around or faking... Just listen every utterance of "Street fighting maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan"..... Then we have Taylor adding his thing to the mess - adding the punch of the main riff in pieces, then offering precise an controlled licks and runs here and then, doings actually lots of things, all of them exciting the imagination and serving the song... simply phenomenal. The last little run he repeats in the coda of the song - no fooling around, no uncertainty, no 'noodling', just doing the exact thing with his great technique an touch - that just sticks to one's mind. A triumphial guitar fiesta - both Richards and Taylor at their VERY best. No reason to forget Charlie and Bill either... the rhythm section is in a pure 'wobble' mood, living and breathing the beat, going like any other rock band ever dares to.. THe whole band, from Bill's balls to Mick's lips, one big @#$%& organ... The 'greatest rock and roll band in the world' indeed, and by a long mile....
The dramatics of this version is also perfect - the song starts like sneaking.. Keith holding back his horses, not even trying to copy the shock value of the original intro, but like warning us,'take your seats now people and be ready, you don't know what the shit is going to happen soon...' And then bang-like, after Mick opens his mouth to start "Everywhere I..!" (shit, what a timing!) redefines the 'main riff' to make it THE very essence of the song - redefining it genius-like compared to the 'perfect by its own means' studio version. And did I already say that I have never the riff sounding so distinctive and 'deep' and meaningful as it does here. Due to it we are in the middle of the storm (a 'cross-fire hurricane' if you like). The effect is like some some bloody Wehrmacht conquering Poland. And then, as we are entering to the final part, the storm fades away arrogant-like 'okay, that's it.. no any big deal' ... and we are are left like thinking 'what a fvck was that'...
So for me denying the greatness of YA-YA'S "Street Fighting Man" would be like denying the greatness of studio version of "Gimme Shelter" - like not recognizing what makes this band absolutely unique and awesome. 'My' Stones just can't be any better - that's what an absolute peak means to me. There are other great versions of the song (they usually can't go too wrong with this majestic song, even during 'Vegas Era'), some of them giving some different emphasizations and even additions to the song, some of them more 'loosier', some more more 'rockier', but I have never heard them re-discovering this kind of mystic magic as they present and breath here. Pure genious. A hectic moment of inspiration.
So I'll be interested in hearing why you think this particular version of the song is so sub-par that there are a "zillion" better versions of it.
- Doxa
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 14:38 by Doxa.
So it's, after all, up to one guitarist if the music stands or falls to?
That said, I also do think in similar terms as far as Keith Richards is concerned - his 'mood' pretty much defines the Stones' greatness, at least back in the old days when he really was the musical dynamo of the band. Anyway, we seem to have pretty different ideas of Keith's greatness, and, probably, about the greatness of The Rolling Stones.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 14:18 by Doxa.
No, there's more. But I replied to your statement about Keith.
Something about the whole performance that just doesn't click, imo.
No. You mentioned a "zillion better versions of SFM..." and these are not on LYL! The fact that you are not alone is good for you, but what are you trying to say?
Actually I don't think it as a competition between studio 'originals' and live versions ('road versions'). They are like two different animals. What happened in 1969 (and following years, but particularly in 1969), was the necessary re-arranging of the studio 'originals' to fit to the demands of a modern electric guitar driven-live act. Especially the material then - BEGGARS an BLEED material - was perfect by its own means - a result of a studio band (following teh example of The Beatles) experimenting with whatever tricks and ideas and sounds in a studio in order to come up with perfect-sounding and accomplished pieces of art - with no worry 'how this should sound or work live' or something. The studio recordings were their own purposes, aims of their own.
When they were 'forced' to re-think the material to play it live I think a kind of second inspiration occurred - they were seeing the songs differently, using a lot of creativity and imagination (not to forget that they had a new, fresh talented guy in the band offering them possibilities they never had before) - and I think that resulted like a second coming of the songs. In some cases they almost discovered or created like a new essence to them. YA-YA'S! - a very important release at the time, actually one of the BIG FIVE - was a statement of the re-birth of the songs, which pretty much defined the sound of this new self-declared 'world's greatest rock and roll band'. In many ways YA-YA'S! was actually a bridge between LET IT BLEED and STICKY FINGERS - in their following records the band would actually sound more like the hard-rocking blues band introduced in YA-YA'S; add there that the dynamics of a live band they accomplished during 1969 tour affected to their studio output as well. The result, from STICKY FINGERS on, was that the differences between the studio and live versions weren't so huge anymore - not as much creative energy and inspiration was needed any longer to make the songs work live (and it could be that, as the years go, the songs weren't that inspirational any longer to discover new fresh angles to them ). But as far as the ever-important, essential 1968/69 material go - the one to define the most hectic, highlight moments in their concert when they wanted to make the audience go really wild - they had the 1969 versions or treatments as a starting point in their minds all the way to 1982 (the songs funnily an naturally 'evolving' - or 'devolving' - around the years in the hands of a 'living and a breathing band'). As we know, it was not until 1989 when they started to think 'how on earth the original studio version go...' and keep that as a some kind of main reference in mind).
So my take is that I consider 'studio originals' and 'road versions' almost like two different animals, especially in regards their 1968/69 material - glad to have them both. Could be that in some cases I have some preferences, but I don't think there is a 'correct' version how the song should go - there are different possibilities - and I think a live version - or actually any version - to be even called a version should have some kind of own individual substance and point in it (call it 'interpretation' or whatever). The Stones actually learned me think so, and it's been a bit hard for an old school, romantic person like me to 'accept' that the band itself has rejected that kind of creative thinking in treating their own songs - especially when they've been nothing but a live act essentially for decades now (though I understand the motivation for such a predictable 'safe and sure' policy, and I don't claim that their 'replica' versions wouldn't been even great sometimes, and, of course, it was fresh and different in 1989). Great there is Dylan still going opposite direction...
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 17:25 by Doxa.
Talking about the intro and groove: On the original Keith plays the intro in standard tuning, acoustic with a capo. On Yaya's it's open G., with a capo, played on a crancked Ampeg, which of course gives it a more "hard rock" feel. However Keith's and Taylor's right hand approach, are more or less the same as on the original, at least during the verses. So to my ears the Stones i.e. Keith captures the general groove of the original very well, albeit a lot heavier.
Just don't compare both versions, the sky is the limit then. And what a difference a tuning makes. Hehe.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 16:20 by TheflyingDutchman.
WEll, that's my 'policy'... I think comparing different live versions to each other has a point - they like belong under the same category - but the original studio versions are like different animals altogether.
But I need to say that the 'recent', from 1989 on, policy of making 'replica' versions actually begs that comparision to the originals, because that's what they aim for. And in most cases, that doesn't turn out good... For example, the recent STICKY FINGERS FONDA ALBUM or how it is called, is a bit painful to me to listen... It is nothing but checking out 'how do they manage to replicate this and that', and after having checked that out, the whole point of the album goes... Why to listen those 'from bad to subpar to okayish' versions when I have the original STICKY FINGERS?
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 16:38 by Doxa.
Yes, open E, I missed that at first ear after 25 years. Thanks for correcting me. Again, what a difference a tuning makes. Hehe.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 17:03 by TheflyingDutchman.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 29, 2017 22:10
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowderman
Has that got anything to do with the quality of an album? Isn't it the band's total effort that counts the most?
There are way more accomplished guitar players on Mick's solo albums than on Keith's, yet you prefer the latter's albums. That Jeff Beck on a bad day can play better than Keith doesn't make Let's Work better than Suspicious, right?
That was my point, but I see now that your stance on this is set in stone...
While I agree with you in this cozy tête à-tête with Hairball that Jeff Beck on a bad day can play better than Keith we should be precise in comparing guitarist's qualities in the right context.
In songs we've got instrumental parts, often filled with extended guitar solos (hence Jeff Beck's or Taylor's solo works).
When your favourite guitar player is doing a solo in a song , it gives that song (or album) more musical value then played with the more "inferior player". (and I'm not taking sides in the Rolling Stones albums here) I think this is both the crux and misunderstanding in your dialogue.
But Ronnie never was my favourite guitar player
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 29, 2017 22:12
And many of the best Stones songs don't even have guitar solos..
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 29, 2017 22:17
Quote
DandelionPowderman
And many of the best Stones songs don't even have guitar solos..
I know that Keith is your favourite Rolling Stones guitar player.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-29 22:17 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 29, 2017 22:50
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's amazing how quickly some Stones fans forget, just because they haven't listened to the album for years.
Please point me to ONE reason to call the following songs sloppy:
Honky Tonk Women
Hot Stuff
IORR
You Gotta Move
YCAGWYW
SFTD
If You Can't Rock Me
Happy
Tumbling Dice
Fingerprint File
And Little Red Rooster, Around And Around and Manish Boy blows SFM, HTW and perhaps even JJF on Ya-Ya's Out of the water, imo.
Honky Tonk Women - perfection, not sloppy
Hot Stuff - not sloppy really but too much going on, too fast
IORR - nothing sloppy with this one
You Gotta Move - nothing sloppy with this one
YCAGWYW - nothing sloppy with this one
SFTD - the business makes it sloppy; it misses the element of 1969's crispness
If You Can't Rock Me - The singing makes it sloppy...
Happy - fast and sloppy as shit - all that caterwauling...
Tumbling Dice - How can you not hear the slop?!? Sounds like it's being dragged down a gravel road by an old pickup truck that somehow picks up speed!
Fingerprint File - The band is great; it's Jagger that slops!
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: July 29, 2017 23:06
HTW on Ya Ya's is cool but it is sloppy compared to LYL.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 29, 2017 23:27
Quote
ryanpow
HTW on Ya Ya's is cool but it is sloppy compared to LYL.
Agreed.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 29, 2017 23:33
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's amazing how quickly some Stones fans forget, just because they haven't listened to the album for years.
Please point me to ONE reason to call the following songs sloppy:
Honky Tonk Women
Hot Stuff
IORR
You Gotta Move
YCAGWYW
SFTD
If You Can't Rock Me
Happy
Tumbling Dice
Fingerprint File
And Little Red Rooster, Around And Around and Manish Boy blows SFM, HTW and perhaps even JJF on Ya-Ya's Out of the water, imo.
Honky Tonk Women - perfection, not sloppy
Hot Stuff - not sloppy really but too much going on, too fast
IORR - nothing sloppy with this one
You Gotta Move - nothing sloppy with this one
YCAGWYW - nothing sloppy with this one
SFTD - the business makes it sloppy; it misses the element of 1969's crispness
If You Can't Rock Me - The singing makes it sloppy...
Happy - fast and sloppy as shit - all that caterwauling...
Tumbling Dice - How can you not hear the slop?!? Sounds like it's being dragged down a gravel road by an old pickup truck that somehow picks up speed!
Fingerprint File - The band is great; it's Jagger that slops!
SFTD has a somewhat different arrangement, but it's not sloppy.
TD is similar to the 1973 version. Not my favourite, but the rhythm section makes it swing. I don't hear bum notes or tempo issues.
Mick is Mick and whatever he does is a different thing than sloppy, imo. With that logic, SFM from Brussels would be super sloppy
The Stones's rhythm section was excellent in 1975/76. Å guitar solo doesn't make a band sloppy.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 29, 2017 23:43
There may be a bit of misunderstanding with how people mean sloppy: it's not necessarily "bad", it's just not "tight". And the band was way different than before.
This Mick Taylor/Ronnie Wood thing...
If an ignorant Led Zeppelin fan was to say "The only Rolling Stones song I like is 'One Hit (To The Body) because it has (enter whatever here ie the greatest solo in a Stones song because of) Jimmy Page playing on it", well, that doesn't give much ground for saying the reason LOVE YOU LIVE sucks or whatever is because Wood is sloppy.
I hear sloppy in many aspects, some of them Ronnie, but Ronnie's is the most understandable aspect of the 1975-1977 Rolling Stones. He only admitted to how hard it was from the get-go:
I remember learning 150 of their repertoire (laughs). I gave up trying to remember which key each one was in or the chord sequence to a lot of them. I did a lot of it by feel in the end, you know. Had to, it's impossible to log all of those songs.
It was intense - to get hit with all of those Mick Taylor lines, to echo what Brian had done, then to add my own bluesy input to it all.
[timeisonourside.com]
This Mick Taylor/Ronnie Wood thing...
If an ignorant Led Zeppelin fan was to say "The only Rolling Stones song I like is 'One Hit (To The Body) because it has (enter whatever here ie the greatest solo in a Stones song because of) Jimmy Page playing on it", well, that doesn't give much ground for saying the reason LOVE YOU LIVE sucks or whatever is because Wood is sloppy.
I hear sloppy in many aspects, some of them Ronnie, but Ronnie's is the most understandable aspect of the 1975-1977 Rolling Stones. He only admitted to how hard it was from the get-go:
I remember learning 150 of their repertoire (laughs). I gave up trying to remember which key each one was in or the chord sequence to a lot of them. I did a lot of it by feel in the end, you know. Had to, it's impossible to log all of those songs.
It was intense - to get hit with all of those Mick Taylor lines, to echo what Brian had done, then to add my own bluesy input to it all.
[timeisonourside.com]
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: July 30, 2017 00:09
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Q:ONE reason to call the following songs sloppy?
A: Ronnie Wood.
YaYa's is of masterpiece quality start to finish fit for a museum to be displayed for eternity, while LYL is a nice souvenir c. '77 that is more of a fast food product ala McDonalds.
Any time you have a live album with Mick Taylor vs. a live album with Ronnie Wood, there's only one winner, and in my book that's the former superior version of the Stones>
Misunderstood? Nope.
An arrogant post? Yes, imo.
I'm not sure where all of your hostility is coming from, and all the arrogance seems to be coming from your replies in disagreeing with my opinion.
Saying "narrow" and "the dumbest" in regards to my opinion is the epitome of arrogance as well as condescending - as if I don't have a clue and you know better than anyone.
What first started as a simple remark saying I prefer YaYa's vs LYL, evolved into me saying I prefer anything with Mick Taylor live vs anything with Ronnie live. You discount everything Mick Taylor added to YaYa's while at the same time pushing your agenda that Ronnie is better at certain times. I never said you were dumb and narrow for thinking that (though I might of thought it), so can't understand why you would label anything I say in that way. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is - IMO Mick Taylor's style of playing fits in better with the Stones than Ronnie's style of playing in a LIVE setting.
If you feel offended that I labeled Ronnie the McDonalds of guitar players vs. Mick Taylor being a museum masterpiece, I apologize.
Meanwhile, I'll listen to YaYas in all it's glory, as well as a few of the guest spots with Mick Taylor from several years ago - nothing can compare imo.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2017 00:40
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowderman
Misunderstood? Nope.
An arrogant post? Yes, imo.
I'm not sure where all of your hostility is coming from, and all the arrogance seems to be coming from your replies in disagreeing with my opinion.
Saying "narrow" and "the dumbest" in regards to my opinion is the epitome of arrogance as well as condescending - as if I don't have a clue and you know better than anyone.
What first started as a simple remark saying I prefer YaYa's vs LYL, evolved into me saying I prefer anything with Mick Taylor live vs anything with Ronnie live. You discount everything Mick Taylor added to YaYa's while at the same time pushing your agenda that Ronnie is better at certain times. I never said you were dumb and narrow for thinking that (though I might of thought it), so can't understand why you would label anything I say in that way. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is - IMO Mick Taylor's style of playing fits in better with the Stones than Ronnie's style of playing in a LIVE setting.
If you feel offended that I labeled Ronnie the McDonalds of guitar players vs. Mick Taylor being a museum masterpiece, I apologize.
Meanwhile, I'll listen to YaYas in all it's glory, as well as a few of the guest spots with Mick Taylor from several years ago - nothing can compare imo.
I'm not hostile, and there are many ways of being arrogant.
I tried to nuance this a bit, but I see now that it served no purpose.
No hard feelings, and I didn't really mean to be hostile
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: July 30, 2017 04:48
I guess I was 26 when this came out.I had been a fan for 13 years at this point. I had all the records, all of them. I did not really appreciate the early album with any kind of maturity until my later team, but I had them. Songs like Route 66 of the first one totally slayed me.
even at the time. I think probably that love you live was the very first time that I brou I do remember noticing, though,t home a Rolling Stones album, play a few card, and took it off.
it wasn't a big deal or a heart Crusher. There was plenty of Ace stuff by them and others I was absolutely in the middle of all the time. I do distinctly remember not being impressed, not this album would not have a reasonably playable utility for me.
even at the time. I think probably that love you live was the very first time that I brou I do remember noticing, though,t home a Rolling Stones album, play a few card, and took it off.
it wasn't a big deal or a heart Crusher. There was plenty of Ace stuff by them and others I was absolutely in the middle of all the time. I do distinctly remember not being impressed, not this album would not have a reasonably playable utility for me.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: July 30, 2017 04:50
please excuse the spelling errors and other serious I will clean this up when I get home. I'm really working hard on that coming up to speed with the technology. Please excuse me. I think that you could probably see where I made the mistake and just go with the flow until I can edit it. Thank you.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: July 30, 2017 04:55
Quote
HairballQuote
Sighunt
I thought it sucked when I first bought it, and I still do. Pointless album. I find it mind-boggling that some Stones fan prefer it over Ya Yas. Had the Stones released Love You Live as an entire El Mocambo show that might have been more interesting. For my two cents, there is hardly any tunes on Love You Live that beats the overall quality of Ya Yas (even if you take away the overdubs on it).
There's some Stones fans that prefer it over YaYa's? Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has said that in this thread.
And when you say "hardly any tunes on LYL beat the overall quality or YaYa's", are you actually saying there are some that do?
Personally I can't think of any that better anything on YaYa's...not even the El Mocambo side comes close to YaYa's.
The album as a whole is a sloppy mess, but at the time of release it was great to listen to, and still is on the rare occasion.
Maybe some day they'll release the entire El Mocambo show properly and give it the treatment it deserves rather than just slapping together a few songs to make up a side of a double album.
There's some decent boots of the show, but a proper release is called for. I'd be more satisfied with an official release of that than the upcoming Fonda show.
Ditto pretty much everything you said...
Regarding your quote: "There's some Stones fans that prefer it over YaYa's? Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has said that in this thread."
It may have not been stated directly on this particular thread, but I have read other fans comments on various Stones boards over the years where fans have made their preference of Love You Live over YaYas. To each his/her own, but in my opinion-Love You Live is second rate (and with the possible exception of the El Mocambo side) a throw-away album....
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
z
()
Date: July 30, 2017 09:23
Love You Live was my first Stones album too; I love it! Yes, I prefer it over Ya Ya's.
Actually it was my brother who bought it when it came out, and when I first heard HTW it was: "Bingo! This is just what I was looking for! That's my band!". I was 9 years old and it's funny how things haven't changed in 40 years...in a way, I'm stuck on age 9.
I love the '75/6 tour* - the guitar sound, the drums (Charlie at his best), the "sloppiness", I love Mick's barking too...all of it. The wildest version of the Stones, that's what I fell in love with in the first place.
A few days days later I went and bought Exile...
(* I love the '72 tour as well. Can't say I prefer Wood over Taylor, or Taylor over Wood)
Actually it was my brother who bought it when it came out, and when I first heard HTW it was: "Bingo! This is just what I was looking for! That's my band!". I was 9 years old and it's funny how things haven't changed in 40 years...in a way, I'm stuck on age 9.
I love the '75/6 tour* - the guitar sound, the drums (Charlie at his best), the "sloppiness", I love Mick's barking too...all of it. The wildest version of the Stones, that's what I fell in love with in the first place.
A few days days later I went and bought Exile...
(* I love the '72 tour as well. Can't say I prefer Wood over Taylor, or Taylor over Wood)
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2017 11:38
Quote
SighuntQuote
HairballQuote
Sighunt
I thought it sucked when I first bought it, and I still do. Pointless album. I find it mind-boggling that some Stones fan prefer it over Ya Yas. Had the Stones released Love You Live as an entire El Mocambo show that might have been more interesting. For my two cents, there is hardly any tunes on Love You Live that beats the overall quality of Ya Yas (even if you take away the overdubs on it).
There's some Stones fans that prefer it over YaYa's? Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has said that in this thread.
And when you say "hardly any tunes on LYL beat the overall quality or YaYa's", are you actually saying there are some that do?
Personally I can't think of any that better anything on YaYa's...not even the El Mocambo side comes close to YaYa's.
The album as a whole is a sloppy mess, but at the time of release it was great to listen to, and still is on the rare occasion.
Maybe some day they'll release the entire El Mocambo show properly and give it the treatment it deserves rather than just slapping together a few songs to make up a side of a double album.
There's some decent boots of the show, but a proper release is called for. I'd be more satisfied with an official release of that than the upcoming Fonda show.
Ditto pretty much everything you said...
Regarding your quote: "There's some Stones fans that prefer it over YaYa's? Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has said that in this thread."
It may have not been stated directly on this particular thread, but I have read other fans comments on various Stones boards over the years where fans have made their preference of Love You Live over YaYas. To each his/her own, but in my opinion-Love You Live is second rate (and with the possible exception of the El Mocambo side) a throw-away album....
It's stated in the very first post.
EDIT: And now in z's post
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 11:43 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 30, 2017 13:43
Quote
DandelionPowderman
IMO, there are a zillion better versions of SFM and HTW than the Ya Yas-version, with and without Taylor.
This is one of the oddest claims I ever heard in IORR... The version of "Honky Tonk Women" is not anything particular at all, and probably the only cut in YA-YA'S that is not distinctive and a little artistic statement of its own, to give some real justification to the claim 'the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world' - the very daring and arrogant statement of the album. It will took till following tours that they could give "Honky Tonk Women" a distinguished live reading. In YA-YA'S it sounds a bit teethless and 'gentle' - like they didn't quite dare to utilize all the potentia the masterpiece song has, but play it just through with silky hands. By contrast, the versions to be heard in BRUSSELS and LOVE YOU LIVE are both excellent.
But as far as "Street Fighting Man" go - to me the YA-YA'S version is simply definitive as far as live versions go. So distinctive, so threatening, so powerful, so majestic - a showcase like all the forces of darkness and anger in use - The Stones simply going transcendental. I never heard any other live version to give me that impression. Keith's riff/rhythmn guitar is so mean and and edgy - and in a perfect synch with Jagger's vocals - the way he communicates with Mick in the verses - every damn hit and timing with a perfect vocal correspondence is simply is like a strong and daring statement of its own - then to be orgastic like exploding in every chorus... and Mick actually singing/shouting the songs like his life depending on it - without fooling around or faking... Just listen every utterance of "Street fighting maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan"..... Then we have Taylor adding his thing to the mess - adding the punch of the main riff in pieces, then offering precise an controlled licks and runs here and then, doings actually lots of things, all of them exciting the imagination and serving the song... simply phenomenal. The last little run he repeats in the coda of the song - no fooling around, no uncertainty, no 'noodling', just doing the exact thing with his great technique an touch - that just sticks to one's mind. A triumphial guitar fiesta - both Richards and Taylor at their VERY best. No reason to forget Charlie and Bill either... the rhythm section is in a pure 'wobble' mood, living and breathing the beat, going like any other rock band ever dares to.. THe whole band, from Bill's balls to Mick's lips, one big @#$%& organ... The 'greatest rock and roll band in the world' indeed, and by a long mile....
The dramatics of this version is also perfect - the song starts like sneaking.. Keith holding back his horses, not even trying to copy the shock value of the original intro, but like warning us,'take your seats now people and be ready, you don't know what the shit is going to happen soon...' And then bang-like, after Mick opens his mouth to start "Everywhere I..!" (shit, what a timing!) redefines the 'main riff' to make it THE very essence of the song - redefining it genius-like compared to the 'perfect by its own means' studio version. And did I already say that I have never the riff sounding so distinctive and 'deep' and meaningful as it does here. Due to it we are in the middle of the storm (a 'cross-fire hurricane' if you like). The effect is like some some bloody Wehrmacht conquering Poland. And then, as we are entering to the final part, the storm fades away arrogant-like 'okay, that's it.. no any big deal' ... and we are are left like thinking 'what a fvck was that'...
So for me denying the greatness of YA-YA'S "Street Fighting Man" would be like denying the greatness of studio version of "Gimme Shelter" - like not recognizing what makes this band absolutely unique and awesome. 'My' Stones just can't be any better - that's what an absolute peak means to me. There are other great versions of the song (they usually can't go too wrong with this majestic song, even during 'Vegas Era'), some of them giving some different emphasizations and even additions to the song, some of them more 'loosier', some more more 'rockier', but I have never heard them re-discovering this kind of mystic magic as they present and breath here. Pure genious. A hectic moment of inspiration.
So I'll be interested in hearing why you think this particular version of the song is so sub-par that there are a "zillion" better versions of it.
- Doxa
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 14:38 by Doxa.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2017 14:02
I always skip SFM on Ya Yas, as it isn't up to par with the rest of the album, imo. I disagree strongly about Keith's playing. All the magic of the studio version is gone.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 30, 2017 14:17
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I always skip SFM on Ya Yas, as it isn't up to par with the rest of the album, imo. I disagree strongly about Keith's playing. All the magic of the studio version is gone.
So it's, after all, up to one guitarist if the music stands or falls to?
That said, I also do think in similar terms as far as Keith Richards is concerned - his 'mood' pretty much defines the Stones' greatness, at least back in the old days when he really was the musical dynamo of the band. Anyway, we seem to have pretty different ideas of Keith's greatness, and, probably, about the greatness of The Rolling Stones.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 14:18 by Doxa.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2017 14:43
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
I always skip SFM on Ya Yas, as it isn't up to par with the rest of the album, imo. I disagree strongly about Keith's playing. All the magic of the studio version is gone.
So it's, after all, up to one guitarist if the music stands or falls to?
That said, I also do think in similar terms as far as Keith Richards is concerned - his 'mood' pretty much defines the Stones' greatness, at least back in the old days when he really was the musical dynamo of the band. Anyway, we seem to have pretty different ideas of Keith's greatness, and, probably, about the greatness of The Rolling Stones.
- Doxa
No, there's more. But I replied to your statement about Keith.
Something about the whole performance that just doesn't click, imo.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2017 14:45
I really love the other "road versions" on Ya-Ya's- like SCB and LWM, though.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: July 30, 2017 14:47
Great post, Doxa, again. I was about to write something about Dandies SFM remarks too, but what you wrote reflects my thoughts exactly.
The YaYas version is one of the occasions where the Stones left the studio version alone and created something new, right on stage. Happens with a lot of other YaYas tracks, too, and that's why this album will always be unparalled. What you get here is the Stones as a living, breathing band and not a group of musicians trying to recreate the studio arrangements for an audience that otherwise probably would not recognize the songs when played live.
Why people with heart and soul, even musicians themselves, would prefer modern versions, sometimes even karaoke-like replicas of their studio counterparts, over the musicianship shown on YaYas, is simply beyond me.
The YaYas version is one of the occasions where the Stones left the studio version alone and created something new, right on stage. Happens with a lot of other YaYas tracks, too, and that's why this album will always be unparalled. What you get here is the Stones as a living, breathing band and not a group of musicians trying to recreate the studio arrangements for an audience that otherwise probably would not recognize the songs when played live.
Why people with heart and soul, even musicians themselves, would prefer modern versions, sometimes even karaoke-like replicas of their studio counterparts, over the musicianship shown on YaYas, is simply beyond me.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2017 15:09
So, you're saying that the LYL versions are karaoke-like versions of the originals?
I'm not alone here in thinking that SFM is one of the weaker tracks on Ya-Ya's, though.
I'm not alone here in thinking that SFM is one of the weaker tracks on Ya-Ya's, though.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2017 15:15
Some toad versions are superior to the originals, and some aren't, imo.
The intro and the general groove in SFM is extremely important for it to work live, imo. That is missing on the Ya Yas version.
The intro and the general groove in SFM is extremely important for it to work live, imo. That is missing on the Ya Yas version.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: July 30, 2017 16:12
Quote
DandelionPowderman
So, you're saying that the LYL versions are karaoke-like versions of the originals?
I'm not alone here in thinking that SFM is one of the weaker tracks on Ya-Ya's, though.
No. You mentioned a "zillion better versions of SFM..." and these are not on LYL! The fact that you are not alone is good for you, but what are you trying to say?
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 30, 2017 16:16
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Some toad versions are superior to the originals, and some aren't, imo.
Actually I don't think it as a competition between studio 'originals' and live versions ('road versions'). They are like two different animals. What happened in 1969 (and following years, but particularly in 1969), was the necessary re-arranging of the studio 'originals' to fit to the demands of a modern electric guitar driven-live act. Especially the material then - BEGGARS an BLEED material - was perfect by its own means - a result of a studio band (following teh example of The Beatles) experimenting with whatever tricks and ideas and sounds in a studio in order to come up with perfect-sounding and accomplished pieces of art - with no worry 'how this should sound or work live' or something. The studio recordings were their own purposes, aims of their own.
When they were 'forced' to re-think the material to play it live I think a kind of second inspiration occurred - they were seeing the songs differently, using a lot of creativity and imagination (not to forget that they had a new, fresh talented guy in the band offering them possibilities they never had before) - and I think that resulted like a second coming of the songs. In some cases they almost discovered or created like a new essence to them. YA-YA'S! - a very important release at the time, actually one of the BIG FIVE - was a statement of the re-birth of the songs, which pretty much defined the sound of this new self-declared 'world's greatest rock and roll band'. In many ways YA-YA'S! was actually a bridge between LET IT BLEED and STICKY FINGERS - in their following records the band would actually sound more like the hard-rocking blues band introduced in YA-YA'S; add there that the dynamics of a live band they accomplished during 1969 tour affected to their studio output as well. The result, from STICKY FINGERS on, was that the differences between the studio and live versions weren't so huge anymore - not as much creative energy and inspiration was needed any longer to make the songs work live (and it could be that, as the years go, the songs weren't that inspirational any longer to discover new fresh angles to them ). But as far as the ever-important, essential 1968/69 material go - the one to define the most hectic, highlight moments in their concert when they wanted to make the audience go really wild - they had the 1969 versions or treatments as a starting point in their minds all the way to 1982 (the songs funnily an naturally 'evolving' - or 'devolving' - around the years in the hands of a 'living and a breathing band'). As we know, it was not until 1989 when they started to think 'how on earth the original studio version go...' and keep that as a some kind of main reference in mind).
So my take is that I consider 'studio originals' and 'road versions' almost like two different animals, especially in regards their 1968/69 material - glad to have them both. Could be that in some cases I have some preferences, but I don't think there is a 'correct' version how the song should go - there are different possibilities - and I think a live version - or actually any version - to be even called a version should have some kind of own individual substance and point in it (call it 'interpretation' or whatever). The Stones actually learned me think so, and it's been a bit hard for an old school, romantic person like me to 'accept' that the band itself has rejected that kind of creative thinking in treating their own songs - especially when they've been nothing but a live act essentially for decades now (though I understand the motivation for such a predictable 'safe and sure' policy, and I don't claim that their 'replica' versions wouldn't been even great sometimes, and, of course, it was fresh and different in 1989). Great there is Dylan still going opposite direction...
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 17:25 by Doxa.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 30, 2017 16:19
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The intro and the general groove in SFM is extremely important for it to work live, imo. That is missing on the Ya Yas version.
Talking about the intro and groove: On the original Keith plays the intro in standard tuning, acoustic with a capo. On Yaya's it's open G., with a capo, played on a crancked Ampeg, which of course gives it a more "hard rock" feel. However Keith's and Taylor's right hand approach, are more or less the same as on the original, at least during the verses. So to my ears the Stones i.e. Keith captures the general groove of the original very well, albeit a lot heavier.
Just don't compare both versions, the sky is the limit then. And what a difference a tuning makes. Hehe.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 16:20 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 30, 2017 16:37
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Just don't compare both versions, the sky is the limit then. .
WEll, that's my 'policy'... I think comparing different live versions to each other has a point - they like belong under the same category - but the original studio versions are like different animals altogether.
But I need to say that the 'recent', from 1989 on, policy of making 'replica' versions actually begs that comparision to the originals, because that's what they aim for. And in most cases, that doesn't turn out good... For example, the recent STICKY FINGERS FONDA ALBUM or how it is called, is a bit painful to me to listen... It is nothing but checking out 'how do they manage to replicate this and that', and after having checked that out, the whole point of the album goes... Why to listen those 'from bad to subpar to okayish' versions when I have the original STICKY FINGERS?
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 16:38 by Doxa.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: July 30, 2017 16:44
I prefer the 69 Versions of SFM over the ones that came later where they speed up the ending. The best live version I've heard is the one on Gimme Shelter, which I don't believe is the same one that ended up on Ya Ya's.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 30, 2017 16:48
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowderman
The intro and the general groove in SFM is extremely important for it to work live, imo. That is missing on the Ya Yas version.
Talking about the intro and groove: On the original Keith plays the intro in standard tuning, acoustic with a capo. On Yaya's it's open G., with a capo, played on a crancked Ampeg, which of course gives it a more "hard rock" feel. However Keith's and Taylor's right hand approach, are more or less the same as on the original, at least during the verses. So to my ears the Stones i.e. Keith captures the general groove of the original very well, albeit a lot heavier.
Open E-tuning. And, no, the right hand is taking the easy route on Ya-Ya's.
The "hard rock"-feeling of the electric open G works better on later tours, imo.
Just don't compare both versions, the sky is the limit then. And what a difference a tuning makes. Hehe.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 30, 2017 16:51
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowderman
The intro and the general groove in SFM is extremely important for it to work live, imo. That is missing on the Ya Yas version.
Talking about the intro and groove: On the original Keith plays the intro in standard tuning, acoustic with a capo. On Yaya's it's open G., with a capo, played on a crancked Ampeg, which of course gives it a more "hard rock" feel. However Keith's and Taylor's right hand approach, are more or less the same as on the original, at least during the verses. So to my ears the Stones i.e. Keith captures the general groove of the original very well, albeit a lot heavier.
Open E-tuning. And, no, the right hand is taking the easy route on Ya-Ya's.
The "hard rock"-feeling of the electric open G works better on later tours, imo.
Just don't compare both versions, the sky is the limit then. And what a difference a tuning makes. Hehe.
Yes, open E, I missed that at first ear after 25 years. Thanks for correcting me. Again, what a difference a tuning makes. Hehe.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-30 17:03 by TheflyingDutchman.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Casino Boogie , ChrisL , chrisvw , Crackinup , dishevelmentblues , erbissell , hockenheim95 , hot stuff , Idorh , Irix , jason8903 , keefmick , Kurt , liddas , NathanLaze , roryg , spikenyc , TW2019 , vlaci66
Guests:
1452
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10