Tell Me :
Talk
Okay, let me take you through this..
I stated that there is material on LYL that is stronger than that of the weakest on Ya-Ya's. I mentioned SFM as one of the weaker songs on there. So far, so good - as this isn't a very controversial statement.
Then I stated that there are a zillion better live versions of SFM, with and without Taylor. This was in response to a ridiculous comment, that anything Taylor played on is better than anything Wood played on.
None of these things are true, of course - as there aren't as many as a zillion SFM-versions and many of the songs where Keith plays lead guitar/there isn't any lead guitar can be superior to Taylor versions.
What I meant to say is that I find other 1969 versions superior + the Stripped version and some 2003-versions. Some of the versions from the 70s are also better. It shouldn't be hard even for a Taylorite to acknowledge this.
I'm tired of ignorance and arrogance, and urge people also to check out the Stones's unofficial stuff, instead of merely stop with the official albums, and claim that they've found the holy grail.
And, yes, I find the El Mocambo Around And Around superior to the Ya Yas SFM - even though Keith and Ronnie plays the leads.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 17:01 by DandelionPowderman.
That's only one of the superior 69 versions, imo.
Amen.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
I don't know either. People want to keep the plumbing running I guess.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 13:23 by TheflyingDutchman.
There is nothing karaoke-like in that album... except Jagger sometimes sounding like a totally pissed, just about to passing out Englishman at his local Saturday Night karoke pub night, trying with a huge difficulty approximate Stones-song melody lines and words to the big amusement of his mates...
And I love that!
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 14:36 by Doxa.
Just to be clear, I also love GYYYO, but didn't hear that until years later. So, for me, LYL was my first introduction to the Stones (besides hearing some songs on the radio). And as they say, you'll never forget your first time.
I guess STILL LIFE acts for me like LOVE YOU LIVE to you. Being hooked by TATTOO YOU, STILL LIFE was the next new STones relaese, and a strong introduction the Stones sounded at the time. I surely had GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! earlier and probably YA-YA'S too (I am not sure) - but all of those three albums sounded so different from each other, almost like three different bands, each having an own strong identity and being great and distinctive in their own terms (very easy to distinguish 'Brian Era' from 'Taylor Era' from 'Ronnie Era', if you like, though I didn't really thought in those terms at the time).
But what I recall that I bought LOVE YOU LIVE after those three and it was a huge disappointment (it was probably the last official release by then I purchased tomake my collection complete). It really sounded like a sloppy, degenarated, lazy version of the 'tight' an 'serious' band in YA-YA'S. That was my initial impression, and though I have re-considered my stance many times since then, it hasn't really changed. But it doesn't matter: I actually admire and enjoy that 75-76 era band due to that 'decadent', non-serious, almost deconstructive (just listen Jagger!) nature. It has a certain charm of its own there. Plus some interesting rhythm things going on. An interesting phase in the continuing adventures of the Rolling Stones from the days they still were a living and breathing band.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 16:01 by Doxa.
I don't know of any "replica" versions of SFM after 89/90.
Ah, I see - but isn't it a bit like cherrypicking? And what does it mean in the end? I can proudly state that I like Had It With You from DW better than Country Honk from Let It Bleed. But what does it say about the overall quality of these albums?
In the past decades, I've been digging deep enough through official and (extensively!) unofficial Stones to know that there are probably "better" live versions of HTW out there than the one that can be found on GYYYO, but what does it take away from my viewpoint that as far as live albums as a whole go, GYYYO is indeed the holy grail, along with Europe 1973 (not, not just Brussels, because there are versions of songs from London that are better than Brussels). I like Love You Live a lot, but tend to listen to the Mocambo tracks only most of the time (btw, the omission of Hand Of Fate from Paris disappointed me since the day LYL was released, because it was one of the few 1975/1976 live tracks that really gained steam over their studio counterparts).
Like I thought, we don't disagree here.
And no live album is better than Ya Yas.
The thing is, as you can see, this discussion went in several directions here
While I agree with most of this, I must say that all these "what if"-thoughts are purely fictional. What if Brian had stayed on board? And of course, what if Taylor had never left the band? Have we really missed a couple of more albums of Exile-quality if the Wood era had never happened? It's tempting to think along these lines, but let's not forget that there were reasons that things developed as they did. With both Brian and Taylor, one obvious aspect is burnout and growing disinterest in the bands doings. Would they have "recovered" if they had stayed? That's material for a nice (fictional) discussion, but in the end we never know. But what we know is the past as it really happened. All I can say is that in the same way that I can't imagine Brian contributing much to the albums of the Taylor years, I can't imagine Taylor playing on the albums from Some Girls and onwards. Different times, different requirements. Looks like while the rest of the band was able to adopt to the changing of the times and musical developments (at least to a certain degree, with growing conflicts setting in as early as the end of the 70's and an album of outtakes that initially was hiding the facts!), Brian and Taylor weren't.
It lurches. It's pretty dirty as well. It's good.
Of course all of the "what if's" are fictional, or wishful thinking, or speculation, or whatever you want to call it...all based on my opinion - as if I didn't make that clear enough already.
Interesting to read your reply though.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-02 21:22 by Hairball.
The fact that it's an edit detracts a little bit.
+ there are many superior solos from the same tour.
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:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 30, 2017 17:46
Until I saw the MSG 2003 PPV I was convinced I'd never hear a great version of Street Fighting Man live by the Stones.
The version on GYYYO! is incredible.
Having heard countless other live versions from tours after 1969, somehow they really screwed it up: 1972 and 73 way too fast, Jagger grunting the words; at times even a lack of conviction (1976)... hilariously getting lost while somehow performing it completely flaccid (VOODOO tour); completely spineless (1981), yet the worst live version I've ever heard was from the URBAN JUNGLE tour.
It's one of those bizarre songs they've managed to perfect and destroy live more than once, unlike JJF or Satisfaction or for that matter SFTD.
The version on GYYYO! is incredible.
Having heard countless other live versions from tours after 1969, somehow they really screwed it up: 1972 and 73 way too fast, Jagger grunting the words; at times even a lack of conviction (1976)... hilariously getting lost while somehow performing it completely flaccid (VOODOO tour); completely spineless (1981), yet the worst live version I've ever heard was from the URBAN JUNGLE tour.
It's one of those bizarre songs they've managed to perfect and destroy live more than once, unlike JJF or Satisfaction or for that matter SFTD.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: July 31, 2017 04:18
SFM on Ya Yas is definitive, and there has been no live version better. It's the absolute peak on the Ya Yas album. The majesty of it is mind blowing.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: July 31, 2017 08:26
Quote
24FPS
SFM on Ya Yas is definitive, and there has been no live version better. It's the absolute peak on the Ya Yas album. The majesty of it is mind blowing.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 31, 2017 10:14
Quote
retired_dogQuote
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?
Okay, let me take you through this..
I stated that there is material on LYL that is stronger than that of the weakest on Ya-Ya's. I mentioned SFM as one of the weaker songs on there. So far, so good - as this isn't a very controversial statement.
Then I stated that there are a zillion better live versions of SFM, with and without Taylor. This was in response to a ridiculous comment, that anything Taylor played on is better than anything Wood played on.
None of these things are true, of course - as there aren't as many as a zillion SFM-versions and many of the songs where Keith plays lead guitar/there isn't any lead guitar can be superior to Taylor versions.
What I meant to say is that I find other 1969 versions superior + the Stripped version and some 2003-versions. Some of the versions from the 70s are also better. It shouldn't be hard even for a Taylorite to acknowledge this.
I'm tired of ignorance and arrogance, and urge people also to check out the Stones's unofficial stuff, instead of merely stop with the official albums, and claim that they've found the holy grail.
And, yes, I find the El Mocambo Around And Around superior to the Ya Yas SFM - even though Keith and Ronnie plays the leads.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 17:01 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 31, 2017 10:16
Quote
ryanpow
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.
That's only one of the superior 69 versions, imo.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: July 31, 2017 11:49
SFM on Ya-Yas has always sounded huge and majestic to me. I think the mixing of the album was magical. Because not only is the performance so stellar, but it MUST be presented and sold the right way; in order to convey this feeling of magic, and electricity to the listening audience.
The whole Ya-yas album was done so well in that regard. And IMO this is ultimately why it is a better LIVE album than the big sides of LYL. The small side of LYL (Mocambo) is topnotch.
We all know these individual lines from the audience on Ya-yas. The screams in the slow part of "Rambler". Certain feedback squeals. Charlie and Bill's impatient rumblings in between songs.
And then comes that last gasp, that Jagger announces so well "Were gonna do one more, then we gotta go", followed by Keith's intro strums. To me it feels like I am right there in the crowd, yelking my head off. Side 4 of LYL never does that.
The tempo is slower than on the 72/73 frenzied versions. Taylor was a brilliant musician, brilliance often brings impatience along. Taylor did not like repeating himself. So in 69 we got him doing those songs for the first time on stage, and maybe the purest take of his on the songs. I love that he sticks to that one riff in most of the song. When he takes it down one octave it sounds fantastic.
The whole Ya-yas album was done so well in that regard. And IMO this is ultimately why it is a better LIVE album than the big sides of LYL. The small side of LYL (Mocambo) is topnotch.
We all know these individual lines from the audience on Ya-yas. The screams in the slow part of "Rambler". Certain feedback squeals. Charlie and Bill's impatient rumblings in between songs.
And then comes that last gasp, that Jagger announces so well "Were gonna do one more, then we gotta go", followed by Keith's intro strums. To me it feels like I am right there in the crowd, yelking my head off. Side 4 of LYL never does that.
The tempo is slower than on the 72/73 frenzied versions. Taylor was a brilliant musician, brilliance often brings impatience along. Taylor did not like repeating himself. So in 69 we got him doing those songs for the first time on stage, and maybe the purest take of his on the songs. I love that he sticks to that one riff in most of the song. When he takes it down one octave it sounds fantastic.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: July 31, 2017 12:13
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
SFM on Ya-Yas has always sounded huge and majestic to me. I think the mixing of the album was magical. Because not only is the performance so stellar, but it MUST be presented and sold the right way; in order to convey this feeling of magic, and electricity to the listening audience.
The whole Ya-yas album was done so well in that regard. And IMO this is ultimately why it is a better LIVE album than the big sides of LYL. The small side of LYL (Mocambo) is topnotch.
We all know these individual lines from the audience on Ya-yas. The screams in the slow part of "Rambler". Certain feedback squeals. Charlie and Bill's impatient rumblings in between songs.
And then comes that last gasp, that Jagger announces so well "Were gonna do one more, then we gotta go", followed by Keith's intro strums. To me it feels like I am right there in the crowd, yelking my head off. Side 4 of LYL never does that.
The tempo is slower than on the 72/73 frenzied versions. Taylor was a brilliant musician, brilliance often brings impatience along. Taylor did not like repeating himself. So in 69 we got him doing those songs for the first time on stage, and maybe the purest take of his on the songs. I love that he sticks to that one riff in most of the song. When he takes it down one octave it sounds fantastic.
Amen.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 31, 2017 13:22
Quote
DoxaQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Just don't compare both versions, the sky is the limit then. .
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
I don't know either. People want to keep the plumbing running I guess.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 13:23 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 31, 2017 14:35
Quote
DandelionPowderman
So, you're saying that the LYL versions are karaoke-like versions of the originals?
There is nothing karaoke-like in that album... except Jagger sometimes sounding like a totally pissed, just about to passing out Englishman at his local Saturday Night karoke pub night, trying with a huge difficulty approximate Stones-song melody lines and words to the big amusement of his mates...
And I love that!
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 14:36 by Doxa.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: July 31, 2017 15:18
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Did you miss the opening post?
Just to be clear, I also love GYYYO, but didn't hear that until years later. So, for me, LYL was my first introduction to the Stones (besides hearing some songs on the radio). And as they say, you'll never forget your first time.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 31, 2017 15:58
Quote
KoenQuote
DandelionPowderman
Did you miss the opening post?
Just to be clear, I also love GYYYO, but didn't hear that until years later. So, for me, LYL was my first introduction to the Stones (besides hearing some songs on the radio). And as they say, you'll never forget your first time.
I guess STILL LIFE acts for me like LOVE YOU LIVE to you. Being hooked by TATTOO YOU, STILL LIFE was the next new STones relaese, and a strong introduction the Stones sounded at the time. I surely had GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! earlier and probably YA-YA'S too (I am not sure) - but all of those three albums sounded so different from each other, almost like three different bands, each having an own strong identity and being great and distinctive in their own terms (very easy to distinguish 'Brian Era' from 'Taylor Era' from 'Ronnie Era', if you like, though I didn't really thought in those terms at the time).
But what I recall that I bought LOVE YOU LIVE after those three and it was a huge disappointment (it was probably the last official release by then I purchased tomake my collection complete). It really sounded like a sloppy, degenarated, lazy version of the 'tight' an 'serious' band in YA-YA'S. That was my initial impression, and though I have re-considered my stance many times since then, it hasn't really changed. But it doesn't matter: I actually admire and enjoy that 75-76 era band due to that 'decadent', non-serious, almost deconstructive (just listen Jagger!) nature. It has a certain charm of its own there. Plus some interesting rhythm things going on. An interesting phase in the continuing adventures of the Rolling Stones from the days they still were a living and breathing band.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 16:01 by Doxa.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: July 31, 2017 16:03
I had posted this on an old Ya yas thread, but the inspiration for that was really the discussions of Ya Ya's that are turning up in this thread. So I'm going to post it here as well in case someone hasn't read it; or maybe wasn't around and about when Bangs was writing.
He thinks that even the best studio hits were bettered by this version of The Stones. Lester was quick to be dismissive, even brutal. I think he walloped them a time or two after this but....this sort of appreciation he expresses here is pretty fascinating to me. So I'd like to share it.
The Rolling Stones: Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out
By Lester Bangs
September 4, 1970
As much as the recorded product, the rock and roll concert scene seems mighty unhealthy these days. I hardly ever go to see name bands anymore myself, because most of them are so incredibly boring. Standards of performance are very low, and those few artists with enough talent or interest to put on a credible show often end up turning in performances so professionally, predictably competent that you walk out with the palest satisfaction and few memories. In the past year I have watched Ten Years After stumble through a set equal parts plodding monotone and splintered noise, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young invoke Woodstock to compensate for boring everyone to tears, and the Band and Creedence Clearwater recite their albums to such perfection that I fidgeted. I had to draw the line of most resistance when Led Zeppelin hit town last month for a 2-1/2 hour tour-de-force. But I asked a friend with more fortitude how it was, and he raved: "Oh, shit. I took eight reds and just sat there thinkin' the Zep was gonna play forever — man, I felt so good!"
Into this depressing scene ripped the Rolling Stones barnstorming their way across America last fall for a tour which left most audiences satisfied and well-nigh spent, but got reviews mixed and ultimately perplexed because few of us were sure what to expect or, once the hysteria of the actual performance had drained away, how to react. In 1965, caught up in a hurricane of bopper shrieks, we accepted the whole thing as sort of a supernatural visitation, a cataclysmic experience of Wagnerian power that transcended music. In 1969 they were expected to prove themselves as a stage act, but the force of their personalities and the tides of hype and our expectations cancelled all our cynical reservations the moment Mick strode out and drawled hello to each home town. There they were in the flesh, the Rolling Stones, ultimate personification of all our notions and fantasies and hopes for rock and roll, and we were enthralled, but the nagging question that remained was whether the show we had seen was really that brilliant, or if we had not been to some degree set up, pavlov'd by years of absence and rock scribes and 45 minute delays into a kind of injection delirium in which a show which was perfectly ordinary in terms of what the Stones might have been capable of would seem like some ultimate rock apocalypse. Sure, the Stones put on what was almost undoubtedly the best show of the year, but did that say more about their own involvement or about the almost uniform lameness of the competition? Some folks never did decide.
Liver Than You'll Ever Be, appearing last spring, provided a partial answer. It was a good album, as live rock albums go — "Carol" and "Midnight Rambler" especially shone. Some people were enthralled by it, but I found the musical interest of most of the songs mighty ephemeral, and in general preferred the clattering thunder of Got Live If You Want It, which in terms of looseness, energy and general right-on shagginess could make a fair bid for being the rock concert album of all time. There are more important things than playing on-beat and on-key, and that fine line between slam-bang exorcism and unedifying noise is what would seem to make a great live LP.
All of which is why Get Your Ya-Ya's Out is such an unfettered delight. This album, at last, proves the fears of those who cared to fear groundless. More than just the soundtrack for a Rolling Stones concert, it's a truly inspired session, as intimate an experience as sitting in while the Stones jam for sheer joy in the basement. It proves once and for all that this band does not merely play the audience, it plays music whose essential crudeness is so highly refined that it becomes a kind of absolute distillation of raunch, that element which seems to be seeping out of Seventies rock at a disturbing rate. Where most live efforts seem almost embarrassing in their posturings and excesses, and even The Who Live at Leeds held tinges of the Art Statement, Ya-Ya's at its best just rocks and socks you right out of your chair. You can not only love it for what it is, you can like it for what it isn't.
The set opens with a brief collage of MC introductions from all their tour stops, and then rolls right into a solid, methodical "Jumpin' Jack Flash." Neither it nor the next three songs on side one quite match the energy level reached in "Midnight Rambler" and sustained through all of side two, but subsequent playings reveal the live "Jack Flash" to have a certain fierce precision which the studio single lacked and which makes the latter sound almost plodding by comparison. Here the bottom is full and brooding and the group as a whole has a bite as sharp as a pair of wire cutters.
Next comes Mick, teasing the little chickies: "Uh oh, I think I bust a button on mah trous-ahs ... you do' want mah trousahs to fall down, now do ya?" I had a friend once who nearly provoked me to fisticuffs when he remarked that Mick's appeal was "perverted." Now, the thing that strikes me here is how essentially positive and even wholesome, in terms of what's in the wind in 1970, Mick's onstage stud-strut is. Jim Morrison makes like The Flasher and screams "Love your brother!," Iggy practically turns the mike into a dildo, but Mick just flaps his lips, grinds his hips and chortles: "This is me, honeys — yearn!"
"Carol" is fine but definitely weaker than the version of Liver, and for me "Strange Stray Cat" and "Love in Vain" provide the low points of the album, the former by a certain clutter and the latter by not being that inspiring a vehicle in the first place.
But all traces of disinterest or disappointment skedaddle with the first swaggering chords of "Midnight Rambler." Mick can hardly wait to get started, flinging out rippling harp riffs and muttering lyrics before the others even begin, and certainly this great song made to be done live, has never been rendered with more purging viciousness. Every riff in it is so pristinely simple, yet so directly and deliberately placed that its locomotive rushes and icy invective take on more power the closer you come to learning them by heart. Let It Bleed's version seemed sinuous, somehow cool and detached in its violence, like one of Norman Mailer's Fifties hipsters. Here the song's celebratory rage comes bursting with a juggernaut wallop, Mick wrenching inchoate nonverbal vocalisms from his throat in the stop-time middle section, the audience roaring back (one crazed cat hollering "God damn!" in between), and the final frosting some wiry, lunging new riffs from Keith that build magnifiicently to the crashing climax.
The second side opens with another great audience riff — an insistent chick yells "'Paint It Black,' you devils!" and the Stones answer with an airborne "Sympathy For the Devil" that beats the rather cut-and-dried rendition on Beggar's Banquet all hollow, and spotlights a ringing Richard solo that's undoubtedly one of his best on record.
From there on out the energy level of the proceedings seems to soar straight up. "Live With Me" is just great ribald jive, but "Little Queenie" as done here is alltime classic Stones. Just strutting along, leering and shuffling, the song has all the loose, lipsmacking glee its lyrics ever implied. This kind of gutty, almost offhand, seemingly effortless funk is where the Stones have traditionally left all competitors in the dust, and here they outdo themselves. I even think that this is one of those rare instances (most of the others are on their first album) where they cut Chuck Berry with one of his own songs.
"Honky Tonk Women" is just a joy, after Liver's half-realized run-through and Joe Cocker's hack job, gutbucket rock and roll flowing out fine and raucous as a river of beer, but "Street Fightin' Man" takes the show out on a level of stratospheric intensity that simply rises above the rest of the album and sums it all up. Keith's work here is a special delight, great surging riffs reminiscent of some of the best lines on the first Moby Grape album, or the golden lead in Stevie Wonder's "I Was Made to Love Her." I don't think there's a song on Ya-Ya's where the Stones didn't cut their original studio jobs, and this one leaps perhaps farthest ahead of all.
The Seventies may not have started with bright prospects for the future of rock, and so many hacks are reciting the litany of doom that it's beginning to annoy like an inane survey hit. The form may be in trouble, and we listeners may ourselves be in trouble, so jaded it gets harder each month to even hear what we're listening to. But the Rolling Stones are most assuredly not in trouble, and are looking like an even greater force in the years ahead than they have been. It's still too soon to tell, but I'm beginning to think Ya-Ya's just might be the best album they ever made. I have no doubt that it's the best rock concert ever put on record. The Stones, alone among their generation of groups, are not about to fall by the wayside. And as long as they continue to thrive this way, the era of true rock and roll music will remain alive and kicking with them.
Lester Bangs (RIP)
[www.rollingstone.com]
________________________________________
He thinks that even the best studio hits were bettered by this version of The Stones. Lester was quick to be dismissive, even brutal. I think he walloped them a time or two after this but....this sort of appreciation he expresses here is pretty fascinating to me. So I'd like to share it.
The Rolling Stones: Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out
By Lester Bangs
September 4, 1970
As much as the recorded product, the rock and roll concert scene seems mighty unhealthy these days. I hardly ever go to see name bands anymore myself, because most of them are so incredibly boring. Standards of performance are very low, and those few artists with enough talent or interest to put on a credible show often end up turning in performances so professionally, predictably competent that you walk out with the palest satisfaction and few memories. In the past year I have watched Ten Years After stumble through a set equal parts plodding monotone and splintered noise, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young invoke Woodstock to compensate for boring everyone to tears, and the Band and Creedence Clearwater recite their albums to such perfection that I fidgeted. I had to draw the line of most resistance when Led Zeppelin hit town last month for a 2-1/2 hour tour-de-force. But I asked a friend with more fortitude how it was, and he raved: "Oh, shit. I took eight reds and just sat there thinkin' the Zep was gonna play forever — man, I felt so good!"
Into this depressing scene ripped the Rolling Stones barnstorming their way across America last fall for a tour which left most audiences satisfied and well-nigh spent, but got reviews mixed and ultimately perplexed because few of us were sure what to expect or, once the hysteria of the actual performance had drained away, how to react. In 1965, caught up in a hurricane of bopper shrieks, we accepted the whole thing as sort of a supernatural visitation, a cataclysmic experience of Wagnerian power that transcended music. In 1969 they were expected to prove themselves as a stage act, but the force of their personalities and the tides of hype and our expectations cancelled all our cynical reservations the moment Mick strode out and drawled hello to each home town. There they were in the flesh, the Rolling Stones, ultimate personification of all our notions and fantasies and hopes for rock and roll, and we were enthralled, but the nagging question that remained was whether the show we had seen was really that brilliant, or if we had not been to some degree set up, pavlov'd by years of absence and rock scribes and 45 minute delays into a kind of injection delirium in which a show which was perfectly ordinary in terms of what the Stones might have been capable of would seem like some ultimate rock apocalypse. Sure, the Stones put on what was almost undoubtedly the best show of the year, but did that say more about their own involvement or about the almost uniform lameness of the competition? Some folks never did decide.
Liver Than You'll Ever Be, appearing last spring, provided a partial answer. It was a good album, as live rock albums go — "Carol" and "Midnight Rambler" especially shone. Some people were enthralled by it, but I found the musical interest of most of the songs mighty ephemeral, and in general preferred the clattering thunder of Got Live If You Want It, which in terms of looseness, energy and general right-on shagginess could make a fair bid for being the rock concert album of all time. There are more important things than playing on-beat and on-key, and that fine line between slam-bang exorcism and unedifying noise is what would seem to make a great live LP.
All of which is why Get Your Ya-Ya's Out is such an unfettered delight. This album, at last, proves the fears of those who cared to fear groundless. More than just the soundtrack for a Rolling Stones concert, it's a truly inspired session, as intimate an experience as sitting in while the Stones jam for sheer joy in the basement. It proves once and for all that this band does not merely play the audience, it plays music whose essential crudeness is so highly refined that it becomes a kind of absolute distillation of raunch, that element which seems to be seeping out of Seventies rock at a disturbing rate. Where most live efforts seem almost embarrassing in their posturings and excesses, and even The Who Live at Leeds held tinges of the Art Statement, Ya-Ya's at its best just rocks and socks you right out of your chair. You can not only love it for what it is, you can like it for what it isn't.
The set opens with a brief collage of MC introductions from all their tour stops, and then rolls right into a solid, methodical "Jumpin' Jack Flash." Neither it nor the next three songs on side one quite match the energy level reached in "Midnight Rambler" and sustained through all of side two, but subsequent playings reveal the live "Jack Flash" to have a certain fierce precision which the studio single lacked and which makes the latter sound almost plodding by comparison. Here the bottom is full and brooding and the group as a whole has a bite as sharp as a pair of wire cutters.
Next comes Mick, teasing the little chickies: "Uh oh, I think I bust a button on mah trous-ahs ... you do' want mah trousahs to fall down, now do ya?" I had a friend once who nearly provoked me to fisticuffs when he remarked that Mick's appeal was "perverted." Now, the thing that strikes me here is how essentially positive and even wholesome, in terms of what's in the wind in 1970, Mick's onstage stud-strut is. Jim Morrison makes like The Flasher and screams "Love your brother!," Iggy practically turns the mike into a dildo, but Mick just flaps his lips, grinds his hips and chortles: "This is me, honeys — yearn!"
"Carol" is fine but definitely weaker than the version of Liver, and for me "Strange Stray Cat" and "Love in Vain" provide the low points of the album, the former by a certain clutter and the latter by not being that inspiring a vehicle in the first place.
But all traces of disinterest or disappointment skedaddle with the first swaggering chords of "Midnight Rambler." Mick can hardly wait to get started, flinging out rippling harp riffs and muttering lyrics before the others even begin, and certainly this great song made to be done live, has never been rendered with more purging viciousness. Every riff in it is so pristinely simple, yet so directly and deliberately placed that its locomotive rushes and icy invective take on more power the closer you come to learning them by heart. Let It Bleed's version seemed sinuous, somehow cool and detached in its violence, like one of Norman Mailer's Fifties hipsters. Here the song's celebratory rage comes bursting with a juggernaut wallop, Mick wrenching inchoate nonverbal vocalisms from his throat in the stop-time middle section, the audience roaring back (one crazed cat hollering "God damn!" in between), and the final frosting some wiry, lunging new riffs from Keith that build magnifiicently to the crashing climax.
The second side opens with another great audience riff — an insistent chick yells "'Paint It Black,' you devils!" and the Stones answer with an airborne "Sympathy For the Devil" that beats the rather cut-and-dried rendition on Beggar's Banquet all hollow, and spotlights a ringing Richard solo that's undoubtedly one of his best on record.
From there on out the energy level of the proceedings seems to soar straight up. "Live With Me" is just great ribald jive, but "Little Queenie" as done here is alltime classic Stones. Just strutting along, leering and shuffling, the song has all the loose, lipsmacking glee its lyrics ever implied. This kind of gutty, almost offhand, seemingly effortless funk is where the Stones have traditionally left all competitors in the dust, and here they outdo themselves. I even think that this is one of those rare instances (most of the others are on their first album) where they cut Chuck Berry with one of his own songs.
"Honky Tonk Women" is just a joy, after Liver's half-realized run-through and Joe Cocker's hack job, gutbucket rock and roll flowing out fine and raucous as a river of beer, but "Street Fightin' Man" takes the show out on a level of stratospheric intensity that simply rises above the rest of the album and sums it all up. Keith's work here is a special delight, great surging riffs reminiscent of some of the best lines on the first Moby Grape album, or the golden lead in Stevie Wonder's "I Was Made to Love Her." I don't think there's a song on Ya-Ya's where the Stones didn't cut their original studio jobs, and this one leaps perhaps farthest ahead of all.
The Seventies may not have started with bright prospects for the future of rock, and so many hacks are reciting the litany of doom that it's beginning to annoy like an inane survey hit. The form may be in trouble, and we listeners may ourselves be in trouble, so jaded it gets harder each month to even hear what we're listening to. But the Rolling Stones are most assuredly not in trouble, and are looking like an even greater force in the years ahead than they have been. It's still too soon to tell, but I'm beginning to think Ya-Ya's just might be the best album they ever made. I have no doubt that it's the best rock concert ever put on record. The Stones, alone among their generation of groups, are not about to fall by the wayside. And as long as they continue to thrive this way, the era of true rock and roll music will remain alive and kicking with them.
Lester Bangs (RIP)
[www.rollingstone.com]
________________________________________
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 31, 2017 17:03
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DoxaQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Just don't compare both versions, the sky is the limit then. .
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
I don't know either. People want to keep the plumbing running I guess.
I don't know of any "replica" versions of SFM after 89/90.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 31, 2017 17:11
<Why to listen those 'from bad to subpar to okayish' versions when I have the original STICKY FINGERS?>
Because it's your favourite band playing one of your favourite albums?
Brown Sugar, Bitch or Dead Flowers never sounded as good live as on the studio album. Why should we listen to the Rattlesnake STP Box? Brussels? LA Friday? Atlantic City? Stripped? Fonda?
Because it's our favourite band playing our favourite music, I'd say
Because it's your favourite band playing one of your favourite albums?
Brown Sugar, Bitch or Dead Flowers never sounded as good live as on the studio album. Why should we listen to the Rattlesnake STP Box? Brussels? LA Friday? Atlantic City? Stripped? Fonda?
Because it's our favourite band playing our favourite music, I'd say
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: July 31, 2017 17:22
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
retired_dogQuote
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?
Okay, let me take you through this..
I stated that there is material on LYL that is stronger than that of the weakest on Ya-Ya's. I mentioned SFM as one of the weaker songs on there. So far, so good - as this isn't a very controversial statement.
Then I stated that there are a zillion better live versions of SFM, with and without Taylor. This was in response to a ridiculous comment, that anything Taylor played on is better than anything Wood played on.
None of these things are true, of course - as there aren't as many as a zillion SFM-versions and many of the songs where Keith plays lead guitar/there isn't any lead guitar can be superior to Taylor versions.
What air meant to say is that I find other 1969 versions superior + the Stripped version and some 2003-versions. Some of the versions from the 70s are also better. It shouldn't be hard even for a Taylorite to acknowledge this.
I'm tired of ignorance and arrogance, and urge people also to check out the Stones's unofficial stuff, instead of merely stop with the official albums, and claim that they've found the holy grail.
And, yes, I find the El Mocambo Around And Around superior to the Ya Yas SFM - even though Keith and Ronnie plays the leads.
Ah, I see - but isn't it a bit like cherrypicking? And what does it mean in the end? I can proudly state that I like Had It With You from DW better than Country Honk from Let It Bleed. But what does it say about the overall quality of these albums?
In the past decades, I've been digging deep enough through official and (extensively!) unofficial Stones to know that there are probably "better" live versions of HTW out there than the one that can be found on GYYYO, but what does it take away from my viewpoint that as far as live albums as a whole go, GYYYO is indeed the holy grail, along with Europe 1973 (not, not just Brussels, because there are versions of songs from London that are better than Brussels). I like Love You Live a lot, but tend to listen to the Mocambo tracks only most of the time (btw, the omission of Hand Of Fate from Paris disappointed me since the day LYL was released, because it was one of the few 1975/1976 live tracks that really gained steam over their studio counterparts).
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: July 31, 2017 17:40
Just thinking about the HTW intro on LYL gives me goosebumps. I cannot recall how HTW on GYYYO sounds. But then again, I haven't listened to it in a while.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 31, 2017 17:51
Quote
retired_dogQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
retired_dogQuote
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?
Okay, let me take you through this..
I stated that there is material on LYL that is stronger than that of the weakest on Ya-Ya's. I mentioned SFM as one of the weaker songs on there. So far, so good - as this isn't a very controversial statement.
Then I stated that there are a zillion better live versions of SFM, with and without Taylor. This was in response to a ridiculous comment, that anything Taylor played on is better than anything Wood played on.
None of these things are true, of course - as there aren't as many as a zillion SFM-versions and many of the songs where Keith plays lead guitar/there isn't any lead guitar can be superior to Taylor versions.
What air meant to say is that I find other 1969 versions superior + the Stripped version and some 2003-versions. Some of the versions from the 70s are also better. It shouldn't be hard even for a Taylorite to acknowledge this.
I'm tired of ignorance and arrogance, and urge people also to check out the Stones's unofficial stuff, instead of merely stop with the official albums, and claim that they've found the holy grail.
And, yes, I find the El Mocambo Around And Around superior to the Ya Yas SFM - even though Keith and Ronnie plays the leads.
Ah, I see - but isn't it a bit like cherrypicking? And what does it mean in the end? I can proudly state that I like Had It With You from DW better than Country Honk from Let It Bleed. But what does it say about the overall quality of these albums?
In the past decades, I've been digging deep enough through official and (extensively!) unofficial Stones to know that there are probably "better" live versions of HTW out there than the one that can be found on GYYYO, but what does it take away from my viewpoint that as far as live albums as a whole go, GYYYO is indeed the holy grail, along with Europe 1973 (not, not just Brussels, because there are versions of songs from London that are better than Brussels). I like Love You Live a lot, but tend to listen to the Mocambo tracks only most of the time (btw, the omission of Hand Of Fate from Paris disappointed me since the day LYL was released, because it was one of the few 1975/1976 live tracks that really gained steam over their studio counterparts).
Like I thought, we don't disagree here.
And no live album is better than Ya Yas.
The thing is, as you can see, this discussion went in several directions here
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: July 31, 2017 21:19
Random thoughts on LYL:
In '77 I had moved out of state for a year and brought a pile of about 10-15 albums with me - LYL happened to be brand new and was part of the stack. It became a major part of my listening experience during that year, and even though it was a far cry from YaYa's, it did have it's moments (especially the El Mocambo side).
In hindsight though, when you look at the context and the "state of the band" (and music in general) of '69 vs. '75/'76, there's some huge differences - and it's not just Ronnie. In '69, the Stones seemed more serious in every way - touring during a period amidst some of their greatest studio albums (Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed). Their creativity was near a peak in the studio, and that was reflected in their live performances. By the time LYL was recorded, they were completely different from the YaYa's period. All the reckless lifestyle they dabbled with. The less than stellar IORR and Black and Blue being their most recent. Living in luxury like never before. Lives of the rich and famous. It's all reflected in the haphazard approach to the way they were performing, and ultimately resulted in a less than stellar sounding live album (El Mocambo side being an exception maybe - mainly due to the club setting). It's as if they were on autopilot while drunk without giving anything a second thought, and while it is a nice document of that particular period with it's haphazardness, it really isn't something that can compare to them live when they were at their true zenith IMO. There's a lot of similarities in the LYL approach to the out of control performances of '78 and '81/'82, and those days became a thing of the past with the '89 tours onward where most performances sound sterile and almost contrived - aka the Vegas years.
On another note, of the many times I've seen the Stones live since '81, I would only consider about 25% of them at most as truly memorable for a variety of reasons - not just performance. The first two times in '81 of course, several small shows during the Licks tour, the Mick Taylor guest appearances a few years ago, and the Desert Trip shows - specifically weekend two. As for Mick Taylor, seeing him play in '82 during the Bluesbreakers reunion at the Roxy in L.A. ranks up their with the best Stones shows I've seen. Always made me wonder what the Stones would have been like if he had remained in the band...no doubt they would have been better imo. Perhaps we wouldn't have the great Some Girls, but there'd probably be something just as interesting (if not more) to take it's place.
edit: To be clear and not to cause any strife, all of the above is just my personal perspectives and humble opinion.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 21:25 by Hairball.
In '77 I had moved out of state for a year and brought a pile of about 10-15 albums with me - LYL happened to be brand new and was part of the stack. It became a major part of my listening experience during that year, and even though it was a far cry from YaYa's, it did have it's moments (especially the El Mocambo side).
In hindsight though, when you look at the context and the "state of the band" (and music in general) of '69 vs. '75/'76, there's some huge differences - and it's not just Ronnie. In '69, the Stones seemed more serious in every way - touring during a period amidst some of their greatest studio albums (Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed). Their creativity was near a peak in the studio, and that was reflected in their live performances. By the time LYL was recorded, they were completely different from the YaYa's period. All the reckless lifestyle they dabbled with. The less than stellar IORR and Black and Blue being their most recent. Living in luxury like never before. Lives of the rich and famous. It's all reflected in the haphazard approach to the way they were performing, and ultimately resulted in a less than stellar sounding live album (El Mocambo side being an exception maybe - mainly due to the club setting). It's as if they were on autopilot while drunk without giving anything a second thought, and while it is a nice document of that particular period with it's haphazardness, it really isn't something that can compare to them live when they were at their true zenith IMO. There's a lot of similarities in the LYL approach to the out of control performances of '78 and '81/'82, and those days became a thing of the past with the '89 tours onward where most performances sound sterile and almost contrived - aka the Vegas years.
On another note, of the many times I've seen the Stones live since '81, I would only consider about 25% of them at most as truly memorable for a variety of reasons - not just performance. The first two times in '81 of course, several small shows during the Licks tour, the Mick Taylor guest appearances a few years ago, and the Desert Trip shows - specifically weekend two. As for Mick Taylor, seeing him play in '82 during the Bluesbreakers reunion at the Roxy in L.A. ranks up their with the best Stones shows I've seen. Always made me wonder what the Stones would have been like if he had remained in the band...no doubt they would have been better imo. Perhaps we wouldn't have the great Some Girls, but there'd probably be something just as interesting (if not more) to take it's place.
edit: To be clear and not to cause any strife, all of the above is just my personal perspectives and humble opinion.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-31 21:25 by Hairball.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: August 2, 2017 12:48
Quote
Hairball
Random thoughts on LYL:
In '77 I had moved out of state for a year and brought a pile of about 10-15 albums with me - LYL happened to be brand new and was part of the stack. It became a major part of my listening experience during that year, and even though it was a far cry from YaYa's, it did have it's moments (especially the El Mocambo side).
In hindsight though, when you look at the context and the "state of the band" (and music in general) of '69 vs. '75/'76, there's some huge differences - and it's not just Ronnie. In '69, the Stones seemed more serious in every way - touring during a period amidst some of their greatest studio albums (Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed). Their creativity was near a peak in the studio, and that was reflected in their live performances. By the time LYL was recorded, they were completely different from the YaYa's period. All the reckless lifestyle they dabbled with. The less than stellar IORR and Black and Blue being their most recent. Living in luxury like never before. Lives of the rich and famous. It's all reflected in the haphazard approach to the way they were performing, and ultimately resulted in a less than stellar sounding live album (El Mocambo side being an exception maybe - mainly due to the club setting). It's as if they were on autopilot while drunk without giving anything a second thought, and while it is a nice document of that particular period with it's haphazardness, it really isn't something that can compare to them live when they were at their true zenith IMO. There's a lot of similarities in the LYL approach to the out of control performances of '78 and '81/'82, and those days became a thing of the past with the '89 tours onward where most performances sound sterile and almost contrived - aka the Vegas years.
On another note, of the many times I've seen the Stones live since '81, I would only consider about 25% of them at most as truly memorable for a variety of reasons - not just performance. The first two times in '81 of course, several small shows during the Licks tour, the Mick Taylor guest appearances a few years ago, and the Desert Trip shows - specifically weekend two. As for Mick Taylor, seeing him play in '82 during the Bluesbreakers reunion at the Roxy in L.A. ranks up their with the best Stones shows I've seen. Always made me wonder what the Stones would have been like if he had remained in the band...no doubt they would have been better imo. Perhaps we wouldn't have the great Some Girls, but there'd probably be something just as interesting (if not more) to take it's place.
edit: To be clear and not to cause any strife, all of the above is just my personal perspectives and humble opinion.
While I agree with most of this, I must say that all these "what if"-thoughts are purely fictional. What if Brian had stayed on board? And of course, what if Taylor had never left the band? Have we really missed a couple of more albums of Exile-quality if the Wood era had never happened? It's tempting to think along these lines, but let's not forget that there were reasons that things developed as they did. With both Brian and Taylor, one obvious aspect is burnout and growing disinterest in the bands doings. Would they have "recovered" if they had stayed? That's material for a nice (fictional) discussion, but in the end we never know. But what we know is the past as it really happened. All I can say is that in the same way that I can't imagine Brian contributing much to the albums of the Taylor years, I can't imagine Taylor playing on the albums from Some Girls and onwards. Different times, different requirements. Looks like while the rest of the band was able to adopt to the changing of the times and musical developments (at least to a certain degree, with growing conflicts setting in as early as the end of the 70's and an album of outtakes that initially was hiding the facts!), Brian and Taylor weren't.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 2, 2017 16:02
Quote
Koen
Just thinking about the HTW intro on LYL gives me goosebumps. I cannot recall how HTW on GYYYO sounds. But then again, I haven't listened to it in a while.
It lurches. It's pretty dirty as well. It's good.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: August 2, 2017 20:43
LYL was required listening (along with J. Geils' Monkey Island and Skynyrd's Street Survivors) during the fall of 1977 - the beginning of my senior year in HIGH school!
IMHO, highlights are HTW, Around and Around, and best version ever of IORR.
"No Anchovies, Please"
IMHO, highlights are HTW, Around and Around, and best version ever of IORR.
"No Anchovies, Please"
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: August 2, 2017 21:01
Ron Wood's solo on YCAGWYW is the best he ever played, imo.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 2, 2017 21:21
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Hairball
Random thoughts on LYL:
In '77 I had moved out of state for a year and brought a pile of about 10-15 albums with me - LYL happened to be brand new and was part of the stack. It became a major part of my listening experience during that year, and even though it was a far cry from YaYa's, it did have it's moments (especially the El Mocambo side).
In hindsight though, when you look at the context and the "state of the band" (and music in general) of '69 vs. '75/'76, there's some huge differences - and it's not just Ronnie. In '69, the Stones seemed more serious in every way - touring during a period amidst some of their greatest studio albums (Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed). Their creativity was near a peak in the studio, and that was reflected in their live performances. By the time LYL was recorded, they were completely different from the YaYa's period. All the reckless lifestyle they dabbled with. The less than stellar IORR and Black and Blue being their most recent. Living in luxury like never before. Lives of the rich and famous. It's all reflected in the haphazard approach to the way they were performing, and ultimately resulted in a less than stellar sounding live album (El Mocambo side being an exception maybe - mainly due to the club setting). It's as if they were on autopilot while drunk without giving anything a second thought, and while it is a nice document of that particular period with it's haphazardness, it really isn't something that can compare to them live when they were at their true zenith IMO. There's a lot of similarities in the LYL approach to the out of control performances of '78 and '81/'82, and those days became a thing of the past with the '89 tours onward where most performances sound sterile and almost contrived - aka the Vegas years.
On another note, of the many times I've seen the Stones live since '81, I would only consider about 25% of them at most as truly memorable for a variety of reasons - not just performance. The first two times in '81 of course, several small shows during the Licks tour, the Mick Taylor guest appearances a few years ago, and the Desert Trip shows - specifically weekend two. As for Mick Taylor, seeing him play in '82 during the Bluesbreakers reunion at the Roxy in L.A. ranks up their with the best Stones shows I've seen. Always made me wonder what the Stones would have been like if he had remained in the band...no doubt they would have been better imo. Perhaps we wouldn't have the great Some Girls, but there'd probably be something just as interesting (if not more) to take it's place.
edit: To be clear and not to cause any strife, all of the above is just my personal perspectives and humble opinion.
While I agree with most of this, I must say that all these "what if"-thoughts are purely fictional. What if Brian had stayed on board? And of course, what if Taylor had never left the band? Have we really missed a couple of more albums of Exile-quality if the Wood era had never happened? It's tempting to think along these lines, but let's not forget that there were reasons that things developed as they did. With both Brian and Taylor, one obvious aspect is burnout and growing disinterest in the bands doings. Would they have "recovered" if they had stayed? That's material for a nice (fictional) discussion, but in the end we never know. But what we know is the past as it really happened. All I can say is that in the same way that I can't imagine Brian contributing much to the albums of the Taylor years, I can't imagine Taylor playing on the albums from Some Girls and onwards. Different times, different requirements. Looks like while the rest of the band was able to adopt to the changing of the times and musical developments (at least to a certain degree, with growing conflicts setting in as early as the end of the 70's and an album of outtakes that initially was hiding the facts!), Brian and Taylor weren't.
Of course all of the "what if's" are fictional, or wishful thinking, or speculation, or whatever you want to call it...all based on my opinion - as if I didn't make that clear enough already.
Interesting to read your reply though.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-02 21:22 by Hairball.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
HouseBoyKnows
()
Date: August 2, 2017 21:28
I'm enjoying the discussion here as it's evolved into a comparison to Ya-Yas and that's the basis of my reaction to LYL.
LYL came out on or near my 24th birthday. I was already on my 3rd copy of Ya-Yas and had probably seen L&G 20 times by then. Not to mention my worn out cassette of Brussels 73. Saw the Stones for the first time in 72 at MSG and several times in 75, mostly all at MSG.
So of course I was disappointed. Within a few weeks I was only listening to sides 1 and 3. But I must have dropped the needle down on Star Star and Around and Around over a hundred times that year. They sounded fantastic and still do.
HBK
PS - Can we all agree that the cover art on LYL sucked? (Sorry Andy).
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-02 21:43 by HouseBoyKnows.
LYL came out on or near my 24th birthday. I was already on my 3rd copy of Ya-Yas and had probably seen L&G 20 times by then. Not to mention my worn out cassette of Brussels 73. Saw the Stones for the first time in 72 at MSG and several times in 75, mostly all at MSG.
So of course I was disappointed. Within a few weeks I was only listening to sides 1 and 3. But I must have dropped the needle down on Star Star and Around and Around over a hundred times that year. They sounded fantastic and still do.
HBK
PS - Can we all agree that the cover art on LYL sucked? (Sorry Andy).
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-02 21:43 by HouseBoyKnows.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: August 2, 2017 23:21
I think the trouble is that the live album prior to Love You Live is Ya Yas. It's a bit like Wipe The Windows by The Allmans following Live @ The Fillmore.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: August 5, 2017 09:31
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Ron Wood's solo on YCAGWYW is the best he ever played, imo.
The fact that it's an edit detracts a little bit.
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
powerage78
()
Date: August 5, 2017 14:25
Yes
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Quote
24FPS
SFM on Ya Yas is definitive, and there has been no live version better. It's the absolute peak on the Ya Yas album. The majesty of it is mind blowing.
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Re: Love Love You Live
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 5, 2017 15:43
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Ron Wood's solo on YCAGWYW is the best he ever played, imo.
The fact that it's an edit detracts a little bit.
+ there are many superior solos from the same tour.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
adamw3405 , babyblue , Christiaan , cyclist , deardoctor , DEmerson , django , firebird , Halup , johnnythunders , keefmick , LeonidP , Meteor , MingSubu , peoplewitheyes , Rambler62 , spunky , stanlove , TooTight , usetobesampeg , voodoodrew
Guests:
1981
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10