I got a 36 CD box set from my local library called Bob Dylan the 1966 Live Recordings. Each CD is a different gig from the European and American tour. Some are horrendous audience recordings that sound like they're from the very last row of the balcony. But some, like 8 of the CDs (I haven't gone through all of them) are soundboard recordings Columbia made in anticipation of a live LP.

So why wasn't Decca doing that with the Stones? We have no high quality complete concerts from the Stones before 1969. Nothing from the great '66 tour, and Brian's last tour, Europe, spring '67. Were the Stones not as big a deal as history would make us believe? Or was Decca, a crappy record company, and/or Oldham an incompetent manager?

well both acts recorded several shows for a live album in 1966.

Its just that you could actually hear Dylan's performances.

Quote
Gazza
well both acts recorded several shows for a live album in 1966.

Its just that you could actually hear Dylan's performances.

I don't consider Got Live If You Want It to be a serious effort. Or it was an incompetent one. Decca, or maybe it was English labels at the time, didn't have a clue as to how to record a live concert. (Although Five Live Yardbirds was acceptable).

There were a some in the Charlie is my darling boxset that were 1965 soundboard?

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Gazza
well both acts recorded several shows for a live album in 1966.

Its just that you could actually hear Dylan's performances.

I don't consider Got Live If You Want It to be a serious effort. Or it was an incompetent one. Decca, or maybe it was English labels at the time, didn't have a clue as to how to record a live concert. (Although Five Live Yardbirds was acceptable).

well, unfortunately thats all they were capable of. And clearly a few shows were recorded as that live album (and the EP of the same name 18 months earlier) come from multiple shows.

Doubt it had much to do with the record label or the engineers and more the fact that the band were dealing with shitty PA systems ill equipped to overcome the noise of 3,000 screaming teenage fans. Anyone who went to see the Beatles at the same time will say much the same - ie, you couldnt hear a bloody thing.

Live albums werent really a thing in the mid 60's. When they became more popular in the 70s and 80s they were more a contract filler or an excuse to keep the market alive between studio albums. In the mid 60s many of the top acts were expected to put out two studio albums a year with singles in between. They wouldnt have needed to release live albums.

Btw the rest of that Dylan boxed set is superb. Most of it is indeed in excellent soundboard quality. Only a small number of the recordings are audience tapes and they're only there as its a copyright protection release.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-05-15 05:19 by Gazza.

As mentioned, Charlie Is My Darling in one form or another contains a cd of what is probably near to a complete show from the mid 60s. Its basically Got Live If You Want It without the bs mixing and outright fraud. Which I also have always liked too.

Live recordings were very problematic back in those days. Big bulky sensitive equipment. I am sure the Stones or associates recorded many of their shows, but they probably either got lost over the years, disintegrated, or were crappy sounding to begin with. And multichannel remote recording equipment was very primitive and expensive not to mention super bulky. Just not something they could probably support back in those days especially since many shows ended in riots and needing to make a quick getaway.

jb

And Hamburg 1965?

'Doubt it had much to do with the record label or the engineers and more the fact that the band were dealing with shitty PA systems ill equipped to overcome the noise of 3,000 screaming teenage fans. Anyone who went to see the Beatles at the same time will say much the same - ie, you couldnt hear a bloody thing.

Live albums werent really a thing in the mid 60's. When they became more popular in the 70s and 80s they were more a contract filler or an excuse to keep the market alive between studio albums. In the mid 60s many of the top acts were expected to put out two studio albums a year with singles in between. They wouldnt have needed to release live albums.'

He's right. I saw the Stones in UK on the 64 and 65 tours and there would have been little point in trying to record a performance because of the wall of noise caused by the girls screaming. My mate in the next seat had to shout in my ear to make himself understood! Not a dry seat in the house. It was only when the teenybopper appeal ended and Brian left that the band changed it's approach and this coincided with better recording techniques. 'Got Live' was rubbish but a product of it's time and designed to give a flavour of a Stones concert and sell tickets and also to fill time between studio releases.

Quote
24FPS
I got a 36 CD box set from my local library called Bob Dylan the 1966 Live Recordings. Each CD is a different gig from the European and American tour. Some are horrendous audience recordings that sound like they're from the very last row of the balcony. But some, like 8 of the CDs (I haven't gone through all of them) are soundboard recordings Columbia made in anticipation of a live LP.

well, first of all: it was a worthwhile endeavor to record all these live shows.
They released every 1966 live recording they had with this box to save the copyright. As one can easily see/hear: nearly every single performance is a treasure.
All UK shows (plus some others, incl. Paris) were professionally recorded.

I don't think it would be worthwhile listening to all Stones shows from the mid 60s. I don't want to offend anyone, but I think compared to what Dylan did in 1966 the Stones music from that period is rather children's music.

The Got Live If You Want It EP and Live In England '65 (Charlie Is My Darling) both sound good to me.

Children's music? That's ridiculous

Gimmie Stones .... I'm stayin a kid ...



ROCKMAN

Some mid sixties live recordings can be found on f.i. Out of Our Heads and EPs. For those days they are great quality. It wouldn't surprise me that they recorded the whole show(s) for that matter, but only used the best songs on the albums. Got Live if You Want It, is another example. It's not a complete concert, just a selection of the best (according to their idea), it's only a shame they added two fake live songs.

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

The 1965 Got Live If You Want It EP was recorded by hanging microphones over the edge of the balconies !! That's an example of how crude the techniques were in 1965.....they were making it up as they went along, experimenting.

Also, the title of this Topic is, itself, misleading because up to 1968/69 there were literally no soundboards mixing music from the stage.

When the Stones were on stage in say 1966, they had their amplifiers and that was it. No stage monitors, not even for the vocals which used the venues own built in PA system.

When I saw the Stones in 1971 that was the first time I saw a band with all their own equipment. They had monitors, own PA and primitive lighting rig....and a soundboard mixing desk.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Got Live If You Want It EP and Live In England '65 (Charlie Is My Darling) both sound good to me.

Children's music? That's ridiculous

Spot-on! Both are terrific live documents! It’d be an absolute dream if they could somehow cobble together the complete shows’ recorded during those 1965 U.K. tours.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Got Live If You Want It EP and Live In England '65 (Charlie Is My Darling) both sound good to me.

Children's music? That's ridiculous

Spot-on! Both are terrific live documents! It’d be an absolute dream if they could somehow cobble together the complete shows’ recorded during those 1965 U.K. tours.

That would indeed be great, Big Al! It's worth trying to find out if those (for us unknown) recordings (still) exist. We would have to approach DECCA records for that, I'm "afraid". Or maybe Andrew Oldham (Brazil?) knows more.
No messing around with the recordings, just as rough as it was, only now maybe on SACD?


I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The 1965 Got Live If You Want It EP was recorded by hanging microphones over the edge of the balconies !!

That's a myth!
Quote from Wikipedia:

"Renowned for its raw-sounding quality, Got Live If You Want It! has endured as a live artifact, more for its historical than musical appeal. Reportedly engineer Glyn Johns had hung microphones over the balcony for the recording; however, this is called into question as "I'm Alright" on the Got Live If You Want It! LP (recorded and released a year later) contains the same backing track but with different vocals. This would have been impossible if the recordings were made as described. Additionally, "I'm Moving On" features (at the very least) a harmonica overdub as the instrument can be heard underneath Jagger's vocal during the first verse while Brian Jones (the group's other harmonica player) is playing slide guitar. These two tracks may even be studio recordings re-tooled to give the impression of being live. The lack of studio documentation relating to The Stones' Decca recordings makes this difficult to confirm, but this approach was used the following year on the US Got Live If You Want It! LP"

Quote
Rank Stranger

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The 1965 Got Live If You Want It EP was recorded by hanging microphones over the edge of the balconies !!

That's a myth!
Quote from Wikipedia:

"Renowned for its raw-sounding quality, Got Live If You Want It! has endured as a live artifact, more for its historical than musical appeal. Reportedly engineer Glyn Johns had hung microphones over the balcony for the recording; however, this is called into question as "I'm Alright" on the Got Live If You Want It! LP (recorded and released a year later) contains the same backing track but with different vocals. This would have been impossible if the recordings were made as described. Additionally, "I'm Moving On" features (at the very least) a harmonica overdub as the instrument can be heard underneath Jagger's vocal during the first verse while Brian Jones (the group's other harmonica player) is playing slide guitar. These two tracks may even be studio recordings re-tooled to give the impression of being live. The lack of studio documentation relating to The Stones' Decca recordings makes this difficult to confirm, but this approach was used the following year on the US Got Live If You Want It! LP"

You're Wiki reference made me curious, so I decided to listen to the different I'm Allright live versions. After several turns I do get the impression that the version on f.i. December's Children is vocally adjusted. Compared with the GLIYWI version the harmonies are almost perfect. Still, listening to that version, I find it difficult to think, that the vocals are studio recordings. If so, then that DC version is produced really amazingly well, considering it's 1965.
I'm Allright will never be the same for me ever again, but I don't care because when I play it loud, my mind will be Stones-blanc and floating in the air anyway

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
Elmo
'Doubt it had much to do with the record label or the engineers and more the fact that the band were dealing with shitty PA systems ill equipped to overcome the noise of 3,000 screaming teenage fans. Anyone who went to see the Beatles at the same time will say much the same - ie, you couldnt hear a bloody thing.

Live albums werent really a thing in the mid 60's. When they became more popular in the 70s and 80s they were more a contract filler or an excuse to keep the market alive between studio albums. In the mid 60s many of the top acts were expected to put out two studio albums a year with singles in between. They wouldnt have needed to release live albums.'

He's right. I saw the Stones in UK on the 64 and 65 tours and there would have been little point in trying to record a performance because of the wall of noise caused by the girls screaming. My mate in the next seat had to shout in my ear to make himself understood! Not a dry seat in the house. It was only when the teenybopper appeal ended and Brian left that the band changed it's approach and this coincided with better recording techniques. 'Got Live' was rubbish but a product of it's time and designed to give a flavour of a Stones concert and sell tickets and also to fill time between studio releases.

I would not call it "rubbish" - it's more like punk 10 years before punk ever happened and it's no coincidence why this album, along with lots of their early studio output is held in high regard by some very famous punk musicians I personally know. What it lacks in musical finesse is more than made up by the sheer raw energy that comes through, and that's what the live Stones were all about in the mid-60's.

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The 1965 Got Live If You Want It EP was recorded by hanging microphones over the edge of the balconies !! That's an example of how crude the techniques were in 1965.....they were making it up as they went along, experimenting.

Also, the title of this Topic is, itself, misleading because up to 1968/69 there were literally no soundboards mixing music from the stage.

When the Stones were on stage in say 1966, they had their amplifiers and that was it. No stage monitors, not even for the vocals which used the venues own built in PA system.

When I saw the Stones in 1971 that was the first time I saw a band with all their own equipment. They had monitors, own PA and primitive lighting rig....and a soundboard mixing desk.

It's misleading to say there were no soundboards, or great sound systems. Unfortunately it was the Grateful Dead who had it, directed by the legendary Augustus Owsley Stanley the Third. Some one mentioned the Stones were only playing children's music during this period. Really? Ruby Tuesday, Lady Jane, Paint It Black? The great thing about the On The Air recordings are that you can hear Brian Jones do his famous guitar parts in a different way from what we're used to. (The Little Red Rooster cut is harrowing.)

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
The 1965 Got Live If You Want It EP was recorded by hanging microphones over the edge of the balconies !! That's an example of how crude the techniques were in 1965.....they were making it up as they went along, experimenting.

Also, the title of this Topic is, itself, misleading because up to 1968/69 there were literally no soundboards mixing music from the stage.

When the Stones were on stage in say 1966, they had their amplifiers and that was it. No stage monitors, not even for the vocals which used the venues own built in PA system.

When I saw the Stones in 1971 that was the first time I saw a band with all their own equipment. They had monitors, own PA and primitive lighting rig....and a soundboard mixing desk.

It's misleading to say there were no soundboards, or great sound systems. Unfortunately it was the Grateful Dead who had it, directed by the legendary Augustus Owsley Stanley the Third. Some one mentioned the Stones were only playing children's music during this period. Really? Ruby Tuesday, Lady Jane, Paint It Black? The great thing about the On The Air recordings are that you can hear Brian Jones do his famous guitar parts in a different way from what we're used to. (The Little Red Rooster cut is harrowing.)

Was about to mention the Grateful Dead who archived everything. So did Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver Messenger Service and a few other SF Bay Area bands. What I really would love to have heard was the after show jam sessions with Jimi Hendrix and all the other London artists getting together to jam at the London clubs.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Got Live If You Want It EP and Live In England '65 (Charlie Is My Darling) both sound good to me.

Children's music? That's ridiculous

right, children's music compared to what Dylan did in 1966. Dylan took rock music to a whole other level during his UK tour. The Stones didn't catch up with that until '68 or even later

>Unfortunately it was the Grateful Dead who had it, directed by the legendary Augustus Owsley Stanley the Third.

you are mixing your eras. During the time of GLIYWI, the Grateful Dead were barely in existance, in that form, and further were lucky to be playing through Macintosh 240 amplifiers, great amps, wish I still had a couple, but hardly anything worth bragging about nowadays, and recording was done with, at best, a two track reel to reel. It was only later the Dead excelled in both sound reproduction and recording techniques, and Bear was indeed either the genius or the idiot who steered that whole side of things.

The Rolling Stones' Oakland show in 1969 was basically saved by the GD, who were guests in the audience, and who had their equipment shipped over from SF to Oakland to replace the Stones' junk that had failed right out of the gate.

They had some other little interactions with our heros the next month as well but thats a different story. But they were playing through GD equipment there as well and Bear was recording as well.

jb

Quote
jbwelda
>Unfortunately it was the Grateful Dead who had it, directed by the legendary Augustus Owsley Stanley the Third.

you are mixing your eras. During the time of GLIYWI, the Grateful Dead were barely in existance, in that form, and further were lucky to be playing through Macintosh 240 amplifiers, great amps, wish I still had a couple, but hardly anything worth bragging about nowadays, and recording was done with, at best, a two track reel to reel. It was only later the Dead excelled in both sound reproduction and recording techniques, and Bear was indeed either the genius or the idiot who steered that whole side of things.

The Rolling Stones' Oakland show in 1969 was basically saved by the GD, who were guests in the audience, and who had their equipment shipped over from SF to Oakland to replace the Stones' junk that had failed right out of the gate.

They had some other little interactions with our heros the next month as well but thats a different story. But they were playing through GD equipment there as well and Bear was recording as well.

jb

Every Oakland (Liver Than You'll Ever Be) boot I've heard sounds like it was recorded inside a tin can. I believe Owsley was recording the Dead, and providing their incredible sound system by the mid-60s, right in the heart of the era concerned. Owsley and the Dead met in '65, the same year the band was formed.

yeah I know the history. there was no "incredible sound system by the mid 60s", Owsley or no Owsley. It doesn't matter what Liver Than Youll Ever Be sounded like, that has nothing to do with the issue, that is what a live recording in a hall sounded like when you use two open-air microphones. It is what it sounded like inside the hall and actually there are at least a couple of issues of the boot where the sound is greatly improved by latter day sound shaping.

I used to buy acid from Bear and I was at that show, both of them. You are mixing your eras, mostly because they probably came way before you were ever born.

Owsley was their financier through the sales of his product, and became their sound man through that connection and the lack of anyone else capable and willing to do the job. His hobby was recording and hence he recorded a lot of GD. He probably single handedly perfected field recording when it came to live music, enhanced by his self proclaimed ability to mix music by sight not sound.
Most of it was done on 7" reel decks, in stereo at most, and either recorded through the board or by ambient microphones, or both.

But it was much later he began designing their sound systems, not the mid 60s except as it applies to small halls and clubs, because that is where the GD were mostly playing. Pizza parlors more like prior to 66 when they morphed from the Warlocks in Palo Alto.

I suppose I am going to hear how I don't know what I am talking about, so bring it.

jb

^ That pretty much sounds like what I have heard. What they lost in the sound quality they made up for in there performances when they were on.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Elmo
'Doubt it had much to do with the record label or the engineers and more the fact that the band were dealing with shitty PA systems ill equipped to overcome the noise of 3,000 screaming teenage fans. Anyone who went to see the Beatles at the same time will say much the same - ie, you couldnt hear a bloody thing.

Live albums werent really a thing in the mid 60's. When they became more popular in the 70s and 80s they were more a contract filler or an excuse to keep the market alive between studio albums. In the mid 60s many of the top acts were expected to put out two studio albums a year with singles in between. They wouldnt have needed to release live albums.'

He's right. I saw the Stones in UK on the 64 and 65 tours and there would have been little point in trying to record a performance because of the wall of noise caused by the girls screaming. My mate in the next seat had to shout in my ear to make himself understood! Not a dry seat in the house. It was only when the teenybopper appeal ended and Brian left that the band changed it's approach and this coincided with better recording techniques. 'Got Live' was rubbish but a product of it's time and designed to give a flavour of a Stones concert and sell tickets and also to fill time between studio releases.

I would not call it "rubbish" - it's more like punk 10 years before punk ever happened and it's no coincidence why this album, along with lots of their early studio output is held in high regard by some very famous punk musicians I personally know. What it lacks in musical finesse is more than made up by the sheer raw energy that comes through, and that's what the live Stones were all about in the mid-60's.

very good...I agree.

Quote
slewan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Got Live If You Want It EP and Live In England '65 (Charlie Is My Darling) both sound good to me.

Children's music? That's ridiculous

right, children's music compared to what Dylan did in 1966. Dylan took rock music to a whole other level during his UK tour. The Stones didn't catch up with that until '68 or even later

Apples and oranges. Love both.

However, Dylan doesn't really rock and the Stones do NOT sound like 'children's music on my copies of Hamburg 65, Honolulu 66 or Paris 67.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-05-16 12:28 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Elmo
'Doubt it had much to do with the record label or the engineers and more the fact that the band were dealing with shitty PA systems ill equipped to overcome the noise of 3,000 screaming teenage fans. Anyone who went to see the Beatles at the same time will say much the same - ie, you couldnt hear a bloody thing.

Live albums werent really a thing in the mid 60's. When they became more popular in the 70s and 80s they were more a contract filler or an excuse to keep the market alive between studio albums. In the mid 60s many of the top acts were expected to put out two studio albums a year with singles in between. They wouldnt have needed to release live albums.'

He's right. I saw the Stones in UK on the 64 and 65 tours and there would have been little point in trying to record a performance because of the wall of noise caused by the girls screaming. My mate in the next seat had to shout in my ear to make himself understood! Not a dry seat in the house. It was only when the teenybopper appeal ended and Brian left that the band changed it's approach and this coincided with better recording techniques. 'Got Live' was rubbish but a product of it's time and designed to give a flavour of a Stones concert and sell tickets and also to fill time between studio releases.

I would not call it "rubbish" - it's more like punk 10 years before punk ever happened and it's no coincidence why this album, along with lots of their early studio output is held in high regard by some very famous punk musicians I personally know. What it lacks in musical finesse is more than made up by the sheer raw energy that comes through, and that's what the live Stones were all about in the mid-60's.

I don't know any very famous punk musicians but their opinions are essentially based upon what they have listened to ,as they were not around at the time in question, rather than experienced personally. Their opinion is no more relevant than anyone else's so I don't know why you mention it. However, they are not alone in their appreciation of the band's early studio recordings which stand the test of time. I often go back to listen to stuff from this era but rarely if ever listen to 'Got Live'. I saw the band live at the time and bought the records upon release and their live efforts were, and remain, a disappointment but if retrospect is all you have then so be it.

However, the topic is the lack of soundboard recordings and others here have discussed the issue eloquently. We have what we have but it surprises me that, with all the modern techy stuff now available, someone hasn't 'revisited' the tapes to remove the screams so that we can hear the band's performance. Is it possible to do this ?

Giles Martin (?) did a pretty good job of it with the Beatles at Hollywood Bowl a few years ago.

Quote
slewan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Got Live If You Want It EP and Live In England '65 (Charlie Is My Darling) both sound good to me.

Children's music? That's ridiculous

right, children's music compared to what Dylan did in 1966. Dylan took rock music to a whole other level during his UK tour. The Stones didn't catch up with that until '68 or even later

Ah, here we go again. Another fake Stones fan trying to p*ss us off. Dylan was an okay guy in the 60s, but his contribution to popular music has been heavily overrated, nice tunes at times but too much quasi intelectual lyrical b*llshit, just like his dreadful voice. He was merely a guy who should have written poems in books or become a preacher in some kind of church (many to choose from) instead of using the money making music world to rise to fame. Wasn't he feeling embarrased when told that he received the Nobel Prize? Off course he was, because he knew himself well enough. ...

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town