For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Jan Richards
Decca had nothing to do whit recording music by the band. Decca did not do any recordings of Rolling Stones. The band recorded always in independent studios and just delivered the ready mixed tape to Decca who pressed records.
Quote
ElmoQuote
retired_dogQuote
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 ?
Quote
Mathijs
Its very much folklore right, this 'they couldn't record live music in the 1960's'. The truth is that nobody cared as there was no money in it. There's so many great live recordings from the 1940's and 1950's, and especially in the US the recording techniques and equipment was just really good, especially at the big studios.
Just listen to one of the best live albums ever recorded, Jerry Lee Lewis 'Live at the Star Club, Hamburg'. This is frigging 1964!
Mathijs
Quote
georgie48Quote
slewanQuote
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. ...
Quote
retired_dog
Well, yes and no. Of course they were technically able to record live music, as your example of Jerry Lee Lewis shows - or the Stones Camden Theatre 1964 for that matter, but these were done in a controlled environment - no screaming girls, the musicians were actually able to hear themselves etc.
Quote
MathijsQuote
retired_dog
Well, yes and no. Of course they were technically able to record live music, as your example of Jerry Lee Lewis shows - or the Stones Camden Theatre 1964 for that matter, but these were done in a controlled environment - no screaming girls, the musicians were actually able to hear themselves etc.
The Star Club had a capacity of 2,000 people, which all were screaming quite loud during the Lewis gigs....
Mathijs
Quote
MathijsQuote
retired_dog
Well, yes and no. Of course they were technically able to record live music, as your example of Jerry Lee Lewis shows - or the Stones Camden Theatre 1964 for that matter, but these were done in a controlled environment - no screaming girls, the musicians were actually able to hear themselves etc.
The Star Club had a capacity of 2,000 people, which all were screaming quite loud during the Lewis gigs....
Mathijs
Quote
Mathijs
Its very much folklore right, this 'they couldn't record live music in the 1960's'. The truth is that nobody cared as there was no money in it. There's so many great live recordings from the 1940's and 1950's, and especially in the US the recording techniques and equipment was just really good, especially at the big studios.
Just listen to one of the best live albums ever recorded, Jerry Lee Lewis 'Live at the Star Club, Hamburg'. This is frigging 1964!
Mathijs
Quote
retired_dog
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.
To quote Austin Powers "yeah baby"Quote
Rockman
Gimmie Stones .... I'm stayin a kid ...
Quote
georgie48Quote
slewanQuote
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. ...
Quote
slewanQuote
georgie48Quote
slewanQuote
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. ...
well, the Stones' peak is some years after 1966
thinking of Dylan in 1966 –> try this: [www.dailymotion.com] (and this isn't even the best version of this song => try Liverpool 1966 instead)
Quote
georgie48Quote
slewanQuote
georgie48Quote
slewanQuote
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. ...
well, the Stones' peak is some years after 1966
thinking of Dylan in 1966 –> try this: [www.dailymotion.com] (and this isn't even the best version of this song => try Liverpool 1966 instead)
No offense, but your look at the Stones (comparing them with Dylan) is peculiar. The Stones had a massive hitsong with (I can't get no) Satisfaction in 1965, making them even more popular than The Beatles in 1966 with Aftermath. They didn't need "deep thoughts" lyrics, they were (and still are) a great instrumental band with Mick's voice on top of it. Musicians inspire each other all the time. Some popular acts even found inspiration in the music of the likes of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and others. Dylan found inspiration from people like Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger and alike. Dylan vs Stones is like apples vs pears.