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.

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

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.

I'm not so sure about you saying "ready mixed tape to DECCA". Anyway, DECCA put the recordings (whether live or studio) on "master disk" for pressing vinyls. So that's why I suggested DECCA. Another (small chance) option is the archive of the Stones themselves.
I know that f.i. DECCA was given the front sleeve photo (negative) from Between The Buttons by Gered Mankowitz, which they never returned to him and it apparently "disappeared" altogether .

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
Elmo

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 ?

I don't know but this sounds a bit blasé while I was just trying to give it a slightly different perspective to your "rubbish" argument and aren't different perspectives what a discussion is all about?

I think it's fair to say the fact that rock concert live production and rock concert live recording techniques were still in their infancy during the Brian Jones era is common knowledge and the main reason why the Beatles stopped touring in 1966 - they couldn't hear themselves on stage, the audiences could barely hear the sounds coming from the stage and it became increasingly impossible to convincingly reproduce the sound of their studio recordings.

I'm afraid that the handful of 1965 and 1966 UK shows that made up the "Got Live If You Want It" EP and LP release and the recently released "Live 1965"-album in connection with the "Charlie Is My Darling"-project were the ONLY professional multitrack recordings, initially done for Impact Sound and leased to Decca, now controlled by ABKCO.

However, "multitrack" doesn't mean what it means today... Back then, they had only three or at best four tracks available. You had the complete band on one track, lead and backing vocals on the second, and the audience noise, well possibly captured by the famous "microphone hanging down from the balcony" on a third track, leaving very little room for major improvements (although I think ABKCO did a fantastic job with "Live 1965").

Apart from that, soundboard recordings were made for various radio stations for broadcasting purposes, but these are usually "one track only" mono recordings (except Camden 1964 for the BBC which is in stereo).

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
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

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.

Of course, actually nobody saw the artistic and commercial value in recordings of less-then-ideal performances recorded under less-than-ideal circumstances, so it's a wonder in itself that stuff like Beatles at Hollywood Bowl or Stones Got Live If You Want It exist at all.

Quote
georgie48

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. ...

Dylan just ok? We all have our opinions.

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.

The Star Club had a capacity of 2,000 people, which all were screaming quite loud during the Lewis gigs....

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

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.

The Star Club had a capacity of 2,000 people, which all were screaming quite loud during the Lewis gigs....

Mathijs

"Jerry, Jerry, Jerry..."

What an album!

Quote
Mathijs

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.

The Star Club had a capacity of 2,000 people, which all were screaming quite loud during the Lewis gigs....

Mathijs

Yeah, but during the music they're suspiciously (well, almost) silent - that's what I call a "controlled environment"! Not exactly like the Stones at Camden Theatre where the audience is completely non-existent during the music, but still...

Anyway, a great live album. One of the best ever. But more the exception from the rule. Totally unlike the "Chuck Berry - Live" album from 1963, where the recordings were done in the studio with later audience noise overdubs.

Whatever soundboards they or any rock group had back them were primitive to half functional to non-existent. Plus tape was so dear it was recorded over it. Stones making history for the ages, such as for year 2021 and worth recording various shows from a soundboard? Very infrequent.

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

Of course they could. Duke Ellington '56 is a prime example of live recordings from the 50s, as well Jazz On A Summer Day from Newport in '58.

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.

GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! was my first Stones live album (actually one of the very first Stones albums I bought after having hooked with TATTOO YOU). To my then punk-trained ears the album sounded fantastic - the wildness, the very energy and attitude. A wonderful chaos and everyone going crazy. A bit later I got YA-YA'S and I was surprised how serious and professional they sounded like. I was like 'oh man, they can actually play'... But then, during the next summer STILL LIFE was released and I was like 'no, they cannot...' It was interesting that it started and ended with a same song as GOT LIVE plus having "Time Is On My Side" there as well. But honestly, no matter how much I loved STILL LIFE, there was almost none of that raw energy, wildness and attitude left of the band of GOT LIVE. They sounded more like elder statemen of rock. But it was fascinating to compare them to their wild younger selves.

No matter how odd relaese it is, with all its faults and everything, I still love GOT LIVE album dearly. A wonderful document of the times (in many ways) When they talk about 'crossfire hurricane' - bloody hell, the sonic manifestation of it is GOT LIVE!

- Doxa

But a brief comment to those talking about the commercial value of live albums back then. I think the only reason to relaese GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! was a commercial concern. It was mainly targeted at US audiences, and as they still were the latest big pop phenomenon - that of British Invasion - with no any idea of future, it was important to milk out any cent out of it, while they still were hot. The big US market were treated with three albums a year, and after AFTERMATH and BIG HITS they needed a third one for Christmas market, an option that GOT LIVE fulfilled (and it made well, #5 in charts, etc). Andrew Loog Oldham knew what he was doing, and the dudes still trusted him. And everyone loved money.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-05-19 12:40 by Doxa.

Plenty of decent live recordings of the Stones from the '60s , most done for radio: Paris, Hamburg, Honolulu and Sydney all come to mind...and of course live TV performances on Ready Steady Go, the TAMI show and many others.

We have an official release of such a thing, or atleast the closest we can get to it.

Recorded in England in spring 1965 by Glyn Johns on 3 track machine. Unfortunately, ABKCO dubbed and looped audience audio for the CIMD related release. The audience audio can be reduced a bit by making the sound mono.

Live 1965 (Music From Charlie Is My Darling).
[youtube.com]

I wish they would release it as a stand alone CD/LP rather than just via box set or digital download/stream.

...

I guess the 1966-67 Paris radio shows officially released as copyright protection via iTunes etc count too.

That would be great idea, HM! Just listening to the individual cuts on YouTube brings back great memories. Having the lot (including some other versions of that time) together on CD or anything would make me smile forever

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

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

To quote Austin Powers "yeah baby"

Quote
georgie48

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. ...

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
slewan

Quote
georgie48

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. ...

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.


I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
georgie48

Quote
slewan

Quote
georgie48

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. ...

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.

I never got internet connection with my pear…