Quote
Doxa
But if we think the following American Tour 1969, how much Keith actually did back-up vocals there? In "Honky Tonk Women" surely, but were there any others?

It could be that instead that of being a practical matter or Keith not feeling like singing (shy, bored?) it might have been an artistic choice how the band wanted to present their live sound at the time. That they were a 'serious' modern blues rock act, not a merry 60's vocal group with back-up harmonies. Those were interesting times, and the band was all the time reshaping their act in order to keep relevant.

The famous Mick and Keith sharing a mic and doing the choruses together occurred later, in upcoming tours (so effective in things like "Can't Always Get What You Want", "Dead Flowers", "Happy", etc.)

- Doxa

JJF, obviously. Not sure if the Live With Me and Little Queenie vocals were done live, though. Might be overdubs for Ya-Yas. But those (hit and miss) super high-pitched harmony vocals on JJF were done throughout the tour, methinks. By 1971 he didn't reach up there anymore



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-07 15:14 by DandelionPowderman.

Did he really did those YA-YA'S style back-ups to "Flash" thorought the tour? I seemingly have a serious memory lack here. I recall Mick doing those "It's alright, yes It's alright" type of things, him singing alone and like recomposing the chorus, like he does in GIMME SHELTER.

A sign to relisten the boots again...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
But if we think the following American Tour 1969, how much Keith actually did back-up vocals there? In "Honky Tonk Women" surely, but were there any others?

It could be that instead that of being a practical matter (like I suggested earlier) or Keith not feeling like singing (shy, disinterested?) it might have been an artistic choice how the band wanted to present their live sound at the time. That they were a 'serious' modern blues rock act, not a merry 60's vocal group with back-up harmonies. Those were interesting times, and the band was all the time reshaping their act in order to keep relevant.

The famous Mick and Keith sharing a mic and doing the choruses together occurred later, in upcoming tours (so effective in things like "Can't Always Get What You Want", "Dead Flowers", "Happy", etc.)

- Doxa

There were certainly moments in Got Live where they fancied themselves as the bloody Beach Boys

Quote
Doxa
Did he really did those YA-YA'S style back-ups to "Flash" thorought the tour? I seemingly have a serious memory lack here. I recall Mick doing those "It's alright, yes It's alright" type of things, him singing alone and like recomposing the chorus, like he does in GIMME SHELTER.

A sign to relisten the boots again...

- Doxa

I checked a couple of renditions, and you may be right after all. Maybe the Leeds 1971-version fooled me into believing that he had sung the back ups all along





[www.youtube.com]

Is everyone aware of the bonus footage or 'Easter Egg' hidden on the DVD......?!

I never understood the resentment towards their preformance then.
Agreed it's a bit sloppy, and in no way as brilliant as their US Tour the following year; but I DO like 'em sloppy...

For me, it's hard nót to love the RnR Circus versions of JJF ànd Sympathy (despite the 'overacting'...); and on top of that: rare live versions of Parachute Woman, No Expectations and Salt of the Earth should àlways be cherished imho.

Quote
Spud

Quote
Doxa
But if we think the following American Tour 1969, how much Keith actually did back-up vocals there? In "Honky Tonk Women" surely, but were there any others?

It could be that instead that of being a practical matter (like I suggested earlier) or Keith not feeling like singing (shy, disinterested?) it might have been an artistic choice how the band wanted to present their live sound at the time. That they were a 'serious' modern blues rock act, not a merry 60's vocal group with back-up harmonies. Those were interesting times, and the band was all the time reshaping their act in order to keep relevant.

The famous Mick and Keith sharing a mic and doing the choruses together occurred later, in upcoming tours (so effective in things like "Can't Always Get What You Want", "Dead Flowers", "Happy", etc.)

- Doxa

There were certainly moments in Got Live where they fancied themselves as the bloody Beach Boys

Haha! A VERY rough version of The Beach Boys indeed, but damn I love it (the over-dubbed "Have You Seen Your Mother" with Keith's harmonies, or like dueting with Mick, is simply fabulous)! Yeah, it is incredible to think that there is only three years between GOT LIVE and YA-YA'S. Sounds like a different band and altogether a different era. The things happened so quickly back then. Both albums are doctored (YA-YA'S not that bloody much!), but I think they represent pretty well what the band and times were like and up to. As albums they are both great testimonies of their times.

But I love both incarnations of the band. Damn, there is more wild, joyful energy in GOT LIVE than in all their other major and more 'professional' and 'serious' live albums put together. More fvck ups and mistakes, too, but that belongs to the picture. I have never understood why people are so tough on it... I still recall the first impression I had the album: I didn't know anything about its all fakings, but I felt like being time-travelled to the mythical, chaotic time and place that all happened...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-07 16:34 by Doxa.

I like 'em sloppy too ...but I draw the line at being as hopelessly out of tune as they were in Hyde Park.

Yes, there were reasons and excuses...but it's painful !

Quote
Doxa
Damn, there is more wild, joyful energy in GOT LIVE than in all their other major and more 'professional' and 'serious' live albums put together. More fvck ups and mistakes, too, but that belongs to the picture. I have never understood why people are so tough on it... I still recall the first impression I had the album: I didn't know anything about its all fakings, but I felt like being time-travelled to the mythical, chaotic time and place that all happened...

- Doxa

I love that album, it is by a long way my favourite RS live album (yes, I know it's not all live!).

Back to the backing vocals... Keith and Bill both gave up doing backing vocals around the same time (certainly Bill was still singing on the 1967 European Tour), yet of course only Keith eventually started singing again. I wonder if that was an "artistic decision", or perhaps Bill was simply glad not having to sing anymore?

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Spud

Quote
Doxa
But if we think the following American Tour 1969, how much Keith actually did back-up vocals there? In "Honky Tonk Women" surely, but were there any others?

It could be that instead that of being a practical matter (like I suggested earlier) or Keith not feeling like singing (shy, disinterested?) it might have been an artistic choice how the band wanted to present their live sound at the time. That they were a 'serious' modern blues rock act, not a merry 60's vocal group with back-up harmonies. Those were interesting times, and the band was all the time reshaping their act in order to keep relevant.

The famous Mick and Keith sharing a mic and doing the choruses together occurred later, in upcoming tours (so effective in things like "Can't Always Get What You Want", "Dead Flowers", "Happy", etc.)

- Doxa

There were certainly moments in Got Live where they fancied themselves as the bloody Beach Boys

Haha! A VERY rough version of The Beach Boys indeed, but damn I love it (the over-dubbed "Have You Seen Your Mother" with Keith's harmonies, or like dueting with Mick, is simply fabulous)! Yeah, it is incredible to think that there is only three years between GOT LIVE and YA-YA'S. Sounds like a different band and altogether a different era. The things happened so quickly back then. Both albums are doctored (YA-YA'S not that bloody much!), but I think they represent pretty well what the band and times were like and up to. As albums they are both great testimonies of their times.

But I love both incarnations of the band. Damn, there is more wild, joyful energy in GOT LIVE than in all their other major and more 'professional' and 'serious' live albums put together. More fvck ups and mistakes, too, but that belongs to the picture. I have never understood why people are so tough on it... I still recall the first impression I had the album: I didn't know anything about its all fakings, but I felt like being time-travelled to the mythical, chaotic time and place that all happened...

- Doxa

I love Got Live [the LP and the EP ] . I just wish the audience screaming was mixed a little lower !

[It's like the success of any performance in the early sixties was judged by how loud the screaming was .
That said I suppose it's fairly representative of the sound on the night. They could scream a whole lot louder than two AC30s and the typical PAs of the day ]

Quote
Spud
I like 'em sloppy too ...but I draw the line at being as hopelessly out of tune as they were in Hyde Park.

Yes, there were reasons and excuses...but it's painful !

Fair enough (thàt one, Hyde Park, was painful indeed, btw )
But, for the record: I was talking about the thread topic - the Rock'n'Roll Circus performance (I don't get where the HP reference is coming from, in this context - although I do admit didn't read all the comments here. )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-07 17:24 by deeeskannnie.

Yeah, I got criticism of the audience screaming (in regard to GOT LIVE) . But I think that belongs to the picture. Part of the authentic experience of a concert back then. Shit, when I listen to the album I feel like screaming too!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-07 16:49 by Doxa.

I mostly stick to the Got Live-EP, which is far superior, imo, although it's nice to hear some tracks off the LP, too. UMT springs to mind. Incredible energy!

Yeah, I scream at the audience to shut the F£$% up !

Quote
Doxa
Yeah, I got criticism of the audience screaming (in regard to GOT LIVE) . But I think that belongs to the picture. Part of the authentic experience of a concert back then. Shit, when I listen to the album I feel like screaming too!

- Doxa

Weren't the crowd noises fake? And, at points, it seems like the crowd noise is on a loop. Very distracting for me. I know it's called Got Live, but the crowd noise is a disgrace, to me, at least. I'd like to hear it without the fake crowd noise.

Quote
Manofwealthandtaste
Is everyone aware of the bonus footage or 'Easter Egg' hidden on the DVD......?!

Please elucidate.

Quote
Spud

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Spud

Quote
Doxa
But if we think the following American Tour 1969, how much Keith actually did back-up vocals there? In "Honky Tonk Women" surely, but were there any others?

It could be that instead that of being a practical matter (like I suggested earlier) or Keith not feeling like singing (shy, disinterested?) it might have been an artistic choice how the band wanted to present their live sound at the time. That they were a 'serious' modern blues rock act, not a merry 60's vocal group with back-up harmonies. Those were interesting times, and the band was all the time reshaping their act in order to keep relevant.

The famous Mick and Keith sharing a mic and doing the choruses together occurred later, in upcoming tours (so effective in things like "Can't Always Get What You Want", "Dead Flowers", "Happy", etc.)

- Doxa

There were certainly moments in Got Live where they fancied themselves as the bloody Beach Boys

Haha! A VERY rough version of The Beach Boys indeed, but damn I love it (the over-dubbed "Have You Seen Your Mother" with Keith's harmonies, or like dueting with Mick, is simply fabulous)! Yeah, it is incredible to think that there is only three years between GOT LIVE and YA-YA'S. Sounds like a different band and altogether a different era. The things happened so quickly back then. Both albums are doctored (YA-YA'S not that bloody much!), but I think they represent pretty well what the band and times were like and up to. As albums they are both great testimonies of their times.

But I love both incarnations of the band. Damn, there is more wild, joyful energy in GOT LIVE than in all their other major and more 'professional' and 'serious' live albums put together. More fvck ups and mistakes, too, but that belongs to the picture. I have never understood why people are so tough on it... I still recall the first impression I had the album: I didn't know anything about its all fakings, but I felt like being time-travelled to the mythical, chaotic time and place that all happened...

- Doxa

I love Got Live [the LP and the EP ] . I just wish the audience screaming was mixed a little lower !

[It's like the success of any performance in the early sixties was judged by how loud the screaming was .
That said I suppose it's fairly representative of the sound on the night. They could scream a whole lot louder than two AC30s and the typical PAs of the day ]

Other than vocals there was no doctoring or overdubs on Ya Ya’s of any musical significance.Listen to the bootlegs from NYC concerts the album was mostly drawn from .Other than rhythm guitars on Carol and Little Queenie, which are barely noticeable and are unimportant



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-07 22:46 by Taylor1.

Did Brian have a speech impediment or was he just “medicated?”

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
Doxa
Yeah, I got criticism of the audience screaming (in regard to GOT LIVE) . But I think that belongs to the picture. Part of the authentic experience of a concert back then. Shit, when I listen to the album I feel like screaming too!

- Doxa

Weren't the crowd noises fake? And, at points, it seems like the crowd noise is on a loop. Very distracting for me. I know it's called Got Live, but the crowd noise is a disgrace, to me, at least. I'd like to hear it without the fake crowd noise.

I don' t know how much of it is fake. But seemingly the loudest screaming is in those two fake studio tracks - that goes way out of limit, to put it mildly... What goes for tbe rest of it, is it added or just emphasized, I don't know.

- Doxa

Quote
donvis
Did Brian have a speech impediment or was he just “medicated?”

Occasionally he had a slight lisp.

--
Captain Corella
59+ Years a Fan

Thank you

The Who dominated Rock and Roll Circus - it's truly amazing to see and hear their groundbreaking inventiveness when they were still so young.
Pete Townshend is undoubtedly a rock and roll genius, and it's incredible to think the best was yet to come.

And of course the Dirty Mac performance was incredible....what an outstanding group of musicians all gathered for the sake of backing John Lennon while performing a brand new Beatles tune.
Wondering if George or Ringo or Paul were ever considered to be a part of the show...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
The Who dominated Rock and Roll Circus - it's truly amazing to see and hear their groundbreaking inventiveness when they were still so young.
Pete Townshend is undoubtedly a rock and roll genius, and it's incredible to think the best was yet to come.

And of course the Dirty Mac performance was incredible....what an outstanding group of musicians all gathered for the sake of backing John Lennon while performing a brand new Beatles tune.
Wondering if George or Ringo or Paul were ever considered to be a part of the show...

How awesome was it that The Dirty Mac played Yer Blues? A song mocking British blues bands composed of members from the bands The Beatles were mocking. Classic. Love how they were in on the joke.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-08 05:13 by NashvilleBlues.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
redkev
Would be cool to see the best bits from RnR Circus, One pus One, Stones in the Park and Gimme Shelter all in one neatly edited movie. Of course Gimme shelter is in a league of its own from those 4 but there are some great bits in the other 3. Off the top of my head YCAGWYW and PW from RnR, the woo woo bit from One plus One, Satisfaction (out of tune guitars n all) from Stones in the Park are just a few of the many bits which could be included.

Well, they could continue the story of "Sympathy For The Devil" after telling its creation in ONE PLUS ONE. You know, its story did not end there... The theatretical live introduction in R&R CIRCUS, like the dudes knowing they have a new killer song there. Then the huge Hyde Park final fiesta, hundreds of thousands hippies in half trance. And to end by showing what happened in Altamont...

I guess that very rarely, if ever, is the story of one song documented that well (and having such a story to go with it). A helluva song it is.

- Doxa

where does this fit into your evolution of the song?




or is it just to similar to the circus performance to distinguish it in a relevant way as related to the development of the song?

The Who were the best this time and stole the show.
But the Stones are quite good but it is indisputable at a level below.

Same thing 48 years later at Coachella

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Doxa

Quote
redkev
Would be cool to see the best bits from RnR Circus, One pus One, Stones in the Park and Gimme Shelter all in one neatly edited movie. Of course Gimme shelter is in a league of its own from those 4 but there are some great bits in the other 3. Off the top of my head YCAGWYW and PW from RnR, the woo woo bit from One plus One, Satisfaction (out of tune guitars n all) from Stones in the Park are just a few of the many bits which could be included.

Well, they could continue the story of "Sympathy For The Devil" after telling its creation in ONE PLUS ONE. You know, its story did not end there... The theatretical live introduction in R&R CIRCUS, like the dudes knowing they have a new killer song there. Then the huge Hyde Park final fiesta, hundreds of thousands hippies in half trance. And to end by showing what happened in Altamont...

I guess that very rarely, if ever, is the story of one song documented that well (and having such a story to go with it). A helluva song it is.

- Doxa

where does this fit into your evolution of the song?




or is it just to similar to the circus performance to distinguish it in a relevant way as related to the development of the song?

Oh yeah! I had forgotten this great tv performance. As usual, all but Mick's vocals is playback. Surely it belongs to the story. First visual presentation of the song for an audience. Mick's theatrics are really close to 'Turner stuff' he does in CIRCUS (no idea which one happened first), but it doesn't matter. Besides, it is funny how they act in order to mimic the development the song: Bill and Keith standing up and picking up new instruments while cameras on Mick's face...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-08 14:58 by Doxa.

I'm forever frustrated that Brian couldn't put his own reputation as a musician first before any of the bullshit etc, and play proper guitar well and with conviction. Instead, we are left with what is shown and is slightly heard. Which is the bare minimum you could play for JJF and YCAGWYW. Some signs of is former self in Parachute Woman and No Expectations. There's a notable difference regarding his assuredness with slide though. His maracas on Sympathy are odd.

Of course, maybe it's more a case of he couldn't do more rather than wouldn't.

The circus just makes it obvious he's @#$%& up, that he needs to leave and the Stones need to replace him. Not a very enjoyable thing to observe.

Quote
His Majesty
...just makes it obvious he's @#$%& up, that he needs to leave and the Stones need to replace him. Not a very enjoyable thing to observe.

There have been many times over the years when the same could be said about Keith, and indeed Ronnie (and possibly even Charlie during his 80s flirtation with heroine). The Stones somehow got through it all. They may well have done the same with Brian, with a little understanding and support instead of firing him.

Quote
Congratulations

Quote
His Majesty
...just makes it obvious he's @#$%& up, that he needs to leave and the Stones need to replace him. Not a very enjoyable thing to observe.

There have been many times over the years when the same could be said about Keith, and indeed Ronnie (and possibly even Charlie during his 80s flirtation with heroine). The Stones somehow got through it all. They may well have done the same with Brian, with a little understanding and support instead of firing him.

Well said.

Yes, why not let him stay and beef up the guitar section with a virtuoso ? He was obviously still capable of contributing to the band. Worried he couldn't tour ? Let him stay back for some time and tour without him until he could. Would they ever have needed Ronnie ? An enigma need not be discarded.