The Who and the Rolling Stones: best live documents

[MK]

I've traded quite a bit over the years, but with the possible exception of Bob Dylan, I don't really specialize in one artist; my tapes/CD-R's are spread out over a large number of artists.

I always thought Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out was disappointing on two counts: the performances weren't their best or most exciting, and after buying the Criterion Collection's Gimme Shelter, I was blown away how good the performances sounded in that movie (newly remixed for the DVD).

That, and a comment someone in the book "Rocklists," probably Dave Marsh, made about "Live at Leeds" being 'hardly [the Who's] best night,' I've tried to track down the best live documents of both the Who and the Stones.

So, I was wondering if anyone knew of definitive live documents by these two bands? Yeah, you're not going to find any boots sounding like the Criterion Collection's "Gimme Shelter," but for other artists, I've found boots with good mixes and no overdubs.

So far, I've got two shows for the Stones, one for the Who. For the Stones, I got a 10-track disc of the Stones at Perth, Australia in Feb. 24, 1973, and one at Madison Square Garden on July 26, 1972 (known as "Welcome to New York"). The performances on these are AWESOME. A few flubs here and there, but still great. What's frustrating is neither are complete, missing something like four songs apiece. Both clock in at about 45 to 48 minutes, which would make them good single Lp releases, I guess. They are from the soundboard, but they sound a little crummy. Perth sounds kind of rough and deteriorated. It's not too high of a generation, but it sounds like the source is definitely been through some wear and tear. "Welcome to New York" has been No-Noised to death. You get used to it after awhile, if you don't think about it, but some life has definitely been sucked out. What's discouraging is that these two are supposed to be "A" quality Stones boots in comparison to everything else out there. It makes me wish that the Stones release these shows officially. If they want to make some cash, release those shows, not ones from recent concerts.

As for the Who, I got something called "Gutter Punks at the Warehouse." Missing something like the first 4 songs and part of another, it manages to fit on one CD at 77 minutes. It takes place at the Warehouse in New Orleans, LA, on November 29, 1971. A GREAT show, I almost want to say that this one knocks "Live at Leeds" out cold, but again, a few problems with this release. This is supposedly another "A" quality boot in comparison to other Who bootlegs, though I've heard some call it B+. Still, even though it came from the soundboard, the mix needs work. I couldn't stand listening to this for awhile, I had to get used to the mix and find the best place to listen to it, which turned out to be through my Mac on a pair of headphones. The vocals come in so clear, but they are mixed way up compared to the band for the first track. This may be how it is for the rest of the show, but it feels like it gets better. This may be from the engineer doing adjustments or me just getting used to it. Anyway, it's frustrating when Keith's drums are way down low and Townshend's guitar's pretty down there, too. Still, it's a great show, with a few musical flubs, but that's expected with every show, I guess. I wish the Who would release this. They must have a few great shows from the first Who's Next tour in their vaults.

Anyone else have any suggestions for good shows?

[lukpac]

I really don't know much about live Stones, but I guess I quite like Ya-Yas. While the Criterion DVD is awesome, I think I prefer the mixes on the album better - there's just some strange mixing going on in the movie.

As far as the Who goes, Marsh is smoking crack. I've heard a number of great Who shows, but for me Leeds still comes out at or near the top. A lot of people seem to love IOW, but I don't really think it compares to Leeds, either in terms of performance or sound. You might want to check out disc 2 of Who's Next: DE. That Young Vic show is pretty great.

[Rspaight]

Yeah, I agree with Luke on the Who stuff. LAL just knocks me out. I dunno what the hell Marsh was on about in Rock Lists. IOW seems flat to me, both in terms of sound and performance.

(I can't in good conscience neglect to mention that a lot of folks have issues with the 2000 two-disc version of LAL, in that the noise reduction was pretty heavy-handed. The 1995 single disc version sounds good to me, and there's a fairly accessible boot of the full show that's unmolested including all the infamous crackling noises.)

Ryan

[lukpac]

Of course, when I talk about Leeds, I'm *only* talking about Live At Leeds Complete.

[MK]

I think I know what you mean. I was stunned by the remarks, too (though to be fair, I don't know if Dave Marsh made them; he edited the book with someone else, and there seems to be a lot of input from various individuals). Maybe it was in reference to the older, abridged Lp, but personally, knowing only the 1995 version, it was always a favorite. I think Gutter Punks may be better, but it really needs to be remixed. I really have to strain to hear Moon and Pete on a number of tracks.

I heard Fillmore West and San Francisco, June 19, 1969, is supposed to be amazing, despite the so-so audience tape. Very similar setlist to LAL, maybe the same, I'd love to compare those two, but I'd like to get a good sounding copy of Fillmore West. That may never circulate, though.

I agree, Isle of Wright is disappointing. It's worthwhile because it was all we got in terms of additional vintage Who, and for awhile, the only lengthy (if incomplete) Tommy performance from their peak years.

I've never been a big fan of official Stones live recordings. To go off in a slight tangent, until the Bootleg Series came along, Dylan's people/Columbia/Sony always issued the bad shows or the bad tours, and even more frustrating was that they did record classic shows, but they'd never issue them. They scrapped great shows from 1963 and 1964 (and only considered releasing a single Lp compilation from two shows in 1963), left the '66 shows in the vaults for decades, chopped up some 1975 Rolling Thunder shows and like a crack dealer gave you only a tiny bit on an EP and a bad movie (before the Bootleg Series and Biograph), left the best thing about his religious period - the Toronto shows from April 1980 - in the can despite plans for release, scapped the Supper Club release, and have great shows from this most recent tour and probably the great early shows from the Never-Ending Tour still in the vaults...

And what did they release? A few disappointing Isle of Wright performances with the Band on Self-Portrait, Hard Rain - the weaker, inferior leg of RTR, the awful Budokan - Dylan fans seem to love it though but the arrangements are just a bad marriage to those lyrics not to mention too schlocky at times, the crappy Real Live, the so-so Unplugged to replace the Supper Clubs, etc.

Steering things back on course, I feel the Stones have gone through something similar if not as bad. Great shows from the Exile on Main Street era, the resurgence during the Some Girls tour, and even great shows from the Brian Jones era, if they exist. All the official live Stones albums are subpar. Stripped is interesting and okay, probably a decent document from their recent years, and Ya-Ya's is okay even though its been messed with and IMO inferior to other shows from that era. The two shows I have are much better, but pretty crappy in terms of sound quality despite being soundboard copies.

[MK]

I forgot, Dylan/Dead just SUCKS. The only good thing is Before the Flood, but even then, that wasn't the best show. I think Clinton Heylin was right on the money. Dylan's singing toward the end of the tour is too over-the-top. The one great thing from the LA Forum shows was Mr. Tambourine Man, and that was left off Before the Flood even though almost every track came from those shows. You're much better with some of the earlier shows, from the first few weeks.

[Rspaight]

I agree with you on Before the Flood. The Band is playing up a storm, but Dylan shouting all the lyrics just wears you down. Still, it's pretty good by the standards of the pre-Bootleg Series official releases, though.

I remember getting Hard Rain, thinking it would be as good as the RTR stuff from Biograph. What a bummer. Needless to say, I like Bootleg 5 a lot better.

As I'm sure you know, The Gaslight Tapes is a pretty good boot of the early days. One of the tracks from it showed up on Bootleg 1, I think.

Ryan

[Xenu]

I enjoy the Leeds Stones set, actually ("Leed Guitars") even if it is fairly laid back.

Actually, one of my favorite Stones sets is (horror of horrors) the Rock 'n Roll Circus appearence. I know it's supposed to suck....but....I don't think I've *ever* seen a live version of Sympathy for the Devil that comes close to that performance in power, honestly, and I love Parachute Woman/No Expectations/You Can't Always Get What You Want sounding so *fresh*.

It goes without saying, BTW, that the Stones live albums that AREN'T Ya Yas are pretty bad. Love You Live finds Jagger barking out his vocals amidst a *very* sloppy set, Still Life is wretched, Flashpoint is *very* 80s sterile (I absolutely detest that tour, despite them pulling out several rarities)...No Security isn't bad, but it feels like too little, too late.

[lukpac]

Stripped has some good moments on it.

As zany and wacky and crappy as "Got Live" is, I've always kind of liked it. Call me crazy.

[Xenu]

I had forgotten about Stripped. You're right, it does have some interesting moments.

Got Live is enjoyable, I suppose, but calling it "live" is lending it a bit too much credence...

[lukpac]

That's true. It's questionable what exactly (if anything) is live on there. The common assumption was the backings were live, but obviously some have studio instrumentation (ie, piano), and I'm Alright uses the same backing track as the version on the EP of the same name (with different vocals).

What a (curious) mess.

[mikenycLI]

To me, "Get Your YaYas Out" is the best, official, vintage Stones, along with the classic boot companion, "LiveR Than Youll Ever Be". Along with these are the '72 Tour, recordings under their various names. The only other outstanding performances that hold up under repeated listenings for me, are from the '89 tour...especially the Atlantic City HBO concert, in it's 3cd form with guests...and the complete, "Stripped", Tokyo Dome stand.

For the Who, unfortunately, there are fewer, really outstanding live concerts to chose from. "Tommy" established them solidly and lyrically in the public's mind, and after that, they were only parodying themselves. You know, the windmill, white jumpsuit stuff, and the frizzy hair with suede fringe. That's all the music boils down to, for me, during this period...just an image. One can only hear so many versions of "Tommy", no matter how good it is.

"Quadrophenia" was an artistic miss-step, created only to "make creative time" after the "Lifehouse" debacle, and make another "Tommy" success. The music from this album is equally blah, live. The more jumping and windmilling, just doesn't cut it ! No substance here, like they were trying to fool someone.

The Old Vic recordings are the only reason to listen to the Who after "Tommy", and it's taken how many years to hear this stuff officially ? For me it was their creative peak, no matter how little they, meaning "Townshend", really thinks about it. I don't know who made the decision NOT to release the complete recordings, as envisioned seen in the cuts presented in "Odds and Sods", but "Who's Next" would have been BETTER, with them. It seems that the Who or their management, such as it was, wanted to pull back, and be a singles band again, so it, too, was gutted in some drug haze. Maybe someday we will get the Old Vic videos too !

Today the Who, if that's what you can call them, are a patched together nostalgia act, that can't make an album of new material if their life depended on it. They say they are trying but you shouldn't hold your breath. The only way they can make an album of new material, is if the consumer refuses to buy their repackaged "hits" cds, WITHOUT the charity connection.

Sad isn't it...and the Stones keep chooglin on, making new music.

[MK]

For the Who, unfortunately, there are fewer, really outstanding live concerts to chose from. "Tommy" established them solidly and lyrically in the public's mind, and after that, they were only parodying themselves. You know, the windmill, white jumpsuit stuff, and the frizzy hair with suede fringe. That's all the music boils down to, for me, during this period...just an image. One can only hear so many versions of "Tommy", no matter how good it is.

"Quadrophenia" was an artistic miss-step, created only to "make creative time" after the "Lifehouse" debacle, and make another "Tommy" success. The music from this album is equally blah, live. The more jumping and windmilling, just doesn't cut it ! No substance here, like they were trying to fool someone.

The Old Vic recordings are the only reason to listen to the Who after "Tommy", and it's taken how many years to hear this stuff officially ? For me it was their creative peak, no matter how little they, meaning "Townshend", really thinks about it. I don't know who made the decision NOT to release the complete recordings, as envisioned seen in the cuts presented in "Odds and Sods", but "Who's Next" would have been BETTER, with them. It seems that the Who or their management, such as it was, wanted to pull back, and be a singles band again, so it, too, was gutted in some drug haze. Maybe someday we will get the Old Vic videos too !

One of the most annoying things about looking at all the track listings for Who boots is that every show during that prime was packed with Tommy tracks. Even when they were cutting back in the early 70's, a third to a half of the show is Tommy. It really does drive you mad to hear Tommy again and again and again...arrrgh!

To be honest, I never thought Tommy held together all that well. It's very good with some great moments, but there's good chunks of it that I can't really get into.

I think Who's Next was their real peak, and personally, I don't think it was a disaster. It sounds like it on paper, but before I found out about the details, I thought it was a kick-ass album, one of the best. When I think of what was left off, I don't think the album really suffered. For a single Lp, they did great, and without the Lifehouse narrative, it opens up the songs a bit more. Join Together, Let's See Action, Pure and Easy...great songs, but the Lp isn't really worse having left them off.

It still would've made a kick-ass double Lp, to add the other stuff, but what resulted from their single Lp distillation holds up on its own, IMO.

After that, yeah, they went downhill fast. I never could get into Quadrophenia. There are stretches that seem boring to me, but it still has some great tracks: Real Me, 5:15, The Punk and the Godfather, Love Reign O'er Me, Bell Boy all rock! Who By The Numbers isn't one of their best, but it's still a pretty good album. I can think of three, maybe four really good tracks that I love, and that doesn't include "Squeeze Box" (which is a pretty stupid single). Never cared for "Who Are You" and beyond, outside of the title track to Who Are You.