The Rolling Stones On Air In The Sixties Book and Album

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by joe1320, Jul 6, 2017.

  1. oxenholme

    oxenholme High Quality Posts™ a speciality

    I've been listening to You Better Move On over a dozen times from bootlegs, the 7" EP, and this set. Sure, they sound different in character - quite significantly so, but none of them sounds bad to me. I cannot decide which I like most or which I like least.

    There is no brick walling, there is no unbearable EQ - I find them all acceptable, very acceptable.

    What I find really intriguing about this set is Memphis Tennessee. There are three tracks from Saturday Club 26th October 1963. I was listening to them on medium wave on a mains wireless with Mullard pentodes glowing in the back in 1963. I don't remember any noticeable differences in sound back then. On this set Memphis sounds very different in character to the other tracks. Is that Mick Jagger singing?
     
  2. California Couple

    California Couple Forum Resident

    Location:
    Newport Beach
    Yes, we would not want anyone stealing a Zeppelin song now would we.
     
    goodiesguy, Matthew Tate and mbrownp1 like this.
  3. mbrownp1

    mbrownp1 Forum Resident

    Many of them were stolen to begin with. :hide:
     
  4. brainwashed

    brainwashed Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Well now, looks like this release is causing a lot of angst amongst the faithful. I have a ton of Stones BBC bootlegs, different labels, fan made comps... I'll try and do some serious listening and comparing this weekend. Some of the Stones BBC material has always sounded quite good. Some not so hot. I do have the set and I burned a disc for the car, but have only heard a few tracks. So far, they sound fine to me. That being said, I hope our friends at Abbey Road Studio didn't manipulate the material too much. Radio transcriptions form the 60's should be mono (except for those notable stereo transmissions) and there's really no need to try to artificially separate Keith's and Brian's guitars (if this was even attempted) or separate Bill's bass and Charlie's drums (again, if this was even done). My guess is that they tried to separate the music from the live-in-audience sounds. I guess I'll find out over the weekend. Ron
     
    danielbravo likes this.
  5. Trashman

    Trashman Forum Resident

    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I don't think anybody was really expecting an audiophile-grade release. However, as an official release, one was hopeful they could have improved a little on the sound quality that was already available on the bootlegs... perhaps by tracking down the cleanest possible sources and applying careful restoration and mastering. At the very least, maintaining the sound quality of what was already available would have been an acceptable option, even if it wasn't the preferred option. Instead they took the least desirable route, somehow managing to reduce the sound quality of these recordings. That is what is so upsetting to many.

    Also, I don't see this as a release that is meant to be bought and just collect dust on the shelf. I find that I often prefer some of the BBC recordings to the released studio versions. They sometimes have a little more grit to them, and we get to hear songs that were never put out on the official releases. For example, I probably play the Beatles BBC sessions more than I do some of their studio albums.
     
  6. John Fell

    John Fell Forum Survivor

    Location:
    Undisclosed
    I haven't listened to the current release yet but I can recall liking the BBC version of Come On better than the studio version.
     
    goodiesguy, Clanceman and danielbravo like this.
  7. aphexj

    aphexj Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto
    No angst for me, just not buying this release and I feel very good about that decision
     
    Clanceman and Mr.Sean like this.
  8. Matthew Tate

    Matthew Tate Forum Resident

    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia

    over on iorr.org when it happened someone said that wyman had requested not to have his pic used on new compilations . i'm guessing by bills statement you posted his view of what the product was and the stones view of what it was are different if in fact bill asked not to be used on new compilations. maybe he considered that an archive release and not a compilation
     
    California Couple likes this.
  9. Tommyboy

    Tommyboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    I think it’s significantly better than the official version.
     
    goodiesguy, ash1 and John Fell like this.
  10. ash1

    ash1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    bristol uk
    I agree, way way better even if it's missing the very beginning bass note(s) ! Is that on every configuration of this set ?
     
    Tommyboy likes this.
  11. ash1

    ash1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    bristol uk
    That's a fair guess Ron but the only tracks with audience for which I think "proper" tapes (rather than off air) are thought to exist or transcription discs exist is the 1964 Blues In Rhythm show (cops and robbers etc..) which was already in stereo and was released on that Grrr thing.
     
  12. wpjs

    wpjs Active Member

    I use to have the bootleg- lost it years ago and some of the tracks sound the same to me - (like cops and robbers) others have the reverb thing which doesn't really bother me much.
    Something is strange on "The Last Time" almost sounds like an edit(?)
     
    revolution_vanderbilt likes this.
  13. Tommyboy

    Tommyboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    On the vinyl set and deluxe CD edition it is
     
  14. ash1

    ash1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    bristol uk
    it's from a bootleg then isn't it ? I thought the boots edited that bit coz Andy Peebles yacked over the intro on Stones At The Beeb. It was my understanding that a couple of BBC engineers handed over their tapes for that show. Where are they now ?
    So I wonder what they got from the BBC in the way of tapes / discs. The finger ?
    I suppose the "where possible" relating to tapes and transcription discs could equally mean it wasn't possible or maybe the BBC just gave them a transfer of Stones At The Beeb ? I'm sure at least one of the recent boots and the fan-made Ass Blaster set have the intro intact.

    I see on the VEVO Stones channel for this track (the intros also "brief") that there's no mention of the BBC but it's copyrighted to Promotone and ABKCO. Do they still have to pay Klein's family protection money for something he had nothing to do with ? This pre-dates their contract with him and was nothing to do with him or Decca. Yikes. He was a wise guy, wasn't he ?
     
    Tommyboy likes this.
  15. ash1

    ash1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    bristol uk
    One of my music correspondents has just pointed out that while the version of Walking The Dog is credited to the February appearance on Saturday Club, it is in fact from the April session on Saturday Club.
    The February version has the lead guitar line an octave higher which is a useful identifier.
    Time to take a biro to the sleeve notes again.
     
  16. ash1

    ash1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    bristol uk
    and someone at IORR has pointed out on the vinyl album cover the word FRONT is visible on Bill's hair like it was there for the proofs and they forgot to take it out later.
     
  17. ash1

    ash1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    bristol uk
    Well with the mistakes piling up I wouldn't be surprised if they included The Beatles BBC version with Pete Best on drums by accident.:)
     
  18. craymcla

    craymcla Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Nashville, TN, USA
    FWIW, I just loaded the truncated version of "Come On" into Audition and recreated the missing note by simply repeating the note that's already there. It took about 60 seconds. And after examining the Ass Blaster version, which looks identical to the edit I just made, I highly suspect that's what they did too. So (1) there may not actually be an original untruncated version, but, (2) if Ass Blaster and I could do it in 60 seconds, why couldn't they bother to fix it for the official version.
     
  19. hallucalation

    hallucalation Forum Resident

    Location:
    Russia
    There's only one source for that 63 Saturday Club and that is from 80's BBC rebroadcast with comments over the very beginning of the song.
     
    ash1 likes this.
  20. ash1

    ash1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    bristol uk
    so either they approached the BBC for the tape and were turned down and used the bootleg or skipped stage 1. Unless the original has Brian Bathtubes yacking over it too !
     
  21. walrus

    walrus Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Yeah, I agree. I play The Jam, the Beatles, Squeeze, and Charlatans BBC sets fairly often. I think just about every artists' BBC sessions record I've come across has been a really nice addition to their catalog.
     
    goodiesguy and danielbravo like this.
  22. C6H12O6

    C6H12O6 Forum Resident

    Location:
    My lab
    Glad I caught this thread. I'll save my money and stick with my bootleg (which I seldom listen to anyway).
     
  23. tmoore

    tmoore Forum Resident

    Location:
    Olney, MD
    I had not been aware this was being released ahead of time, and bought this (the 2 CD version) on an impulse purchase last weekend.

    I like this period of the Stones and found this to be an enjoyable listen.

    As I do not have any boots, and had never heard any of these recordings before, and therefore have nothing to compare against, I am glad to have these recordings. I'll have to look around for these boots people are talking about, although it is not a burning desire on my part.

    But when the Beatles came out with their first BBC set in 1994, I did have a Bear Family box set of Beatles BBC recordings and knew that (the 1994 release) only covered part of the story. However, I liked the 1994 release in that -- unlike the Bear Family box set --- there weren't multiple versions of the same song originating from broadcasts that were close in time, and it did have many (but not all) of the different songs they had done. So I can somewhat understand some of the complaining about this Rolling Stones set. But I'm not going to be one of the complainers.
     
    Mr.Sean, Matthew Tate and danielbravo like this.
  24. TonyCzar

    TonyCzar Forum Resident

    Location:
    PhIladelphia, PA
    Decay is a part of life. It's a lesson.

    As for myself, this month's randomized Tidal playlist on my phone is "On Air (Deluxe)" plus the latest Bjork, LCD soundsystem, and U2, plus a couple older titles: Tom Waits' "Orphans", LAGQ's "New renaissance", and PIL on "Rockpalast".

    Every "On Air" cut that has come up through the algorithm has completely pleased me so far, including one track which clearly reflected what Keith referred to in the LA Times as their nervousness; another sounded like MJ's vocals were recorded separately from everything else. (Did they ever do this at the BBC? One track vocals, the other track everything else??)

    I'm no longer a completist or an A/Ber. (I'm not putting completists down. I used to be one.) I also don't demand that the tracklist be in chronological or in any other kind of order (although, yes, I find the latest Zepp BBC release to be unnecessarily jumbled. But my playlist is randomized. How could I complain?).

    Love the Stones, but even I don't want six discs of the stuff. I paid $13 for 2 CDs, and, really, for someone else to curate and get pithy with it. I find my "On Air" experiences so far surprisingly thrilling.
     
    douglas mcclenaghan likes this.
  25. danielbravo

    danielbravo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Caracas. DC
    Ok, I made my purchase yesterday. My initial choice was the standard CD (an initial approach to the official relese since I have a few bootlegs with the sessions of the BBC among other unpublished recordings of the band) As I made my purchase through Amazon I received the digital version of the album. Today I heard it two or three times... Please is not easy

    With respect to the sound I did not expect any HiFi miracle. In spite of everything, it seems "acceptable" to me, no more, no less.
    The big detail: The error in "The Last Time", seems unforgivable. In these times in which "everything" is processed, how could this have happened?

    I can't imagine that the manufacturer and the band will "correct" this small as a clear mistake and make a reissue to replace all the vinyls and Cds in existence. Just accept it as it is

    Everything points to the fact that in a few years they will offer another "expanded and deluxe" version without errors and digitally remastered

    Out of this "detail" I can live with "On Air". I liked the album.

    In a few months I'll decide to upgrade to the deluxe edition or just let it go.
     

Share This Page