CCR as a power trio. John has to play his and Toms parts and it works due to the distorted over driven guitar sound he employs. For my taste, the DEFINITIVE version of 'Lodi'.
I remember the day and place (Tower Records) that I bought this lp when it was first released. The original four-piece band recorded live! I was in CCR heaven.
All I can say. If you believe that they are low quality rip-offs don't buy them & don't listen to them. I like them
Love the Woodstock set. Rockin. Now I’ll get the new one after this discussion. Seems really cool. Thanks.
I listened to the Royal Albert Hall CD the first time this evening, it's great hearing the four firing on all cylinders so to speak.
PB62 said: ↑ I only clicked on this thread because I’m a fan of John and CCR so I have no comment about the OP…. however, being this is a forum for a lot of people that take really good care of their prized records I gotta say those drinks near the jackets are scaring the hell out of me. Seeing those drinks reminded me mine need refilling.
Woodstock was interesting as the first song was a bit distorted, and they seemed to be having technical issues. I get the criticism, especially if that’s all I heard. But Fogerty’s vocals still powered through the dodgy sound quality, which gets better after the first song or two. I was shocked to discover how good they were live, and particularly with the original lineup. And as the band progresses through that performance, it builds to one of the best versions of “Suzy Q” I’ve ever heard. Great that they finally released it.
The Fillmore closing show is really good. As for Sweet Hitch-Hiker John has a lot of trouble remembering the words to the song. Makes it even more special. As a trio performance I prefer it to The Live in Europe release.
I don’t consider any of CCR’s live albums essential, but I do enjoy them. Woodstock and Live in Europe, especially.
Okay, okay - thanks everybody who "invested" the time to respond and overwhelmingly take a positive position regarding these four live albums. I wanted to say that I have always been a huge CCR fan who loves their music and sound. John Fogerty tinkering in the studio late at night to achieve perfection and writing about a part of the country he has never been to, his songs giving hope for thousands of GIs in Vietnam who were requesting "Run Through the Jungle" over and over and personally, his music has never failed to improve my mood, especially with the volume cranked up. Now, a quick and final word about these live recordings. It has nothing to do with it being the late 60s as excuse for lack of quality. Some examples of well recorded live albums from that time period would be Santana at Woodstock (disc 2 of their first album), the Doors live in New York box set, the Who Live at Leeds, Allman Brothers at Fillmore East, Grateful Dead's Skull and Roses. The sound quality of any of these albums are infinitely superior to all Creedence Live discs and that is my measuring stick and CCR does not live up to it.
I disagree with your observations in calling out the quality of the live CCR recordings. Here’s the thing, live recording technology was in its infancy, in 1969/70/71. Your examples of good sounding live albums are instances in which the bands and crew got lucky…exceptions to the ruleThe bands played well/had good nights, and the equipment didn’t take a crap. Going back to your original post… Live In Europe was recorded just fine. The mix is the issue. The sound is a bit squashed and the applause is way too loud, in spots. I’m guessing this was 8 track equipment. The Concert (Oakland 1970) was also recorded just fine. The mix could be a little less open, but no issues at all. Probably recorded on 8 track, with one track used for camera sync. Woodstock 1969…apart from minor issues during the opening track, the sound and performance is great. What do you expect? It’s Woodstock…engineers are working on the fly! No sound checks, and doing the best they can. And, a remote recording in the middle of a freaking cow pasture, in the middle of the night. Probably recorded on 8 track, with one track used for camera sync. Albert Hall 1979-waft I’ve heard, sounds fine..a little distortion but, oh well. It’s rock and roll…probably recorded on 4 track equipment. I don’t know if you’re too picky about sound or unaware of the things that could go wrong, back then with live recordings. But, these are far from being low quality rip off releases.
Thing is, like many post in here, he is just messing with people. Many many posts have this tone. Phony bs. So I respond in kind or not at all. Think there are terms for this stuff on the net.
Bravo! Life is too short for me to worry about that kind of thing, too. We’re all grown ups here and I’m careful.
A rip off? No, it's an artifact of that period. Not amazing, but it's not like there's an amazing alternative you can turn to instead.
I gotta say, that with the exception of Live In Europe, which suffers from Tom Fogerty's absense, I love all the shows. Woodstock is spectacular - not sure what you're hoping for, it's a 50 year old recording done at an outdoor concert that nobody expected to be relevant all these years later. The band is on fire, I actually prefer it to "the concert", I haven't listed to the new one enough times to see if it bests Woodstock, but I love them all. I also have "live in Germany" which is an official release and it's some other tracks from Europe, that one is just okay.
Amen! It's rock and roll. If I want a polished CCR recording, I'll reach for the studio records. To me a "live" band is what a real band is. If they can cut it onstage, I'll give them props. And CCR could really cut the mustard.
There are many live albums that are not sonic masterpieces and this is one. It’s an important archive document and that’s it. But it’s a fun listen the Concert album which was originally titled The Royal Albert Hall Concert used the wrong tape. One from the Oakland Coliseum m, so they changed the cover on the subsequent printing. I think that 1980 record actually sounds better than the new RAH release.