Main Page | Report Page

 

  Music Forum Index » Monkees Forum » Saturday's Child...

Author Message
TonyP...
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:15 am
 
"Infinite Rider" <catgod29 at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
news:f1d482cb-0968-46b3-b2f2-c3a543dd90e4 at (no spam) n10g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Didn't Micky have the lead vocal on the live version of SSFOSI? Some
of his lead vocals on the Rhino releases also sound fairly low in the
mix, which wasn't helped by his singing in a lower range. Maybe the
volume on his mike wasn't turned all the way up or almost all of the
way up?

It's fairly hard to mike the vocals properly on a drummer unless he sings
*very* close to the mic. I assume Micky didn't always do that. Simply
turning it up creates feedback rather than the desired result. Remember that
proper parametric EQ wasn't available at the time.


Quote:
Would the sound engineers have needed to adjust the levels for
balance, even though the Monkees performed sound checks at their
venues prior to the concerts?

Of course they would, the sound checks don't allow for a hall full of
screaming girls unfortunately. They would really have been fighting feedback
with the gear they had at the time, to get anywhere near the levels of the
screaming girls. They just couldn't, but since the girls wouldn't shut up,
and didn't care if they heard anything, nobody else cared about the sound
either. Expecting a decent live recording in such as situation is totally
stupid.

TonyP.
 
Infinite Rider...
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:56 am
 
Quote:
It's fairly hard to mike the vocals properly on a drummer unless he sings
*very* close to the mic. I assume Micky didn't always do that. Simply
turning it up creates feedback rather than the desired result. Remember that
proper parametric EQ wasn't available at the time.

Not singing very close to the mike was something I hadn't considered
as a possible explanation for Micky's vocals sounding too low, but it
makes sense. I wasn't sure if they had parametric EQ capabilities at
the time, but surely a sound engineer could've adjusted the volume for
Micky's mike if it was hard to hear his singing?

Quote:
Of course they would, the sound checks don't allow for a hall full of
screaming girls unfortunately. They would really have been fighting feedback
with the gear they had at the time, to get anywhere near the levels of the
screaming girls.

And considering the problems the Monkees had hearing themselves, it's
a wonder they just didn't turn the sound off and go through the
motions. Still, one thing I find curious and humorous are the current
criticisms that the Monkees's playing skills were on levels that of a
garage rock band, yet the critics of the time claimed the Monkees used
backstage musicians to make the music while they faked it on stage. Of
course, if the Monkees couldn't hear themselves play or the fans
couldn't hear them play, their critics couldn't hear them play either
and yet, was the criticism of using backstage musicians a backhanded
slap intended to knock their musical skills or a begrudging concession
that they could play and their critics just didn't want to admit to
that?

Quote:
They just couldn't, but since the girls wouldn't shut up,
and didn't care if they heard anything, nobody else cared about the sound
either. Expecting a decent live recording in such as situation is totally
stupid.

And yet Bert and Bob recorded three of their concerts in those less
than ideal situations. It was claimed the Monkees were able to hear
themselves on the three concerts that were recorded, that the shrieks
and screams weren't as bad as the concerts had been at other venues. I
guess the overall sound was what kept the live album from being
released in '67, though it would've been intriguing to have seen how
it would've been taken by the fans and critics.
 
...
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:05 am
 
Are you guys referring to the hawaii concert or the live in Phoenix
boot from January 21, 1967? I have the complete latter show as flac
files. Mike is clearly the lead - his level is low, but is
understandable - especially during the breaks of the song.


On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 17:44:25 +0800, brilton <notlirb at (no spam) yacht.net> wrote:

Quote:
Listened again to the SSFOSI live recording again yesterday. It's not so
much a case of the vocals being entirely absent, just quite low in the
mix.

Didn't Micky have the lead vocal on the live version of SSFOSI?


Definitely Mike, with Micky chucking in some harmonies on the "that's
why she's so far out she's in" line.

I wish I knew the provenance of this recording. It fades at the end. It
sounds like it was recorded front-of-house with a microphone. There's
lots of guitar present, and bass, but hardly any drums or vocals.

 
Infinite Rider...
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:25 am
 
Quote:
Didn't Micky have the lead vocal on the live version of SSFOSI?

Definitely Mike, with Micky chucking in some harmonies on the "that's
why she's so far out she's in" line.

I think the first mention of the Monkees doing the song was in Eric
Lefcowitz's book on the Monkees, yet he credited the lead vocal to
Micky. Mike could be heard singing off mike on the attempted studio
version from the "Headquarters" sessions, so wondered if Micky had
initially been the lead singer for the song.

Quote:
The Beatles Shea recording seems to have been a mono line recording, and
even then, they had to go into the studio and dub various bass and vocal
parts onto some songs owing to the rough & ready mix at the time.

Rather odd that the record companies would record a concert but not
use top of the line recording eqipment to get the possible results.
Then again, I guess their top of the line equipment didn't extend to
mobile recording services.

Quote:
It's probably just the problematic nature of trying to get line feeds of
all the different guitars and vocals onto tape. On one of the two 1965
Hollywood Bowl Beatles concerts, John's vocal signal is absent all
together for the first few songs.

I recall that it was said the first recorded HB concert by the Beatles
wasn't of much use and the second wasn't much better, so a Beatles
live album circa 1965-66 was scratched and sat on the shelves until
the 70s. I don't think EMI would've released the album at all if it
hadn't been for two albums of the Beatles appearing live in Hamburg,
Germany from 1962. The recordings I think were the result of someone
recording the Beatles direct to a tape recorder but with no separation
for the instruments and voices. What was weird was the record company
which released those albums in the US claimed to have transferred the
material to a better tape and to have improved the sound, but they had
to be fooling themselves as there was no improvement in the sound and
it still sounded like a direct to home tape recorder.

Quote:
It's just hit & miss with those sorts of primitive set-ups. I imagine
you could try and get all the levels right for the recording gear during
the soundcheck, but come the night, anything could happen.

Possibly, but other live concerts I have or have heard from the late
60s and 70s, I have to wonder if those artists also had primitive
recording gear? In the 70s, you had artists recording concerts on
mobile 16-track services but somehow when it came out on LPs, it still
sounded as though they just used a handful of the tracks to begin
with, and did little or no EQing to smooth out the rough edges.

Quote:
Took a look at the "Peculiar" clip. It has a televison station
watermark. The examples you mention above could well be just old
syndication prints that are floating around, and not outtakes.

That's surprising about the "Peculiar" clip, as I had thought the
reruns of 1969-70 hadn't been seen after ABC finished its run with
them in 1973. Tv stations didn't run their station ID/channel number
all the time back in those days, so that clip would be from a more
recent run, possibly a station that was part of the ill-fated Screen
Gems Network. Seems like the Screen Gems Network did use the reruns
from 1969-70 as I think that when they aired "The Chaperone" episode,
the song that was used as the Monkees got everything ready for their
party was "Midnight Train," and not "This Just Doesn't Seem to Be My
Day." I didn't watch "The Monkees" much when it was part of the SGN
schedule because seems like the network would show about ten minutes
of the show, then break for three or four minutes of commercials. A
lot of the episode was cut out, making it very hard to watch, but it
may be the clips for "Peculiar" and "If You Hve the Time" are from the
SGN run..

On the subject of the "Too Many Girls (Davy and Fern)" episode (and
not "One Too Many Girls," as I had originally posted), according to
The Monkees TV and Film Vault, the scene with actress Kelly Jean
Peters in the bikini/genie costume wasn't deleted but intentionally
blurred to conceal Peters's cleavage. Some of the syndication prints
from the 70s and 80s showed the scene without the blur, but apparently
not all stations received the same prints.
 
Infinite Rider...
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:34 am
 
Quote:
Are you guys referring to the hawaii concert or the live in Phoenix
boot from January 21, 1967? I have the complete latter show as flac
files. Mike is clearly the lead - his level is low, but is
understandable - especially during the breaks of the song.

Probably both. My reference is to the Hawaiian concert. Micky was
identified in the Eric Lefcowitz book as having the lead vocal on
SSFOSI, but Mike could be heard singing lead off-mike on the song
during the "Headquarters" session. Since Mike has clearly been id'd as
the lead vocalist of the version from the Phoenix concert, more than
likely he was also the lead vocalist when it had been performed in
Hawaii. The Lefcowitz book was in error.
 
brilton...
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:27 pm
 
On 7/11/10 11:05 PM, cwe at (no spam) hewkawi.com wrote:
Quote:
Are you guys referring to the hawaii concert or the live in Phoenix
boot from January 21, 1967? I have the complete latter show as flac
files. Mike is clearly the lead - his level is low, but is
understandable - especially during the breaks of the song.



I only have the one song in a massive grab-bag of rare Monkees that
someone kindly sent me once, many years ago. Is that Phoenix concert
available online anywhere? And what about the Hawaii one? Does that
actually exist?
 
brilton...
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:29 am
 
On 7/11/10 12:53 PM, Infinite Rider wrote:



Quote:
I'd also assume that Rhino's purchase of
the Monkees's tv series, movie and recordings also included all of the
outtakes that had been owned by Screen Gems and/or Columbia. That
could one explain the film clips that have showed up on youtube of "If
You Have the Time" (from the "Dance, Monkees, Dance" episode),



I checked this one out on YouTube. Looks like it has the existing
footage with audio dubbed on artificially, ie: the sound is like it's
been taped from a TV speaker and then synched to the regular romp footage.
 
TonyP...
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:49 am
 
"Infinite Rider" <catgod29 at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
news:1f2c6a6b-8a22-4f9c-87db-bfb9574eea9c at (no spam) x7g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Not singing very close to the mike was something I hadn't considered
as a possible explanation for Micky's vocals sounding too low, but it
makes sense. I wasn't sure if they had parametric EQ capabilities at
the time, but surely a sound engineer could've adjusted the volume for
Micky's mike if it was hard to hear his singing?

As I said, simply increasing the mic gain in such a situation is more likly
to give you feedback than an increased vocal level. The equipment they had
at the time was simply not able to cope with the size of concerts and
screaming girls they were trying to play to. The Beatles stopped performing
live concerts for the same reason.


Quote:
And considering the problems the Monkees had hearing themselves, it's
a wonder they just didn't turn the sound off and go through the
motions. Still, one thing I find curious and humorous are the current
criticisms that the Monkees's playing skills were on levels that of a
garage rock band, yet the critics of the time claimed the Monkees used
backstage musicians to make the music while they faked it on stage. Of
course, if the Monkees couldn't hear themselves play or the fans
couldn't hear them play, their critics couldn't hear them play either
and yet, was the criticism of using backstage musicians a backhanded
slap intended to knock their musical skills or a begrudging concession
that they could play and their critics just didn't want to admit to
that?

Frankly the biggest critics never went to see them, so had no clue. Once the
idea got around they didn't play their own instruments on the first two
albums, they just assumed none of the Monkees could play. Using other bands
to back their solo numbers didn't help things though IMO. I never really saw
the point in that.


Quote:
And yet Bert and Bob recorded three of their concerts in those less
than ideal situations. It was claimed the Monkees were able to hear
themselves on the three concerts that were recorded, that the shrieks
and screams weren't as bad as the concerts had been at other venues. I
guess the overall sound was what kept the live album from being
released in '67,

Right, I wouldn't have wanted to release it either if I were the Monkees and
had any say in it.


Quote:
though it would've been intriguing to have seen how
it would've been taken by the fans and critics.

Fans would have bought it and been slightly disappointed. Critics would have
said proof they can't play live. The fact that the Beatles never released a
live album from any of their concerts, for the same reason, would have been
ignored of course.
I think they made the right decision at the time.

TonyP.
 
TonyP...
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:59 am
 
"Infinite Rider" <catgod29 at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
news:9a1d9d66-ac60-4ac6-8956-4f815b9a7ec6 at (no spam) i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Possibly, but other live concerts I have or have heard from the late
60s and 70s, I have to wonder if those artists also had primitive
recording gear?

Yep, but probably not thousands of screaming girls to contend with.


Quote:
In the 70s, you had artists recording concerts on
mobile 16-track services but somehow when it came out on LPs, it still
sounded as though they just used a handful of the tracks to begin
with, and did little or no EQing to smooth out the rough edges.

By the seventies pro audio equipment and live sound production techniques
had improved out of sight compared to the sixties! And many live recordigs
of the seventies are pretty good even by todays standards.
(Many aren't of course.)

TonyP.
 
TonyP...
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:13 am
 
"brilton" <notlirb at (no spam) yacht.net> wrote in message
news:QkNBo.1713$gM3.1219 at (no spam) viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
Quote:
But, wouldn't the transfer of a first generation source tape recording
to a second generation tape resulted in some sound degredation taking
place on the second generation tape?

Always.


Quote:
It probably wasn't that bad - done professionally onto multi-track tape.

Copying a mono or stereo recording to more tracks doesn't improve things,
and there is *always* some generational loss when copying tape to tape.
Of course some improvements may be made to EQ etc. in the process, but that
doesn't require any more tracks than the original.


Quote:
Whoever prepared it put the same source signal across multiple tracks of
a multi-track tape, each with different filtering and eq, so that
whoever was going to mix it could choose for themselves what sounded
best in terms of balance and "stereo" picture. I believe the reels were
offered for sale on eBay once.

Not a whole lot to be gained trying to seperate a stereo mix into multiple
tracks and then mixing it back to stereo. You just EQ the frequency bands
you want to play with on the original stereo mix.

TonyP.
 
brilton...
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:07 am
 
On 8/11/10 4:13 PM, TonyP wrote:
Quote:
"brilton"<notlirb at (no spam) yacht.net> wrote in message
news:QkNBo.1713$gM3.1219 at (no spam) viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
But, wouldn't the transfer of a first generation source tape recording
to a second generation tape resulted in some sound degredation taking
place on the second generation tape?

Always.


It probably wasn't that bad - done professionally onto multi-track tape.

Copying a mono or stereo recording to more tracks doesn't improve things,
and there is *always* some generational loss when copying tape to tape.
Of course some improvements may be made to EQ etc. in the process, but that
doesn't require any more tracks than the original.


Taking a poor quality 2nd gen audience tape and dubbing it onto a
professional multi-track tape, any generational loss would be negligible.


Quote:


Whoever prepared it put the same source signal across multiple tracks of
a multi-track tape, each with different filtering and eq, so that
whoever was going to mix it could choose for themselves what sounded
best in terms of balance and "stereo" picture. I believe the reels were
offered for sale on eBay once.

Not a whole lot to be gained trying to seperate a stereo mix into multiple
tracks and then mixing it back to stereo. You just EQ the frequency bands
you want to play with on the original stereo mix.

TonyP.



I'm not saying that putting the same source signal across several
adjacent tracks with different eq's and filters is a good thing - it's
just what they did at the time (this was still in the days when stereo
was king and mono was thought of as being as appealing as the Black
Plague). And it's what Lingasong used to mix the Star Club tapes with.
And I hate the way it sounded. I never ever want to hear those fake
stereo mixes ever again.
 
Infinite Rider...
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:47 am
 
Quote:
As I said, simply increasing the mic gain in such a situation is more likly
to give you feedback than an increased vocal level. The equipment they had
at the time was simply not able to cope with the size of concerts and
screaming girls they were trying to play to. The Beatles stopped performing
live concerts for the same reason.

From what I understand, when they played, they used their own sound
equipment rather than the sound equipment that was used by the cities
in the civic centers, music halls, sports arenas.That caused some
problems for them with the people who worked a city's sound equipment.
Apparently, the employees held the attitude that if it was good enough
for the city, it should've been good enough for the Monkees. They
probably could've raised the volume on Micky's mic by just a tad,
enough that he could be heard more clearly. Then again, as loud as
those concerts sounded on the albums, they probably had his mic as
high as it could go without having to worry about feedback.

Quote:
Frankly the biggest critics never went to see them, so had no clue. Once the
idea got around they didn't play their own instruments on the first two
albums, they just assumed none of the Monkees could play. Using other bands
to back their solo numbers didn't help things though IMO. I never really saw
the point in that.

I don't think any of the critics from the mainstream rock press went
to see them, as their declarations about the Monkees's playing skills
differed sharply with many local newspaper critics who did see the
Monkees perform in concert. But, that kind of perjurous criticism had
to have the potential to backfire on those critics because if it was
discovered by the readers that the critics were lying through their
teeth about the Monkees's skills as musicians, then one would have to
wonder about their other criticisms. Did they really listen to the act
or go to a concert by the act or were the praises or slings and arrows
based on a critic's like or dislike of the act? Of course, with the
hippies of the 60s, the words of the critics were probably safe from
further inquiry as to the critic's honesty.

Quote:
Right, I wouldn't have wanted to release it either if I were the Monkees and
had any say in it.

Which, according to the Monkees legend, they did have a say in what
was or wasn't released as to their recordings, after Kirshner was
sacked from the project. I sometimes wonder if that truly was the
case, as there were better songs that should've been on the albums or
chosen as a potential single.

Quote:
Fans would have bought it and been slightly disappointed. Critics would have
said proof they can't play live.

I don't think it would've made much difference to the fans if the
Monkees couldn't play a note for note recreation of their hits. It was
rare for the audience to hear a band or artist perform a letter
perfect recreation of one of their hits on stage, even if the
expectations were there -- and they usually were. The mainstream rock
critics -- the types who worked for RS -- would've taken the album as
definite proof they couldn't play. Other critics that might have been
critical of the album, might also have pointed out the Monkees were
performing under conditions (screaming girls) which made it difficult
for them to hear themselves. And the final product, despite its flaws,
truly rebuffed any critic who claimed they couldn't play.


Quote:
The fact that the Beatles never released a live album from any of their concerts, for the same reason, would have been
ignored of course. I think they made the right decision at the time.

Some could argue that if they were opposed to a live album being
released on grounds that what was recorded wasn't any good, why didn't
they just scrap the tapes totally, so as to prevent a future release?
Of course, the bootleg market back and the fan thirst to know
everything that an artist or band recorded then was virtually
nonexistent, so the prevailing thought may have been consign it to the
archives and no one will ever hear it because no one will ever know of
its existence. Had they known fans would want everything, those tapes
might've been erased or destroyed.
 
TonyP...
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:08 am
 
"brilton" <notlirb at (no spam) yacht.net> wrote in message
news:RESBo.1717$MF5.486 at (no spam) viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
Quote:
Taking a poor quality 2nd gen audience tape and dubbing it onto a
professional multi-track tape, any generational loss would be negligible.

Right, but still pointless. Simply copy as many tracks as were recorded in
the first place. And always remember the old saying, you can't make a silk
purse from a sows ear if starting with a "2nd gen audience tape"!!! Smile
Frankly I'd never even bother listening to such crap, life is too short, and
there is far too much better stuff to listen to.


Quote:
I'm not saying that putting the same source signal across several
adjacent tracks with different eq's and filters is a good thing - it's
just what they did at the time (this was still in the days when stereo
was king and mono was thought of as being as appealing as the Black
Plague). And it's what Lingasong used to mix the Star Club tapes with.
And I hate the way it sounded. I never ever want to hear those fake
stereo mixes ever again.

Exactly, some "engineers" simply had no clue what they were doing. Give me
decent mono any day over fake stereo, especially those abominable comb
filter quasi stereo mixes.

TonyP.
 
TonyP...
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:08 am
 
"Infinite Rider" <catgod29 at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
news:dff9cac1-f548-4fe8-9be1-ebe8ea162841 at (no spam) s11g2000prs.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
From what I understand, when they played, they used their own sound
equipment rather than the sound equipment that was used by the cities
in the civic centers, music halls, sports arenas.That caused some
problems for them with the people who worked a city's sound equipment.
Apparently, the employees held the attitude that if it was good enough
for the city, it should've been good enough for the Monkees.

Never heard of that problem. If a band organises their own own equipment,
they organise their own sound engineer, and the people "who work the cities
sound equipment" aren't needed unless they are required to check no damage
is done to the venue, or monitor SPL's for noise regulations. That wasn't
really a problem in the sixties, the problem was the gear available couldn't
produce the desired levels in the first place.


Quote:
They
probably could've raised the volume on Micky's mic by just a tad,
enough that he could be heard more clearly. Then again, as loud as
those concerts sounded on the albums, they probably had his mic as
high as it could go without having to worry about feedback.

Exactly, and still well below the screaming girls unfortunately.


Quote:
I don't think any of the critics from the mainstream rock press went
to see them, as their declarations about the Monkees's playing skills
differed sharply with many local newspaper critics who did see the
Monkees perform in concert. But, that kind of perjurous criticism had
to have the potential to backfire on those critics because if it was
discovered by the readers that the critics were lying through their
teeth about the Monkees's skills as musicians, then one would have to
wonder about their other criticisms. Did they really listen to the act
or go to a concert by the act or were the praises or slings and arrows
based on a critic's like or dislike of the act? Of course, with the
hippies of the 60s, the words of the critics were probably safe from
further inquiry as to the critic's honesty.

Has it ever been any different? We still see write ups today on concerts
that were actually cancelled. The journalist having written it the day
before and get caught out when the concert is pulled for some reason.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to affect their job prospects, and is soon
forgotten by the masses.


Quote:
Which, according to the Monkees legend, they did have a say in what
was or wasn't released as to their recordings, after Kirshner was
sacked from the project. I sometimes wonder if that truly was the
case, as there were better songs that should've been on the albums or
chosen as a potential single.

Right, but remember the artists choices are not always the same as you or
me. Wasn't it Mike who insisted on the version of Circle Sky which was used
on the original Head soundtrack? And Davy's choices certainly wouldn't have
always been the same as me.


Quote:
I don't think it would've made much difference to the fans if the
Monkees couldn't play a note for note recreation of their hits.

No, but the sound quality would have been very disappointing to me.


Quote:
It was
rare for the audience to hear a band or artist perform a letter
perfect recreation of one of their hits on stage, even if the
expectations were there -- and they usually were.

Not my biggest concern. Some live recordings are widely regarded as better
versions than the originals. "Frampton comes Alive" being a good example.
But frankly I hardly ever play the Monkees 1967 concert, the sound quality
is just not good enough for me to choose it over the thousand of other
albums I have to listen to.


Quote:
The mainstream rock
critics -- the types who worked for RS -- would've taken the album as
definite proof they couldn't play. Other critics that might have been
critical of the album, might also have pointed out the Monkees were
performing under conditions (screaming girls) which made it difficult
for them to hear themselves. And the final product, despite its flaws,
truly rebuffed any critic who claimed they couldn't play.

I doubt any of the most vocal critics ever heard the Monkees live OR the
album, and would deny your conclusion in any case.


Quote:
Some could argue that if they were opposed to a live album being
released on grounds that what was recorded wasn't any good, why didn't
they just scrap the tapes totally, so as to prevent a future release?

Someone *always* keeps a copy whether the band likes it or not. They can,
and did, stop any commercial release though.


Quote:
Of course, the bootleg market back and the fan thirst to know
everything that an artist or band recorded then was virtually
nonexistent,

Nope, just the recording equipment was.


Quote:
so the prevailing thought may have been consign it to the
archives and no one will ever hear it because no one will ever know of
its existence. Had they known fans would want everything, those tapes
might've been erased or destroyed.

The originals may well have been, I don't know. It's a silly expectation to
think no copies will survive just because you destroy the originals however.

TonyP.
 
brilton...
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:25 am
 
On 9/11/10 4:08 PM, TonyP wrote:
Quote:
"brilton"<notlirb at (no spam) yacht.net> wrote in message
news:RESBo.1717$MF5.486 at (no spam) viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
Taking a poor quality 2nd gen audience tape and dubbing it onto a
professional multi-track tape, any generational loss would be negligible.

Right, but still pointless. Simply copy as many tracks as were recorded in
the first place. And always remember the old saying, you can't make a silk
purse from a sows ear if starting with a "2nd gen audience tape"!!! Smile
Frankly I'd never even bother listening to such crap, life is too short, and
there is far too much better stuff to listen to.



The last ever (and only) recordings of the Beatles in Hamburg? the only
recording of them playing in a licensed venue? The only live recording
of them not playing in-front of excitable female fans?
 
 
Page 2 of 3    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:03 am