|
| Headline | A 1969 live album? |
|
Page:
[1] [2] |
| Author | Comment |
Rob Groningen
Sep-16-2009, 12:02 GMT
Netherlands
 | It seems that Columbia Records was intending to release a live album, recorded during the 1969 tour. Major artist were releasing live albums, so why not Simon & Garfunkel? The complete US tour seems to have been recorded by Columbia. Why it was abandoned? They had a backing band with them, weren´t they happy with the results of that?
But as history goes ´Bridge Over Troubled Water´ became their last studio album.
When the Japanese CSB SONY released ´Bridge over troubled water´ while preparing the liner-notes still mention (CBS SONY SOPN 17 and SONX 60135) the dates on which the album tracks when and where were recorded:
Side A 1,5: 1969, November 9th, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio
Side A 2,3,4: 1969 -Unknown
Side B:
1,4: 1969, August 11th, Umiversity of Southern Illinois
2: 1969, unknown
3,5: 1969, November 11, or 14/15 Long Beach & Salt Palace, Utah
6: 1969, November 1st, Witchita State College
On later issues this was left out.
I have uploaded a picture of the Japanese info to:
http://vinylworldofsimongarfunkel.blogspot.com/
|
| | |
Forum guest
Sep-16-2009, 13:29 GMT
United Kingdom
 | Nick from Widnes England writes:
I have a bootlegg cassete tape of 1969 concert recornded at a university. Paul and Art introduce the backing band, not bad line up. Paul sings song left off BOTW called "Cuba Si Nixin No"
Starbuks was going to relaease official version but have not yet done so over in England. Try looking on amazon they might have CD satrbucks was going to release
|
| | |
Rob Groningen
Sep-16-2009, 16:10 GMT
Netherlands
| Yes I know. I bought the ´Starbucks´´ release through eBay. But I was referring to a release that was planned in 1969, instead of BOTW. And ofcorse there is the Legacy release of the 1967 shows too. |
| | |
mog
Sep-17-2009, 01:43 GMT
Canada
 | Good questions !! I don´t know...
Till that point, it is true that S&G had never released a live album. It would have made sense, if they had done so, especially given the fact they were the rivals of the Beatles in NA. Their greatest hits in 1972 was a major blockbuster.
Was it in the cards at the time ? Quite possible indeed.
I wonder if the books on S&G that have been published can give us a clue...
On a personal level, I was quite curious about that tour...for 2 things: (1) their last tour at the peak of their fame, (2) the 1st time that they had a backing band.
But as a matter of fact, I listened a few times to the Live 1969...and nothing on that grab my attention durably. Some arrangements have not aged well (For instance, Mrs. Robinson). It cumulates dust on a shelf since then. |
| | |
Ian
Sep-17-2009, 04:49 GMT
USA - United Staates America
 | I´d say,yes that Columbia was intending to release a live album from S&G,but not instead of ´Bridge´,but as well as. Paul and Art debuted ´Bridge´(song) on that tour didn´t they? To record a live album and using that platform to release new material would have been a very forward looking proposition for an act in 1969. But more importantly,Columbia would not have consented to the expense of recording a complete tour,if a live album was out of the question. Like they did with Dylan,who had a live album ready to release sometime during the 60´s,but that ultimately went unreleased,the same might be true of S&G. Columbia had even prepared the sleeve art for the proposed Dylan live album. It´d be interesting to uncover something similar for S&G. |
| | |
nancy
Sep-17-2009, 05:16 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| It was released here in the states last year. |
| | |
Forum guest
Sep-17-2009, 10:04 GMT
United Kingdom
| Nick From Widnes England:
Further to my previous answer I have the following information:
At A music trade fair in England a while back I came across a bootleg Simon and Garfunkel Album on cassette.
Simon & Garfunkel
Back To College
Live At The Miami University in Oxford Ohio Nov 11 1969
Set List:
1: Mrs Robinson
2: Fakin It
3: The Boxer
4: So Long Frank Lloyd Wright
5: Why Don´t You Write Me
6: Silver Haired Daddy
7: Cuba Si Nixon No
8: Bridge Over Troubled Water
9: Sound of Silence
10: Bye Bye Love
11: Homeward Bound
12: At The Zoo
13: America
14: Song For The Asking
15: A Poem On The Underground Wall
16: For Emily Whenever I May Find
Her.
This is a full complete concert including Art Garfunkel noting two firsts namely the inclusion of a live band on stage and a flask of Coffee.
During the show Paul even announced it was his birthday, but then said it was not only joking.
I beleive the Starbucks version of the 1969 Live Concert was made up of the same tracks recoreded at different venues not just 1 full concert.
|
| | |
Scaaty
Sep-17-2009, 10:28 GMT
Ireland
 | The Greatest Hits album has a number of " live" songs on it. perhaps it was difficult at that time to get decent sound for complete live albums that would explain the disappearance of the Bob Dylan ´whoever he is´ live album. |
| | |
Ian
Sep-17-2009, 12:39 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Well it could be that Scaaty,but in Dylan´s case,his prolificy probably had something to do with it. They may have kept it terminally delayed,as BD always had new studio albums on the way. An interesting point though,about sound quality of live music from the 60´s that is. Some consumers seem VERY out of touch with what to expect from these Old recordings. For example,customer reviews at the Amazon site for S&G´s live from New York(1967)release a few years ago really surprised me. I think it´s a fine recording,yet people were actually leaving comments along the lines of ´there´s too much hiss on this recording´ etc. Such unrealistic expectations. These were recordings made before any modern noise reduction technologies had been invented,yet to my ear they sound great. The folk in charge of compiling and preparing these classic recordings do a beautiful job of cleaning up these old tapes for release in this age. Their work should be commended,not nitpicked. That type should stick to watching American Idol... |
| | |
Forum guest
Sep-17-2009, 13:32 GMT
United Kingdom
| Original, pristine tapes of these 60?s recordings at the time would, I think, be superior to today?s standard. When Paul mic?d his acoustic guitar rather than using a pickup, as today, this would have given a terrific sound. More natural than today?s high tech sound. |
| | |
Forum guest
Sep-17-2009, 13:41 GMT
United Kingdom
| I also think that a full ´live´ recording released at the time of ´Bridge´ would have distracted us from the main event. Nobody new at the time what Bridge would do and perhaps they had a follow up ´live´ album prepared if ´Bridge´ had sold poorly. |
| | |
Suzi
Sep-17-2009, 14:29 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| I also ordered it from Amazon. Its ok. Not my favorite. |
| | |
Ian
Sep-17-2009, 15:44 GMT
Norway
 | Yes,as much as I enjoy the sound of Paul´s acoustic guitar,via pickup,coming out of concert PA system,when it comes to capturing that sound on tape though,a mic´d guitar is always superior. Listen to the warmth of Paul´s guitar on any ´Live Rhymin´ track compared to the sound of the guitar on ´The Boxer´ from CP91. The earlier album,from an acoustic guitar POV is way superior. Pickups somehow skew the sound,leaving it sounding too ´quacky´-it´s just too direct. |
| | |
Bodo
Sep-18-2009, 09:57 GMT
Austria
 | Just an idea:
Maybe they did not release a live album because it all was about money? And during their fight and split up they could not arrange who will get how much. You remember - Paul also insisted on to get more money than Art for the 2003/2004 album releases, because he wrote all the songs. And in a time like 1970, when Art wanted to become a movie star, I could unterstood that Paul would say: ok, so these are my songs, you are just a singer and want to do that from time to time, so when we release a live album off these songs again, I want the main profit. You can earn another million with your next movie :-)
|
| | |
Håkan
Sep-21-2009, 08:03 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Bodo wrote:
"Paul also insisted on to get more money than Art for the 2003/2004 album releases, because he wrote all the songs."
Where did you read this? I have always thought that a composer automatically gets more of the revenue from a sold album? I remember reading that after Mike Nesmith of The Monkees managed to get a couple of songs on The Monkees debut album, the other group members understood where the big money comes from and they also started to write songs. |
| | |
|
Page:
[1] [2]
|