IMO this is the best Stones boot that I have heard so far. It is almost the perfect boot.

1. A 25 song setlist

2. An absolutely fantastic board mixing job. The guitars were high in the mix, Bill was heavy in front, singing was blended in beautifully. Only Charlie is slightly muddled.

3. Keith singing backup vocals on many tracks and you can hear him.

4. Ian Stewart on piano, Ernie Watts on sax.

5. The best lead and rhythm guitar playing and sound that I've ever heard.

6. A 10 minute version of "Imagination" and the best I've ever heard.

7. 8 songs from the 60's catalog, 5 songs from "Some Girls" and 6 songs from "Tattoo You".

8. Happy Birthday serenade Keith from Mick and the "T & A" false start.

9. Great versions of many songs including "Shattered", "Neighbors", "LSTNT", "TIOMS" and others.

10. A beautiful flow from beginning to end that sounds just fantastic on a good system. If your not blown away after listening to this ... This may be the Rolling Stones at their peak.

This is one of those shows that would be on the must see list. I saw them in San Diego in 1981. It just gives you chills to hear it. A masterpiece of a show.

Hampton is a great show that I've played an awful lot over the past 29 years.

But I'll give you one reason why it's not the best Stones boot ever: Brussels 10/17/73. And another: Philadelphia 7/21/72. And yet another Los Angeles 7/13/75.

There's a lot of great Stones live boots out there. Why choose? Get 'em all!

Brussels is very good boot, but Mick is too low in the mix, Charlie is barely heard, Mick Taylor's guitar sound is sometimes annoying and seems to be the wrong sound matchup with Keith's sound. They clash. It almost sounds kind of technoish. (at times is the best way I can describe it.)

Besides Brussels was 9 songs shorter, and they seemed to be in a hurry, and the boot lacks the energy that Hampton has.

those are 10 good reasons, but it's trumped by one reason:

it ain't 1972

Quote
StonesTod
those are 10 good reasons, but it's trumped by one reason:

it ain't 1972

nor '69 '70' '71'72'73.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-03 21:07 by Amsterdamned.

Quote
The Sicilian
4. Ian Stewart on piano, Ernie Watts on sax.

I prefer Hopkins & Keys in 72'

certainly NOT the best boot ever! that will be Brussels affair!!!

Ernie Watts or Gene Bardge (right spelling? European leg of this tour) are both somewhat annoying, in particular on the version of YCAGWYW. Simply too much sax on this tour, I think, because Ronnie's guitar playing is not as good as in 75/76 by far. His solos are sometimes only a series of notes without any architecture. Further MJ's vocals are not on top during this tour. So I prefer '72 boots and 89/90 boots.

Quote
The Sicilian
IMO this is the best Stones boot that I have heard so far. It is almost the perfect boot.

1. A 25 song setlist

2. An absolutely fantastic board mixing job. The guitars were high in the mix, Bill was heavy in front, singing was blended in beautifully. Only Charlie is slightly muddled.

3. Keith singing backup vocals on many tracks and you can hear him.

4. Ian Stewart on piano, Ernie Watts on sax.

5. The best lead and rhythm guitar playing and sound that I've ever heard.

6. A 10 minute version of "Imagination" and the best I've ever heard.

7. 8 songs from the 60's catalog, 5 songs from "Some Girls" and 6 songs from "Tattoo You".

8. Happy Birthday serenade Keith from Mick and the "T & A" false start.

9. Great versions of many songs including "Shattered", "Neighbors", "LSTNT", "TIOMS" and others.

10. A beautiful flow from beginning to end that sounds just fantastic on a good system. If your not blown away after listening to this ... This may be the Rolling Stones at their peak.

This is one of those shows that would be on the must see list. I saw them in San Diego in 1981. It just gives you chills to hear it. A masterpiece of a show.

I couldn't agree more, it just is a fabulous concert, and indeed probably their best gig ever. You missed on point though: Jagger is at his absolute best, both his vocals and as a frontman.

Mathijs

How about Hampton 81' is the best Tattoo You boot???? =)

I'm not a fan of Jagger's singing from 75-82.
Ronnie really added noting positive to the band - musically speaking (my opinion).
The stage was horrible. Jagger's outfits were horrible.

Keith is great though.
And like you said - he background vocals all over the place are a welcome thing.

The thing for me with this show, is that when you step back and look at it as a whole, it gives you so many things to like and I only listed my ten best. (Yes Mathijs, I should have named Mick exclusively but his contributions are all over the 10 items.) I totally agree with that.

I just finished giving Brussels a complete listen and I just don't get any of that Hampton energy or greatness.

Just the first half of the Hampton show is worth the price of admission. By the time they finish "Imagination" I am sold. That version and placement is just pure Rolling Stones at their best. It is a perfectly flowing setlist from beginning to end.

"it ain't 1972"

Stop with the 72/73 idolization. Some shows shows from these 2 years were quite mediocre. Try any of the two Seattle tapes...
Yeah that Dec.18 they were high in the sky.

PS (and OT?) : Am I the only the only one who thinks the audio boot is better than the dvd cos you can imagine what the lads do onstage as you liten to the CDs?

I think Brussels has 2 or 3 of the best songs ever performed by the Stones. But there are also bad versions of songs, out of tune guitars and too slow/too fast numbers here. IMO, definitely not one of the all time best.

And the "Brussels show" isn't even complete. Some of the performances are from England.

As a complete SB-show, Hampton ranks highly on my list. Dunno if it's the best, though. I have many favourites from 69, 72, 75, 78 and 89/90, too.

Does anyone have a link to the SBD of this show?

I really think the difference between this show and classic early 70's shows is going to be Taylor vs. Wood and their two particular styles. As great as the Hampton show is - the solos ARE weak points IMO.

"PS (and OT?) : Am I the only the only one who thinks the audio boot is better than the dvd cos you can imagine what the lads do onstage as you liten to the CDs?"

Very true!

Hampton? It's everywhere. Check the Hot Stuff Section.

Quote
RobertJohnson
Ernie Watts or Gene Bardge (right spelling? European leg of this tour) are both somewhat annoying, in particular on the version of YCAGWYW. Simply too much sax on this tour, I think, because Ronnie's guitar playing is not as good as in 75/76 by far. His solos are sometimes only a series of notes without any architecture. Further MJ's vocals are not on top during this tour.

Agreed! Especially about the annoying sax player.

The long intro to UMT captures the real excitement of seeing the Stones live - a real killer.

Quote
dcba
"it ain't 1972"

Stop with the 72/73 idolization. Some shows shows from these 2 years were quite mediocre. Try any of the two Seattle tapes...

Or try some early '69 shows, or some '70 shows. Marquee '71 anyone? Leeds 71 is mediocre at best. The first 10 shows of 72? Unrehearsed and shaky. The middle part of the '73 tour? A drugged out Keith, and a bored Taylor overplaying.

Mathijs

Hampton is at least one of the best concerts of the Ron Wood era. I love the CD boot and I love the video as well. But nothing can beat the sound and quality of the old Grande Finale vinyl boot. It was the first boot I got from the '81 tour in spring 1982 and it still has the best sound of all 81 bootlegs IMO.

They should have released the Hampton show instead of the Rocks Off movie. Much better!

"Or try some early '69 shows, or some '70 shows. Marquee '71 anyone? Leeds 71 is mediocre at best. The first 10 shows of 72? Unrehearsed and shaky. The middle part of the '73 tour? A drugged out Keith, and a bored Taylor overplaying."

Yup Mathijs's right once again.
RE 71 that horrible aud tape from Coventry beats both Leeds and the Marquee in terms of playing intensity. The Stones were in fire that afternoon/evening.

<They should have released the Hampton show instead of the Rocks Off movie. Much better!>

Rocks Off, you mean LSTNT?

Agreed, Hampton is way better. But it was broadcasted, so it would have been hard to release.

Quote
dcba
"it ain't 1972"

Stop with the 72/73 idolization.

i could be wrong, but i don't think you can idolize a year. if you can, however, that would be the year to idolize.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<They should have released the Hampton show instead of the Rocks Off movie. Much better!>

Rocks Off, you mean LSTNT?

Agreed, Hampton is way better. But it was broadcasted, so it would have been hard to release.

Thanks. The movie was titled Rocks Off here in Germany. LSTNT is of course the original title.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
dcba
"it ain't 1972"

Stop with the 72/73 idolization.

i could be wrong, but i don't think you can idolize a year. if you can, however, that would be the year to idolize.

But one can prefer a certain line-up,and for me the Taylor years mirrors the Stones peak.

Of course Hampton ´81 is a hell of a show...always great to listen ( and watch ) to.

Beside Sicilian´s "1" ( that´s the "all you can eat " principle,which isn´t neccessarily the best one...) and the second half of "10" I agree with all other points.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
dcba
"it ain't 1972"

Stop with the 72/73 idolization.

i could be wrong, but i don't think you can idolize a year. if you can, however, that would be the year to idolize.

But one can prefer a certain line-up,and for me the Taylor years mirrors the Stones peak.

Of course Hampton ´81 is a hell of a show...always great to listen ( and watch ) to.

Beside Sicilian´s "1" ( that´s the "all you can eat " principle,which isn´t neccessarily the best one...) and the second half of "10" I agree with all other points.

i'll go with that. love the hampton show - watched with my buds as part of my bachelor party festivities way back when. but, 1981 compares very poorly with 1972 - and i'll even take the warts of the early part of the tour over the best 1981 could offer.

I agree, this is one of their greatest shows ever, the difference with 72/73 is that they swing much more on this one. Bill and Charlie are absolutely great here, they are the ones holding down the groove instead of Keith like he did in the Taylor years. Keith "follows" Bill and Charlie and it sounds fantastic.

Quote
The Sicilian
I just finished giving Brussels a complete listen and I just don't get any of that Hampton energy or greatness.

it's true that the '69-early '70s tours don't have the same "energy"--if you listen for it, you're not going to find it. There seems to have been a different vibe to a show in that period. Many slow songs, and mick often encourages the crowds to cool out. With that in mind, I'm not sure it's fair to elevate Hampton over those years--you may simply prefer shows with more "energy" than was the convention in the early '70s.

i think some of the so-called "energy" we hear on the hampton recording has nothing to do with the band's playing itself...it's a high-energy recording that has the audience very much in the mix. there are many better-played shows on the tour as indicated by the plethora of soundboards...but these recordings lack that "energy" element...

I'm not really sure but I always got the impression that the first CD runs a little bit too fast (at least on the Swinging Pig release). That might add to the impression of a high energy show