I've always thought Leeds '71 gets shorted when people think of the great Stones boots. Maybe it's because the version of Rambler isn't the best (compare it to Ya Yas or Brussels and it's no contest) and that was their show stopper in those days. It's also missing the first two tracks...but I always loved the version of Satisfaction (very Otis) and Bitch and Brown Sugar cook. Can't beat those Chuck Berry covers either. And they did an encore!

It should be releazed in its entirety.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
certainly their best show of the 1981/82 tour (think we all agree on this).
Mick is fantastic during this show....love the start of the show.

to me though, there's better shows during the glory years...less posing and less Mick dreadful growling vocals, and less annoying sax!

I thought Mick was at his best during this show. Maybe too much guitar strapped on though. He looked good too. I loved his violet pants and print shirt. Most importantly his arm motions are brilliant rather than that annoying arm bent in the air jabbing thing he does now.

The sax is just fine, this is a professional musician not a hack. Ernie even bangs the tambourine from time to time as well. What is really a relief is not threesome of singers and dancers on stage.

Say what you want about Brussels, the 1972, 1973, 1969 tours...they were all great, but Hampton 81 is the best. I don't like the 81 tour much (heven't seen it, only know it from the bootlegs), I deffinitely prefer the earlier tours, but the Hampton show is THE ONE show where somehow everything is perfect.

Quote
The Sicilian

The sax is just fine, this is a professional musician not a hack. Ernie even bangs the tambourine from time to time as well. What is really a relief is not threesome of singers and dancers on stage.

yeah, Ernie strikes me as in the zone for someone who didn't have any previous Stones connection. He rocks out. He reminds me a bit of Stu--a somewhat older big "bloke," not hip but a solid player.

Great memories of seeing this show on On. But again, memories that mystify the beginning of a love affair aren't always a clear objective view of quality. I much prefer the boots from the European tour where Mick is actually singing.

I stumbled across this YouTube person with amazing Stones stuff from 72 and 73. He has a clip with Brown Sugar and SFM from Madison Square Garden in 1972, something that I have never seen before. Mick is really late at the mike for the final verse of SFM.

[www.youtube.com]

Enjoy.

MileHigh

Quote
whitem8
Great memories of seeing this show on On. But again, memories that mystify the beginning of a love affair aren't always a clear objective view of quality. I much prefer the boots from the European tour where Mick is actually singing.

How is he not singing in Hampton?

Quote
MileHigh
I stumbled across this YouTube person with amazing Stones stuff from 72 and 73. He has a clip with Brown Sugar and SFM from Madison Square Garden in 1972, something that I have never seen before. Mick is really late at the mike for the final verse of SFM.

[www.youtube.com]

Enjoy.

MileHigh

I do. Unsurpassed era.
You stumbled across the You Tube poster too I think.

I've listened to this boasted 1981 Hampton bootleg in the best quality but I don't love it at all. I could say that Jagger's singing is more like barking, that the guitars sound thinly and sometimes out of order, that the solos miss structure and expressiveness, that many songs they play aren't my favourite ones but that Wyman plays well etc. Let's try to classify the sound more generally. Then one word comes to mind: masculine. This is masculine music, macho music. Rough and not subtle at all. I miss the feminine touch the Stones at their best always have. So this music doesn't move me at all, maybe my legs a bit, but not my feelings. It's fast food macho music for the millions. Very predictable.

For example the song Let Spend The Night Together. Good Lord, which desperate woman would say Yes, I want to spend the night with you, when it's sung and played like it is on this Hampton boot? It sounds like a command or like someone proposing to have sex because of boredom. The contrary of seductiveness or even a plea. It all sounds the same: if you've heard one song you've heard it all. Uniformity. Quite sad actually and very reminiscent of Still Life.

Quote
kleermaker
I've listened to this boasted 1981 Hampton bootleg in the best quality but I don't love it at all. I could say that Jagger's singing is more like barking, that the guitars sound thinly and sometimes out of order, that the solos miss structure and expressiveness, that many songs they play aren't my favourite ones but that Wyman plays well etc. Let's try to classify the sound more generally. Then one word comes to mind: masculine. This is masculine music, macho music. Rough and not subtle at all. I miss the feminine touch the Stones at their best always have. So this music doesn't move me at all, maybe my legs a bit, but not my feelings. It's fast food macho music for the millions. Very predictable.

For example the song Let Spend The Night Together. Good Lord, which desperate woman would say Yes, I want to spend the night with you, when it's sung and played like it is on this Hampton boot? It sounds like a command or like someone proposing to have sex because of boredom. The contrary of seductiveness or even a plea. It all sounds the same: if you've heard one song you've heard it all. Uniformity. Quite sad actually and very reminiscent of Still Life.

Don't feel too bad, you failed miserably as a music critic. The "feminine" touch? Its a concert not a sweet sixteen birthday party.

Having checked out whatever opposition still existed after the punk explosion, the Stones finally got round to responding -in fine style- by way of a superb, hard rocking, in-your-face, up-an'-at-'em, explosion of raunch at it's very best.

Hampton documents beautifully, that no-holds-barred response.

"This is masculine music, macho music. Rough and not subtle at all"

Yep you've nailed the very definition of what ROCK AND ROLL is. Funny to see rock is fading away as our western societies turn more and more to feminine values...

Quote
dcba
"This is masculine music, macho music. Rough and not subtle at all"

Yep you've nailed the very definition of what ROCK AND ROLL is. Funny to see rock is fading away as our western societies turn more and more to feminine values...

The Rolling Stones at their best are way more than this one dimensional definition of (hard) rock and roll. So this isn't the Rolling Stones at their best. The Stones just another hard rocking band, like Mainman says? Sounds like a heavy insult to me. How plain and ten a penny that would be.

Quote
kleermaker
For example the song Let Spend The Night Together. Good Lord, which desperate woman would say Yes, I want to spend the night with you, when it's sung and played like it is on this Hampton boot? It sounds like a command or like someone proposing to have sex because of boredom.

Of course all desperate women freaked out while listening to the Ed Sullivan version...furthermore you didn´t pay enough attention to the setlist :

Under My Thumb
When The Whip Comes Down
Let´s Spend The Night Together

...this must be some secret message...

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
dcba
"This is masculine music, macho music. Rough and not subtle at all"

Yep you've nailed the very definition of what ROCK AND ROLL is. Funny to see rock is fading away as our western societies turn more and more to feminine values...

The Rolling Stones at their best are way more than this one dimensional definition of (hard) rock and roll. So this isn't the Rolling Stones at their best. The Stones just another hard rocking band, like Mainman says? Sounds like a heavy insult to me. How plain and ten a penny that would be.

In the early 80s, any band worth their salt had the simple choice of being either hard-rocking or ceasing to exist.

Quote
Mainman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
dcba
"This is masculine music, macho music. Rough and not subtle at all"

Yep you've nailed the very definition of what ROCK AND ROLL is. Funny to see rock is fading away as our western societies turn more and more to feminine values...

The Rolling Stones at their best are way more than this one dimensional definition of (hard) rock and roll. So this isn't the Rolling Stones at their best. The Stones just another hard rocking band, like Mainman says? Sounds like a heavy insult to me. How plain and ten a penny that would be.

In the early 80s, any band worth their salt had the simple choice of being either hard-rocking or ceasing to exist.

Many Stones fans don't like :"8tees crap" How come??

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Mainman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
dcba
"This is masculine music, macho music. Rough and not subtle at all"

Yep you've nailed the very definition of what ROCK AND ROLL is. Funny to see rock is fading away as our western societies turn more and more to feminine values...

The Rolling Stones at their best are way more than this one dimensional definition of (hard) rock and roll. So this isn't the Rolling Stones at their best. The Stones just another hard rocking band, like Mainman says? Sounds like a heavy insult to me. How plain and ten a penny that would be.

In the early 80s, any band worth their salt had the simple choice of being either hard-rocking or ceasing to exist.

Many Stones fans don't like :"8tees crap" How come??

I don't like much from the eighties either but I fail to see what that has to do with the fact that the Stones sounded more like a rock band during 1981 than they did either before or since.

I think pop music in the 8-tees went to a higher harmonic and technical level, the Stones couldn't compete..They should have sticked to their genuine 6tees and 7tees roots imo, at which they where best.

Bands like Mister Mister (short life though) and Toto (to name a few )
outplayed them completely. They sounded quite heavy and more enegetic.

Why on earth would the Stones want to compete with anyone on a technical level? That's not what they're about.

It's only rock n' roll is their mantra, with the emphasis on ONLY.

Quote
Amsterdamned

I think pop music in the 8-tees went to a higher harmonic and technical level, the Stones couldn't compete..They should have sticked to their genuine 6tees and 7tees roots imo, at which they where best.

Bands like Mister Mister (short life though) and Toto (to name a few )
outplayed them completely. They sounded quite heavy and more enegetic.

Probably the Stones didn´t want to compete...

Quote
Mainman
Why on earth would the Stones want to compete with anyone on a technical level? That's not what they're about.

It's only rock n' roll is their mantra, with the emphasis on ONLY.

Agreed,but in the 8tees they tried side steps to different styles, and imo not very convincing.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Amsterdamned

I think pop music in the 8-tees went to a higher harmonic and technical level, the Stones couldn't compete..They should have sticked to their genuine 6tees and 7tees roots imo, at which they where best.

Bands like Mister Mister (short life though) and Toto (to name a few )
outplayed them completely. They sounded quite heavy and more enegetic.

Probably the Stones didn´t want to compete...

Neither did Toto or Mr Mister.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Mainman
Why on earth would the Stones want to compete with anyone on a technical level? That's not what they're about.

It's only rock n' roll is their mantra, with the emphasis on ONLY.

Agreed,but in the 8tees they tried side steps to different styles, and imo not very convincing.

What kind of styles are you refering to which they haven´t tried before the 80´s ?

k



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-10 03:26 by brianwalker.

Quote
stones78
How can anyone not like this? Listen to Bill!:

because of this. why waste my time with 1981.

Quote
brianwalker
because of this. why waste my time with 1981.

That might be about the best damn thing I've ever seen.

Hampton has its ups and downs, but is overall superb. Sound quality is good (almost incredible for a boot): unfortunately Keith is too low in the mix and Bill is a little muddy untill half way through the set. From this point of view I consider Stll Life the state of art with regard to the 81 tour. Musically, how the Stones - as a band - play on this tour is very simply how I would like to play rock and roll if I was capable to.


C

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Mainman
Why on earth would the Stones want to compete with anyone on a technical level? That's not what they're about.

It's only rock n' roll is their mantra, with the emphasis on ONLY.

Agreed,but in the 8tees they tried side steps to different styles, and imo not very convincing.

What kind of styles are you refering to which they haven´t tried before the 80´s ?

None??

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
dcba
"This is masculine music, macho music. Rough and not subtle at all"

Yep you've nailed the very definition of what ROCK AND ROLL is. Funny to see rock is fading away as our western societies turn more and more to feminine values...

The Rolling Stones at their best are way more than this one dimensional definition of (hard) rock and roll. So this isn't the Rolling Stones at their best. The Stones just another hard rocking band, like Mainman says? Sounds like a heavy insult to me. How plain and ten a penny that would be.

I believe you are completely right, kleermaker. The problem with the Hampton era Stones performances, is that Jagger appears completely detached from the songs he is singing, which certainly wasn't the case earlier on in the Stones career. Only perhaps during the 75-76 live shows could the same claim be made, and even then, for me, it wasn't anywhere near as much an issue. The 81 tour was primarily for Jagger a business proposition, and certainly there appears to be next to nothing of any artistic value. I think there is little or no sensitivity within the way Jagger is expressing himself at this point in time.