Quote
Amsterdamned

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

it ain't 1972

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

Amen.....and that Kazoo drowns everything out. It may be a great recording...but it sounds rushed. Keith and Ronnie are sloppy, Mick sounds unfocused, like he's just belting at words.

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. 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.

lol...That's a perfect comment. The performance of that song really does sum up the vibe of 81. It's all frenetic, coke-induced and empty sexual energy, rather than real passion.
Another reason why Hampton is not the best:
Madison Square Garden 72 YCAGWYW.
And no, this isn't about "idolizing" 69-73. I was 15 in 81 and a recent Stones convert and I thought this tour was the shit at the time. But I knew nothing else. This was pre-boot for me, so except for Ya Yas - this was the only live Stones I knew.
Discovering the 69-73 performances was like discovering that the fat guy in the "no wine before it is time" commercials and the Muppets was the guy who made Citizen Kane.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-10 23:48 by stupidguy2.

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. 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.

Lets Spend The Night Together




Watch the video, this the third song of the set, is all about Mick and Keith. They play it together and they sing it together. I find Mick to be in great form here, working the stage with sultry moves and great vocal range, Keith's guitar and backing vocals are first rate, and the song sounds great, one of their best versions ever. Listen close for the piano carrying the beat with Stu. It is pure nostalgia but with a "modern" take to rough it up a little.

These are the songs that I enjoyed the most from the original 3-lp Hampton boot:

Under my thumb, Let's spend the night together, Black limousine, Going to a go-go, Let it bleed, Tumbling dice, Time is on my side.

These are really good too, but have some flaws (too long, bum "solos" by keith etc):

Beast of burden, Just my imagination, You can't always get what you want.

The last 1/4 of the playlist are played to forced and isn't very enjoyable. It's a pitty that they couldn't do justice to many of the "Tattoo You"-songs (Black limousine is an exception).

It's just a stellar show. The sound is awesome, the energy is fantastic, Jagger sings better than ever (certainly his best singing since 1969, imo), Keith is on top of his game and they play a huge selection of my favourite songs.

The LSTNT-version is unsurpassed. Mick and Keith are simply amazing.

The best version of Satisfaction to date.

The femininity (for kleermaker) is well taken care of, with beatiful and subtle versions of Time Is On My Side and Waiting On A Friend.

What more can we ask for? Oh, I forgot - long guitar solos. The critics gotta admit it: That is why you don't like the show or the era.

<What more can we ask for? Oh, I forgot - long guitar solos. The critics gotta admit it: That is why you don't like the show or the era.><DandelionPowderman>

Decent guitarsolos for starters ; ah just forget it..



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-11 14:49 by Amsterdamned.

Incredible that this thread lasted/keeps-lasting so long
I think that the main reason Hampton 1981 haves such an extremely high status among us, is that it's the LAST great document of the band when they were outlaws and really cooking - without them having all the "effects" behind them, which turned their shows so "safe" and "predictable".
If there were any great documents of their better 1982 shows (like Frankfurt) we'd rate that document just as high.

Musically (and especially *vocally* [is that a word?] ) I find their better 1978 shows to be far superior to Hampton 1981. But there is this great vibe on the Hampton show, that makes me dig it, every time......being Keith's birthday and all

When it comes to the video/broadcast, I don't see what there is to complain about. Wyman's great......the comments here regarding his appearance could be made about any Rolling Stones video.....including Ladies & Gentlemen......same comments could also be made about Mick Taylor.
Both of them are "lost" if watching their performance on video.

Ronnie and Keith are having a great time on the Hampton DVD, and Keith clearly plays a bigger part of the show than he did in 1978, when it was Jagger who stole the show (visually - not musically)

Yes, Erik Snø, there is such a word as vocally, and I definitely agree with you concerning 78 vs 81 vocally (as you can see from my other post in this thread). In 78 he let it loose totally and didn't think about tomorrow. With great success. During Hampton he is much more careful. During the start of the 1981 tour, jagger sang much more like in 1978.
I guess(!) the longer set list of 1981 forced him to take more care of his voice than the shorter shows of 1978. Age also may have started to make him think twice, already at this point, before giving it his all. All later tours increasingly confirms this theory, although he had his moments both during Steel Wheels and Bridges and even theatre & arena Licks shows. Just moments, though! It is not 1972 - 1978 anymore; not even in 1981, it was.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-11 15:04 by Anderson.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
dcba

Quote
kleermaker
I've downloaded the Hampton 81 Dec. 18 SBD (Twenty Flight Rock VGP 270) yesterday but haven't listened to it yet. Is the boot I downloaded a good one?

YES it beats the old TSP cd by a few kilometers.

Thanks dcba. Then I have the best 'version' I guess.

...Is that the title of the CD, too? (I know you said you downloaded it, Kleermaker - but I'm looking for a clue as to what 'bootleg' CD-release serves the best audio quality for this gig. I'm not much into burning & downloading, you see...)

Thanx for the feedback!

["I can hear the Bullfrog calling me..."]

Quote
MississippiBullfrog

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
dcba

Quote
kleermaker
I've downloaded the Hampton 81 Dec. 18 SBD (Twenty Flight Rock VGP 270) yesterday but haven't listened to it yet. Is the boot I downloaded a good one?

YES it beats the old TSP cd by a few kilometers.

Thanks dcba. Then I have the best 'version' I guess.

...Is that the title of the CD, too? (I know you said you downloaded it, Kleermaker - but I'm looking for a clue as to what 'bootleg' CD-release serves the best audio quality for this gig. I'm not much into burning & downloading, you see...)

Thanx for the feedback!

...Nevermind; foud the answer in the 'Buy/ Sell/ Trade' section of the Forum myself. And I think I'll break that habbit of NOT being into downloading & burning... New years are all made for new habbits; and after all - a Man's gotta do what a Man's gotta do!

["I can hear the Bullfrog calling me..."]

Quote
Anderson
Yes, Erik Snø, there is such a word as vocally, and I definitely agree with you concerning 78 vs 81 vocally (as you can see from my other post in this thread). In 78 he let it loose totally and didn't think about tomorrow. With great success. During Hampton he is much more careful. During the start of the 1981 tour, jagger sang much more like in 1978.
I guess(!) the longer set list of 1981 forced him to take more care of his voice than the shorter shows of 1978. Age also may have started to make him think twice, already at this point, before giving it his all. All later tours increasingly confirms this theory, although he had his moments both during Steel Wheels and Bridges and even theatre & arena Licks shows. Just moments, though! It is not 1972 - 1978 anymore; not even in 1981, it was.

Yes I've seen your posts in this thread, and I agree.
Early 1981 shows are much hotter than Hampton, vocal-wise. Listen to Rockford or the first Boulder show for great examples. Also.....the famouse 2nd Seattle show features some awesome Jagger singing.....just listen to the last 2 minutes of "let's spend the night together"

(By the way - I dislike the "erik snø" thingy. I might as well call you "Ander-sønn".....I've grown familiar to the erik_snow name, it has nothing to do with snow/snø anymore)

Quote
MississippiBullfrog

Quote
MississippiBullfrog

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
dcba

Quote
kleermaker
I've downloaded the Hampton 81 Dec. 18 SBD (Twenty Flight Rock VGP 270) yesterday but haven't listened to it yet. Is the boot I downloaded a good one?

YES it beats the old TSP cd by a few kilometers.

Thanks dcba. Then I have the best 'version' I guess.

...Is that the title of the CD, too? (I know you said you downloaded it, Kleermaker - but I'm looking for a clue as to what 'bootleg' CD-release serves the best audio quality for this gig. I'm not much into burning & downloading, you see...)

Thanx for the feedback!

...Nevermind; foud the answer in the 'Buy/ Sell/ Trade' section of the Forum myself. And I think I'll break that habbit of NOT being into downloading & burning... New years are all made for new habbits; and after all - a Man's gotta do what a Man's gotta do!

Yeah - download the things, instead of sending all the money to Japan.

Just wanted to chime in, and say that VGP released this show as "Twenty Flight Rock" and then later as "Happy Birthday Keith".
I've uploaded the "Happy Birthday Keith" to Hungercity, and I think UrbanSteel uploaded on IORR afterwards

If you are looking for a silver release.....(without paying VGP prices)...... the "glimmer twin label" released "hippy happy keith" - and I understand it's a straight copy of VGP's expensive (but excellent) release

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's just a stellar show. The sound is awesome, the energy is fantastic, Jagger sings better than ever (certainly his best singing since 1969, imo), Keith is on top of his game and they play a huge selection of my favourite songs.

The LSTNT-version is unsurpassed. Mick and Keith are simply amazing.

The best version of Satisfaction to date.

The femininity (for kleermaker) is well taken care of, with beatiful and subtle versions of Time Is On My Side and Waiting On A Friend.

What more can we ask for? Oh, I forgot - long guitar solos. The critics gotta admit it: That is why you don't like the show or the era.

Everybody is of course entitled to his/her opinion, but the cursive part of your quote is simply not true. In my first post about this topic I especially commented on the sound. It's this sound, that makes at least our friend The Sicilian think of (quasi) metal, that ruins it all. Some of those lovely and musically subtle pop songs, Under My T., Let's Spend TNT for instance, are victim of this brutal (others use the word 'raunch'), hard rock sound without any depth, subtlety or allurement. But if you love straight on, raunchness, rawness, macho, directness and one dimensionality in music and a metallic guitar sound as well, then such a show as Hampton will be on top of your list easily.

Quote
Erik_Snow
If you are looking for a silver release.....(without paying VGP prices)...... the "glimmer twin label" released "hippy happy keith" - and I understand it's a straight copy of VGP's expensive (but excellent) release

...Cheerz for that, Erik_Snow!

["I can hear the Bullfrog calling me..."]

Quote
kleermaker
[Everybody is of course entitled to his/her opinion, but the cursive part of your quote is simply not true. In my first post about this topic I especially commented on the sound. It's this sound, that makes at least our friend The Sicilian think of (quasi) metal, that ruins it all. Some of those lovely and musically subtle pop songs, Under My T., Let's Spend TNT for instance, are victim of this brutal (others use the word 'raunch'), hard rock sound without any depth, subtlety or allurement. But if you love straight on, raunchness, rawness, macho, directness and one dimensionality in music and a metallic guitar sound as well, then such a show as Hampton will be on top of your list easily.

From a musical point of view, I believe the guitar sound on the Stones' 81 tour has nothing to do with hard rock at all. Hard rock has WAY more fuzz, and the sound and excecution is very different.

However, I get your point on the treatment of the 60s songs. Obviously, they decided to speed them up (and rock them up) to be suitable for stadiums. My guess is also that Jagger was taking the pulse on the time, as he did so many times with great success, imo.

What's wrong with the versions of TIOMS and WOAF? Do you think those were given the hard rock treatment as well? I don't get that. I like Jagger's singing on WOAF live even better than on the TY-version. There are beautiful, spanish licks from Keith and the sax paints the total picture. This calypso is not oozing macho on my book...

PS: I understand that we may disagree about the guitar sound. You're obviously very found of the Ampeg era (so am I, btw) - and not so much of the Mesa Boogie era. I simply love the Boogie sound (El Mocambo, Pathe Marconi and the 81 tour). Especially on ER (the album) Keith has the ultimate guitar sound, imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-12 11:23 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
kleermaker

Everybody is of course entitled to his/her opinion, but the cursive part of your quote is simply not true. In my first post about this topic I especially commented on the sound. It's this sound, that makes at least our friend The Sicilian think of (quasi) metal, that ruins it all. Some of those lovely and musically subtle pop songs, Under My T., Let's Spend TNT for instance, are victim of this brutal (others use the word 'raunch'), hard rock sound without any depth, subtlety or allurement. But if you love straight on, raunchness, rawness, macho, directness and one dimensionality in music and a metallic guitar sound as well, then such a show as Hampton will be on top of your list easily.

Beside it´s your usual rant towards anything post Taylor era connected I realize
that we got different opinions of "sound"...."hard rock sound"..."metallic guitar sound"...man,you must be kidding...

Quote
kleermaker
Everybody is of course entitled to his/her opinion, but the cursive part of your quote is simply not true. In my first post about this topic I especially commented on the sound. It's this sound, that makes at least our friend The Sicilian think of (quasi) metal, that ruins it all. Some of those lovely and musically subtle pop songs, Under My T., Let's Spend TNT for instance, are victim of this brutal (others use the word 'raunch'), hard rock sound without any depth, subtlety or allurement. But if you love straight on, raunchness, rawness, macho, directness and one dimensionality in music and a metallic guitar sound as well, then such a show as Hampton will be on top of your list easily.

I can't relate what you say with what I hear on my Rolling Stones boots of the 72-73 era. The tempo of the songs was wild - much faster than the originals, much faster than the 69-71 tours. The sound was heavy and thick, what I would define as "a wall of sound". To use your very words - brutal: mainly Gibsons via Ampeg's SVT at the max. At least in the 69 and 72 tours they had a short acoustic spot. In 73 it was plain loud from A to Z. Even Love in Vain was electrified and overcharged. Yes, they had also side-men in 72-73, but the guitars were so loud that you can hardly hear them!

Do I like those years? I love them, but please tell me where your definition of "raunchness, rawness, macho, directness and one dimensionality in music and a metallic guitar sound" does not apply?

By 81 the band was actually trying to make the songs sound differently. The guitarists don't saturate every space, other instruments are allowed to colour the sound, the over all timbre is more rich and complex.

I do believe that the band - as a whole - was a much better band than it was in the early 70s.

C

<By 81 the band was actually trying to make the songs sound differently. The guitarists don't saturate every space, other instruments are allowed to colour the sound, the over all timbre is more rich and complex.

I do believe that the band - as a whole - was a much better band than it was in the early 70s.>

Another brilliant post, liddas.

My theory on this is if you get stuck on something, you won't see the forest for the trees. Of course, everything your say here about the sound is true.

What's missing in the Hampton show is Taylor. His lyrical, subtle and feminine touches - right, kleermaker? I'm sure you won't agree with me on how the cool, laid back Rocks Off from Exile got the even more brutal treatment live in 1972 than UMT and LSTNT got in 1981 - but it doesn't matter.

So, if you have decided that UMT is even more brutal, macho, without dynamics, one-dimensional and metal-sounding - let it be so.

Each to his own.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Another brilliant post, liddas.

Thank you, I'm bushed!

C

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<By 81 the band was actually trying to make the songs sound differently. The guitarists don't saturate every space, other instruments are allowed to colour the sound, the over all timbre is more rich and complex.

I do believe that the band - as a whole - was a much better band than it was in the early 70s.>

Another brilliant post, liddas.

My theory on this is if you get stuck on something, you won't see the forest for the trees. Of course, everything your say here about the sound is true.

What's missing in the Hampton show is Taylor. His lyrical, subtle and feminine touches - right, kleermaker? I'm sure you won't agree with me on how the cool, laid back Rocks Off from Exile got the even more brutal treatment live in 1972 than UMT and LSTNT got in 1981 - but it doesn't matter.

So, if you have decided that UMT is even more brutal, macho, without dynamics, one-dimensional and metal-sounding - let it be so.

Each to his own.

Well, if you want to hear Taylor just listen to the Kansas show. And its obvious -the Stones developed and modernized, while Taylor is stuck in his blistering blues guitar god mode. He does a splendid solo on Black Limo, but totally overplays on any other song like Beast, Time, YCAGWYW.

I do indeed think that as a band they where much better in '81 (if we forget the first 10 shows) than anytime before. Yes, '72 was a bit more exciting as they still where young achievers, living a rock star live trying to conquer the world. In '81 they had conquered the world, they already where arrived and where the biggest R&R band in the world.

And concerning the guitar sound: it's fantastic. It's warm, loud, brutal and electrifying. Clear and present, just fantastic. Too call this hardrock is only showing ignorance. Listen to Keith's sound in Essen or Frankfurt '73 -now that's hardrock for you!

Mathijs

One of my all time favorite boots. Love what Ernie Watts does.

O man, if you really think Hampton is suffering from a brutal hard rock sound without any
depth or allurement, I feel sorry for you. Apart from Ernie's sax (that I find a bit too
prominent at times), here the band is operating as a very strong unit. The piano's, rhythm section,
and especially both guitars are playing so tightly together, that I still can not fully
grasp the beauty of it after all these years.

Quote
kleermaker
I miss the feminine touch the Stones at their best always have.

Brenda's 72 make-up?

C

Well, if you want to hear Taylor just listen to the Kansas show. And its obvious -the Stones developed and modernized, while Taylor is stuck in his blistering blues guitar god mode. He does a splendid solo on Black Limo, but totally overplays on any other song like Beast, Time, YCAGWYW.<Mathijs>


I presume Taylor didn't rehearse.

Me hearing Taylor on this Kansas show I thought: aaaah.. this is sounding like the Stones should sound... far away again..not polished, but
the unpolished "overplaying", bluesy. Sorely missed ever since he left imo.
From one leg to at least one wooden leg..
I wonder why Keith got upset..,"shit this is how we once sounded ?"

I wonder why Bill described this Kansas show as the worst of the whole tour...

Quote
shortfatfanny
I wonder why Bill described this Kansas show as the worst of the whole tour...

The boot I own sounds rather lame and uninspired.
Maybe they ran out of coke, except Taylor.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
shortfatfanny
I wonder why Bill described this Kansas show as the worst of the whole tour...

The boot I own sounds rather lame and uninspired.
Maybe they ran out of coke, except Taylor.

Haha...yeah,might be...furthermore Bill could felt uncomfortable hit by the
(guitar) wall of sound...

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
shortfatfanny
I wonder why Bill described this Kansas show as the worst of the whole tour...

The boot I own sounds rather lame and uninspired.
Maybe they ran out of coke, except Taylor.

Haha...yeah,might be...furthermore Bill could felt uncomfortable hit by the
(guitar) wall of sound...

Yup, I've seen and heard them in '73..., genuine rock-style.

I think the Kansas show is quite good. A unrehearsed Taylor sounds a bit out of place on some songs, and quite good on others. Yet, he was miles away from his old self.

All the coke comments; that is such an easy thing to say.
I have the feel;ing they were still learning about stadium rock. This was the first real stadium tour. You can't really count '78 because it was scattered, up - down, big - small, and besides the weren't caring so much But 81 was a serious tour. Big venues. I bet they were still learning how to pace an outdoor stadium show.