Quote
DandelionPowderman
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.

He's hardly audible. Strange enough it's the sax that dominates the sound in the mix, while 4 guitars were active.

I hear him loud and clear when he plays solos. My guess is that he took on a more modest role on the songs he didn't know.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I hear him loud and clear when he plays solos.

really? an example or two being.....?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I hear him loud and clear when he plays solos. My guess is that he took on a more modest role on the songs he didn't know.

I hear him too, but not "loud and clear" and mostly bits. Must be my old ears.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I hear him loud and clear when he plays solos.

really? an example or two being.....?

Black Limousine
Beast Of Burden
Tumblin' Dice
Imagination

There are boots from different sources out there, I guess.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-13 17:17 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I hear him loud and clear when he plays solos.

really? an example or two being.....?

Black Limousine
Beast Of Burden
Tumblin' Dice
Imagination

There are boots from different sources out there, I guess.

i doubt there are multiple sources (sbd-wise) - i'll bet erik snow can the SME on it. i can pick MT out on those (and a few other) tunes from the well-known mono sbd source, but i would hardly characterize it as "loud and clear."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-13 17:22 by StonesTod.

Quote
Mathijs

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

You youngsters, sharp as a knife, are there to support us, oldies, by correcting us when we're wrong and ignorant because of our age.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I hear him loud and clear when he plays solos.

really? an example or two being.....?

Black Limousine
Beast Of Burden
Tumblin' Dice
Imagination

There are boots from different sources out there, I guess.

i doubt there are multiple sources (sbd-wise) - i'll bet erik snow can the SME on it. i can pick MT out on those (and a few other) tunes from the well-known mono sbd source, but i would hardly characterize it as "loud and clear."

The "loud and clear" was for kleermaker, just to point out that he definitely is audible on many songs. On some songs (where he is audible ) he is good, on others he is not, imo.

Judging what Taylor might contribute and to do with, say, 1981/82 Stones and their material, is not possible to do on the base of one singular gig he did with them. Like said here, there probably were a lot of unfamiliar numbers for him and so he he just followed them with his musical instincts. And as far as more familar material goes, his and Wood's roles over-lapped so I think also with them the matter was that of spontaneity - to make quick decisions what and how to play. No time for think the arrengement more deeply, etc. Truely integrating Taylor's guitar into the "Ronnie Era" Stones, would need more time and space. The Kansas gig just gives us a very brief taste. But good at least to have it.

I have sometimes played with the idea that even though "Beast of Burden" might be the most perfect example of 'ancient art of weaving' what Taylor might have conributed to it? How much he could have, for example, helped Jagger's vocal melody line (with which Mick always sounds a bit suffering)? The same goes with, say, "Waiting On A Friend" - what Taylor's melodic sense could have added to the song's delivery? But then there is very difficult to say what extra - or anything - could have Taylor to offer to 'punk era' rockers, such "When the Whip Comes Down", "Shattered", "Let Me Go", "Hang Fire", etc. What Ronnie and Keith do with those songs is as perfect as it can be.

What goes for the post-89'-era, I think Taylor's ability to offer Jagger a scheme and a clue for a melody line hasn't been so important since there are Chuck Leavell, the back up singers and the army of other side musicians to provide the easy scheme (that sometimes ends up like Mick singing karaoke). But then the argument - let us use imagination here - could be stated: If safe and sure pro-like Taylor had been in the band in 1989, maybe Mick wouldn't needed so much 'outsiders' to back up his ass??????

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-14 14:05 by Doxa.

Quote
Erik_Snow

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

Guys, sorry to bring this up again (btw: I mentioned this in the "Hampton download"-post in the 'Buy/ Sell/ Trade'- section of this forum too, just now...) but: it's not really working for me.

If I download those 2 "Hampton"-CD's (from Megaupload.com; generously uploaded by Keessie - check iorr.org ), both files are saved as *.7z type, or something...
I certainly don't know what that is; and neither does my computer (PC/ Windows Vista/ etc.) - the poor thing doesn't recognize that (type of) file(-s).

Any advice?
Thanx already!

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

The 7th July 1990 at Wembley is pretty good- great sound - almost could be released mainstream as it is (not sure how many tracks from this show were on Flashpoint)

Now we have everyone here on record.

lol I cant even find one reason.....

Quote
The Sicilian
Now we have everyone here on record.

we do? what did stonestod have to say?

I think 'Beat Beat Beat' is better...

I must say, this was a very prescient post. Kudos

Quote
Mathijs

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

Mathijs, I see you posting here all the time, and I know you know your stuff.
But how you and I could COMPLETELY disagree on both Hampton and Leeds 71 says a lot about the vastness and variations of the Stones appeal among any given cross-section of fans. To me, Leeds is a perfect overdriven rocker! Their sound is a bit more stripped down - especially guitarwise (more "tube driven" than "fuzz toned"), plus the Bo Diddley improv before a stellar Midnight Rambler, LET IT ROCK!....fuhgettabout it.

The 81 tour has a limited appeal to me personally: Jagger doesn't sing as much as "enunciate", the tempos were rushed causing the rhythm section to sound weak, Keith and Woody (who at the time was nursing a godawful crack habit) are frequently everywhere and nowhere. There are some stand outs - Hampton being the best example, MSG, Seattle - I'm sure there's others but I don't listen to those tapes very often.


However, having said all that, I would like to say that I RESPECTFULLY disagree with you and in no way am trying to slag your taste. It's the extreme opposition between us that struck me as kinda funny.

But, hey, I'd still buy ya a beer!

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
All the coke comments; that is such an easy thing to say.

Maybe that's what they meant on Twitter when they said "This one's a cracker!"

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. So I prefer '72 boots and 89/90 boots.

You can't prefer 89/90 that's a cabaret band you're listening to right there..

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.

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.

Agreed.

Quote
The Sicilian

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.

Lots of good things about this show.

Quote
The Sicilian
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.

'73 "lacks energy"? That's certainly a novel take on it.

The band was simply better in '73, hands down.

Quote
pmk251
After the LA Coliseum show in '81 my waning interest in the band diminished further. I would not see the band again for 18 years. It wasn't just the music or the songs, it was the vibe of the occasion, the whole spectacle of the thing. The artist/audience relationship was completely reversed. The audience was not coming to the band. The band was coming to the audience. It was designed to be exciting. It was meant to please. It was hugely impersonal. If you think it was musically proficient, fine. That sound is not one I embrace. It is too disposable. When Taylor plays his solo on LIV in L&G I am enthralled. Is there a more compelling moment in that movie? In '81 you got a very pedestrian and cynical Black Limosine. For me the vibrancy and immediacy of the playing in '69-'73 is well worth any perceived low points. The moments of absolute brilliance during that time will remain as the band's most enduring music.

Brilliantly stated.

I listened to all the samples..I didnt notice a big enough improvement to go gaga over except the intro to Under My Thumb which suffered on th boot a little. Seems like little effort was put into it...

I downloaded the new Hampton release and it just dawned on my why I never really got into the 81 tour stuff - too much sax. Good grief.

1. It was my first boot. 2. It had a good stereophonic sound. 3. It was a complete concert. 4. The band was in gear. 5. Ernie Watts. 6. It was the real deal. 7. Many highlights, few downers. 8. Bill Wyman. 9. Charlie Watts. 10. Mick's pink suit!

Quote
spsimmons
I downloaded the new Hampton release and it just dawned on my why I never really got into the 81 tour stuff - too much sax. Good grief.

Where did you download it from?

Download it from Google music (link below) if you're in the states, not sure about international users
I.O.R.R.

I purchased earlier today and I'm pleased with the sound. It improves on the bootlegs. The sound's a little more dry than most boots, but it's more balanced. Good to have a clean, CONSISTENT source of this show (finally).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-01 03:25 by Laughingsam.

Quote
whitem8
Where did you download it from?

I downloaded it from the Google music site that Laughingsam posted. It sounds great, just a little more sax than I would like.

i have 10 reason's why it's not!