Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-19 13:44 by Erik_Snow.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

It has nothing to do with someone being "above" the band or with being a 'taylorite' or not. The music is missing something guitar wise as for Taylor's licks (Erik has described it very well). It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to it: there's a lack of 'musical balance' here and it's at the detriment of the whole band.

I'm also not happy with the sound quality being to 'dry'. As I said before: it doesn't breathe. And music has to 'breathe' in order to be very good.

Those two factors (and the fact that it's one of the (if not the) weakest last 1973 shows are the reason why this release is a disappointment to me. It could have been much better. The best songs (mix wise) are BS, MR and SFM, accidentally (?) from the first show, though SFM is certainly not that good musical wise. So that's not the main point of discussion.

Conclusion:

1. Those 'in between' Taylor licks are way too low in the mix and hardly audible, which is at the detriment of the performance of the songs.

2. The sound is too dry as Matthijs called it and a bit pumped up (the bass is too 'thick', however well Bill is playing. That's at the detriment of the 'live experience' and makes it much less exciting as the SBD songs on Brussels Def. Ed. (from Brussels first and London).

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

It has nothing to do with someone being "above" the band or with being a 'taylorite' or not. The music is missing something guitar wise as for Taylor's licks (Erik has described it very well). It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to it: there's a lack of 'musical balance' here and it's at the detriment of the whole band.

I'm also not happy with the sound quality being to 'dry'. As I said before: it doesn't breathe. And music has to 'breathe' in order to be very good.

Those two factors (and the fact that it's one of the (if not the) weakest last 1973 shows are the reason why this release is a disappointment to me. It could have been much better. The best songs (mix wise) are BS, MR and SFM, accidentally (?) from the first show, though SFM is certainly not that good musical wise. So that's not the main point of discussion.

Conclusion:

1. Those 'in between' Taylor licks are way too low in the mix and hardly audible, which is at the detriment of the performance of the songs.

2. The sound is too dry as Matthijs called it and a bit pumped up (the bass is too 'thick', however well Bill is playing. That's at the detriment of the 'live experience' and makes it much less exciting as the SBD songs on Brussels Def. Ed. (from Brussels first and London).

Just out of curiousity, did you download the FLAC-version or the mp3-version?

On my stereo-system, it sound nowhere near what you are describing.

BTW, GS is way better on this Brussels release. On the well-known Brussels-bootleg, the guitars are out of tune. RTJ is also better, imo.

Many of the great other versions are hand-picked on the bootlegs from shows in England etc. The new Brussels-release is (except for the three songs from the 1st show) a concert. That feeling is captured better on the official release, imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-19 16:15 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

It has nothing to do with someone being "above" the band or with being a 'taylorite' or not. The music is missing something guitar wise as for Taylor's licks (Erik has described it very well). It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to it: there's a lack of 'musical balance' here and it's at the detriment of the whole band.

I'm also not happy with the sound quality being to 'dry'. As I said before: it doesn't breathe. And music has to 'breathe' in order to be very good.

Those two factors (and the fact that it's one of the (if not the) weakest last 1973 shows are the reason why this release is a disappointment to me. It could have been much better. The best songs (mix wise) are BS, MR and SFM, accidentally (?) from the first show, though SFM is certainly not that good musical wise. So that's not the main point of discussion.

Conclusion:

1. Those 'in between' Taylor licks are way too low in the mix and hardly audible, which is at the detriment of the performance of the songs.

2. The sound is too dry as Matthijs called it and a bit pumped up (the bass is too 'thick', however well Bill is playing. That's at the detriment of the 'live experience' and makes it much less exciting as the SBD songs on Brussels Def. Ed. (from Brussels first and London).

(...)

BTW, GS is way better on this Brussels release. On the well-known Brussels-bootleg, the guitars are out of tune. RTJ is also better, imo.

(-)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-19 16:28 by Greenblues.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

It has nothing to do with someone being "above" the band or with being a 'taylorite' or not. The music is missing something guitar wise as for Taylor's licks (Erik has described it very well). It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to it: there's a lack of 'musical balance' here and it's at the detriment of the whole band.

I'm also not happy with the sound quality being to 'dry'. As I said before: it doesn't breathe. And music has to 'breathe' in order to be very good.

Those two factors (and the fact that it's one of the (if not the) weakest last 1973 shows are the reason why this release is a disappointment to me. It could have been much better. The best songs (mix wise) are BS, MR and SFM, accidentally (?) from the first show, though SFM is certainly not that good musical wise. So that's not the main point of discussion.

Conclusion:

1. Those 'in between' Taylor licks are way too low in the mix and hardly audible, which is at the detriment of the performance of the songs.

2. The sound is too dry as Matthijs called it and a bit pumped up (the bass is too 'thick', however well Bill is playing. That's at the detriment of the 'live experience' and makes it much less exciting as the SBD songs on Brussels Def. Ed. (from Brussels first and London).

(...)

BTW, GS is way better on this Brussels release. On the well-known Brussels-bootleg, the guitars are out of tune. RTJ is also better, imo.

I guess he may be talking about the classic "Bedspring Symphony" release or some release in that vein, which has GS from Wembley. Regarding the later "Brussels Affair" release, I absolutely agree with you - the Brussels tracks they added on there, substituting the former tracks from London were clearly inferior, most notably Gimme Shelter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-19 16:29 by Greenblues.

Quote
Greenblues

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

It has nothing to do with someone being "above" the band or with being a 'taylorite' or not. The music is missing something guitar wise as for Taylor's licks (Erik has described it very well). It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to it: there's a lack of 'musical balance' here and it's at the detriment of the whole band.

I'm also not happy with the sound quality being to 'dry'. As I said before: it doesn't breathe. And music has to 'breathe' in order to be very good.

Those two factors (and the fact that it's one of the (if not the) weakest last 1973 shows are the reason why this release is a disappointment to me. It could have been much better. The best songs (mix wise) are BS, MR and SFM, accidentally (?) from the first show, though SFM is certainly not that good musical wise. So that's not the main point of discussion.

Conclusion:

1. Those 'in between' Taylor licks are way too low in the mix and hardly audible, which is at the detriment of the performance of the songs.

2. The sound is too dry as Matthijs called it and a bit pumped up (the bass is too 'thick', however well Bill is playing. That's at the detriment of the 'live experience' and makes it much less exciting as the SBD songs on Brussels Def. Ed. (from Brussels first and London).

(...)

BTW, GS is way better on this Brussels release. On the well-known Brussels-bootleg, the guitars are out of tune. RTJ is also better, imo.

I guess he may be talking about the classic "Bedspring Symphony" release or some release in that vein, which has GS from Wembley. Regarding the later "Brussels Affair" release, I absolutely agree with you - the Brussels tracks they added on there, substituting the former tracks from London were clearly inferior, most notably Gimme Shelter.

Yeah, seemingsly, because the Brussels Affair (which is the comparable bootleg to the official release) has some tracks that is not up to par with that of the official release, imo Especially GS is not the best rendition.

I think there's more than enough reverb and room feeling on, especially, LA Friday and Hampton '81. It's nice when they add lots of reverb and audience roar in the beginning of the first track, but then tigthen it up a lot -- get closer to the band -- for the rest of the album.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Greenblues

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

It has nothing to do with someone being "above" the band or with being a 'taylorite' or not. The music is missing something guitar wise as for Taylor's licks (Erik has described it very well). It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to it: there's a lack of 'musical balance' here and it's at the detriment of the whole band.

I'm also not happy with the sound quality being to 'dry'. As I said before: it doesn't breathe. And music has to 'breathe' in order to be very good.

Those two factors (and the fact that it's one of the (if not the) weakest last 1973 shows are the reason why this release is a disappointment to me. It could have been much better. The best songs (mix wise) are BS, MR and SFM, accidentally (?) from the first show, though SFM is certainly not that good musical wise. So that's not the main point of discussion.

Conclusion:

1. Those 'in between' Taylor licks are way too low in the mix and hardly audible, which is at the detriment of the performance of the songs.

2. The sound is too dry as Matthijs called it and a bit pumped up (the bass is too 'thick', however well Bill is playing. That's at the detriment of the 'live experience' and makes it much less exciting as the SBD songs on Brussels Def. Ed. (from Brussels first and London).

(...)

BTW, GS is way better on this Brussels release. On the well-known Brussels-bootleg, the guitars are out of tune. RTJ is also better, imo.

I guess he may be talking about the classic "Bedspring Symphony" release or some release in that vein, which has GS from Wembley. Regarding the later "Brussels Affair" release, I absolutely agree with you - the Brussels tracks they added on there, substituting the former tracks from London were clearly inferior, most notably Gimme Shelter.

Yeah, seemingsly, because the Brussels Affair (which is the comparable bootleg to the official release) has some tracks that is not up to par with that of the official release, imo Especially GS is not the best rendition.

yes, however the 1st Brussels show is superior to the 2nd show...hands down.
Brown Sugar
Tumbling Dice
Angie - amazing
YCAGWYW
Midnight Rambler - arguably the bands greatest performance.
Dancing W Mr D
etc..are some of the band's finest moments ever !

What would have been more memorable is a 2-CD release of both shows in their entirety.

Boy, I'd like to add something to this sound quality discussion but after reading the whole thread I'm left with few words.

Sold an .mp3 to ya? That seems unbelieveable but I believe it. I'll bet the cymbals suffer on that one.

Everybody wants a slightly different mix, ya can't please 'em all. We're lucky to have any imprint of most of these shows, I'm grateful for the differences. peace

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Greenblues

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

It has nothing to do with someone being "above" the band or with being a 'taylorite' or not. The music is missing something guitar wise as for Taylor's licks (Erik has described it very well). It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to it: there's a lack of 'musical balance' here and it's at the detriment of the whole band.

I'm also not happy with the sound quality being to 'dry'. As I said before: it doesn't breathe. And music has to 'breathe' in order to be very good.

Those two factors (and the fact that it's one of the (if not the) weakest last 1973 shows are the reason why this release is a disappointment to me. It could have been much better. The best songs (mix wise) are BS, MR and SFM, accidentally (?) from the first show, though SFM is certainly not that good musical wise. So that's not the main point of discussion.

Conclusion:

1. Those 'in between' Taylor licks are way too low in the mix and hardly audible, which is at the detriment of the performance of the songs.

2. The sound is too dry as Matthijs called it and a bit pumped up (the bass is too 'thick', however well Bill is playing. That's at the detriment of the 'live experience' and makes it much less exciting as the SBD songs on Brussels Def. Ed. (from Brussels first and London).

(...)

BTW, GS is way better on this Brussels release. On the well-known Brussels-bootleg, the guitars are out of tune. RTJ is also better, imo.

I guess he may be talking about the classic "Bedspring Symphony" release or some release in that vein, which has GS from Wembley. Regarding the later "Brussels Affair" release, I absolutely agree with you - the Brussels tracks they added on there, substituting the former tracks from London were clearly inferior, most notably Gimme Shelter.

Yeah, seemingsly, because the Brussels Affair (which is the comparable bootleg to the official release) has some tracks that is not up to par with that of the official release, imo Especially GS is not the best rendition.

yes, however the 1st Brussels show is superior to the 2nd show...hands down.
Brown Sugar
Tumbling Dice
Angie - amazing
YCAGWYW
Midnight Rambler - arguably the bands greatest performance.
Dancing W Mr D
etc..are some of the band's finest moments ever !

What would have been more memorable is a 2-CD release of both shows in their entirety.

I agree, but I don't think Dancing With Mr. D has something to do with it - that's just ordinary, imo.

I liked Angie and Tumbling Dice on the new release as well. Not noticeably inferior to the bootleg version, imo.

Quote
Naturalust
Boy, I'd like to add something to this sound quality discussion but after reading the whole thread I'm left with few words.

Sold an .mp3 to ya? That seems unbelieveable but I believe it. I'll bet the cymbals suffer on that one.

Everybody wants a slightly different mix, ya can't please 'em all. We're lucky to have any imprint of most of these shows, I'm grateful for the differences. peace

It's not that uncommon, really, getting a mp3 bootleg.

Compared to the official L&G-dvd, this mp3 release still has remarkably better sound than the concert film - and that says something.

They didn't bother to use a better sound source for the film...

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

It has nothing to do with someone being "above" the band or with being a 'taylorite' or not. The music is missing something guitar wise as for Taylor's licks (Erik has described it very well). It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to it: there's a lack of 'musical balance' here and it's at the detriment of the whole band.

I'm also not happy with the sound quality being to 'dry'. As I said before: it doesn't breathe. And music has to 'breathe' in order to be very good.

Those two factors (and the fact that it's one of the (if not the) weakest last 1973 shows are the reason why this release is a disappointment to me. It could have been much better. The best songs (mix wise) are BS, MR and SFM, accidentally (?) from the first show, though SFM is certainly not that good musical wise. So that's not the main point of discussion.

Conclusion:

1. Those 'in between' Taylor licks are way too low in the mix and hardly audible, which is at the detriment of the performance of the songs.

2. The sound is too dry as Matthijs called it and a bit pumped up (the bass is too 'thick', however well Bill is playing. That's at the detriment of the 'live experience' and makes it much less exciting as the SBD songs on Brussels Def. Ed. (from Brussels first and London).

+1. FIrst thing I noticed was the weird lack of Taylors fills, rhythm and soloparts that you hear on boots. The mix of Keith and taylor is fantastic on boots but not the official. It's like they took Keiths guitar and made that a solo spot, Jagger a solo spot and not the band.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

It has nothing to do with someone being "above" the band or with being a 'taylorite' or not. The music is missing something guitar wise as for Taylor's licks (Erik has described it very well). It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to it: there's a lack of 'musical balance' here and it's at the detriment of the whole band.

I'm also not happy with the sound quality being to 'dry'. As I said before: it doesn't breathe. And music has to 'breathe' in order to be very good.

Those two factors (and the fact that it's one of the (if not the) weakest last 1973 shows are the reason why this release is a disappointment to me. It could have been much better. The best songs (mix wise) are BS, MR and SFM, accidentally (?) from the first show, though SFM is certainly not that good musical wise. So that's not the main point of discussion.

Conclusion:

1. Those 'in between' Taylor licks are way too low in the mix and hardly audible, which is at the detriment of the performance of the songs.

2. The sound is too dry as Matthijs called it and a bit pumped up (the bass is too 'thick', however well Bill is playing. That's at the detriment of the 'live experience' and makes it much less exciting as the SBD songs on Brussels Def. Ed. (from Brussels first and London).

+1. FIrst thing I noticed was the weird lack of Taylors fills, rhythm and soloparts that you hear on boots. The mix of Keith and taylor is fantastic on boots but not the official. It's like they took Keiths guitar and made that a solo spot, Jagger a solo spot and not the band.

Do you really think so? I find Keith very low in the mix on the boots from this era. For me, Keith's guitar sound is essential in the Stones, no matter how many great fills Taylor plays.

On the official release, you hear the solos when the solos are played, and you get the band well-balanced where Taylor for instance are playing lead guitar when Mick is singing...

Quote
Naturalust
Everybody wants a slightly different mix, ya can't please 'em all. We're lucky to have any imprint of most of these shows, I'm grateful for the differences. peace

I'm grateful for the release as well; no doubt;
it's really terrific that they put out the 2nd show instead of the first.....we allready have the 1st show in fantastic stereo (in 2 different mixes....and interestingly, it's Mick Jagger's personal MIX that favours Mick Taylors guitar!)

Saying that Taylor should be louder in the mix (on the official release) is not bashing the release; it's just "thinking out loud about what could have been better".

Speaking of Brussells - I used to own a bootleg I wonder if anyone else is familiar with. It had an odd title like, "The Jean Clarke Sonic Memorial Barbeque," and the credits said it was from Brussells 1973 without mentioning which specific show. It had pretty good sound and was greatly edited; only a handful of songs; single disc. It also had Sweet Virginia from MSG 1972, an outtake of All Down The Line with more prominent backing vocals, and an interview clip of Jagger with David Frost.

Quote
stonesdan60
Speaking of Brussells - I used to own a bootleg I wonder if anyone else is familiar with. It had an odd title like, "The Jean Clarke Sonic Memorial Barbeque," and the credits said it was from Brussells 1973 without mentioning which specific show. It had pretty good sound and was greatly edited; only a handful of songs; single disc. It also had Sweet Virginia from MSG 1972, an outtake of All Down The Line with more prominent backing vocals, and an interview clip of Jagger with David Frost.

That bootleg is an audience recording; allthough a truely magnificent audience recording. And it's not from Brussels; but a combination of Essen and Hamburg 1973.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-20 12:34 by Erik_Snow.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60
Speaking of Brussells - I used to own a bootleg I wonder if anyone else is familiar with. It had an odd title like, "The Jean Clarke Sonic Memorial Barbeque," and the credits said it was from Brussells 1973 without mentioning which specific show. It had pretty good sound and was greatly edited; only a handful of songs; single disc. It also had Sweet Virginia from MSG 1972, an outtake of All Down The Line with more prominent backing vocals, and an interview clip of Jagger with David Frost.

That bootleg is an audience recording; allthough a truely magnificent audience recording. And it's not from Brussels; but a combincation of Essen and Hamburg 1973.

Thanks for the clarification. Thinking back, I'm not sure if it was credited as being from Brussells. I lost the LP years ago. The "cover" was a piece of paper scotch-taped on to a plain white jacket. It had an old-timey photo of a bunch of ladies standing around that looked like it was from the early 1900's, with song titles and all below the photo.

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60
Speaking of Brussells - I used to own a bootleg I wonder if anyone else is familiar with. It had an odd title like, "The Jean Clarke Sonic Memorial Barbeque," and the credits said it was from Brussells 1973 without mentioning which specific show. It had pretty good sound and was greatly edited; only a handful of songs; single disc. It also had Sweet Virginia from MSG 1972, an outtake of All Down The Line with more prominent backing vocals, and an interview clip of Jagger with David Frost.

That bootleg is an audience recording; allthough a truely magnificent audience recording. And it's not from Brussels; but a combincation of Essen and Hamburg 1973.

Thanks for the clarification. Thinking back, I'm not sure if it was credited as being from Brussells. I lost the LP years ago. The "cover" was a piece of paper scotch-taped on to a plain white jacket. It had an old-timey photo of a bunch of ladies standing around that looked like it was from the early 1900's, with song titles and all below the photo.

No it's not credited as being from Brussels at all. I also have that LP bootleg....actually I have 3 of them; and there's no Brussels credits there

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
Taylor is WAY too low in the mix.

That is my opinion as well. I even made a thread about it; just after Brussels was released, last year. I find myself putting my head next to the Taylor-speaker everytime I listen to the official Brussels release; simply to hear Taylor better

I really don't understand this at all. The mix is perfect, with both guitars just as loud in the mix. The thing is, it is different to what we are used too. On the audience boots drums are always very low in the mix, and guitars are loud, with Taylor quite over powering. The Brussels 1st boots have a fatter sound, with more room (audience) sound, and a bit more reverb. Guitars seem to have a bit more sustain as well. In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry. And that is my main gripe with the three releases: they are mixed very dry, very upfront, like you are on stage instead of in the audience. A bit of room reverb adds life and sparkle to a mix, something missing on the releases.

But the volume levels of all instruments (except Ollie's percussion!) is fantastic on all three releases.

Mathijs

You don't "understand this at all" ? But there's not much to understand; it's just a subjective opinion. I just think that the mix would benefit from having Taylor somewhat louder in the mix. Taylor is turned up when he does a "solo", but that's just not enough for me, as he's doing all these great licks throughout; and I feel that I'm missing out on them unless I don't have the right speaker next to my ear.

Here is the thread: [www.iorr.org]

Of course you feel the same on LA Friday, when Ronnie plays his licks throughout, right?

I'm no "Taylorite" if that's what you think. I hear Ronnie well enough on LA Friday. But Taylor's licks in Brussels 1973 (not speaking about the "solos" ) are more than "a part of the band" to me, he does notes which GOT to be real present in the mix, for me.....just like Nicky Hopkins contribution to some RS recordings; it's supposed to be "above the surface of the mix" (IMO)

I know, Erik. However, I don't agree that anyone should be "above" the band, unless they have something to offer that makes the song better.

I can understand that some of the GS-licks on Brussels, in between verses, could use some more gain, though.

It has nothing to do with someone being "above" the band or with being a 'taylorite' or not. The music is missing something guitar wise as for Taylor's licks (Erik has described it very well). It was the first thing I noticed when I listened to it: there's a lack of 'musical balance' here and it's at the detriment of the whole band.

I'm also not happy with the sound quality being to 'dry'. As I said before: it doesn't breathe. And music has to 'breathe' in order to be very good.

Those two factors (and the fact that it's one of the (if not the) weakest last 1973 shows are the reason why this release is a disappointment to me. It could have been much better. The best songs (mix wise) are BS, MR and SFM, accidentally (?) from the first show, though SFM is certainly not that good musical wise. So that's not the main point of discussion.

Conclusion:

1. Those 'in between' Taylor licks are way too low in the mix and hardly audible, which is at the detriment of the performance of the songs.

2. The sound is too dry as Matthijs called it and a bit pumped up (the bass is too 'thick', however well Bill is playing. That's at the detriment of the 'live experience' and makes it much less exciting as the SBD songs on Brussels Def. Ed. (from Brussels first and London).

+1. FIrst thing I noticed was the weird lack of Taylors fills, rhythm and soloparts that you hear on boots. The mix of Keith and taylor is fantastic on boots but not the official. It's like they took Keiths guitar and made that a solo spot, Jagger a solo spot and not the band.

Exactly my thought too. And they gave Bill a prominent 'place' in the Brussels mix. I think that was intended and has something to do with Keith's remarks about Bill's wonderful playing. But I rather hear him a bit more 'fat' than 'thick'. I love Bill's playing also because it's melodic. So he was part of the rhythm section and also added to the melodic line. While Taylor not only played solos and lead, but also added those special licks and Keith not only played rhythm but also added to the melody. The band was extremely versatile that way. And then we have Jagger of course, feeling like a fish in the water. In his singing one can hear how comfortable he felt in the band.

The official Brussels releas has such a bad sound and mix that I rather not listen to it. Fortunately the two later releases are better.

This is Happy from The Brussels Affair:





This is Happy from Brussels Affair (the bootleg)





To me, the sound separation is way better on the official release, the drum sound is better, the guitar sound is maybe a bit cleaner, but the band mix is better.

I suspect it all boils down to Taylor not being turned to 11 during the verses...

Quote
Bärs
The official Brussels releas has such a bad sound and mix that I rather not listen to it. Fortunately the two later releases are better.

Then I suggest you download it again, because there isn't anything wrong with my copy (check out the video examples above if you like).

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bärs
The official Brussels releas has such a bad sound and mix that I rather not listen to it. Fortunately the two later releases are better.

Then I suggest you download it again, because there isn't anything wrong with my copy (check out the video examples above if you like).

My download sounds great! Maybe it depends on what you're listening to it on. I thought it sounded great to start with, but yesterday I bought some new headphones (earbuds actually) - probably not even the best you can get, but the top of the line ones that Skull Candy makes - and listening now is like a new revelation. The mix sounds ultra-incredible and I'm hearing things I never even noticed before...on Brussells as well as pretty much all the official boots and everything else I own! NO complaints whatsoever!!

It's been 3 weeks and I'm really beginning to wonder WHY the Stones have chosen this last L.A. show. It's a mistake-ladden tired performance that doesn't exactly represent the greatness of the 75 tour.

My guess is the Stones are too lazy to dig into the vaults, listen to the tapes and pick the best. So they rely on fans' opinions. And why is this July 13 show so popular among fans? Because of the legendary Mike Millard recording...

So we end up with a poor show in great quality. What a wasted opportunity...

Gotta pick you up there dcba. This is not the best of 1975 but it is a really great performance. I know its all opinion based, but they could have done far worse than this Sunday show.

They really seem to be following a theme of famous bootlegs that have been around for years and the Millard recordings fit the bill. Almost like them saying, "You like that do ya? Well do you wanna hear how it really sounded?"

Sorry you don't see the value in this 1975 release, but I love it!

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesdan60
Speaking of Brussells - I used to own a bootleg I wonder if anyone else is familiar with. It had an odd title like, "The Jean Clarke Sonic Memorial Barbeque," and the credits said it was from Brussells 1973 without mentioning which specific show. It had pretty good sound and was greatly edited; only a handful of songs; single disc. It also had Sweet Virginia from MSG 1972, an outtake of All Down The Line with more prominent backing vocals, and an interview clip of Jagger with David Frost.

That bootleg is an audience recording; allthough a truely magnificent audience recording. And it's not from Brussels; but a combincation of Essen and Hamburg 1973.

Thanks for the clarification. Thinking back, I'm not sure if it was credited as being from Brussells. I lost the LP years ago. The "cover" was a piece of paper scotch-taped on to a plain white jacket. It had an old-timey photo of a bunch of ladies standing around that looked like it was from the early 1900's, with song titles and all below the photo.

No it's not credited as being from Brussels at all. I also have that LP bootleg....actually I have 3 of them; and there's no Brussels credits there

ive got it too, but the title is MAMMORIAL not memorial , that beinG TITS instead of memories ,slightly different.
the vinyl label said " how to assemble a model wardrobe "

personally i think its not an audience recording ( there being no sound of the audience), they recorded billys sets with the mobile there , maybe left the tapes running . .

Quote
dcba
It's been 3 weeks and I'm really beginning to wonder WHY the Stones have chosen this last L.A. show. It's a mistake-ladden tired performance that doesn't exactly represent the greatness of the 75 tour.

My guess is the Stones are too lazy to dig into the vaults, listen to the tapes and pick the best. So they rely on fans' opinions. And why is this July 13 show so popular among fans? Because of the legendary Mike Millard recording...

So we end up with a poor show in great quality. What a wasted opportunity...

Meanwhile I wouldn't call the July 13th show a "poor performance" at all; it's still a miserable one, compared to the very best 1975 shows.

Of course the band (Jagger and Richards) are LAZY
THey don't give a shit. Just like the honey barger

Would YOU give shit if you were in Jagger's shoes ?