Quote
johang
nothing is interesting from 80s and on, if you like to hear the same music over and over again like 81 and onwards (known as Vegas acts...) go back to 72 and its already out there with L&G, I think only Paris was recorded in SB in 70? I say Knebworth and ElMocambo is the 2 best SB recorded shows we know?, or surprice me? not including the 69 stuff or Leeds...

When are the video versions of LA or Hampton coming? Once they milk us fans to get these flac files for 9 bucks?, what a scam.., I hope MJ buys a good pint for my pennies....?

Knebworth is a mess, and we really don't know about the quality of the rest of El Mocambo, as promising as the bootleg may sound (for some songs, that is...).

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
johang
go back to 72 and its already out there with L&G

The problem with Ladies And Gentlemen is that the sound is blurry and not too good, and also that there are FAR better 1972 shows, from July 1972

The audio bootleg L&G has great sound.

Re L&G, I wonder why they did not release a CD counterpart with the DVD, as they did with Some Girls over Texas - I certainly play the CD version of Some Girls far more than the DVD, a CD version of L&G would have been appreciated ...

Quote
bcbud

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
johang
go back to 72 and its already out there with L&G

The problem with Ladies And Gentlemen is that the sound is blurry and not too good, and also that there are FAR better 1972 shows, from July 1972

The audio bootleg L&G has great sound.

Re L&G, I wonder why they did not release a CD counterpart with the DVD, as they did with Some Girls over Texas - I certainly play the CD version of Some Girls far more than the DVD, a CD version of L&G would have been appreciated ...

L & G DVD and (best) audio bootleg both have a very bad mix and sound quality.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
bcbud

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
johang
go back to 72 and its already out there with L&G

The problem with Ladies And Gentlemen is that the sound is blurry and not too good, and also that there are FAR better 1972 shows, from July 1972

The audio bootleg L&G has great sound.

Re L&G, I wonder why they did not release a CD counterpart with the DVD, as they did with Some Girls over Texas - I certainly play the CD version of Some Girls far more than the DVD, a CD version of L&G would have been appreciated ...

L & G DVD and (best) audio bootleg both have a very bad mix and sound quality.

This one does NOT have bad sound. In fact, it's excellent - way, way better than the audio in the movie: [www.iorr.org]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
bcbud

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
johang
go back to 72 and its already out there with L&G

The problem with Ladies And Gentlemen is that the sound is blurry and not too good, and also that there are FAR better 1972 shows, from July 1972

The audio bootleg L&G has great sound.

Re L&G, I wonder why they did not release a CD counterpart with the DVD, as they did with Some Girls over Texas - I certainly play the CD version of Some Girls far more than the DVD, a CD version of L&G would have been appreciated ...

L & G DVD and (best) audio bootleg both have a very bad mix and sound quality.

This one does NOT have bad sound. In fact, it's excellent - way, way better than the audio in the movie: [www.iorr.org]

THAT one is an "MP3" bootleg.

If you like the sound of that one; do yourself a favour and get "You Can't To Do That Baby" (VGP) instead. Same "recording" as this (they were released at the same time), but LOSSLESS, instead of that MP3 bootleg you out a link to there. Somebody fooled that "TMOQ" label, and sent them MP3 tracks, while they sent FLAC files to VGP....from what I understand.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
bcbud

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
johang
go back to 72 and its already out there with L&G

The problem with Ladies And Gentlemen is that the sound is blurry and not too good, and also that there are FAR better 1972 shows, from July 1972

The audio bootleg L&G has great sound.

Re L&G, I wonder why they did not release a CD counterpart with the DVD, as they did with Some Girls over Texas - I certainly play the CD version of Some Girls far more than the DVD, a CD version of L&G would have been appreciated ...

L & G DVD and (best) audio bootleg both have a very bad mix and sound quality.

This one does NOT have bad sound. In fact, it's excellent - way, way better than the audio in the movie: [www.iorr.org]

THAT one is an "MP3" bootleg.

If you like the sound of that one; do yourself a favour and get "You Can't To Do That Baby" (VGP) instead. Same "recording" as this (they were released at the same time), but LOSSLESS, instead of that MP3 bootleg you out a link to there. Somebody fooled that "TMOQ" label, and sent them MP3 tracks, while they sent FLAC files to VGP....from what I understand.

I have both. They (TMOQ) corrected that, didn't they? Surely, the boot I have is not mp3-files. I heard the story, though

However, my point was that Fort Worth 72 is audible in excellent quality (mix), compared to the movie L&G, which is muddy and dry in comparison.

I guess kleermaker is in for a treat, if indeed he hadn't discovered this already?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
bcbud

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
johang
go back to 72 and its already out there with L&G

The problem with Ladies And Gentlemen is that the sound is blurry and not too good, and also that there are FAR better 1972 shows, from July 1972

The audio bootleg L&G has great sound.

I also have



Re L&G, I wonder why they did not release a CD counterpart with the DVD, as they did with Some Girls over Texas - I certainly play the CD version of Some Girls far more than the DVD, a CD version of L&G would have been appreciated ...

L & G DVD and (best) audio bootleg both have a very bad mix and sound quality.

This one does NOT have bad sound. In fact, it's excellent - way, way better than the audio in the movie: [www.iorr.org]

THAT one is an "MP3" bootleg.

If you like the sound of that one; do yourself a favour and get "You Can't To Do That Baby" (VGP) instead. Same "recording" as this (they were released at the same time), but LOSSLESS, instead of that MP3 bootleg you out a link to there. Somebody fooled that "TMOQ" label, and sent them MP3 tracks, while they sent FLAC files to VGP....from what I understand.

I have both. They (TMOQ) corrected that, didn't they? Surely, the boot I have is not mp3-files. I heard the story, though

However, my point was that Fort Worth 72 is audible in excellent quality (mix), compared to the movie L&G, which is muddy and dry in comparison.

I guess kleermaker is in for a treat, if indeed he hadn't discovered this already?

I have 'You Can't Do That Baby' (L&G on VGP), but though it's pretty good for a bootleg, it's also too much compressed and no guitar separation at all.

I agree FW Texas 72 has a better mix and sound quality, but it's not a good as it can be. So I'm in for an excellent 1972 July treat in great sound quality and very well mixed (at least better than the poorly mixed official Brussels - I prefer the bootleg Brussels Def. Ed.).

You're not gonna get anything better than Brussels ever...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You're not gonna get anything better than Brussels ever...

Probably not, but luckily I've my own compilation of best 1973 songs and it is way way better than that disappointingly mediocre Brussels show with mediocre mix and ditto sound quality. It could have been so much better from 1973. So if they pick a 1970 or 1972 show I don't have much confidence, to use an understatement.

Everybody has their wish list but let's look at the way they're releasing these things: Brussells '73, Hampton '81, LA '75. Each release showcases a different era and sound of the band. I think a '72 release won't happen as it may sound too similar to '73. Like it or not, I'm betting on AC '89 just because it's gonna be another change in era and sound. El Macambo or Knebworth ain't gonna happen next because they're too much in the same era as LA '75. Just a guess...

Yes this new boot is good !
my favourite two songs are : "If You Can't Rock Me" and "Wild Horses"
Ron is excellent on both of these and Keith, as Charlie said, is the greatest rock rythm guitarist !

I don't think 72 sounds too like 73, but they will probably go for a post-89 concert for one of the remaining three. I agree about 75 being echoed by El Mo etc. There's already a 78 concert released, so it looks like with left with: post-89, 72, and something from 71 or earlier. I think they will probably save the best till last. If you look at the pattern of releases: 73/Brussels first to whet our appetite, 81 next as it's not the best release, 75 was better.... so we're probably going to get 72 next as this will be even better (going with the vague idea that the older the concert the better it is), followed by 70 or 71, then something from 69 or 68 or earlier(!). Or we may get 89, then 72, then 71 / or older. Or 89, 71/70, then something older.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You're not gonna get anything better than Brussels ever...

Probably not, but luckily I've my own compilation of best 1973 songs and it is way way better than that disappointingly mediocre Brussels show with mediocre mix and ditto sound quality. It could have been so much better from 1973. So if they pick a 1970 or 1972 show I don't have much confidence, to use an understatement.

Well, the sound quality on Brussels is not up for debate (it IS great). However, I understand that you are disappointed with the mix?

Quote
WeLoveYou
I don't think 72 sounds too like 73, but they will probably go for a post-89 concert for one of the remaining three. I agree about 75 being echoed by El Mo etc. There's already a 78 concert released, so it looks like with left with: post-89, 72, and something from 71 or earlier. I think they will probably save the best till last. If you look at the pattern of releases: 73/Brussels first to whet our appetite, 81 next as it's not the best release, 75 was better.... so we're probably going to get 72 next as this will be even better (going with the vague idea that the older the concert the better it is), followed by 70 or 71, then something from 69 or 68 or earlier(!). Or we may get 89, then 72, then 71 / or older. Or 89, 71/70, then something older.

True, '72 is a bit different from '73 but I don't think they will release something that features the Mick taylor era so soon after Brussels. I still bet on something '89 or later just because it's a very different sound and era from what's come out so far. Maybe "Vegas Era" for these reasons. Maybe Wyman's final gig would be nice. Then I'll bet on something much more recent to showcase the D. Jones era even though it's not most of our favorite era. Who knows?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You're not gonna get anything better than Brussels ever...

Probably not, but luckily I've my own compilation of best 1973 songs and it is way way better than that disappointingly mediocre Brussels show with mediocre mix and ditto sound quality. It could have been so much better from 1973. So if they pick a 1970 or 1972 show I don't have much confidence, to use an understatement.

Well, the sound quality on Brussels is not up for debate (it IS great). However, I understand that you are disappointed with the mix?

Yep, the mix indeed Dandelion. The Brussels Def. Ed. bootleg has Taylor higher in the mix on the SBD songs and that's the way the band sounded in 1973, as I've heard myself in Rotterdam, Oct. 13 (great show!).

Quote
WeLoveYou
I think they will probably save the best till last.

That's not usually how it works. What could be better than Brussels, the 1st release? Or Hampton? And as for novelty, L.A. Forum '75? They're definitely releasing the most high profile gigs first. With that in mind Leeds '71, Atlantic City '89, would be at the head of the list for next release. They have truly different setlists compared to another '72 release (per the LGTRS DVD), or Knebworth '76.

Anything risky, and therefore possibly unprofitable, would probably be kept for the end. I'm hoping they've dug up something from '67, but I'm not holding my breath. I wish they would think outside the box and simply give us the best of the live Brian years, no matter when it was. The only post-Wyman release I would have any interest in would be from the No Security tour. I'm sure the harder core boot fans could come up with some great concerts that are under the radar, but the Stones seem to be keeping with the best known.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
WeLoveYou
I think they will probably save the best till last.

That's not usually how it works. What could be better than Brussels, the 1st release? Or Hampton? And as for novelty, L.A. Forum '75? They're definitely releasing the most high profile gigs first. With that in mind Leeds '71, Atlantic City '89, would be at the head of the list for next release. They have truly different setlists compared to another '72 release (per the LGTRS DVD), or Knebworth '76.

Anything risky, and therefore possibly unprofitable, would probably be kept for the end. I'm hoping they've dug up something from '67, but I'm not holding my breath. I wish they would think outside the box and simply give us the best of the live Brian years, no matter when it was. The only post-Wyman release I would have any interest in would be from the No Security tour. I'm sure the harder core boot fans could come up with some great concerts that are under the radar, but the Stones seem to be keeping with the best known.

"Vegas" or not, Atlantic City is a fantastic show. Leeds is mediocre, imo.

El Mocambo and a Brian-era show would be fantastic.

Atlantic City might be a good show, but as with Hampton it's been done to death by excellent bootlegs & video footage. It certainly wont be a release I'll be downloading in a hurry nor listen to much.

Leeds '71 might not be a great show but a complete version in stereo would be good.

also agree 1972 does not sound the same as 1973.

we might be mixing threads here but i think AC '89 will be one of the shows (unfortunately), 1972 NY another.

*Well, the sound quality on Brussels is not up for debate (it IS great).*

- on the newly released 'official' version? not in my opinion; Taylor is WAY too low in the mix. the boots I have of Brussels sound better to me than the 'officially' released version.

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 always thought the mix on Atlantic City was rather muddy . A Clearmountain remaster would be welcome.

Anything newer would have limited appeal IMHO. Can't see much appetite for a Vegas era stadium show. No Security or one of the 1995 theatre shows would be the best way to showcase the Daryll era.


sc uk

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*Well, the sound quality on Brussels is not up for debate (it IS great).*

- on the newly released 'official' version? not in my opinion; Taylor is WAY too low in the mix. the boots I have of Brussels sound better to me than the 'officially' released version.

Except for the bass. The bass ain't great on the boots. Dancing With Mr. D on the boots is far superior (excepting the bass), but it's not from the 'officially' released show.

Quote
straycatuk
I always thought the mix on Atlantic City was rather muddy . A Clearmountain remaster would be welcome.

You mean the "Swingin Pig" release? THat one is both overloaded AND muddy. There are better versions of the concert available though

I think there is a big chance for the Voodoo Lounge tour to have a show released (Miami?).
There is no live document from this tour, other than Stripped.

But I have to admit they don't really see that as a valid argument, since Hampton and LA Friday
were already partly available on Still Live and Love you Live.

And maybe that is one of the reasons why they chose to release those shows. They have been
recorded with the purpose of bringing out a live album. So that might be an indication that
the other three boots will come from shows that were recorded for live albums. And that might
indicate they could be releasing Amsterdam or St. Louis 1997/1998 that were recorded for the
No Security album. Tokyo, Turin, London or Barcelona might be in the race for a 1990 boot,
as well as Atlantic City of course.

But I would hope for a Voodoo Lounge show, because that tour there was more focus on the
guitars and I thought the setlists were strong at this tour.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
marcovandereijk
I think there is a big chance for the Voodoo Lounge tour to have a show released (Miami?).
There is no live document from this tour, other than Stripped.

There's 2 official videos, though only one of them is available on DVD,
so that's even more than what they've released from 1972

But I think/hope that Clearmountain and Rolling Stones see that there's simply not much interest in these 90s/00s tours; maybe with exception of the club gigs.

Who'd download Miami 1994 ? Not me; not even if it was for free. I guess about 1 out of 10 who bought Brussels 73, for instance, would also buy Miami 94

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*Well, the sound quality on Brussels is not up for debate (it IS great).*

- on the newly released 'official' version? not in my opinion; Taylor is WAY too low in the mix. the boots I have of Brussels sound better to me than the 'officially' released version.

What does Taylor being low in the mix have to do with the sound quality?

The sound quality IS great. I can understand that some would question the effects on the drums, as they sound a bit different than we're used to. However, the sound is great.

The mix is a different bag. Some people like a balanced band mix, like they wanted to sound themselves. Others want Taylor way up there above the band.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*Well, the sound quality on Brussels is not up for debate (it IS great).*

- on the newly released 'official' version? not in my opinion; Taylor is WAY too low in the mix. the boots I have of Brussels sound better to me than the 'officially' released version.

Except for the bass. The bass ain't great on the boots. Dancing With Mr. D on the boots is far superior (excepting the bass), but it's not from the 'officially' released show.

The drums are NOT great on the boots either. Barely audible in places. On the released version they're crystal clear.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
bcbud

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
johang
go back to 72 and its already out there with L&G

The problem with Ladies And Gentlemen is that the sound is blurry and not too good, and also that there are FAR better 1972 shows, from July 1972

The audio bootleg L&G has great sound.

Re L&G, I wonder why they did not release a CD counterpart with the DVD, as they did with Some Girls over Texas - I certainly play the CD version of Some Girls far more than the DVD, a CD version of L&G would have been appreciated ...

L & G DVD and (best) audio bootleg both have a very bad mix and sound quality.

This one does NOT have bad sound. In fact, it's excellent - way, way better than the audio in the movie: [www.iorr.org]

THAT one is an "MP3" bootleg.

If you like the sound of that one; do yourself a favour and get "You Can't To Do That Baby" (VGP) instead. Same "recording" as this (they were released at the same time), but LOSSLESS, instead of that MP3 bootleg you out a link to there. Somebody fooled that "TMOQ" label, and sent them MP3 tracks, while they sent FLAC files to VGP....from what I understand.

Ah ... intersting to hear that. Like DandelionPowderman I have the "TMOQ" bootleg too and had always suspected there was something wrong with it. I even opened a thread on it one time, but nothing came out of it. The TMOQ-version always sounded a bit flat to me, and when I ripped it to my CD-drive one day for a compilation and opened the soundfiles in an audio editor, there was a frequency drop/cut somewhere near 10 khz. That seemed a bit strange to me, but I thought it might have to do something with bad copying. So they sold me an mp3 bootleg... hah!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-19 12:02 by Greenblues.

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

When you capture the sound of the room in the recording, there will always be more sustain. Line recordings are dry, but of course you can beef them up a little with reverb etc.

I believe the first artist who understood this was Bob Marley. I think his "LIVE" was the first using mics in the audience as well, blending in the real audience sound with the line recordings.