Quote
straycatblues73

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 . .

Yep - I thought I recalled "Mammorial" in the title but it's been a long time since I lost my copy.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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...

I am most happy with this Happy:

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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...

I am most happy with this Happy:

I like the X-pensive Winos-version of Happy the most myself, but that wasn´t the issue here. You said the Brussels bootleg version had better sound, or at least a better mix than the official release - I think that´s wrong...

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...

I don't think it's a poor show at all. The July 11th show was a poor one. It is because of the legendary Millard recording that this show became so popular. There's probably at least 10-15 other '75 shows I'd rather have but I understand why they went with this one. I don't think it was a bad choice.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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...

I am most happy with this Happy:

I like the X-pensive Winos-version of Happy the most myself, but that wasn´t the issue here. You said the Brussels bootleg version had better sound, or at least a better mix than the official release - I think that´s wrong...

Well, we don't agree ... again!

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...

Whoa there partner, you can't be serious. There are plenty of willing able eared producers, engineers, friends and fans that are all too eager to do that job of initial screening. Besides all it takes is a less than par performance from either Mick or Keith for a complete veto so I would guess the screening is made even easier.

And of course the fans are picking the shows. Especially after hearing Don Was talk about what he has has access to and heard. After all he is just a huge fan like you and me. I mean who isn't in this business? peace

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
straycatblues73

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 . .

Yep - I thought I recalled "Mammorial" in the title but it's been a long time since I lost my copy.

Yep, great record. My copy has a big black and white pic of Mick on the front and the Jean-Clarke cover on the back. Our band just released an album on which we quote the back of the album at the end of our credits, to wit:

"Remember, the Doc sez it's all just wiggles etched in plastic. Cute. But from time to time he's very, very wrong. Know what I mean?"

I'm wondering if anyone will ever catch where that came from. No one's asked so far.

*In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry.* (Mathijs re: official Brussels)

- yep, I'd agree with that. Somebody said - "I suspect it all boils down to Taylor not being turned to 11 during the verses..."

- I don't think so. I mean, I want to hear MT during the verses, he can, and he does, or did, add a lot in that department. He doesn;t need to be at 11 and overpowering, though, IMO. Just there. And audible. I just find, overall, the official version somewhat lessens Taylor's presence. Unlike the KBFH mix. Which I've listened to for decades. The KBFH version has been my go to live Stones at their peak document and will remain so, even if a bit trebly. I guess my issue surround the official Brussels with the guitars is that Taylor is just not brought to the forefront enough (IMO) during the solo's. Otherwise though, I can live with the mix. But, I have an issue with Gimme Shelter, Taylor's playing at the start of the chorus is mixed down but is back to the forefront for the bridge between chorus and verse. Other instruments sound great on the official mix but IMO Charlie's drums seem to have a sort of 80s mix sound to them. Some of the horn tracks I find are also mixed lower than on previous boots.

Did KBFH enhance Taylor and made him seem louder than he was at the actual show? Perhaps if anyone here actually attended the show, and remembers, we might get an answer .

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry.* (Mathijs re: official Brussels)

- yep, I'd agree with that. Somebody said - "I suspect it all boils down to Taylor not being turned to 11 during the verses..."

- I don't think so. I mean, I want to hear MT during the verses, he can, and he does, or did, add a lot in that department. He doesn;t need to be at 11 and overpowering, though, IMO. Just there. And audible. I just find, overall, the official version somewhat lessens Taylor's presence. Unlike the KBFH mix. Which I've listened to for decades. The KBFH version has been my go to live Stones at their peak document and will remain so, even if a bit trebly. I guess my issue surround the official Brussels with the guitars is that Taylor is just not brought to the forefront enough (IMO) during the solo's. Otherwise though, I can live with the mix. But, I have an issue with Gimme Shelter, Taylor's playing at the start of the chorus is mixed down but is back to the forefront for the bridge between chorus and verse. Other instruments sound great on the official mix but IMO Charlie's drums seem to have a sort of 80s mix sound to them. Some of the horn tracks I find are also mixed lower than on previous boots.

Did KBFH enhance Taylor and made him seem louder than he was at the actual show? Perhaps if anyone here actually attended the show, and remembers, we might get an answer .

Yep, the forefront. That´s where we differ. When I hear vocals, I don´t wanna hear the guitars in the forefront. That´s often the case with the early 70s boots.

I don´t like lead guitar playing on BS, JJF or Satisfaction while Mick is singing or crucial Keith riffs are played.

I absolutely love Taylor´s playing in between verses (Gimmie Shelter, on solos (Heartbreaker),

Honestly, it is a bit of a stretch to say that you can´t hear Taylor´s solos on the official Brussels Affair. They are loud and clear and sound fantastic.

However, the lead guitar licks in places where they don´t fit as good, they are toned a bit down.

Musically, I find that decision a wise one.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber

.....

Did KBFH enhance Taylor and made him seem louder than he was at the actual show? Perhaps if anyone here actually attended the show, and remembers, we might get an answer .

I'd rather say he was even louder at those 1973 shows, at least during the Rotterdam Oct. 13 gig, and I think it was the same elsewhere. So I don't think KBFH enhanced Taylor etc.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry.* (Mathijs re: official Brussels)

- yep, I'd agree with that. Somebody said - "I suspect it all boils down to Taylor not being turned to 11 during the verses..."

- I don't think so. I mean, I want to hear MT during the verses, he can, and he does, or did, add a lot in that department. He doesn;t need to be at 11 and overpowering, though, IMO. Just there. And audible. I just find, overall, the official version somewhat lessens Taylor's presence. Unlike the KBFH mix. Which I've listened to for decades. The KBFH version has been my go to live Stones at their peak document and will remain so, even if a bit trebly. I guess my issue surround the official Brussels with the guitars is that Taylor is just not brought to the forefront enough (IMO) during the solo's. Otherwise though, I can live with the mix. But, I have an issue with Gimme Shelter, Taylor's playing at the start of the chorus is mixed down but is back to the forefront for the bridge between chorus and verse. Other instruments sound great on the official mix but IMO Charlie's drums seem to have a sort of 80s mix sound to them. Some of the horn tracks I find are also mixed lower than on previous boots.

Did KBFH enhance Taylor and made him seem louder than he was at the actual show? Perhaps if anyone here actually attended the show, and remembers, we might get an answer .

Yep, the forefront. That´s where we differ. When I hear vocals, I don´t wanna hear the guitars in the forefront. That´s often the case with the early 70s boots.

I don´t like lead guitar playing on BS, JJF or Satisfaction while Mick is singing or crucial Keith riffs are played.

I absolutely love Taylor´s playing in between verses (Gimmie Shelter, on solos (Heartbreaker),

Honestly, it is a bit of a stretch to say that you can´t hear Taylor´s solos on the official Brussels Affair. They are loud and clear and sound fantastic.

However, the lead guitar licks in places where they don´t fit as good, they are toned a bit down.

Musically, I find that decision a wise one.

Here I strongly protest! But well, I think I'm repeating myself now.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry.* (Mathijs re: official Brussels)

- yep, I'd agree with that. Somebody said - "I suspect it all boils down to Taylor not being turned to 11 during the verses..."

- I don't think so. I mean, I want to hear MT during the verses, he can, and he does, or did, add a lot in that department. He doesn;t need to be at 11 and overpowering, though, IMO. Just there. And audible. I just find, overall, the official version somewhat lessens Taylor's presence. Unlike the KBFH mix. Which I've listened to for decades. The KBFH version has been my go to live Stones at their peak document and will remain so, even if a bit trebly. I guess my issue surround the official Brussels with the guitars is that Taylor is just not brought to the forefront enough (IMO) during the solo's. Otherwise though, I can live with the mix. But, I have an issue with Gimme Shelter, Taylor's playing at the start of the chorus is mixed down but is back to the forefront for the bridge between chorus and verse. Other instruments sound great on the official mix but IMO Charlie's drums seem to have a sort of 80s mix sound to them. Some of the horn tracks I find are also mixed lower than on previous boots.

Did KBFH enhance Taylor and made him seem louder than he was at the actual show? Perhaps if anyone here actually attended the show, and remembers, we might get an answer .

Yep, the forefront. That´s where we differ. When I hear vocals, I don´t wanna hear the guitars in the forefront. That´s often the case with the early 70s boots.

I don´t like lead guitar playing on BS, JJF or Satisfaction while Mick is singing or crucial Keith riffs are played.

I absolutely love Taylor´s playing in between verses (Gimmie Shelter, on solos (Heartbreaker),

Honestly, it is a bit of a stretch to say that you can´t hear Taylor´s solos on the official Brussels Affair. They are loud and clear and sound fantastic.

However, the lead guitar licks in places where they don´t fit as good, they are toned a bit down.

Musically, I find that decision a wise one.

Here I strongly protest! But well, I think I'm repeating myself now.

Yep, you do. I like the Stones, not Taylor only.

Yeah sure I can dig that some folks felt MT was noodling over everything in the boots, loudly, and I can appreciate he's mixed down a bit in the official version. the noodling never bothered me though. i know what you mean about Taylor being a bit too prominent on the old version. I can take it or leave it, though. i'm disappointed though that my favorite version of Tumbling Dice isn't on it; it was on the bootleg version of Brussels but they used a difference performance here, and Taylor's solo on the bootleg version is ****ing beautiful, not as much here. as far as matinee vs evening shows goes, i think the only versions I wish were on here are the alt (KBFH) versions of Tumbling Dice and Angie. but then again i already have those, so getting new versions is cool, even if i don't like them as much. still, generally, IMO 1973 was an incredible year for this band in live performance. comparing performances is like asking if I prefer great Burgundy vs. great Bordeaux, or 25 year old Lagavulin vs. 25 year old Macallan.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*In other words, the Brussel official release is quite dry.* (Mathijs re: official Brussels)

- yep, I'd agree with that. Somebody said - "I suspect it all boils down to Taylor not being turned to 11 during the verses..."

- I don't think so. I mean, I want to hear MT during the verses, he can, and he does, or did, add a lot in that department. He doesn;t need to be at 11 and overpowering, though, IMO. Just there. And audible. I just find, overall, the official version somewhat lessens Taylor's presence. Unlike the KBFH mix. Which I've listened to for decades. The KBFH version has been my go to live Stones at their peak document and will remain so, even if a bit trebly. I guess my issue surround the official Brussels with the guitars is that Taylor is just not brought to the forefront enough (IMO) during the solo's. Otherwise though, I can live with the mix. But, I have an issue with Gimme Shelter, Taylor's playing at the start of the chorus is mixed down but is back to the forefront for the bridge between chorus and verse. Other instruments sound great on the official mix but IMO Charlie's drums seem to have a sort of 80s mix sound to them. Some of the horn tracks I find are also mixed lower than on previous boots.

Did KBFH enhance Taylor and made him seem louder than he was at the actual show? Perhaps if anyone here actually attended the show, and remembers, we might get an answer .

Yep, the forefront. That´s where we differ. When I hear vocals, I don´t wanna hear the guitars in the forefront. That´s often the case with the early 70s boots.

I don´t like lead guitar playing on BS, JJF or Satisfaction while Mick is singing or crucial Keith riffs are played.

I absolutely love Taylor´s playing in between verses (Gimmie Shelter, on solos (Heartbreaker),

Honestly, it is a bit of a stretch to say that you can´t hear Taylor´s solos on the official Brussels Affair. They are loud and clear and sound fantastic.

However, the lead guitar licks in places where they don´t fit as good, they are toned a bit down.

Musically, I find that decision a wise one.

Here I strongly protest! But well, I think I'm repeating myself now.

Yep, you do. I like the Stones, not Taylor only.

We both do both (repeating ourselves and liking the Stones), but you prefer Keith's guitar in the Stones and I Taylor's. Which doesn't mean I don't like Keith's guitar, nor that you don't like Taylor's. But I think it doesn't matter to you if it's Taylor or Wood, as long as Keith is there. And he's always there .

Quote
Erik_Snow
and interestingly, it's Mick Jagger's personal MIX that favours Mick Taylors guitar!)

Well that is indeed interesting Erik. What do you mean by his personal mix though? I'm thinking his monitor mix but what are the chances a bootleg was pulled off the monitor board? Am I missing something here? peace

Re the debate concerning the mix in official BRUSSELS AFFAIR...

I need to say that I am more with Kleermaker's side here. I am perhaps so much used to listening the loud and fat, almost dominating Taylor guitar all these yaers, that now when it is clearly mixed down, I feel that some crucial feature of the magnificient 1973 live sound is lost there. Now the whole sound is somehow thinner than it used to be or lacks some important sonic dimension. And not just mixed down, Taylor's guitar by this 'seperating the guitars clearly policy' it is isolated from the rest of the band - it sounds thin and just icing the cake whereas I am used to hear it more dynamically involved in the whole sound, and like (one) constitutive part of the whole thing. I never thought that Taylor's contribution was so crucial to (especially) Brussells show, but I now more clearly understand it was. That - Taylor's strong guitar upfront - was the nature of the band at the time - as a band they relied very much to the fantastic solo guitarist they had at the time (who wouldn't?). We can have any opinions about that but to me that was one interesting incarnation of the greatest rock and roll band of the world...

Just listening "Midnight Rambler" while writing this - the problem I described is pretty much present there. Taylor's guitar is so isolated - so damn far from the rest - that the whole track doesn't have that incredible power it used to had in old bootlegs - the track just killed the listener as massive attack in every front. In official version they don't sound like one big dynamic organ any longer. Some magic is lost there.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Re the debate concerning the mix in official BRUSSELS AFFAIR...

I need to say that I am more with Kleermaker's side here. I am perhaps so much used to listening the loud and fat, almost dominating Taylor guitar all these yaers, that now when it is clearly mixed down, I feel that some crucial feature of the magnificient 1973 live sound is lost there. Now the whole sound is somehow thinner than it used to be or lacks some important sonic dimension. And not just mixed down, Taylor's guitar by this 'seperating the guitars clearly policy' it is isolated from the rest of the band - it sounds thin and just icing the cake whereas I am used to hear it more dynamically involved in the whole sound, and like (one) constitutive part of the whole thing. I never thought that Taylor's contribution was so crucial to (especially) Brussells show, but I now more clearly understand it was. That - Taylor's strong guitar upfront - was the nature of the band at the time - as a band they relied very much to the fantastic solo guitarist they had at the time (who wouldn't?). We can have any opinions about that but to me that was one interesting incarnation of the greatest rock and roll band of the world...

Just listening "Midnight Rambler" while writing this - the problem I described is pretty much present there. Taylor's guitar is so isolated - so damn far from the rest - that the whole track doesn't have that incredible power it used to had in old bootlegs - the track just killed the listener as massive attack in every front. In official version they don't sound like one big dynamic organ any longer. Some magic is lost there.

- Doxa

Finally someone who understands what I mean.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Erik_Snow
and interestingly, it's Mick Jagger's personal MIX that favours Mick Taylors guitar!)

Well that is indeed interesting Erik. What do you mean by his personal mix though? I'm thinking his monitor mix but what are the chances a bootleg was pulled off the monitor board? Am I missing something here? peace

By his "personal mix", I mean that Jagger himself (together with some other guy...can't remember who it was) mixed the original KBFH recordings, when preparing the recordings for radio broadcasts in 1974

There were 2 different "Brussels/London 1973" mixes broadcasted in 1974...they sound very different. And it's the "Jagger mix" that has Taylor cranked up.

Quote
Erik_Snow
There were 2 different "Brussels/London 1973" mixes broadcasted in 1974...they sound very different. And it's the "Jagger mix" that has Taylor cranked up.

Never knew that. Thanks for the info. Never too old to learn

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Erik_Snow
There were 2 different "Brussels/London 1973" mixes broadcasted in 1974...they sound very different. And it's the "Jagger mix" that has Taylor cranked up.

Never knew that. Thanks for the info. Never too old to learn

...or to rock 'n roll

The "Jagger mix" is the one available on the "Nasty Music/Nasty Remixes" bootleg, while the other one is known as "Europe 73" (just in case you'd like to compare the 2)

I believe "Brussels Affair", the famous bootleg also is the Jagger-mix?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I believe "Brussels Affair", the famous bootleg also is the Jagger-mix?

THe first 3 tracks are not. The rest is.
Please don't complicate this, Powderman!

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I believe "Brussels Affair", the famous bootleg also is the Jagger-mix?

THe first 3 tracks are not. The rest is.
Please don't complicate this, Powderman!

.
He he I had to ask.

Quote
Doxa
Re the debate concerning the mix in official BRUSSELS AFFAIR...

I need to say that I am more with Kleermaker's side here. I am perhaps so much used to listening the loud and fat, almost dominating Taylor guitar all these yaers, that now when it is clearly mixed down, I feel that some crucial feature of the magnificient 1973 live sound is lost there. Now the whole sound is somehow thinner than it used to be or lacks some important sonic dimension. And not just mixed down, Taylor's guitar by this 'seperating the guitars clearly policy' it is isolated from the rest of the band - it sounds thin and just icing the cake whereas I am used to hear it more dynamically involved in the whole sound, and like (one) constitutive part of the whole thing. I never thought that Taylor's contribution was so crucial to (especially) Brussells show, but I now more clearly understand it was. That - Taylor's strong guitar upfront - was the nature of the band at the time - as a band they relied very much to the fantastic solo guitarist they had at the time (who wouldn't?). We can have any opinions about that but to me that was one interesting incarnation of the greatest rock and roll band of the world...

Just listening "Midnight Rambler" while writing this - the problem I described is pretty much present there. Taylor's guitar is so isolated - so damn far from the rest - that the whole track doesn't have that incredible power it used to had in old bootlegs - the track just killed the listener as massive attack in every front. In official version they don't sound like one big dynamic organ any longer. Some magic is lost there.

- Doxa

There are many ways of describing this mix, but that is simply not correct, imo.

On the bootlegs, however, he is more "isolated", since his levels are much higher than the rest of the band (even during the verses), whilst now he is mixed at the same level as the rest of the band - and turned up when his solos or lead breaks kick in.

@kleermaker:
Yeah, of course I love Keith´s guitar. His guitar is almost 50 percent of the Stones´s sound. However, there is a difference between the sound of the band in 1973 compared to, say 1969, where Keith and Taylor both were clearly audible in the mix, even while Taylor was soloing (Stray Cat Blues, SFTD, Love In Vain). I like that the most, but I love the 1973 stuff to - I was just listening to "Come Back London" yesterday, and of course, it cooks!

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).

I think there is a huge difference between those to clips. The official release sounds dead compared to the bootleg.

Quote
Bärs

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).

I think there is a huge difference between those to clips. The official release sounds dead compared to the bootleg.

Then you probably like live recordings with audience noise blended in, because that´s what enrichens the sound on the bootleg.

The official release has much better sound on each instrument, especially the drums, the bass and the vocals. The guitars, however might be a bit drier than on the bootleg.

There is a long way from "unlistenable", as you described the official release, and not as good as the bootleg you´re used to listen to. Remember, that colors your perception of it, as well.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bärs

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).

I think there is a huge difference between those to clips. The official release sounds dead compared to the bootleg.

Then you probably like live recordings with audience noise blended in, because that´s what enrichens the sound on the bootleg.

The official release has much better sound on each instrument, especially the drums, the bass and the vocals. The guitars, however might be a bit drier than on the bootleg.

There is a long way from "unlistenable", as you described the official release, and not as good as the bootleg you´re used to listen to. Remember, that colors your perception of it, as well.

Well, I said I'd rather not listen to the official release. It sounds like they're playing in a shoeboix while the bootleg is clear and alive. You're right about the audience noice blended in. I always thought that the VL video was their best concert film.

In keeping with this theme of turning the thread into a "Brussels Affair" thread.........I'm still going through my recordings from the '73 European tour. Just recently went through both Frankfurt and both Munich shows. All of them were pretty good, although not great, performances. Then came Hamburg, and the recordings I have from both Hamburg shows were pretty rough (not counting the excellent audience tracks on "The Jeane Clark Sonic..." whatever). Couldn't tell much about the Hamburg shows but they seemed fairly energetic. Gothenburg was a better recording and pretty good performance but they lit Copenhagen up during the second show on Oct. 7th. I listened to the most recently circulated source and had it mislabeled as the first show, so I got the order out of whack but it's a pretty good audience recording for it's time. What's even better is the smokin' performance. They were great in Europe in '73, but when they were on, they were absolutely incredible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-23 19:56 by Tumblin_Dice_07.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa
Re the debate concerning the mix in official BRUSSELS AFFAIR...

I need to say that I am more with Kleermaker's side here. I am perhaps so much used to listening the loud and fat, almost dominating Taylor guitar all these yaers, that now when it is clearly mixed down, I feel that some crucial feature of the magnificient 1973 live sound is lost there. Now the whole sound is somehow thinner than it used to be or lacks some important sonic dimension. And not just mixed down, Taylor's guitar by this 'seperating the guitars clearly policy' it is isolated from the rest of the band - it sounds thin and just icing the cake whereas I am used to hear it more dynamically involved in the whole sound, and like (one) constitutive part of the whole thing. I never thought that Taylor's contribution was so crucial to (especially) Brussells show, but I now more clearly understand it was. That - Taylor's strong guitar upfront - was the nature of the band at the time - as a band they relied very much to the fantastic solo guitarist they had at the time (who wouldn't?). We can have any opinions about that but to me that was one interesting incarnation of the greatest rock and roll band of the world...

Just listening "Midnight Rambler" while writing this - the problem I described is pretty much present there. Taylor's guitar is so isolated - so damn far from the rest - that the whole track doesn't have that incredible power it used to had in old bootlegs - the track just killed the listener as massive attack in every front. In official version they don't sound like one big dynamic organ any longer. Some magic is lost there.

- Doxa

There are many ways of describing this mix, but that is simply not correct, imo.

On the bootlegs, however, he is more "isolated", since his levels are much higher than the rest of the band (even during the verses), whilst now he is mixed at the same level as the rest of the band - and turned up when his solos or lead breaks kick in.

With respect, but I protest here. Maybe I couldn't spell it right or something, but I think the mix considering Taylor's guitar does not do right for the Rolling Stones sound AD 1973. The way they have mixed both guitars very clearly seperated from each other, and somehow 'dry' and 'alone', lacking the dynamism and fulnesss those had in, say, DEFINITIVE EDITION, or, in my dear old BEDSPRING SYMPHONY vinyl version, just destroys some of the magic I have attached to the Stones sound at the time. The thing that really had me once captured. Yes, I really enjoy how clear and distinct the sound is - especially it does a great favor to Wyman's incredible contribution and Jagger's vocals, but I think the whole sound is not so balanced than it used to be. It lacks the guitar-driven power. That flow. Yeah, it first pleases an ear in finally hearing everything so clearly, and especially concerning details, it is really is an educational piece of work.

But the cost of it is the lack of the original cohesiviness - the majestic FULL sound, so guitar-driven, so massive in that front... The sound of The Rolling Stones 1973 is not 'democratic' in that sense - it needs more role and power to the guitars. They actually were a guitar-driven 'hard rock' band with a screaming lead guitar next to the majestic riffage at the time when the guitars were palyed there on the stage to loudly shine. Now the guitars are mixed so far from each, both rather low and rather thin and dry. They don't use that wall of guitars mixed together 'holistically' as they did earlier. Especially lessening the role of Taylor is I think an offence to the sound of the band of the day - a bit like a biased historical reconstruction. To me the effect of the official BRUSELLS AFFAIR is a bit like the entrance of the first generation CD versions of the old vinyls - people are so fond of hearing the details so clearly and distinguishly that they don't notice the lack of dynamism in the whole sound. But everyone seems to notice the latter now.

I don't think the problem being so bad in LA FRIDAY and especially HAMPTON. Quite contrary, I think the way to mix the guitars actually applies very well to the Richards/Wood-tandem, and their relation to the rest of the band, and it is a joy to listen how they fulfill each other and trade licks, especially hearing the details so clearly. But with Richards/Taylor guitar-team work does not follow the same pattern (not even the relation of guitars to the other instruments is similar) and I think it should be treated differently in order to maximise the profits, so to say. To say it simply: they mixed the guitars of BRUSSELS the same way they are used to mix Keith and Ronnie, which is a fatal error in appreciating the uniqueness of 1973 Rolling Stones.

My point about "isolation" is that of the whole music NOT making a 'holistic wholeness' but just reduced to distinguished parts, 'atoms', that sound too thin and weak on their own. They don't work so well together any longer, and especially Taylor's 'reduced' guitar sounds almost lost and miserable, not really contributing to the over-all sound so organically as I think it supposed to do, and it did actually at the time. They don't sound such an unit as they used to do in bootlegs. Something dynamical and I think even essential is lost in the process. As the Finns say 'they don't see the whole forest from its trees'. The argument "well, now you can finally hear how they actually sounded" does not hold water here, as it did not with the first generation CDs. It is the impression of whole sound that matters.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-22 12:42 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa
Re the debate concerning the mix in official BRUSSELS AFFAIR...

I need to say that I am more with Kleermaker's side here. I am perhaps so much used to listening the loud and fat, almost dominating Taylor guitar all these yaers, that now when it is clearly mixed down, I feel that some crucial feature of the magnificient 1973 live sound is lost there. Now the whole sound is somehow thinner than it used to be or lacks some important sonic dimension. And not just mixed down, Taylor's guitar by this 'seperating the guitars clearly policy' it is isolated from the rest of the band - it sounds thin and just icing the cake whereas I am used to hear it more dynamically involved in the whole sound, and like (one) constitutive part of the whole thing. I never thought that Taylor's contribution was so crucial to (especially) Brussells show, but I now more clearly understand it was. That - Taylor's strong guitar upfront - was the nature of the band at the time - as a band they relied very much to the fantastic solo guitarist they had at the time (who wouldn't?). We can have any opinions about that but to me that was one interesting incarnation of the greatest rock and roll band of the world...

Just listening "Midnight Rambler" while writing this - the problem I described is pretty much present there. Taylor's guitar is so isolated - so damn far from the rest - that the whole track doesn't have that incredible power it used to had in old bootlegs - the track just killed the listener as massive attack in every front. In official version they don't sound like one big dynamic organ any longer. Some magic is lost there.

- Doxa

There are many ways of describing this mix, but that is simply not correct, imo.

On the bootlegs, however, he is more "isolated", since his levels are much higher than the rest of the band (even during the verses), whilst now he is mixed at the same level as the rest of the band - and turned up when his solos or lead breaks kick in.

With respect, but I protest here. Maybe I couldn't spell it right or something, but I think the mix considering Taylor's guitar does not do right for the Rolling Stones sound AD 1973. The way they have mixed both guitars very clearly seperated from each other, and somehow 'dry' and 'alone', lacking the dynamism and fulnesss those had in, say, DEFINITIVE EDITION, or, in my dear old BEDSPRING SYMPHONY vinyl version, just destroys some of the magic I have attached to the Stones sound at the time. The thing that really had me once captured. Yes, I really enjoy how clear and distinct the sound is - especially it does a great favor to Wyman's incredible contribution and Jagger's vocals, but I think the whole sound is not so balanced than it used to be. It lacks the guitar-driven power. That flow. Yeah, it first pleases an ear in finally hearing everything so clearly, and especially concerning details, it is really is an educational piece of work.

But the cost of it is the lack of the original cohesiviness - the majestic FULL sound, so guitar-driven, so massive in that front... The sound of The Rolling Stones 1973 is not 'democratic' in that sense - it needs more role and power to the guitars. They actually were a guitar-driven 'hard rock' band with a screaming lead guitar next to the majestic riffage at the time when the guitars were palyed there on the stage to loudly shine. Now the guitars are mixed so far from each, both rather low and rather thin and dry. They don't use that wall of guitars mixed together 'holistically' as they did earlier. Especially lessening the role of Taylor is I think an offence to the sound of the band of the day - a bit like a biased historical reconstruction. To me the effect of the official BRUSELLS AFFAIR is a bit like the entrance of the first generation CD versions of the old vinyls - people are so fond of hearing the details so clearly and distinguishly that they don't notice the lack of dynamism in the whole sound. But everyone seems to notice the latter now.

I don't think the problem being so bad in LA FRIDAY and especially HAMPTON. Quite contrary, I think the way to mix the guitars actually applies very well to the Richards/Wood-tandem, and their relation to the rest of the band, and it is a joy to listen how they fulfill each other and trade licks, especially hearing the details so clearly. But with Richards/Taylor guitar-team work does not follow the same pattern (not even the relation of guitars to the other instruments is similar) and I think it should be treated differently in order to maximise the profits, so to say. To say it simply: they mixed the guitars of BRUSSELS the same way they are used to mix Keith and Ronnie, which is a fatal error in appreciating the uniqueness of 1973 Rolling Stones.

My point about "isolation" is that of the whole music NOT making a 'holistic wholeness' but just reduced to distinguished parts, 'atoms', that sound too thin and weak on their own. They don't work so well together any longer, and especially Taylor's 'reduced' guitar sounds almost lost and miserable, not really contributing to the over-all sound so organically as I think it supposed to do, and it did actually at the time. They don't sound such an unit as they used to do in bootlegs. Something dynamical and I think even essential is lost in the process. As the Finns say 'they don't see the whole forest from its trees'. The argument "well, does not hold water here, as it did not with the first generation CDs. It is the impression of whole sound that matters.

- Doxa

You nailed it Doxa. I only can add that the remark "now you can finally hear how they actually sounded" simply isn't true at all. On the contrary. I heard them playing live back then with my own ears and they sounded exactly as you have described. That's the reason of my disappointment: I don't recognize the band I heard in 1973 on the official Brussels while the boots (Def. Edition indeed) always gave me that boost: back in time, back to that magical evening of 13 October 1973. That majestic sound as I described on my blog isn't on the official Brussels, so it doesn't give you the opportunity of hearing how they actually sounded, because they didn't sound like that.

I can't describe the huge difference from how they sounded in May 1976. Two different bands. And as you said: it has nothing to do with being a 'taylorite' or not or with "Taylor above the band". Absolutely not true. It's like you said so clearly and well: "with Richards/Taylor guitar-team work does not follow the same pattern (not even the relation of guitars to the other instruments is similar) and I think it should be treated differently in order to maximise the profits, so to say." That's spot on.