Quote
kleermaker

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.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Stones managed 45 years without that teamwork, that´s gotta mean something, or do you dismiss that...

BTW, I like all the Stones eras, too bad you guys don´t...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

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.

The Stones managed 45 years without that teamwork, that´s gotta mean something, or do you dismiss that...

BTW, I like all the Stones eras, too bad you guys don´t...

Quote
liddas
75 is very much the final version of the 69 concept.

C

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
*Fingerprint File on this release is imo one of the best live tracks ever by the Stones - simply brilliant! thumbs up

Fantastic guitar work by Mick and Keith, and the excellent bass by Ronnie is so groovy and swinging!*

---

I gotta agree. Great track, and Ronnie's bass is super cool. Funky. People forget Woody used to play bass with the Jeff Beck group. I've always loved Ronnie's bass playing in that outfit, even if he was 'relegated' to bass because King Beck was 'the' guitar player.

Quote
ryanpow
interesting 69 is brought up ... recently listening to 78 and 81 shows I noticed there's certian interplay with Bill that reminded me of the 69 tour. Maybe its the Chuck Berry ( Or Berry-Inspired) songs that have that in common.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
ryanpow
interesting 69 is brought up ... recently listening to 78 and 81 shows I noticed there's certian interplay with Bill that reminded me of the 69 tour. Maybe its the Chuck Berry ( Or Berry-Inspired) songs that have that in common.

I think Bill got more work in 1972, and especially in 1973, when Taylor played more lead guitar. In 1969, both guitars were changing more between rhythm and lead - at least more similar to 1978 and 1981.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I think Bill got more work in 1972, and especially in 1973, when Taylor played more lead guitar. In 1969, both guitars were changing more between rhythm and lead - at least more similar to 1978 and 1981.

Quote
Turd On The Run
Messrs. kleermaker, Doxa, and DandelionPowderman,

Though you have inelegantly hijacked the original thread and moved the focus away from L.A. 1975 to Brussels 1973, I appreciate your comments and have truly enjoyed the debate. Let me join in with a few thoughts...

I have been listening to the thrilling 1973 bootlegs (London, Brussels, etc...) for years and I was always in awe of this incarnation of the Stones. It was the tour that many Stones-connoisseurs regard as their absolute live-peak -- though I am of the mind that the more disciplined, less frenzied 1972 STP touring band was the definitive peak of the live Stones oeuvre...especially taking into account Mick Taylor's contributions, (he seems almost over-the-top in many 1973 boots, and I find his 1972 solos more fluid and integrated into the sound of the band).

When I heard the Stones were officially releasing Brussels 1973 I could not have been more excited. Yet, upon hearing it I was immediately taken aback and had to check and recheck my own speakers. Something "felt" wrong. It wasn't by the guitar mix -- though I understand what a lot of people mean when they comment that Taylor has been reeled back into the band's bosom and not featured as prominently in this mix (whether that is the "authentic" sound of the band on this tour is up to debate). It wasn't the balance of the sound either -- though it was also somehow "drier" and not as organic sounding as the boots...it wasn't even Bill Wyman's surprising prominence in the mix (a welcome factor)...no...I was stunned by the horribly pumped up and dumned-down DRUM sound.

The booming, muscular drum mix was a shock. Gone was Charlie's suppleness and nuanced swing, replaced by a sound highlighting sheer booming power and propulsion. In my opinion this drum mix has bastardized the 1973 Stones' sound and I feel this is a complete misrepresentation of Mr. Watts's art. I had to go back and check individual songs to make certain that my suspicions were not fictive. My conclusion is that my suspicions are valid.

An example (and one of many -- I will not bore you by going through every one): On the Brussels bootleg the Midnight Rambler version is transformative...one of the Stones' greatest performances ever. Charlie is sublime in his execution...listen to him around the 3 minute mark...riding the crash cymbals and the ride cymbals and then a small flourish on the hi-hat and back to the middle tom-tom and back to the hi-hat and then to the crash cymbal...magnificent! If you go to Midnight Rambler on the official version all of this is flattened and lost...the power is there but the nuance and the craft and the interplay between all the cymbals that is so present and awesome in the bootleg version is now inaudible.

I feel that the drum sound mix on the official Brussels live album is the biggest disappointment in the series...and I am surprised this hasn't been a more prominent discussion point between aficionados.

Quote
dcba
they've used heavy compression on everything they could... alas! And so few people noticed... alas!

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
dcba
they've used heavy compression on everything they could... alas! And so few people noticed... alas!

I am so happy that I am one of those who didn't notice, and don't even want to notice.
I enjoy these releases, and that's what I want to do. So you can call me stupid, or ignorant (or wahetever) for not noticing all these technical things. I really couldn't care less (BTW this is the political correct way of saying "I don't give a flying f u c k") I AM HAPPY

Quote
24FPS

Quote
liddas
Passed the weekend blasting the latest concerts available: 73, 75, 78 and 81.

73 and 75 are not so different (a part fron 75 being a longer concert). The huge development occurred between 76 and 78, and precisely during the SG sessions. The band that came out of those Paris sessions is a completely different one (imo mainly thanks to RW).


C

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas
Passed the weekend blasting the latest concerts available: 73, 75, 78 and 81.

73 and 75 are not so different (a part fron 75 being a longer concert). The huge development occurred between 76 and 78, and precisely during the SG sessions. The band that came out of those Paris sessions is a completely different one (imo mainly thanks to RW).


C

73 and 75 not so different? I beg to, uh, differ. Although much of the personnel is the same (with the BIG exception being Wood for Taylor), the precision and power of 73 gives way to what I would call a sloppy funkiness (or a funky sloppiness). Jagger's singing (if you can call it that) is clearly an expression of how he was feeling it at the time. But his seemingly random ejaculation of guttural noises in the place of what used to be lyrics is an aquired taste. Keith is all over the map - sometimes brilliant, sometimes not. Wood is feeling his way into the mix, again with some nice results and some not so nice. They are way into the funk with Billy and Ollie. It's a place I am glad they visited, but equally glad they didn't stay for too long.