Tell Me :
Talk
Compare the HTW drums from LA75 with the HTW drums from LYL. You will notice the diffence. With LA75 the drums are loud, boomy, and quite over the top sounding, wwhereas the LYL drums are crisp, dryer and somewhat understated - more reflective of Charlie's drumming than the over the top "drums from hell" sound on LA75.
I'm not talking about barrely noticeable differences, but huge glaring differences.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-25 13:36 by WeLoveYou.
I really love the drums sound on the official releases, both, Brussels and LA!!!
That's what happen when you use overcompression in mastering. It makes the overall sound louder but also mid range very present. At the end all you get is an unnatural and flat sound with all contrast gone. Music is like frozen.
While I agree that the official releases sound clearer when compared to the bootlegs (they had the master recordings to do a proper mix), I'm having more fun at listening to the bootleg versions as they're rock'n rolling more.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-25 16:40 by kowalski.
Thank you very much for the information, but you probably missed a very important part of my message. Therefore I quoted that part again.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Yep.
Agree that the template was the same (or similar) and that there was a much more radical departure between 78 and 75 than 75 and 73. I just think there was a tightness in 72 and 73 that gave way to a much more loose feel in 75. I also think it's obvious that Keith's condition had deteriorated significantly between 73 and 75 and this had a lot to do with the unevenness of the shows on the 1975 tour.
I can't say much on Keith's consistency, since I don't have many recordings of the 73 and 75 tours. Judging on Brussells and LA alone, I think that in 75 Keith's playing was richer, more complex, powerful - in a word, better. And I AM NOT saying that he played badly in 73 - not at all.
As for the band, it was tight as hell also in 75.
The arrangement of the songs were looser, that's true, so when something went wrong, it was more noticeable.
C
Thanks. Those were the words I was looking for
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
And thanks to you too
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
I don't think people who are complaining about the mastering are over-analyzing. And I don't think you need to be an audiophile to hear what's wrong with these official bootlegs. As for me I'm only listening with my ears. And after a couple of tracks I can say these digital releases don't sound as good as they should. Particularly when I hear how flat and boxed sound Charlie's drums. Kick is gone. Roll is gone. It's all about getting the trendy "big sound".
Even if I can understand that Jagger wants his records to sound as if they were recorded in 2012, truth is it's not the case. They were recorded almost 40 years ago. To me trying to make these recordings sound "modern" don't do justice to the exceptional documents they are.
What do you mean by that? Keith is even more "funky" in 1975, when he plays Taylor´s rhythm lines in between the verses.
His sound is better in 1975, and he is more prominent in the mix on most shows, compared to 1973.
Ronnie isn´t Mick Taylor, but he did a great job with GS in 1975, there is no doubt about that. That´s why I´m a bit baffled by GS being used as an example here.
In general, I don´t think the Stones got more funky or swinging by having the most important guitar player (listen to the fantastic original studio version of GS) down in the mix, for the other one to solo more - I´ll never understand that view...
What I meant is that in '73 you get BOTH, you get the funkiness of Keith and the technical elegance of Taylor, which is especially evident on GS '73. Nothing wrong with GS '75; it has Keith, but it don't have Mick T. Much as I think Ronnnie did a great job in '75, maybe the best he ever was with the Stones on stage. But no one has ever pretended that he was as good as Taylor.
At least one, yes: me!
Taylor and Wood are different musicians, but equally good. When I listen to Brussells, there is not a single moment when I think "could have been better with Ronnie" and there is nothing in LA 75 (or just any other post 75 recording) that makes me miss Taylor.
C
Agree, but I miss Keith sometimes on Brussels.
Because it's the latest official release by the Stones, I guess...
For you the band is Keith and Keith is the band. That explains all your posts and comments on the releases.
Keith is all over brussels.
Damn right he is! He drives the band with his rhythm. It was the height of his "pure rhythm guitar" phase, and while I prefer the Ya-Yas era becaue there is more interplay, '73 is the peak of the band with this particular arrangement of guitar duties. This driving rhythm allowed Taylor to soar on songs like "Gimme Shelter". Keith started to play more leads in '75, which is great, but all in all I think '73 was a more tightly-focused, more intense performance.
I like Woody but I miss Taylor or some Taylorlike playing on many of their later releases and live work . .
Spot on!
I just want to enjoy the music. The sound quality of the boots released is certainly of high enough quality to let me do that. I don't really care if compression changed the sound in certain ways. To me, the official boots sound way better than the illegal boots I used to have. Not complaining! It's only rock and roll...
Wow, you certainly must have very bad 1973 bootlegs! There's still a world to gain for you, as we say it here.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
WeLoveYou
()
Date: April 25, 2012 13:36
Quote
24FPSQuote
Rolling HansieQuote
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
Compare the HTW drums from LA75 with the HTW drums from LYL. You will notice the diffence. With LA75 the drums are loud, boomy, and quite over the top sounding, wwhereas the LYL drums are crisp, dryer and somewhat understated - more reflective of Charlie's drumming than the over the top "drums from hell" sound on LA75.
I'm not talking about barrely noticeable differences, but huge glaring differences.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-25 13:36 by WeLoveYou.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: April 25, 2012 14:22
Many have probably noticed the bad drum sound. However, it might spoil the party to complain when the release is still fresh and exciting. Just wait a few years...
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
muenke
()
Date: April 25, 2012 14:28
Quote
Bärs
Many have probably noticed the bad drum sound. However, it might spoil the party to complain when the release is still fresh and exciting. Just wait a few years...
I really love the drums sound on the official releases, both, Brussels and LA!!!
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: April 25, 2012 16:16
Quote
Mathijs
Been listening and comparing the official Brussels release with the dozen or so well-known boots of the first Brussels and Wembley show. As said before, it really isn't a matter of volume why Taylor seems subdued. In fact, both guitars are equal in volume and are equally subdued. The main difference between the known boots and the official release is clarity in the treble frequency range. The official releases is very mid heavy, and focusses on Jagger's voice and an overly compressed drum sound. The drums are loud, but actually sound nothing like the drums we know of Charlie. His snare is always crisp and clear and high pitched, now it is a very loud mid-rangey 'poof'.
Taylor seems to be burried at times underneath a wooly sound, and both guitars miss the sparkle and power of the boot version. (...)
Mathijs
That's what happen when you use overcompression in mastering. It makes the overall sound louder but also mid range very present. At the end all you get is an unnatural and flat sound with all contrast gone. Music is like frozen.
While I agree that the official releases sound clearer when compared to the bootlegs (they had the master recordings to do a proper mix), I'm having more fun at listening to the bootleg versions as they're rock'n rolling more.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-25 16:40 by kowalski.
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: April 25, 2012 17:02
Quote
WeLoveYouQuote
Rolling Hansie
don't even want to notice.
You will notice the diffence.
huge glaring differences.
Thank you very much for the information, but you probably missed a very important part of my message. Therefore I quoted that part again.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: April 25, 2012 17:32
While I appreciate the keen ears and expertise of audiophiles, I'm so glad I'm not really one myself. Sure, I hate BAD sound, horrid mixes, distorted recording or shitty speakers that makes good recordings sound bad but all I can say is I'm very grateful for the official bootleg releases. I understand the whole thing about the effects of compression but regardless, I'm just thrilled to have these shows with sound that is pretty damn good in my opinion. I'm enjoying them too much to get upset over whether or not they exactly sound like the original shows. Hardly any live recording ever does unless you have a personal sound system capable of reaching the far end of a football stadium. To me, the three releases are a treat and I'm enjoying them. For me, that's good enough.
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
dewlover
()
Date: April 25, 2012 17:48
I'm beginning to think that some of you cats spend so much time over-analyzing the music you can't possibly have the time to actually enjoy it !!!
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: April 25, 2012 18:01
Quote
dewlover
I'm beginning to think that some of you cats spend so much time over-analyzing the music you can't possibly have the time to actually enjoy it !!!
Yep.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 25, 2012 18:05
Quote
DoxaQuote
71TeleQuote
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.
Really nicely captured the feel of 1975 tour. And "sloppy funkiness" is a spot on term. But I still would claim that in the big picture the templete is still based on 1973 tour (and, for example, Wood lterally filling Taylor's shoes). The difference is much greater to 1978 than to 1973.
I think that extension to the 'funkiness' with Ollie and Billy onboard could be compared to the 'experimental' 1971 tour, with the added horn sections - in compared to 'raw' pure guitar concept of 1969. They kept evolving the old receipt. By contrast, in 1978 they really rethought their basics, and reinvent the whole sound, including the bulk of their set list (what kind of songs would apply to their new concept). Of course, one could say that in 1978 they went back to basics, and then 1981/82 was extension of that (like the following tours all the way to 1976 were extensions or further developmens of the basic sound of 1969).
- Doxa
Agree that the template was the same (or similar) and that there was a much more radical departure between 78 and 75 than 75 and 73. I just think there was a tightness in 72 and 73 that gave way to a much more loose feel in 75. I also think it's obvious that Keith's condition had deteriorated significantly between 73 and 75 and this had a lot to do with the unevenness of the shows on the 1975 tour.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
dewlover
()
Date: April 25, 2012 18:27
a duh!
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: April 25, 2012 18:45
Quote
71Tele
Agree that the template was the same (or similar) and that there was a much more radical departure between 78 and 75 than 75 and 73. I just think there was a tightness in 72 and 73 that gave way to a much more loose feel in 75. I also think it's obvious that Keith's condition had deteriorated significantly between 73 and 75 and this had a lot to do with the unevenness of the shows on the 1975 tour.
I can't say much on Keith's consistency, since I don't have many recordings of the 73 and 75 tours. Judging on Brussells and LA alone, I think that in 75 Keith's playing was richer, more complex, powerful - in a word, better. And I AM NOT saying that he played badly in 73 - not at all.
As for the band, it was tight as hell also in 75.
The arrangement of the songs were looser, that's true, so when something went wrong, it was more noticeable.
C
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: April 25, 2012 18:46
how right you are!Quote
dewlover
I'm beginning to think that some of you cats spend so much time over-analyzing the music you can't possibly have the time to actually enjoy it !!!
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: April 25, 2012 18:57
Quote
stonesdan60
While I appreciate the keen ears and expertise of audiophiles, I'm so glad I'm not really one myself.
Thanks. Those were the words I was looking for
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: April 25, 2012 18:59
Quote
dewlover
I'm beginning to think that some of you cats spend so much time over-analyzing the music you can't possibly have the time to actually enjoy it !!!
And thanks to you too
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: April 25, 2012 19:59
Quote
GumbootCloggeroohow right you are!Quote
dewlover
I'm beginning to think that some of you cats spend so much time over-analyzing the music you can't possibly have the time to actually enjoy it !!!
I don't think people who are complaining about the mastering are over-analyzing. And I don't think you need to be an audiophile to hear what's wrong with these official bootlegs. As for me I'm only listening with my ears. And after a couple of tracks I can say these digital releases don't sound as good as they should. Particularly when I hear how flat and boxed sound Charlie's drums. Kick is gone. Roll is gone. It's all about getting the trendy "big sound".
Even if I can understand that Jagger wants his records to sound as if they were recorded in 2012, truth is it's not the case. They were recorded almost 40 years ago. To me trying to make these recordings sound "modern" don't do justice to the exceptional documents they are.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 25, 2012 20:46
I don't think '73 and '75 are similar at all. In '73 you get the bonus of Keith's funkiness on cuts like Gimme Shelter, plus the soaring, melodic lines of Mick Taylor to kick it up to a whole other level. Keith has to be more prominent in '75, and that creates a different dynamic. It sounds like it took until '73 for the Taylor era band to get really funky. The '75 band reflects Keith more and is looser.
I get it that there are differences between the boots and the 'official' releases. They both have their blemishes and their high points. I'm glad to have them all.
I get it that there are differences between the boots and the 'official' releases. They both have their blemishes and their high points. I'm glad to have them all.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 25, 2012 20:58
Quote
24FPS
I don't think '73 and '75 are similar at all. In '73 you get the bonus of Keith's funkiness on cuts like Gimme Shelter, plus the soaring, melodic lines of Mick Taylor to kick it up to a whole other level. Keith has to be more prominent in '75, and that creates a different dynamic. It sounds like it took until '73 for the Taylor era band to get really funky. The '75 band reflects Keith more and is looser.
I get it that there are differences between the boots and the 'official' releases. They both have their blemishes and their high points. I'm glad to have them all.
What do you mean by that? Keith is even more "funky" in 1975, when he plays Taylor´s rhythm lines in between the verses.
His sound is better in 1975, and he is more prominent in the mix on most shows, compared to 1973.
Ronnie isn´t Mick Taylor, but he did a great job with GS in 1975, there is no doubt about that. That´s why I´m a bit baffled by GS being used as an example here.
In general, I don´t think the Stones got more funky or swinging by having the most important guitar player (listen to the fantastic original studio version of GS) down in the mix, for the other one to solo more - I´ll never understand that view...
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 26, 2012 04:43
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
24FPS
I don't think '73 and '75 are similar at all. In '73 you get the bonus of Keith's funkiness on cuts like Gimme Shelter, plus the soaring, melodic lines of Mick Taylor to kick it up to a whole other level. Keith has to be more prominent in '75, and that creates a different dynamic. It sounds like it took until '73 for the Taylor era band to get really funky. The '75 band reflects Keith more and is looser.
I get it that there are differences between the boots and the 'official' releases. They both have their blemishes and their high points. I'm glad to have them all.
What do you mean by that? Keith is even more "funky" in 1975, when he plays Taylor´s rhythm lines in between the verses.
What I meant is that in '73 you get BOTH, you get the funkiness of Keith and the technical elegance of Taylor, which is especially evident on GS '73. Nothing wrong with GS '75; it has Keith, but it don't have Mick T. Much as I think Ronnnie did a great job in '75, maybe the best he ever was with the Stones on stage. But no one has ever pretended that he was as good as Taylor.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: April 26, 2012 11:03
Quote
24FPS
Much as I think Ronnnie did a great job in '75, maybe the best he ever was with the Stones on stage. But no one has ever pretended that he was as good as Taylor.
At least one, yes: me!
Taylor and Wood are different musicians, but equally good. When I listen to Brussells, there is not a single moment when I think "could have been better with Ronnie" and there is nothing in LA 75 (or just any other post 75 recording) that makes me miss Taylor.
C
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 26, 2012 11:07
Quote
liddasQuote
24FPS
Much as I think Ronnnie did a great job in '75, maybe the best he ever was with the Stones on stage. But no one has ever pretended that he was as good as Taylor.
At least one, yes: me!
Taylor and Wood are different musicians, but equally good. When I listen to Brussells, there is not a single moment when I think "could have been better with Ronnie" and there is nothing in LA 75 (or just any other post 75 recording) that makes me miss Taylor.
C
Agree, but I miss Keith sometimes on Brussels.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: April 26, 2012 12:50
Why is this post still sticky?
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 26, 2012 14:25
Quote
Stoneage
Why is this post still sticky?
Because it's the latest official release by the Stones, I guess...
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: April 26, 2012 17:23
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
liddasQuote
24FPS
Much as I think Ronnnie did a great job in '75, maybe the best he ever was with the Stones on stage. But no one has ever pretended that he was as good as Taylor.
At least one, yes: me!
Taylor and Wood are different musicians, but equally good. When I listen to Brussells, there is not a single moment when I think "could have been better with Ronnie" and there is nothing in LA 75 (or just any other post 75 recording) that makes me miss Taylor.
C
Agree, but I miss Keith sometimes on Brussels.
For you the band is Keith and Keith is the band. That explains all your posts and comments on the releases.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
tkl7
()
Date: April 26, 2012 17:43
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
liddasQuote
24FPS
Much as I think Ronnnie did a great job in '75, maybe the best he ever was with the Stones on stage. But no one has ever pretended that he was as good as Taylor.
At least one, yes: me!
Taylor and Wood are different musicians, but equally good. When I listen to Brussells, there is not a single moment when I think "could have been better with Ronnie" and there is nothing in LA 75 (or just any other post 75 recording) that makes me miss Taylor.
C
Agree, but I miss Keith sometimes on Brussels.
Keith is all over brussels.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 26, 2012 18:06
Quote
tkl7Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
liddasQuote
24FPS
Much as I think Ronnnie did a great job in '75, maybe the best he ever was with the Stones on stage. But no one has ever pretended that he was as good as Taylor.
At least one, yes: me!
Taylor and Wood are different musicians, but equally good. When I listen to Brussells, there is not a single moment when I think "could have been better with Ronnie" and there is nothing in LA 75 (or just any other post 75 recording) that makes me miss Taylor.
C
Agree, but I miss Keith sometimes on Brussels.
Keith is all over brussels.
Damn right he is! He drives the band with his rhythm. It was the height of his "pure rhythm guitar" phase, and while I prefer the Ya-Yas era becaue there is more interplay, '73 is the peak of the band with this particular arrangement of guitar duties. This driving rhythm allowed Taylor to soar on songs like "Gimme Shelter". Keith started to play more leads in '75, which is great, but all in all I think '73 was a more tightly-focused, more intense performance.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
CousinC
()
Date: April 26, 2012 18:25
Quote
liddasQuote
24FPS
Much as I think Ronnnie did a great job in '75, maybe the best he ever was with the Stones on stage. But no one has ever pretended that he was as good as Taylor.
At least one, yes: me!
Taylor and Wood are different musicians, but equally good. When I listen to Brussells, there is not a single moment when I think "could have been better with Ronnie" and there is nothing in LA 75 (or just any other post 75 recording) that makes me miss Taylor.
C
I like Woody but I miss Taylor or some Taylorlike playing on many of their later releases and live work . .
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: April 26, 2012 18:54
I personally find Richards a far more interesting player in '75 than in '73. In '73 he basically was sticking to rhythm guitar except for the odd solo on Starfvcker and HTW, and in that rhythm guitar playing he was less adventurous. Indeed check GS -in '73 he was just churnin out the chords. Fantastic, sure, but in '75 he really is exploring the song again by changing the patterens every few seconds, playing around the beat, trying different chord structures, and including the odd lick here and there. This is helped by his, in my opinion, far better guitar sound. That Tele though Ampeg is just utterly fantastic, aggressive and strong, while in '73 it is darker, moodier and more grunge like.
Mathijs
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-26 20:01 by Mathijs.
Mathijs
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-26 20:01 by Mathijs.
Re: Forget the rumours, the new boot IS LA '75!
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: April 26, 2012 20:14
Quote
Mathijs
I personally find Richards a far more interesting player in '75 than in '73. In '73 he basically was sticking to rhythm guitar except for the odd solo on Starfvcker and HTW, and in that rhythm guitar playing he was less adventurous. Indeed check GS -in '73 he was just churnin out the chords. Fantastic, sure, but in '75 he really is exploring the song again by changing the patterens every few seconds, playing around the beat, trying different chord structures, and including the odd lick here and there. This is helped by his, in my opinion, far better guitar sound. That Tele though Ampeg is just utterly fantastic, aggressive and strong, while in '73 it is darker, moodier and more grunge like.
Mathijs
Spot on!
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: April 26, 2012 20:18
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
stonesdan60
While I appreciate the keen ears and expertise of audiophiles, I'm so glad I'm not really one myself.
Thanks. Those were the words I was looking for
I just want to enjoy the music. The sound quality of the boots released is certainly of high enough quality to let me do that. I don't really care if compression changed the sound in certain ways. To me, the official boots sound way better than the illegal boots I used to have. Not complaining! It's only rock and roll...
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: April 26, 2012 21:20
Quote
stonesdan60Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
stonesdan60
While I appreciate the keen ears and expertise of audiophiles, I'm so glad I'm not really one myself.
Thanks. Those were the words I was looking for
I just want to enjoy the music. The sound quality of the boots released is certainly of high enough quality to let me do that. I don't really care if compression changed the sound in certain ways. To me, the official boots sound way better than the illegal boots I used to have. Not complaining! It's only rock and roll...
Wow, you certainly must have very bad 1973 bootlegs! There's still a world to gain for you, as we say it here.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Doxa , EggersBand , IsakSun , keefriffhards , mailexile67 , Marhsall , midimannz , NilsHolgersson , Redstone5 , Rickster , shattered , teleblaster , TransmaniaconMC , TW2019
Guests:
1440
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10