Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
How polished is this recording? It sounds too good considering the context (outdoor concert, windy etc). Is it a Bob Clearmountain job? Sounds like it. Are there any SB:s to compare with?

The balance seems like it's untouched, but the intruments' sounds are definitely tweaked.

What do you mean with tweaked? The guitars sound just like they did in '81/'82.

Mathijs

Yes they do, but seemingly both the drums and the guitars have been added/enhanced some effects in the studio (like on Brussels), in addition to the effects used live on stage (Phaser and analog delay).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-16 14:46 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
How polished is this recording? It sounds too good considering the context (outdoor concert, windy etc). Is it a Bob Clearmountain job? Sounds like it. Are there any SB:s to compare with?

The balance seems like it's untouched, but the intruments' sounds are definitely tweaked.

What do you mean with tweaked? The guitars sound just like they did in '81/'82.

Mathijs

Yes they do, but seemingly both the drums and the guitars have been added/enhanced some effects in the studio (like on Brussels), in addition to the effects used live on stage (Phaser and analog delay).

What effects? The guitars sound quite straight forward to me. Some limiting and compression ofcourse, but no effects as far as I can hear. The drums have reverb and compression added.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
How polished is this recording? It sounds too good considering the context (outdoor concert, windy etc). Is it a Bob Clearmountain job? Sounds like it. Are there any SB:s to compare with?

The balance seems like it's untouched, but the intruments' sounds are definitely tweaked.

What do you mean with tweaked? The guitars sound just like they did in '81/'82.

Mathijs

Yes they do, but seemingly both the drums and the guitars have been added/enhanced some effects in the studio (like on Brussels), in addition to the effects used live on stage (Phaser and analog delay).

What effects? The guitars sound quite straight forward to me. Some limiting and compression ofcourse, but no effects as far as I can hear. The drums have reverb and compression added.

Mathijs

Might be only reverb and compression on Wood's and Richards' guitars. However, a few places it sounds suspiciously as there is added something on at least Keith's guitar (listen to the ending of Whip, for instance).

I still have my ticket from this gig and to say it was supposed to be the last show ever, it was apoor effort, just a small brown colour with a bit of glitter on it. I went up to Roundhay Park the day before the gig to watch the stage being built and took a few very bad photos (it was pre-digital) if I can find them I'll post them up.

Quote
Mathijs

I am actually amazed how good this Leeds 82 show is. My fave tour is the 81 tour, and never really liked the 1982 tour that much. Messy, bad sounding guitars, too fast, too coked up. But this Leeds show just is fantastic! It easily ranks up with Hampton, a show I always have considered one of the best Stones shows ever. But man this rocks -fantastic guitar sound from Keith, Jagger singing's remarkbly good, and man what a difference Bill Wyman makes. He really is the difference between the best band in the world and a Vegas act. The only thing I have to get used to is the horns kicking in at very strange moments, like in Going To A Go Go. And I prefer Ernie Watts over Gene Barge, but maybe I just have to get used to him a bit more.

Mathijs

I`m so happy with this release, the biggest surprise of all archive releases!
1982 was my first tour and in all those years I never got an satisfying boot from this tour. There were some ok ones ( Frankfurt, Göteborg, Kopenhagen, Rotterdam..),but it was never ever the same i had in mind what I was listening live. This is it! I loved Hampton to death since it was on the market in spring 1982 and I have to listen to it in a different way cause over the years my ears are so used to listen to Hampton that this one is a new experience and it`s different:

- I like Jagger`s voice, it`s not that deep and controlled, more relaxed
- the band really kicks ass more in a loose/punky/raunchy way
- I love the mix, Ian and Chuck are more present then 1981, and yes, I like Chuck on this one!!
-Gene Barge, I never liked him, but most boots had a bad mix. So this is the biggest difference to 1981: I love the kick ass playing of the guitars combined with the lyrical sounding sax of Ernie Watts. A perfect combination. But in 1982 the sax had less room and less melodic/lyrical playing. So that gives a whole different feel to the songs. I`m so used to listen to Ernie Watts, that he is always playing in my head when I listen to this one here. Have to kick him out and give Gene Barge a chance, who played sax on Muddy Waters` Electric Mud by the way .
-and Angie is a great extra track!

Great release!

Tom

Quote
flacnvinyl
This has got to be the 'fastest' show I've ever heard. Every single song they just FLY!! Listen to the previews guys... This is lightning. Haven't bought it yet, but I imagine I am going to like it more than Hampton. Ronnie & Keith sound insanely ON..

I love it...and loved it

Quote
mickijaggeroo
Excellent to have something from the 82 tour, my first!

right on Jaghoo!!!

For days I was considering to grab this one, finally I did and I don't regret it. Sad that they omitted "Let It Bleed", "Waiting on a Friend", "Chantilly Lace" and some others but "Angie" sounds good. Though I really prefer Ernie Watts and Ian McLagan, this is a great performance. I would love to see a DVD of this but can't see that happening.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-16 17:15 by Rio.

Its nasty dirty messy sloppy heartless cruel out of tune offbeat rock n roll.
Does Chuck have an afro?

I'm very happy with it having just heard it. Mick sings great, the playing's good. Really got me quite yearning to see them again but the reality remains that no ticket price could bring all this back. Strange choice with Hampton already out yes, but for me it's the better of the two and I'm glad to have it.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
kowalski
Coincidence? This show is online the same day Google Play is available for some European countries (France, GB, Germany, Italy, Spain).

[googleblog.blogspot.fr]

Quote

On November 13, we're bringing music on Google Play to Europe. Those of you in the U.K, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will be able to purchase music from the Google Play store and add up to 20,000 songs—for free—from your existing collection to the cloud for streaming to your Android devices or web browser.

Thats probably the reason why this has come out so soon after the Toronto 2005 one.

Usually the gaps are about two months, but Toronto '05 was about a month late.

Can understand the frustration about it being another 81-82 show, BUT I'm with Mathijs for the most part on this. A tour thats been poorly represented in terms of soundboard releases and even if the price has gone up a bit......it's still £6 for a 135-minute show for goodness sake. Aside from the Four Flicks/Biggest Bang boxed sets, these are about the only products the Stones have put out in aeons that can be described as 'bargains'.

agree a 100%

I know I am in the minority, but one of the main reasons I prefer Leeds '82 to Hampton is because there is no Ernie Watts. I always found his playing repetitive and kind of squawky. His playing while Ronnie is soloing just creates noise to these ears. The sax guy on the Leeds set is much more subtle and less intrusive. (IMHO)

I know the many fans of the '81 tour really like Watts, I personally don't get it. Am I alone here?

Ross

@ Ross: no, you `re not alone. Just read my post above: Love Hampton, but this one has a great different feel.

Tom

what's the difference between "personally" not getting it and just plain not getting it?

what a mess! the only song i need from that tour is CHANTALLY LACE which is NOT included

Quote
rocker1
Just curious: was the attendance at this show (I've heard it's ~120,000?) larger than the previous day's show at Slane Castle?

And also, were both of these events ticketed shows where everyone there (theoretically) had to have a ticket? Or was the park open in the way, way back reaches for anyone who showed up, and they count those folks in the attendance estimates?

(Would think this would have come close to a single show gross revenue record for them up to that point? Although maybe those very distant lawn "seats" were quite inexpensive, though, perhaps....)

the fences broke accidentaly lol

Quote
Ross
I know I am in the minority, but one of the main reasons I prefer Leeds '82 to Hampton is because there is no Ernie Watts. I always found his playing repetitive and kind of squawky. His playing while Ronnie is soloing just creates noise to these ears. The sax guy on the Leeds set is much more subtle and less intrusive. (IMHO)

I know the many fans of the '81 tour really like Watts, I personally don't get it. Am I alone here?

Ross

I don't like all that annoying noise of the sax players during 81/82. The squeak and gibbering of Earnie Watts in YCAGWYW is horrible in Hampton. In the same manner Gene Barge gets on my nervs in Beast of Burden on the Leeds boot. It is completely superfluous and adds nothing to the tracks except that it gives reason to a piss break.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-16 18:19 by RobertJohnson.

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
Ross
I know I am in the minority, but one of the main reasons I prefer Leeds '82 to Hampton is because there is no Ernie Watts. I always found his playing repetitive and kind of squawky. His playing while Ronnie is soloing just creates noise to these ears. The sax guy on the Leeds set is much more subtle and less intrusive. (IMHO)

I know the many fans of the '81 tour really like Watts, I personally don't get it. Am I alone here?

Ross

I don't like all that annoying noise of the sax players during 81/82. The squeak and gibbering of Earnie Watts in YCAGWYW is horrible in Hampton. In the same manner Gene Barge gets on my nervs in Beast of Burden on the Leeds boot. It is completely superfluous and adds nothing to the tracks except that it gives reason to a piss break.

Whoa.
Calm down Tod...take it easy.

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
Ross
I know I am in the minority, but one of the main reasons I prefer Leeds '82 to Hampton is because there is no Ernie Watts. I always found his playing repetitive and kind of squawky. His playing while Ronnie is soloing just creates noise to these ears. The sax guy on the Leeds set is much more subtle and less intrusive. (IMHO)

I know the many fans of the '81 tour really like Watts, I personally don't get it. Am I alone here?

Ross

I don't like all that annoying noise of the sax players during 81/82. The squeak and gibbering of Earnie Watts in YCAGWYW is horrible in Hampton. In the same manner Gene Barge gets on my nervs in Beast of Burden on the Leeds boot. It is completely superfluous and adds nothing to the tracks except that it gives reason to a piss break.

there are piss breaks whilst listening to boots?

Quote
StonesTod
what's the difference between "personally" not getting it and just plain not getting it?

Worded that way to give you the opportunity for yet another snarky post, of course!

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
Ross
I know I am in the minority, but one of the main reasons I prefer Leeds '82 to Hampton is because there is no Ernie Watts. I always found his playing repetitive and kind of squawky. His playing while Ronnie is soloing just creates noise to these ears. The sax guy on the Leeds set is much more subtle and less intrusive. (IMHO)

I know the many fans of the '81 tour really like Watts, I personally don't get it. Am I alone here?

Ross

I don't like all that annoying noise of the sax players during 81/82. The squeak and gibbering of Earnie Watts in YCAGWYW is horrible in Hampton. In the same manner Gene Barge gets on my nervs in Beast of Burden on the Leeds boot. It is completely superfluous and adds nothing to the tracks except that it gives reason to a piss break.

Whoa.
Calm down Tod...take it easy.

... nevertheless Leeds is on par with LA Friday on top of the boot series. I'm very pleased with it, but these sax players ...

and that's why it's great (except for the heartless part. I don't think it's heartless).

Quote
Munichhilton
Its nasty dirty messy sloppy heartless cruel out of tune offbeat rock n roll.
Does Chuck have an afro?

I agree MH... its nasty dirty messy sloppy heartless cruel out of tune offbeat rock n roll.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
Ross
I know I am in the minority, but one of the main reasons I prefer Leeds '82 to Hampton is because there is no Ernie Watts. I always found his playing repetitive and kind of squawky. His playing while Ronnie is soloing just creates noise to these ears. The sax guy on the Leeds set is much more subtle and less intrusive. (IMHO)

I know the many fans of the '81 tour really like Watts, I personally don't get it. Am I alone here?

Ross

I don't like all that annoying noise of the sax players during 81/82. The squeak and gibbering of Earnie Watts in YCAGWYW is horrible in Hampton. In the same manner Gene Barge gets on my nervs in Beast of Burden on the Leeds boot. It is completely superfluous and adds nothing to the tracks except that it gives reason to a piss break.

there are piss breaks whilst listening to boots?

Isn't allowed to?

Quote
deardoctor
what a mess! the only song i need from that tour is CHANTALLY LACE which is NOT included

I guess the completest in me would like to have every song they every recorded. I've never heard the Stones version of it, but I hate that song so much, that I don't think even the Stones could make me enjoy it. I would be interested to hear their take, but I just really can't stand any version of it, so I doubt I would like it.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
I am actually amazed how good this Leeds 82 show is. My fave tour is the 81 tour, and never really liked the 1982 tour that much. Messy, bad sounding guitars, too fast, too coked up. But this Leeds show just is fantastic! It easily ranks up with Hampton, a show I always have considered one of the best Stones shows ever. But man this rocks -fantastic guitar sound from Keith, Jagger singing's remarkbly good, and man what a difference Bill Wyman makes. He really is the difference between the best band in the world and a Vegas act. The only thing I have to get used to is the horns kicking in at very strange moments, like in Going To A Go Go. And I prefer Ernie Watts over Gene Barge, but maybe I just have to get used to him a bit more.

Mathijs

I agree. However, the warhorses sound a bit... messy. This JJF-version is really something else. The long jams between the two verses sound like something Keith is doing to piss Mick off. I think Mick is saying something the first time he does it as well. And - no third verse

In Rotterdam...Mac.. bobby keys were on stage!

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
deardoctor
what a mess! the only song i need from that tour is CHANTALLY LACE which is NOT included

I guess the completest in me would like to have every song they every recorded. I've never heard the Stones version of it, but I hate that song so much, that I don't think even the Stones could make me enjoy it. I would be interested to hear their take, but I just really can't stand any version of it, so I doubt I would like it.

Jerry Lee Lewis did a great Chantilly Lace, I especially like the "Live In AUstin 1983" version. Rolling Stones' 1982 version didn't work - at least not when comparing to other coversongs they did in 1981/1982

Quote
Ross
I know I am in the minority, but one of the main reasons I prefer Leeds '82 to Hampton is because there is no Ernie Watts. I always found his playing repetitive and kind of squawky. His playing while Ronnie is soloing just creates noise to these ears. The sax guy on the Leeds set is much more subtle and less intrusive. (IMHO)

I know the many fans of the '81 tour really like Watts, I personally don't get it. Am I alone here?

Ross

If i wanna hear Ernie I put on a Rufus show( Chaka Kahn)

Quote
Ross

Quote
StonesTod
what's the difference between "personally" not getting it and just plain not getting it?

Worded that way to give you the opportunity for yet another snarky post, of course!

it's a personal pet peeve. didn't mean to take it out on you personally.

Great Bobby Keyes solo on Going to a Go Go!