Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
kevinkamphuis
It's not meant to be "better". It's different than what we have. It gives you an insight how it could sound.

Quote
Mathijs
Errrrr, this version has been available for 20 years. It's totally and utterly not interesting when you or me take an outtake and remix it with an audio tool. In fact, you are ruining musical history by making your own mixes, with 'the two solo's now panned to the right'.

Really, it's as interesting as dubbing fart sounds over a bad 1976 audience tape.

Mathijs

The Stones themselves already did this with the archive release of The Brussels affair. It didn't sound like that in 1973...

Yes, and THEY did a bad job.

On BS??

I mean the archive release of BA Dandie. Its lifeless sound. But Kevin must have pointed at the hybrid All Down The Line from this release.

Quote
O2

which version from CD VOL 1 Tim Trip??? Track 6 (Muscle Shoals) ??
thank tou

Yes, track 6

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
kevinkamphuis
It's not meant to be "better". It's different than what we have. It gives you an insight how it could sound.

Quote
Mathijs
Errrrr, this version has been available for 20 years. It's totally and utterly not interesting when you or me take an outtake and remix it with an audio tool. In fact, you are ruining musical history by making your own mixes, with 'the two solo's now panned to the right'.

Really, it's as interesting as dubbing fart sounds over a bad 1976 audience tape.

Mathijs

The Stones themselves already did this with the archive release of The Brussels affair. It didn't sound like that in 1973...

Yes, and THEY did a bad job.

On BS??

I mean the archive release of BA Dandie. Its lifeless sound. But Kevin must have pointed at the hybrid All Down The Line from this release.

But BS is the only song on the original bootleg with a somewhat poor sound, which is cleaned up excellently on the official BA-release

Quote
kevinkamphuis


The Stones themselves already did this with the archive release of The Brussels affair. It didn't sound like that in 1973...

The official release sounds closer to how the show sounded in 1973 than the processed BA radio broadcast. The fact that most of us prefer the radio broadcast doesn't mean it is a faithful representation of the actual show.

Mathijs

Kleermaker already pointed it out: the hybrid ADTL and the lifeless sound...
That said, the official BA sounds clean, mastered hot with little dynamic range ( almost like a modern day recording) and with awful compression on charlie's drum kit. The radio broadcast mix on the other hand is somewhat unbalanced (not perfect), but that's exactly how they sound live in 1973.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kevinkamphuis


The Stones themselves already did this with the archive release of The Brussels affair. It didn't sound like that in 1973...

The official release sounds closer to how the show sounded in 1973 than the processed BA radio broadcast. The fact that most of us prefer the radio broadcast doesn't mean it is a faithful representation of the actual show.

Mathijs

No it doesn't. I was in Rotterdam 1973, not so much different from Brussels shows and the bootleg Brussels Definitive and others capture the sound of the show MUCH better than the lifeless archive release does. In fact the archive release doesn't capture it at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-07 23:48 by kleermaker.

You can't really compare what you are hearing from the speakers in a room with a line recording, kleerie. It's true that the bootleg gives a more live feel with it's trebly sound, mixed with audience screaming. But there are lots of things missing in that mix that come across kleerer in the official release.

Like Charlie's drum sound or not, let's face it - it's easier to tell what he's playing on the official release. Not to mention Bill...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You can't really compare what you are hearing from the speakers in a room with a line recording, kleerie. It's true that the bootleg gives a more live feel with it's trebly sound, mixed with audience screaming. But there are lots of things missing in that mix that come across kleerer in the official release.

Like Charlie's drum sound or not, let's face it - it's easier to tell what he's playing on the official release. Not to mention Bill...

Dandie, I always listen with my earphones in with my earphone head and my dirty neck. And those earthings are very good. The sound of the live experience I had I don't feel or hear when I listen to the archive Brussels, but it does come in very hard when I listen to one of the better Brussels boots. And Bill is there too. So I seldom listen to that official Brussels any more, except for Star Star, but regularly to the best boots from Brussels and London. Btw: no screaming is audible on the boots either when they're playing their songs, and that's all what counts to me.

Quote
kevinkamphuis
Kleermaker already pointed it out: the hybrid ADTL and the lifeless sound...
That said, the official BA sounds clean, mastered hot with little dynamic range ( almost like a modern day recording) and with awful compression on charlie's drum kit. The radio broadcast mix on the other hand is somewhat unbalanced (not perfect), but that's exactly how they sound live in 1973.

Hybrid ADTL? They only took a 15 second solo from the first show, that's it.

They reworked BS for the second batch of broadcasts, and what we think of as their best show is a combination of two shows. So much for historic accuracy!

Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kevinkamphuis


The Stones themselves already did this with the archive release of The Brussels affair. It didn't sound like that in 1973...

The official release sounds closer to how the show sounded in 1973 than the processed BA radio broadcast. The fact that most of us prefer the radio broadcast doesn't mean it is a faithful representation of the actual show.

Mathijs

No it doesn't. I was in Rotterdam 1973, not so much different from Brussels shows and the bootleg Brussels Definitive and others capture the sound of the show MUCH better than the lifeless archive release does. In fact the archive release doesn't capture it at all.

Which is all bollocks. After 41 years you think Rotterdam sounded like BA, but it sure didn't. BA sounds completely different to any audience tape and any soundboard tape, or Preston's live album. And the official BA sounds very close to what you can hear on those mentioned recordings.

Don't get me wrong, I think the bootleg BA is the best ever live recording of any band, but part of its brilliance lies in the recording, mixing and mastering. Take Richards' guitar for example: dark, heavy and moody on the entire tour, and bright and aggressive on the boot BA release.

Mathijs

Brightness is a keyword for the mixing/mastering of the BA-bootleg.

All the shows I've heard from this tour is more rhythm/bass-heavy (that goes for all instruments, as well as the sound in general). So is the BA-official release.

I'm between a rock and a hard place myself, when it comes to comparing the boot and the official release. As a show (which it isn't, really), I tend to enjoy the bootleg the most. As a recording, hearing all the nuances, flaws and wobbles, the official release might be a bit better.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kevinkamphuis


The Stones themselves already did this with the archive release of The Brussels affair. It didn't sound like that in 1973...

The official release sounds closer to how the show sounded in 1973 than the processed BA radio broadcast. The fact that most of us prefer the radio broadcast doesn't mean it is a faithful representation of the actual show.

Mathijs

No it doesn't. I was in Rotterdam 1973, not so much different from Brussels shows and the bootleg Brussels Definitive and others capture the sound of the show MUCH better than the lifeless archive release does. In fact the archive release doesn't capture it at all.

Which is all bollocks. After 41 years you think Rotterdam sounded like BA, but it sure didn't. BA sounds completely different to any audience tape and any soundboard tape, or Preston's live album. And the official BA sounds very close to what you can hear on those mentioned recordings.

Don't get me wrong, I think the bootleg BA is the best ever live recording of any band, but part of its brilliance lies in the recording, mixing and mastering. Take Richards' guitar for example: dark, heavy and moody on the entire tour, and bright and aggressive on the boot BA release.

Mathijs

Read my post again. I didn't say Rotterdam sounded like BA, but that boot captures the Rotterdam (and undoubtedly also Brussels) sound the best. The Rotterdam shows were comparable to Brussels 1 anyway.

One thing is a fact: on the official Brussels Taylor's guitar is not audible enough compared to what was audible in the real shows. I recall quite well how powerful it was. The official BA mix is sterile at best. The best boot versions of BA come closest to the shows as they were. You weren't there, I was. And again: it was Taylor's guitar that dominated them. I don't say that as a Taylor fan or whatever you want to call me, but I'm just stating a hard fact. Unbelievable anyway that you have an opinion about something you don't know nothing about.

You weren't there, I was


Sounds like what a five year old would say.

Keep in mind that the BA-bootleg is tampered with in the studio (with added sax, among other things), kleerie. It sounds great, but it is doctored to be presented on a radio show (as well as a planned live release) by Mick Jagger.

This reminds me how great is the original released version.
Simply the best!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Brightness is a keyword for the mixing/mastering of the BA-bootleg.

All the shows I've heard from this tour is more rhythm/bass-heavy (that goes for all instruments, as well as the sound in general). So is the BA-official release.

I'm between a rock and a hard place myself, when it comes to comparing the boot and the official release. As a show (which it isn't, really), I tend to enjoy the bootleg the most. As a recording, hearing all the nuances, flaws and wobbles, the official release might be a bit better.

Believe me that in the real shows it wasn't the rhythm/bass heaviness that dominated the shows. It was Taylor's guitar that did and the sound in general wasn't heavy at all. Very loud indeed, but also crystal clear and with much 'treble', produced by Taylor's guitar. The BA official doesn't right to the shows. Taylor's guitar is almost isolated from the sound and far too low in the mix, which it wasn't in reality. On the contrary. Man, you've missed the most impressive Stones show ever. So I only can say that the best Brussels boots aren't perfect but come closest to the real live experience. The official BA is sterile at best, not dynamic at all and has much less connection to that experience. It's mix isn't good, it's simply not good overall. I'm very sorry about that, because I had high expectations. But alas.

It doesn't help that Taylor plays better than ever, if the rhythm-mix isn't up to par, does it?

I can agree with that on a couple of songs Taylor is a little low in the mix on the official release, but there is a reason for that, probably. If you listen, for instance, to the GS-solos, they aren't as good as on other shows on the tour.

The only songs we can compare with are really MR and BS - they are from the same show as some of the songs on the bootleg. IMO, BS is WAY better mixed on the official release, and it has sound problems during the first have on the bootleg as well. MR is better on the bootleg, much due to the chaotic audience sound, that excels the brilliant performance.

The world isn't black and white, kleerie

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
kevinkamphuis

Quote
kleermaker
I think I've heard this one before. Thanks anyway.
Much better than the SF studio version!

You can't. This version is mixed a week ago. I also have a mix with the 2 MT solo's panned to the right.

It's the same mix as the one long available, with the exception of the 2 solo's done by Mick Taylor.

In this version his solo's are mixed much louder.

You're totally right. I love it better than the first version and of course better than the dull SF version with that sax. But the best renditions of this song are given during the 1970 tour.

Sacrilege!!!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keep in mind that the BA-bootleg is tampered with in the studio (with added sax, among other things), kleerie. It sounds great, but it is doctored to be presented on a radio show (as well as a planned live release) by Mick Jagger.

If I am not mistaken,the sax etc. was added for the mid-'80's rebroadcast as best heard on the " Nasty Remixes " release.

The original 1974 broadcast of the 1973 recordings is best heard on a release called " Europe '73 " !

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It doesn't help that Taylor plays better than ever, if the rhythm-mix isn't up to par, does it?

I can agree with that on a couple of songs Taylor is a little low in the mix on the official release, but there is a reason for that, probably. If you listen, for instance, to the GS-solos, they aren't as good as on other shows on the tour.

The only songs we can compare with are really MR and BS - they are from the same show as some of the songs on the bootleg. IMO, BS is WAY better mixed on the official release, and it has sound problems during the first have on the bootleg as well. MR is better on the bootleg, much due to the chaotic audience sound, that excels the brilliant performance.

The world isn't black and white, kleerie

Indeed, (the sound of) BS on the Brussels bootleg isn't that good, but beware: I include the London and Rotterdam soundboard songs as well: BS, GS, Heartbreaker, Mr. D, Happy. Together with the best bootleg Brussels songs they come closest to the real live experience. On the official BA Taylor's guitar isn't on par with Keith's and the horns. It's WAY too low in the mix compared to what really happened and even worse: it sounds isolated, while it was very much integrated into the whole sound. I wonder if they've done that consciously and am tended to answer that question affirmative. Taylor was a star on his own during those shows, however good all the other members were as well. Even this AUDIENCE recording is better than the official Brussels because it comes much closer to the real experience. Anyway, the official Brussels is a BIG disappointment to me, not because of the performance itself, but because of the mix, the sound (just like that is the case with the sound of L & G).

Quote
Mathijs
This is one of the ten or so takes available. It's great to listen to all takes starting with the one from Muscle Shoals and ending with the final, released take; you can hear what Jagger and Richards had in mind for this track, while trying out different parts like rhythm and solo guitars. In the end all guitars except for Richards original rhythm track are erased, and new tracks are overdubbed by Richards himself.

Mathijs

Is there a disc that has all of these?

You're crazy, kleerie! Gotta give you credit for that Taylor-tunnel vision

This is the official GS:

Taylor in the left speaker, Keith in the right. Brilliant bass and drums (no, you don't hear Bill's playing like this on other releases) in the middle. Every instrument is crystal clear, unlike on other releases.

Taylor's soloing while Mick is singing is wisely lowered down a bit, to be able to hear what he is singing

For his solo spots in the song, his sound is turned up.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-08 16:08 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You're crazy, kleerie! Gotta give you credit for that Taylor-tunnel vision

This is the official GS:

Taylor in the left speaker, Keith in the right. Brilliant bass and drums (no, you don't hear Bill's playing like this on other releases) in the middle. Every instrument is crystal clear, unlike on other releases.

Taylor's soloing while Mick is singing is wisely lowered down a bit, to be able to hear what he is singing

For his solo spots in the song, his sound is turned up.

Dandie, understand me well. You may prefer the official BA big time, as much as you want. I don't, but that's a matter of taste. I was talking about which recording comes closest to the real experience, and in that case you simply accept my statement/conclusion or you don't. I've written a report of my Rotterdam 1973 experience for the school paper of the school I just had left to study in Leiden. But many friends there asked for it and so I wrote it for them. Later I translated it in English, by request of a good Greek friend. And after that I put it on my weblog. Here it is, and beware: I wasn't particularly interested in Taylor's guitar yet, but just in the Rolling Stones (though I already had discovered his special playing on YaYa's before). Anyhow, I wasn't focussed on Taylor at all. He simply did at us all. Here's the report: written by the young kleermaker.
[keessiedeg.wordpress.com]

There are feelings and experiences, and there are basic facts, regarding sound/mix/mastering/line signals/effects etc. etc.

Somewhere in-between lays the truth. Opening up for that reveals a better world - that's my take on this

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You're crazy, kleerie! Gotta give you credit for that Taylor-tunnel vision

This is the official GS:

Taylor in the left speaker, Keith in the right. Brilliant bass and drums (no, you don't hear Bill's playing like this on other releases) in the middle. Every instrument is crystal clear, unlike on other releases.

Taylor's soloing while Mick is singing is wisely lowered down a bit, to be able to hear what he is singing

For his solo spots in the song, his sound is turned up.

Exactly what I said: it's lifeless and sterile. Compare it to this version, where you can hear the drums, Keith's guitar and Bill very well. But this comes so much closer to the real experience. A difference as day and night.
Note that Jagger is still clearly audible when Taylor is playing.

If you listen carefully to the official Brussels you can hear that Keith's guitar is in the right channel, but 'leaning' to the middle, while Taylor's is on the extreme left side of the left channel. The effect is that Taylor is isolated from the band's sound and Keith is the centre of it. In the soundboard versions (Brussels/London/Rotterdam) this isn't the case. So in those soundboard songs the sound is more organic and dynamic, while in the official Brussels the sound is disintegrated (and also sterile and lifeless). Crystal clear is in that case of much minor importance if of any.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-08 19:09 by kleermaker.

Quote
kleermaker
If you listen carefully to the official Brussels you can hear that Keith's guitar is in the right channel, but 'leaning' to the middle, while Taylor's is on the extreme left side of the left channel. The effect is that Taylor is isolated from the band's sound and Keith is the centre of it. In the soundboard versions (Brussels/London/Rotterdam) this isn't the case. So in those soundboard songs the sound is more organic and dynamic, while in the official Brussels the sound is disintegrated (and also sterile and lifeless). Crystal clear is in that case of much minor importance if of any.

+1

Quote
Mathijs
This is one of the ten or so takes available. It's great to listen to all takes starting with the one from Muscle Shoals and ending with the final, released take; you can hear what Jagger and Richards had in mind for this track, while trying out different parts like rhythm and solo guitars. In the end all guitars except for Richards original rhythm track are erased, and new tracks are overdubbed by Richards himself.

Mathijs

Hi Mathijs... Whatever happened to the Pierre questions you requested???

Quote
moonlightaffair

Quote
kleermaker
If you listen carefully to the official Brussels you can hear that Keith's guitar is in the right channel, but 'leaning' to the middle, while Taylor's is on the extreme left side of the left channel. The effect is that Taylor is isolated from the band's sound and Keith is the centre of it. In the soundboard versions (Brussels/London/Rotterdam) this isn't the case. So in those soundboard songs the sound is more organic and dynamic, while in the official Brussels the sound is disintegrated (and also sterile and lifeless). Crystal clear is in that case of much minor importance if of any.

+1

And here is crystal clear proof of my statement:






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-09 01:05 by kleermaker.

Kleermaker, you're right.

I took the official "Gimme Shelter" from Brussels 2nd Show and mixed it like the Brussels Affair bootleg. Taylor is more audible in this mix

Here's the sampler
[www.dropbox.com]