When evaluating a bootleg, which element is more important to you?

Put another way, would you prefer an average performance in pristine sound, or a hot performance in average sound?

Imho if you look for a pristine sound in a bootleg you should stick to official releases...

I'm currently enjoying the Atlanta'75 show. The sound varies from g+ to vg+ audience but I'm having a blast, as the gig is red hot, much better than the upcoming L.A.'75 SA DVD... (cough cough).

oops



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-20 01:19 by ash.

hot performance, average sound though i would always hope for an upgrade.

The version of Yer Blues by The Dirty Mac on the Beatles Ultra Rare Tracks boot is brutal but John messes up the words.
On the official release of RnR Circus they used a different take with better sound quality and probably primarily because of the performance error. Big mistake right there.

Sound. Absolutely. Can't listen to bad recordings. Luckily there is least one VG recording per tour which is also a great performance (probably not the best of the tour, but who cares).

Since they released the official boots and texas, I hardly ever listen to boot of the 73, 75, 78, 81, 82, 90, tours.

With exceptions, of course!

C

I always find strange a lot of people here wants Leeds 71 to be officially released while the Roundhouse show for example is superior in terms of performance.
Probably it is because the Leeds boot has already a good sound and those people don't judge further.

i'd go with performance as the main criteria. when looking at descriptions, if you see a very good the sound is usually acceptable. there is enough stuff out there in that category to keep you going for a real long time. anything below that its not as worth the effort. of course, the standards change with age of recording. with me, what i'll listen to off of the 1969 & 1972 tours differs from what i'll listen to off of say, the 2003 tour. another factor for me is if i was physically at the show. sentimental value. i've really gotten into it in the last year. there is so much good stuff out there for the stones & many of my other favorite bands. its like a maze. you find one source that leads to another source & so on. check out sugarmegs.org rolling stones (& jeff beck) section. you will blow your mind! have fun!

Quote
mitch
I always find strange a lot of people here wants Leeds 71 to be officially released while the Roundhouse show for example is superior in terms of performance.
Probably it is because the Leeds boot has already a good sound and those people don't judge further.

provided this show has been pro-taped by the band...

I cannot enjoy a bad sound quality bootleg unless I am listening to something for it's historical significance or personal significance (a show I was at and wanted to hear again, but no other source was available).

If the band is on fire, but the sound is awful, it is hard to enjoy. Sad to say that with so many Stones concerts I have been to having poor sound in the venue, it has impacted my view of the worth of paying to see them live. There is zero reason to come out on stage without sound being very good, and nudge the mix to near perfect quickly, but the Stones (at least at shows I have been at in Toronto, Buffalo and Syracuse) have had challenges over the years. Easy to understand why the bootlegger ended up with bad sound, when the sound in the venue was not great.

Nothing like being there. A bootleg is like judging a girls personality by her picture.

I always look for soundboard/studio quality recordings unless there is something rare or one-off on the recording. As for dcba's statement "if you look for a pristine sound in a bootleg you should stick to official releases", I prefer a bootleg of live recordings because it has not been overdubbed or remixed. I guess you might call it a raw, undoctored sound. You get the live performance warts and all. Just my preference.

Scotty

The sound. The performance won't matter if the sound is shit.

I agree with the people here who are saying that the sound is the most important thing, because a great performance in awfull quality is not a feast to listen to. But... if it is an important peformance, a legendary clubconcert or something like it, than it's better to have an average recording, than having nothing at all.
And ofcourse if I was at a concert I just want a recording of it. Bad, or not, I have to have it.
I always listen to bootlegs, almost never to the official live cd's. I just want to hear the Original rough sound, not an over-produced studio mix.
Ofcourse with the official downloads that was somethingelse: Brussels, Hampton, L.A.'75 are all exellent releases.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-20 20:25 by GJV.