For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you think this release is light on guitars? CYHMK, S, BS, SM, YGM, B?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
powerage78
So true and obvious Drake, THE Rolling Stones syndrom since 1998...
Invasive backing vocals, 2 keyboardS now, to compensate lack of guitar playing in the mix.Quote
drake
EXACTLY. I think most people really don't care though. A great comparison is to listen to Still Life and then the official Hampton 81 release. Hampton has louder bass and the whole mix fights itself due to heavy compression. Guitars are also thinner. Still Life, on the other hand only sounds better the louder you turn it up, because of dynamic range.
The Fonda gig is so dang compressed it is impossible for me to enjoy. Each instrument is fighting itself. There are plenty of other things too... like the "SUGAR!!!" backup stuff on Brown Sugar. During that part the guitars should just be blazing away with backup singers distant in the mix. Instead, bass and vocals are heavy in the mix, and guitars are fighting to be heard.
On the positive, the performance is solid. I think I'd enjoy it quite a bit more if it weren't for the loudness war. Who knows what the original mix sounded like. It might have been good initially.
My thought is that Jagger has given the green light for Darryl's bass to take up a wider area of the soundscape in order to compensate for any bum notes or lack of playing. I'd far rather he be mixed at the right volume. The problem is NOT Darryl. He's great. The problem is the mix. If anyone needs confirmation they can just listen to The Last Time for the Newark PPV gig. Darryl is louder than the whole band. Sound guy on that gig had NO idea how to mix this band.
If only their FOH engineer was on the console for this release.
Do you think this release is light on guitars? CYHMK, S, BS, SM, YGM, B?
Quote
flacnvinyl
Regarding Still Life, I am just comparing the old original vinyl release to the Hampton 81 recent re-release. Just the modern 'master the heck out of this thing so that people will bad sound systems hear the bass' technique.
Quote
Cristiano Radtke
I don't remember having such joy with a new live recording since the release of Some Girls in Texas.
Quote
bonddm
I'm definitely a Taylorite,but Ronnie was absolutely on fire on this gig.
The performance is so good, I'll happily double-dip if/when they release it again in other formats!
Quote
Stoneburst
A couple of initial thoughts:
1) Sister Morphine is absolutely brilliant, some of the best slide work I've ever heard from Ronnie. There's no point comparing it to the original because he and Ry Cooder are totally different players - the important thing is that it's unmistakably Wood playing, it's instantly recognisable as such. That sort of personality is what I and others have often felt was lacking in his playing with the Stones, so it's great to hear.
2) The stop-start weaving thing on CYHMK weirded me out when I first listened, but now I kind of like it.
3) Sway's still a bit of a mess.
Quote
gotdablouse
Fantastic album ! Sounds almost "too good", but they technically had little time to mess with it so...Now I do wonder why Denson'solo in CYHMk is so groovy here and rather "pedestrian" in the shows?
I don't think we've heard from any of the lucky Fonda guests yet, how does the recording sound compared to what you remember? I suppose that all of Mick's erased comments must be the biggest difference.
Quote
kdsalterQuote
bonddm
I'm definitely a Taylorite,but Ronnie was absolutely on fire on this gig.
The performance is so good, I'll happily double-dip if/when they release it again in other formats!
I am a Taylorite, too. But I was at this show and, as the recording indicates, Ron Wood was absolutely brilliant on everything (except CYHMK). After 40 years I guess I can finally get used to the idea of him in the Rolling Stones. But seriously, this show sounded as good in person as it does on the recording. The highlight for me was Sister Morphine -- absolute magic.
I miss the other songs that were played. All Down the Line and JJF were particularly strong. I'm looking forward to the DVD too. My daughter and I were interviewed, talking about the song Brown Sugar, in a documentary style production before the show in the Fonda.
Quote
HouseBoyKnowsQuote
flacnvinyl
Regarding Still Life, I am just comparing the old original vinyl release to the Hampton 81 recent re-release. Just the modern 'master the heck out of this thing so that people will bad sound systems hear the bass' technique.
Back in the day, I remember being disappointed that Still Life sounded speeded up a fraction compared to the boots of Hampton that I'd been listing to up until that time (I was there both nights).
HBK
In the past I feel Ronnie has been too deferential to MT's original solo when playing CYHMK.Quote
kdsalterQuote
bonddm
I'm definitely a Taylorite,but Ronnie was absolutely on fire on this gig.
The performance is so good, I'll happily double-dip if/when they release it again in other formats!
I am a Taylorite, too. But I was at this show and, as the recording indicates, Ron Wood was absolutely brilliant on everything (except CYHMK).
Quote
EasterMan
This ''Itunes-mastered'' release is really bad on you ears listening with headphones unless you lower the mid frequencies and some treble, I did it with VLC while listening which makes it sound ok.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
EasterMan
This ''Itunes-mastered'' release is really bad on you ears listening with headphones unless you lower the mid frequencies and some treble, I did it with VLC while listening which makes it sound ok.
Well, it's mastered for listening through the iTunes player...
Quote
EasterManQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
EasterMan
This ''Itunes-mastered'' release is really bad on you ears listening with headphones unless you lower the mid frequencies and some treble, I did it with VLC while listening which makes it sound ok.
Well, it's mastered for listening through the iTunes player...
For people who's walking around on the street with loud traffic nearby? Then I can understand the need for this painfully loud mastering but for anyone sitting at home with good headphones it's awful.
Quote
Tonstone
Just listened through for the 2nd time - This is wonderful to my ears - Brickwalled ? - Stonewalled ? - well this @#$%& rocks.If you can tell of a better performance from 2000 on then I would love to know and why.When I heard this I was almost having hair stand on the back of my neck. I never thought I would hear this as good again.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
EasterMan
This ''Itunes-mastered'' release is really bad on you ears listening with headphones unless you lower the mid frequencies and some treble, I did it with VLC while listening which makes it sound ok.
Well, it's mastered for listening through the iTunes player...
Quote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
EasterMan
This ''Itunes-mastered'' release is really bad on you ears listening with headphones unless you lower the mid frequencies and some treble, I did it with VLC while listening which makes it sound ok.
Well, it's mastered for listening through the iTunes player...
iTunes actually promotes it's own "mastered for iTunes" process and certifies engineers and songs which comply with the process (Mfit), but strangely it has little to do with the mastering process itself.
As I understand it, the process just specifies that the file start as 24/96 or higher and that the loudest peak is attenuated down a couple dB to prevent clipping of material as part of the AAC/Mpeg processing. So basically any master can be specified as mastered for iTunes and following the specs just helps with the encoding.
But to be clear it has nothing to do with the player. Just a few specs to ensure the data compression they use doesn't hurt the music. I doubt this process affects what EasterMan is hearing or the overall poor dynamic range of the release.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
EasterMan
This ''Itunes-mastered'' release is really bad on you ears listening with headphones unless you lower the mid frequencies and some treble, I did it with VLC while listening which makes it sound ok.
Well, it's mastered for listening through the iTunes player...
iTunes actually promotes it's own "mastered for iTunes" process and certifies engineers and songs which comply with the process (Mfit), but strangely it has little to do with the mastering process itself.
As I understand it, the process just specifies that the file start as 24/96 or higher and that the loudest peak is attenuated down a couple dB to prevent clipping of material as part of the AAC/Mpeg processing. So basically any master can be specified as mastered for iTunes and following the specs just helps with the encoding.
But to be clear it has nothing to do with the player. Just a few specs to ensure the data compression they use doesn't hurt the music. I doubt this process affects what EasterMan is hearing or the overall poor dynamic range of the release.
I was joking
I could not agree more. I hated that record. Worst Stones tour of all time. Worst song selection. As my ex-wife used to say it sounded as if they were playing every song as fast as they could just to get out of there. And the most ridiculous costumes, the lemon yellow football pants, the cherry picker, the thing with the scarfs during Tumbling Dice. That was the low point of live Stones tours that I have seen.Quote
bitusa2012Quote
HouseBoyKnowsQuote
flacnvinyl
Regarding Still Life, I am just comparing the old original vinyl release to the Hampton 81 recent re-release. Just the modern 'master the heck out of this thing so that people will bad sound systems hear the bass' technique.
Back in the day, I remember being disappointed that Still Life sounded speeded up a fraction compared to the boots of Hampton that I'd been listing to up until that time (I was there both nights).
HBK
Still Life sounded, and still does to me, the worst live record I have ever heard ANYONE officially release. It's the one Stones record I NEVER play.
I LIKE the songs, and some playing is nice, The vocals are awful and the SOUND of it simply atrocious.
The Hampton Archive thingy bought back terrible memories....
Quote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
EasterMan
This ''Itunes-mastered'' release is really bad on you ears listening with headphones unless you lower the mid frequencies and some treble, I did it with VLC while listening which makes it sound ok.
Well, it's mastered for listening through the iTunes player...
iTunes actually promotes it's own "mastered for iTunes" process and certifies engineers and songs which comply with the process (Mfit), but strangely it has little to do with the mastering process itself.
As I understand it, the process just specifies that the file start as 24/96 or higher and that the loudest peak is attenuated down a couple dB to prevent clipping of material as part of the AAC/Mpeg processing. So basically any master can be specified as mastered for iTunes and following the specs just helps with the encoding.
But to be clear it has nothing to do with the player. Just a few specs to ensure the data compression they use doesn't hurt the music. I doubt this process affects what EasterMan is hearing or the overall poor dynamic range of the release.
I was joking
No worries, then I'm going to assume you were also joking when you said Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Eagles weren't classic rock. Otherwise I might be getting a bit worried about you and maybe just assuming things are very different in Norway.
Anyway I am close to breaking down and just downloading this one. Just for Sister Morphine if nothing else.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Naturalust
Anyway I am close to breaking down and just downloading this one. Just for Sister Morphine if nothing else.
Download it. You won't regret it. I Got The Blues is my favourite.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Naturalust
No worries, then I'm going to assume you were also joking when you said Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Eagles weren't classic rock. Otherwise I might be getting a bit worried about you and maybe just assuming things are very different in Norway.
Classic rock is a musical genre in which exactly zero of those bands belonged to the last time I checked
Quote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Naturalust
No worries, then I'm going to assume you were also joking when you said Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Eagles weren't classic rock. Otherwise I might be getting a bit worried about you and maybe just assuming things are very different in Norway.
Classic rock is a musical genre in which exactly zero of those bands belonged to the last time I checked
OK Now I am worried. Let me refer you to a couple sources which define the term and the artists associated with them. The bands mentioned are at the top of the heap. Perhaps things are different in Norway?
[en.wikipedia.org]
[rateyourmusic.com]
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's not difficult at all, but you got to remove QuickTime as well.