Heartland

robertzombie wrote:His most notable DOA contribution was Misty Circles, IMO.

I always preferred 'What I Want' but its been 25 years since I've listened to either. Vinyl long since packed away and lost somewhere between house moves

stufarq wrote:

Being645 wrote:Agreed. Only, the problem is: what else should we rant about instead ...

The terrible sound quality of the concerts? ...

That's also a matter of the past ... ...

They played so many great concerts last year. I find it difficult to decide which one I like most ...
Leeds, Vienna, Paris, Stekene, London ... all of these were surely highlights. Utrecht and Groningen were wonderful ...

Hach, now looking forward to the Amphi Festival ... ...

since I cannot manage to see them play tomorrow ...

Aazhyd wrote:

Husek wrote:The most awesome item of all the time:
'Gift' Signed by That Guitarist.

The only thing that can be compared with it:
Wasteland signed by Von.

Of course not, Wasteland is a piece of snot, while Gift is the secret Sisters treasure. You can't compare the two, you infidel!

Whilst I do like Gift quite a lot,I'm afraid it isn't anywhere near as good as Gods Own Medicine,a proper album,written and played by a proper band,not something knocked up by Von and recorded by some of his mates just for the sake of it.

I was told by someone or read somewhere - it is all a long time ago -

That Wayne did a lot / most of the writing for the first DOA LP "Sophisticated Boom Boom ( not just Misty Circles) but then left before it's release.

Is this true - is there folk out there who know / care?

Being645 wrote:

stufarq wrote:

Being645 wrote:Agreed. Only, the problem is: what else should we rant about instead ...

The terrible sound quality of the concerts? ...

That's also a matter of the past ... ...

No it's not. There have been reports of concerts from this year (South America?) with terrible sound again and debate as to whether a particular sound engineer was possible. Yes, over the last couple of years they've played dates where the sound was audible but the fact that it was an improvement on the previous decade of white noise isn't the same as actually being particularly good. And the reality is that you can't be sure when you go to a Sisters gig which of the two you'll get.

stufarq wrote:

Being645 wrote:

stufarq wrote: The terrible sound quality of the concerts? ...

That's also a matter of the past ... ...

No it's not. There have been reports of concerts from this year (South America?) with terrible sound again and debate as to whether a particular sound engineer was possible. Yes, over the last couple of years they've played dates where the sound was audible but the fact that it was an improvement on the previous decade of white noise isn't the same as actually being particularly good. And the reality is that you can't be sure when you go to a Sisters gig which of the two you'll get.

Unfortunately you are correct. I might be wrong but my recollection of Glasgow last year is that it wasn't particularly good.

don't try to convince this Lady that TSOM isn't best band aver, all time and forever, 'cos she like member of Westboro Baptist Church or other extremist.

Only another 340 posts and this topic will be in the Trash Bin. The only reason it keeps on going is because WH keeps badmouthing .

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:Only another 340 posts and this topic will be in the Trash Bin. The only reason it keeps on going is because WH keeps badmouthing .

Please let us know when WH actually does badmouth AE, apart from their footballing favourites LOL

stufarq wrote:

Being645 wrote:

stufarq wrote: The terrible sound quality of the concerts? ...

That's also a matter of the past ... ...

No it's not. There have been reports of concerts from this year (South America?) with terrible sound again and debate as to whether a particular sound engineer was possible. Yes, over the last couple of years they've played dates where the sound was audible but the fact that it was an improvement on the previous decade of white noise isn't the same as actually being particularly good. And the reality is that you can't be sure when you go to a Sisters gig which of the two you'll get.

No. The word "terrible" was surely not mentioned ... nonetheless, there were few sound problems in places where they didn't have a chance to soundcheck ... and in Vienna, the Doktor failed for a moment or two. But hell, that's nothing like what you call the "reality". The vast majority of gigs was wonderful ... ...

Mav787 wrote:[
Unfortunately you are correct. I might be wrong but my recollection of Glasgow last year is that it wasn't particularly good.

Wrong. In Glasgow, the sound was perfect. Will I Dream? was not, IMO, but not soundwise. All over a good concert. I'm still listening to the wonderful recording of it.

Want a short reminder ... ...
http://www.myheartland.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 495#563495

Bartek wrote:don't try to convince this Lady that TSOM isn't best band aver, all time and forever, 'cos she like member of Westboro Baptist Church or other extremist.

Mav787 wrote:
Unfortunately you are correct. I might be wrong but my recollection of Glasgow last year is that it wasn't particularly good.

this is correct, i got to about halfway through just back from the non-existent mosh pit,and suddenly thought 'who is kidding who here'? And at the same time thought I need a long break from this person who really couldn't care if there was anybody there or not, so i went to the bar.

Being645 wrote:

stufarq wrote:

Being645 wrote: That's also a matter of the past ... ...

No it's not. There have been reports of concerts from this year (South America?) with terrible sound again and debate as to whether a particular sound engineer was possible. Yes, over the last couple of years they've played dates where the sound was audible but the fact that it was an improvement on the previous decade of white noise isn't the same as actually being particularly good. And the reality is that you can't be sure when you go to a Sisters gig which of the two you'll get.

No. The word "terrible" was surely not mentioned ... nonetheless, there were few sound problems in places where they didn't have a chance to soundcheck ... and in Vienna, the Doktor failed for a moment or two. But hell, that's nothing like what you call the "reality". The vast majority of gigs was wonderful ... ...

Mav787 wrote:[
Unfortunately you are correct. I might be wrong but my recollection of Glasgow last year is that it wasn't particularly good.

Wrong. In Glasgow, the sound was perfect. Will I Dream? was not, IMO, but not soundwise. All over a good concert. I'm still listening to the wonderful recording of it.

Want a short reminder ... ...
http://www.myheartland.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 495#563495

Bartek wrote:don't try to convince this Lady that TSOM isn't best band aver, all time and forever, 'cos she like member of Westboro Baptist Church or other extremist.

Of course, it MIGHT be a matter of taste, but to me the recording Ribbons (for instance) from the Glasgow concert sounds almost terrible... Believe me when I say that the recording equipment are better nowadays then back in the 80:s, still ALL Sisters recordings from the past, I don´t know, six-seven years (may be more, may be less....) sounds worse..
As I said, it might be a matter of taste, but I want to hear the songs better. Listen to Ribbons, Glasgow 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_-gdIOsgPU, and then listen to Alice, Italy 1985, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfEUcbOj ... ure=relmfu
Om Alice I can hear the drummachine much more, the guitar, the bass. Maybe not the best recording but it not so muffled as all the new shows.

Another thing is that both are audience recordings. On "newer" Sisters recordings you hear the audience sometimes a bit too much compared to older recordings. I do not want be a person stating that everything was better before and that the new Sisters are not as good etc. They may be as good as ever, but I saw them "before" and one thing about the gigs that there were edge. You could not only hear, but also feel Doktor Avalanche and Andrews voice, there are some really fine examples (I think Newcastle 85 and Stockholm same year, and later Brixton Academy 1993 if I am not wrong).

Sisters gigs were more brutal, just like they were supposed to be. I don´t want them to be as Motorhead used to be, but at the same time I don´t want to be able to hear my phone ringin in my pocket during a Sisters Of Mercy concert. I have seen Lady Gaga and Britney Spears lately, and the audience were a bit younger than the at Sisters shows, but they had more brutal sound and the power was feeling in the body. As it did, also on Sisters show before, so it has nothing to do with the fact that Gaga and Spears are playing bigger halls and are bigger artists.

I love The Sisters Of Mercy. They have performed some of the best concerts I have witness. I love the records. I loved the brutality they had.
However, Andrew doesn´t seem to bother anymore. Doesn´t bother to record new songs, doesn´t bother to update the website, often doesn´t bother to be interviewed, doesn´t bother to release new stuff (on record, on the net, dvd or whatever), doesn´t bother to re-new the tours much, often doesn´t bother to soundcheck. Doesn´t bother if the is good or not....
A Disney charade. A bad Disney charade in fact. But still we go and see them. Cause he does bother about the money...... And as long as we do, without complain too much, why would he change anything? Why work harder and spend more money if you get paid anyway?.....

playboy wrote:

Being645 wrote:

stufarq wrote: No it's not. There have been reports of concerts from this year (South America?) with terrible sound again and debate as to whether a particular sound engineer was possible. Yes, over the last couple of years they've played dates where the sound was audible but the fact that it was an improvement on the previous decade of white noise isn't the same as actually being particularly good. And the reality is that you can't be sure when you go to a Sisters gig which of the two you'll get.

No. The word "terrible" was surely not mentioned ... nonetheless, there were few sound problems in places where they didn't have a chance to soundcheck ... and in Vienna, the Doktor failed for a moment or two. But hell, that's nothing like what you call the "reality". The vast majority of gigs was wonderful ... ...

Mav787 wrote:[
Unfortunately you are correct. I might be wrong but my recollection of Glasgow last year is that it wasn't particularly good.

Wrong. In Glasgow, the sound was perfect. Will I Dream? was not, IMO, but not soundwise. All over a good concert. I'm still listening to the wonderful recording of it.

Want a short reminder ... ...
http://www.myheartland.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 495#563495

Bartek wrote:don't try to convince this Lady that TSOM isn't best band aver, all time and forever, 'cos she like member of Westboro Baptist Church or other extremist.

Of course, it MIGHT be a matter of taste, but to me the recording Ribbons (for instance) from the Glasgow concert sounds almost terrible... Believe me when I say that the recording equipment are better nowadays then back in the 80:s, still ALL Sisters recordings from the past, I don´t know, six-seven years (may be more, may be less....) sounds worse..
As I said, it might be a matter of taste, but I want to hear the songs better. Listen to Ribbons, Glasgow 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_-gdIOsgPU, and then listen to Alice, Italy 1985, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfEUcbOj ... ure=relmfu
Om Alice I can hear the drummachine much more, the guitar, the bass. Maybe not the best recording but it not so muffled as all the new shows.

Another thing is that both are audience recordings. On "newer" Sisters recordings you hear the audience sometimes a bit too much compared to older recordings. I do not want be a person stating that everything was better before and that the new Sisters are not as good etc. They may be as good as ever, but I saw them "before" and one thing about the gigs that there were edge. You could not only hear, but also feel Doktor Avalanche and Andrews voice, there are some really fine examples (I think Newcastle 85 and Stockholm same year, and later Brixton Academy 1993 if I am not wrong).

Sisters gigs were more brutal, just like they were supposed to be. I don´t want them to be as Motorhead used to be, but at the same time I don´t want to be able to hear my phone ringin in my pocket during a Sisters Of Mercy concert. I have seen Lady Gaga and Britney Spears lately, and the audience were a bit younger than the at Sisters shows, but they had more brutal sound and the power was feeling in the body. As it did, also on Sisters show before, so it has nothing to do with the fact that Gaga and Spears are playing bigger halls and are bigger artists.

I love The Sisters Of Mercy. They have performed some of the best concerts I have witness. I love the records. I loved the brutality they had.
However, Andrew doesn´t seem to bother anymore. Doesn´t bother to record new songs, doesn´t bother to update the website, often doesn´t bother to be interviewed, doesn´t bother to release new stuff (on record, on the net, dvd or whatever), doesn´t bother to re-new the tours much, often doesn´t bother to soundcheck. Doesn´t bother if the is good or not....
A Disney charade. A bad Disney charade in fact. But still we go and see them. Cause he does bother about the money...... And as long as we do, without complain too much, why would he change anything? Why work harder and spend more money if you get paid anyway?.....

It's incredible how relentlessly you elaborate on your phantasies -- but hell, I'm at work now and can't answer in full ... but laterr ... ...

I don't think it's entirely fair to point to the occasional gig with dodgy sound, like Glasgow, as those seem to be inevitable for any touring band. (and even Glasgow sounds pretty decent, though not quite fearsome, on some of the recordings). A band like Killing Joke have a reputation as a particularly hard live act, but the sound at their recent Helsinki show was worse than any Sisters gig I've heard. Which isn't a slight on the band - it was probably a bunch of circumstances coming together to make it so.

Even though the Sisters are more susceptible to bad sound than many other bands, and can't/don't want anymore to compensate by just turning everything up, the sound quality of the 2011 tour seems to me to have been consistently of a pretty solid standard, probably in part due to their effort to handpick suitable venues. It's true that the mean quality of other 2000's tours wasn't as good, and sometimes downright bad, but you still got a good show on occasion.

And on the right day, the current Sisters can be savage. I brought a friend who'd never seen them before to one of the 2011 gigs, and she thought it was actually better than on the records. I agree with that. The storm of guitars, the monolith beats and the rumbling and howling - I never heard anything like it.

Another thing - many of the videos circulating today are from camera phones or equivalent, taken while enjoying the gig, whereas many of the old bootlegs that still get listened to were done with proper equipment, by people looking to sell the material. Comparison to recent boots like Turning Round at the Roundhouse or DocSommer's M'era Luna 2010 might be more fair than to an overdriven video on youtube. This clip of Arms from the Roundhouse gives a better idea of the sound, though it's not as clear as TRatR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0H-fPz4DR0

Being645 wrote:It's incredible how relentlessly you elaborate on your phantasies -- but hell, I'm at work now and can't answer in full ... but laterr ... ...

centurionofprix wrote:I don't think it's entirely fair to point to the occasional gig with dodgy sound, like Glasgow, as those seem to be inevitable for any touring band. (and even Glasgow sounds pretty decent, though not quite fearsome, on some of the recordings).

I've thought about my comment about Glasgow and looked back at the videos on Youtube and i'm somewhat wrong about the sound quality - although there are Youtube comments on some of the videos that the sound wasn't great.

However I have remembered why Glasgow stuck out in my mind. They just didn't seem on top form that day.

For example watch the end of More for the band having finished and still going.
http://youtu.be/GG0MsrmiMCY?hd=1

Although we did get to see an encore without any dry ice which was quite novel.

At the end I thought it was an ok show but not their best. I was chatting to a scottish girl after the show, she hadn't seem them in a long time and was very disappointed. So its all a question of expectations. She was excited before the show but felt let down. I've seen plenty of below par and/or crap sound shows over the years so I just accepted it as ok.

I went to Leeds *2, Glasgow, Helsinki, Dublin, London, Barcelona, Madrid last year and I thought all the others were much better than Glasgow.

I'm not going to comment on any shows that i've not been to, as you can't judge a show purely on an audio or video recording. A show is an amalgamation of sound, lights, dry ice, venue, and audience reaction that gives you that unique gig going experience. Its not a bootleg recording.

Being645 wrote:Wrong. In Glasgow, the sound was perfect. Will I Dream? was not, IMO, but not soundwise. All over a good concert. I'm still listening to the wonderful recording of it.

This is just deluded bollocks. You're describing a gig I don't think you were even at. Who do you think you're helping with your soviet-era government controlled propaganda nonsense? Its impossible to have a sensible debate with you about the Sisters.

Mav787 wrote:

Being645 wrote:Wrong. In Glasgow, the sound was perfect. Will I Dream? was not, IMO, but not soundwise. All over a good concert. I'm still listening to the wonderful recording of it.

This is just deluded bollocks. You're describing a gig I don't think you were even at. Who do you think you're helping with your soviet-era government controlled propaganda nonsense? Its impossible to have a sensible debate with you about the Sisters.

Funny to see that Bartek has obviously convinced you regarding the qualities of my person ... ...

All I do, is what everybody else here does: I enjoy my right to freedom of opinion ... not more and not less. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion as well ...

Btw, I have been to the Glasgow gig ...
Soundwise there were definitely NO problems ...
I'd surely agree that the gigs in Leeds, Vienna, Paris, Helsinki, London and Utrecht were better as to dynamics but not soundwise.
To me, Glasgow compares to Tilburg (very slightly), Berlin (most of all) and Stekene (somewhat) - and again only as to dynamics, not as to the sound!!!,
and with Groningen not in this list only because it was the final gig in 2011
and everybody was so happy and content with all the wonderful concerts they had encountered ... ... such a lovely end of the day for a while ... *sigh

Soviet? The only Cyrillic I can read is the Greek one. Also I lack any sort of motherly features ... Sorry for that ...

Being645 wrote:Wrong. In Glasgow, the sound was perfect.

This is obviously some new definition of the word "perfect" with which I'm not yet familiar. I was at that gig. It's a perfect example of what I said above: the sound was audible but still not particularly good. You could actually hear Von's voice for once but it was still very muddy, the bass and drums overpowered everything and the guitars were way too low to hear properly.

centurionofprix wrote:I don't think it's entirely fair to point to the occasional gig with dodgy sound, like Glasgow, as those seem to be inevitable for any touring band.

No. Most professional touring bands make the effort to ensure that all of their concerts are of a high enough quality that the people who paid good money to come and see them will go home satisfied and would consider paying good money to come back again next time. And it's not occasional with the Sisters, is it?

centurionofprix wrote:but you still got a good show on occasion.

But occasional's not good enough, is it? The paying public should get a show every time unless some completely unforseeable and unavoidable set of circumstances (like an attack by Godzilla) makes that impossible. This, after all, is the band's profession. They should therefore be able to do it to a high enough standard every single time. Anything else is just making excuses for a bunch of people who are either unable or unwilling to do their jobs properly.

paint it black wrote:

Mav787 wrote:
Unfortunately you are correct. I might be wrong but my recollection of Glasgow last year is that it wasn't particularly good.

this is correct, i got to about halfway through just back from the non-existent mosh pit,and suddenly thought 'who is kidding who here'? And at the same time thought I need a long break from this person who really couldn't care if there was anybody there or not, so i went to the bar.

You were just missing your usual mosh pit mayhem i think.

Matt

Being645 wrote:Funny to see that Bartek has obviously convinced you regarding the qualities of my person ... ...

All I do, is what everybody else here does: I enjoy my right to freedom of opinion ... not more and not less. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion as well ...

your expressing your opinion by trying to prove that other are wrong.
as you can clearly see your feeling about sound of that particular gig is isolated.

@stufarq: hear, hear.

stufarq wrote:

Being645 wrote:Wrong. In Glasgow, the sound was perfect.

This is obviously some new definition of the word "perfect" with which I'm not yet familiar. I was at that gig. It's a perfect example of what I said above: the sound was audible but still not particularly good. You could actually hear Von's voice for once but it was still very muddy, the bass and drums overpowered everything and the guitars were way too low to hear properly.

centurionofprix wrote:I don't think it's entirely fair to point to the occasional gig with dodgy sound, like Glasgow, as those seem to be inevitable for any touring band.

No. Most professional touring bands make the effort to ensure that all of their concerts are of a high enough quality that the people who paid good money to come and see them will go home satisfied and would consider paying good money to come back again next time. And it's not occasional with the Sisters, is it?

centurionofprix wrote:but you still got a good show on occasion.

But occasional's not good enough, is it? The paying public should get a show every time unless some completely unforseeable and unavoidable set of circumstances (like an attack by Godzilla) makes that impossible. This, after all, is the band's profession. They should therefore be able to do it to a high enough standard every single time. Anything else is just making excuses for a bunch of people who are either unable or unwilling to do their jobs properly.

You're 100% correct.

Personally I feel i've lowered my standards as far as the Sisters are concerned. If other bands who i'm not so attached to, had delivered up some of the gigs i've seen over the years i'd have never gone again.

It must be because over the last 28 years when they were good, they were very good. For me no-one has ever surpassed the Black October tour. There has never been a better final song than Sister Ray. When they played Gimme Shelter at Wembley Arena I could have cried. The first time I heard SKOS/Comfortably Numb. Kiss The Carpet at Leeds last year.

But against this if I look at it critically there have been very few songs post Vision Thing that could stand alongside the earlier songs. Crash and Burn is a favourite but Come Together? Romeo Down? Slept?

is the most contrary man alive. I want to hear guitarists influenced by The Stooges and The Velvets but he recruits 2 guitarists who are nothing like this (listen to the other bands they are also in). Mid '80s Sisters guitarists might have played Top Nite Out (at a push) but there is absolutely no way they would play Pipeline (with its accompanying Shadows-like dance steps).

How can he explain at the Lokeren Festival in 2010 all the bands before the Sisters were shown on big screens either side of the stage but when the headlining band came on they were switched off. Is this treating your customers with any respect?

Maybe he's worked out that he's driven away everyone but the die-hards and they'll stay loyal no matter what he does so he just takes the p*ss.

centurionofprix wrote:I don't think it's entirely fair to point to the occasional gig with dodgy sound, like Glasgow, as those seem to be inevitable for any touring band. (and even Glasgow sounds pretty decent, though not quite fearsome, on some of the recordings). A band like Killing Joke have a reputation as a particularly hard live act, but the sound at their recent Helsinki show was worse than any Sisters gig I've heard. Which isn't a slight on the band - it was probably a bunch of circumstances coming together to make it so.

Even though the Sisters are more susceptible to bad sound than many other bands, and can't/don't want anymore to compensate by just turning everything up, the sound quality of the 2011 tour seems to me to have been consistently of a pretty solid standard, probably in part due to their effort to handpick suitable venues. It's true that the mean quality of other 2000's tours wasn't as good, and sometimes downright bad, but you still got a good show on occasion.

And on the right day, the current Sisters can be savage. I brought a friend who'd never seen them before to one of the 2011 gigs, and she thought it was actually better than on the records. I agree with that. The storm of guitars, the monolith beats and the rumbling and howling - I never heard anything like it.

Another thing - many of the videos circulating today are from camera phones or equivalent, taken while enjoying the gig, whereas many of the old bootlegs that still get listened to were done with proper equipment, by people looking to sell the material. Comparison to recent boots like Turning Round at the Roundhouse or DocSommer's M'era Luna 2010 might be more fair than to an overdriven video on youtube. This clip of Arms from the Roundhouse gives a better idea of the sound, though it's not as clear as TRatR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0H-fPz4DR0

"handpick suitable venues" - I have read that too, but find hard to be true, as with most things they write or say... Or maybe it is true, if so, on what basis did they chose the venues? I know the guy who booked them in Lund. He said that noone asked about PA, acoustics or anything. And no one in the band have been or played there before.

"...the occasional gig with dodgy sound" - I must have bad luck then, but this includes all Sisters concert I have been to myself since 2000 (except one). As opposed to all the concerts with Sisters I went to before 2000 where it was the opposite, ONE concert with bad, and veeery low sound.

"still got a good show on occasion." - You most be joking. Is that ok to you? That only shows that the band doesn´t give a f**k about the fact that people are paying for a ticket. That is so unprofessional of the band.

"Comparison to recent boots like Turning Round at the Roundhouse or DocSommer's M'era Luna 2010 might be more fair than to an overdriven video on youtube." - This is true. However I compare with my own recordings as well. I have recorded them since 1985 till now. Changed equipment a few times, better I might add. Same result here - in recordings before 2000 you hear the songs very perfect, every recording sounds like a semi-professional recording and be played to people who has not heard the band before. You can both hear and feel the sound. In recent recordings you can almost hear the songs, feeling the sound is impossible, every instrument seems to have the same level of both volume and same equalization which makes it blurry.

Being645 wrote:

playboy wrote:

Being645 wrote: No. The word "terrible" was surely not mentioned ... nonetheless, there were few sound problems in places where they didn't have a chance to soundcheck ... and in Vienna, the Doktor failed for a moment or two. But hell, that's nothing like what you call the "reality". The vast majority of gigs was wonderful ... ...
Wrong. In Glasgow, the sound was perfect. Will I Dream? was not, IMO, but not soundwise. All over a good concert. I'm still listening to the wonderful recording of it.

Want a short reminder ... ...
http://www.myheartland.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 495#563495

Of course, it MIGHT be a matter of taste, but to me the recording Ribbons (for instance) from the Glasgow concert sounds almost terrible... Believe me when I say that the recording equipment are better nowadays then back in the 80:s, still ALL Sisters recordings from the past, I don´t know, six-seven years (may be more, may be less....) sounds worse..
As I said, it might be a matter of taste, but I want to hear the songs better. Listen to Ribbons, Glasgow 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_-gdIOsgPU, and then listen to Alice, Italy 1985, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfEUcbOj ... ure=relmfu
Om Alice I can hear the drummachine much more, the guitar, the bass. Maybe not the best recording but it not so muffled as all the new shows.

Another thing is that both are audience recordings. On "newer" Sisters recordings you hear the audience sometimes a bit too much compared to older recordings. I do not want be a person stating that everything was better before and that the new Sisters are not as good etc. They may be as good as ever, but I saw them "before" and one thing about the gigs that there were edge. You could not only hear, but also feel Doktor Avalanche and Andrews voice, there are some really fine examples (I think Newcastle 85 and Stockholm same year, and later Brixton Academy 1993 if I am not wrong).

Sisters gigs were more brutal, just like they were supposed to be. I don´t want them to be as Motorhead used to be, but at the same time I don´t want to be able to hear my phone ringin in my pocket during a Sisters Of Mercy concert. I have seen Lady Gaga and Britney Spears lately, and the audience were a bit younger than the at Sisters shows, but they had more brutal sound and the power was feeling in the body. As it did, also on Sisters show before, so it has nothing to do with the fact that Gaga and Spears are playing bigger halls and are bigger artists.

I love The Sisters Of Mercy. They have performed some of the best concerts I have witness. I love the records. I loved the brutality they had.
However, Andrew doesn´t seem to bother anymore. Doesn´t bother to record new songs, doesn´t bother to update the website, often doesn´t bother to be interviewed, doesn´t bother to release new stuff (on record, on the net, dvd or whatever), doesn´t bother to re-new the tours much, often doesn´t bother to soundcheck. Doesn´t bother if the is good or not....
A Disney charade. A bad Disney charade in fact. But still we go and see them. Cause he does bother about the money...... And as long as we do, without complain too much, why would he change anything? Why work harder and spend more money if you get paid anyway?.....

It's incredible how relentlessly you elaborate on your phantasies -- but hell, I'm at work now and can't answer in full ... but laterr ... ...

Listening to recordings from recent tours and thinking thinking that the sound is good - THAT is fantasy.

playboy wrote:"handpick suitable venues" - I have read that too, but find hard to be true, as with most things they write or say... Or maybe it is true, if so, on what basis did they chose the venues? I know the guy who booked them in Lund. He said that noone asked about PA, acoustics or anything. And no one in the band have been or played there before.

Bands don't handpick venues at all. They play wherever is available at the time they're touring and usually leave it up to tour managers and promoters.

Any venue that wasn't "suitable" for live bands to play in would soon find itself closed.

stufarq wrote:

centurionofprix wrote:I don't think it's entirely fair to point to the occasional gig with dodgy sound, like Glasgow, as those seem to be inevitable for any touring band.

No. Most professional touring bands make the effort to ensure that all of their concerts are of a high enough quality that the people who paid good money to come and see them will go home satisfied and would consider paying good money to come back again next time. And it's not occasional with the Sisters, is it?

On the 2011 tour I'd say it was occasional, if that. Even the gigs that seem to be considered the worst of the tour -Berlin, first night at AB, Glasgow (though Being will disagree with that one)- were rather tolerable going by the recordings. One of those, AB, was due to malfunctioning monitors - they still managed to play a solid gig, and fixed the problem for the second night. The best shows of the tour were blindingly good (imo).

stufarq wrote:

centurionofprix wrote:but you still got a good show on occasion.

But occasional's not good enough, is it? The paying public should get a show every time unless some completely unforseeable and unavoidable set of circumstances (like an attack by Godzilla) makes that impossible. This, after all, is the band's profession. They should therefore be able to do it to a high enough standard every single time. Anything else is just making excuses for a bunch of people who are either unable or unwilling to do their jobs properly.

Of course, although the unavoidable circumstances for sound problems don't have to be that outlandish. The average quality of some of the other 2000's tours wasn't good, and it must have been unfortunate for people paying money for repeatedly poor shows, but I was writing about 2011. Personally though - the material and the better gigs are so good that I'm glad they kept playing, and eventually seem to have found a way to improve the situation.

playboy wrote:"handpick suitable venues" - I have read that too, but find hard to be true, as with most things they write or say... Or maybe it is true, if so, on what basis did they chose the venues? I know the guy who booked them in Lund. He said that noone asked about PA, acoustics or anything. And no one in the band have been or played there before.

stufarq wrote:Bands don't handpick venues at all. They play wherever is available at the time they're touring and usually leave it up to tour managers and promoters.

Any venue that wasn't "suitable" for live bands to play in would soon find itself closed.

Both Von and Chris have said this is what they did for the 2011 tour, and at least one of them suggested this was the reason for the generally better quality of the show. Maybe they knew the Lund venue by someone's recommendation, or reputation, or maybe it was just an exception. I couldn't say.

By "suitable" I did mean suitable for the Sisters. Eldritch himself admits his vocals are very quiet, and to amplify them over the music makes some demands of the PA.

I found a related answer by Chris on Formspring: http://www.formspring.me/chrisalyst/q/2 ... 4591732629

playboy wrote:In recent recordings you can almost hear the songs, feeling the sound is impossible, every instrument seems to have the same level of both volume and same equalization which makes it blurry.

I don't know how to argue against this without just begging the question about the quality. Some of the recent bootlegs are my favourite Sisters material to listen to, outside of the actual gigs. One thing about the EQ is that Chris uses a bassy guitar sound that sometimes on the bootlegs becomes muffled or drowns out Eldritch or the bass, even when it's strikingly clear over the PA. Strangely those recent gigs where the sound isn't as hard sometimes sound better on bootleg, like Eggi's from Belgrade just now (purely in terms of the sound quality).