To comment in the AC/DC forum [ Sign In | Register ]

Custom Search











  1.  
  2.  
    I would imagine some ideas were used on Black Ice. (Re-recorded with BOB of course.)

    Still, would love for these sessions to creep out one day in some form or another. Probably some cool stuff/earlier versions of Black Ice/ROB tunes. Would like to hear what all BOB put in or took out.
  3.  
    The guitars on the 2003 tour sounded good almost like the 70s. Maybe the recordings really rock.
  4.  
    Posted By: BonneedsPenicillinThe guitars on the 2003 tour sounded good almost like the 70s. Maybe the recordings really rock.


    I bet they do. Would like to hear them for sure.
    • AC/DC rock music: 900
    • Jun 29th 2019
     
    Posted By: BonneedsPenicillinThe guitars on the 2003 tour sounded good almost like the 70s.


    Indeed - sounded so awesome when they did stuff like If You Want Blood.

    It had been pretty meaty on the SUL tour as well; I keep listening to the Phoenix soundboard, and hearing stuff like Shoot To Thrill, Hard As A Rock, Stiff Upper Lip etcetera on headphones is so awesome. The balance of the guitars was fantastic, both powerful.
  5.  
    Toronto 2003 soundcheck was their best sound since the 70s IMO.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Thankass
    • Jun 29th 2019
     
    Posted By: currentpeakToronto 2003 soundcheck was their best sound since the 70s IMO.
    A shame that the three official released songs had piss-weak sound.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Briany
    • Jun 29th 2019
     
    I listed my favourite AC/DC official live concert videos in another thread the other day. For some reason, I completely blanked on Circus Krone. I'd have to put Circus Krone a hair ahead of SUL live. The sound on it is absolutely fantastic, plus

    (I didn't finish this comment because I got sidetracked watching Circus Krone).
  6.  
    Posted By: BrianyI listed my favourite AC/DC official live concert videos in another thread the other day. For some reason, I completely blanked on Circus Krone. I'd have to put Circus Krone a hair ahead of SUL live. The sound on it is absolutely fantastic, plus

    (I didn't finish this comment because I got sidetracked watching Circus Krone).


    Me too, I completely agree. Mine is still sitting in the amp box, gonna dig it out.
  7.  
    Circus Krone is the end all be all.
  8.  
    If I'm being honest, I'd much rather hear what came about those 2, 6 week sessions in 2003, than whatever was recorded in Vancouver last summer.
  9.  
    So why did they take 5 more years to release BI?
    • AC/DC rock music: Rocco
    • Jul 1st 2019
     
    Posted By: mutt_langes_permIf I'm being honest, I'd much rather hear what came about those 2, 6 week sessions in 2003, than whatever was recorded in Vancouver last summer.


    Well, I guess these sessions in 2003 where more like songwriting and demoing sessions and not full-blown studio sessions.
  10.  

    Well, I guess these sessions in 2003 where more like songwriting and demoing sessions and not full-blown studio sessions.


    I remember a lot of talk back then about an album being recorded in London only three years after the release of SUL so I think it was supposed to be an album but something happended , maybe contractual issues. I'm sure those sessions are a lot mor rockin than BI even though that's a good album.
  11.  
    Posted By: carolinareaperSo why did they take 5 more years to release BI?


    BI was due to be recorded in 2005 but Cliff suffered a serious hand injury before they entered the studio.
  12.  
    Posted By: Rocco
    Posted By: mutt_langes_permIf I'm being honest, I'd much rather hear what came about those 2, 6 week sessions in 2003, than whatever was recorded in Vancouver last summer.


    Well, I guess these sessions in 2003 where more like songwriting and demoing sessions and not full-blown studio sessions.


    Plot twist:

    Maybe the recent sessions in Vancouver were to complete/polish the sessions from 2003? Spawning the "Malcolm will appear" rumours.

    Throwing it out there because,why not.
  13.  
    Posted By: Thankass
    Posted By: currentpeakToronto 2003 soundcheck was their best sound since the 70s IMO.
    A shame that the three official released songs had piss-weak sound.

    I wrote SOUNDCHECK sound, mate:

    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Thankass
    • Jul 3rd 2019
     
    Posted By: currentpeak
    Posted By: Thankass
    Posted By: currentpeakToronto 2003soundcheckwas their best sound since the 70s IMO.
    A shame that the three official released songs had piss-weak sound.

    I wrote SOUNDCHECK sound, mate:

    I know. And i assume that the real sound during the gig wasn't that much different than the soundcheck sound (as can be heard on the not officially released songs). That's why i wrote that it was a shame that the 3 officially released songs had piss-weak sound. Most later day, officially released ac/dc live stuff, never seems to be able to capture their real raw live sound.
  14.  
    Posted By: nitroangus23
    Posted By: Rocco
    Posted By: mutt_langes_permIf I'm being honest, I'd much rather hear what came about those 2, 6 week sessions in 2003, than whatever was recorded in Vancouver last summer.


    Well, I guess these sessions in 2003 where more like songwriting and demoing sessions and not full-blown studio sessions.


    Plot twist:

    Maybe the recent sessions in Vancouver were to complete/polish the sessions from 2003? Spawning the "Malcolm will appear" rumours.

    Throwing it out there because,why not.


    The 2018 Jam Magazine article that started the Malcolm on the album rumors suggests this is the case -
  15.  
    Posted By: Thankass
    Posted By: currentpeak
    Posted By: Thankass
    Posted By: currentpeakToronto 2003soundcheckwas their best sound since the 70s IMO.
    A shame that the three official released songs had piss-weak sound.

    I wrote SOUNDCHECK sound, mate:

    I know. And i assume that the real sound during the gig wasn't that much different than the soundcheck sound (as can be heard on the not officially released songs). That's why i wrote that it was a shame that the 3 officially released songs had piss-weak sound. Most later day, officially released ac/dc live stuff, never seems to be able to capture their real raw live sound.

    I think that soundcheck had extra crunch, especially Malcolm. Nothing like his later tone - way too clean.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Briany
    • Jul 3rd 2019
     
    Posted By: ShootToThrill
    Posted By: carolinareaperSo why did they take 5 more years to release BI?


    BI was due to be recorded in 2005 but Cliff suffered a serious hand injury before they entered the studio.


    I thought the reason was that they weren't happy with the results? Fair enough if Cliff injured his hand, but was it still injured in 2006 or 2007?
    • AC/DC rock music: Rocco
    • Jul 3rd 2019
     
    Posted By: Briany
    Posted By: ShootToThrill
    Posted By: carolinareaperSo why did they take 5 more years to release BI?


    BI was due to be recorded in 2005 but Cliff suffered a serious hand injury before they entered the studio.


    I thought the reason was that they weren't happy with the results? Fair enough if Cliff injured his hand, but was it still injured in 2006 or 2007?


    I think it took him quite some time to recover if IIRC. It wasn't even sure if he could play again.
  16.  
    Posted By: Briany
    Posted By: ShootToThrill
    Posted By: carolinareaperSo why did they take 5 more years to release BI?


    BI was due to be recorded in 2005 but Cliff suffered a serious hand injury before they entered the studio.


    I thought the reason was that they weren't happy with the results? Fair enough if Cliff injured his hand, but was it still injured in 2006 or 2007?


    Opinions change, maybe they decided they had some good stuff in those recordings.

    I have read in an interview about those sessions, (from either Angus or Mal, can't recall exactly) that they thought the songs were good but "not very AC/DC". What that meant I don't know, but If that's the case maybe they branched out and did some unusual stuff (by their standards).

    Black Ice had quite a bit of variety,and they did do some new things, like the slide on Stormy May Day and Brian's more soulful approach on certain songs.
  17.  
    Posted By: BrianyI thought the reason was that they weren't happy with the results? Fair enough if Cliff injured his hand, but was it still injured in 2006 or 2007?


    I've read that it took him at least 18 months to recover, so yes it was still injured.
  18.  
    Posted By: currentpeak
    Posted By: Thankass
    Posted By: currentpeak
    Posted By: Thankass
    Posted By: currentpeakToronto 2003soundcheckwas their best sound since the 70s IMO.
    A shame that the three official released songs had piss-weak sound.

    I wrote SOUNDCHECK sound, mate:

    I know. And i assume that the real sound during the gig wasn't that much different than the soundcheck sound (as can be heard on the not officially released songs). That's why i wrote that it was a shame that the 3 officially released songs had piss-weak sound. Most later day, officially released ac/dc live stuff, never seems to be able to capture their real raw live sound.

    I think that soundcheck had extra crunch, especially Malcolm. Nothing like his later tone - way too clean.


    It sounds like that because it's an ambient recording whereas the official recording was from the board.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: DustDevil
    • Jul 4th 2019
     
    Ambient recordings are so much better.
  19.  
    Not in quality, for sure. Mal likes his tone very clean, so that was just the sound he wanted.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Spellbound
    • Jul 7th 2019 edited
     
    Posted By: DoinNothingMeansALot
    Posted By: currentpeak
    Posted By: Thankass
    Posted By: currentpeak
    Posted By: Thankass
    Posted By: currentpeakToronto 2003soundcheckwas their best sound since the 70s IMO.
    A shame that the three official released songs had piss-weak sound.

    I wrote SOUNDCHECK sound, mate:

    I know. And i assume that the real sound during the gig wasn't that much different than the soundcheck sound (as can be heard on the not officially released songs). That's why i wrote that it was a shame that the 3 officially released songs had piss-weak sound. Most later day, officially released ac/dc live stuff, never seems to be able to capture their real raw live sound.

    I think that soundcheck had extra crunch, especially Malcolm. Nothing like his later tone - way too clean.


    It sounds like that because it's an ambient recording whereas the official recording was from the board.


    I don’t think this is the case entirely. Obviously stuff like Berlin 2003 sounds AMAZING, but check this out.



    2:10. Malcolm has never had that kind of crisp in NB, SUL live, or LARP. Krone comes close but it’s still not the same.

    I don’t know why we can’t get him that loud and that clear in the mix. He sounded awful in SUL live - almost muddy sounding. Who decided burying him in the mix was a good thing?
  20.  
    Not the best sound but kinda cool. IYWB was good on this tour (2003) and I think HAAR would be good in the set list again

    • AC/DC rock music: 900
    • Jul 7th 2019
     
    Posted By: BonneedsPenicillinI think HAAR would be good in the set list again


    Definitely. Brian could still sing that one fairly close and it's a great live song. I was listening on Phoenix 2000 recently and it was a joy to hear the two guitars on that one.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Briany
    • Jul 7th 2019
     
    HAAR is great for live crowds because it's got that catchy major-key melody. Note how fans were singing along to it on that Stade de France gig.
  21.  
    HAAR and SUL should be staples.
  22.  
    Posted By: Spellbound

    I don’t think this is the case entirely. Obviously stuff like Berlin 2003 sounds AMAZING, but check this out.



    2:10. Malcolm has never had that kind of crisp in NB, SUL live, or LARP. Krone comes close but it’s still not the same.

    I don’t know why we can’t get him that loud and that clear in the mix. He sounded awful in SUL live - almost muddy sounding. Who decided burying him in the mix was a good thing?


    And that's a different tour. My point was that the soundboard records it exactly as it sounds from the raw signal. At Toronto, that was a cleaner signal. At VH1, it had more gain. It's possible that they used a bigger amp for Toronto (being a festival) that would not be getting pushed as much as a smaller one, and therefore break up less. I know that was common practice for them in the later Bon era, bringing 100 watters to the big shows and 50 watters to the smaller ones.

    Mixing is another thing entirely, and I agree he should have been more up front at Toronto. But remember, VH1 was mixed to sound good to a TV audience listening to the recording. Toronto was mixed for a live crowd and just happened to be recorded.

    Also, that clip you posted is a soundcheck where they are setting levels. Angus is totally inaudible at 2:10 so naturally Mal will stand out.

    Generally though, I agree that Mal gets mixed too low and it's a crime.
    •  
      AC/DC rock music: Jem
    • Jul 8th 2019
     
    Posted By: WholelottatobeHAAR and SUL should be staples.


    How long is your list of staples 150? :)