the really GOOD QUALITY bootlegs

[yet still drugged]

i think there are not too many good quality bootlegs. i know there are freaks out there who adore everything. i am NOT a fan of audience recordings. they are often complete bullshit, unlistenabele bullshit because of the quality of recording.

here are my favourite bootlegs (sound quality like):

higher education (1991)
digital excitation (1991 tour compilation)
chile 2000
malmoe 2002 aka art & deco people
and (maybe) chicago house of blues 2004

what is your opinion?

 

[yet still drugged]

maybe i should rate the sound quality of the above bootleges:

higher education 9-10/10
digital excitation 8-9/10
chile 2000 8-9/10
malmoe 2002 8/10
chicago 2004 8-9/10

 

[mozrebel]

I am one of those aforementioned freaks. In a former life I may have been a stamp collector.I haven't even had the chance to listen to everything I collected
However in terms of quality. I don't know if you view the FM recordings of li shows as bootlegs, but if you do, then chile 2004 (just for Bigmouth alone), Dublin Castle 2004 are quite good. Move 2004 is audience but I find it quite listenable, as I do the point 2004. Overall I think the quality has improved a lot as years have gone by. Hamilton 2000 is quite good and the Welcome to the West End bootleg from 95 is ok (well the Drury lane tracks are anyway). Mine are all downloads anyway so I'm not really out of pocket. I know what your saying about poor quality though, because some of the stuff is painful. Then again its sometimes good to hear audience e.g when he plays Queen is Dead in Claremont 97, the crowd reaction is great

 

[yet still drugged]

i love "live at the beacon NYC 2000". bad sound quality but a great and witty Moz. quality isn't ALL for me.

as for "welcome to the west end 1995", i do not think it is that good.

i would consider FM recordings as bootlegs as they weren't intended to spread around. but FM doesn't mean it is good, it depends ...

i think, not only in the Mozzer's case, that a bad quality CAN ruin it all, it CAN even corrupt the listening pleasure to the studio recordings ... so i am not interested in having all bootlegs. but we need the maniacs who do

thanks for answering, mozrebel!! (i will check out your recommendations)

> I am one of those aforementioned freaks. In a former life I may have been
> a stamp collector.I haven't even had the chance to listen to everything I
> collected
> However in terms of quality. I don't know if you view the FM recordings of
> li shows as bootlegs, but if you do, then chile 2004 (just for Bigmouth
> alone), Dublin Castle 2004 are quite good. Move 2004 is audience but I
> find it quite listenable, as I do the point 2004. Overall I think the
> quality has improved a lot as years have gone by. Hamilton 2000 is quite
> good and the Welcome to the West End bootleg from 95 is ok (well the Drury
> lane tracks are anyway). Mine are all downloads anyway so I'm not really
> out of pocket. I know what your saying about poor quality though, because
> some of the stuff is painful. Then again its sometimes good to hear
> audience e.g when he plays Queen is Dead in Claremont 97, the crowd
> reaction is great

 

[Abrahan]

chile 2004 is very good...

 

[yet still drugged]

Re: chile 2004 is very good...

do you know where to get the setlist? was it a FM?