Now that many Stones' outtakes and live performances are widely available in the bootleg market, the obvious question presents itself: what use would the Stones have in making some of these official releases?

Let's take for example the famous 1973 Brussels/Wembley recordings? The sound quality is already superb, so the Stones would take a loss in presenting these as an official release. Who would buy it? Seriously, who would buy it?

As for the outtakes, yeah, we might see some nuggets released at some undetermined future date, but is any of it in official release quality? Would the so-called "hardcore" fans be willing to shell out cash for half-finished studio recordings?

Take a reality check, folks, and look at the economics behind this. For many folks, a slew of outtake CDs would look like "cashing in". They would NOT sell. In practical terms, the bootleggers have a monopoly on this market.

I think they should release Brussels Affair etc. It's the best they have ever done.

Brussels affair is excellent......................but it represents a Stones sound that was very short lived ( 1971 - 1973 ).

A concert series of dbl cds from various periods;

1969 -70

1971 - 73

75 - 77

1978

81 - 82

89 - 90

94 - 2007 (effectively a continuous tour)

can't see it happening to be honest.

sc uk

Quote
bassplayer617
Let's take for example the famous 1973 Brussels/Wembley recordings? The sound quality is already superb, so the Stones would take a loss in presenting these as an official release. Who would buy it? Seriously, who would buy it?

Me and many many fans.

Quote

As for the outtakes, yeah, we might see some nuggets released at some undetermined future date, but is any of it in official release quality?

A lot of outtakes could be released as they are!

if they would include Star Star, every fan would buy the Brussels show.

What amazes me is that no journalist has ever posed the "unreleased" question to Mick. Is it a taboo subject for discussion?

Quote
bassplayer617
Now that many Stones' outtakes and live performances are widely available in the bootleg market, the obvious question presents itself: what use would the Stones have in making some of these official releases?

Let's take for example the famous 1973 Brussels/Wembley recordings? The sound quality is already superb, so the Stones would take a loss in presenting these as an official release. Who would buy it? Seriously, who would buy it?

As for the outtakes, yeah, we might see some nuggets released at some undetermined future date, but is any of it in official release quality? Would the so-called "hardcore" fans be willing to shell out cash for half-finished studio recordings?

Take a reality check, folks, and look at the economics behind this. For many folks, a slew of outtake CDs would look like "cashing in". They would NOT sell. In practical terms, the bootleggers have a monopoly on this market.

It's a misconception that the outtakes are 'widely available'. Most people dont own bootlegs of their favourite artists.

Also, what's been circulated is a tiny fraction of 40 plus years of studio sessions. We can only evaluate what has been leaked/liberated/stolen (tick where applicable)

That, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that there's a great deal of releasable material in the vaults - we're simply not in a position to judge without hearing them (there's bound to be alternate versions of every released song though that are releasable - whether there are many good 'leftovers' of unused titles is another issue however).

There's bound to be enough finished versions - even if its mostly alternate takes - that are release-worthy. I don't get the obsession with sales. Archive releases aren't expected to sell in anywhere but the same quantity as studio albums. Every artist who puts stuff like that out (which is basically everyone over 40 BUT the Stones) is fully aware that it's a niche market. The Stones have put out enough live albums, repackages and compilations in the last few years that have sold poorly - it still hasn't stopped them. May as well put something out that at least is in someway interesting and may even be good to listen to. Who knows, it may even lead to a more positive evaluation of their history and provoke interest in new fans or fans who haven't bought their latest records for some time.

The bottom line is that the Stones aren't really interested in trawling through old studio sessions or concert recordings trying to find material that's releasable. The key is firstly getting them to see that it's a viable project and secondly, if they cant be arsed doing it, to have them entrust it to someone who can. Considering their non-involvement in Live Licks and Rarities, that's not really something that should be unrealistic.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-11 01:29 by Gazza.

I honestly think that Mick and Keith don't regard their unreleased material as golden nuggets. Compared to say, a newly-found chart by Mozart, it is laughable. They see it, but a few obsessive hardcore fanatics are incapable of doing so. That's all I gotta say about it.

Who suggested they were 'golden nuggets' or comparable to Mozart? I dont see that anyone has suggested we're talking about something earth shattering, so I cant see where you get that from?

The Beatles Anthology didnt exactly unearth much that bore repeated listening either, but for every major act, there's an audience for this kind of stuff.

I cant see how anyone can argue that while theres a market out there for a Beach Boys boxed set of unreleased masters similar to the one which came out a few years ago, there wouldnt be one for the Rolling Stones. Hank Williams has been dead for 56 years and they're still releasing unreleased recordings. It's absurd to suggest no one would buy old Stones recordings. There'd be an even more limited market for material from the present day, but there would be definitely be interest in stuff from the first half of their career at least,

Unfortunately, a lot of Stones fans seem to be buying into Mick's revisionist attitude to his work in that he seems to think he's only recorded about 12 or 15 songs that anyone wants to ever listen to again. There's an audience out there who think differently, and theyre not necessarily the same audience who are attending Stones shows these days.

Oh contrair! I think Mick is well aware of their treasures...come on he got a hit out of Tattoo You! With almost all older stuff unreleased.

I would buy anything they released, and think that their live stuff would actually sound better and look great in an official released cover, art, liner notes, and some cool bonuses. YEAh bring 'em on!

Quote
Gazza

The Beatles Anthology didnt exactly unearth much that bore repeated listening either, but for every major act, there's an audience for this kind of stuff.

I think if we learned anything from the Beatles Anthology, it's that the choices they made in the 1960s about which version of each song to release were the correct ones. I count only a handful of tracks that I think every Beatles fan NEEDS to hear. Interestingly, these are all first takes, but even though they are good enough to be heard, they aren't superior to the more familiar versions.

Norwegian Wood
Tomorrow Never Knows
Strawberry Fields Forever
While My Guitar Gently Weeps

That's it! That's ALL the must-hear tracks. Six CDs edited down to a single EP.

And it stands to reason that the percentage of unreleased Stones material that is "must-hear" would be similar, because they probably made all the right choices, too. But I DO think it would be worth having SOMEONE go through the archives, find those "must-hear" tracks, and put them out.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-11 06:07 by tatters.

I disagree, there are several other gems throughout Anthology.
You Better Leave My Kitten Alone is amazing! And why it was never released is a mystery.

Mailman Bring Me No More Blues...great! The longer version of The End. The vocals only version of Because. All the accoustic White Album stuff. The stuff from Pepper's is great too! The live stuff on the first Anthology is great.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of songs that should have been on Anthology, but for some reason didn't make it. The best of the series was the final one in my opinion...but some gems on the first two as well.

I would buy these CDs if they would release them. It's a great opportunity for everyone involved in my opinion.

Quote
Gazza
Unfortunately, a lot of Stones fans seem to be buying into Mick's revisionist attitude to his work in that he seems to think he's only recorded about 12 or 15 songs that anyone wants to ever listen to again. There's an audience out there who think differently, and theyre not necessarily the same audience who are attending Stones shows these days.

Yeah Mick, the LSE student, gets it wrong. There is a 'niche' market to be tapped. Releasing some whole shows, or tour compilations with cool art work, artifacts, would sell with 'us.'

Psst. . .. Come closer Sir Mick and listen, it's easy money baby. Forget about a worldwide economic turnaround, and another CaChing$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Tour.

Cash in on this niche market now!

Cause it ain't gonna be there forever.

Inreesting comments by all, too numerous to mention all.
There has recently been an Eddie Cochran retrospective released , that has by all accounts everything worthwhile available 8 cd in all, and I read some revues briefly most saying how important an artist he was.
Fair piont but why wait 50 years to let people listen to it if it was that relevant.
I would have bought this 30 years ago if it was availabkle, but now somehow it doesn't seem that important and certainly not at the cost that it is, in exess of £160.
Perhaps when I'm long gone something like it by the Stones will see the light of day, and I'm sure my son will say something like'' my Dad would have loved this''but of coure he wobn't buy it because by them there will e not point

I think they ought to look at Bob Dylan and his ongoing, excellent, bootleg series. That´s how it should be done.

El Mocambo 1977 FULL official release please!

Quote
Gazza
Who suggested they were 'golden nuggets' or comparable to Mozart? I dont see that anyone has suggested we're talking about something earth shattering, so I cant see where you get that from?

The Beatles Anthology didnt exactly unearth much that bore repeated listening either, but for every major act, there's an audience for this kind of stuff.

I cant see how anyone can argue that while theres a market out there for a Beach Boys boxed set of unreleased masters similar to the one which came out a few years ago, there wouldnt be one for the Rolling Stones. Hank Williams has been dead for 56 years and they're still releasing unreleased recordings. It's absurd to suggest no one would buy old Stones recordings. There'd be an even more limited market for material from the present day, but there would be definitely be interest in stuff from the first half of their career at least,

Unfortunately, a lot of Stones fans seem to be buying into Mick's revisionist attitude to his work in that he seems to think he's only recorded about 12 or 15 songs that anyone wants to ever listen to again. There's an audience out there who think differently, and theyre not necessarily the same audience who are attending Stones shows these days.

Apart from satisfying the dedicated fans and followers a series of archive based releases would also create new buzz and press coverage. Plus it would spark discussions about their artistic merits and present certain links that are much less present with your typical "tour souvenier" or scattered "comeback" releases. So, from the "heritage" point of view, and even in terms of PR and marketing, I think, opening the vaults could well prove to be useful.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-11 15:35 by Greenblues.

Quote
straycatuk
Brussels affair is excellent......................but it represents a Stones sound that was very short lived ( 1971 - 1973 ).

A concert series of dbl cds from various periods;

1969 -70

1971 - 73

75 - 77

1978

81 - 82

89 - 90

94 - 2007 (effectively a continuous tour)

can't see it happening to be honest.

sc uk

71-73: Could be a great addition to the cataloque
75-77: Love You Live
78: Another great live album (Handsome Girls)
81-82: Still Life doesn't respresent the tour that good, so another double album
would be welcome

No new live releases from 1989 --> please.

Greenblues, great post!

Quote
Greenblues
Apart from satisfying the dedicated fans and followers a series of archive based releases would also create new buzz and press coverage. Plus it would spark discussions about their artistic merits and present certain links that are much less present with your typical "tour souvenier" or scattered "comeback" releases. So, from "heritage" side of things, and even in terms of PR and marketing, I think, opening the vaults could well prove to be useful.

Precisely. Its basically what I was getting at in my first post - only you put it more eloquently.


Meanwhile, in another galaxy far away from the one that the Stones seem to inhabit....

[blogs.laweekly.com]

I wonder which material exists from the 60's and we don't know, recordings of the tours with Brian for instance. Some tapes were auctioned on Chistie's couple of years ago but I believe there must be some more stuff owned by the Stones members.

It was Jagger himself who bought the Little Boy Blue & The Blue Boys 1960 tape at auction a few years ago - although its since been bootlegged of course. makes you wonder why he did it - because at the time he figured it could be used as part of an archive release or because he didnt want the public to hear it?

Or perhaps he wanted as a momento of the bands early days?

I dont know. Musically, its not really anything more than a curio and from what he's said down the years, I can't really imagine him being the sentimental type who's going to spend much time listening to stuff he recorded when he was a kid. I think it was around 1995 when he bought it. I really think it was more to do with having it for future use. Certainly if he was imagining a day when the Stones were going to assemble a project of unreleased recordings (and remember, we almost got one in 2002), then it would be the obvious thing to kick it off with, despite the fact that it's quite primitive.

Brussels affair is excellent......................but it represents a Stones sound that was very short lived ( 1971 - 1973 ).

Ahh..no...That music is for the ages and it will be listened to for as long as the band is listened to. When it is all said and done much of what came afterward will be music short lived.

to answer one of the questions in the original post - how could they take a loss? there's virtually no cost/overhead involved in releasing a live show - especially one that's already been "produced" like Brussels. bands are putting out these "instant live" type releases and making them available via mp3/flac downloads because it's basically an "all profit" proposition....

so, that's NOT a reason for the Stones to not bother with this....

Jagger has never shown any sustained interest in releasing outtakes or live gems from the past. Brussels is an amazing show but it would present a perhaps "unfavorable" comparison to how they sound now live. I don't think this or Ladies and Gents will be released - unfortunately. I think we should appreciate the people on this forum - like UrbanSteel- who generously post a lot of these unofficial nuggets.

I agree with T&A: what's there to lose? The costs of releasing a live recording from the seventies (Handsome Girls, Brussels etc) would be very low. Just create a nice package, add some photos from the archive.

It would generate new interest in the Stones in their prime, show the world once more that they truely ruled the live circuit in the seventies and it certainly would please the harcore (music) fans.

I for one am dying for some interesting Stones releases. It's been a long while since I was really excited about something the Stones put out on record.

To release the gigs on their own website, would even make the whole wine selling fiasco that is their website interesting again.

Quote
glimmertwin50
Jagger has never shown any sustained interest in releasing outtakes or live gems from the past. Brussels is an amazing show but it would present a perhaps "unfavorable" comparison to how they sound now live.

but, but, but "A Bigger Bang" was voted their BEST EVER TOUR!

Seriously, if Jagger was that concerned about them sounding better years ago, then he should/would have had all their old live albums deleted instead of allowing them to be remastered and reissued every five or ten years or so. That argument doesn't really hold up.

Besides, its hardly reasonable to any act in their 60's to have the performance levels or intensity that they had in their 20's or 30's. No one in their right mind would suggest that Dylan's vocal performances now are superior to what they were in 1966 or 1975 for example, but it doesnt seem to have put HIM off releasing shows from that era whilst at the same time recording new material and performing regularly.