Nah - they need to stick to just reissuing the same live albums as they are (were) and keep reissuing the same boring songs over and over some more.

Although I agree with the idea of some double live albums from the 1970s and Still Life being expanded I still like the idea of having all the live B-sides from the Flashpoint singles compiled on one disc, or simply put, make it a double album.

And we know there is more they could have done with Stripped. That could be expanded to a double as well, with the live single B-sides as well as whatever they didn't put on the album.

They are idiots for not releasing finished unreleased tracks. A real comp - no more Miss You IV and Winning Ugly III and Dance (Part 8) and Everything Is Turning To Gold. Hell, there were some really interesting leftovers from Voodoo that weren't put out (regardless if they were finished, I think they're still great songs). And instead they pulled out some shit silly song (So Young) that wasn't new and finished it for a B-side?

They're WEIRD.

the "unreleased" stuff isn't that interesting to the average Stones fan....I have mates who I rate as big Stones fans but when I play them Some Girls & Exile sessions (some of the better rarities) they say there was a reason they weren't put on the albums...which is true. I think because some of us are starved of new songs so we put a bit more emphasis in these pretty good unreleased songs...i think there's a reason Mick/Keith didn't put them on albums?

I think a master packaged live album would be superb - even though we have heard some great soundboards like Brussels, I think it would be critically aclaimed as well as great for the average fan to finally hear what the band was capable of....

But the question is - is the band (Jagger really) capable or cares of doing this???

One might think so with their nostalgic set lists of the past, well, since 1989 really. Oh but wait, those were all current versions of the band at the time so everything was still 'fresh'.

I dunno why they didn't put Save Me on GHS - it's certainly deserving.

Try this - what if they hadn't put Silver Train on GHS and put Save Me instead? Yer friends would hear Silver Train and say 'Well they had a reason they didn't put it on the album.'

I don't buy that kind of statement when the song is actually good. They've left a few off that were LP deserving but got used as B-sides (Lonely Nights, Turning To Gold, Child Of The Moon, Think I'm Going Mad) so they obviously liked those enough. Then there are the obvious B-sides - some of them clunkers like I'm Gonna Drive and So Young - Jump On Top Of Me, Fancy Man, Cook Cook, etc...that are decent.

There are also those stupid Jagger moments - what the trend is at the time. Certainly Dirty Work could have been a much better album had they left off such pedestrian garbage as Hold Back, Winning Ugly and Back To Zero and put, for example, What You Gonna Do With My Love on there...it's the shit trend at the time that makes albums of the Stones so bizarre. Bridges To Babylon is another good example - Gunface? That's just crap. Get Juiced is BLAND - they didn't need to loop Charlie's drums for that. They can play that kind of crap while asleep. And Jagger brought a DEMO of that? Is he NUTS? He just reinvented the wheel - not any kind of accomplishment at all. All he did was use a drum machine/loop shit and grumbled over some wanky music arrangement that is just typical.

So based on that, yes, there are good finished tracks leftover as well as almost finished. Maybe not a lot or enough to fill up an anthology or whatever but there has to be a few.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
the "unreleased" stuff isn't that interesting to the average Stones fan....I have mates who I rate as big Stones fans but when I play them Some Girls & Exile sessions (some of the better rarities) they say there was a reason they weren't put on the albums...which is true. I think because some of us are starved of new songs so we put a bit more emphasis in these pretty good unreleased songs...i think there's a reason Mick/Keith didn't put them on albums?

..but again, the 'unreleased' stuff you refer to is only what's been circulated, so while you're correct in saying that it wasnt released for a good reason, its a misconception that we've heard all there is to hear.

No one's seriously expecting to unearth an unreleased song of the calibre of 'Gimme Shelter' but isn't it realistic to assume that if the Stones can sanction the release of a great song like 'Jumpin' Jack Flash' there might be an alternate version in their vaults that is also worth hearing?

No one's seriously going to be judging these releases by the same barometer that we evaluate 'Exile On Main Street' after all. They'd be marketed as alternates or leftovers and evaluated as such. When Pete Townshend put out that series of 'Scoop' demos a couple of decades ago, I dont recall any reviews moaning that they werent as great as 'Who's Next'. No one really judged the Beatles Anthology series in the same way that they would have done with 'Revolver'.

All acts that have been around this long and have spent this much time in the studio have outtakes and unreleased songs aplenty. There's no reason to think the Stones are an exception. I have little doubt that what has leaked out in bootlegs represents a tip of the iceberg. Others may think differently, but they have no proof (nor do I).

Are we assuming here that the band itself has not been involved in the 'leaking' of certain stuff? If, as has been contended, Mick bought the Little Boy Blue tapes, how come they have appeared on bootleg if he didn't sanction it. Is this the band's way of keeping dedicated fans happy, those fans who want more than the commercial material. If there's no profit to be made by the commercial release of this stuff, or contractual matters make it too much hassle, why not release it 'unofficially' and keep the fans happy.

Quote
Elmo
Are we assuming here that the band itself has not been involved in the 'leaking' of certain stuff? If, as has been contended, Mick bought the Little Boy Blue tapes, how come they have appeared on bootleg if he didn't sanction it. Is this the band's way of keeping dedicated fans happy, those fans who want more than the commercial material. If there's no profit to be made by the commercial release of this stuff, or contractual matters make it too much hassle, why not release it 'unofficially' and keep the fans happy.

Well, I know for a fact they have been involved. The first 90 minute tape of Dirty Work stuff came directly from Ronnie. The Voodoo Lounge outtakes apparently came via Ronnie's step-son, but theres no indication Ronnie was himself involved that time.

Like mentioned above, the bootlegs are mostly items of the 'hardcore fans', not much known by any others.

Everytime I play BRUSSELLS AFFAIR to "fresh" airs, and especially to ears that are not so fond of The Stones, I get surprised impressions: are they REALLY so hard rocking band, so goddamn hot? This makes me both glad and sad.

Sad because I think it is a shame that the very peak moments played by any rock band ever are not officially available and reachable; read: not acknowledged, do not exist in documented rock history, not within the reach of potential ears. I think that is a disgrace really.

For the sake of their own chosen clische, there is an EVIDENCE available why the band is called "the Greatest Rock and Roll Band of the World" for a good reason. Strong, hard, plain, undepated evidence. It is sad that it is like hidden secret of The Stones fans.

Make it official, make it public, make it real.

I am not solely talking about BRUSSELS AFFAIR - that is a crown jewell - but generally of their live output - I think a good series of relaeses from their glory days - say from 1966 to 1982 - is what is seriously needed, perhaps in different formats. Like Mick once said, "the thing of the Beatles was making records - ours was like doing concerts". They have always been an incredible live act, but expect few important instances- YA-YA'S, THE STONES IN THE PARK, GIMME SHELTER, Ashby movie - this is not documented very well. We know that there are stuff on the vaults dying to see an official relaese. With today's technology - and some money invested in - there could great ROLLING STONES LIVE BOOTLEG SERIES to be accomplished.

Damn that Jagger who sits on a cultural heritage and does nothing!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-14 22:24 by Doxa.

I know this has been discussed over and over again til alot of us are sick of it. I think all of us hardcore fans would buy whatever "vaults" discs the band decided to release.


I just wish they would release live albums from the tours that aren't already represented with a live album. Everybody drools over the idea of a live album from '72/'73 and I'm sure I would love it too, but the 1975 tour is very poorly represented on Love You Live. And it beats the hell out of the '76 European Tour, from which most of Love You Live is taken.

Well, look at it this way - of all the tours in the 1970s that they did, they chose the 75-76 tour to represent with a live album.

That tells ya somethin' dunnit?

Quote
skipstone
Well, look at it this way - of all the tours in the 1970s that they did, they chose the 75-76 tour to represent with a live album.

That tells ya somethin' dunnit?

Hmmm - you never heard about the impossibility of releasing the 1972 Live Album...? The difficulties with Decca made Jagger air Brussels/London 1973 on the RADIO instead - after what he found out when trying to get Philly/Fort Worth 1972 out on record.
When it comes to releasing 1976 instead of 1975 on record.....the deal with Decca ended in early 1976 - something which makes "Sympathy For The Devil" on LYL "illegal"....it's from Los Angeles 1975.

Quote
Doxa
Like mentioned above, the bootlegs are mostly items of the 'hardcore fans', not much known by any others.

Everytime I play BRUSSELLS AFFAIR to "fresh" airs, and especially to ears that are not so fond of The Stones, I get surprised impressions: are they REALLY so hard rocking band, so goddamn hot? This makes me both glad and sad.

Sad because I think it is a shame that the very peak moments played by any rock band ever are not officially available and reachable; read: not acknowledged, do not exist in documented rock history, not within the reach of potential ears. I think that is a disgrace really.

For the sake of their own chosen clische, there is an EVIDENCE available why the band is called "the Greatest Rock and Roll Band of the World" for a good reason. Strong, hard, plain, undepated evidence. It is sad that it is like hidden secret of The Stones fans.

Make it official, make it public, make it real.

I am not solely talking about BRUSSELS AFFAIR - that is a crown jewell - but generally of their live output - I think a good series of relaeses from their glory days - say from 1966 to 1982 - is what is seriously needed, perhaps in different formats. Like Mick once said, "the thing of the Beatles was making records - ours was like doing concerts". They have always been an incredible live act, but expect few important instances- YA-YA'S, THE STONES IN THE PARK, GIMME SHELTER, Ashby movie - this is not documented very well. We know that there are stuff on the vaults dying to see an official relaese. With today's technology - and some money invested in - there could great ROLLING STONES LIVE BOOTLEG SERIES to be accomplished.

Damn that Jagger who sits on a cultural heritage and does nothing!

- Doxa

One of the very few times I agree with one of Doxa's rants

C

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
skipstone
Well, look at it this way - of all the tours in the 1970s that they did, they chose the 75-76 tour to represent with a live album.

That tells ya somethin' dunnit?

Hmmm - you never heard about the impossibility of releasing the 1972 Live Album...? The difficulties with Decca made Jagger air Brussels/London 1973 on the RADIO instead - after what he found out when trying to get Philly/Fort Worth 1972 out on record.
When it comes to releasing 1976 instead of 1975 on record.....the deal with Decca ended in early 1976 - something which makes "Sympathy For The Devil" on LYL "illegal"....it's from Los Angeles 1975.

Is that why there is so much incorrect information on the sleeve for LYL regarding the sources of the recordings?

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
skipstone
Well, look at it this way - of all the tours in the 1970s that they did, they chose the 75-76 tour to represent with a live album.

That tells ya somethin' dunnit?

Hmmm - you never heard about the impossibility of releasing the 1972 Live Album...? The difficulties with Decca made Jagger air Brussels/London 1973 on the RADIO instead - after what he found out when trying to get Philly/Fort Worth 1972 out on record.
When it comes to releasing 1976 instead of 1975 on record.....the deal with Decca ended in early 1976 - something which makes "Sympathy For The Devil" on LYL "illegal"....it's from Los Angeles 1975.

Is that why there is so much incorrect information on the sleeve for LYL regarding the sources of the recordings?

That's my guess, Gazza....as I mentioned before on this board, 2 years ago....if I were Allen Klein; I'd sue the shit outta them because of Sympathy....

Quote
Erik_Snow

That's my guess, Gazza....as I mentioned before on this board, 2 years ago....if I were Allen Klein; I'd sue the shit outta them because of Sympathy....

And for the Stones being counter-clever, they decided to over-dub the track so heavily that if Klein comes with charges, they say that it was basically done in studio 1976... now it all sounds logical!

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
And for the Stones being counter-clever, they decided to over-dub the track so heavily that if Klein comes with charges, they say that it was basically done in studio 1976... now it all sounds logical!
- Doxa

Maybe logical....but still absurd; because they should have released El Mocambo March 5th 1977 in it's entirely, instead of the dull London/Paris 1976 recordings - the band, the fans....and even the critic-section would have applauded El Mocambo 77 in it's entirely...despite of the bucket of water Mick threw on them old farts



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-15 03:18 by Erik_Snow.

Well, the whole LOVE YOU LIVE album is a strange combition of strange decisions... don't know aboutthe critic section, but something was not right at command section of the band at the time.

Maybe the whole album should be break down to pieces and re-done again, and this time properly... take the 1975 recordings and compose one album of that and then relaese Mocambo in it's entirely as other one. Leave 1976 alone - expect a proper DVD release of Aux Aboittors...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Well, the whole LOVE YOU LIVE album is a strange combition of strange decisions... don't know aboutthe critic section, but something was not right at command section of the band at the time.
- Doxa

Doxa...just listen to Jagger during El Mocambo...."everything's allright in the critic section?". The journalists had tables near the stage at El Mocambo. Funny thing is that Jagger threw a bucket of water that way, by the end of the show.
ANyway....I meant it as a kind of joke; allthough it's true that no music journalist could put down the performance they did in Toronto 1977....based on both side 3 of LYL, as well as the extra tracks available on bootleg.

Quote
Gazza
Considering their non-involvement in Live Licks and Rarities, that's not really something that should be unrealistic.

well then gazza u have given me hope


p

Yeah Erik, I got your "critic section" point.. Mocambo is a great performance, but the guys screwed it up in the studio by reducing it into solely one side... too much coke? And then that strange over-dubbing of Jagger's vocals trying to imitate his current stage voice... there are lots of strange decisions in that album, and I think it misses its mark even though they do have quite good, some even excellent material to choose from. It surely is not the biggest effort of the Twins as producers (or perhaps half of them was in duty at the time...) Compared to the holy YA-YA's which is very focused job with no weak links, LYL is extremily sloppy album, even though beinh like that has its own decadent charm,,, but it could have been much better.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-15 03:47 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Yeah Erik, I got your "critic section" point.. Mocambo is a great performance, but the guys screwed it up in the studio by reducing it into solely one side... too much coke? And then that strange over-dubbing of Jagger's vocals trying to imitate his current stage voice... there are lots of strange decisions in that album, and I think it misses its mark even though they do have quite good, some even excellent material to choose from. It surely is not the biggest effort of the Twins as producers (or perhaps half of them was in duty at the time...) Compared to the holy YA-YA's which is very focused job with no weak links, LYL is extremily sloppy album, even though beinh like that has its own decadent charm,,, but it could have been much better.

- Doxa

The Stones managed to do the near impossible with Love You Live on two counts.

1) Release the worst vocal performance(s) of Jagger's career despite spending some considerable time overdubbing them in the studio, and

2) Releasing a poor live album despite including several songs from what were actually great shows in LA and Toronto '75 and El Mocambo '77.

Baffling.

can anyone prove that Sympathy was from LA 75 and if so, how?

Quote
straycat58
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.

what's the provenance trail there, how did this stuff end up on Christie's, and was there more than the Blue Boy recordings?


p

Quote
Gazza
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.

what was the one we almost got in 2002?

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Doxa
And for the Stones being counter-clever, they decided to over-dub the track so heavily that if Klein comes with charges, they say that it was basically done in studio 1976... now it all sounds logical!
- Doxa

Maybe logical....but still absurd; because they should have released El Mocambo March 5th 1977 in it's entirely, instead of the dull London/Paris 1976 recordings - the band, the fans....and even the critic-section would have applauded El Mocambo 77 in it's entirely...despite of the bucket of water Mick threw on them old farts

I think we all agree, as we do with Doxa's proposition of releasing a full-show compilation of '75 recordings and a second album with the El Mocambo show.

But times were different then. You hardly got to hear a whole show on record, due to the limitations of the LP format (20 minutes per side maximum to maintain sound quality).

Another reason why they stuck to the '76 recordings could have been that they (especially Jagger) wanted to follow the "big scheme" and benefit from the vast publicity of the 75/76 tours. By releasing Love You Live as a tour souvenier they automatically related to all the concert goers plus they took in everybody else who'd been captivated but these biggest Stones tours by then. Whereas releasing an obscure club show wasn't an "approved" option at the time, apart from Jazz artists. The "club show" approach, I reckon, is a more "retro" kind of invention, that might have been sparked by MTVs "Unplugged" series.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-15 16:48 by Greenblues.

I still don't get why they couldn't release the 72 live album. What did Klein have to do with not being able to have live recordings released on an album? The copyright/publishing didn't change.

I'd still love to hear the original idea for what became IORR...the 73 live tracks and the covers...

Quote
timbernardis

Quote
Gazza
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.

what was the one we almost got in 2002?

Multi disc set of unreleased recordings and performances which were mooted for the 40th anniversary. Someone copied and pasted the article in another thread from that time about Ronnie saying they had been going through old recordings with a view to releasing them. They put out 40 Licks instead.

Remember that Forty Licks was gonna be called Warhorses.

At least, I saw that. Can't remember where it is now, I lost it. It was a pretty good comp though - 3 records, with each decade appearing on a record...

Quote
skipstone
Remember that Forty Licks was gonna be called Warhorses.

At least, I saw that. Can't remember where it is now, I lost it. It was a pretty good comp though - 3 records, with each decade appearing on a record...

60's, 70's, 80's, 90's....which decade was being discarded?

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
skipstone
Remember that Forty Licks was gonna be called Warhorses.

At least, I saw that. Can't remember where it is now, I lost it. It was a pretty good comp though - 3 records, with each decade appearing on a record...

60's, 70's, 80's, 90's....which decade was being discarded?

Hmm... even though they would include 4 records, the idea of equality would give quite a twisted picture of the band:

60's: 8/11 studio albums
70's: 6 albums
80's: 5 albums
90's: 2 albums

Funny though, when they released IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL - having before that relaesed at least one new album every year since 1974 (expect 1970), 12 (or 15) in all, they would have 35 years aheading them to this day, but only 9 albums to come. Even in the last six years of the remaining 70's, they would only release two albums...

- Doxa