I searched but couldn't find anything on the UMe/UMG/Universal etc reissues and how they've sold. I think it's georgelicks that has those numbers.

What's interesting, which has been brought up, is how poor the UME reissues have sold. Debate for that not mattering has been it's just a reissuing of their catalogue - no big deal.

Yet UMe made a big deal about the Stones catalogue and the remastering of it blah blah blah.

Meanwhile, The Beatles reissues dominated the Top 200 and even U2's reissues have sold really (as has AC/DCs back catalogue that was remastered and repackaged that had a huge movement on the charts when Black Ice came out as well) well while the only Stones UME reissue to even make a peep on the charts was the mind numbingly bland old hits comp Jump Back. I do not know of any other catalogue to be reissued at one time to have so many reissues make the Top 200. As far as what that other chart is - I forget what it's called - Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin and Metallica have seemingly dominated it (as well as some others like Boston and Aerosmith) over the past 15 years or so.

For the sake of argument...if it was just putting The Beatles catalogue back out there, why such a huge difference in interest? Aside from the obvious. Is it because it was the first proper CD issue of Beatles albums where as the Stones had already done a proper issue of their own catalogue in 1994 and the 2009 reissues just don't (obviously) matter?

I know the answer to that partially is yes. Many Stones fans already have the CDs from 1986 and don't care about remastering - and then there are Stones fans that still have those as well as the 1994 reissues. Barely any have the UMEs obviously. Certainly no where near as half as many that bought the Virgins.

And I know that there are more answers to it. But since the talk of the Exile reissue thread has brought up what is a best album and so on I thought I'd bring this up. Maybe get Georgelicks to post the sales info of various catalogues just for the sake of interest here.

Thank you in advance, Georglicks, if you do indeed post that info. I get a kick out of that kind of information as it seems you do as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-28 22:13 by skipstone.

Your answer isnt far off the mark.

The Beatles CDs came out in 1989 or so. In 2010, they sound quite primitive.

If the Stones hadnt remastered the CDs that CBS/Sony put out around 1986/87 or so and hadnt recorded any material since then, we'd be saying the same thing. The Sony albums sound terrible now.

However, they remastered them in 1994 or so and Virgin/EMI did a very good job with them.

The fact that there isn't even widespread agreement on whether or not the 2009 remasters are even an improvement speaks volumes. Some of these albums have now been re-released about five times over when you factor in the pre-1977 albums being reissued on vinyl by EMI and then CBS prior to the CD age, so there's only so many times you can reissue albums at full price (or close to it) and expect people to buy them over again unless there's a huge sonic improvement or the attraction of bonus material. The UMG remasters have neither.

Besides, with the Beatles, you're not comparing like with like commercially. They're on a different planet in terms of being a marketing and commercial phenomenon. Sales wise, the Stones arent going to be able to compete with some of those other acts you've mentioned either, especially Led Zeppelin.

Then again, thats what tends to happen when a hugely successful act disbands before their time and at the peak of their popularity. The public fascination remains. The Stones are unusual for bands of that vintage because they've never gone away.

How many times can you buy the same CD. Most fans would only buy once.

I'm rather curious to the amount of time put into the Virgins by Ludwig and the UMGs by Marcussen. I wish I could find the damn article but I don't recall buying the issue but I believe it was in a Billboard magazine in 1994 about how Virgin had put tremendous effort into the remastering with finding the correct equipment and sources, which paid off for ABKCO in getting Ludwig to do the same. It quoted Mick too. From what I understand it essentially set the level of quality for remastering in the way it was handled, which was to make the CDs sound like the original vinyl masters.

The UMGs were done so fast it's almost as if Marcussen just uploaded the Virgin CDs to some program and clicked on MAKE LOUDER in some audio program.

Meanwhile, The Beatles remasters too FIVE years...

Quote
skipstone


The UMGs were done so fast it's almost as if Marcussen just uploaded the Virgin CDs to some program and clicked on MAKE LOUDER in some audio program.

I don't get peoples insistence on characterising the UMG remasters as simply louder versions of the Virgin reissues. The EQ on the UMG's is simply wonderful compared to the Virgin's. Sites like Steve Hoffman's have incorrectly promoted a view that the only parameter of a remaster that matters is the dynamic range, and any messing with it renders an album unlistenable.

Overall thought, observation and opinion on the UMGs is just that.

Because the UMG remasters are of less sought after albums (except for Sticky Fingers)

I expect UMG sales be similar to Virgin's prior to the change of label.

Probably they will go up when the new tour will start, if any.

Might be cynical, but I am ready to bet that UMG invested on the moment when the Stones, sooner or later, will call the quits.

As for the sound of the new remasters, they are the best thing available. Night and day compared to the Virgins. Problem is that nowdays very few people can tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and the real thing. If those who complain also discolsed what kind of equipment they use to play the new remasters, we would also understand why so many people think the UMGs are crap.

C

Quote
studiorambo

Quote
skipstone


The UMGs were done so fast it's almost as if Marcussen just uploaded the Virgin CDs to some program and clicked on MAKE LOUDER in some audio program.

I don't get peoples insistence on characterising the UMG remasters as simply louder versions of the Virgin reissues. The EQ on the UMG's is simply wonderful compared to the Virgin's. Sites like Steve Hoffman's have incorrectly promoted a view that the only parameter of a remaster that matters is the dynamic range, and any messing with it renders an album unlistenable.

Exactly. Steve Hoffman's members are so conservative it's a pain in the neck!

Quote
skipstone
I'm rather curious to the amount of time put into the Virgins by Ludwig and the UMGs by Marcussen. I wish I could find the damn article but I don't recall buying the issue but I believe it was in a Billboard magazine in 1994 about how Virgin had put tremendous effort into the remastering with finding the correct equipment and sources, which paid off for ABKCO in getting Ludwig to do the same. It quoted Mick too. From what I understand it essentially set the level of quality for remastering in the way it was handled, which was to make the CDs sound like the original vinyl masters.

The UMGs were done so fast it's almost as if Marcussen just uploaded the Virgin CDs to some program and clicked on MAKE LOUDER in some audio program.

Meanwhile, The Beatles remasters too FIVE years...

good points.

Quote
liddas
I expect UMG sales be similar to Virgin's prior to the change of label.

Probably they will go up when the new tour will start, if any.

Might be cynical, but I am ready to bet that UMG invested on the moment when the Stones, sooner or later, will call the quits.

As for the sound of the new remasters, they are the best thing available. Night and day compared to the Virgins. Problem is that nowdays very few people can tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and the real thing. If those who complain also discolsed what kind of equipment they use to play the new remasters, we would also understand why so many people think the UMGs are crap.

C

When played on the SAME equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Virgins sound better than the UMGs. Also, when played on the same equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Beatles remasters sound wonderful, and the Stones remasters do not.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-01 17:09 by tatters.

Anyone have any ideas or links about how long UMG worked on the Stones? Based on what little I read there wasn't any real care expressed in the project since it was done so quickly.

Quote
tatters

As for the sound of the new remasters, they are the best thing available. Night and day compared to the Virgins. Problem is that nowdays very few people can tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and the real thing. If those who complain also discolsed what kind of equipment they use to play the new remasters, we would also understand why so many people think the UMGs are crap.

C

When played on the SAME equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Virgins sound better than the UMGs. Also, when played on the same equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Beatles remasters sound wonderful, and the Stones remasters do not.[/quote]

I am not a Beatle expert. I bought only two of their remasters and I was not over impressed. Probably becasue I only have the LPs and never bought a Beatle cd before. Truly I am not in the position to discuss Beatles.

UMG vs Virgin Stones. Despite all the general consensus on the issue, as anybody who has a turntable and a cd player can confirm, the Virgin release was "closer" to the vinyl version than the earlier CBS release, and was a huge step in that direction (the CBS edition was truly crap) but the vinyl version is still ahead.

Compared to the Virgins, the sound on the UMGs is more articulated, more defined, bass and drums above all, its more musical, less separation, less digital silences. In particular the work on the bass is something that can't be appreciated on low level CD players.

All in all the UMGs are still different from the vinyl versions, but this time in a positive way. I would not say they are better, but they are a great alternative.

C

I don't think the difference is night and day, but I do prefer the UMG reissues in general. I mainly play music while commuting to and from the office each day. I'm relying on a standard car audio system and the UMG's sound better overall than the Virgins or at worse (something like LOVE YOU LIVE), the same to my ears.

Considering I would happily have picked up bootleg versions of these albums offering a different mastering job or DIY remixing, picking up the UMG releases cheap was worth the money to me. I enjoy them and don't understand the fuss. If I didn't have the money, I would look at it as nothing more than the new label making the same product available. I'm not sure why others simply don't view it that way instead of griping. We all understand that bonus tracks (as opposed to deluxe editions with bonus discs) are a contractual impossibility so I don't expect anything other than a vanilla release.

The EXILE package (like YA-YA'S) is a pleasant surprise. People forget that ROCK 'N'ROLL CIRCUS had some touch-up's decades after the fact. The new EXILE bonus disc will either sound authentic like CIRCUS or like new material instead of overdubbed outtakes as with TATTOO YOU. Either option is fine with me and better than what I expected to be hearing from the band in 2010.

And what about the dynamic range compression? It appears that these UMG remasters are victims of the loudness war, just like A Bigger Bang was.

Regarding the Beatles, pretty much ANY reissue is always accompanied by their ever-brilliant hype machine and publicity people. But they live up to the hype - the original cd's sound schrill and thin (Rolling Stone even said that back in the 80's when they first came out). The remasters not only contain the integrity of the original lp's, but their a classic example of how to do a classy job of remastering (unlike many remasters that simply make them louder and boost up the bass levels).

It's only natural that the Stones UMG series wouldn't generate half as much interest since this is already the third time these albums have seen a cd reissue. Besides, the maybe painful truth is just that they're not and never will be as huge as the Beatles. Nobody will ever be.

Regarding the sound quality, I am no audiophile but I am on the fence. The only reissues from the new batch that made any impression on me were the 80's records: Tattoo You, Undercover, Steel Wheels and Emotional Rescue all sound better to my ears than the Virgin remasters. The 70's - not so much. I hear little, if any difference, in Sticky Fingers, Some Girls, etc. The Abcko reissues were and still are wonderful, and they put some real care into making those sound right. I have my doubts about the new ones - to me it was just more redundant record label BS. But as I said, I am no audiophile so maybe I am wrong. Doesn't really matter one way or the other I guess.

Why would Steel Wheels sound differently? It was recorded digitally, so it can't gain any improvement from a better source tape or a better transfer. I don't have the Virgin remaster, but the original release sounds excellent, far better than any ABKCO album and still somewhat better than the more recent releases that preceded it.

Quote
FreeBird
Why would Steel Wheels sound differently? It was recorded digitally, so it can't gain any improvement from a better source tape or a better transfer. I don't have the Virgin remaster, but the original release sounds excellent, far better than any ABKCO album and still somewhat better than the more recent releases that preceded it.

Well, I don't know it necessarily sound 'better' - but played side by side with the Virgin reissue it's a little louder and warmer to my ears (more up to so-called current standards of how modern records sound). I never thought the original sounded bad by any stretch, but tracks from the UMG reissue sound more consistent with newer material like Voodoo and Bridges (albums that didn't benefit whatsoever from being remastered IMO).

Quote
tatters

When played on the SAME equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Virgins sound better than the UMGs. Also, when played on the same equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Beatles remasters sound wonderful, and the Stones remasters do not.

Oh no. Black & Blue definitely sounds better on UMG. Same equipment. And Emotional Rescue... I thought this album sucked for long years... now I see it as a true masterpiece. At least I was able to hear this on UMG for the first time.

Rocky, what do you consider 'cheap' in terms of getting the UMGs?

Quote
AP
And Emotional Rescue... I thought this album sucked for long years... now I see it as a true masterpiece. At least I was able to hear this on UMG for the first time.

And you really think thats because of the UMG remastering? Or was it extraordinarily good weed that did the trick?

Come on, tell us! Since day one I wanted to see ER as a true masterpiece.... but up until now I couldnt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-01 23:12 by alimente.

Somehow it just magically...changed.

"Cheap" to me is US$7 per CD. I only bought one or two at a time. It took me till the end of the year to find them all.

Oddly enough I think VOODOO LOUNGE and especially BRIDGES TO BABYLON benefit from UMG's remastering. But again, that's Virgin to UMG on a car stereo.

I think, comparing the Beatles and Stones remasters, a lot of it may come down to the Beatles stuff not being remastered for some 25 years, and a handful of those Stones remasters came out since then and already benefited from any technological advances and therefore the difference is not as noticeable.

Could also be that George Martin was much more meticulous with the original Beatles master recordings too. I still remember purchasing the Mobil Fidelity Sound Lab 1/2 Speed Master of Sticky Fingers, which came with a sticker on it noting "some distortion is present which is a trademark of the band, it's not a defect of the record" or something of that sort. That might say something about the recording differences between the bands. Or maybe not.

Where the hell did you find Stones CDs for $7 US?

Quote
liddas

Quote
tatters

As for the sound of the new remasters, they are the best thing available. Night and day compared to the Virgins. Problem is that nowdays very few people can tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and the real thing. If those who complain also discolsed what kind of equipment they use to play the new remasters, we would also understand why so many people think the UMGs are crap.

C

When played on the SAME equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Virgins sound better than the UMGs. Also, when played on the same equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Beatles remasters sound wonderful, and the Stones remasters do not.

I am not a Beatle expert. I bought only two of their remasters and I was not over impressed. Probably becasue I only have the LPs and never bought a Beatle cd before. Truly I am not in the position to discuss Beatles.

UMG vs Virgin Stones. Despite all the general consensus on the issue, as anybody who has a turntable and a cd player can confirm, the Virgin release was "closer" to the vinyl version than the earlier CBS release, and was a huge step in that direction (the CBS edition was truly crap) but the vinyl version is still ahead.

Compared to the Virgins, the sound on the UMGs is more articulated, more defined, bass and drums above all, its more musical, less separation, less digital silences. In particular the work on the bass is something that can't be appreciated on low level CD players.

All in all the UMGs are still different from the vinyl versions, but this time in a positive way. I would not say they are better, but they are a great alternative.

C[/quote]


All I know is the UMGs make my ears hurt and the Virgins don't. I think anyone here who has NOT heard the UMG remasters, and IS planning on buying Exile Deluxe, may be in for quite a shock. I know many people think the UMGs of later albums like IORR and BAB sound great, but based on how older albums like Sticky Fingers and GHS sound, I have to say I am VERY concerned about the Exile remastering. It could be horrendous.

Quote
tatters

Quote
liddas

Quote
tatters

Quote
liddas
As for the sound of the new remasters, they are the best thing available. Night and day compared to the Virgins. Problem is that nowdays very few people can tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and the real thing. If those who complain also discolsed what kind of equipment they use to play the new remasters, we would also understand why so many people think the UMGs are crap.

C

When played on the SAME equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Virgins sound better than the UMGs. Also, when played on the same equipment, regardless of what that equipment is, the Beatles remasters sound wonderful, and the Stones remasters do not.

I am not a Beatle expert. I bought only two of their remasters and I was not over impressed. Probably becasue I only have the LPs and never bought a Beatle cd before. Truly I am not in the position to discuss Beatles.

UMG vs Virgin Stones. Despite all the general consensus on the issue, as anybody who has a turntable and a cd player can confirm, the Virgin release was "closer" to the vinyl version than the earlier CBS release, and was a huge step in that direction (the CBS edition was truly crap) but the vinyl version is still ahead.

Compared to the Virgins, the sound on the UMGs is more articulated, more defined, bass and drums above all, its more musical, less separation, less digital silences. In particular the work on the bass is something that can't be appreciated on low level CD players.

All in all the UMGs are still different from the vinyl versions, but this time in a positive way. I would not say they are better, but they are a great alternative.

C

All I know is the UMGs make my ears hurt and the Virgins don't. I think anyone here who has NOT heard the UMG remasters, and IS planning on buying Exile Deluxe, may be in for quite a shock. I know many people think the UMGs of later albums like IORR and BAB sound great, but based on how older albums like Sticky Fingers and GHS sound, I have to say I am VERY concerned about the Exile remastering. It could be horrendous.

Well, that's a fair warning... It seems likely that they'd mess up Exile as well, unless someone (Mick?) decides to stop them from doing so. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess...

Rocky, in your original post, are you saying Tattoo You sounds like overdubbed outtakes, or like new material?
It's just a grammar thing, I guess. I am trying to understand what you are saying there.

Skipstone - new in stores best price I found was US$10.
eBay and Amazon - used in very good condition I found US$7. The trick is to find free shipping. Patience is everything. They're out there.

Palace Revolution - sorry for the poor grammar. TATTOO YOU sounded like all new material to my ears. I could never tell it was reworked outtakes years after the fact. Granted the oldest stuff was only 9 years old at the time, not 40 years. I suspect songs with all new vocals on the EXILE set, I'll think of as "new Stones" and uncirculated vocal versions of bootlegged backing trakcs that have 40 year old vocals but new 2009 guitar or percussion overdubs, I'll consider "old Stones."

Quote
alimente

Quote
AP
And Emotional Rescue... I thought this album sucked for long years... now I see it as a true masterpiece. At least I was able to hear this on UMG for the first time.

And you really think thats because of the UMG remastering? Or was it extraordinarily good weed that did the trick?

Come on, tell us! Since day one I wanted to see ER as a true masterpiece.... but up until now I couldnt.

No weed. Few drams of whisky maybe. Maybe some grown appreciation of disco sound. Nevertheless, a very good album to me. Just realized this after listening that particular UMG remaster. Dance Pt.1 is miles away from Miss You in my opinion, what a mighty number! Though Some Girls is undisputable masterpiece, UMG remaster did not add anything to my perception of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-02 07:56 by AP.