I wonder what kind of taste new songs with old vocals would leave...

hahaha. dont know what all the bitchin is about. tattoo you was the same thing. and it was great too many crybabies

Nope, I love the new songs

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

"the bitch keeps bitchin'..."

No they are great, bring on more any way you want them Mick. Thanks for doing this, it is exciting as hell.

nope? nope to what?

My opinion i s that any new RS music is wellcome, my opinion is that MJ's voice has changed with time (he is almpost 70), but anytime i like his voce more and more.......
Another opinion is that you are free of buying or listening the EOMS new edition

Maybe there are things that i don't like,but i prefer some new music than no music.
IMHO

I generally like the new tracks and I can live with Mick's new vocals (just about) but what puts me off them is the heavy mastering compression. So this, coupled with the new vocals, is what I guess makes the songs sound a bit like a new Stones album. In fact I'm reminded of ABB (which I've always considered unlistenable).

Quote
out of my head
were people sayin this when tattoo you came out?

No. In fact 38 year old Jagger's strong vocals in TATTOO YOU lifted the songs to a higher level than they originally were. Not that we did know that at the time because the album was not promoted as any "archive" album but as a hot brandnew album. No reason to ask for anachronisms then. The Stones didn't hide the fact that the songs were old left-overs but they didn't shout it loud either. And no one care about it: it was a great album in terms of its own.

Technically speaking these "Bonus Tracks" are similar to many TATTOO YOU tracks, but that's about the only similarity they have. If the oldest backing tracks for TATTOO YOU were about 8 years old, here we are talking about almost 40 years distance in time...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-18 12:14 by Doxa.

yeah i know but still same concept i know its only rock and roll but i like it

No problem for me.
I also like vice versa: Remember that Elvis Presley-song that appeared a couple of years ago. Elvis' singing to new music. Very fresh!
(don't remember the title but I'm sure you know which one I mean)

Quote
out of my head
yeah i know but still same concept i know its only rock and roll but i like it

Yes! And I actually listen to the album as I listen to TATTOO YOU: as terms of its own. I don't mind the historical accuracy, or when which piece was recorded or not ,or even by whom, etc. but I see the bonus album solely as a great collection of great music. In fact, it's the best 'new' Stones record since TATTOO YOU...

- Doxa

yes!! totally agree!!

Bad taste is what i feel inside me since 1997's BTB.............

Quote
Doxa
In fact, it's the best 'new' Stones record since TATTOO YOU...

- Doxa

Fact?

Not as good as Voodoo Lounge for me.

I like those new songs, but it's not something that knocks me over in any way. I like them all. Following The River, I'm Not Signifying (Though the other bootleg version was better imo) and Loving Cup especially. Nice stuff, but ABB, B2B and VL was better, and it's a moot comparison anyway, since the Exile bonus cd is nothing but an extra. It's not a new album.

JumpingKentFlash

Nope, no bad taste at all, imo.

I don't care if the songs are 100 years old, as long as they sound great. Jagger is older, sure, but he still has a great voice. Would the complainers here have preferred that these songs never saw the light of day??

expecting a man near 70 to sing like he did when he was 28 is ridiculous.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa
In fact, it's the best 'new' Stones record since TATTOO YOU...

- Doxa

Fact?

Not as good as Voodoo Lounge for me.

Fact!><

Personally I have found all of their albums from UNDERCOVER to A BIGGER BANG somehow musically 'thin'. The sense of depth and balls and guts and passion and whatever that I find in any of their albums from THE ROLLING STONES to TATTOO YOU is missing. It's 'Stones by numbers' ever since, and even those very rare times when they try something different, their sound is so insecure and chicken-like. Of course, there are lots of nice songs and performances in all of these post-TATTOO albums, but some "magic" - The Rolling Stones X-factor - is missing there. For example, VOODOO LOUNGE sounded nice from the very first few listens, as did STEEL WHEELS at the time, but somehow it lost its unique character relatively soon, and sounds too obvious and repitive, if not even boring, now. I don't even dare to say anything about the emptiness of ABB now... I think the function of all these post-TATTOO YOU albums is that they are nothing but "formal" easy-listening introductions to the musical world of The Rolling Stones, and if one enjoys what one hears there, then one is ready to step to the realm of The Real Thing, and to leave these introductory albums aside...

But with these few 'new' songs - that all are far more perfect - I find that missing thing present - and for VEEEERRRRYYYY loong time I find myself listening to a new Rolling Stones song again and again. For example, I surely have given more listenings to "Plundered My Soul" than to any of their songs since TATTOO YOU or UNDERCOVER. I don't know exactly what it is, but when I listen these songs, I hear the thing I've been missing all these years.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-18 14:06 by Doxa.

<Personally I have found all of their albums from UNDERCOVER to A BIGGER BANG somehow musically 'thin'. The sense of depth and balls and guts and passion and whatever that I find in any of their albums from THE ROLLING STONES to TATTOO YOU is missing. It's 'Stones by numbers' ever since, and even those very rare times when they try something different, their sound is so insecure and chicken-like.>

Personally, I find Undercover a ballsy album. No insecureness about Undercover Of The Night, Feel On Baby or Pretty Beat Up, imo. On that album the band is dangerous, raw and punchy, even though it's a typical 80s production. And in my book that's well done.

The exile bonus traks is the best evidence that much of what was in the vaults was already circulating as boots. As it seems the myth of loads of almost finished completely unheard tracks is, well, only a myth.

So the choice was provide a polished alternate version of a already known alternate version, or try something different.

From the fragments I've heard (have not bought the CD yet), the polished version of the existing material is not a truly dramatic improvememnt of what is already circulating (besides, it is a miracle that they were able to reascue something from those old tapes).

Since these outtakes are addressed to a niche market of dieahard fans, that probably already have the all the boots, Jagger decided to try to do something different.

Nice move for me. Also because once again he left the boot market substantially free even if he had the possibility of cashing into it.

So now we have these old / new outtakes. From what I've heard, what lifts them from the status of outtakes and makes them completely new products is the 2010 vocal additions. I truly love what I heard.

For those who are disturbed by the idea of jagger adding new vocals on old tracks, there are plenty of unadulterated boots of quite the same stuff.

Think of it, it is great that we have the possibility of a choice ...

C

Nope.

Quote
James Kirk
I don't really care.

I just think of these tunes as new Stones music. I would have preffered to see them released as a Tatoo You II type record, but in the end who cares?

Would it really have been that interesting to hear half finished tracks with no vocals on them? I much prefer to hear the songs in the form that they are in now.

Thats my take on it too. Most of us have clamoured for years for archive releases and in most cases have ignored the strong possibility that maybe there arent that many finished and interesting gems left over in the vaults for every release. Its certainly a stretch to think that an album where they had already decided to expand to a double just a year after their previous release would have a lot of finished songs that were excluded. You cant expect a band making a record in 1972 with deadlines to meet to think 'we'll finish up these extra songs even though we dont need them - who knows, there may be a market for this type of thing in three or four decades time'.

In that respect, Exile isnt maybe an ideal candidate for an expanded release, because the album itself was one to begin with. A bonafide extra CD of Exile outtakes would probably have primarily consisted of instrumentals, half finished songs with dummy lyrics or a guide lead vocal. Thats ok had it been a bootleg, but as an official release it wouldnt really have warranted repeated listening. 'Soul Survivor' with Keith improvising x-rated lyrics is a fun curio in isolation, but would we really get excited about them releasing a CD of 10-12 songs in that vein with little or nothing else being included?

Personally, I'd have liked a few more alternate takes of released songs to fill a CD (and they maybe could have included a couple of previously bootlegged stuff like Hillside Blues and Travellin Man) but its no big deal..I'm sure there'll be other archive projects where this material can officially see the light of day.

Given the choice between hearing latter day vocals (flawed a concept as it is) on 38-39 year old backing tracks and never hearing those songs at all (or even knowing of their existence), I know what I'd rather have. And the fact that they're generally pretty good songs anyway makes that choice easier.

Anyway, there are some 1969-71 songs on the CD that have been left untouched and some of them are amongst the best thing on there.

Quote
out of my head
hahaha. dont know what all the bitchin is about. tattoo you was the same thing. and it was great too many crybabies

Well, thats not quite true. Tattoo You was released as a studio album, not as an archive release purporting to be a timepiece from a bygone era - plus most of the basic tracks were just 2-3 years old (as was the case with a sizeable chunk of 'Exile' in fact) and no more than 8-9 years old.

I'm not criticising the new project - it is what it is - but the comparisons with Tattoo You as a concept aren't really valid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-18 15:12 by Gazza.

Quote
russr
I just can't shake how much I don't like hearing Mick's current singing style over old backing tracks...

What's the point?

Is this how low they had to go to sell a new version of a great album that many have already bought 2-3 times?

I love Stones but I just don't get their thinking sometimes....

Anyone else feel this way?

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's a little bit like Trident Sessions Karaoke.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Personally I have found all of their albums from UNDERCOVER to A BIGGER BANG somehow musically 'thin'. The sense of depth and balls and guts and passion and whatever that I find in any of their albums from THE ROLLING STONES to TATTOO YOU is missing. It's 'Stones by numbers' ever since, and even those very rare times when they try something different, their sound is so insecure and chicken-like.>

Personally, I find Undercover a ballsy album. No insecureness about Undercover Of The Night, Feel On Baby or Pretty Beat Up, imo. On that album the band is dangerous, raw and punchy, even though it's a typical 80s production. And in my book that's well done.

Ever since UNDERCOVER was released I have had mixed emotions about it - and still today I don't know if I rate it as the last great Stones album or not. It was such disappoitment after the expectations arisen by TATTOO YOU. I agree that it (still) had the balls, but somehow I get the feeling that they actually try very much, but somehow there is not real spark present, or sense of direction. The Pathe Marconi "magic" has run dry by then. Thanks to their standards going lower as the years go by, UNDERCOVER does quite nicely nowadaysif compared to DIRTY WORK, STEEL WHEELS, etc.

But in any case, I would say that UNDERCOVER is the last real band effort when all the cylinders were still full on. In that sense it is the last "real" Rolling Stones album.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-18 15:14 by Doxa.

<But in any case, I would say that UNDERCOVER is the last real band effort when all the cylinders were still full on. In that sense it is the last "real" Rolling Stones album.

- Doxa>

I second that.

I'm not sure I like the songs that have new vocals on the basis that Jagger sounds like a parody of himself. As a curio it's interesting but not brilliant and no wonder the songs were left in the vaults.

Speaking personally I would have much preferred them to take the extra tracks re-record them, make them sound less like demo's and ideas and make them into fully formed songs that would have been worthy for inclusion on the album.

For example Plundered My Soul sounds like half an idea. Sure it has a verse and a semblance of a chorus but it meanders, there's no focus, it doesn't have a bridge or a middle eight. It drifts along pleasantly.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

Quote
NickB
For example Plundered My Soul sounds like half an idea. Sure it has a verse and a semblance of a chorus but it meanders, there's no focus, it doesn't have a bridge or a middle eight. It drifts along pleasantly.

I can see your point but I think the strenght of the song is it being left as it is - many EXILE songs are quite raw and simple as far as their structure as songs go - think of "Tumblin' Dice" or "Happy" - but they work every inch of them to kick the the groove out of them. I think that is something to do with EXILE being as hard to get "in". It needs some listenings to hear hear the unique charm in it. And finally you are hooked and every little nuance - lick, piano, vocal - in them sounds like an Einsteinian decision of highest excellence. (And this argument holds to some other distinctive works as well: structurally, say, "Satisfacion" or "Jumpin Jack Flash" or "Honk Tonk Women" aren't any works of wonder...)

Contrary, I have quite bored with Jagger's schematic way to write songs in the past decades: you can hear the same old melodic cliches and decisons to be repeated over and over again: bridges, choruses, B or C parts, or how to link them. He very rarely surprises. Especially GODDESS is good example of that (not to mention A BIGGER BANG).

I find it highly interesting that Jagger commented the chorus of "Following The River" going to another direction - or something like that - than what he had expected, and he had troubles to cope with it. That is a sign how "autopilotically" Jagger tends to write these days, and "Following The River" seemed to clash with it.

Unfortunately there still is quite a lot of his usual cliches in his re-working of these old songs. But, of course, he can not help it.
,
- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-18 16:03 by Doxa.

Mick Jagger sang these tracks well, I wish the guitarists could play like Mick is singing now.

At first I really hated the vocals on Plundered My Soul. But after a while I got used to it. The music was ok.

But So Divine (Aladdin Story) is really awful!! Bad lyrics and vocals. I've loved Aladdin Story without the vocals (bootleg version). That sounded mysterious and psychedelic! The superficial lyrics with an annoying Jagger vocals destroyed the whole magic in the song! A shame...