This is the list of "Brown Sugar" versions on NICo'S site with the sources on bootlegs...

- Brown Sugar I (MJ/KR) -STU on piano, very early vocal mix, with "oh baby" at end ("Stiky Fingers the alternate album" or "Black Box")
- Brown Sugar II (MJ/KR) - STU on piano; new vocals, no sax, much better mix to
version I, from "Decca-acetate" ("Sotheby's Reel")
- Brown Sugar III (MJ/KR) - STU on piano; partly to be heard in Gimme Shelter-
movie, released on Hot Rocks (by mistake on 1st pressings only!) ("Black Box")
- Brown Sugar IV (MJ/KR) -Bobby Keys on sax, Al Kooper on piano, Eric Clapton
on guitar; maybe recorded on the 18th December ("Ultra rare trax" and many others)
- Brown Sugar V (MJ/KR) -STU on piano, with Bobby Keys on sax, MT hardly
audible (?????)
- Brown Sugar VI (MJ/KR) -STU on piano, Bobby Keys on sax; much clearer mix of
version IV, earlier strike up of Bobby Keys (" A shot of salvation")
- Brown Sugar VII (MJ/KR) -STU on piano, Bobby Keys on sax; Sticky Fingers-
version.


The great minds of iorr can check if this list is accurate.

For example .. I can not understand where is the version 5!!

- Brown Sugar III (MJ/KR) - STU on piano; partly to be heard in Gimme Shelter-
movie, released on Hot Rocks (by mistake on 1st pressings only!) ("Black Box" )

Don´t need the boot, have the original Hot Rocks, together w. an alternate Wild Horses, yumyum

...big Hit!!

How about version V???

Maybe someone can help me out here. I seem to remember a story about the very first pressings of HOT ROCKS having the alternate takes of BS and WH not by mistake but because of it being unclear (at the time) if Klein and Abkco had the rights to include the Stinky Fingers versions on their release?? Did anyone else ever hear this or is it just an "old stone's tail"? I'm making no claim as to validity of the story.....

You can find in "Black Box" cd.4

Quote
scottkeef
Maybe someone can help me out here. I seem to remember a story about the very first pressings of HOT ROCKS having the alternate takes of BS and WH not by mistake but because of it being unclear (at the time) if Klein and Abkco had the rights to include the Stinky Fingers versions on their release?? Did anyone else ever hear this or is it just an "old stone's tail"? I'm making no claim as to validity of the story.....

This was my theory as well. It seems plausible, but I have absolutely zero proof.

Not only ABKCO owns the copyrights for BS and WH, but for every other song recorded - or the recording of which started - before 30 July 1970.
When the trial RS vs ABKCO ended it was set that ABKCO had the right to publish two more unreleased songs choosen amid the ones they already had in their archive.
Being ABKO's next issue the mega Christmas album Hot Rocks, they decided to spend their bonus placing BS and WH on it.
According to the agreement between Allen Klein and the RS, RSR had to provide thedefoinitive versions of the songs, but they were very late. For this reason, the very early tapes/matrix/plates of HR featured two unfinished versions.
As soon as they get BS and WH for RSR, they replaced the songs onto matrix.
ABKCO's mistake was to send the former matrix to the pressing plant instead of shelving them in vaults.
By the way, the post-trial agreement also set the right of ABKCO to issue one last album of inedt material, hence Metamporphosis.
The big question is: has this agreement been rediscussed, lately?
According to the sentence, ABKCO could not issue any inedit studio music anymore.
This would make any rarity unavailable forever...
Luca
PS: the recent expanded GYYYO has been possible only because the copyrights of newly issued music are of the Maisles Brothers...

Quote
1963luca0
Not only ABKCO owns ..... Maisles Brothers...

Thanks for the insights!

Quote
1963luca0
The big question is: has this agreement been rediscussed, lately?
According to the sentence, ABKCO could not issue any inedit studio music anymore.
This would make any rarity unavailable forever...
Luca
PS: the recent expanded GYYYO has been possible only because the copyrights of newly issued music are of the Maisles Brothers...

The Maisles Brothers may or may not own the copyright to the MSG sound recordings, but there's still the copyright of the performiing artists = THE ROLLING STONES, so neither the Maisles Brothers nor ABKCO could release them without an agreement with the band. So there must be some kind of agreement between the Stones and ABKCO concerning the YaYas bonus tracks.

However, the basisc principle is clear that ABKCO exhausted the original concerning unreleased stuff agreement with the release of Metamorphosis (plus I seem to recall that Rock And Roll Circus was also agreed on back in the day).

Exceptions from the general rule can always be reached in further agreements, however. The current state of affairs seems to be that the decade-long blocking of releases between the Stones and ABKCO using their respective copyrights is over. They are in talks and cooperating to at least some extent.

And I must say that a 50th Anniversary without any new material from the 60s -live, studio or BBC - would not do it for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-08 16:32 by retired_dog.

What Hulloder states as version VI cannot be a mix of version IV (Clapton).
Felix Aeppli thinks that the Clapton-version is not from December 1969 but December 1970.
Version V (MT hardly audible) can possibly be found on the CD From Lakeland to Oakland, but that is a point I would welcome to be confirmed. Or maybe anyone can let us know where it definitely can be found.
Alex.

Speaking of the "Keith's birthday" version from Dec. 18, 1970, I have yet to read a detailed enough account to believe it's actually Clapton on slide, what Wikipedia says notwithstanding. Clapton is not really known as a slide player, and it sure sounds like Taylor to me.

Maysles Brothers, David and Albert.

ABKCO Music owns the copyright of all the songs on Sticky Fingers and four or five songs on Exile, something like that. Doesn't that mean they could use any of those songs for something?

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Maysles Brothers, David and Albert.

ABKCO Music owns the copyright of all the songs on Sticky Fingers and four or five songs on Exile, something like that. Doesn't that mean they could use any of those songs for something?

my guess is that abkco might own publishing of the songs but not the recordings

Quote
ghostryder13

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Maysles Brothers, David and Albert.

ABKCO Music owns the copyright of all the songs on Sticky Fingers and four or five songs on Exile, something like that. Doesn't that mean they could use any of those songs for something?

my guess is that abkco might own publishing of the songs but not the recordings

Maysles Brothers, of course, not Maisles! The publishing rights are not in question. For example, when the Stones perform a Chuck Berry cover like Carol or Little Queenie, the publishing rights for those compositions still belong to Chuck Berry and his publisher/publishing company. Still. it's a recording of a Rolling Stones performance. The recording usually belongs to the record company - that's ABKCO in this case. But they can't release any Stones recording they want, first the Stones as performing artists have to agree. For any unreleased stuff - and that counts for studio and live recordings - it means that ABKCO may own the tapes as a record company, but can't release them without an ok from the Stones because of their performing artists rights. But it also means that the Stones could not release this stuff on their own, even if they possess the tapes physically, because in copyright terms the recordings belong to ABKCO. One can't live without the other, so to speak.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-08 21:45 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ghostryder13

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Maysles Brothers, David and Albert.

ABKCO Music owns the copyright of all the songs on Sticky Fingers and four or five songs on Exile, something like that. Doesn't that mean they could use any of those songs for something?

my guess is that abkco might own publishing of the songs but not the recordings

Maysles Brothers, of course, not Maisles! The publishing rights are not in question. For example, when the Stones perform a Chuck Berry cover like Carol or Little Queenie, the publishing rights for those compositions still belong to Chuck Berry and his publisher/publishing company. Still. it's a recording of a Rolling Stones performance. The recording usually belongs to the record company - that's ABKCO in this case. But they can't release any Stones recording they want, first the Stones as performing artists have to agree. For any unreleased stuff - and that counts for studio and live recordings - it means that ABKCO may own the tapes as a record company, but can't release them without an ok from the Stones because of their performing artists rights. But it also means that the Stones could not release this stuff on their own, even if they possess the tapes physically, because in copyright terms the recordings belong to ABKCO. One can't live without the other, so to speak.

Didn't ABKCO release a different version of Sway as a B-side for Brown Sugar?

Never knew ABKCO to care about what is right and wrong. So ABKCO holds the copyright for all the songs on Sticky Fingers and the few on Exile but the only able to release agreement with the Stones was for Brown Sugar and Wild Horses and therefor ABCKO can never release any of the rest of the songs from Sticky Fingers or the ABKCO Music songs on Exile because they don't have permission to.

Same vice versa with exception to Brown Sugar and Wild Horses.

What a strange way to kidnap music.

Abkco re-released so much Stones material in so many different compilations The Stones even started puting the disclaimer on their new releases like "This is a new recording, beware of re-packaging" Remember that??

Quote
scottkeef
Abkco re-released so much Stones material in so many different compilations The Stones even started puting the disclaimer on their new releases like "This is a new recording, beware of re-packaging" Remember that??

It's been pointed out that the Stones should've done that with their own compilations! They turned into what they railed against.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ghostryder13

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Maysles Brothers, David and Albert.

ABKCO Music owns the copyright of all the songs on Sticky Fingers and four or five songs on Exile, something like that. Doesn't that mean they could use any of those songs for something?

my guess is that abkco might own publishing of the songs but not the recordings

Maysles Brothers, of course, not Maisles! The publishing rights are not in question. For example, when the Stones perform a Chuck Berry cover like Carol or Little Queenie, the publishing rights for those compositions still belong to Chuck Berry and his publisher/publishing company. Still. it's a recording of a Rolling Stones performance. The recording usually belongs to the record company - that's ABKCO in this case. But they can't release any Stones recording they want, first the Stones as performing artists have to agree. For any unreleased stuff - and that counts for studio and live recordings - it means that ABKCO may own the tapes as a record company, but can't release them without an ok from the Stones because of their performing artists rights. But it also means that the Stones could not release this stuff on their own, even if they possess the tapes physically, because in copyright terms the recordings belong to ABKCO. One can't live without the other, so to speak.

Didn't ABKCO release a different version of Sway as a B-side for Brown Sugar?

Never knew ABKCO to care about what is right and wrong. So ABKCO holds the copyright for all the songs on Sticky Fingers and the few on Exile but the only able to release agreement with the Stones was for Brown Sugar and Wild Horses and therefor ABCKO can never release any of the rest of the songs from Sticky Fingers or the ABKCO Music songs on Exile because they don't have permission to.

Same vice versa with exception to Brown Sugar and Wild Horses.

What a strange way to kidnap music.

The 45 I bought of Brown Sugar had Bitch on side 2 way back when.

Quote
alexander paul
What Hulloder states as version VI cannot be a mix of version IV (Clapton).
Felix Aeppli thinks that the Clapton-version is not from December 1969 but December 1970.
Version V (MT hardly audible) can possibly be found on the CD From Lakeland to Oakland, but that is a point I would welcome to be confirmed. Or maybe anyone can let us know where it definitely can be found.
Alex.

Thanks Alex..now i try to take this boot and listen to it.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
scottkeef
Abkco re-released so much Stones material in so many different compilations The Stones even started puting the disclaimer on their new releases like "This is a new recording, beware of re-packaging" Remember that??

It's been pointed out that the Stones should've done that with their own compilations! They turned into what they railed against.

Dont really get that since other than the 'Hits" pkgs they havent done that...but maybe they were just mad because this was in the 70s and they were still producing an album a year and Abkco was flooding the market with repackaged albums...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-08 22:57 by scottkeef.

The edit version of Sway was the b side of Wild Horses, wasnt it?

Fool To Cry has been on more than three compilations...I know it's nothing like the 1960s catalogue but there have been a few comps released with some songs being on almost every one.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Fool To Cry has been on more than three compilations...I know it's nothing like the 1960s catalogue but there have been a few comps released with some songs being on almost every one.

Yeah, I do see your point now. I guess looking back on it that at the time (when most bands released an LP a year usually with a tour to promote it) the biggest issue seemed to be that Abkco appeared to be marketing the repackaged LPs in a missleading manner-you know, insinuating a "new" collection...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-08 23:07 by scottkeef.

Quote
scottkeef

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Fool To Cry has been on more than three compilations...I know it's nothing like the 1960s catalogue but there have been a few comps released with some songs being on almost every one.

Yeah, I do see your point now. I guess looking back on it that at the time (when most bands released an LP a year usually with a tour to promote it) the biggest issue seemed to be that Abkco appeared to be marketing the repackaged LPs in a missleading manner-you know, insinuating a "new" collection...

Yeah, that and under the guise of being London or Decca .

The Stones' own releases were stretched out a bit. I know Jump Back was essentially an updated Rewind but Rewind has better songs on it. They should've kept it the same name and updated it.

Yeah, and that cover for Jump Back was pretty lame too!!!

From D. Hoffmann's Weissbuch Recording Index:





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-09 00:22 by midnrambler.

Wow. That's a lot to look at!

Quote
alexander paul
What Hulloder states as version VI cannot be a mix of version IV (Clapton).

This is definitively true! Zentgraf's entries are unfortunately not always accurate. E. g. he does not list a You Can't Always Get... I at all. It sarts with II.

- Brown Sugar V (MJ/KR) -STU on piano, with Bobby Keys on sax, MT hardly
audible (?????)

someone can tell me something?

Then I leave you in peace on this post ..

Quote
hulloder
- Brown Sugar V (MJ/KR) -STU on piano, with Bobby Keys on sax, MT hardly
audible (?????)

someone can tell me something?

Then I leave you in peace on this post ..

Sure. It should say:

- Brown Sugar 5 (MJ/KR) -STU on piano, with Bobby Keys on sax, MT hardly
audible

Not sure why the Roman Numeral crap is necessary.