Re: What's so bad about "Metamorphosis"?
Posted by:
wtravis6565
()
Date: March 16, 2005 20:15
The sequencing. Song for song it's decent, but listening to it in one sitting is difficult.
I took that collection and the singles box, along with quality outtakes from the period, and created a whole new collection, comprised of 3 2-CD sets:
Metamorphosis---Disc 1 includes the Decca demoes, the unreleased chess sessions, and the rock and roll tracks from Abkco Metamorphosis as well as a few strays from the singles box; Disc 2 collects all the pop tracks from Meta, as well U.S. stray tracks from December's Children and Flowers
Down In The Bottom---Disc 1 collects the Beggars Banquet-era Meta tracks along with such outtakes as @#$%& Blues, Loving Cup, and Highway Child; Disc 2 is almost all outtakes from the 70s, including the EC version of Brown Sugar
The Rolling Stones Singles Collection: Trimming the fat from the Abkco 3-disc box, this set follows the UK singles discography. And what a collection it is! This is the way it should have been released; the superfluous US singles slow the collection down. After all, the Stones released singles that were meant to be heard as separate entities, not part of an album.
In the first two sets, the bootlegs songs were taken from top sources and the levels were tweaked to match those of official releases. All weird fade-ins/outs were omitted, and only the most complete songs were chosen.
If you have these sets, plus the UK versions of the 60s stuff, sans the first two albums, you have everything.
Stay tuned for the Rolling Stones No. 1 and No. 2, restored to their original sequence with the 3 EPs added as bonus tracks.