Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Thanks treacle. I confused myself on this thread! For some reason I was thinking that the 2014 edition was only SHM and not SACD. So I can just go with the 2014 editions, which are a little cheaper (not by much mind you!) and most likely easier to come by, to go along with my wonderful Virgin versions. Ugh. Hate having multiple CD copies of the same thing for just trying to have a definitive sounding version! LOL Good Lord I thought it was bad enough when I was sucked into buying all versions of a Super Deluxe!!!

All Japanese SHM-SACD discs listed in the table above are not an easy catch. It does not matter 2011 or 2014. And they are overpriced on the second hand market.

It seems the 2011 versions are mini-LP versions, no? That's what I've found online for descriptions anyway. I don't need to pay again for those, as I do very much love the Virgin ones, and the slightly larger size. If the companies were to re-do the entire catalog in 7-inch packaging with SACD technology flat transferred from the original "unmastered" tapes, I'd have a hard time not buying the whole damn catalog again! Love those 7-inch versions they did!!!

2011 SHM-SACD in mini-LP replica
2014 SHM-SACD in jewel case
2013-2014 SHM-platinum CD in oversized cartoon box with mini-LP replica inside
2013-2014 SHM-CD in mini-LP replica
2020 SHM-CD in mini-LP replica

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
VoodooLounge13
But even though both SACD and SHM are pulled from the same source, the SHM CDs don't have the same sound as the SACD CDs, do they? I thought I'd read on here somewhere once that SACD is the process and SHM is just the quality of the CD plastic itself, or am I wrong about that? Such that, technically, the SACD SHM-CD would then be the definitive version, whereas the plain SHM CD would not have the same expanse upon listening as a SACD. I think of those Abkco reissues and how sonically better they sounded upon release. Beggars especially I truly loved in that format.

I believe you are correct. The 2002 was a 'hybrid' release meaning it had two layers and you could play it on a regular CD - because SACD wasn't a large market - was great because you could always 'update' later.

The fact that new rereleases are on SHM either means that they've thrown in the towel on SACD, or perhaps more cynically, once we've bought the whole catalogue in SHM they'll move to the SACD/SHM combined option.

It never ends.

When my SACD player went kaput I replaced with the a Blu Ray player. The SACD's, to me, sound just as good since I'm hearing the DSD layer. Anyone you look at it, nice title, they were a great improvement over what was originally issued on CD in the 80s.

Maybe that's why the sound was always so good - I used to play the 2002 Abkco's thru a BluRay that was hooked up to my surround system. So the extra layer was getting read always.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-15 15:19 by VoodooLounge13.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-02-22 23:20 by ProfessorWolf.

Great content, but a video editor could take this to a higher level.

Their best album since Hackney Diamonds.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Their best album since Hackney Diamonds.

Their best album since 1962

On 22-May-2024, Apple Music published a definitive list of the greatest albums ever made - '100 Best Albums', assembled with the help of artists & experts.

'Exile On Main Street' is #53 in this list and also the only Rolling Stones album there. For comparison, The Beatles 'Abbey Road' is #3 in this list.

[100Best.Music.Apple.com]

Quote
Irix
On 22-May-2024, Apple Music published a definitive list of the greatest albums ever made - '100 Best Albums', assembled with the help of artists & experts.

'Exile On Main Street' is #53 in this list and also the only Rolling Stones album there. For comparison, The Beatles 'Abbey Road' is #3 in this list.

[100Best.Music.Apple.com]

I never heard of Lauryn Hill I must be getting to old for these list's

__________________________

Quote
NICOS

Quote
Irix
On 22-May-2024, Apple Music published a definitive list of the greatest albums ever made - '100 Best Albums', assembled with the help of artists & experts.

'Exile On Main Street' is #53 in this list and also the only Rolling Stones album there. For comparison, The Beatles 'Abbey Road' is #3 in this list.

[100Best.Music.Apple.com]

I never heard of Lauryn Hill I must be getting to old for these list's

She was with The Fugees (1990s band). Her solo album Miseducation (1998) is highly acclaimed.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
NICOS

Quote
Irix
On 22-May-2024, Apple Music published a definitive list of the greatest albums ever made - '100 Best Albums', assembled with the help of artists & experts.

'Exile On Main Street' is #53 in this list and also the only Rolling Stones album there. For comparison, The Beatles 'Abbey Road' is #3 in this list.

[100Best.Music.Apple.com]

I never heard of Lauryn Hill I must be getting to old for these list's

She was with The Fugees (1990s band). Her solo album Miseducation (1998) is highly acclaimed.

Oké, I will ckeck it out

__________________________

If you wanna read it on gold-edged paper that 'Exile On Main Street' is #53 in the definitive list of the 100 greatest albums ever made, it's just $450 - [www.Assouline.com] :


[100Best.Music.Apple.com]

Quote
Irix
If you wanna read it on gold-edged paper that 'Exile On Main Street' is #53 in the definitive list of the 100 greatest albums ever made, it's just $450 - [www.Assouline.com] :


[100Best.Music.Apple.com]

I've always thought the "Miseducation of Lauryn Hill" should have been number one. It screams it.

Of course I am always willing to spend 450 bucks to know that my favourite album and no doubt the greatest rock and roll album ever done is ranked only #53 in some "definitive list"...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Of course I am always willing to spend 450 bucks to know that my favourite album and no doubt the greatest rock and roll album ever done is ranked only #53 in some "definitive list"...

- Doxa

To Stones enthusiasts, it's startling albums like Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed don't even make the list. Sgt. Pepper didn't make this list. Only one Dylan album, Highway 61.

Billie Eilish at number 30, Appetite for Destruction 52, EOMS 53.

I don't recognize this world.

Quote
treaclefingers

To Stones enthusiasts, it's startling albums like Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed don't even make the list. Sgt. Pepper didn't make this list. Only one Dylan album, Highway 61.

Billie Eilish at number 30, Appetite for Destruction 52, EOMS 53.

I don't recognize this world.

It is indeed very true that these lists are becoming somewhat unrecognisable to those generations’ raised on ‘rock music’ There is a seeming ‘need’ to diversify and to incorporate a balance based on multiple things: ethnicity; gender; genre, and more. There is no other feasible explanation as to why these ‘Top-100’ lists are becoming – in my opinion a– less credible, less interesting. These lists have always been a little predictable; and they still are, in fact. I stopped looking a long time ago.

The Rolling Stones - Rocks Off - Karaoke

video: [youtu.be]

Since this song has been mentioned.
I neither speak English nor do I know anything about music theory, so let me see if I can make myself understood: the tone/note that the second voice sings in Rocks off doesn't sound like Keith's voice. Can anyone confirm if it's actually his?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-13 22:57 by emotionalbarbecue.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

To Stones enthusiasts, it's startling albums like Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed don't even make the list. Sgt. Pepper didn't make this list. Only one Dylan album, Highway 61.

Billie Eilish at number 30, Appetite for Destruction 52, EOMS 53.

I don't recognize this world.

It is indeed very true that these lists are becoming somewhat unrecognisable to those generations’ raised on ‘rock music’ There is a seeming ‘need’ to diversify and to incorporate a balance based on multiple things: ethnicity; gender; genre, and more. There is no other feasible explanation as to why these ‘Top-100’ lists are becoming – in my opinion a– less credible, less interesting. These lists have always been a little predictable; and they still are, in fact. I stopped looking a long time ago.

I think it's probably fair to have a more "balanced" top 100, including more styles, if you're going to do that.

What probably makes more sense is to not do it at all. At least not rate the top 100 in music. How can you compare Taylor Swift to John Coltrane to the Rolling Stones? It's not possible.

Even within my own music tastes I don't rank my favourite Miles Davis album against the Sex Pistols or Johnny Cash or some classical music. Its nonsensical.

If you're going to rate at all, then using musical genres makes more sense. At least then you're ranking music that is of similar style and most people that enjoy that style will be familiar with.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

To Stones enthusiasts, it's startling albums like Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed don't even make the list. Sgt. Pepper didn't make this list. Only one Dylan album, Highway 61.

Billie Eilish at number 30, Appetite for Destruction 52, EOMS 53.

I don't recognize this world.

It is indeed very true that these lists are becoming somewhat unrecognisable to those generations’ raised on ‘rock music’ There is a seeming ‘need’ to diversify and to incorporate a balance based on multiple things: ethnicity; gender; genre, and more. There is no other feasible explanation as to why these ‘Top-100’ lists are becoming – in my opinion a– less credible, less interesting. These lists have always been a little predictable; and they still are, in fact. I stopped looking a long time ago.

I think it's probably fair to have a more "balanced" top 100, including more styles, if you're going to do that.

What probably makes more sense is to not do it at all. At least not rate the top 100 in music. How can you compare Taylor Swift to John Coltrane to the Rolling Stones? It's not possible.

Even within my own music tastes I don't rank my favourite Miles Davis album against the Sex Pistols or Johnny Cash or some classical music. Its nonsensical.

If you're going to rate at all, then using musical genres makes more sense. At least then you're ranking music that is of similar style and most people that enjoy that style will be familiar with.

Yes, absolutely. Observing the sheer musical diversity of the majority of the recent lists, that would make perfect sense. Rolling Stone's lists of recent years' shows why this is, now, probably necessary. If we had, say, a 'rock' list, it would probably look pretty similar to a Rolling Stone Top-100 albums ranking from thirty-years ago; probably with the likes of The Strokes and the White Stripes thrown in.

Quote
emotionalbarbecue
Since this song has been mentioned.
I neither speak English nor do I know anything about music theory, so let me see if I can make myself understood: the tone/note that the second voice sings in Rocks off doesn't sound like Keith's voice. Can anyone confirm if it's actually his?

No worry, you are among friends and make perfect sense
The background vox on Rocks Off are Keith and Mick. I can send you a taste of the isolated track?

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

To Stones enthusiasts, it's startling albums like Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed don't even make the list. Sgt. Pepper didn't make this list. Only one Dylan album, Highway 61.

Billie Eilish at number 30, Appetite for Destruction 52, EOMS 53.

I don't recognize this world.

It is indeed very true that these lists are becoming somewhat unrecognisable to those generations’ raised on ‘rock music’ There is a seeming ‘need’ to diversify and to incorporate a balance based on multiple things: ethnicity; gender; genre, and more. There is no other feasible explanation as to why these ‘Top-100’ lists are becoming – in my opinion a– less credible, less interesting. These lists have always been a little predictable; and they still are, in fact. I stopped looking a long time ago.

Look at the source - a much more pliable and accessible platform than any magazine. The diversity is enormous compared to a dinosaur rag like Rolling Stone that, while acknowledging the present, is stuck in the past.

If the same was done by Spotify it would probably be more diverse.

The best albums by whoever aren't on the list because there are so many artists that have best albums, beyond rock'n'roll, beyond country, and much more recent than 1994.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

To Stones enthusiasts, it's startling albums like Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed don't even make the list. Sgt. Pepper didn't make this list. Only one Dylan album, Highway 61.

Billie Eilish at number 30, Appetite for Destruction 52, EOMS 53.

I don't recognize this world.

It is indeed very true that these lists are becoming somewhat unrecognisable to those generations’ raised on ‘rock music’ There is a seeming ‘need’ to diversify and to incorporate a balance based on multiple things: ethnicity; gender; genre, and more. There is no other feasible explanation as to why these ‘Top-100’ lists are becoming – in my opinion a– less credible, less interesting. These lists have always been a little predictable; and they still are, in fact. I stopped looking a long time ago.

Look at the source - a much more pliable and accessible platform than any magazine. The diversity is enormous compared to a dinosaur rag like Rolling Stone that, while acknowledging the present, is stuck in the past.

If the same was done by Spotify it would probably be more diverse.

The best albums by whoever aren't on the list because there are so many artists that have best albums, beyond rock'n'roll, beyond country, and much more recent than 1994.

It would actually be far more interesting rating different artists against their stylistic contemporaries. "How does Taylor Swift compare to Oasis?".

Like, who cares?

Quote
RobberBride

Quote
emotionalbarbecue
Since this song has been mentioned.
I neither speak English nor do I know anything about music theory, so let me see if I can make myself understood: the tone/note that the second voice sings in Rocks off doesn't sound like Keith's voice. Can anyone confirm if it's actually his?

No worry, you are among friends and make perfect sense
The background vox on Rocks Off are Keith and Mick. I can send you a taste of the isolated track?

Of course!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

To Stones enthusiasts, it's startling albums like Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed don't even make the list. Sgt. Pepper didn't make this list. Only one Dylan album, Highway 61.

Billie Eilish at number 30, Appetite for Destruction 52, EOMS 53.

I don't recognize this world.

It is indeed very true that these lists are becoming somewhat unrecognisable to those generations’ raised on ‘rock music’ There is a seeming ‘need’ to diversify and to incorporate a balance based on multiple things: ethnicity; gender; genre, and more. There is no other feasible explanation as to why these ‘Top-100’ lists are becoming – in my opinion a– less credible, less interesting. These lists have always been a little predictable; and they still are, in fact. I stopped looking a long time ago.

Look at the source - a much more pliable and accessible platform than any magazine. The diversity is enormous compared to a dinosaur rag like Rolling Stone that, while acknowledging the present, is stuck in the past.

If the same was done by Spotify it would probably be more diverse.

The best albums by whoever aren't on the list because there are so many artists that have best albums, beyond rock'n'roll, beyond country, and much more recent than 1994.

It would actually be far more interesting rating different artists against their stylistic contemporaries. "How does Taylor Swift compare to Oasis?".

Like, who cares?

Willie Nelson has some excellent albums yet I never think or consider them when ranking great albums by Pink Floyd, Beatles, Stones, etc. Probably because of the genre. So, of course, rating NWA, Prince, AC/DC, Taylor Swift and Jimmy Buffett in some kind of Top 5 Greatest Albums doesn't make sense except only in one aspect: their best work.

How does Taylor Swift compare to Oasis? There are a few ways to do that - sales, streams, chartings, show/tour attendance. I don't think total gross/financial aspects can be compared. A lot of people have seen the Stones - no telling how many of the trillion people that have seen them have been multiple times - and U2 and blah blah blah, which is specific unto itself unlike streaming.

Otherwise it's comparing a hair brush to a cinder block.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

To Stones enthusiasts, it's startling albums like Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed don't even make the list. Sgt. Pepper didn't make this list. Only one Dylan album, Highway 61.

Billie Eilish at number 30, Appetite for Destruction 52, EOMS 53.

I don't recognize this world.

It is indeed very true that these lists are becoming somewhat unrecognisable to those generations’ raised on ‘rock music’ There is a seeming ‘need’ to diversify and to incorporate a balance based on multiple things: ethnicity; gender; genre, and more. There is no other feasible explanation as to why these ‘Top-100’ lists are becoming – in my opinion a– less credible, less interesting. These lists have always been a little predictable; and they still are, in fact. I stopped looking a long time ago.

Look at the source - a much more pliable and accessible platform than any magazine. The diversity is enormous compared to a dinosaur rag like Rolling Stone that, while acknowledging the present, is stuck in the past.

If the same was done by Spotify it would probably be more diverse.

The best albums by whoever aren't on the list because there are so many artists that have best albums, beyond rock'n'roll, beyond country, and much more recent than 1994.

It would actually be far more interesting rating different artists against their stylistic contemporaries. "How does Taylor Swift compare to Oasis?".

Like, who cares?

Willie Nelson has some excellent albums yet I never think or consider them when ranking great albums by Pink Floyd, Beatles, Stones, etc. Probably because of the genre. So, of course, rating NWA, Prince, AC/DC, Taylor Swift and Jimmy Buffett in some kind of Top 5 Greatest Albums doesn't make sense except only in one aspect: their best work.

How does Taylor Swift compare to Oasis? There are a few ways to do that - sales, streams, chartings, show/tour attendance. I don't think total gross/financial aspects can be compared. A lot of people have seen the Stones - no telling how many of the trillion people that have seen them have been multiple times - and U2 and blah blah blah, which is specific unto itself unlike streaming.

Otherwise it's comparing a hair brush to a cinder block.

zactly...making the lists somewhat meaningless. If they want to make it more interesting going the genre route you can at least have some discussion and some agreement or disagreement that is actually interesting. Comparing Taylor Swift to Oasis, or BB King to ABBA is ridiculous.

However, seeing what people consider to be great albums, regardless of genre, and spanning multiple decades, is more interesting than the same ol' Led Zeppelin vs lists.

EXILE can be frustrating. Sometimes it just doesn't cut it in terms of cranking something, although tidying it up into a single album does increase the magnitude, to where it punches through the way SOME GIRLS or TATTOO YOU or STICKY FINGERS does ie immediacy. It certainly starts off that way but it bottoms out and never really recovers, although it does swamp around a bit, and aside from Turd On The Run, it never kicks back up until All Down The Line.


It's a bit overrated, to be honest. Compared to Let it Bleed and Beggars Banquet, which I think are more of a piece, I don't see it's as thematic as the other two. I'm not saying it's not good. It doesn't contain as many outstanding songs as the previous (sic) two records. I think the playing's quite good. It's got a raw quality, but I don't think all around it's as good.
- Mick Jagger, 1995

[timeisonourside.com]

Quote
GasLightStreet
EXILE can be frustrating. Sometimes it just doesn't cut it in terms of cranking something, although tidying it up into a single album does increase the magnitude, to where it punches through the way SOME GIRLS or TATTOO YOU or STICKY FINGERS does ie immediacy. It certainly starts off that way but it bottoms out and never really recovers, although it does swamp around a bit, and aside from Turd On The Run, it never kicks back up until All Down The Line.

That's what I call "gaslighting"

Quote
GasLightStreet
However, seeing what people consider to be great albums, regardless of genre, and spanning multiple decades, is more interesting than the same ol' Led Zeppelin vs lists.

Sure, but it's fairly meaningless comparing genre's. I love jazz, but how do you compare it to Some Girls? You can't objectively.