Quote
HMS
Yes it matters a lot.

Imagine a band releasing an album of great stuff in, say, 2010 and everybody´s happy that they are (still) so good and productive. Then two years later you learn that most stuff on that great record was in fact recorded in 2001. And the band that sounded so good on their faked album is in fact now a bunch of addicts not able to get in their boots without someone who helps them. Wouldnt that be a little bit disappointing?

An album should be a clear statement of where the band stands, not where it once stood. Musically, emotionally and so on. Hope you understand my point of view. If you dont have enough new material and use very old recordings, then tell the people the truth.

If a new Stones-record is released I expect to hear the "Today´s Stones", not the "Yesterday´s Stones". After all it´s a matter of honesty.

The same year.

Quote
HMS

Quote
shortfatfanny
Black and Blue released 1975 and Undercover 1985...?
Sure.

I know that B&B was released in 1976 and Undercover in 1983 like everybody else does. I meant during a decade (1975-85).

That's not a decade, it's 11 years.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS

Quote
shortfatfanny
Black and Blue released 1975 and Undercover 1985...?
Sure.

I know that B&B was released in 1976 and Undercover in 1983 like everybody else does. I meant during a decade (1975-85).

That's not a decade, it's 11 years.

That´s right, but I think it doesn´t matter much to people who dont even care when a 1981-Stone-album contains songs from 1973.

Quote
HMS
A 1981-release should show where the band stands musically in 1981 and there is no place for instrumental tracks from 1973 and 1975, no matter how perfect they are. Record these parts again or tell the people what´s the matter with these tracks.

There was nothing wrong with the tracks. They don't go bad like an opened bag of cheese.

Quote
HMS
They simply didn´t tell the truth.

They're not politicians. So in your words, they "lied" then about recordings on STICKY FINGERS and EXILE ON MAIN STREET and, oh, let's see, GOATS HEAD SOUP has old songs on it as well - not recorded but written wise they're "old". So does EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER. And in your words, since they aren't specific with the songs and the studios, they lie on every album because you don't know exactly where and when something was done.

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about as usual?

Quote
HMS
They didnt lie in fact, they just didnt tell us where all these songs came from.

Just like they did on all of their albums. Or do you mean how successful bank robbers don't let the authorities know where they went with their loot? Asinine again.

Quote
HMS
They let us blieve it´s all new.

The Stones aren't catholicism. Why you view them that way is asinine.

Quote
HMS
I always thought it was a genuine new album, liked it very much and was very disappointed when I learned decades later that it was stitched together and that they didn´t even tell us about it.

So, in fact, you liked it. Very much. You liked a genuine new album. Of course, you won't understand what 'genuine new album' means in this case because you're choosing to be a whiny little kid about it.

Quote
HMS
To me TY for all these reasons isn´t a Stones-album like SG, Undercover, Dirty Work, ABB, IORR etc.

I agree with you. It's better than any of those albums.

Quote
HMS
It´s a compilation of leftovers hanging around for years and years and in fact does not represent the Stones in 1981.

So... having new guitars, new vocals, new saxophone, new percussion - and by new that means recorded for TATTOO YOU in 1980 and 1981 ie new recordings on the master tapes for the songs to be finished for an album they were planning to release ie new album, when they did the same kind of thing with leftover tracks for EXILE. Yes, you're right for once: an album is a compilation. And, oh my, you're right again, it is leftovers.

But, you know, when they record songs, they record the bottoms. And then sometimes months later they get finished. Or a year later. Or years later. It's all the same: the result is the track is finished. When is irrelevant.

So, seeing that the vocals were all new, well, how can that not represent the Stones in 1981? Oh. That's right. It's fact that it does.

Quote
HMS
Undercover represents the Stones in 1983, Steel Wheels in 1989, ABB in 2005, but TY is not the Stones in 1981.

Nope. It is the Stones in 1981. How could it not be? What if they had waited until 1981 to release EMOTIONAL RESCUE? What would your excuse be for that then? The same as all the rest - bunk.

Quote
HMS
Musically TY is a very good album, but it isn´t "new" it´s a compilation (1973-81) and no definition of the term "album" or "compilation" can excuse the fact that TY is faked indeed.

Regardless of what you think, when something is released for the first time it is....



...oh, somehow you don't know what it is! Well hell, I'll tell you!!!!!!!







NEW.

GLS, you justify their odd behaviour almost as hard as you bash their best latter-day-album.

But you cannot deny that TY is a product that was created mainly by MJ and Chris Kimsey with minimal new input by the other band-members. We know about the new vocals, but we do not know how much (or how little) overdubbing was done for the tracks from 1973 & 1975. Most albums of any artist contains info about where and when the music was recorded. Is it too much to expect the Stones providing this information like most others do?

To equate the way EOMS, SF and TY were created is improper. EOMS/SF has no music on it that was recorded around 1964. One can tolerate two years old songs to show up on a new record, but songs that were recorded 8-9 years ago??? That is the same way the Exile-Bonus-CD was created and no one would dare to say this disc is a "new" Stones-album. Of course you would, because any bunch of songs is... But definitions of the term album and stretching it to the max is not the point when discussing TY. The point is that they were using "very" old songs and did not tell us about it. Not having that info leads fans to say "Wow, listen to Slave, it´s a new Stones track, they still can come up with great songs in 1981". But Slave is from 1975. And Tops, another TY-gem is from 1973. That is the point. You dont know how good the Stones really are at some point of time if you dont know when the song was recorded/written.

Most Stones-albums contain leftovers from previous sessions, but only TY contains songs that old as Tops, Slave & Waiting. They can go and add lyrics/vocals to very old songs, but then they should re-record them instead of overdubbing and of course they should mention they way these songs were (re)created in the album´s liner notes. There has to be more honesty, else they might as well release an album in 2017 containing 75% ABB-leftovers and claim "it´s all new".

Quote
HMS
GLS, you justify their odd behaviour almost as hard as you bash their best latter-day-album.

I've only bashed the crap songs on BRIDGES TO BABYLON. Although at times I think A BIGGER BANG is better overall, of which I've bashed the crap songs as well.

However, I'm not "justifying" their "odd behaviour". You're accusing the Stones of having "odd behaviour"? About recording?

They're not known for "odd behaviour" with recording.

Quote
HMS
But you cannot deny that TY is a product that was created mainly by MJ and Chris Kimsey with minimal new input by the other band-members. We know about the new vocals, but we do not know how much (or how little) overdubbing was done for the tracks from 1973 & 1975.

If you'd simply read you'd know the facts of your silly statement. And since you haven't taken in what others have told you, I'll say it again: there's no need to record new instrument tracks when the ones they have are just fine.

But there are other possibilities. What makes you think they didn't? They certainly could have. They could have recorded new acoustic or electric guitar tracks for Waiting On A Friend. Clearly they would listen to them and someone would say, "Nahhhh, the original is better".

But that kind of thought process doesn't enter your mind. It can't. It's not possible.

Quote
HMS
Most albums of any artist contains info about where and when the music was recorded. Is it too much to expect the Stones providing this information like most others do?

What does it matter? It doesn't. Pull yer panties up.

Quote
HMS
To equate the way EOMS, SF and TY were created is improper. EOMS/SF has no music on it that was recorded around 1964.

You're stretching your own statement, which was 'To make TY a "real" Stones-album they would have had to record all instrumental parts older than two years once again, instead of just doing a few overdubs here and there and add new vocals.' SF and EOMS has tracks that are older than 2 years on it. But you said you think that they're no good and need to be recorded over, to be "new".

So, just to use 3 examples from STICKY FINGERS, Brown Sugar, You Gotta Move and Wild Horses are not "new" enough and therefor the Stones lied about them being on STICKY FINGERS. Oh but wait. Let's see... Brown Sugar was recorded in 1969 and had overdubs in 1970 but wasn't released until 1971.

Yeah, you know, there are no tracks like that whatsoever on TATTOO YOU.

Quote
HMS
One can tolerate two years old songs to show up on a new record, but songs that were recorded 8-9 years ago??? That is the same way the Exile-Bonus-CD was created and no one would dare to say this disc is a "new" Stones-album. Of course you would, because any bunch of songs is...

Those bonus discs are albums technically. Why can't you just accept the truth? They're "new" albums. They weren't handled as such. Some people on this board consider them the best album they've released in years.

Quote
HMS
But definitions of the term album and stretching it to the max is not the point when discussing TY.

So you can't stick to your own argument. Fortunately you handle music for no one.

Quote
HMS
The point is that they were using "very" old songs and did not tell us about it.

You're such a cry baby.

Quote
HMS
Not having that info leads fans to say "Wow, listen to Slave, it´s a new Stones track, they still can come up with great songs in 1981". But Slave is from 1975.

Finished and released in 1981. Hence nuevo.

Quote
HMS
And Tops, another TY-gem is from 1973. That is the point. You dont know how good the Stones really are at some point of time if you dont know when the song was recorded/written.

Irrelevant. If they'd recorded Tops over again for SOME GIRLS or EMOTIONAL RESCUE you wouldn't know the difference. Your point is childish.

Quote
HMS
Most Stones-albums contain leftovers from previous sessions, but only TY contains songs that old as Tops, Slave & Waiting.

Wow. You're right! For once.

Quote
HMS
They can go and add lyrics/vocals to very old songs, but then they should re-record them instead of overdubbing and of course they should mention they way these songs were (re)created in the album´s liner notes.

What makes you think they haven't ever done that? It might greatly help if you paid attention to anything anyone has said. But since you're clearly not a true Stones fan, well, it just goes over your head anyway. It's astounding how you complain about such a mundane thing.

Quote
HMS
There has to be more honesty, else they might as well release an album in 2017 containing 75% ABB-leftovers and claim "it´s all new".

They record a song until they think the structure of it is done. When they finish it is when they finish it. Nobody tells them when that is. They decide when they're finished.

If they operated the way you cry about then over half of their catalogue would not sound the way it does, it would sound like crap, like their worst album does: not worked on to be good, just slapped down to say to the record label that they've contracted to release something with for the first time, "Here you go, suckers".

Quote
HMS
Yes it matters a lot.

Imagine a band releasing an album of great stuff in, say, 2010 and everybody´s happy that they are (still) so good and productive. Then two years later you learn that most stuff on that great record was in fact recorded in 2001. And the band that sounded so good on their faked album is in fact now a bunch of addicts not able to get in their boots without someone who helps them. Wouldnt that be a little bit disappointing?

An album should be a clear statement of where the band stands, not where it once stood. Musically, emotionally and so on. Hope you understand my point of view. If you dont have enough new material and use very old recordings, then tell the people the truth.

If a new Stones-record is released I expect to hear the "Today´s Stones", not the "Yesterday´s Stones". After all it´s a matter of honesty.

Telling people the truth...being honest... Hell, you show little to no understanding of how the music business works!

Do yo really expect professional musicians like the Stones telling in a press release "oh, our contract demanded a new album, but unfortunately Keith and I don't get along very well at the moment so I asked Chris (Kimsey) to search our vaults to find some suitable material that I could finish on my own to get an album out"?

That's simply not the way it works. At best their marketing skills would have allowed them to tell the public a positive-sounding, but made-up story like: "Oh, Chris went through some old tapes for catalogizing them and suprisingly found these treasures that were too good to be forgotten, so we decided to make our fans happy by finishing and releasing them because despite being tremendously productive at the moment our all-new material still needs some more work!".

Would a positive-sounding story like this make you happy?

Oh, and if you think that artists in general are always totally honest with fans about what's going on behind the scenes: DREAM ON!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-30 22:34 by alimente.

Quote
HMS
Yes it matters a lot.

Imagine a band releasing an album of great stuff in, say, 2010 and everybody´s happy that they are (still) so good and productive. Then two years later you learn that most stuff on that great record was in fact recorded in 2001. And the band that sounded so good on their faked album is in fact now a bunch of addicts not able to get in their boots without someone who helps them. Wouldnt that be a little bit disappointing?

An album should be a clear statement of where the band stands, not where it once stood. Musically, emotionally and so on. Hope you understand my point of view. If you dont have enough new material and use very old recordings, then tell the people the truth.

If a new Stones-record is released I expect to hear the "Today´s Stones", not the "Yesterday´s Stones". After all it´s a matter of honesty.

Although they didn't tell 100% of the truth, I remember hearing some interviews with Mick and Keith around the time of TY's release where they were forthright in saying that some of the tracks dated as far back as BAB and GHS...

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
HMS
Yes it matters a lot.

Imagine a band releasing an album of great stuff in, say, 2010 and everybody´s happy that they are (still) so good and productive. Then two years later you learn that most stuff on that great record was in fact recorded in 2001. And the band that sounded so good on their faked album is in fact now a bunch of addicts not able to get in their boots without someone who helps them. Wouldnt that be a little bit disappointing?

An album should be a clear statement of where the band stands, not where it once stood. Musically, emotionally and so on. Hope you understand my point of view. If you dont have enough new material and use very old recordings, then tell the people the truth.

If a new Stones-record is released I expect to hear the "Today´s Stones", not the "Yesterday´s Stones". After all it´s a matter of honesty.

Although they didn't tell 100% of the truth, I remember hearing some interviews with Mick and Keith around the time of TY's release where they were forthright in saying that some of the tracks dated as far back as BAB and GHS...

[www.timeisonourside.com]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
GasLightStreet
I'll say it again: there's no need to record new instrument tracks when the ones they have are just fine.

When the instrumental parts are almost ten years old, then they should be re-recorded for the sake of credibility. Mixing stuff from who knows when and new recorded parts to create a song is the way Frankenstein works. A band shouldnt do that.

Quote
GasLightStreet
What does it matter? It doesn't.

It does matter to some people where and when a new song/album was recorded. I´d like to know am I listening to „new recorded“ music or to Frankenstein´s patchwork.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Finished and released in 1981. Hence nuevo.

Not nuevo. Most of Slave was recorded in 1975, so it isnt new. It was released for the first time, but it was not new. There should be a sticker on TY saying „contains previously unreleased re-worked material“.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Irrelevant. If they'd recorded Tops over again for SOME GIRLS or EMOTIONAL RESCUE you wouldn't know the difference. Your point is childish.

Once again it is absolutely not irrelevant when a song has been recorded. Releasing a song recorded in 1973 on an album in 1981 without saying that it is in fact an oldie is fooling the fans. The Stones in 1981 were not the same as in 1973. Should have been re-recorded to call it rightfully a „new song“.

Quote
GasLightStreet
They record a song until they think the structure of it is done. When they finish it is when they finish it. Nobody tells them when that is. They decide when they're finished.

The use of instrumentals/vocals that were recorded almost ten years ago for a new album is unacceptable. They can play around with it in the studio for ten years and overdub it a hundred times but when they think it´s finally good enough for a release they should re-record the whole track, otherwise it´s Frankenstein work.

Was Plundered My Soul a 'new' song (because the vocals were new, or something from the vaults?
I would expect their new album next year to be the result of recordings from the past year or two.
If they put something out with dressed up bits from the past I might enjoy them, but it wouldn't be a new album.

Plundered isn´t a new song. Old instrumental, some overdubbing and new vocals. It´s Frankenstein´s patchwork.

There are artists telling the truth about their "new" albums - Pink Floyd released The Endless River and told everybody months before it´s release that it contains instrumentals recorded 20 years ago plus new vocals on an old instrumental. Bruce Springsteen released High Hopes and everybody was told that the "new album" was a mix of a couple of new songs, a few re-recordings of well known songs and some previously unreleased songs from the past decade. Both albums sold well so there is in fact no need for cheating or secrecy.

Should there be a new Stones-album in 2017 I expect that the recordings were made in 2016-17. I dont mind if they use previously unreleased songs or finish sketches from the past as long as they are new recordings. It´s alright to re-record Honest Man, but it would be cheating to use parts of the 1994-recording of Honest Man.

Quote
HMS
Plundered isn´t a new song. Old instrumental, some overdubbing and new vocals. It´s Frankenstein´s patchwork.

There are artists telling the truth about their "new" albums - Pink Floyd released The Endless River and told everybody months before it´s release that it contains instrumentals recorded 20 years ago plus new vocals on an old instrumental. Bruce Springsteen released High Hopes and everybody was told that the "new album" was a mix of a couple of new songs, a few re-recordings of well known songs and some previously unreleased songs from the past decade. Both albums sold well so there is in fact no need for cheating or secrecy.

Should there be a new Stones-album in 2017 I expect that the recordings were made in 2016-17. I dont mind if they use previously unreleased songs or finish sketches from the past as long as they are new recordings. It´s alright to re-record Honest Man, but it would be cheating to use parts of the 1994-recording of Honest Man.

The examples you mention are old artists near the end of their careers. There's no need anymore to prove anything, there's no need for any myth-founding marketing stunts anymore. Probably never was for Pink Floyd and Springsteen anyway, at least not to the same extent as for the Stones, who were always masters of creating myths for marketing purposes, to an extent that makes it nearly impossible to tell the truth from fiction even nowadays. In 1981, the Stones were struggling to prove they were not "dinosaurs" or even "oldies", but still relevant and ahead of their competitors, even more so after the relative artistic failure of ER which only received mixed reviews from many fans and the music press and was regarded as a slight disappointment after SG.

But anyway, time is money, not only in the music business. I guess that any request from any producer to re-record already perfect instrumental parts of "older than two years tracks" just for the sake of "street credibility" (and to make fans like HMS happy!) would generate reactions from the band that are probably not printable here.

Quote
wonderboy
Was Plundered My Soul a 'new' song (because the vocals were new, or something from the vaults?
I would expect their new album next year to be the result of recordings from the past year or two.
If they put something out with dressed up bits from the past I might enjoy them, but it wouldn't be a new album.

It sure was. It was previously unreleased, henceforth it was new.

Was it newly recorded with the band? No.

But a lot of stuff on new albums wasn't.

Pick a side of the fence, be on it.

<It´s alright to re-record Honest Man, but it would be cheating to use parts of the 1994-recording of Honest Man.>

why is it cheating?...artists evolve ( hopefully) all the time.....hasn't Keith used bits and pieces of his famous riffs for decades on "new" songs...crap..he even successfully took it solo....and back to the Stones...Jagger too..

Quote
Rip This
<It´s alright to re-record Honest Man, but it would be cheating to use parts of the 1994-recording of Honest Man.>

why is it cheating?...artists evolve ( hopefully) all the time.....hasn't Keith used bits and pieces of his famous riffs for decades on "new" songs...crap..he even successfully took it solo....and back to the Stones...Jagger too..

If they would use the drum parts of Honest Man that were recorded in 1994 (22 years ago!!!) for a new version in 2017 it would of course be cheating. If they use Jagger´s guitar playing from 1994 instead of recording it new, it would be cheating.
If they would use Jagger´s vocals from 1994 it would be an offense.

Keith using the same riff for 3 different songs (One from Exile, one from Undercover and... what was the third... Going Down(?) is not cheating, he didnt use guitar tracks recorded a long time ago. The point is that everything has to be recorded new, no use of old parts. Then it´s a new song, a new album.

Honest Man is a cheat in itself. It's so similar to Sweet Thing that I understand totally that they didn't go further with it

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
wonderboy
Was Plundered My Soul a 'new' song (because the vocals were new, or something from the vaults?
I would expect their new album next year to be the result of recordings from the past year or two.
If they put something out with dressed up bits from the past I might enjoy them, but it wouldn't be a new album.

It sure was. It was previously unreleased, henceforth it was new.

Was it newly recorded with the band? No.

But a lot of stuff on new albums wasn't.

Pick a side of the fence, be on it.

It wasnt a new song, it´s patchwork combining old instrumentals and new vocals. Previously unreleased is not the same as new. It is not necessary to have all four Stones playing on a new track, Bill was absent on many recording dates. But it is absolutely unacceptable to use old guitar tracks, drum tracks, vocal tracks or whatever to create a "new song". Doom And Gloom & One More Shot were recorded and released in 2012 (at least I hope so). That´s the way it has to be, otherwise it´s patchwork, fake, cheating, call it what you want. Please dont call previously unreleased songs "new songs". They aren´t.

Like Totally Stripped isnt a "new" live-album. It is a new release containig old and previously unreleased material. Live In Hyde Park was a new live album in 2013. Totally Stripped isn´t. Doom And Gloom was a new song in 2012, Plundered My Soul wasn´t.

What does it matter when the tracks were worked or reworked and so on . I would love if the Stones TODAY went thru the vaults and dug up anything and put some Lemon scented Pledge on them and shined them up and dare i say put out a BRAND NEW Album out next week or month and i can guarantee it would blow away any garbage that passes for NEW music today . I mean the quality of the stuff the Glimmers throw away or stash away or thumb there nose at is so high it just boggles ones mind . How i would love a new type of TATTO YOU album to come out today so i could blast the heck out of it on the big speakers and rock my brains out to the GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD (trumpet fanfare now please !!!!!!)

Quote
TheGreek
What does it matter when the tracks were worked or reworked and so on . I would love if the Stones TODAY went thru the vaults and dug up anything and put some Lemon scented Pledge on them and shined them up and dare i say put out a BRAND NEW Album out next week or month and i can guarantee it would blow away any garbage that passes for NEW music today . I mean the quality of the stuff the Glimmers throw away or stash away or thumb there nose at is so high it just boggles ones mind . How i would love a new type of TATTO YOU album to come out today so i could blast the heck out of it on the big speakers and rock my brains out to the GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD (trumpet fanfare now please !!!!!!)

I'll admit I might have trouble calling something patched together a new album but you make a valid point. Even the Stones substandard and thrown away material is better than so much material by so many other bands.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

To expect the Glimmer Twins to RERECORD unused to tracks from the vaults is laughable at best .TO me it would be like finding a Picasso stashed away somewhere for eternity and then to ask the MASTER oh because it is so old and dust covered to repaint it on FRESH and NEW canvass so we could MARKET it as BRAND new .Does not work like that and since when does any artist owe a fan/consumer total honesty ? The bottom line is to push product and make MONEY .As if real life worked like that ,such high,and lofty, and totally unrealistic expectations to have of artists.

Quote
HMS
The point is that everything has to be recorded new, no use of old parts. Then it´s a new song, a new album.

Ok, so everything is a new recording, but the song was actually written 15 years ago. Following your logic, it's a "new" song. Right?

Quote
TheGreek
To expect the Glimmer Twins to RERECORD unused to tracks from the vaults is laughable at best .TO me it would be like finding a Picasso stashed away somewhere for eternity and then to ask the MASTER oh because it is so old and dust covered to repaint it on FRESH and NEW canvass so we could MARKET it as BRAND new .Does not work like that and since when does any artist owe a fan/consumer total honesty ? The bottom line is to push product and make MONEY .As if real life worked like that ,such high,and lofty, and totally unrealistic expectations to have of artists.

Your comment sums up nicely all I've got to say on this topic!

Quote
alimente

Quote
HMS
The point is that everything has to be recorded new, no use of old parts. Then it´s a new song, a new album.

Ok, so everything is a new recording, but the song was actually written 15 years ago. Following your logic, it's a "new" song. Right?

Yes. It doesn´t matter when it was written, as long as it is newly recorded without using parts of an older version/demo recording of the song.

Doom And Gloom -> new song
Don´t Stop -> new song
Tops -> not a new song
Plundered My Soul -> not a new song
Signifying -> not a new song
Harlem Shuffle -> cover-version never played before -> new song
Criss Cross Man -> if all of it would be newly recorded -> new song

Quote
alimente

Quote
TheGreek
To expect the Glimmer Twins to RERECORD unused to tracks from the vaults is laughable at best .TO me it would be like finding a Picasso stashed away somewhere for eternity and then to ask the MASTER oh because it is so old and dust covered to repaint it on FRESH and NEW canvass so we could MARKET it as BRAND new .Does not work like that and since when does any artist owe a fan/consumer total honesty ? The bottom line is to push product and make MONEY .As if real life worked like that ,such high,and lofty, and totally unrealistic expectations to have of artists.

Your comment sums up nicely all I've got to say on this topic!

Agreed.

And prior to HMS taking personal offense to what he calls the 'Frankenstein' or 'patchwork' approach of Tattoo You, etc. (which might be a somewhat valid critique), I've never heard a fan of any band say they've been lied to, cheated on, and deceived because of a studio record making process. With that said, it's been quite humorous to read his reasoning. 'Unacceptable' and 'fake'...lol

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

HMS, you're logic is pathetic.

You jumped the shark with DIRTY WORK but now you've jumped the jump.

HMS Logic:

9th February - 31st March 1969
Shine A Light
Sister Morphine

CHEATING. MUST BE RE-RECORDED.

HMS logic says: 1971's STICKY FINGERS and 1972's EXILE ON MAIN STREET are fake albums because of it.


17th April - 2nd July 1969
Let It Loose
Loving Cup

CHEATING. MUST BE RE-RECORDED.

HMS logic says: 1972's EXILE ON MAIN STREET is a fake album because of it.


17th October - 26th October 1969
All Down The Line - acoustic-version

HMS logic: since they did further takes of it in 1971 of which one was on the 1972 LP version it's not cheating.


2nd - 4th December 1969
You Gotta Move
Brown Sugar
Wild Horses

CHEATING. MUST BE RE-RECORDED

HMS logic: 1971's STICKY FINGERS is a fake album because of it.

Further work on Brown Sugar, Wild Horses, You Gotta Move and Dead Flowers in 1969 still proves that 1971's STICKY FINGERS is a fake album.



17th October - 31st October 1970
Hide Your Love
Silver Train

CHEATING. MUST BE RE-RECORDED
HMS logic: 1973's GOATS HEAD SOUP is a fake album because of it.



25th - 30th November & 6th - 21st December 1972
Short And Curlies
Through The Lonely Nights

CHEATING. MUST BE RE-RECORDED.

HMS logic: These two songs are fake since they were released in 1974; therefor 1974's IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL is a fake album the the B-side to the 1974 single It's Only Rock'N'Roll is fake.



5th - 19th December 1974
Cherry Oh Baby
Fool To Cry

CHEATING. MUST BE RE-RECORDED

HMS logic: These two songs were released on 1976's BLACK AND BLUE. Therefor BAB is a fake album.


5th - 29th January & early February - 2nd March 1978
Summer Romance

CHEATING. MUST BE RE-RECORDED

HMS logic: This track was released on 1980's EMOTIONAL RESCUE. Therefor ER is a fake album.


26th August - 6th September 1978
Where The Boys Go

CHEATING. MUST BE RE-RECORDED

HMS logic: This track was released on 1980's EMOTIONAL RESCUE. Therefor ER is a fake album.


22nd January - 12th February 1980
I Think I’m Going Mad
Little T & A

CHEATING. MUST BE RE-RECORDED

Little T&A was releasing on 1981's TATTOO YOU. I Think I'm Going Mad was released as the B-side on the 1984 single She Was Hot.

10th June - 7th July & late July - 25th August & 12th September - 19th October 1980
Heaven
Neighbours
No Use In Crying

CHEATING. MUST BE RE-RECORDED

HMS logic: These tracks were released on 1981's TATTOO YOU. Therefor TY is a fake album.


Well, that pretty much sums it up:

The Rolling Stones are fakes.

Those albums are fakes.

Note to all..get a life

Why? It's frustratingly hilarious! You can see who the true Stones fans are!

Let´s not be too rigorous.
I´ve always said using two years old songs is tolerable. Three years is already critical but maybe still tolerable.

Using a four years old song as a b-side of their latest single without telling the date of it´s recording is not tolerable. There has to be a note "xxx was recorded in 19xx".

But it´s totally unacceptable to use almost ten years old recordings to create a new album. Absolutely intolerable. The result would not represent the band at it´s actual state. Everybody should dig that.