Quote
EddieByword

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
EddieByword
A few of the tracks are a bit grizzly - "Fight" - "Hold Back" - "Back to Zero" - "Dirty Work" - but the rest of the tracks are fine - as a whole I've always thought it was a great work out album - as per the cartoon insert..........



Plus, as a Keith album it probably made him realise how much he needed Mick's focussed input to make an acclaimed record - "Mick's commercial tendencies ain't all that bad afterall", after all they did get keith his penthouse in NYC and allow him to keep Redlands........

Man do you have it all upside down. Keith's genius has given Mick the millions he enjoys today. I mean we are talking about the man who wrote Gimme Shelter here !!
We are talking about the man who's Guitar intro's and riffs put shivers down the spine of anyone with a pulse. Without Keith's instantly recognizable sound there would be no Stones and no gravy. People talk some serious shit on here.
Sure Keith needs Mick the voice of the Stones just as much as Mick has needed Keith, but don't underestimate the axeman.

Too rude............

If it hadn't been for Mick the Stones would have faded away after DW especially if Mick's solo efforts had taken off and Keith had produced a 'Stones' sequel on the same level as DW.........Keith would have probably ended up dead/in jail/or even bankrupt (despite having written Gimme Shelter et al....lol......Maybe he wrote it as a plea to Mick.........knowing what was coming in the 80s.

Note. It was Mick that "road tested" the new look with backing singers plus, in Japan and Oz on his solo tours in 1988, which later translated to the Steel wheels / urban jungle tours and all the mega production tours ever since.............
It has been since 1990 where the Stones' serious money has come from.......thanks to Mick.

Mick also wrote Brown sugar which argubably has made as much in royalties if not more as Gimme shelter............
Satisfaction being a joint enterprise Keith music / Mick's lyrics.....JJF of course - Bill's song........

PS....so predictable....I knew someone's cage would get rattled although I didn't write it for that......oh well.

Don't worry about it and sorry for being rude.
You actually defended yourself and explained yourself with some very valid points there.
The Stones were indeed not that well off before the mega bucks tours since 89', although i guess Mick and Keith would never have been poor with the record royalties coming in. I guess they need each other to earn the big pay days.

Quote
stone4ever


Don't worry about it and sorry for being rude.

Riffy ("youngriffhards" or how did it go..), don't be. You are always cool in my book!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-13 21:59 by Doxa.

Quote
slew
It's not a good album at all.

he took seven words
and only eight syllables
to tell the story

stones haiku



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-14 04:43 by hopkins.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
EddieByword
A few of the tracks are a bit grizzly - "Fight" - "Hold Back" - "Back to Zero" - "Dirty Work" - but the rest of the tracks are fine - as a whole I've always thought it was a great work out album - as per the cartoon insert..........



Plus, as a Keith album it probably made him realise how much he needed Mick's focussed input to make an acclaimed record - "Mick's commercial tendencies ain't all that bad afterall", after all they did get keith his penthouse in NYC and allow him to keep Redlands........

Man do you have it all upside down. Keith's genius has given Mick the millions he enjoys today. I mean we are talking about the man who wrote Gimme Shelter here !!
We are talking about the man who's Guitar intro's and riffs put shivers down the spine of anyone with a pulse. Without Keith's instantly recognizable sound there would be no Stones and no gravy. People talk some serious shit on here.
Sure Keith needs Mick the voice of the Stones just as much as Mick has needed Keith, but don't underestimate the axeman.

Too rude............

If it hadn't been for Mick the Stones would have faded away after DW especially if Mick's solo efforts had taken off and Keith had produced a 'Stones' sequel on the same level as DW.........Keith would have probably ended up dead/in jail/or even bankrupt (despite having written Gimme Shelter et al....lol......Maybe he wrote it as a plea to Mick.........knowing what was coming in the 80s.

Note. It was Mick that "road tested" the new look with backing singers plus, in Japan and Oz on his solo tours in 1988, which later translated to the Steel wheels / urban jungle tours and all the mega production tours ever since.............
It has been since 1990 where the Stones' serious money has come from.......thanks to Mick.

Mick also wrote Brown sugar which argubably has made as much in royalties if not more as Gimme shelter............
Satisfaction being a joint enterprise Keith music / Mick's lyrics.....JJF of course - Bill's song........

PS....so predictable....I knew someone's cage would get rattled although I didn't write it for that......oh well.

Don't worry about it and sorry for being rude.
You actually defended yourself and explained yourself with some very valid points there.
The Stones were indeed not that well off before the mega bucks tours since 89', although i guess Mick and Keith would never have been poor with the record royalties coming in. I guess they need each other to earn the big pay days.

That's ok and I'll go with that........... .....the difference being I guess, off stage, as Keith himself said, "Keith goes with the flow" whilst "Mick has to organise.......

Personally, I'm so glad he's like that even if the setlists are lately, but for the odd tweak, a lot samey

It's hard to pinpoint the place in time when Keith just gave up arguing with Mick and let him take over all the management decisions of running the Stones.
Keith either got lazy or tired of friction and arguments with his glimmer twin after World War Three.
It could be that Keith was happy to take a back seat with production and direction of Stones albums because he was just desperate for the Stones to continue at any cost after WW3.
What really surprised me was Keith giving up selection choice of Songs to be played live over to Chuck. I mean this Chuck and Mick song selection is the thing that angers me most about the Stones in the last few decades, that and the hideous price of tickets to see this band well past their best.
In 89' i paid £25 to see the Stones close up at Wembley stadium, this was standing, ( before it became all seats now ) To see the Stones close up at a stadium these days costs £400. That's a greedy increase imho.
Yeah sure Mick makes the millions and puts the maximum bums on seats, but the music suffers as a consequence, its all about playing the percentages with song selection, and it makes the whole thing so predictable and boring, almost sad.
In Keith's words "What makes you so greedy makes it so seedy".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-13 23:19 by stone4ever.

Quote
stone4ever
It's hard to pinpoint the place in time when Keith just gave up arguing with Mick and let him take over all the management decisions of running the Stones.
Keith either got lazy or tied of friction and arguments with his glimmer twin after world war three.
It could be that Keith was happy to take a back seat with production and direction of Stones albums because he was just desperate for the Stones to continue at any cost after world war three.
What really surprised me was Keith giving up selection choice of Songs to be played live over to Chuck. I mean this Chuck and Mick song selection is the thing that angers me most about the Stones in the last few decades, that and the hideous price of tickets to see this band well past their best.
In 89' i paid £25 to see the Stones close up at Wembley stadium, this was standing, ( before it became all seats now ) To see the Stones close up at a stadium these days costs £400. That's a greedy increase imho.
Yeah sure Mick makes the millions and puts the maximum bums on seats, but the music suffers as a consequence, its all about playing the percentages with song selection, and it makes the whole thing so predictable and boring, almost sad.
In keiths words "What makes you so greedy makes it so seedy".

That's 10 x inflation ....I paid £20 to see them in Cardiff in 1990...according to the Bank of England, today that would be £40....... [www.bankofengland.co.uk] ..............and it's not like the Urban jungle stage was a cheap(er) basic stage like 1982 ...........can't disagree, even if they charged £120 now for that £20/£25 ticket they would still be rich........

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
stone4ever
It's hard to pinpoint the place in time when Keith just gave up arguing with Mick and let him take over all the management decisions of running the Stones.
Keith either got lazy or tied of friction and arguments with his glimmer twin after world war three.
It could be that Keith was happy to take a back seat with production and direction of Stones albums because he was just desperate for the Stones to continue at any cost after world war three.
What really surprised me was Keith giving up selection choice of Songs to be played live over to Chuck. I mean this Chuck and Mick song selection is the thing that angers me most about the Stones in the last few decades, that and the hideous price of tickets to see this band well past their best.
In 89' i paid £25 to see the Stones close up at Wembley stadium, this was standing, ( before it became all seats now ) To see the Stones close up at a stadium these days costs £400. That's a greedy increase imho.
Yeah sure Mick makes the millions and puts the maximum bums on seats, but the music suffers as a consequence, its all about playing the percentages with song selection, and it makes the whole thing so predictable and boring, almost sad.
In keiths words "What makes you so greedy makes it so seedy".

That's 10 x inflation ....I paid £20 to see them in Cardiff in 1990...according to the Bank of England, today that would be £40....... [www.bankofengland.co.uk] ..............and it's not like the Urban jungle stage was a cheap(er) basic stage like 1982 ...........can't disagree, even if they charged £120 now for that £20/£25 ticket they would still be rich........

Could not agree more Eddie

Not to mention the expensive merchandise, when i went to Exhibitionism in London last year i couldn't believe my eyes, they wanted like £4770 for a crappy football game with a few Stones transfers on it. I mean when is enough money enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-13 23:45 by stone4ever.

Robert Christgau:
" Dirty Work [Rolling Stones, 1986]

Dreaming of solo glory, Mick doesn't have much time for his band these days--just plugged into his Stones mode and spewed whatever he had to spew, adding lyrics and a few key musical ideas to tracks Ron and Keith completed before the star sullied his consciousness with them. And I say let him express himself elsewhere. For once his lyrics are impulsive and confused, two-faced by habit rather than design, the straightest reports he can offer from the top he's so lonely at, about oppressing and being oppressed rather than geopolitical contradiction. In the three that lead side two, always playing dirty is getting to him, as is his misuse of the jerks and greaseballs and @#$%& and dumb-asses who clean up after him, yet for all his privilege he's another nuclear subject who's got no say over whether he rots or pops even though he'd much prefer the former. Especially together with the hard advice of "Hold Back," these are songs of conscience well-known sons of bitches can get away with. Coproducer Steve Lillywhite combines high-detail arena-rock with back-to-basics commitment and limits the melismatic affectations that have turned so much of Mick's late work in on itself. Let him have his own life and career, I don't care. What I want is the Stones as an idea that belongs to history, that's mine as much as theirs. This is it. A "

Quote
LukeTheDrifter
Robert Christgau:
" Dirty Work [Rolling Stones, 1986]

Dreaming of solo glory, Mick doesn't have much time for his band these days--just plugged into his Stones mode and spewed whatever he had to spew, adding lyrics and a few key musical ideas to tracks Ron and Keith completed before the star sullied his consciousness with them. And I say let him express himself elsewhere. For once his lyrics are impulsive and confused, two-faced by habit rather than design, the straightest reports he can offer from the top he's so lonely at, about oppressing and being oppressed rather than geopolitical contradiction. In the three that lead side two, always playing dirty is getting to him, as is his misuse of the jerks and greaseballs and @#$%& and dumb-asses who clean up after him, yet for all his privilege he's another nuclear subject who's got no say over whether he rots or pops even though he'd much prefer the former. Especially together with the hard advice of "Hold Back," these are songs of conscience well-known sons of bitches can get away with. Coproducer Steve Lillywhite combines high-detail arena-rock with back-to-basics commitment and limits the melismatic affectations that have turned so much of Mick's late work in on itself. Let him have his own life and career, I don't care. What I want is the Stones as an idea that belongs to history, that's mine as much as theirs. This is it. A "

Interesting LukeTheDrifter - below is a much lengthier review also by Christgau published in the Village Voice in 1986.
Many similarities and even some exact statements - maybe the above is a condensed/revised/edited version?
There's almost some contradictory thoughts throughout (both in the above and below) - hard to tell if he likes it, hates it, or a little of both.


Dirty Work

Winning Ugly


I never thought I'd get off on a new Stones album this much again.

After almost two decades on top, they seemed too convoluted to come out with such direct, hard-driving music, but it's folly to underestimate their survivorship, so I'm not surprised that they did. The sure thing was that they couldn't make me care about it--that no adjustment in the music or persona could jolt what they said or how they said it past my sensorium and into my soul. And I was wrong. Dirty Work (Rolling Stones) is a bracing and even challenging record. It innovates without kowtowing to multiplatinum fashion or half-assed pretension. It's honest and makes you like it. It's only Rolling Stones, yet it breaks down their stifling insularity, as individuals and as an entity. Since the last time the Stones released a surprising record--Some Girls, eight years ago now, a third of their famous career out the window--the Stones have turned into exceptionally disgusting rock professionals. That doesn't mean it's been possible to dismiss them or their music--what's made them so disgusting is that you couldn't. Who gives a @#$%& if that smarmy has-been Mike Love seeds the PMRC or Ritchie Blackmore feeds his runs into an emulator? Who gives a @#$%& if Ozzy Osbourne gets fat on raw chicken or David Crosby gets fat on raw coke or Pete Townshend invents the rock novel? All these guys are pathetic clowns no matter how much money they make, pathetic clowns even if you have to respect them in a way, as I do Townshend and Osbourne. There's nothing pathetic about the Stones. That's what's made them worth hating in the '80s.

I mean, People and Rolling Stone don't go to Ron for comic relief or Keith for cautionary parables or Mick for thoughtful regrets--they go to them because they're almost as classy as Ahmet Ertegun. And though the music has been mostly dreck if not literal outtakes, there've been top-10 singles with every new studio release, deft and heretical and even nasty videos, and just to be contrary, one Good Stones Album. Some Girls it wasn't, but Tattoo You was better if not braver than Black and Blue and more attentively crafted than anything they'd recorded since their tenure as a vital force ended unexpectedly with Exile on Main Street in 1972. You were free not to like it much anyway, but you had to do backflips to explain why, eventually landing on one old saw or another, "commitment" or "inspiration" or something equally crucial and unempirical. You knew damn well that whatever you called it had gone thataway. And yet there were Ron and Keith and especially Mick (leave Bill and Charlie out of this), pulling that world's-greatest routine like there was no tomorrow.

Five years later, with only Undercover to show for it, the same saws are sure to bombard Dirty Work, in many ways a disgusting development indeed. First, it's the group's debut for CBS, which bought their myth even bigger than it did Paul McCartney's, squandering corporate resources that younger bands deserved. Then recall their special-achievement Grammy, accepted with hardly a smirk by a bunch of cynics who'd been blackballed back when they really were the world's greatest, followed by the rubber-lipped stereotyping of Ralph Bakshi's "Harlem Shuffle" video. There's the public disaffection of the band's fearless leader, who wouldn't start work on the album because he was promoting his last solo effort and won't tour behind it because he's starting work on the next one. Finally, there's coproducer Steve Lillywhite, who whilst proclaiming back-to-basics turned Dirty Work into the cleanest-sounding Stones album ever.

In the end its the production that will make or break this album critically, where it's sure to put off purists, skeptics, and snipers, and commercially, where it's almost sure to pull in trendies, children, and curiosity-seekers. Not that it isn't plenty basic, don't get me wrong. Based on riffs worked up by Ron and Keith before Jagger sullied his consciousness with them, the arrangements are the simplest on any Stones album since Some Girls if not Aftermath. There are no horns, the backup singers know their place, and Jagger doesn't bother with the melismatic affectations that have turned so much of his '80s product in on itself. What's more, Lillywhite claims that all the songs, including many keeper vocals, were recorded live in the studio. But I wouldn't expect the pear-shaped guitar breaks that finish off both lead cuts of Mick Taylor, much less Ron or Keith (Jimmy Page gets a credit). The up-front drums--some supplied, I hear, by computerized Charlie, with the inevitable loss of subliminal unpredictability--are pure Lillywhite. And so is the overall sound of the thing. As a matter of technical principle, Lillywhite goes for a mix that's as spacious as the arena-rock simulations of the '70s yet doesn't murk up details, and he gets it every time. Anybody who thought "Miss You" was a sellout is going to puke all over this one.

Me, I'm a Marshall Crenshaw fan who thinks Field Day is the man's strongest album, and I like the way Lillywhite and the Stones collide. Just as his drum mix underscored Field Day's depth, his clinical spaciousness recasts Jagger's fascination with distance, which of late has made Mick sound more lost than anything else (and without even knowing it, poor old guy). But where Lillywhite unbalanced Crenshaw's commercial appeal, the Stones have the mythic clout to take him on. This record is going to @#$%& the heads of the young chime addicts who think U2 and Big Country are guitar bands. It's clean and even modish, but until the side-closers it's utterly unpretty, and its momentum is pitiless. Jagger bullies up into a steady bellow that has all the power of Plant or Hagar and none of the histrionics. Catch me in a perverse mood and I'll even defend the video--better they should offend by meaning to than by breathing.

Anyway, "Harlem Shuffle" is hardly the first good song betrayed by its promo, and now please turn the album over--the second side is the prize. I give you "Winning Ugly," "Back to Zero," and "Dirty Work," their meanest political statements in 15 years, and not for want of trying. These songs aren't about geopolitical contradictions. They're about oppressing and being oppressed. Jagger always plays dirty, always robs the other guy, and it's beginning to get to him; he misuses the jerks, greaseballs, @#$%& and dumbasses who clean up after him and that doesn't make him feel so good either; and for all his class he's another nuclear subject who's got no say over whether he rots or pops even though he'd much prefer the former. For once his lyrics aren't intricately ironic. They're impulsive and confused, almost jottings, two-faced by habit rather than design, the straightest reports he can offer from the top he's so lonely at. They're powerful because they're about power, a topic unpretty enough to fit right in. And together with the hard advice of "Hold Back"--"Don't matter if you ain't so good-looking/If you ain't sharp as a blade/Don't be afraid/Don't hold back/Life is passing you by"--they're winning hints of a moral center somewhere in the vicinity of the singer's perpetual disillusionment. They contextualize the ironic persona-play of "Fight" and the unrecontructed send-off of "Had It with You" and the found sexism of "Too Rude" and the slum-hopping groove of "Harlem Shuffle." They set up the dog-tired compassion of "Sleep Tonight," which Keith turns into the Stones' most poignant ballad since "Angie." They assure that Dirty Work is a Very Good Stones Album.

All that's missing, in fact, is one identiriff classic, a "Jumping Jack Flash" or "Tumbling Dice" or "Start Me Up" that could define a summer and shove the tough stuff--"Winning Ugly" and "Dirty Work" are two of the most unpleasant songs anybody's going to write about the '80s--down America's throat. Identiriffs are Keith's department, and thus I'm not inclined to trumpet this artistic comeback as his vindication. Sure it's his recidivist guitar that makes Dirty Work hot, but if you'll pardon my saw, it Jagger's offhand input that makes it matter. We should be thankful the old reprobate didn't lavish much personal attention on it, that he just plugged into his Stones mode and spewed what he had to spew. Let him express himself elsewhere. The individual Rolling Stones can have their own disgusting lives and careers--I don't care. What I want is the Rolling Stones as an entity, an idea--that's mine and yours as much as theirs. And it's the Rolling Stones as an idea that Dirty Work vindicates.

Village Voice, Apr. 15, 1986


edit: oops sorry for leaving some of that in bold (just some inetersting tidbits that stood out for me).
Don't have time to edit all out right now- the wife's calling...it's dinner time! Bon appetit!

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-14 05:57 by Hairball.

it just kinda sucks tho, i mean despite all the fun and hurdy gurdy it's an album you have to stretch and make justifactions to like, for most fans. I respect HMS for holding the line. His endless fights with Gaslight are pure golden age in their own way...tho I don't want to stoke any one's actual hurt feelings or disrespect....I even think I see why HMS loves it; where he was in life in relation to it and how much of it was so important to him, how much he can relate to it... bitchin' guitar, plenty hot stuff R & K are working out and through...and some of the songs are really good too.
it's like that J. Geils tune Musta Got Lost for me though...there IS some blistering guitar on it, I don't blame anyone for liking it; i don't know where they were in their lives when that came out or how important it might have been to them; how really it was just history to some, just because of when they grew up and what was around that was newly released Stones rock at the time...I don't at all mean to come on more or less of an informed fan, it's about feelings and connections...I had lived with 20 Stones albums before this...when i was a little kid and all through teens and the rest of this long road when u get to be older than dirt, if you're lucky...i have to really stretch to enjoy what IS good about it and it's, and i don't mean to be disrespectful honestly, very hard for me to actually stand sonically...I hear the infectious rockabilly stomp of Had It With You; it's hard and hurts to criticize after a point, and useless...but man, it really just hurts my head to go through that. It actually does, no kidding; there are some frequencies or something that just bores right through me bone on bone; misses the flesh, blood and heart...no sense in trying to prove why something sucks to someone who loves it. There's a lot of Stones songs I absolutely adore that many put down dismissively on instict; way overhwhelming numbers of them. I love Angie. there i confess. I love New Faces. i confess. I even liked Blinded By Rainbows tho it's obviously color by numbers...they are trying...I love Silver Train and Dance Little Sister...I love their shitty thin soul covers on the first two albums...i prefer them sometimes to the originals...I've had people dismiss the Stones tracks I adore...in the final analsis for me it's viva la difference...i can play what i want. and I bet 80 to 90% of it is the stuff EVERyBODY loves...one good thing in HMS favor is that by the time this thread has gotten this far I WANT to listen to HAD IT WITH YOU. cause i've had it had it had it had it with this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-14 06:28 by hopkins.

Quote
stone4ever
In 89' i paid £25 to see the Stones close up at Wembley stadium,

£22.50, s4e. I still have the ticket.
And 1990 it was.

$28.50 for third row, center stage in 1989. Amazing experience. Only time in my life I experienced eye contact from the Stones. It may pale to what those who have actually met them feel but as someone who sat in the audience for three shows from 1989 to 2002, it was amazing.

Quote
z

Quote
stone4ever
In 89' i paid £25 to see the Stones close up at Wembley stadium,

£22.50, s4e. I still have the ticket.
And 1990 it was.

Yes sorry 1990, i got to see them twice at Wembley in that year, one of the shows was cancelled due to Keith cutting his finger with a guitar string which they re scheduled and we got the Steel Wheels set instead of the Urban Jungle. Both those shows and another i saw in Paris the same year were amazing. Keith was on fire at this time although down in the mix compared to recent tours. Happy memories, too bad these guys have to get old, although Mick seems to keep turning the clock back, its almost supernatural lol.

Hey z did you get to see the Urban Jungle or the re scheduled Steel Wheels set ?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-14 11:06 by stone4ever.

I attended both ones you did, s4e. The rescheduled shows with the SW set. We probably stepped on each other's toes, it was pretty dense in the front.

Quote
z
I attended both ones you did, s4e. The rescheduled shows with the SW set. We probably stepped on each other's toes, it was pretty dense in the front.

Hehe lots of bopping up and down throughout the Rockers and a serious forward surge as they started as i remember, i wasn't prepared for that with my beer spilling all over my new Stones t shirt and crumpled posters. That was Rock & Roll not the seated sit down stuff of today. Stones crowds haven't been that energetic in the UK since Voodoo Lounge.
The last Stones show i got to see at the millennium stadium was dull, watching the show way back from a screen as it was the only way to see them with security constantly telling people to sit down or get taken out, that was it for me, that's not stadium Rock.

Yeah s4e, it was nice and calm during the Living Colour set but once the Stones hit the stage the whole crowd started to push forward.. I struggled to stay in one piece. The guards in front of the stage were serving glasses of water and if you raised your hand up they'd pull you over the fence and let you back in at the side gate. I was with my girlfriend and did my best to encourage her to hold on. But after a few songs she just raised her hand and before I could do anything, a quick guard grabbed her. You see, we were both in a foreign country and that was before cellphones...I don't know, I guess I simply had a blackout. I raised my hand and went after her.
I never knew there was such a gentleman in me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-14 14:56 by z.

That whole WW3 thing: It's funny that it's always mentioned around Dirty Work. If you watch Just For The Record it's said to be around Undercover.

JumpingKentFlash

Most so called Stones fans just don't like an album which sounds like the 1967 tour in a way.

I wonder whats the differnce between a Stones fan, per se, and a 'so called' Stones fan.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-15 07:57 by hopkins.

I love the 1967 tour recordings from Paris. I just wish they weren't edited for radio broadcast. Oddly enough, they don't really remind me of the Paris sessions 18 years later.

Quote
stone4ever
It's hard to pinpoint the place in time when Keith just gave up arguing with Mick and let him take over all the management decisions of running the Stones.

1989.

That was easy to pinpoint.

Not sure how you don't get that but whatever, think what you want to think.

I am in the minority here, when I say that I think Undercover is their weakest (and least often played) album. I actually like Dirty Work a lot. The production, the sound/feel of the tension on it. I think it's great. Undercover, though, to me, is just a shambles. Maybe only 2-3 good songs on it.

Maybe this should be the next Archive release - setting the record straight (so to speak) and delivering the out-takes and demos in best ever quality.