Saw "new album Dec. 1" in the News section and got all excited thinking it was THE new album. (sigh)

Quote
Send It To me
Saw "new album Dec. 1" in the News section and got all excited thinking it was THE new album. (sigh)

This one is probably better

Why is the cover art so ugly? It looks like a bootleg. Don't feel like buying this now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-08 18:15 by TheBlockbuster.

Quote
TheBlockbuster
Why is the cover art so ugly? It looks like a bootleg. Don't feel like buying this now.

Just because of the cover art...?

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
TheBlockbuster
Why is the cover art so ugly? It looks like a bootleg. Don't feel like buying this now.

Just because of the cover art...?

Wasn't overly interested to begin with.

Quote
TheBlockbuster
Why is the cover art so ugly? It looks like a bootleg. Don't feel like buying this now.

It's an iconic early picture, but it's also used on other official releases (Stones Story, for instance) - in black and white.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-09 10:11 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
jlowe

Quote
rbp
Just getting this stuff out before it becomes public domain in Europe.

Pretty certain (the recordings) are already in the Public Domain.
50 years = 2013/15.

They are indeed (excluding the Camden Theatre tracks which were part of the 2012 GRRR Super Deluxe Box), and an officially sanctioned release now does not change it: once in public domain, always in public domain.

That's probably why they spent time making it sound better. These mixes won't be public domain, I guess..

The recordings themselves are in the public domain in many (most?) countries, but the new mixes are protected by existing fair trade laws, depending from country to country, ranging from strong to non-existent, this however depending from what evidence they (Promotone/Universal) could bring to a possible court table how significant their investment in studio work really was to polish the recordings for official release.

That sounds just about correct. Maybe Wild Slivovitz, our own copyright lawyer here on IORR, can shed some light on this?

Well, in general it must be a significant investment that qualifies for a possible protection under fair trade/fair competition laws. The basic rule is that fair trade/fair competition protection is only secondary to copyright protection. It is not intended to "fill the gap" once the copyright (or in this case: the so-called "neighbouring rights" - rights of the performing artists, rights of the actual recording) has expired. Any fair trade/fair competition law "just" protects your financial investment and the results of your financial investment from being exploited by unauthorized third parties. Which basically means if you use the public domain BBC recording of "Come On" for a release and dub it from a bootleg or whatever tape you have you're fine. But if you dub it from the forthcoming official release you could be in trouble if the studio work Promotone or Universal paid for to polish the raw recording was of any significance. Let's say they paid 100 Dollars to an experienced computer buff to do the job who happily accepted such a small fee just because working for the Stones meant much to him - I have my doubts that in court this would qualify as a significant investment, in particular for a multi-million Dollar business like the Stones or Universal.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-09 09:10 by retired_dog.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheBlockbuster
Why is the cover art so ugly? It looks like a bootleg. Don't feel like buying this now.

It's an iconic early picture, but it's also used on other official releases (Stones Story, for instance) - in black and white.

Plus on certain versions of the famous Bright Lights, Big City bootleg LP and CD.

Quote
TheBlockbuster
Why is the cover art so ugly? It looks like a bootleg. Don't feel like buying this now.

..I find it not that bad...!! more,I like it...

I don't mind this era; the blues covers are, in my book, much of a muchness with he Yardbirds, Pretty Things, Animals, Downliners Sect etc.

I prefer it when Satisfaction, Cloud, etc started to kick into gear.

Quote
TheBlockbuster
Why is the cover art so ugly? It looks like a bootleg. Don't feel like buying this now.

Please stay on the track.
1. This is going to be the greatest thing ever!
2. I can't wait, look at that tracklisting!
3. I have pre-ordered 3 sets! (2 to be kept sealed)
4. It shipped!
5. Even better than I thought it was going to be!
6. It sucks.
7. A missed opportunity.
8. Looking forward to the 60th anniversary set.

We do not need other issues.

This ON AIR is a real Treasure .. more than 15 tracks were only available as poor AM MONO RADIO recordings ...

and i do LIKE the Yellow sleeve with the YELLOW VINYL

I remember getting all these tracks on bootlegs when I started collecting The Rolling Stones music in the early 70's. There was "Beautiful Delilah" an album, then many others. It will be nice to have them all on an official release.

Bjornulf

Quote
TeddyB1018
Come On sounds good on YouTube. I still think the “holy grail” for this sort of thing would be the improved L’Olympia live recordings, especially the 1967.

I think it sounds terrible. ( ...and I am in no way an audiophile). Keith's guitar has lost all edges; the choppy rhythm attack has been chiselled down into a 'pleasing wash'. I don't even think it is so much reverb, but these 'enhancers' they are using. They soften edges, and blend tracks together. Bill's Bass, Brian's harp and Keith's guitar are all one stew now. I like that he guitar solo used to come in a bit too loud. They evened that out too.
I prefer the boot sound, no doubt.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
TeddyB1018
Come On sounds good on YouTube. I still think the “holy grail” for this sort of thing would be the improved L’Olympia live recordings, especially the 1967.

I think it sounds terrible. ( ...and I am in no way an audiophile). Keith's guitar has lost all edges; the choppy rhythm attack has been chiselled down into a 'pleasing wash'. I don't even think it is so much reverb, but these 'enhancers' they are using. They soften edges, and blend tracks together. Bill's Bass, Brian's harp and Keith's guitar are all one stew now. I like that he guitar solo used to come in a bit too loud. They evened that out too.
I prefer the boot sound, no doubt.

I haven't listened on YouTube, but did you try the iTunes-snippet, Palace? That didn't sound like «one stew» to me..

I am surprised that somebody actually expect audiophile quality for BBC recordings.

Quote
ironbelly
I am surprised that somebody actually expect audiophile quality for BBC recordings.

Given the absence of the original tapes (for the most part) I'm not sure anyone truly expects audiophile quality.
However the snippet posted here - [www.facebook.com]

sounds (in the words of PT) flipping lousy. The iTunes preview sounds much better but why have they put up such a crap sounding version on their Facebook page ?
I am sure the cd will sound better than that and if they can make some of the lesser quality tracks "perk up" a bit that'll be nice. I have wondered whether theoretically the audio extraction process could be used to clean up tapes which have been subjected to sonic murk over the years.
I still think a far better package (given that all the BBC material has been widely bootlegged) would have been the 1964 Radio Luxembourg session. For 99.9% of Stones fans that would be an all new release of an extremely exciting looking session judging from the rumoured setlist.
I will buy this new BBC set (or ask for it for Christmas) in the hope that reasonable sales figures will push the band and/or ABKCO into compiling some more Jones-era sets. I reserve the right to whine about the mastering / eq / editing / sleeve note errors after I've heard it.

Yellow vinyl ordered...

Quote
detroitken
Yellow vinyl ordered...

Taking the fact that most ordered yellow vinyl I can predict that the ordinary black vinyl version will become collector's rarity in a few years from now

Quote
ironbelly
I am surprised that somebody actually expect audiophile quality for BBC recordings.

it's sad people feel they need to deviate from the approved list

I’ve got like eight versions of the BBC recordings. Now i’ll have nine.

We got the book. We'll get the BBC recordings. And the DVD?

Quote
detroitken
Yellow vinyl ordered...

The vinyl ain't yellow, it's chicken.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Send It To me
Saw "new album Dec. 1" in the News section and got all excited thinking it was THE new album. (sigh)

This one is probably better

Ouch........

Why the disappointment at the exclusion of Radio Luxembourg tracks?
It was always going to be a BBC record.

Just wondered, did The Stones ever do anything on 'Pirate radio' (UK Off shore) in the late sixties?

Quote
jlowe
Why the disappointment at the exclusion of Radio Luxembourg tracks?
It was always going to be a BBC record.

Just wondered, did The Stones ever do anything on 'Pirate radio' (UK Off shore) in the late sixties?

The main reason is the rumored set list. According to Nico's site it looks like this

Apparently, these tracks in these particular versions are not in circulation (unlike widely spread bootlegs of BBC recordings). I do not mind to get Misicorama concerts either. But that is different story.

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
jlowe
Why the disappointment at the exclusion of Radio Luxembourg tracks?
It was always going to be a BBC record.

Just wondered, did The Stones ever do anything on 'Pirate radio' (UK Off shore) in the late sixties?

The main reason is the rumored set list. According to Nico's site it looks like this

Apparently, these tracks in these particular versions are not in circulation (unlike widely spread bootlegs of BBC recordings). I do not mind to get Misicorama concerts either. But that is different story.

Radio Luxembourg was notorious in the UK for it's bad reception, fading in and out and crackles but it was THE place to hear the latest records as the BBC had needle time (record playing) restrictions whereas Luxy had shows sponsored by EMI, Decca, Phillips, Pye etc.. plus shows by artists such as Billy Fury (The Sound Of Fury), Cliff and The Shads (Me and My Shadows), The (English) Eagles etc..
Basically all the sessions were destroyed and off airs are extremely hard to source and anywhere between ok and unlistenable quality.
However, a handful of tracks (literally a handful!) have survived in great quality and it's clear that the studio and it's engineer (Alan Bailey?) were very good. The Luxy recordings were generally made at 38 Hertford St in London and I see no evidence for Havers suggestion that the Stones shows were recorded at Pye but if someone has some info on that I'd be very interested.
Anyway, in short, Bill has an acetate of this full session and that alleged setlist is a stunner if like me you like the early Stones. I'm not sure if those laser turntables that read just under the surface of the vinyl work on acetates but it should be possible to get a good to excellent transfer of said acetate. I think VideoJames said he has a master tape of this session. It's a total no-brainer. A basically unheard live in the studio set by the Stones - maybe with Stu on some tracks. I'd be much happier with that. Are Mick and co. even aware of it and it's significance ? Wonder if Bill's given it a (careful) spin recently.

If they indeed played Now I Got A Witness, I'm pretty sure Stu is playing.

So is the deluxe vinyl not yellow vinyl. Looks like just the standard edition is colored. Doesn't really make a difference to me I'd rather have the extra songs.

Quote
24FPS
We got the book. We'll get the BBC recordings. And the DVD?

I suspect there will be a BBC documentary on TV around December which will push up the sales a little.
Maybe then an extended version on DVD to tie in with the ? UK Tour in 2018.