Quote
DandelionPowderman
They signed with those names?

In that context (and in view of potential subsequent legal action) that seems appropriate to me.

<edit supplied an n>



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-06 00:55 by doitywoik.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

They signed with those names?

They brought everything they had because they were really upset ....

Quote
laertisflash
"I just find it funny that it took the Stones a year to come up with an explanation".

A year? I don't think so, Ditywoik. And I don't think that the Stones should give explanations. "Spiegel" should prove that it wrote the true. Here is another excerpt taken from the old discussion on IORR:

[...]

OCTOBER (1995)
Der Spiegel publish a full page advertisement by the Stones denying they have ever used play-back tapes during their world tour.

Honestly I cannot recall the advertisement. Unfortunately the Spiegel's online archive only has the articles but not the adds. But anyway, a paid advertisement by the Stones is not a statement by the Spiegel. I may have even had a copy of that issue but a few years ago I committed a bookshelf's worth of Spiegel back issues to the litter bin, so I can't look it up.

The short piece (about half a page, just 2 paragraphs and a photo) explaining the break in RAAHP came in Nov 1996, that is 14 months later. There is nothing about pre-recorded vocals or the like in that short piece, they just say that the break in RAAHP was brought about from the mixing desk and that the Stones do play live, which latter thing had not been generally questioned anyway.

Quote
laertisflash
OCTOBER 14 (1995)
Plans for afoot for the band to sue Der Spiegel over their accusations of their using backing tapes.

The question is if the Stones ever did. In case they had (and had won), the Spiegel would have been sentenced to print something saying that by court order, bla bla bla. That never happened <edit: I better add here, as far as I know >. As I said above, the 95 article was very cautiously phrased, they never bluntly said that the Stones used playback tapes or other types of pre-recorded materials, they just said that sonic analyses of audience tapes suggest this and that, and so on. Rather seems the Stones and the Spiegel worked out a different agreement and settled the matter out of court, in whatever way.
Also, you can bet your bum that if the Spiegel had been sentenced to pay a - potentially considerable - sum in compensation or the like, every paper across the whole German-speaking area would have jumped at it and spread the news.

Back then I rather wondered why the Spiegel published the 95 story at all. They were certainly aware of the fact that the Stones have a legal team you don't wanna mess with. So the Spiegel must have considered the evidence available to them and the assessments by the consulted experts convincing enough to print the story. What really happened we will possibly never find out - unless someone on IORR knows (or is) someone who was in the Spiegel back then and has first-hand knowledge of what really went on.

Were there any further/deeper-going reports in the British press about the actual course of events?

edit:
@Irix,
saw your post only now. So it was not an advertisement but a counter statement, and I looked for the wrong thing in the Spiegel archive (or was there an add in addition maybe?).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-06 00:52 by doitywoik.

[youtu.be]

VW promo clip '95 ( "Rolling Stones Golf Collection" )

I don't know German language. But, according a fan who took part in the older IORR's
discussion, "Spiegel" wrote in 1996: "They do play live, really". (The article is also mentioned by Shortfatfanny here, on the current thread)


[www.spiegel.de]

Yes, that's correct (also see my post above).

Oh, yes, now I noticed it Doitywoik. My eyes were on the hunt for link(s), first...

I still wonder what was behind the whole affair, like, who gave the AUDs to the Spiegel, and with what intention (apart from discrediting the band). Also, the Spiegel never had a beef with the Stones, and by 1995 click tracks and other live aids () were by no means uncommon. In fact, pre-recorded material was common in rock concerts minimally as early as the 70s - think of Pink Floyd or the Soft Machine (e.g. when doing Soft Weed Factor they really switched on a tape machine on stage that provided the backing). With the Stones, for example, it was always clear that the Continental Drift show intro in 1989/90 was not played live, and I'm not sure when they started to use the taped percussion with SFTD. So, who should have been shocked? I mean, not quite the kind of story you expect to be a money maker in the silly season.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-06 00:58 by doitywoik.

Quote
doitywoik

I still wonder what was behind the whole affair, [...]

I think it was nothing special - the German press is sometimes just a little bit stupid. Remember Spiegel's direct competitor, the 'Stern' Magazine. They brought in 1983 a serious story that they've had found Adolf H.'s diaries - but it was a hoax. There's an Oscar + Golden Globe nominated Movie about it: "Schtonk!", released in 1992.

By the way: on 9-May-2017 the Spiegel Magazine brought about the forthcoming NoFilter-Tour the article-headline: "Sie sind alt und brauchen das Geld" - "They're old and need the money" - [www.Spiegel.de] .

The ultra-conservative Spiegel-Magazine is imho the same sh*t as the BILD-Newspaper - but for 'higher educated' people ....

Ah c'mon, that's the online edition, not the print edition. In their online editions, all mags and papers have those wacky things!

Quote
doitywoik

In their online editions, all mags and papers have those wacky things!

I'm not sure about it: since I'm from Germany I've read a lot of Spiegel-articles and I don't like them as I don't like the BILD-Newspaper ....

Check out the crap you find in the "Online Standard" ...

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
laertisflash
It was a "story" by "Spiegel" and, if I remember correctly, the magazine has revoked it (totally or partly).

Well, only half-heartedly kind of, and only with respect to the break in "Rock And A Hard Place. More than a year later (Nov 1996, see the link in shortfatfanny's post) came a short piece where it was said that according to the Stones' sound guy, the break was brought about by manually shutting done everything from the mixing desk and then manually opening all channels again, which raises the question how he managed to do that manually with the suggested precision of a hundredth of a second. There was nothing revoked regarding potentially pre-recorded vocal parts or the like.

If a click track was involved I think one should have seen Charlie with headphones on, hard to imagine the clicks would have come via his monitor speakers.

the version of "Rock and a Hard Place" of the show of Argentina February 16, 1995 has a small jump in the cut of the song, before the solo of the bass, as if it were a sampler or a pre-recorded track

Quote
Irix

Quote
DandelionPowderman

They signed with those names?

They brought everything they had because they were really upset ....

My initial sentiment, too - this IS serious!

Of course the predictable "theories" that Der Spiegel is a rag and that The Rolling Stones are infallible here. As one would expect on a fans site. That is, however, seldom the case.
Der Spiegel had a valid cause but not the will or muscles to go all the way with it when challenged by the band's organization.

Quote
Stoneage
Of course the predictable "theories" that Der Spiegel is a rag and that The Rolling Stones are infallible here. As one would expect on a fans site. That is, however, seldom the case.
Der Spiegel had a valid cause but not the will or muscles to go all the way with it when challenged by the band's organization.

Either that, or they didn't have the proper musical knowledge to determine the causes for similar/identical things happening at the very same points in the songs.

Quote
Stoneage
Of course the predictable "theories" that Der Spiegel is a rag and that The Rolling Stones are infallible here. As one would expect on a fans site. That is, however, seldom the case.
Der Spiegel had a valid cause but not the will or muscles to go all the way with it when challenged by the band's organization.

Yeah - a "Story" like the Stern in 1983 ....

There're so many Bootlegs from the Voodoo-Lounge- as well as the Urban-Jungle-Tour: any hints that it wasn't live?

Quote
Irix

Quote
Stoneage
Of course the predictable "theories" that Der Spiegel is a rag and that The Rolling Stones are infallible here. As one would expect on a fans site. That is, however, seldom the case.
Der Spiegel had a valid cause but not the will or muscles to go all the way with it when challenged by the band's organization.

Yeah - a "Story" like the Stern in 1983 ....

There're so many Bootlegs from the Voodoo-Lounge- as well as the Urban-Jungle-Tour: any hints that it wasn't live?

Not all journalists are skilled musicians

When they hear a drum roll at the exact same place in two different renditions of Rock And A Hard Place, they think they have revealed foul play. In this case it was just ignorance and lack of knowledge on their part.

They could have criticised the Stones for using sequencers on SFTD and HTW, or a click track for the tempo of the songs instead. That would have been «a valid cause» - hadn't it been for the fact that it was in fashion by every big band at the time, that is



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-06 11:56 by DandelionPowderman.

Der Spiegel, and other German papers, critism were right. They implied that many songs sounded exactly the same from concert to concert and that the sound was "sterile" with "fast einen stereoeffekt".
Furthermore they proved that pre-recorded loops and click tracks were used. What they couldn't prove was that the whole concert was playback. Therefore they backed out when challenged by legal action.

Quote
Stoneage
Der Spiegel, and other German papers, critism were right. They implied that many songs sounded exactly the same from concert to concert and that the sound was "sterile" with "fast einen stereoeffekt".
Furthermore they proved that pre-recorded loops and click tracks were used. What they couldn't prove was that the whole concert was playback. Therefore they backed out when challenged by legal action.

Only partly correct. What they couldn't prove was that there was any playback by the musicians on stage, which they claimed there were.

Well, that's a question of definitions. You could call a pre-recorded drum loop playback if you wanted to. Or a pre-recorded synthesizer.
When you add click tracks on that you could claim that a song is partly playback and partly live.

But of course they couldn't prove more than that so when challenged they gave in. Which probably was the right thing to do. What they did prove was, however, an interesting read at the time. I'll give them that.

whatever they did or didn't do in 95 – The article in Der Spiegel was a typical Spiegel arctile, i.e. a mixture of some evidence with some facts that don't really support the conclusions drawn from the given evidence but make it seem more likely (it has become quite common to use pre-recorded material, thus the Stones…) plus talking about possiblities (Mick Jagger could decide on spot if he wants to sing his part or use playback) plus pure speculation.