[www.amazon.com]

"superb recordings of your legendary 1973 European tour"

Anybody knows what this is? Can it be Brussels or London?

What is MJ waiting for? Is he afriad they were too good back then?

it isnt anything. Its one consumer's opinion of what they should release and why they havent done so to date..the guy's obviously talking about the shows youre referring to but a live album from that tour has never been under serious consideration, its merely a fans' wishlist

why bother anyway? we already all have it by now, I'd have thought..

Yeah. Mick figures the real fans that wanted it already have it. And the people that don't care simply don't care. It's a sign of weakness to release old live album's anyway.

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah. Mick figures the real fans that wanted it
> already have it. And the people that don't care
> simply don't care. It's a sign of weakness to
> release old live album's anyway.


disagree with the "sign of weakness" idea...i think its a gift to the hardcore fans and a tip of the hat to them....didnt rocknroll circus do ok for an old recording finally released? why not do both? new recordings and the release of "vault" material...theres absolutely nothing to lose....the stones have done all and seen all....they're the undisputed heavyweight champs of rock'n'roll ...it would be another feather in their cap to release vintage material...and would say to the fans heres part of our history to share with you



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-03 02:09 by Leonard Keringer.

Reptile,

Bob Dylan's series of live releases is going down well.

Most of us might have had many Licks bootlegs - but many also bought Live Licks.

The old stuff would sell - to new fans and old.

When they ever stop touring - that's when it might get released.

'Every little counts', eh Mick?

I don't think they will stop touring, or at least playing occasional gigs, until one of the crucial three snuffs it. It's probably only then that the floodgates will open and the golden vaults to heaven shalt open themselves to us.

My understanding is that as long as the Stones exist as an active band, we won't get any archive releases.

The Stones consciously leave older live recordings and studio outtakes in their archive for one simple reason: They want keep releasable material aside for the time after the Stones have officially called it quits.

Another reason may be that, as I once read somewhere, Jagger is not keen to dig through hundreds of reels of live stuff and studio works from times long gone. When it's "Stones time" for them, they work on new albums with new material and new tours - or, like Licks, on Greatest Hits albums. Between "Stones times", they work on solo projects, movies or what else. They don't want to work on archive release in between. It might also have to do with the fact that neither the Stones themselves nor Virgin see a big market potential for archive stuff. A live album from 1972 or 1973 might only reach position # 53 or the like in the sales charts. That's not what they are looking for. They don't want to see headlines like "new Stones album dropped from # 73 to # 136 after a peak position of # 53 three weeks ago" or the like.

Unlike Dylan, the Stones still see themselves as Superstars. And in a superstar way of thinking, sheer marketing aspects usually rule over musical aspects.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-03 10:45 by retired_dog.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it isnt anything. Its one consumer's opinion of
> what they should release and why they havent done
> so to date..the guy's obviously talking about the
> shows youre referring to but a live album from
> that tour has never been under serious
> consideration, its merely a fans' wishlist
>
> why bother anyway? we already all have it by now,
> I'd have thought..

yes we have it.. the quality?
-still bad, i have better sounding at home -said jagger once talking about bootlegs. so where are the complete tracks not only a portion on ''a shot of salvation''?
a short SFTHD from paris 23sep.70 [better soundboard version than what we have ] where is the rest?
for sure he has all sources for an extension of GET YER YA YAS OUT.
the BBC recording of LEEDS 71 in mono but the last track is in stereo i don't get that maybe i am wrong..
the complete tracks from newcastle 13 sep.73
only brown sugar from rotterdam 14 oct.73
I'don't have thought...

artur34 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes we have it.. the quality?
> -still bad, i have better sounding at home -said
> jagger once talking about bootlegs. so where are
> the complete tracks not only a portion on ''a shot
> of salvation''?

I was talking about the stuff on Brussels Affair per se

I doubt that any official release could be a significant sound upgrade on that

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My understanding is that as long as the Stones
> exist as an active band, we won't get any archive
> releases.
>

So what was the release of Rock n Roll Circus then? This was a film (and soundtrack) that many believed they would never release in their lifetime. However, go down to your local music shop and look on the shelves...

It is well known that legal ranglings were the reason that the early 70s performances weren't released. Then, after a long time, I guess they want to concentrate on new material. I don't know if there are still legal reasons why they wouldn't release those performances - perhaps it has to do with the amount of money they'd take from it? (Someone on this board is bound to know how the situation is at the moment.) However, I don't think that hurting Woody's feelings enters the equation at all! After all, Woody wasn't on Rock n Roll Circus.

The Rock N Roll Circus was put out by Allen Klein.

The KBFH recordings are so easily available that an official release would be pointless. It would not be a gift to hardcore fans to release it officially because they/we already have it.

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> retired_dog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My understanding is that as long as the
> Stones
> > exist as an active band, we won't get any
> archive
> > releases.
> >
>
> So what was the release of Rock n Roll Circus
> then? This was a film (and soundtrack) that many
> believed they would never release in their
> lifetime. However, go down to your local music
> shop and look on the shelves...
>
> It is well known that legal ranglings were the
> reason that the early 70s performances weren't
> released. Then, after a long time, I guess they
> want to concentrate on new material. I don't know
> if there are still legal reasons why they wouldn't
> release those performances - perhaps it has to do
> with the amount of money they'd take from it?
> (Someone on this board is bound to know how the
> situation is at the moment.) However, I don't
> think that hurting Woody's feelings enters the
> equation at all! After all, Woody wasn't on Rock
> n Roll Circus.


Yoooooh, Rock'n'Roll Circus.... This may be the one major exception from the general rule... Any way, it was released by Allen Klein. And I wonder why even he isn't obviously too keen to put out archive stuff like 60's live recordings, studio outtakes (there are a few which would make the grade) or even expanded editions of, let's say, Get Yer Ya Ya's...or even a "Metamorphis Vol. 2" kindalike...
...that's probably because he expected a lot more from the release of Rock'n'Roll Circus - money-wise...(it has Lennon on it, Clapton, The Who...). So his thinking may be that if even Rock'n'Roll Circus did not sell the quantities he expected - despite this superstar cast and the myths surrounding it - putting out other unreleased material would not be worth the effort.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-03 14:35 by retired_dog.

R&R Circus was shown on TV at the same time as it was released on home video

Considering that, plus the fact that it was released in cinemas years later, it did pretty well!

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reptile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah. Mick figures the real fans that wanted
> it
> > already have it. And the people that don't
> care
> > simply don't care. It's a sign of weakness
> to
> > release old live album's anyway.
>
>
> disagree with the "sign of weakness"
> idea...i think its a gift to the hardcore fans and
> a tip of the hat to them....didnt rocknroll circus
> do ok for an old recording finally released? why
> not do both? new recordings and the release of
> "vault" material...theres absolutely nothing to
> lose....the stones have done all and seen
> all....they're the undisputed heavyweight champs
> of rock'n'roll ...it would be another feather in
> their cap to release vintage material...and would
> say to the fans heres part of our history to share
> with you
>
>
>
> Edited 3 times. Last edit at 10/03/05 02:09 by
> Leonard Keringer.

The hardcore fans... the hardcore fans... there's a couple thousand hardcore fans out there. They aren't going to release the album's for them. They wouldn't even make a profit. The Stones look at the whole crowd.

No. they look at the profit margins

as retired_dog says : "sheer marketing aspects usually rule over musical aspects"

Virtually nobody would be interessted in it. It's maybe 0,1% of the fans that are seriously interessted in the release of this album.

What's the use in releasing it? Nobody would be interessted.

Ok everybody...then how do you explain dylans camp releasing all of the vault material?...he's probably not making a profit...but hes still doing it...excuses excuses excuses...or how about a limited edition?..then the serious collectors can scoop it up...so the hardcore collectors already have it...they would buy it again for the best recording/mastering possible and the package in general...people have had rocknroll circus on boot for years, but bought it again...cant anybody forget profit for once and let it fly...i guess not...greed greed greed...theyve got nothing to lose..it would only add to their legacy...i can understand the legal entaglements for a reason...but profit profit profit...corporate mentality rules and destroys

@#$%& Dylan.

Tell me... don't you already have recordings from the early 1970's? I have tons.

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @#$%& Dylan.
>
> Tell me... don't you already have recordings from
> the early 1970's? I have tons.


whats your point...@#$%& dylan?...what the hell does that mean...you dont like his music or him?...but you have tons of his music...screw your head on straight



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-03 18:04 by Leonard Keringer.

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok everybody...then how do you explain dylans camp
> releasing all of the vault material?...he's
> probably not making a profit...but hes still doing
> it...excuses excuses excuses...or how about a
> limited edition?..then the serious collectors can
> scoop it up...so the hardcore collectors already
> have it...they would buy it again for the best
> recording/mastering possible and the package in
> general...people have had rocknroll circus on boot
> for years, but bought it again...cant anybody
> forget profit for once and let it fly...i guess
> not...greed greed greed...theyve got nothing to
> lose..it would only add to their legacy...i can
> understand the legal entaglements for a
> reason...but profit profit profit...corporate
> mentality rules and destroys

Agreed. But as long as they are able to sign multi-million dollars recording contracts, it's all more or less about money and how to recoup it with a fat profit margin. The more a record company like Virgin "invests"into a band like the Stones, the more say they and their marketing experts have concerning record releases.

"Uuuuh, no new album in sight? Let's throw out one more Greatest Hits, it sells ten times more copies than old live shit, and it is also cheaper to produce - the hits are already there, but live stuff has to be mixed and mastered and whatever..."

Ever wondered why Virgin rereleased Jump Back, Sucking In The Seventies and Made In The Shade recently - and could not even be bothered to release any old live material or at least outtakes & b-sides ?

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. they look at the profit margins
>
> as retired_dog says : "sheer marketing aspects
> usually rule over musical aspects"
>


It's funny, but I tend to think that the Stones have been remarkably (and uncharacteristically) inept in their marketing of late...

Even if "niche releases" like an archival project didn't become an outright huge seller, it would bolster critical assessments of the Stones at a time when they suffer in comparison even to...gulp...Led Zeppelin.

Let's face it: every Bob Dylan album--new or archival--is a tiny "prestige" release. And he maintains visibility and stature all out of proportion to his commercial impact. The Stones, by contrast, sell tickets and records at a far greater clip, but lose valuable critical "buzz" by not handling their catalogue in a smart or interesting way...Hell, if you're worried about sales, do "limited editions" that are difficult to find. "Rolling Stone" and "Mojo" would be falling all over themselves about how cool and underground the Stones are.

The Stones "brand" has always been damaged--by Allen Klein and his lousy re-issues, by the overall division of the catalogue (now somewhat corrected by "Forty Licks") and by the sheer size of their output. People don't know "Memory Motel" and "No Expectations" and "Winter" because the corpus is so damn big that they are overwhelmed and don't want the expense of purchasing all the records.

Hasn't everyone on this board been frustrated when they realize that a friend who seems lukewarm on the Stones has only ever been exposed to "Hot Rocks" "Jump Back" and now, "Forty Licks?" Isn't it fun to see people's minds blown when they hear the great album tracks? (This is another facet of the setlist argument, but...)

Having said that, my first order of business would be to do a double-disc package of the post-"Tatoo You" era. Use plenty of rarities and live gems as bait, but keep the focus on all the great material that has been ignored over the last two decades. If it got critics talking about all those supposedly "mediocre" albums again, it would begin to rehabilitate the Stones' latter-day reputation...

That way, we wouldn't have to relive 1972 onstage every night.

Bob Dylan. He writes songs, he sings and playes guitar and harp, and is arguably quite good at that, if you take each song individually. I like one or two of his songs. But other than that if you ask me, as a performer on stage, a businessman and a rock star he's just an @#$%&, really.

But this topic is not about why I don't like Dylan.

The point I'm making is that the only ones that really want the albums, as Leonard Keringer has already kindly informed us of, are the so called "hardcore-fans". As I would probably count me in as one of those, I already have tons of great early 70's material in my bootleg collection. Releasing it, therefor, has no actual point for me, not for any of the people that already own those bootleg recordings. The Stones have never really been hard on the bootleggers. They're not in it for the money, at least not now. They know most of the fans that desperately want early 70's recordings already have it.

Even more importantly, the Stones have to agree. While those recordings seem great to us(to me too), I can understand that people that are not really big fans, and have only seen them in the blur of a real live concert, or on those musically perfect DVD's like Live At The MAX, with every error carefully cut out and replayed in the studio, could find this plain ugly. Jagger's stoned barking of the lyrics, Richards and Taylor's extremely biting guitar tones, which are nowadays unacceptable. Again, I think it's pretty cool. But when I listen to it with people that aren't really "hardcore-fans", they are suprised I actually like it.

Also, the have already released Love You Live. It's also from the early 70's. There's no real difference. And to release another live album with again Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice, Happy, Brown Sugar, Jumping Jack Flash, Sympathy For The Devil and so on, therefor may seem pointless to the Stones.