…… Buy an extra one ….
Give it some chick whose lost her way



ROCKMAN

Let It Bleed (50th Anniversary, Remastered) - 2 SACD, 7" Slip-Case - (18-Dec-2019)

[www.jpc.de] , [www.Universal-Music.co.jp]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-14 10:15 by Irix.

So sad to see such a classic album no charting at all on both UK or US Top 200 albums chart, it's a real shame and such a waste, unpardonable for both ABKCO and The Rolling Stones.

Quote
georgelicks
So sad to see such a classic album no charting at all on both UK or US Top 200 albums chart, it's a real shame and such a waste, unpardonable for both ABKCO and The Rolling Stones.

Correct. As I wrote in the thread re do The Stones care about archival releases:

If the 2 camps can talk to get something like GRRR compiled and released with the addition of the first recording session output (High Healed Sneakers) and the compilation span every period, they COULD talk about proper archival releases like a truly deluxe LET IT BLEED BOX, with outtakes, workups, different mixes etc, but they don’t. So I reckon we can assume they don’t care.

Rod

Rod

…. I doubt there's much love between the two camps …….



ROCKMAN

Quote
georgelicks
So sad to see such a classic album no charting at all on both UK or US Top 200 albums chart, it's a real shame and such a waste, unpardonable for both ABKCO and The Rolling Stones.

There may be a few more reasons than just what you mentioned. The Stones probably don't care - because they don't need to and they continue to tour. They haven't ever gone away like... The Beatles. The Stones have been too present for too long for these kinds of things to matter. The UMe reissue of EOMS was their biggest reissue... event - I don't have any facts in front of me but - but I'm going to guess it still pales to the recent Beatles reissues.

Although I'd love a GOATS HEAD SOUP revamp, the only thing that's left that would grab any attention, at least this seems logical, is a TATTOO YOU blast. Although how it would work with extra tracks... what, just a bunch of GHS/IORR/BAB/SG/ER leftovers I guess. Maybe we'd get Misty Roads, Fiji Jim, Not The Way To Go, Criss Cross Mind and etc etc etc finally.

Probably won't happen as they seem keen to keep releasing live shows, which, of course, ATLANTIC CITY would be excellent, among a plethora of others.

Has anyone bought the single CD edition? Or has anyone seen an "unboxing" of the single CD edition? I'm curious about the booklet. Ultimately I'm curious about the mix, but considering it's allegedly brickwalled as I feared it would be, I've become more curious about the (new?) booklet.

These 50th sets are a waste

Quote
philrock90
These 50th sets are a waste

A real waste, I think too. Maybe ABKCO just didn't get the point concerning WHY other big artists, Dylan, Bowie, Beatles, etc, does so many 50th anniversary releases, as of late......it's to save the recordings from being allowed to release by any obscure label, due to the copyright-thing. It would make a lot more sense to release what's out there, among traders and bootlegers; like Live´r Than You'll Ever Be, 1969-1971 outtakes, etc. I understand that everybody with a LP -or CD - making-machine can release and sell those recordings by now, no?

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
philrock90
These 50th sets are a waste

A real waste, I think too. Maybe ABKCO just didn't get the point concerning WHY other big artists, Dylan, Bowie, Beatles, etc, does so many 50th anniversary releases, as of late......it's to save the recordings from being allowed to release by any obscure label, due to the copyright-thing. It would make a lot more sense to release what's out there, among traders and bootlegers; like Live´r Than You'll Ever Be, 1969-1971 outtakes, etc. I understand that everybody with a LP -or CD - making-machine can release and sell those recordings by now, no?

As I understand it, the copyright of unreleased recordings always expire 50 years from the end of the year they are recorded, so it's not exactly 50 year after the recording date. That's why many of these copyright extension releases usually appear in December or around that time, in particular if they are streaming or Youtube only. And didn't ABKCO release some 1969 shows like San Diego on some legal US download platform already? I seem to recall a thread here or in the Hot Stuff section from a while ago. And with unreleased compositions like Blood Red Wine it's even more complicated - while recording artists and record companies are out of the game after 50 years, there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).

All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-14 21:55 by retired_dog.

I recieved my Box set today and was pleased with it. Outta 27 000 made I got number 968 which surprised me a bit, a 3 digit number outta a 5 digit possibility, nice. The book had some tasty photos as well, one I got very fond of was Mick holding Seraphina and Keith looking up on them, worth the price alone I'd say. Cool thing with the CD's tucked in a LP cover also. The only annoying thing was that in the book it states that Brians last photo session as a Rolling Stone was in december 1969....

Normally I avoid bashing ABCKO, but I believe they could do a little more at least. For instance with the Beggars Banquet reissue they could have remastered the JJF video in best possible quality. Over the years technology has has seen some strong improvements with audio and video. They don't have much excuse in my opinion.

Quote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).

All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...

Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog

In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).

All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...

Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog

In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in

Although it would be interesting to hear about some actual sales figures of these public domain releases...

Got the Let It Bleed and brown Band super deluxes yesterday. Both albums are sacred tomes.

The LIB set has 2 180g LPs (mono and stereo) and 2 hybrid SACDs (mono and stereo) of the album, a contemporary 7" single with a very important non-LP A-side, a poster, 3 prints and an 80-page hardcover book. No dice, marbles, pins, or scarves. Currently goes for about $100.

The Band set has a 2x180g 45 rpm LPs of the album (new stereo mix), 2 CDs of the album (new stereo mix) with 13 bonus tracks (6 previously unreleased) and their Woodstock set, a Blu-ray with new stereo and 5.1 mixes of the album and a documentary, a 7" single of 2 album tracks, 3 prints, and a 32-page softcover book. No silly tchochkes either. Currently goes for about $150.

Both are HEAVY on redundancy (4 versions and 2 mixes each of the albums they celebrate) and seem overpriced. But at least I can find a way to justify the Stones' pricing: $15 per LP and SACD, $10 for the single, and $30 for the book.

The Band one? No way. $30 for the LPs, $20 for the CDs, $25 for the Blu-ray, $10 for the single, and maybe $15 for the book. Should not be charging more than about $100.

The big difference is that there's an effort on the Band set to provide some additional content.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-17 02:03 by ab.

Mt issue is simply why can't I just buy the bloody stereo LP for twenty quid ?

Agree, the Stones box is gorgeous.
The Band box has dropped at Amazon to $116. Still too much.

Quote
ab
Got the Let It Bleed and brown Band super deluxes yesterday. Both albums are sacred tomes.

The LIB set has 2 180g LPs (mono and stereo) and hybrid SACDs (mono and stereo) of the album, a contemporary 7" single with a very important non-LP A-side, a poster, 3 prints and an 80-page hardcover book. No dice, marbles, pins, or scarves. Currently goes for about $100.

The Band set has a 2x180g 45 rpm LPs of the album (new stereo mix), 2 CDs of the album (new stereo mix) with 13 bonus tracks (6 previously unreleased) and their Woodstock set, a Blu-ray with new stereo and 5.1 mixes of the album and a documentary, a 7" single of 2 album tracks, 3 prints, and a 32-40 page softcover book. No silly tchochkes either. Currently goes for about $150.

Both are HEAVY on redundancy (4 versions and 2 mixes each of the albums they celebrate) and seem overpriced. But at least I can find a way to justify the Stones' pricing: $15 per LP and SACD, $10 for the single, and $30 for the book.

The Band one? No way. $30 for the LPs, $20 for the CDs, $25 for the Blu-ray, $10 for the single, and maybe $15 for the book. Should not be charging more than about $100.

The big difference is that there's an effort on the Band set to provide some additional content.

Quote
Spud

Mt issue is simply why can't I just buy the bloody stereo LP for twenty quid ?

Because it's available from 22-Nov-2019: [www.jpc.de] , [www.Amazon.de] , [www.Amazon.co.uk] , [Store.AcousticSounds.com] , [Store.uDiscoverMusic.com] .

The Stereo+Mono SACD is available from 18-Dec-2019: [www.jpc.de] .

Maybe it’s my aging ears but I thought the sound on this was really good. Better than 2002 I guess is up for debate but I cranked up both the vinyl and stereo sacd and danced the whole way through. Yup, caved for the $100 box. I’m usually a pretty logical guy but with the stones logic goes out the window and I purchase purely on emotion. Been that way since I was 10 and saw the stones on Dick Cavett show in 1972. It’s an illness and addiction that will last until my dying breath.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).

All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...

Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog

In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in

Although it would be interesting to hear about some actual sales figures of these public domain releases...

It would indeed but I guess there is a bit of a niche market out there...particularly in regards to jazz and blues unreleased or out of copyright material.

I got this from a Hoffman Music Forum thread,in regards to Public Domain issues, my comments in brackets:

1. No money goes to the (original)label. (In the Stones case, ABKCO Records. Oh dear!)
2. No money goes to the recording artists or their Estates (Well, The Stones hardly need the money do they)
3. It encourages 2nd rate product (possible but Wax Time label in Spain as reprted in the thread seem to be delivering quality)
4. It encourages more skirting of the legal owners of the recorded product (true, but the owners have had 50 to 70 plus years to maximise their initial investment)
5. It discourages output of similar material from the actual master tape holders (again the thread quotes examples. Sam Cooke (RCA), Miles Davis (Columbia) whereby public domain releases actually got the original label owners to get more pro active with their Artists catalogues, so the fans ultimately benefit).

I suppose the big issue is that of Copyright periods, its purpose, obligation, benefit etc.
Not just music, but literature, film , TV Radio broadcasts etc.

Quote
Bashlets
Maybe it’s my aging ears but I thought the sound on this was really good. Better than 2002 I guess is up for debate but I cranked up both the vinyl and stereo sacd and danced the whole way through. Yup, caved for the $100 box. I’m usually a pretty logical guy but with the stones logic goes out the window and I purchase purely on emotion. Been that way since I was 10 and saw the stones on Dick Cavett show in 1972. It’s an illness and addiction that will last until my dying breath.

These reissues all have excellent sound. TSMR and BB were fabulous. Will get LIB soon.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).

All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...

Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog

In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in

Although it would be interesting to hear about some actual sales figures of these public domain releases...

It would indeed but I guess there is a bit of a niche market out there...particularly in regards to jazz and blues unreleased or out of copyright material.

I got this from a Hoffman Music Forum thread,in regards to Public Domain issues, my comments in brackets:

1. No money goes to the (original)label. (In the Stones case, ABKCO Records. Oh dear!)
2. No money goes to the recording artists or their Estates (Well, The Stones hardly need the money do they)
3. It encourages 2nd rate product (possible but Wax Time label in Spain as reprted in the thread seem to be delivering quality)
4. It encourages more skirting of the legal owners of the recorded product (true, but the owners have had 50 to 70 plus years to maximise their initial investment)
5. It discourages output of similar material from the actual master tape holders (again the thread quotes examples. Sam Cooke (RCA), Miles Davis (Columbia) whereby public domain releases actually got the original label owners to get more pro active with their Artists catalogues, so the fans ultimately benefit).

I suppose the big issue is that of Copyright periods, its purpose, obligation, benefit etc.
Not just music, but literature, film , TV Radio broadcasts etc.

Collected works copyright overrule public domain so... such things like these songs and albums will, it seems, forever be in possession of the authors and publishers regardless due to creative releases, art, etc.

At least, that's my understanding.

I work with a literary estate. I regularly run into armchair lawyers who believe they can create new works with the literary estate's intellectual property based on their understanding of public domain law. Inevitably, they are sorry they ventured forward because if they don't cease and desist, they are looking at organizations with deep pockets who will actively defend their rights in court. The estate (or rather, the administrative bodies representing the literary estate) win every time. It just isn't worth it. Amazon and the rest remove product as soon as they hear from the big guns. They don't even wait for rulings. As for the public domain abuses, they are real and do a tremendous disservice to anyone who wants to legitimately publish public domain works. The abuses in literature are arguably worse where publishers can replace character names and place names and publish a "new work" by the author that is a blatant forgery. We're not yet at the point where someone decides to add new vocals or instruments to public domain Stones or Elvis recordings, but it is conceivable and it does nothing but harm to anyone wishing to abide by the law and do right by fans and the original artist(s).

It's a beautiful box. I'm satisfied.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).

All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...

Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog

In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in

Back in 2011 the musicians won a copyright extension for 20 more years for royalties to at least the year 2033.

From The Guardian (Sept.12,2011)

[Musicians win copyright extension in court]

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).

All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...

Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog

In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in

Back in 2011 the musicians won a copyright extension for 20 more years for royalties to at least the year 2033.

From The Guardian (Sept.12,2011)

[Musicians win copyright extension in court]

It wasn't a court decision, it was EU legislation that dealt with released recordings, not unreleased material.

In the Band case they have almost done a new stereo remix and an 5.1 remix as well. A new remix is what would be interesting. Just see all comments on the Abbey Road new mixes. People hear things they never heard before. No background noise, surround sound remixes. LIB is still the same even though it sounds quite good I'm sure it could sound even better with a new mix from the multitracks. Found a surround remix on the internet of Gimme Shelter. Fantastic. Merry Clayton singing to you from left behind. WOuld like the whole album remixed in 5.1

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
philrock90
These 50th sets are a waste

A real waste, I think too. Maybe ABKCO just didn't get the point concerning WHY other big artists, Dylan, Bowie, Beatles, etc, does so many 50th anniversary releases, as of late......it's to save the recordings from being allowed to release by any obscure label, due to the copyright-thing. It would make a lot more sense to release what's out there, among traders and bootlegers; like Live´r Than You'll Ever Be, 1969-1971 outtakes, etc. I understand that everybody with a LP -or CD - making-machine can release and sell those recordings by now, no?

As I understand it, the copyright of unreleased recordings always expire 50 years from the end of the year they are recorded, so it's not exactly 50 year after the recording date. That's why many of these copyright extension releases usually appear in December or around that time, in particular if they are streaming or Youtube only. And didn't ABKCO release some 1969 shows like San Diego on some legal US download platform already? I seem to recall a thread here or in the Hot Stuff section from a while ago. And with unreleased compositions like Blood Red Wine it's even more complicated - while recording artists and record companies are out of the game after 50 years, there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).

All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...

Of course here is another option.
The Stones simply re record their 60s material, whether released or still in the Archives.
Taylor Swift is currently threatening to do just that, following disputes with her old label.
I believe Prince and maybe others have done this in the past.
Paul Simon also put out a new album of old material re recorded, though not due to any label dispute.
John Lennon once said he would like to re-record some of the old Beatles material. Glad he didn't.

Maybe better though for the group to release some NEW material rather than upset ABKCO even more!

To re-record the old stuff is absolutely not an option in my opinion. There are far to many re- recordings around and they all sound like covers. A singer in the 70´s can't sound the same today so you would never consider it beeing an original. But a remix of the original recording can benefit from the new techniqe that were'nt available at the time of recording. There are lot of examples when 60's recordings sound almost like they were recorded today

Of course here is another option.
The Stones simply re record their 60s material, whether released or still in the Archives.


….No No .… bad idea

Then what next … Lynch reshoots Eraserhead in technicolor ……



ROCKMAN