We did, of course, get unreleased bonus tracks in the 40th anniversary box set of Ya Ya's.




"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
georgemcdonnell314
Its really sad. Even Pink Floyd one of the most reclusive bands has given us more, The Early Years, Dark Side of the Moon concert from Wembly Stadium and even an alternative to wish you were here.

According to Bill they have plenty of tracks "in the can"

There was also The Wall Immersion Box set from 2011 which included the Wall remastered, Is There Anybody Out There: The Wall Live 1980-81 remastered, and as the ultimate bonus The Wall Work In Progress compiling Roger Waters original demos as well as band demos. If that wasn't enough, there was a DVD titled the Happiest Days of Our Lives which included rare live footage 1980, a Behind The Wall documentary, and an interview with artist Gerald Scarfe who did all of the artwork (stills and animation for both the tour and the movie). Then there was all the extra stuff they threw in - photos, art prints, ticket replicas, booklets, etc., etc. etc., etc, Not cheap if I recall, but a proper deluxe box set done right.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-13 19:21 by Hairball.

Quote
Deltics
We did, of course, get unreleased bonus tracks in the 40th anniversary box set of Ya Ya's.

And different versions of them as well, on the dvd.

Quote
24FPS
I'm not as interested in alternative takes, as I am unreleased work when it comes to the Stones. I have the Stones Black Box collection, where you do hear earlier versions. Unlike the Beatles, the alternates aren't radically different. Bill figures out his bass part early, and pretty much sticks with it. Mick might cut a verse, or add one. It's Keith that seems to be reaching for something that takes a few tries to get right.

Yeah, maybe Im hoping for something that really doesn't exist. Perhaps they're not really the kind of band that really works through things, turning them inside-out, changing tempos, instrumentation, approaches, etc. Maybe everything is all more or less worked out in advance and the kind of wondrous (and in some cases, jaw-dropping) development and evolution that you see in the boxes from musicians like The Beatles and Dylan doesn't really happen in a Stones' studio session all that often.

Quote
LazarusSmith

Quote
TheGreek
I just think that the Glimmers ( more Mick ) will not release anything unless it's perfect to there eyes and ears .

If this is true, one wonders how Dirty Work was ever released.

RIM SHOT!

There was an interview with the band in about 2012 (?). It was quite a long ago, I don't remember what the other topics were (probably touring) but I can recall a moment: the camera was showing some old concert recording tapes (maybe from the 81-2 tour) and Mick was asked about releasing unreleased material.
Mick said that it's "simply too much work", that's why they are not really into it!

Quote
Duked
There was an interview with the band in about 2012 (?). It was quite a long ago, I don't remember what the other topics were (probably touring) but I can recall a moment: the camera was showing some old concert recording tapes (maybe from the 81-2 tour) and Mick was asked about releasing unreleased material.
Mick said that it's "simply too much work", that's why they are not really into it!

The Beatles and Dylan are in the process of developing an entire alternate history of themselves, one that will be seen as an essential accompaniment to their original releases. The Stones sit on the sidelines and count their money and tour Hot Rocks ad infinitum.

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

Quote
bitusa2012
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.

Or they don't have enough proper outtakes, workups, different mixes etc to release ...............

__________________________

there seems to be plenty of different mixes on youtube of various songs, most different from the studio recording on the album and instrumentals to which give some songs a different perspective.

some of the songs ive heard with different mixes or instrumentals are

jj flash
little t and a
slave
ruby tuesday
citadel
complicated
if you cant rock me


and several outtakes of unreleased material


gold painted finger nails is superb psychedelic music the beatles havent done
majesties honky tonk

let it loose instrumental is superb to.

they have many different mixes of some songs,

Quote
jlowe
It's odd really. "The group only wants to release polished product".

Actually, part of the group's appeal is that (in a general sense) their recorded output is/ or seems to be spontaneous, ragged, not over produced or perfected. Just as rock 'n roll should be, imo.

The 'contractural' problem re ABKCO could be overcome...if both parties can agree. But presumably not?
I used to think that as long as the group are a 'current' band that Mick wasnt interested in trawling the Archives, which would only detract from their current work. Or make unwelcome comparisons to former times.
But having said that we have seen the welcome Vaults series...both audio and visual.
It can't be a time issue though. I suspect Dylan actually spends very little time on the Bootleg series, maybe Paul and Ringo a bit more on The Beatles repackages.
They will have a final say, presumably. Neil Young may do even more...I suspect it's down to the individual.

Am sure most people would, at the end of the day prefer to see NEW product.

Am surprised though that with the 50 year copyright ruling we haven't seen more unreleased material surface.

It is a shame. Truly there is a huge amount of good, decent, great, OK, WTF? tracks leftover.

The copyright rule... do people assume that they wouldn't get it again? Because they certainly could have it again, right?

Quote
Duked
There was an interview with the band in about 2012 (?). It was quite a long ago, I don't remember what the other topics were (probably touring) but I can recall a moment: the camera was showing some old concert recording tapes (maybe from the 81-2 tour) and Mick was asked about releasing unreleased material.
Mick said that it's "simply too much work", that's why they are not really into it!

Mick talking nonsense.
Can you imagine Dylan spending time looking through his Archives? Of course not, he has a team of people doing all the graft.
All he will do is check the sales figures.
And in any case he is too busy, what with his whisky business, sculptures and paintings.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
Duked
There was an interview with the band in about 2012 (?). It was quite a long ago, I don't remember what the other topics were (probably touring) but I can recall a moment: the camera was showing some old concert recording tapes (maybe from the 81-2 tour) and Mick was asked about releasing unreleased material.
Mick said that it's "simply too much work", that's why they are not really into it!

Mick talking nonsense.
Can you imagine Dylan spending time looking through his Archives? Of course not, he has a team of people doing all the graft.
All he will do is check the sales figures.
And in any case he is too busy, what with his whisky business, sculptures and paintings.

Well, it could be that Mick means himself. The way the Stones record leaves many times the vocals (melody lines, lyrics) rather unfinished if the track is not chosen for to be released. Supposedly Jagger doesn't want those torsos to be released, but re-worked further, like he did with many EXILE and SOME GIRLS bonus tracks.

With Dylan, he usually comes up with a rather finished song, writing first lyrics and then music to fit it. Lastly comes the arrangement (usually done very quickly in the studio with competent musicians). So you pick up any version along the process, it sounds like a complete performance, despite differing along the way. That's dream material for archive releases.

Generally, if compared both to Dylan and The Beatles, the way Dylan and Lennon-MCartney write, they really write complete songs, and those are not sketches, but ready go to once created. You pick up a guitar and sing it around bonfire. Jagger/Richards songs by contrast need some serious studio work and arrangement in order to become listenable songs. The early versions are just sketches, and this is not just with Keith's songs (sometimes just a riff or a chord sequence and key phrase) but with Mick's as well. If one listens MIck playing "Sympathy For The Devil" in ONE PLUS ONE, probably as he wrote it, there is along way to go to a finished song still - to get its final shape and form. Mick either doesn't even think or play as that would make a recording, but just a sketch and a guide for the rest of the guys. Something to start from (there doesn't exist any recording of a Dylanisque folk song named "Devil Is My Name", even though they initially flirted with the idea). The creation of a Stones song can be a long process, but documenting its different phases (a'la ONE PLUS ONE) might not be that easily transformed to a listeneable form on a record. It's just a work in progress too much. The same goes for their famous way to take as many takes as needed to get the right 'feel'. Documenting that might not be that interesting either (except for serious researchers), since the song itself or its arrangement doesn't alter that much in the process (some "Start Me Up", and its 'reggae' version, might be an expection - but here again the issue of unfinished vocals becomes a problem).

Anyway, that's my picture why the Stones aren't that interested in releasing archive studio material. Due to the way they create, the results sound too much 'work in progress' until, after a trial and error, the final song pops up - and by that stage there is not that much variance to offer interesting alternative versions. So it's much harder to create 'alternative universes' (as someone nicely put it) for them than for Dylan and the Beatles.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-14 15:36 by Doxa.

Spot on Doxa!

Totally agree, Doxa, although nothing is more enjoyable than listening to the Satanic Sessions. But that's the exception that confirms the rule, I guess

I also agree, however......
Checking the Wiki entry for the album Aftermath:
- the recording was done in two stages, about 10 studio days in all
- Keith is quoted as saying, that unlike the previous albums, this one was NOT a rushed job, they took their time (!)

Perhaps someone needs to follow Andrew Oldham's lead, ie lock them in a studio and dont let them out until the job is done!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Totally agree, Doxa, although nothing is more enjoyable than listening to the Satanic Sessions. But that's the exception that confirms the rule, I guess

Haha... "nothing is more enjoyable than listening to the Satanic Sessions"... Oh boy, you truely are a Rolling Stones hardcore fan, Dandie!

- Doxa

Quote
Hairball

Quote
georgemcdonnell314
Its really sad. Even Pink Floyd one of the most reclusive bands has given us more, The Early Years, Dark Side of the Moon concert from Wembly Stadium and even an alternative to wish you were here.

According to Bill they have plenty of tracks "in the can"

There was also The Wall Immersion Box set from 2011 which included the Wall remastered, Is There Anybody Out There: The Wall Live 1980-81 remastered, and as the ultimate bonus The Wall Work In Progress compiling Roger Waters original demos as well as band demos. If that wasn't enough, there was a DVD titled the Happiest Days of Our Lives which included rare live footage 1980, a Behind The Wall documentary, and an interview with artist Gerald Scarfe who did all of the artwork (stills and animation for both the tour and the movie). Then there was all the extra stuff they threw in - photos, art prints, ticket replicas, booklets, etc., etc. etc., etc, Not cheap if I recall, but a proper deluxe box set done right.

You just reminded me that I got this deluxe box and loved it and the only thing missing was a proper and complete show on DVD . Clips are nice but it's such a tease . C'mon give us a complete show ? Please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
Duked
There was an interview with the band in about 2012 (?). It was quite a long ago, I don't remember what the other topics were (probably touring) but I can recall a moment: the camera was showing some old concert recording tapes (maybe from the 81-2 tour) and Mick was asked about releasing unreleased material.
Mick said that it's "simply too much work", that's why they are not really into it!

There it is in print from Mick that it's too much work . Why work ? when that takes time away from other more important tasks ?

Quote
jlowe

Quote
Duked
There was an interview with the band in about 2012 (?). It was quite a long ago, I don't remember what the other topics were (probably touring) but I can recall a moment: the camera was showing some old concert recording tapes (maybe from the 81-2 tour) and Mick was asked about releasing unreleased material.
Mick said that it's "simply too much work", that's why they are not really into it!

Mick talking nonsense.
Can you imagine Dylan spending time looking through his Archives? Of course not, he has a team of people doing all the graft.
All he will do is check the sales figures.
And in any case he is too busy, what with his whisky business, sculptures and paintings.

Is there any actual evidence for this pt of view?

Quote
Doxa

Quote
jlowe

Quote
Duked
There was an interview with the band in about 2012 (?). It was quite a long ago, I don't remember what the other topics were (probably touring) but I can recall a moment: the camera was showing some old concert recording tapes (maybe from the 81-2 tour) and Mick was asked about releasing unreleased material.
Mick said that it's "simply too much work", that's why they are not really into it!

Mick talking nonsense.
Can you imagine Dylan spending time looking through his Archives? Of course not, he has a team of people doing all the graft.
All he will do is check the sales figures.
And in any case he is too busy, what with his whisky business, sculptures and paintings.

Well, it could be that Mick means himself. The way the Stones record leaves many times the vocals (melody lines, lyrics) rather unfinished if the track is not chosen for to be released. Supposedly Jagger doesn't want those torsos to be released, but re-worked further, like he did with many EXILE and SOME GIRLS bonus tracks.

With Dylan, he usually comes up with a rather finished song, writing first lyrics and then music to fit it. Lastly comes the arrangement (usually done very quickly in the studio with competent musicians). So you pick up any version along the process, it sounds like a complete performance, despite differing along the way. That's dream material for archive releases.

Generally, if compared both to Dylan and The Beatles, the way Dylan and Lennon-MCartney write, they really write complete songs, and those are not sketches, but ready go to once created. You pick up a guitar and sing it around bonfire. Jagger/Richards songs by contrast need some serious studio work and arrangement in order to become listenable songs. The early versions are just sketches, and this is not just with Keith's songs (sometimes just a riff or a chord sequence and key phrase) but with Mick's as well. If one listens MIck playing "Sympathy For The Devil" in ONE PLUS ONE, probably as he wrote it, there is along way to go to a finished song still - to get its final shape and form. Mick either doesn't even think or play as that would make a recording, but just a sketch and a guide for the rest of the guys. Something to start from (there doesn't exist any recording of a Dylanisque folk song named "Devil Is My Name", even though they initially flirted with the idea). The creation of a Stones song can be a long process, but documenting its different phases (a'la ONE PLUS ONE) might not be that easily transformed to a listeneable form on a record. It's just a work in progress too much. The same goes for their famous way to take as many takes as needed to get the right 'feel'. Documenting that might not be that interesting either (except for serious researchers), since the song itself or its arrangement doesn't alter that much in the process (some "Start Me Up", and its 'reggae' version, might be an expection - but here again the issue of unfinished vocals becomes a problem).

Anyway, that's my picture why the Stones aren't that interested in releasing archive studio material. Due to the way they create, the results sound too much 'work in progress' until, after a trial and error, the final song pops up - and by that stage there is not that much variance to offer interesting alternative versions. So it's much harder to create 'alternative universes' (as someone nicely put it) for them than for Dylan and the Beatles.

- Doxa

I'm afraid I don't quite follow this line of thinking. The Stones don't have archive releases because the early versions of their songs are too much like "sketches" and therefore uninteresting? Take a listen to some of the material on the Dylan Bootleg series or to the iterations of "Strawberry Fields Forever" on the 50th anniv rls of SGT PEPPERS. I think there are plenty of examples of other artists changing things dramatically, trying other approaches, failing, regrouping ... is this fundamentally different from how The Stones work?

Quote
Doxa

Quote
jlowe

Quote
Duked
There was an interview with the band in about 2012 (?). It was quite a long ago, I don't remember what the other topics were (probably touring) but I can recall a moment: the camera was showing some old concert recording tapes (maybe from the 81-2 tour) and Mick was asked about releasing unreleased material.
Mick said that it's "simply too much work", that's why they are not really into it!

Mick talking nonsense.
Can you imagine Dylan spending time looking through his Archives? Of course not, he has a team of people doing all the graft.
All he will do is check the sales figures.
And in any case he is too busy, what with his whisky business, sculptures and paintings.

Well, it could be that Mick means himself. The way the Stones record leaves many times the vocals (melody lines, lyrics) rather unfinished if the track is not chosen for to be released. Supposedly Jagger doesn't want those torsos to be released, but re-worked further, like he did with many EXILE and SOME GIRLS bonus tracks.

With Dylan, he usually comes up with a rather finished song, writing first lyrics and then music to fit it. Lastly comes the arrangement (usually done very quickly in the studio with competent musicians). So you pick up any version along the process, it sounds like a complete performance, despite differing along the way. That's dream material for archive releases.

Generally, if compared both to Dylan and The Beatles, the way Dylan and Lennon-MCartney write, they really write complete songs, and those are not sketches, but ready go to once created. You pick up a guitar and sing it around bonfire. Jagger/Richards songs by contrast need some serious studio work and arrangement in order to become listenable songs. The early versions are just sketches, and this is not just with Keith's songs (sometimes just a riff or a chord sequence and key phrase) but with Mick's as well. If one listens MIck playing "Sympathy For The Devil" in ONE PLUS ONE, probably as he wrote it, there is along way to go to a finished song still - to get its final shape and form. Mick either doesn't even think or play as that would make a recording, but just a sketch and a guide for the rest of the guys. Something to start from (there doesn't exist any recording of a Dylanisque folk song named "Devil Is My Name", even though they initially flirted with the idea). The creation of a Stones song can be a long process, but documenting its different phases (a'la ONE PLUS ONE) might not be that easily transformed to a listeneable form on a record. It's just a work in progress too much. The same goes for their famous way to take as many takes as needed to get the right 'feel'. Documenting that might not be that interesting either (except for serious researchers), since the song itself or its arrangement doesn't alter that much in the process (some "Start Me Up", and its 'reggae' version, might be an expection - but here again the issue of unfinished vocals becomes a problem).

Anyway, that's my picture why the Stones aren't that interested in releasing archive studio material. Due to the way they create, the results sound too much 'work in progress' until, after a trial and error, the final song pops up - and by that stage there is not that much variance to offer interesting alternative versions. So it's much harder to create 'alternative universes' (as someone nicely put it) for them than for Dylan and the Beatles.

- Doxa

In general I agree, but:

There are a bunch of great FINISHED unreleased tracks, as you know, from "I can see it" up to "strictly memphis"
Only to mention a few:
Blood red wine
Save me
Living is a harder love
You should have seen her...
Drift away (cover)
Let's go steady (cover)
...

stones have a bunch of finished unreleased tracks as most agree.

they have great instrumental tracks of various songs

and they have quite a few alternate tracks of well known songs

all on youtube

and yet folk are moaning and comparing them unfavourably with the beatles and dylan

stones if they wanted to could easily release alternate outtakes of a whole lot of stuff that would easily trump what the beatles did or dylan did.

Quote
buttons67
...

stones if they wanted to could easily release alternate outtakes of a whole lot of stuff that would easily trump what the beatles did or dylan did.

There you have it, then. No need to release anything, after all. Because we know it would be great, why bother going to the all the fuss and muss?

That answer is very simple. They gave us a complete concert and mot pieces of one and they gave us outtakes, alternate versions. They gave us more than they gave us when they were an active band. Have the Stones given us this?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
georgemcdonnell314
Its really sad. Even Pink Floyd one of the most reclusive bands has given us more, The Early Years, Dark Side of the Moon concert from Wembly Stadium and even an alternative to wish you were here.

According to Bill they have plenty of tracks "in the can"

How is that more than what The Stones have given us?

Quote
georgemcdonnell314
That answer is very simple. They gave us a complete concert and mot pieces of one and they gave us outtakes, alternate versions. They gave us more than they gave us when they were an active band. Have the Stones given us this?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
georgemcdonnell314
Its really sad. Even Pink Floyd one of the most reclusive bands has given us more, The Early Years, Dark Side of the Moon concert from Wembly Stadium and even an alternative to wish you were here.

According to Bill they have plenty of tracks "in the can"

How is that more than what The Stones have given us?

Not sure if you have a specific album/tour in mind here, George?

We got loads of complete concerts from the Stones in recent years. Leeds 1971 for the SF-release is one example. SG Live in Texas was another.

Early years: Camden 1964, Live In England '65, Paris '67 and On Air weren't too bad?

Outtakes: We got SF, Exile and SG outtakes. For the two latter an album's worth of them.

I agree that we could have gotten more, but isn't it always like that with your favourite band: you want more



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-15 17:36 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
LazarusSmith

Quote
TheGreek
I just think that the Glimmers ( more Mick ) will not release anything unless it's perfect to there eyes and ears .

If this is true, one wonders how Dirty Work was ever released.

RIM SHOT!

TRUE.

Well, you know, you can shine a... which is exactly what they did LOL!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Outtakes: We got SF, Exile and SG outtakes. For the two latter an album's worth of them.

Now, come on, them were overdubbed with new vocals - with a terrible result, most of the time.

Their live releases, LA 1975, Brussels 1973, Hampton 1981, TX78 are all terrific; but studio outtakes; not so.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Outtakes: We got SF, Exile and SG outtakes. For the two latter an album's worth of them.

Now, come on, them were overdubbed with new vocals - with a terrible result, most of the time.

Their live releases, LA 1975, Brussels 1973, Hampton 1981, TX78 are all terrific; but studio outtakes; not so.

Only some of them, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Outtakes: We got SF, Exile and SG outtakes. For the two latter an album's worth of them.

Now, come on, them were overdubbed with new vocals - with a terrible result, most of the time.

Their live releases, LA 1975, Brussels 1973, Hampton 1981, TX78 are all terrific; but studio outtakes; not so.

Only some of them, though.

Now you are practically begging for a new role in "Parterapi", Dandelion!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-15 19:56 by Erik_Snow.