I've crawled up inside the 50th anniv releases for SGT PEPPERS, THE BEATLES, and ABBEY ROAD for the past few weeks and may never come up for air!

Having also spent a fair amount of time over the years in Dylan's Bootleg series releases, the following occurred to me:

Has Keith or Mick ever said anything in public about a desire to release outtakes, works in progress, etc.? I know there are many complicated reasons for their situation ... but they are literally being left in the dust by their peers in this respect. Future fans and scholars of The Beatles and Dylan will have such a rich history of material to comb through and will be able to reconstruct the working methods of the musicians in question, how they conceived songs, arrangements, etc.

Other than via Godard's camera in 1968, we have next to nothing to indicate HOW the band worked. I would LOVE to see stuff from the Jack Nitzsche sessions at RCA in the mid-60's or Jimmy Miller's from Olympic later in the decade.

Is it possible that something else is afoot here, beyond contractual constraints? Could it be that Mick and/or Keith are truly opposed to releasing anything other than "polished" product and are in some way embarrassed or uncomfortable with their works-in-progress?

There is LOTS of rough, almost cringeworthy material on the Dylan and Beatles releases ... but my god what a wealth of illiuminatory material is there, too!

It's just such a shame ...

Mick: All ya need's ah turntable

Charlie: eeeeeerr what ?

------------->>>>>>>>>>>>> [www.youtube.com]



ROCKMAN

Brussels Affair: [youtu.be]

Mick, demonstrating the proper care and handling of 180G vinyl.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Brussels Affair: [youtu.be]

Very cool comments from Keith, esp re: Billy W and Mick J

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-12 01:45 by jlowe.

we have had some stuff released via the exile and some girls deluxe packages, but theres far more.

stuff like blood red wine are perfect for release and they have a lot like this but they dont seem interested.

was wondering if an unfinished song that wasnt released during the abkco era would be owned by them or could the band work on the outtake and release it as their own

stuff like blood red wine are perfect for release and they have a lot like this but they dont seem interested

but that stuff'll be over in the Klein camp ……



ROCKMAN

do they own blood red wine, as its never been released officially so officially it dosent exist.

yeah good thought …...maybe youre right buttons ….



ROCKMAN

Quote
buttons67
do they own blood red wine, as its never been released officially so officially it dosent exist.

The Stones "own" the veto right to material like this. As performing artists, they can allow or veto the release of any recordings. The same goes for Jagger/Richards concerning the composition itself.

Concerning previously unreleased recordings, ABKCO can't release them without consent of the performing artists = The Stones, and, if it's an unreleased Jagger/Richards composition like Blood Red Wine, without the consent of Jagger/Richards.

People usually blame ABKCO for the lack of more archive releases or unimaginative Anniversary releases like TSMR, BB or Let It Bleed, but truth is that they're effectively blocked - unless the Stones agree.

FWIW I'm actually less interested in unreleased songs as I am in alternate developmental takes of existing released material. It's fascinating - to me at least - to piece together how Dylan or Lennon/McCartney evolved their classic material.

One of the things that really stands out to me are what stupendously gifted singers John and Paul were. Of course, the tunes were/are amazing but damn those dudes could warble. Their songs went through incredible development through their own and George Martin's genius ... but almost always from take 1 you can just feel everything you need to know through the initial lead vocal that's laid down.

The acoustic and early demos of
Strawberry Fields are the ones that blow me …..



ROCKMAN

Quote
LazarusSmith
Mick, demonstrating the proper care and handling of 180G vinyl.

My thoughts exactly, he's tossing those things around like a disgruntled postal worker.

Quote
Rockman
The acoustic and early demos of
Strawberry Fields are the ones that blow me …..

I agree completely. They were the highlight of the Anthology series.

Theoretically speaking here. What if a popular artist covered an unreleased tune like Blood Red Wine? Would they need permission to release it for sale? Would ABKCO get royalties?

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"

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
HouseBoyKnows
Theoretically speaking here. What if a popular artist covered an unreleased tune like Blood Red Wine? Would they need permission to release it for sale? Would ABKCO get royalties?

Yes and yes. And Jagger/Richards too according to their share with ABKCO publishing.

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

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.

Quote
LazarusSmith
I've crawled up inside the 50th anniv releases for SGT PEPPERS, THE BEATLES, and ABBEY ROAD for the past few weeks and may never come up for air!

Having also spent a fair amount of time over the years in Dylan's Bootleg series releases, the following occurred to me:

Has Keith or Mick ever said anything in public about a desire to release outtakes, works in progress, etc.? I know there are many complicated reasons for their situation ... but they are literally being left in the dust by their peers in this respect. Future fans and scholars of The Beatles and Dylan will have such a rich history of material to comb through and will be able to reconstruct the working methods of the musicians in question, how they conceived songs, arrangements, etc.

Other than via Godard's camera in 1968, we have next to nothing to indicate HOW the band worked. I would LOVE to see stuff from the Jack Nitzsche sessions at RCA in the mid-60's or Jimmy Miller's from Olympic later in the decade.

Is it possible that something else is afoot here, beyond contractual constraints? Could it be that Mick and/or Keith are truly opposed to releasing anything other than "polished" product and are in some way embarrassed or uncomfortable with their works-in-progress?

There is LOTS of rough, almost cringeworthy material on the Dylan and Beatles releases ... but my god what a wealth of illiuminatory material is there, too!

It's just such a shame ...

Well, in an interview with Kurt Loder waaaaaaaaay back in 1991 (on the set of "Freejack"), Mick said something along the lines of "I'm much more interested in the Rolling Stones right now" as supposed to digging up or studying the past. Of course, this was said long before the archive stuff ("From the Vault", etc.) starting coming out, so it seems he has loosened up a bit since then, or maybe the revenue possibilities began to outweigh the desire to avoid history! Either way, I've felt like a pretty lucky fan with the amount of stuff that has come out in recent years.

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.

Can anyone clarify the position re unreleased material recorded 50 plus years ago?
The Dylan camp have released 'Copyright Extension' product which covers unreleased studio and live material. I was give a couple of these...played them once! Its aim was to stem 'unifficial' releases.
Other than some You Tube stuff (now taken down?)we haven't seen any hidden gems (?). Given the amount of material that has surfaced thanks to bootleggers, it seems strange.
Perhaps the mighty combined strengths of ABKCO and Stones Inc legal teams have put people off?
You would not think however that would deter the determined entrepreneurs.

Quote
jlowe
Can anyone clarify the position re unreleased material recorded 50 plus years ago?
The Dylan camp have released 'Copyright Extension' product which covers unreleased studio and live material. I was give a couple of these...played them once! Its aim was to stem 'unifficial' releases.
Other than some You Tube stuff (now taken down?)we haven't seen any hidden gems (?). Given the amount of material that has surfaced thanks to bootleggers, it seems strange.
Perhaps the mighty combined strengths of ABKCO and Stones Inc legal teams have put people off?
You would not think however that would deter the determined entrepreneurs.

There was also a time limited iTunes-release ('67 Sessions), with some outtakes/early versions/TV appearances and the Paris 1967 show.

Only 3 days since Live´r Than You'll Ever Be is allowed to release for anybody today, and 2 days since the even better San Diego 69 show had a 50th anniversary

There isn't very much bootlegged material available from early Stones, either. It's possible that some of the tapes no longer exist in usable form.

There are some interesting alternate takes, such as the alternate "Jumping Jack Flash" that was made into a video. The alternate, early version of "Loving Cup" is very different than the one on "Exile," and was recorded during the ABKCO era.

Quote
LazarusSmith
..Is it possible that something else is afoot here, beyond contractual constraints? Could it be that Mick and/or Keith are truly opposed to releasing anything other than "polished" product and are in some way embarrassed or uncomfortable with their works-in-progress?

There is LOTS of rough, almost cringeworthy material on the Dylan and Beatles releases ... but my god what a wealth of illiuminatory material is there, too!

It's just such a shame ...

There may be some small germ of truth in that.

There's a part of Mick I think that's almost embarrassed about still being Mick Jagger .

I think he sometimes feels that he ought to have grown out of all this "pop group" stuff many years ago ...but at the same time he's addicted to being Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones ...so he's pretty much stuffed

I checked the ASCAP website and noticed that CS Blues (released in Germany only on the DECCA label) has the Composition listed under EMI Colgems Music Publishing.
Even though it was obviously written during the ABKCO era.
Presumably Mr Klein didn't want to touch it, if you see what I mean.

Quote
Spud
There's a part of Mick I think that's almost embarrassed about still being Mick Jagger .

I've been thinking this for a while now. As a performer he needs that adrenaline rush, but at the same time he wants to be a sophisticated rich guy. Can't have it both ways, not even Mick Jagger. This is what I like about Paul Mccartney, he loves being Beatle Paul. This is my perspective on the subject.