Why on earth would the Stones put out this silly thing. Anyone intersested in Rarities was ACTUAL rarities. Anyone who is a casual fan won't buy this. There are so many great bootlegs from studio sessions plus there must be a ton of stuff that has never made it to a boot.

Why not a box-set of ACTUAL Rarities. I don't get it.

X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-10 00:31 by Erik_Snow.

This is my first day so forgive me!

X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-10 00:31 by Erik_Snow.

I believe the correct spelling of the word is: $$$$$$

The reason for the release is '$$$$$$' fo sure, but unfortunately the means to that is 'ROBBERY'. I was stupid to purchase it, and to add to my misery I got a second copy for Christmas.

"make up your mind, 'cause I gotta go"

bigfrankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why on earth would the Stones put out this silly
> thing. Anyone intersested in Rarities was ACTUAL
> rarities. Anyone who is a casual fan won't buy
> this. There are so many great bootlegs from studio
> sessions plus there must be a ton of stuff that
> has never made it to a boot.
>
> Why not a box-set of ACTUAL Rarities. I don't get
> it.


I think The Stones have decided to entrust their legacy to people who really can't be bothered.

We all can imagine a better "Rarities" album, but some tracks are simply great like "Beast of Burden" live and "Anyway You Look at It" and all the blues tracks. Further "Rarities" means rarities, i.e. songs that are already realized but rare. If the Toshiba Studio take of "Wild Horses" is rare is another point of discussion. I heard the "Let it Rock" version last time in '73 as the flip site of Brown Sugar I think, and this is an absolute Stones rocker. "Anyway" I didn't know at all, and I heard this live version of "Beast" at the beginning of the '80 last time. Three songs out of 16, it isn't too much, but I'm Stones fan scince the beginning of the seventies, so it is quite a normal thing that I know the most tracks.

RobertJohnson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all can imagine a better "Rarities" album, but
> some tracks are simply great like "Beast of
> Burden" live and "Anyway You Look at It" and all
> the blues tracks. Further "Rarities" means
> rarities, i.e. songs that are already realized but
> rare. If the Toshiba Studio take of "Wild Horses"
> is rare is another point of discussion. I heard
> the "Let it Rock" version last time in '73 as the
> flip site of Brown Sugar I think, and this is an
> absolute Stones rocker. "Anyway" I didn't know at
> all, and I heard this live version of "Beast" at
> the beginning of the '80 last time. Three songs
> out of 16, it isn't too much, but I'm Stones fan
> scince the beginning of the seventies, so it is
> quite a normal thing that I know the most tracks.


People aren't quibbling the genuine rarities that are on here - all the ones you've mentioned are great - but the fact is that there simply aren't enough of them to justify calling this a "Rarities" disc. Over half of the songs on here are easily available on CD.

exactly..and many of those songs are on albums that sold a lot more copies than Rarities will

How can a song previously released on an album like 'Stripped' (which sold 3.5 million copies) be considered a 'rarity'

They should have been sued under the Trade Descriptions Act and ordered to rename the album "Sampler"

Dylan has done it best with "The Bootleg Series" Thoughfully configured collections of unreleased songs, alt versions plus amazing live sets. I was never sure if the Stones had that much old stuff in the can till I found this page, and downloaded classics like "No spare parts". Thats the sort of stuff that they should be putting out officially for the real fans. Just a thought...

well, that version of No Spare Parts is basically a rough demo with an unfinished lyric and a pretty ramshackle lead vocal

had they put that on an official album at the time, theyd have been laughed at. A lot of the Stones songs that have circulated unofficially have attained some mythical status purely on the strength of them being a form of 'forbidden fruit'. The vast majority of them werent released for two simple reasons - one being they werent good enough and the other being that they had enough songs at the time that were better. No Spare Parts is an example of that.

People tend to overlook the fact that the songs available on bootlegs are all that's out there, whereas there may indeed be a more 'finished' version of several of these songs (eg No Spare Parts) which are in the vaults but which havent been 'leaked'.

Dylan's "Bootleg Series" is an entirely different beast to "Rarities" because it was a collection of unreleased material. "Rarities" (as its name suggests) was never intended as such a project and shouldnt really be reviewed as one. It does fail as a release however because at least a third of the selections are not 'rare' officially released songs at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-01-15 20:28 by Gazza.

hi Gazza, I know what you mean about spare parts (half finished etc), but the Dylan thing had loadsa songs that sounded a bit rough or broke down before the end (shes your lover now) but still came across as a wonderful set of music. It was clearly aimed at the fans and Im sure the Stones could do the same

as to songs like No Spare Parts (and there are LOADS of them from the SG era) - I agree with Gazza about not really being in a position to put them out "as is" back in the day. But, surely there would be no laughter should these be put out officially (even in "as is" state) now. Having said that the notoriously conservative Jagger would NEVER do such a thing. He might consider doing a few more vocal overdubs (a la So Young in '95), but you'll never see these unreleased songs released in his life time in "as is" condition.

The Stones do not allow any unreleased or unfinished songs to be released. So whenever they (the record company) want to wrap something into what they want to call Rarities they have to get a YES and then they are still only allowed to use what's already around. Very simple. It has been like this for 40 years. Except for Metamorphosis I don't think they have released many rarities at all. If you want rarities with the Stones you would have to get them trough underground releases i.e. bootlegs.

Bjornulf

ac/dc are pretty much the same tho they did let a few old Bon demos come out on the Bonfire box set. Also ac/dc have never done a greatist hits (tho I guess thats another topic!).

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones do not allow any unreleased or
> unfinished songs to be released. If you want rarities with the Stones you
> would have to get them trough underground releases
> i.e. bootlegs.

Those wouldn't qualify as 'Rarities'. A rarity is supposed to be released, but very hard to come by. It's not an unreleased song. Its has been officially released in the past.

em sorry, but did you have your dictionary out. Since when was a rarity a released song that is hard to find. Why cant a previously unreleased (bootleg)song also be a rarity? Anyway, who cares. The Stones should know better than to put out shabby packages like this

Welcome on board, Frankie. - It´s all about money this Rarities-thing,
if you ask me.

letitloose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> em sorry, but did you have your dictionary out.
> Since when was a rarity a released song that is
> hard to find.

thats exactly what it is. It has to exist in the first place to be 'rare' or 'hard to find'

Why cant a previously unreleased
> (bootleg)song also be a rarity?

for the same reason. A Bengal tiger is a 'rare' animal, a dodo isnt because there arent any to be found anywhere

ah - but if it exists in the vaults, it does EXIST! ah-hah!

Oh shut the @#$%& up you twat. If a song exists, it exists. If its unreleased or hard to find , its a rarity. The stones could do so much better than the "raritites" album they released

ps my reply was to gazza

letitloose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh shut the @#$%& up you twat. If a song exists,
> it exists. If its unreleased or hard to find , its
> a rarity.

it was you who started acting the English teacher, you humourless, obnoxious buttwipe

if its unreleased its not a rarity. Try using a better dictionary next time.

>The stones could do so much better than
> the "raritites" album they released

yeah, like I've really been arguing against THAT logic, eh?

letitloose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hi Gazza, I know what you mean about spare parts
> (half finished etc), but the Dylan thing had
> loadsa songs that sounded a bit rough or broke
> down before the end (shes your lover now) but
> still came across as a wonderful set of music. It
> was clearly aimed at the fans and Im sure the
> Stones could do the same


see, this is a more coherent argument than calling someone a 'twat' because they disagree with the definition of a 'rarity'

you're right, too - but from what I've heard from the Stones outtakes that are in circulation, relatively few (compared to Dylans) sound anywhere close to finished. The Stones just seem to record in a different way, so you get lots of outtakes with little more than guide vocals or rough lyrics

Another way of looking at it is that the Stones have used better artistic judgement than Dylan has done when it came to releasing the best material they had. Theres nothing that ive heard in the Stones archives that would be comparable to the song youve mentioned above, "Blind willie Mctell" or 'series of dreams' to give 3 examples.

I like what Nikolai says:" the Stones have decided to entrust their legacy to people who really can't be bothered."
I don't like that it is so, I think it is a wise statement.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."