If a live CD would probably not sell well or have the same quality / interest than the ones of "Get yer" or"Flashpoint" or "Stripped", I think The Stones should innovate.

I agree that Four Flicks is a magnificent souvenir.

Considering that the production cost of a DVD is not expensive : between .5€ and .4 € and that the objective is to reach at least part of the audience that attended the show, roughly 4 Millions + 1.5 Millions in Rio,why don't they release a double DVD : one DVD for the Rio event and one dedicated to each show.
I think a group have already done that but without a common DVD.

The production cost of the sleeves could be amortized over a much more number of units.


Must be dreaming.

live albums in general have never sold well
i don't think the point of a live album, especially for the stones, is to sell copies.
as it is clear with live licks, it is bith a matter of honour a contract and a way to "optimize" the work (very good) that has been made for Four flicks (low cost of production versus expected sales)

to make another live album "a la stones" is pointless

a different matter would be if they would have a project on it (which i highly doubt) that could be:
1) A small gig complete concert > it is different to hear a compilation of songs (even rare - ie disc 2 of licks) than a whole concert. The dynamics with the crowd, the overall feel of that particular night etc is something as important as the setlist. They never did it a part from Mocambo 77 and olympia 2003 (the first not complete the second not on record)
2) A set of songs arranged in a completely different way than the original. But they seldom do that (19th nervous breakdown and a little bit BOMH and Infamy this time around)
3) And yes, a ABB live setlist would be interesting for me. The problem is that they don't want to play those songs as they should.

Pride? About sales? Never occured to me to feel that way. I am proud if they do a great concert or put out a great record. Sure it would be nice to see them on top (as it was here in italy with AB but nothing more than that.

I must have missed something. Seeing as I have only had the priveledge of seeing the Stones 3 times ever (the last at the Enmore in Sydney)....WHAT is it about Live Licks that is 'butchered'???? To my "casual" ears, it sounds pretty damn good.

And Four Flicks DVD package is sensational, I agree!

Rod
Perth

I think a proper live recording of ONE concert is what is needed. No more mismash of song here and there. One concert from start to finish. I mean alot of these live releases are hard to listen to right thru. No Security I just like YGMR, Last Time and Out of Control and Live with me. the rest is boring.

RoddyD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I must have missed something. Seeing as I have
> only had the priveledge of seeing the Stones 3
> times ever (the last at the Enmore in
> Sydney)....WHAT is it about Live Licks that is
> 'butchered'???? To my "casual" ears, it sounds
> pretty damn good.
>
> And Four Flicks DVD package is sensational, I
> agree!
>
> Rod
> Perth

put the twick dvd on your player, when it comes to rocks off turn the volume down and play live licks cd 2
see what happens after the bridge...

>> when it comes to Rocks Off ... <<

ow ow ow ow ow - being in physical pain every time that brutal hatchet job comes around does NOT make the world a better place,
so if you're not familiar with Rocks Off and can enjoy Live Licks for its good qualities, go on doin that!
but the basic principle is that edits are not supposed to be blaringly audible - and that one is just plain ... ow ow ow ow ow.
while i'm here ... i've never seen any comment on that from anyone in the band. have i missed something,
or is it on the list of "don't ask" interview questions?


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

RoddyD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I must have missed something. Seeing as I have
> only had the priveledge of seeing the Stones 3
> times ever (the last at the Enmore in
> Sydney)....WHAT is it about Live Licks that is
> 'butchered'???? To my "casual" ears, it sounds
> pretty damn good.
>

apart from the previously mentioned gangrape of the senses that is Rocks off, several of the songs are also edited. Which is beyond pointless when you consider how much unallocated time there still remains on a CD

maumau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> live albums in general have never sold well
> i don't think the point of a live album,
> especially for the stones, is to sell copies.

"Stripped" sold 3.5 million. Which is pretty impressive for any Stones album, and outstanding for a live album. On that one, they tapped in to what was a popular 'concept'for a live album at the time (ie, similar to the MTV "Unplugged" series)

The 2 live albums that have been released since have barely charted for a couple of weeks and sold abysmally. No doubt georgelicks has the actual sales, but its pretty low. And Live Licks was selling for less than half price within about 6-8 weeks of its original release, which would account for the vast majority of what meagre sales it HAS amassed until now.

As Gazza and others have continually said, another live document of a gig of this current tour is pointless, and only the completists have a reason to buy it.

I, for one, didn't bother to purchase 'Live Licks', till January of this year, when i picked it up for £4.99 sterling, in the HMV sale bargain bins.
I think i've played it once (on my ipod) - if i want to listen to a 'licks' show, i put on the 4 Flicks DVD's.
Why have McDonalds when you can have prime steak?

A Dylan-style bootleg series is called for, or a weekly-released, limited edition, singles collection. (As done by Elvis last year, to some success) and shortly, by Michael Jackson.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-27 12:57 by Adrian-L.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of Live Licks is actually pretty good (Thats
> How Strong My Love Is, Neighbours, Rock Me Baby
> etc) and the sound on it is very good - doesnt
> take away from the fact that as a release, its
> pointless.


That's they point I wanted to get to. Do you care about that stuff? I can only speak for myself of course, but I'd take in most things they release. One can argue that both Live Licks and Rarities don't have any point artistically. They really haven't got any point. But they're still good albums. It's like the albums from the sixties: They are out in the London issues from 1984, the ABKCO issues from 1986 and the ABKCO remasters from 2002 (Plus the ones that I don't know about, which I'm sure you'll tell me about in your reply. Aaaaah. Let me spend more money. ). I'm gonna buy all of those. And that's solely because I'm a completist and because I like the Stones. It's NOT because I care about having them in different mixes and stuff like that (I'm more into getting the different takes. I don't care if I get both the mono and stereo versions of a song).
What you're saying, Gaz, is that you wouldn't buy an album if they didn't care about it themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like a person saying that they hate U2 because they think Bono has an irritating personality, or someone saying that they won't listen to Gary Glitter because he's a child abuser. To me that's simply not enough to not buy an album (of any sort). If I like it, I like it, and then I buy it. I can't be bothered with the fact that some artists (which also counts the Stones when it comes to Live Licks and Rarities) don't care about their releases. I buy it if it rocks. And I think that you'd still agree, to some extend, that both Rarities and Live Licks has good material on them. My question is: Why do you care Gaz. I'd really like to know because it helps me understand how other people thinks about this sort of thingamajig.

JumpingKentFlash

Here's a fresh concept. Capture the ABB tour with "Warhorses": a series of 20 albums released simultaneously. The first album would have 25 performances of Start Me Up; the second would have 25 performances of You Got Me Rocking; the third would have 25 performances of Tumbling Dice, etc. One of these albums could even have 25 band introductions. Industrious fans could mix and match the songs from individual shows to come up with a complete set from a particular city.

>That's they point I wanted to get to. Do you care about that stuff?

yes...because I owned them on a DVD that I bought a year earlier. Releasing the same versions of the same songs on a live album a year after the tour ended is shit, regardless of the fact that there are good performances on it. 95% of Stones shows are probably very good to excellent performances in their own right. That doesnt mean there should be a live album released of every one of them.



>What you're saying, Gaz, is that you wouldn't buy an album if they didn't care about it themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like a person saying that they hate U2 because they think Bono has an irritating personality, or someone saying that they won't listen to Gary Glitter because he's a child abuser. To me that's simply not enough to not buy an album (of any sort)

Nope..I didnt say I wouldnt buy it. I buy everything they put out because I'm a collector. Doesnt mean to say I have to APPROVE of everything they release or think its worthy of their name

>I can't be bothered with the fact that some artists (which also counts the Stones when it comes to Live Licks and Rarities) don't care about their releases. I buy it if it rocks. And I think that you'd still agree, to some extend, that both Rarities and Live Licks has good material on them. My question is: Why do you care Gaz. I'd really like to know because it helps me understand how other people thinks about this sort of thingamajig.

Why do I care? As Ive said before, the greatest rock n roll band in the world should always be associated with quality. Repackaging old material every couple of years and assembling it in a shoddy manner (eg a 'Rarities' package which isnt rarities at all, but a fúcking glorified sampler album with sleevenotes that a monkey could have researched better) isnt worthy of their greatness. When an artist loses pride in their work and anything released under their name, its the first step on a slippery slope to mediocrity. And the Rolling Stones and mediocrity should NEVER be mentioned in the same sentence. I'm amazed that as a fan you can think that its not worthy of concern that the Stones can release a live album that they care so little about that they left it to someone else to assemble because they couldnt be bothered even to listen to the final finished version

You or I could burn our own compilation CDR of Stones live songs or rarities that we like - but doesnt make it a release thats worth buying. When youre releasing more repackages than you are new material, then thats a bad sign. Yeah the songs may be good but seriously, how many fúcking albums do you NEED to buy with the same version of Brown Sugar on it before you say "overkill" ?

In the early 70's when the Stones formed their own record company, Decca used to release compilations of Stones '60's material (in some cases, featuring non-hits or hard to find tracks) that so outraged the band that they would take out full page ads in the music press disowning the albums and urging people not to buy it because it wasnt worthy of the standards associated with their name. Now theyre doing EXACTLY what they used to condemn Decca for doing! If they had high standards towards their product THEN, they should STILL have it. If theyd released any old shite down the years, their reputation and legacy would be a fraction of what it is now. They had some semblance of quality control then. Now, they clearly dont give a fúck. As a fan, I find that change of attitude disturbing.

Look how many repackages of Elvis' hits there have been over the last 30 years. At least he's dead and his record company have some kind of excuse as he's kinda limited when it comes to recording new material.





Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-27 15:01 by Gazza.

I just don't give a hoot. I'm into hearing them. I'm not their release-advisor. That's how I feel about it......

JumpingKentFlash

Adrian-L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As Gazza and others have continually said, another
> live document of a gig of this current tour is
> pointless, and only the completists have a reason
> to buy it.
>
> I, for one, didn't bother to purchase 'Live
> Licks', till January of this year, when i picked
> it up for £4.99 sterling, in the HMV sale bargain
> bins.
> I think i've played it once (on my ipod) - if i
> want to listen to a 'licks' show, i put on the 4
> Flicks DVD's.
> Why have McDonalds when you can have prime
> steak?
>
> A Dylan-style bootleg series is called for, or a
> weekly-released, limited edition, singles
> collection. (As done by Elvis last year, to some
> success) and shortly, by Michael Jackson.
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 02/27/06 12:57 by
> Adrian-L.

We're not talking about a compilation cd here.I don't know about you but,I can't play Four Flicks in my car & I doubt that most of the 45,000 people who did buy Live Licks could be bothered with ripping the audio from Four Flicks.Some people like listening to live music without sitting down to watch a dvd.Besides,the audio mix on Live Licks is better than on the dvd.There just is some bad editing on about a quarter of the tracks.I doubt that will happen again.

i think it's possible they make a great album live ... this the ABB live (2cd's) i would like up to now (but i hope there'll be a lot of new material during the european tour, what to do a third cd...)

cd1 cd2
1)jumpin' jack flash 1)let's spend the night together
2)she's so cold 2) oh no not you again
3)Rough justice 3)memory motel
4)love is strong 4)shattered
5)as tears go by 5)ain't too proud to beg
6)rain fall down 6)tumblin' dice
7)back of my hand 7)bitch
8)midnight rambler 8)get off of my cloud
9)sway 9)it won't take long
10)sweet virginia 10)sympathy
11)dead flowers 11)all down the line
12)this place is empty 12)infamy

i think it's possible they make a great album live ... this the ABB live (2cd's) i would like up to now (but i hope there'll be a lot of new material during the european tour, what to do a third cd...)

cd1
1)jumpin' jack flash
2)she's so cold
3)Rough justice
4)love is strong
5)as tears go by
6)rain fall down
7)back of my hand
8)midnight rambler
9)sway
10)sweet virginia
11)dead flowers
12)this place is empty

cd 2
1)let's spend the night together
2)oh no not you again
3)memory motel
4)shattered
5)ain't too proud to beg
6) tumblin' dice
7)bitch
8)get off of my cloud
9) it won't take long
10 sympathy
11 all down the line
12 infamy

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Last year, they authorized
> another repackage of old material called
> "Rarities"

I'm proud to say that I still have resisted buying this piece of crap. Even found it for under $10 used and passed (although I did consider it). I'll continue to wear my lack of ownership as a badge of honor.

> We're not talking about a compilation cd here.I don't know about you but,I can't play Four Flicks in my car & I doubt that most of the 45,000 people who did buy Live Licks could be bothered with ripping the audio from Four Flicks.Some people like listening to live music without sitting down to watch a dvd.Besides,the audio mix on Live Licks is better than on the dvd.There just is some bad editing on about a quarter of the tracks.I doubt that will happen again.



Well Said!! There are some people on this board who spend all day on the computer and collect e.t.c. Some of us don't have bootlegs e.t.c I don't want to watch the stones i want to hear them. IT IS NOT A WASTE TO RELEASE A LIVE CD AS WELL AS A DVD. IT IS NOT THE SAME!!

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just don't give a hoot. I'm into hearing them.
> I'm not their release-advisor. That's how I feel
> about it......
>
>


each to their own. You accept mediocrity and shoddiness simply because it has "The Rolling Stones" on the cover.

I dont. I think its beneath them. If they had this attitude to their art throughout their career, they would have been finished years ago. And their fanbase accepting it only encourages them to recycle such crap over and over.

If I wanted to hear a collection of good Rolling Stones songs, I can burn my own compilation on a CDR and write the sleevenotes myself! I dont need a shoddily assembled and poorly researched collection of the same songs thrown at me every few years with a new name and cover design to be able to hear musical greatness.

Gazza Wrote:
Last year, they authorized
> another repackage of old material called
> "Rarities" which, going by the title, sounded
> promising, but which in the end included several
> songs which were easily available on regular
> albums - albums which had sold millions more
> copies than the "Rarities" album on which they
> were repackaged. And dont get me started on the
> fúcking sleevenotes!

Gazza--Didn't get Rarities. What were the discrepencies on the sleevenotes? Just curious.

>> What were the discrepencies on the sleevenotes? <<

not much - about 86% of what's written in them is plain wrong, that's all ... :E

So many factual inaccuracies that it became laughable, sources wrongly 'sourced' (either the album/single they came from wrongly identified (sometimes out by YEARS) or the location (eg - Beast of Burden apparently comes from LA 1981 - its Chicago)

Seriously - I didnt even have to look stuff up to find several of them. Even most people who arent as anal about this stuff as some of us could have researched them better with a 15 minute visit to the internet. Its NOT difficult.

Still, I suppose it speaks volumes that the Stones are happy to entrust a historical account of their work to someone who knows or cares even less about their legacy than they do themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-28 17:38 by Gazza.

Pound notes - not preserving or protecting their historical legacy,
is their only interest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-28 17:54 by Adrian-L.

Thing is, Adrian - there would be plenty of volunteers who would offer to help them do it properly - for free!

That's Gazza's way of lending his services pro-bono

Looking positive again eh......

I think it's hard to compare all of those old Decca compilations to Rarities.The only Decca compilation that was heavy on hard to find tracks was Metamorphosis.All of the other ones were made up of 90% tracks that were already available with a couple of UK/US only tracks,maybe an EP or single only track or two.The Stones were not too proud of most of these songs but,you can't say that about Through The Lonely Nights for example as they did release it under RS Records.In 1975 the Stones were considering releasing an album of rarities on their own label.Rarities,on the other hand,consists of eleven tracks that were out of circulation,one unreleased track,and four tracks that were already available.I don't like compilations of tracks that are already out there but,to be fair,they have only released two such albums in the last 21 years & one of them included four new songs.Made In The Shade was somewhat pointless but,it wasn't a new release.It was out of print and they brought it back probably because the record company figured there would be some people that were nostalgic about it.In my opinion,they should do three types of albums from now on : stuff from the vault - live and studio;new live album(s);and new studio album(s).

Thief

"Rarities" in principle was a VERY worthy idea for a compilation (as far as repackages go). I wasnt one of these fans who were disappointed because it wasnt full of unreleased songs - to me, thats a seperate project The disappointment was that it has no direction and as a concept they dont follow it through - and that a third of the songs shouldnt be on an album with a title like that.

The selections were just downright shitty. Whats the point of recycling songs from "Sucking in the 70's" - which had just been released on CD a few months earlier? Whats 'rare' about that? And how can a song that appears on a still-easy-to-find live album that sold 3.5 million copies (which is about 20 times what THIS release will sell) be a fúckin' 'rarity' ? And if youre going to include the great extended 12' single of "Miss You", then include the whole friggin' song and dont chop out a full minute of it. You may as well re-name it "slightly extended" or "butchered". The one song thats an outtake and previously unreleased is ... an outtake from Live Licks (which is on Four Flicks anyway). The whole thing is daft.

and how many Stones fans want to hear DJ remixes on a Rarities CD instead of genuine Stones songs that were b-sides? Whats in store for Rarities Vol.2? Six different mixes and dub versions from the "You got me rocking" single? aaargh!