Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >The "Guitars Kissing and Contemporary Fix" sound
> is actually better than Sony's effed up
> version....
>
>
> I've got both versions and I disagree. But sound
> aside, the official release is worth it just for
> the book of photos & notes imo.


IAWGlam

It's also important to note that the bootleg of Guitars Kissing is Sony's original mix of this show, it's not how the show necessarily originally sounded.

The legal release of this show actually was remixed to more accurately portray what the audience heard that night. Whether the remix was successful or not, I can't say, I wasn't there. I'd be curious which mix C.P. Lee prefers...

how the show sounded? what are you talking about? what the audience heard and what a recording sounds like have NOTHING to do with one another.

well I got it because I have all Ron's records (and collect official solo & group SDtones albums, supplemented with select boots). I cant see a man reportedly worth 80 million last I heard (dollars, that is) making much on 5,000 or 15,000 New Barbs albums sold. I hope it's better than the boot, and assumed the NBs had soundboards/multitracks from at least some shows - even for reference during the tour. PS The Anthology is on Virgin (US) and EMI (UK) not Wooden, alas.

I'm very disappointed with this release. But it's not Ronnie to blame, but his manager, Jamie. This kid just doesn't now what he is doing. Trying to make a few bucks as easy as possible. This could have been done a lot better.

This is the first official New Barbs release and deserves better. Using the original master tapes for a start. A deluxe release with a photo booklet containing Henry Diltz great photos from the tour. Maybe stuff from the rehearsals in Culver City. Extra DVD footage etc. etc. etc.
Use your imagination Jamie and don't go for the cheapest and easiest way!

What a rip off!

The reason I'm not complaining about this release...I don't have the Buired Alive bootleg, because I ordered it (sent the payment) 10 years ago, but I never recieved it. And I refused to buy it again. I'm still furious.

It's only £8.99 at hmv.co.uk

and if you order it tomorrow or sat (20th/21st) ,
I'm told you will get a 20% discount on all HMV orders,
using the promotional code:- SQ1515

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how the show sounded? what are you talking about?
> what the audience heard and what a recording
> sounds like have NOTHING to do with one another.


That certainly usually is true. It doesn't necessarily have to be the case, however. You're usually more perceptive than that, Stonestod, I'm surprised at you, you're one of the truly knowledgeable people here.

Whether you agree or not, Sony made a conscious decision to rework their original mix (found on Guitars Kissing)...that mix being deemed too "clean"

They then issued a mix that reflects what someone perceived as a more accurate portrayal of the sound in Manchester Free Trade Hall that night, with the sound bouncing off the back walls.

Personally, I originally hated the legal version at first. Then I grew to love it. Now, I can't imagine not having both mixes.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's exactly the point. Why shell out money for
> something just because it is official now and has
> a new cover?


Because if you have it on bootleg and it's now on an official CD, it's illegal. I don't know if you care about this of course, but I do. I'm gonna buy this one for sure when the frickin' record store gets it. They are so unbelievably slow in Denmark.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> retired_dog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's exactly the point. Why shell out money
> for
> > something just because it is official now and
> has
> > a new cover?
>
>
> Because if you have it on bootleg and it's now on
> an official CD, it's illegal. I don't know if you
> care about this of course, but I do. I'm gonna buy
> this one for sure when the frickin' record store
> gets it. They are so unbelievably slow in Denmark.

Well, a bootleg is always illegal, regardless if an official version exists or not. In law terms, the unauthorized recording, copying and distribution (regardless if money is involved or not) is illegal, but in many countries the possession if a bootleg alone is not.

If you're talking about morals, then I must admit that I could not care less if any artist does not care to use the best possible master tape and just copies the sound from a bootleg.

hey! its a great boot finally officially released! dont complain about sources... just play the discs often and loud!

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

The second disc of Live And Eclectic: material was sourced from Ronnie and it's all from bootlegs.

Frank Zappa was one of the first artists to do this, didn't he officially release a whole load of boots right down to the cover art?

So if rare material is missing and has to be sourced from boot you won't buy it? That's most of the 60s BBC material then.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, a bootleg is always illegal, regardless if
> an official version exists or not. In law terms,
> the unauthorized recording, copying and
> distribution (regardless if money is involved or
> not) is illegal, but in many countries the
> possession if a bootleg alone is not.

A bootleg is legal. If you go to a show and record it and make it available in someway without earning any money, it's entirely legal.




> If you're talking about morals, then I must admit
> that I could not care less if any artist does not
> care to use the best possible master tape and just
> copies the sound from a bootleg.

I'm not talking about morals. I just asked if you care about the law in this case or not. It's hard I know, because the laws are different in each country I think.

JumpingKentFlash

maybe ronnie did release them in the past as boot?

bootlegs arent legal btw...

Life's just a cocktail party on the street



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-19 14:26 by MononoM.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A bootleg is legal. If you go to a show and record
> it and make it available in someway without
> earning any money, it's entirely legal.

I don't want to appear clever-clever, but that's not the case. Copyright protects any artist against unauthorized recording, duplicating and distribution of their performances, regardless if money is involved or not. It's just that if any of these acts are done with a commercial purpose, the fine will be much higher. "Unauthorized" means "without permission" from the artists. Of course there are local copyright laws, but most countries have signed to international copyright laws so that's it. So if you go to a Stones show and record it without their permission, it is an illegal recording, and no illegal recording gets legal by distributing it for free. Sorry, I don't make these laws.

I still am waiting for my NB in the mail - Mack Jigger do you already have it and compared the sound to the boot?
Really, I STILL (hours later!) can't get how a major arena tour, Stones led with an all star band, would not have a few shows professionally recorded for reference (and they did rearrange things during that tour and later at Knebworth). The 2nd disc of "Eclectic" is really bonus, the first has stuff not on (and when it is, sometimes sounding quite different from) Slide Live. Again, anybody really think Wooden records is any more a MONEY making proosition than Ron's very brief Slide label (circa '95, it issued a Bobby Womack cd w/ the Stones on a couple tracks, and Bobby was utterly at his commercial nadir - no major label would have touched him. I think Ron wants a little boutique label for such occasional projects. And majors EMI/Virgin rather botched Wood's well deserved career retrospective, the mastering is uneven - certainly the stuff from anything (re)issued since '94 is markedly inferior in terms of sound. Why? the Not for Beginners tracks are warm & detailed on NFB, bright and lacking in sonic nuance on the new set. The skimpy booklet repeats images of the same albums, and Virgin didn't bother correcting EMI's various typos...Is there any reason to think Jamie needs money badly? I have no idea how he is as Ron's 'manager.'

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A bootleg is legal. If you go to a show and
> record
> > it and make it available in someway without
> > earning any money, it's entirely legal.
>
> I don't want to appear clever-clever, but that's
> not the case. Copyright protects any artist
> against unauthorized recording, duplicating and
> distribution of their performances, regardless if
> money is involved or not. It's just that if any of
> these acts are done with a commercial purpose, the
> fine will be much higher. "Unauthorized" means
> "without permission" from the artists. Of course
> there are local copyright laws, but most countries
> have signed to international copyright laws so
> that's it. So if you go to a Stones show and
> record it without their permission, it is an
> illegal recording, and no illegal recording gets
> legal by distributing it for free. Sorry, I don't
> make these laws.


Actually - i'd like to see the "law" that you allude to here. I don't believe you're right. In the US, there is no governing law that I am aware of that disallows someone to record any public performance (and I'll use "performance" to include anything audible in public). Public performances, strictly speaking, aren't governed by copyright laws, either.

what is the quality of the sound?

While I agree in principle in supporing legitimate releases, I have this show (minus the dreadful recording of JJF) on CDR and won't spend $25 upgrading unless there is an improvement. Amazon claims its in stock and yet no one has actually posted they listened to it, compared it to the Swingin' Pig release, and decided whether or not it is a straight reissue or an upgrade. Still waiting for the matter to be settled before pressing the order button.

Amazon uk has it as released on 23rd Oct

>> Public performances, strictly speaking, aren't governed by copyright laws, either. <<

maybe not, but a concert to which admission is restricted to people holding paid-for tickets isn't a public performance.
a public performance would be something along the lines of a production of Snow White enacted in a city park,
paid for by the municipal government and free for whoever wants to watch it.

>> a photo booklet containing Henry Diltz great photos from the tour <<

... and what's wrong with the photos that are in the booklet they've created??
Henry Diltz's photos are great, of course, but his aren't the only great photos of the New Barbarians.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-19 18:36 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Public performances, strictly speaking, aren't
> governed by copyright laws, either. <<
>
> maybe not, but a concert to which admission is
> restricted to people holding paid-for tickets
> isn't a public performance.
> a public performance would be something along the
> lines of a production of Snow White enacted in a
> city park,
> paid for by the municipal government and free for
> whoever wants to watch it.
>

i disagree - there is NO distinction between the two from a legal perspective.

Hi StonesTod,

here's some details about an international treaty ... and the USA signed this treaty:

The 1996 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Article 2 defines “performers” as

actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore.

The Treaty provides two main categories of right: moral rights and economic rights.

1.
The moral rights of performers regarding his or her live aural performances or performances recorded in phonograms persist after the transfer of the economic rights, and include:

the right to claim to be identified as the performer of his performances, except where omission is dictated by the manner of the use of the performance, and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his performances that would be prejudicial to his reputation.

2.
The economic rights of performers in their unfixed performances consist of the exclusive right to authorise:

the broadcasting and communication to the public of their unfixed performances except where the performance is already a broadcast performance; and


the fixation of their unfixed performances. !!!!!


the direct or indirect reproduction of their performances fixed in phonograms, in any manner or form. !!!!!


the making available to the public of the original and copies of their performances fixed in phonograms through sale or other transfer of ownership. !!!!!


the commercial rental to the public of the original and copies of their performances fixed in phonograms


the making available to the public of their performances fixed in phonograms, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-19 20:28 by retired_dog.

thanks doggie. very vague and open to interpretation, though. bottom-line is that nobody in the US will ever be prosecuted for recording a rock'n'roll show.

Listen to the sound sample of "Jumping Jack Flash" on the French Amazon site! It's the bad audience recording from the Swingin' Pig release! Do they really release that officiallly? I can hardly believe it...!

just got it...you know what guyz? i'm happy to have it as official release...ronnie has just done what we were asking to the stones since a long time: release something rare and really interesting! Isn't that true? Yeah the quality could have been better..so what..if you dont' want to, just don't buy it..to me it's great thing!

farawayeyes2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just got it...you know what guyz? i'm happy to
> have it as official release...ronnie has just done
> what we were asking to the stones since a long
> time: release something rare and really
> interesting! Isn't that true? Yeah the quality
> could have been better..so what..if you dont' want
> to, just don't buy it..to me it's great thing!


It's nice that it's released, yes. But it's not rare, the point was that it's the same source as the famous bootleg. I suppose you've got TSP Buired Alive?

john r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Really, I STILL (hours later!) can't get how a
> major arena tour, Stones led with an all star
> band, would not have a few shows professionally
> recorded for reference (and they did rearrange
> things during that tour and later at Knebworth).
>

I remember reading an interview with Keef in '79 in which he was asked if any Barbarians shows were going to be recorded and his answer was "We've left that to better judgement". I'm not really even sure what that means, but I think it kinda sounds like "No. The shows are going to suck bigtime, and we don't want anyone to find out just how bad we really were".

I got an email from PLAY.COM informing me that my copy of this has been posted out,I bought the botleg in Amsterdam in 1992/3 so it will be interesting to hear if there is any real difference.

Well I got the NB cd yesterday, was pleased with the sound (partly because I expected the bootleg). However, when I went to pull out my S. Pig edition to
A/B I found it missing (i.e. stolen), & hadn't played it in 3 or 4 years. But the Wooden cd sounds better
than the 2nd disc of "Eclectic" - big loud dirty, lots of deep low end & fat guitars, & better than expected definition. It rocks. There is an intro text about the band & tour, a few pages of colour pix, & a mastering credit ("mastered in London by Patrick Bird, 2006")
which is more than Wood's EMI/Virgin Anthology provided. As to the source tape, one track on the first disc, --Lost & Lonely, I believe - fades early, so if the SP ed. does as well then draw your conclusion. But I must say I am pleasently surprised at how great the band (except Ron's less-than-best-ever vocals) sound. Hot & nasty.
So w/out the SP, I think: possibly same source tape, somehow (please, someone w/both comment!) freshened up in mastering process.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-22 22:39 by john r.

After playing portions again, some thoughts:
the N.B.'s are to the Stones what (Johnny Thunders') Heartbreakers are to the Dolls, plus a rhythm section w/ extraoridinary chops (Ziggy could pummel w/ any metal band as well as syncopate his way down Bourbon Street)
Fromthe notes, which help keep perspective: Neil Young showed interest, suggested...the band name. Young got frustrated by the inherent disorganization [of the rehearsals] and jumped ship...Most rehearsals went on until the drugs ran out."
As widely reported Ron's voice ain't what it ("ooh La La") was by'79, not stong enough to carry an arena tour, or would be again, even ('92-93, when he'd learned how to offset it with a strong real co-lead singer, or the more intimate Not 4 Beginners & subsequent shared vocal gigs)
Sloppy, uneven recording quality, etc, but for some totally filthy & funky noise check the slide on "Rock Me Baby" and there's weaving galore if you don't mind getting jabbed by a needle here and there. Keith turns in a firy "Sure The One You Need" which sounds more like a dope song than it did on RW's debut. Lovely KR vocal on "Let's Go Steady" and dig same plus the pedal steel and KR's piano on "Apartment Number 9", or the rooster twins' slithery, jabbing guitars on "Worried Life Blues." Ziggy's drums and Stanley's masterful bass (and he funks it up like a greased monkey man on 'Are You Grooving Me') are actually tight albeit the mix is geared towards the arena (bottom) heavy.
Setlist 20 tracks & nice: one Faces/Rod Chuck cover, 4 Stones ('Love In Vain' is disappointing,compared to the Faces' or Stones' versions with some fantastic slide but poor RW vocal, and pointless, incongruous harmonica solo), 4 unrecorded covers (all true highlights) & 11 Ron W solo songs (8 from then-new "Gimme Some Neck"). Nice artwork.