I just bought ABB Special Edition with the DVD for only €4,99 (at the time of writing that was $6,53). Previously it was a whopping €23,99.

Although I am not a big fan of the album, but rate it much much much higher than their previous record, I liked the DVD that came with it. I always have a special feeling hearing Charlie and the Boys speak of their own work. And of course the live footage of the Juliard School of Music was fun to watch.

Had ABB been about 10/11 songs shorter, it would have been a really good album but now it is just noisy at times, schmaltzy at times and just a few gems in between.

But at the same time I bought the Neil Young Live in 1970. Boy this is beautifull, great rock 'n' roll, soulful, really tight band. Makes the latest stones offering pale in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, I am a big Stones fan and have been so since 1978. But at the same time I am ready to admit that they wrote heaps of crappy songs.

Bigger Bang Special edition is great but there could be much more material, for example from rehearsals...

I bought this just to get Under The Radar--unfortunately, it was at the original price.

Speaking of this---does anyone know how to get burn the audio from the DVD onto a CD?

Glass Slide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I bought this just to get Under The
> Radar--unfortunately, it was at the original
> price.
>
> Speaking of this---does anyone know how to get
> burn the audio from the DVD onto a CD?

I use XMPEG, extract the audio with it (there's a menu item called Extract Audio), then use SoundForge to cut the audio track into pieces so I have different .wav files, and eventually burn them to an audio cd. I have done this with a few Who DVD's, and I like the results.

Well that is a Bigger Bang for the Buck
€ 4,99 - where did you find that?

At the mediamarkt. couldn't resist it, although I already have the album.

imonlysleeping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Glass Slide Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I bought this just to get Under The
> > Radar--unfortunately, it was at the original
> > price.
> >
> > Speaking of this---does anyone know how to get
> > burn the audio from the DVD onto a CD?
>
> I use XMPEG, extract the audio with it (there's a
> menu item called Extract Audio), then use
> SoundForge to cut the audio track into pieces so I
> have different .wav files, and eventually burn
> them to an audio cd. I have done this with a few
> Who DVD's, and I like the results.



Thank you kindly--am going to check this out.

imonlysleeping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I> Had ABB been about 10/11 songs shorter, it would
> have been a really good album but now it is just
> noisy at times, schmaltzy at times and just a few
> gems in between.


After waiting 8 years for a new record, I think had the Stones released a 7-8 song album as you suggest they should have, a lot of us would have been justifiably outraged.

I recently listened to the ABB radio interview...Mick said that they had done a lot of writing/recording when recording the 4 new songs for 40 Licks......anybody know if anything from those sessions made it onto A Bigger Bang?

Also...any "easter eggs" (hidden stuff) on the ABB DVD? doubt it...but just checking with you all.


IORR............but I like it!

If there are I haven't found them--lol.

I like the special edition, but there is a bitter taste: It should have been released at the same time with the normal edition. So, it was a bad way of making double money

Pokalheld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like the special edition, but there is a bitter
> taste: It should have been released at the same
> time with the normal edition. So, it was a bad way
> of making double money


I wasn't able to get the CD when it first came out, and before I bought it I'd heard rumours that there would be a special edition coming out, so I waited. Heard nothing about it after a month or so, so bought the CD. About a week later, the special edition comes out! I was pissed.

Gazza Wrote:

> After waiting 8 years for a new record, I think
> had the Stones released a 7-8 song album as you
> suggest they should have, a lot of us would have
> been justifiably outraged.

If it had been a more coherent, really great Stones album I'd have been happier with 7 or 8 songs than I am now with 16 mostly mediocre songs.

imonlysleeping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it had been a more coherent, really great
> Stones album I'd have been happier with 7 or 8
> songs than I am now with 16 mostly mediocre songs.


Ah but listen to it on LP man. It feels a trillion times more coherent when you listen to it there, because you have to turn the LP every now and again. The sides are made to perfection. And the sound is way better on LP too.

JumpingKentFlash

This is not the Stones' fault. Blame it on the cd format. An old vinyl album could hold about 45 minutes (in the 60s even 30-something minutes) of music, a cd 50 per cent more.
You would feel cheated if you get a cd with just 40 minutes of music - you would want a double-lp, so to say.
It's mathmetics. Quality has to go down. Most artists were not able to write 45 minutes of strong music. So, how could they be able to produce more than 70 minutes of strong music?
In the past there were good reasons why double lps were considered a risk. The Stones only made one: Exile against protest. The other examples are specialities like big hits sampler (Hot Rocks) or live ones (Love You Live). And we're talking of one of the biggest international acts.
There is a another problem with the length of cds. Do you have the time to listen to the whole thing at once? You might spare 40 minutes time to listen to your new lp after work but twice as long?

Dear imonlysleeping,

would it be possible to get me one of those?

Hallo,

könntest Du mir die Ltd-Edition besorgen? Gegen Kosten und Aufwandsentschädigung!
Wäre super?

Falls ja, hier meine Mailadresse: tickets@memphis-pc.de

Thanks!

JJHMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is not the Stones' fault. Blame it on the cd
> format. An old vinyl album could hold about 45
> minutes (in the 60s even 30-something minutes) of
> music, a cd 50 per cent more.
> You would feel cheated if you get a cd with just
> 40 minutes of music - you would want a double-lp,
> so to say.

I do not feel cheated when buying older LP's (like black and blue, but also other stuff without bonus tracks) on CD format. Why should I feel cheated when they release a CD with only 40 minutes of sheer genius, like let it bleed or revolver.

But you may have a point, people may start complaining. "It is a great album, but way too short. There's at least 27 minutes worth of space left on the CD." And of course the artists may be scared of this sentiment.

Lets hope that movie makers are not going to feel the same way when either blue-ray or hd-dvd become DVD standard: it may be possible to produce a 5 hour movie and put it on a single disc. Can you imagine a 5 hour "Dumb and Dumber part 6" that lasts 5 hours?

> It's mathmetics. Quality has to go down. Most
> artists were not able to write 45 minutes of
> strong music. So, how could they be able to
> produce more than 70 minutes of strong music?
> In the past there were good reasons why double lps
> were considered a risk. The Stones only made one:
> Exile against protest. The other examples are
> specialities like big hits sampler (Hot Rocks) or
> live ones (Love You Live). And we're talking of
> one of the biggest international acts.

And the good ones are really special. Those artists that have done it are the ones that are now considered "legendary".


> There is a another problem with the length of cds.
> Do you have the time to listen to the whole thing
> at once? You might spare 40 minutes time to listen
> to your new lp after work but twice as long?

There are few compilation cd's that I take time to listen through for 70 minutes or so.

imonlysleeping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am
> ready to admit that they wrote heaps of crappy
> songs.

That's probably taking it a little too far.Most bands write more crappy songs in a span of a few years than the Stones ever have.