It won't bother me if they release another live cd but neither will I be waiting on the edge of my seat for it. Do we need another one? With the dvd sets you get the live songs anyway. You can't play it in your car but there are enough lived cds out there already if you want to play one in your car.

I think the Stones missed an opportunity.

They should have released a series of "no-frills" (soundboard, no over-dubs,
minimal art & packaging) as they rolled thru their ABB tours.....featured
shows would be the ones with significantly different set-lists and different
guest musicians etc...

I think bands like Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews and Jimmy Buffett....and
maybe the Grateful Dead have done this.

Of course this would mainly appeal to us hard-core fans......but at this
point, we are probably the only ones buying every live recording (warhorses
and all) that they put out.

From the Stones' perspective...it might make bootleggers less relevant.


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

Actually....the suggestion I made in the previous post
would have been perfect for the 40 Licks tour....different
venues, set-lists & guests etc.... But 4 Flicks was a great treat!


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

I really think that the Stones camp don't really wanna spoil the hardcore fans.

why?


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

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I actually hope they break with tradition and
> DON'T release a live album this time out.


The last one that actually had a point to its existence was "Stripped". It was also the last one whose sales actually justified it's release.

As the band are now out of contract, hopefully EMI (or whatever company theyve morphed into this week) wont feel the need to flog the 'souvenir live album' dead horse any longer.

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why?


I'm not sure why I believe that, but it seems that there is a certain pride from the Stones camp about spoiling and flooding the hardcore fans with granting what's on our very long wish-list. Perhaps, because they (Mick) doesn't want to revisit their past? Or maybe they're purposely saving all the goodies for the future of the Rolling Stones after they group has ended?

I would think, it's the latter. The Rolling Stones-train has to keep making money...even when they're done. They know real well that we want a lot of old live recordings remastered and released...in CD and in DVD...they know all that. But they gotta save all that for later. The Rolling Stones as a live working band has made money for 40+ years...when they're gone...they need something to keep making money for the NEXT 40+ years: their unreleased and coveted recordings.

i realize that this thread is supposed to be specifically about a
possible live music cd......but maybe everything is dictated by
the "live cd vs. live dvd" debate.

I don't know how financially successful rolling stones' DVDs have been.....
...maybe gazza has those numbers......but when a stones fan/consumer w/limited funds
has the option of buying a live cd for $13 or $15 for a VISUAL re-creation
of essentially the same material........do most opt for the DVD? Is the live cd
becoming irrelevant? The dvd gives you more bang for the buck...and it's not
too difficult to rip the audio and burn a cd-r to play in your car.

If the Stones do release another live cd......it should part of the dvd package.


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

I'd agree with that, Justin, but its going to get to the stage sooner or later that if they leave it too long, there wont be enough people around to give a damn

They can do what Dylan, Springsteen, Neil Young and several others have done, and start the process of tapping their archives yet do it in tandem with the release of new material.

gazza wrote: ...tapping their archives yet do it in tandem with the release of new material.
***********

that would be nice. a couple months ago there was some banter
on the IORR board about "deluxe editions"....for example - a re-release of
SOME GIRLS (w/unreleased or out-takes) plus a live disk from the same era/tour.

Elton John did this with his Captain Fantastic album.

Great idea.


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

Thats certainly another way of doing it

No doubt at some point the existing albums will get the 'remastered' treatment and they'll expect us to cough up for them again.

Whilst I'd personally prefer a 'standalone' archive series of releases, an alternative would be the remastering of old albums complete with bonus tracks consisting of outtakes and alternate takes from the same sessions.

The live material might work better if issued in tandem with DVD releases from the same period - eg, a 1978 live record released in the same package as the unreleased concert movie from that year's Fort Worth show.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
if they leave it
> too long, there wont be enough people around to
> give a damn
>

Yeah, I realized that. In my opinion there has to be a HUGE campaign for whenever the Stones camp decides to through the process of releasing the vaults. A huge marketing and advertising scheme that will make people aware of this huge decision by their record label.

If they wait too long after the Stones hang it up--no one's gonna notice that all these gems are out there and in the end leave EMI or whoever cold and without the $$ they expected. I think they should begin releasing stuff any year now. I can almost taste the end of the Stones, unfortunately. The reality is approaching rapidly now than it ever has. They should use their presence now as a vehicle to make these unreleased recordings visible. But then again...Mick would never swallow his pride and promote his own live recording from 30 years ago....

Gazza, as you know, Elvis is a huge example. The guy's been gone for 30 years yet his recordings and new releases are still relevant today. Thanks to Ernst Jorgensen, the gate keeper to Elvis' vaults. Elvis fans are quite spoiled--compared to other artists' fans'. We get a pretty good steady flow of releases every year. Both through Sony/BMG (so-so) and the collector's label they created Follow That Dream (excellent). The stones should learn from Elvis, in this category.

Agree with that. When you look at the some of the stuff RCA/BMG were putting out in the first few years after Elvis died, some of it was downright barrel-scraping and as a fan, you despaired if there actually WAS much in the vaults worth a damn.

Fortunately, they ended up entrusting a lot of it to historians like Ernst who care about the artist's music and his legacy, and we've ended up getting a lot of worthwhile material in recent years.

What you said about Mick "promoting" stuff from 30 years ago is correct, but he doesnt need to. Dylan has never really done anything to promote his own Bootleg series releases, it's generally been left to others entrusted with assembling it and doing a good job and it's sold well on its own merits.

A Stones archive series isnt going to be a MASSIVE seller, a la 40 Licks. It IS a 'minority interest' - however once they accept it's commercial limitations and package it accordingly, there's enough of a fanbase for it to do reasonably well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-21 21:42 by Gazza.

There doesn't have to be a huge campaign - "Rarities" didn't get one, but if it was a 2-cd set with all the UNEDITED b-sides and so forth from '78 - 05 (the stuff they mostly ignored, including the Stripped & VL singles, Think Im Going Mad, Undercover 12-inch etc) and accurate liner notes and good graphics, it would have sold more. The legacy isn't helped much by the release of comps with edited tracks and live albums that don't do justice to the tours. In fact it's counterproductive.

john r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There doesn't have to be a huge campaign -
> "Rarities" didn't get one, but if it was a 2-cd



I personally think there must be. From the record label stand point, they know they're sitting on some pretty valuable material--practically a gold mine. They're not gonna release it because they're nice guys and they want to make US happy. Sure, that's a byproduct of their real agenda: they want to make $$. I don't think they would want to release some pretty significant and rare recordings without making a big hoopla about it. They're going to want to make all the noise they can...so their product can sell. Rarities, didn't get such a big bang...but really there wasn't much in there that was so coveted. They didn't have to part with anything hugely major from the vaults with that release. Compared to officially releasing Brussels '73---Rarities is a joke. Brussels is like the holy grail. And if you had in your possesion the Holy Grail....would you let it slip out of your hands without a profit?

They likely dont see the point in releasing that show as they probably imagine everyone has it.

And if they DID release it, you just know that a lot of the same people who have clamoured for archive releases will complain because "we already have it"!

john r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but where say
> the Dead can issue dozens of live albums snapped
> up like the holy grail by fans (and sorry, even
> though they're a good band their improvisations
> ain't making Coltrane lose any sleep)

LOL!

That's heresy! You are supposed to kowtow before the great god Grateful Dead and every Jerry-led jam and every Phil-bomb.

If he were alive during the GD's heyday, I have a hard time seeing John Coltrane even bothering to learn who they were, not to mention bothering to listen to any of their epic improvisations. ("oooooooh, Morning Dew!" "wow, man, Tennessee Jed!!")

the stones went years without much live material.

nothing much from the 60,s apart from get yer ya ya,s out and got live if you want it(which some of isnt live), they missed an opportunity to put out material for the mid 60,s period when they were meant to be in their prime.

the early 70,s period wasnt represented live either.

another missed opportunity.

dont know what the stones have hiding but i woudnt mind being given the keys to all thier hidden footage.

Live Licks was awful, but CYHMK was fantastic, and IMO a reason alone to buy it. As long as we get such gems on live releases, they should keep putting the albums out.

Justin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sweet neo con Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > why?
>
>
> I'm not sure why I believe that, but it seems that
> there is a certain pride from the Stones camp
> about spoiling and flooding the hardcore fans with
> granting what's on our very long wish-list.
> Perhaps, because they (Mick) doesn't want to
> revisit their past? Or maybe they're purposely
> saving all the goodies for the future of the
> Rolling Stones after they group has ended?
>
> I would think, it's the latter. The Rolling
> Stones-train has to keep making money...even when
> they're done. They know real well that we want a
> lot of old live recordings remastered and
> released...in CD and in DVD...they know all that.
> But they gotta save all that for later. The
> Rolling Stones as a live working band has made
> money for 40+ years...when they're gone...they
> need something to keep making money for the NEXT
> 40+ years: their unreleased and coveted
> recordings.

Save all that for later? When they're gone? Look, I often hear people say that just as soon as they are no longer in existance as a working band, we're going to get all kinds of goodies, but the fact is, the Stones will not be over, officially, until Mick passes away, and that could be 30 years from now. Anyone who might possibly care about vault releases will be rotting in their own vault by then. Mick may well end up being one of the last living people who "saw" the Stones at Altamont.

The problem with the Stones vaults is that a lot of material (and this counts counts for outtakes AND live recordings) is, at least in Jagger's perfectionist eyes, not releasable "as is" and therefore requires a lot of work to knock it into a releasable state. We may think that is must be a snap for them to mix a 1972 or 1973 show and put it out, but I am sure that they would not be happy to get stuff out with warts 'n all. We as fans may think that certain songs like Claudine or Drift Away are perfect as they are, but in their ears even those songs may require a re-mix and an overdub here and there. Not to speak of outtakes which are nothing more than great sketches of songs with guide vocals only and even unfinished lyrics...
...all in all, it is a lot of work to get a Stones vaults projects into shape, and I can't see that either Jagger or other band members (or even ex-members like Bill) are up for it and devote their time between tours and other projects for such a project. Saleswise, the times when they were able to ship a million copies of a 1972 or 1973 show are long gone...and in commercial terms, it gets worser and worser the more time passes on.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-22 16:30 by retired_dog.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with the Stones vaults is that a lot
> of material (and this counts counts for outtakes
> AND live recordings) is, at least in Jagger's
> perfectionist eyes, not releasable "as is" and
> therefore requires a lot of work to knock it into
> a releasable state. We may think that is must be a
> snap for them to mix a 1972 or 1973 show and put
> it out, but I am sure that they would not be happy
> to get stuff out with warts 'n all. We as fans may
> think that certain songs like Claudine or Drift
> Away are perfect as they are, but in their ears
> even those songs may require a re-mix and an
> overdub here and there. Not to speak of outtakes
> which are nothing more than great sketches of
> songs with guide vocals only and even unfinished
> lyrics...
> ...all in all, it is a lot of work to get a Stones
> vaults projects into shape, and I can't see that
> either Jagger or other band members (or even
> ex-members like Bill) are up for it and devote
> their time between tours and other projects for
> such a project. And saleswise...the times when
> they were able to ship a million copies of a 1972
> or 1973 show are long gone...and in commercial
> terms, it gets worser and worser the more time
> passes on.

Yes, but the '72 live album was mixed, overdubbed, and all set to go in '72. The legal bullshit that prevented its release could all be swept away at a moment's notice IF they wanted to release it now. Live '72 IS something they COULD give us. It would be much like Neil's Live At Massey Hall, which has a sticker on it saying something like "This was the album I should have released after Goldrush, but I @#$%& up. Well, here it is now. Pretty good, huh?"

I forgot to mention that Neil's just released 1971 live album is selling very well. His biggest seller in a long, long time. The good stuff sells, no matter old it is, and a '72 live Stones album would do well, too, even now. If Mick could be convinced of that, I don't think he would have any problem participating in the necessary promotional campaign.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with the Stones vaults is that a lot
> of material (and this counts counts for outtakes
> AND live recordings) is, at least in Jagger's
> perfectionist eyes, not releasable "as is" and
> therefore requires a lot of work to knock it into
> a releasable state. We may think that is must be a
> snap for them to mix a 1972 or 1973 show and put
> it out, but I am sure that they would not be happy
> to get stuff out with warts 'n all. We as fans may
> think that certain songs like Claudine or Drift
> Away are perfect as they are, but in their ears
> even those songs may require a re-mix and an
> overdub here and there. Not to speak of outtakes
> which are nothing more than great sketches of
> songs with guide vocals only and even unfinished
> lyrics...
> ...all in all, it is a lot of work to get a Stones
> vaults projects into shape, and I can't see that
> either Jagger or other band members (or even
> ex-members like Bill) are up for it and devote
> their time between tours and other projects for
> such a project. Saleswise, the times when they
> were able to ship a million copies of a 1972 or
> 1973 show are long gone...and in commercial terms,
> it gets worser and worser the more time passes on.


I'd agree with that in principle but when you see the absolute half arsed way in which "Live Licks" was edited and "Rarities" was thrown together, it makes you wonder just how much of a 'perfectionist' these people are.

Regarding the outtakes, dont forget that youre only hearing what has been 'leaked' (ie, stolen). There could be more 'finished' takes of some of these songs that are more worthy of release.

As I said earlier, some of the archives projects by other artists have been left to others who theyve obviously trusted to do a decent job as maybe they dont want to devote all their energy to sich a release. The Stones' quality control seems to have disappeared up their own backsides with the two albums I've just mentioned, so as theyve already proven that theyve little interest in seeing anything but a studio album through to its completion, I'm sure that it shouldnt be too difficult to find someone who cares enough about their reputation to do such a project justice.

Just dont make the mistake of rehiring the clowns who edited Live Licks and who assembled and wrote the liner notes for Rarities.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-22 19:02 by Gazza.

I think that a live ABB album could be a potential killer.

The band sure had its ups and downs, but when they were on, their performances were graced by one of the best guitar sounds I've ever heard.

All that has to be done is to make a decent collection of flawless numbers - despite what the general opinion is, there are a lot available - maybe focusing on the ones that were played in the first half of the show. This way no over dubs or edits would be needed.

Further, If only you could address me to the right person, I am ready to offer my consultant services for free - high competency at no cost! I am sure I could easily pack the best selling stones live album, ever!




C

I don't think they should do the traditional "souvenir" from the latest
tour....this time. I think they should do something like Springsteen did with his
live 75-85 boxed set in which he pulled tracks from 10 years of touring.

It goes without saying that nothing should be pulled from previous live stones albums...

Also no need to limit the number of disks in the box......4....6...10...as
many as it takes to document 40+ years of touring. It should be packaged in a
bigger 12"X12" box (like Springsteen's orginal packaging) with a historical
book and maybe even an additional dvd disc (career documentary).

A package like this would not compete with the Scorcese movie/soundtrack project but would be more of a companion piece.

I don't think it's too much to expect something like this.
The time is right. It needs to be BIG. It needs to be definitive.
It needs to create as much hype as the Beatles Anthology disks did (at the time).
Any thoughts?


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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-22 21:02 by sweet neo con.

john r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rocky Dijon is right, Stripped wasn't really a
> live album

As far as I know,Stripped wasn't any less a live album than Love You Live for example.Some of the Stripped songs were not from on stage performances but,those were still from live rehearsals - in a studio but live.What's the difference between overdubbing an on stage live performance and overdubbing a live studio rehearsal take?

sweet neo con writes: "I think they should do something like Springsteen did with his live 75-85 boxed set in which he pulled tracks from 10 years of touring. no need to limit the number of disks in the box......4....6...10...as many as it takes to document 40+ years of touring. It should be packaged in a bigger 12"X12" box (like Springsteen's orginal packaging) with a historical book and maybe even an additional dvd disc (career documentary). Any thoughts?"

Yes...excellent concept.

Well Massey Hall is outselling, say, Road Work or whatever the 2000 Neil Young album with the 18 minute Cinnammon Girl is called (14 minutes are the coda). There is an audience for archival material, and at some point there will be rare material released, live and studio - Thank god I wasn't a contempory of Ellington's having to wait 40 years for the classic Fargo NC etc...Coltrane and Hendrix material continues to be released. Mick however seems uninterested, so we need a curator.
My point is "Rarities' could have been a good collection of non-lp singles & stuff from soundtracks & 12-inch singles - we all know there are 30 or so good tracks, and it's a missed opportunity. That's not the same thing as archival material released for the first time.

An archival release would be great but,it might not happen.Didn't the liner notes of "Rarities" state that it wasn't going to happen?Then again they are the liner notes of Rarities that we're talking about so,they might not be correct.