With all the great music I've heard on bootlegs of the Stones studio outtakes of the last 40 years, why the hell doesn't the most money grubbing band of all-time release this stuff on an archive series? Are they afraid it won't stand up to "Streets of Love" (he said sarcastically) I don't get it...do they think we want new stuff instead? Totally out of touch with their history...

I just hope iam alive when they decide to open the vaults, the mother of all archives

Maybe the decisions made whether to release or not to release a song is not possible to change? If they once decided that a song is not good enought for release, what would make it better after say 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years? Maybe the songs aren't finished and to make additional recordings after many years is not interesting or even possible?

Mats

They don't wanna be reminded of how @#$%& brilliant the guitarist who left was.

phelge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They don't wanna be reminded of how @#$%&
> brilliant the guitarist who left was.


Oh god, now I suppose we are going to start a thread about whose archives are best, Stones with Mick Taylor or Stones with Ronnie! Lol

Matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the decisions made whether to release or not
> to release a song is not possible to change? If
> they once decided that a song is not good enought
> for release, what would make it better after say
> 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years? Maybe the songs
> aren't finished and to make additional recordings
> after many years is not interesting or even
> possible?


thats a valid point. even Ron Wood once mentioned that for the Stones its "easier to write new songs" than working on old ideas from the archives. only thing is that between Bridges and ABB 8 years passed by and the only new songs release during these 8 years were the four new ones on 40 Licks, which indicates that even working on new songs is probably not that easy anymore as Ronnie wanted to make us believe.

They did it in 81 with Tattoo You, in 93 they re-recorded at least "So Young" and "Fiji Jim" supposed to be bonuses in Jump Back.
Some trax like "Still In Love" appears on several studio sessions from 77 to 82...
So recycling ideas is not really against Stones policy...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-26 15:03 by mitch.

we all know they have some real gems in the library which probably could use some overdubs, and lyrics, but they would have no problem doing another Tatoo YOU....and damn it-they should

Maybe that's the jist of it. The way the stones work produces loads of unfinished bits and pieces which sometimes get knocked into shape as finshed work and sometimes don't.
Other than stuff that's ben circulated on boots over the years...I doubt that there's a huge amount of stuff in the archives that's anything over half finished. Some of it may surface as "new" material at a later date...but it requires far too much work to justify bothering with it as "archive" material.

dont know why they dont release archive stuff.

doing it in say the year 1991, 2000 and then 2002 would have filled an album gap, and kept the band functioning.

they could release archive stuff now and that will give them time to get a new album out next year.

I've long held the belief that the Stones are not the best custodians of their legacy. If they can't be bothered to open the vaults themselves then I suggest they hire someone to go through their archives and make selections for release, say a volume ot two a year, as the Dead did with Dick's Picks. I hearby submit my name for the job.

"Gazza's Picks" has a nice ring to it

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Gazza's Picks" has a nice ring to it

some sense to it, too... I'd subscribe!

Bashlets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> we all know they have some real gems in the
> library which probably could use some overdubs,
> and lyrics, but they would have no problem doing
> another Tatoo YOU....and damn it-they should


The significant difference with Tattoo You is that it (for the most part) tidied up loose ends by utilising extra or unfinished songs from around 1977-80 - with a few from as far back as 1972 and 1975. A period when the Stones were writing and recording lots of songs (an album every year or 18 months) and not touring as much as they do now.

Theyre a different band now in that their modus operandi is as a touring band as opposed to a studio one.

If the Stones were to do a similar project now, theyd be using songs that are 25-30 years old for the most part as theyve recorded so little in recent years (they used all the songs they recorded for ABB, for example).

I remember when Tattoo You came out they actually got some flak for putting out a collection of reworked "old" songs. (Even though it was a terrific record and thy had released a studio album only 14 months earlier). The message that would be given by a 'new' album of such songs that are decades old would be quite obvious. "Washed up", "out of ideas", etc.

These songs are from a different era and if anything is going to be done with them, thats how they should be treated - as a timepiece. If any of them are 'finished', then they should be assembled as a multi-disc collection of 'outtakes' a la Dylan's Bootleg Series, Springsteen's 'Tracks', Beatles' "Anthology" etc - NOT to be rerecorded decades later after the band had forgotten about them just because they happen to be lacking in inspiration.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-26 19:07 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Gazza's Picks" has a nice ring to it

So does Chris' Picks!

The Best of Jagger & Klein - Volume I

mitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They did it in 81 with Tattoo You, in 93 they
> re-recorded at least "So Young" and "Fiji Jim"
> supposed to be bonuses in Jump Back.
> Some trax like "Still In Love" appears on several
> studio sessions from 77 to 82...
> So recycling ideas is not really against Stones
> policy...


Mitch,
Is there a version of Jump Back that includes a song called Fiji Jim? I've never heard of this track.

ChrisM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Gazza's Picks" has a nice ring to it
>
> So does Chris' Picks!


The One with the Absolute Best Ring and most authority to it:


The Plexiglass' Picks !


And i dont mean me (rebuked as I was last week), but The Plexiglass itself!


Plexi

The reworked "Fiji Jim" never made it out. "So Young" ended up on the "Love is Strong" CD single.

Matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the decisions made whether to release or not
> to release a song is not possible to change? If
> they once decided that a song is not good enought
> for release, what would make it better after say
> 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years? Maybe the songs
> aren't finished and to make additional recordings
> after many years is not interesting or even
> possible?
>
> Mats


They don't need to finish any of these songs, if they released them as is it would be similar to Dylan or the Beatles stuff in that the song may have screws ups, coughs or whatever but the idea is to put out the recording session and give the listener a taste of them working in the studio... Also some songs sound good enough to me to release, Stones have songs like Yellow Cab that I think most people would agree is better than say Indian Girl, which actually made the album and Yellow Cab or Claudine never did.

I seem to recall that Claudine was never released due to "legal reasons":
[en.wikipedia.org]
Scroll down to "trivia"


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-26 22:41 by Deltics.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Matt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maybe the decisions made whether to release or
> not
> > to release a song is not possible to change? If
> > they once decided that a song is not good
> enought
> > for release, what would make it better after
> say
> > 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years? Maybe the songs
> > aren't finished and to make additional
> recordings
> > after many years is not interesting or even
> > possible?
> >
> > Mats
>
>
> They don't need to finish any of these songs, if
> they released them as is it would be similar to
> Dylan or the Beatles stuff in that the song may
> have screws ups, coughs or whatever but the idea
> is to put out the recording session and give the
> listener a taste of them working in the studio...

Perhaps you're basing this on the assumption that whats in circulation is as good as it gets? All we're privy to is what has been leaked or stolen. Thats a tiny fraction of what has been recorded in a 45 year career. Its quite possible (and in many cases very likely) that more complete or finished takes of the songs are in existence. Additionally when Jeff Rosen compiled the 58 songs for Dylan's Bootleg Series, he actually made a conscious attempt to release alternate takes of many of the songs which had already appeared on bootlegs (the 'Infidels' material for example). About half of what was released had never circulated before, and what WAS released were generally finished takes (or as close to finished as it got)

> Also some songs sound good enough to me to
> release, Stones have songs like Yellow Cab that I
> think most people would agree is better than say
> Indian Girl, which actually made the album and
> Yellow Cab or Claudine never did.



If 'Claudine' was left off an album in 1980 due to the risk of litigation, then that risk still applies as the (allegedly) trigger-happy Ms. Longet is still with us.

Thanks Gaza for your comment.

What about "I Don't Know Why" this song was finisched.

Think we should ask Bill he knows what's in the vaults

__________________________

"I Dont Know Why" was released on "Metamorphosis", Nicos.

Yeah I know, but I try to comment Matt whit his comment "If they once decided that a song is not good enought for release, what would make it better after say 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years?"

"I Dont Know Why" was en is a good song so sometimes there are left overs

__________________________

>> then that risk still applies <<

not necessarily. it depends on whether she'd sign a waiver, not on some Immutable Law.
and is the song really libellous anyway? it's just the facts :E

meanwhile, they don't release archival stuff just to be bastards towards people like the first poster, of course.
if they do old stuff, they're a nostalgia act - if they do new stuff, they're "out of touch with their history" -
so they do whatever the fizz they feel like doing. they're the Rolling Stones.

with sssoul Wrote:

> if they do old stuff, they're a nostalgia act

Only if its exclusively old stuff...and the SAME old stuff. Theres just a huge % of it that is pretty much untapped or forgotten about

- if
> they do new stuff, they're "out of touch with
> their history" -

I dont recall them ever being accused of that, in fairness - based on the content of their shows anyway

i was referring to the ever-so-charming first post in this thread, Gazza,
from the entity who can't believe anyone's interested in new material.