What was the projected release date? It seems to have been released very close to the start of the 1972 tour. But Let it Bleed wasn't released 'til early December.

HEILOOBAAS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to
> have been released very close to the start of the
> 1972 tour. But Let it Bleed wasn't released 'til
> early December.


What do these two things have to do with each other?

J

Errr... Two albums in the approximately same era by the same band?

Perhaps the point is that LIB was released in December 1969, after the start of the tour featuring its songs. Exile, on the other hand, was released in time to presage the tour and get songs on the airways and in the stores before June 3.

Maybe Heilobaas could tell by himself what is the point?

it took the boys lots of time to get it done...plus lib had 9 songs and exile was a 2 lp record.. it was recorded while keith was having too much fun with anita. keith sleeps late..ha..

... far as i know Exile wasn't delayed - LIB was
(the Stones rejected the first pressing - Decca had compressed it or something they didn't like)
an album release right at the start of a tour is what i think is commonly known as perfect timing

hot stuff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it took the boys lots of time to get it
> done...plus lib had 9 songs and exile was a 2 lp
> record.. it was recorded while keith was having
> too much fun with anita. keith sleeps late..ha..

Actually not. They spend two months of recording in LA's Sunset studio, feb/March '72, and that was it. They used old tapes from London (mainly) and some tapes from France (minor), and added some 8 more tracks. About 80% of what you hear on the record was recorded in LA.

Mathijs

Thanks, Mathijs. Give yourself an enema, John.

@ Mathijs

That's the problem with being a Stones fanatic.

The more you know about the stories and the real circumstances the more you loose your original enthusiasm !
I think LIb,SF and especially BB were all more or less late. But Exile not really.

Mind you, the LA story is one that is largely discredited by Keith and Greenfield. Not saying its not true as I wasn't there, but they would argue the LA sessions were down to overdubbing back up singers and trying (and failing) to improve the mix from Nellcote.

i remember reading (or hearing) an interview with mick discussing exile.
mick said that he rushed (or was under pressure) to get exile done before the 72 tour. because of this mick says he has trouble listening to exile because he hears alot of bad mixes that he would like to redo.

HEILOOBAAS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What was the projected release date? It seems to
> have been released very close to the start of the
> 1972 tour. But Let it Bleed wasn't released 'til
> early December.


Ok, the question doesn't make any sense.

You ask about one album being delayed then mention that it was released just before the tour. As a comparison you mention that another completely unrelated album was released in the month of December three years earlier.

Are you asking if it was supposed to come out long before the start of the tour?

Are you asking if it was supposed to come out in December of 1971?

Are you trying to say that Let It Bleed came out _during_ the 1969 tour? That wouldn't make sense either.

So you're curious is "Exile" was delayed because it came out _before_ the tour? Wouldn't that be rushed?

Before you ask anyone to give themselves an enema, how about you write something that makes even a fraction of some kind of sense.

J

I have never read that 80% of EOMS core was recorded in LA. I know there was a huge amount of time spent there remixing material, but not new songs recorded at Sunset that went on the album. What is the source of the "80% Exile made in LA" theory?

bumpteebump



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-20 18:50 by Mathijs.

Just check out for yourself where the songs were recorded. Several songs were recoded and rerecorded in London (Olympics and Stargroves), just a very few (3 or 4) were recorded in France -but only the drums and some guitars were used. Then they went to LA in early 1972, and recorded the bulk of the album.

The album wasn't delayed, but the mixes were rushed. When the album was initially remixed all mixes were dissaporved of. Andy Johns was asked to return, and mixed the album in 24 hours or so, in order to have it out right before the tour.

Mathijs

interesting stuff; ty mathijs, as i was not aware of this; and to think, despite all the legendary stories, most of the album cut at Sunset Sound...make sense; they've really recorded a lot of great classic stuff right in l.a. over their entire career...and i guess they worked out a lot of arrangmeent stuff in France? i 'guess' they did.
where was sf recorded or mostly recorded btw,
mr. mathijs, or anyone??
ty.

sticky fingers
Recorded & mixed:
March 22-31, 1969: Olympic Sound Studios, London, England
December 2-4, 1969: Muscle Shoals Studios, Florence, Alabama, USA
December 8-18, 1969: Olympic Sound Studios, London, England
January-February 1970: Olympic Sound & Trident Studios, London England
March-May 1970: Rolling Stones Mobile Unit, Mick Jagger's home Stargroves, Newbury, England;
Olympic Sound Studios, London, England
June 16-July 27, 1970: Olympic Sound Studios, London, England
October 21-Mid-November 1970: Rolling Stones Mobile Unit, Mick Jagger's home Stargroves, Newbury, England
January 1971: various studios, London, England

according to timeisonourside.com
wonder which ones they recorded in alabama

From the same source:

December 2-4, 1969: The Rolling Stones start work on Sticky Fingers at Muscle Shoals Sound Studios in Florence, Alabama, recording Brown Sugar, Wild Horses and You Gotta Move.

>> From the same source <<


and as seen in the movie, and recounted in detail in Stanley Booth's book;
there's also an interview around here somewhere with Jimmy Johnson ...
ah here we go: [www.prosoundweb.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-20 13:35 by with sssoul.

ty; mindblowing interview; one inch scully 8 track tape machine in 'bama. we've become stupid cattle into the technological slaughterhouse, aesthetically speaking. at 15 ips too. no wonder the bottom is so solid; no wonder it all is.
the latest software i've seen tries to emulate tape saturation and 'distortion' digitially. comes with a picture of a reel of tape on the software box. sick world. often sounds like it too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-20 14:51 by Beelyboy.

Are you asking if it was supposed to come out long before the start of the tour? YES

Are you asking if it was supposed to come out in December of 1971? NO

Are you trying to say that Let It Bleed came out _during_ the 1969 tour? That wouldn't make sense either. DIDN'T IT?

So you're curious is "Exile" was delayed because it came out _before_ the tour? JUST BEFORE THE TOUR, YES.

Wouldn't that be rushed? JUST BEFORE, YES.

Before you ask anyone to give themselves an enema, how about you write something that makes even a fraction of some kind of sense. WHY?

=> an album release right at the start of a tour is what i think is commonly known as perfect timing. <=

the timing of LIB's release, on the other hand, was ... well, that particular title coming out
eight days before Altamont was pretty far from a promo department's dream come true.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-20 19:01 by with sssoul.

...ouch!!!! Ms. sssoul, I never thought about the album title and Altamont.....that's creepy.

well Lukester honey, that title & timing definitely didn't make it easy to defend the Stones
against the wild accusations of satanism, human sacrifice, etc, that were going down after Altamont.
"i don't think they did it on purpose" sounded pretty flimsy, you know?

but getting back to the original subject, sort of: LIB came out in the US on november 28th
and in the UK on december 5th; the 69 tour technically ended on november 30th - Altamont wasn't technically part of the tour.
and for sure the original idea was for the album release to be close to the start of the tour, not at the very end.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-20 19:07 by with sssoul.

The LIB mix is more shimmery than BB, isn't it?