I was wondering, if the Stones went in the studio and re-recorded classic albums such as Let it Bleed, Beggars Banquet, etc would they sound as good today?

Granted, don't mess with masterpieces as it would be like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa, but just as a hypothetical what if?

Would today's advanced technology take the edge off of the material?

Was the classicness due to the era when the material was recorded in?

Do you think they would come out better sounding perhaps?

Hmmmm....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-09 05:45 by NumberOneStonesFan.

In some ways they could make improvements but,in some ways the songs would probably be worse.First of all,the last era they should consider re-recording should be '68-'72.Two eras that could benefit from this would be the early years of '62-'67 and the '80's especially if the material were to be done in DSD.The songs from those two eras are not examples of the best production and recording work done on their material.

No way, part of success is ALWAYS about timing.....

Maybe they would sound better in a way, but I don't think I would like to hear re-recordings of the albums I love. What I like is to hear the original recordings in the best possible sound quality. Even though the 2002 remasters was a step in the right direction, I think a lot more could have been done. But that is another story.
Mats

i'd love to hear 40 licks re-recorded, i know a lot of you disagree but i don't care

Interesting concept.
Remaking of the above mentioned classics would be a bit weird
... but I've often thought that going back and reinterperating some the the old Blues and RnR classics from the first couple of albums [together with a few others they've covered live since] could be produce some truly wonderful results !

Didn't Steve Miller remake 'Fly Like an Eagle' in a new version recently or was that just a modernized remix?

well, they have done it with Stripped. If you consider the whole lot of things that came out from those sessions the result was amazing. I was listening to Stripped companion on my way to the office and I was blown away.

Of all the remakes, I think that only I'm Free was a let down. On the other hand I don't like the original either (only the strange Hyde Park version was great).

C

Didn't Mick complain about the mixing of the 70s albums? Do it, man! The Decca (Abkco) albums have been remixed with amazing results.

<Of all the remakes, I think that only I'm Free was a let down.>

Agree. However, you could maybe also add Not Fade Away. The rest is awesome.

I think this would only really be interesting if you could transpose the Stones from say 1968 and put them into todays environment. Until the age of 29 the majority of bands were (and are?) edgy,prepared to experiment and absorb other influences. Sure there are exceptions but if you take any great band the truly revolutionry work took place in their 20's. Trying to get the Stones as they are now to remake Sticky Fingers for example would just be pointless. But get the 28 year Jagger/Richards living in 6 months of '08 and put them in a studio would make for an interesting version of that album. Any suggestions what that would come out like?

Matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe they would sound better in a way, but I
> don't think I would like to hear re-recordings of
> the albums I love. What I like is to hear the
> original recordings in the best possible sound
> quality. Even though the 2002 remasters was a step
> in the right direction, I think a lot more could
> have been done. But that is another story.
> Mats

Agreed! The ABKCO remasters were awesome, now they desperately need to remaster their post- Let It Bleed work!

Drew

None of them would sound as good if they were re recorded.

HelterSkelter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No way, part of success is ALWAYS about
> timing.....


Absolutely correct! Cheers!

The band CRACKER, re-recorded their greatest hits and released them on another lable to compete with the version Virgin records released. Vigin dropped them and a couple years later released a Greatest Hits. The band wanted to make sure they would get paid, so they re-recorded their greatest hits. Some of the songs newley done sounded better now that the band had played some of them 100's of times live.

i doubt they would be better than the originals . back then they took more chances and experimented today they play it safe besides alot of people have fond memories when they hear a classic song . to redo that would really mess that up for them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-10 08:41 by ghostryder13.

I also doubt it. I very much appreciate STRIPPED but if you compare for example an early song like 'Honest I do' (the additional track) I really like the original version because of Jaggers's youthful, 'naive' singing. The re-recordings cannot repeat the creative process involved in these early recordings.

By the way, every recorded live performance is a re-recording. Therfore it's a bit disappointing that they never repeated the STRIPPED concept by performing little known or never recorded songs in front of a small audience (bei it unplugged or not).

The most regrettable fact is that they never released the Ian Stewart tribute concert from 1986. It would have been a great memory for all of his fans - and who can say after listening to the studio recording of 'Around and around' that he isn't one of them? - if they had released it as a charity album with the proceeds going to some heart disease research. They did mostly songs which they had never performed before or after.

I think if we talk about "better" or "worse", we're maybe missing the more interesting side of whu certain things might be good to hear.
I'd love to hear them go into the studio and do the first self titled album again. Of course it wouldn't be better...but it could be equaly valid as a more mature interpretation of music that comes largely from "grown up" experience and emotion.
It would be intersting on a purely musical level too.
All the talk about how certain band members can't play as well as they used to completely ignores the fact that, in terms of taste and effectiveness, they often play much better than they used to !

I would hate them for doing that.

If I think that as far as their early stuff go, I think it is Mick who might most difficulties to find a suitable approach and attitude to remake those young, natural, angry and energetic vocals once again. Just think of "The Last Time", "Get Off Of My Cloud", "Paint It, Black", even "Satisfaction"... I think he could naver make that work. One can also hear that in his current live shows. And I think none of those songs can be 'maturized' or 'franksinatrized' (I invent words!) without being ridiculed. Like "Anarchy In The UK", they are songs of certain age and attitude.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-10 10:55 by Doxa.

JJHMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't Mick complain about the mixing of the 70s
> albums? Do it, man! The Decca (Abkco) albums have
> been remixed with amazing results.


They were not remixed - only remastered. With the original multitrack tapes available for new mixes the Decca/ABKCO 2002 remasters surely would have sounded much better.

Mats

Matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JJHMick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Didn't Mick complain about the mixing of the
> 70s
> > albums? Do it, man! The Decca (Abkco) albums
> have
> > been remixed with amazing results.
>
>
> They were not remixed - only remastered. With the
> original multitrack tapes available for new mixes
> the Decca/ABKCO 2002 remasters surely would have
> sounded much better.
>
> Mats
ReMASTRERing lead to such great results regarding the Decca/Abkco records. This won't help with the Rolling Stones Records records as it has already been done by Virgin?! Of course, the Stones must have their original tapes and therefore ReMIXing should be the next step?!

JJHMick Wrote:

> ReMASTRERing lead to such great results regarding
> the Decca/Abkco records. This won't help with the
> Rolling Stones Records records as it has already
> been done by Virgin?! Of course, the Stones must
> have their original tapes and therefore ReMIXing
> should be the next step?!

I disagree completely. The Rolling Stones (i.e., Sticky Fingers onward) records were remastered by Virgin, but this was in '94, and the technology has greatly improved since then. A new remaster, using today's technology, is desperately needed.

ReMIXing, on the other hand, would potentially change the sound completely and destroy the songs that we know and love. IMO.

Drew

remastering, remixing, remaking - I think we should concentrate on the topic of the thread which deals with "remaking" before it gets a bit confusing.

there was a time the Stones actually played with the idea to remake a good portion of their hits from the 60s, and that was prior to the release of 40 Licks. ABKCO reportedly was a bit hesitant at first to do a joint venture with Virgin Records and a Virgin insider told me that the Stones actually threatened to re-record the ABKCO-controlled numbers they envisioned for inclusion on 40 Licks if dealings with ABKCO came to no result. for their 40 years anniversary they wanted to create a compilation that actually covers all 40 years, and not a sampler again that started in 1971. if the threat was 'real', meaning that they were really determined to re-record classics like Satisfaction, Honky Tonk Women, Gimme Shelter and so on (check Disc 1 of 40 Licks for reference!) or if it was just a trick in the dealings with ABKCO is of course not known outside the Stones and their (very) inner circle.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-10 18:56 by alimente.

alimente Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> remastering, remixing, remaking - I think we
> should concentrate on the topic of the thread
> which deals with "remaking" before it gets a bit
> confusing.
>
>

Absolutely. Completely different issues.

The well executed remastering of certain albums would undeniably be a good thing.
I'm not convinced that re-mixing would be a good idea with any of their work for reasons other than curiosity . [In that respect I'm sure we'd all love to hear everything re-mixed and remastered in a hundred different ways ! ;^) ]
As for re-recording their self penned classic works...again obviously a non starter once the initial notion has developed into rational thought !
I've commented that I'd like them to re-record the early covers albums again.
I suppose what I rerally mean is that I want the modern band to record a similar album of classic blues and RnR. Whether it's the same or different songs wouldn't really matter to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-10 19:10 by Spud.

Mick's voice doesn't sound the same as it did in the sixties so i think he may very likely struggle, as Doxa pointed out,plus there may also be a disadvantage with the modern recording techniques which may result in the songs lacking their abrasive edge and power.The songs would very likely sound too clean and lack any kind of resiliance longterm. The greatness of the Stones early sound was it was fairly impenetrable which resulted in the songs seemingly longer lasting - they were not slick or high tech - plus the Stones also had a much bigger palate of sounds and styles to choose from - it wasn't the lowest common denominator like today.

I don't like the way Mothers Little Helper sounds on the ABKO remastered version of Aftermath. theres too much seperation between the lead gituar work and the rest of the song. like you hear one on the left side and the other on the right. I think that gituar hook is really cool and is what made me really like the song at first and it sounds much better in the origional mix because it is subtle. The cleaned up verison i guess tried to highlight that part but it just kills it for me.

also, since at least the year '99 ive heard a re mastered version of Get off my cloud on the radio thats the same thing. They seperate the lead gituar part to try to showcase it I guess but it ruins it for me. It was fine the way it was mixed closer with everything else.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-11 10:03 by ryanpow.

The way Mothers little helper sounds on the remastered Aftermath is closest to the way it sounded on the original UK vinyl Aftermath. I think that the channels on the vinyl album is even more separated. Whether you like it or
not - that's the way the sound was intended when the album first came out. The more narrow separation, or lack of separation, was on the US version of the album which I personally don't regard as an original album. For me the original is the UK version.

Get off of my cloud is not only a remastered version. It's a remix from the original tapes. I guess that it was mixed from a three or four track master tape and that may be why it is not very easy to spread out the sound between the speakers. The sound is either in the right or in the left speaker with the third channel (often vocals) in the center. Early stereo were often mixed that way and the reason for it is that there are often only three or four channels to spread i the mix, but also because people wanted stereo the be very discreet. Today we want a more natural sound with less separation. However I think that even with few channels it would be possible to make quite good stereo mixes without too much separation.
Mats

Thanks for the information. I was mistaken in refering to the US realease as the Origional, but It is still the one I prefer.
On Mothers Little Helper and GOMMC its a very repetitive gituar hook, not a bluesy sounding solo or anything. To my ears when its loud and seperated its distracting. I think they got it right on the US album mix. Its cohesive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-11 10:09 by ryanpow.

They are alreday re-make-ing them all the time: They play them live. F.e., Honky Tonk Women got a lot more "Honky Tonk", so to say, than the bluesier original. I Just Wanna Make Love To You is a very fine example of change (though no RS Records era song). They don't play Little Queenie like in 1969. My favourite is Satisfaction/England 1971. Or You Got The Silver recently! Stripped was an interesting new approach to old songs. They should do more of this live, though. F.e, Deep Purple have this "gimmick" to disguise a hit (the track changes from tour to tour) with a long intro.
If, as drewmaster suggests, the remastering technology has approved enough, remaster them.