Think it was Far Away Eyes, Gazza....

[www.lefigaro.fr]


Today's entertainment headline in one of the top newspapers in France.

I think it will be a better live album than the licks tour one. I suspect a great deal more effort in mixing, overdubs, and mastering. Because it is more high profile than than the licks live 'effort'. Even if the new one will have lot of overdubs (because they were necessary), it may be a very good listen, and that is what counts. I have never bought the Licks live cd (if only for the horrific butchering of Rocks Off), but have a good feeling about this one.

The fact that that they cut a deal with Universal has imho a great deal to do with the ABCKO songs. Now they can release all the songs they want to release for this cd. If this cd is a succes, than maybe Universal will get the rights for a new contract, and that will be good thing regarding quality (archive and new) releases.

>> Now they can release all the songs they want to release for this cd <<

well ... there are ABKCO-owned numbers on all their concert releases, so
it's not like they *need* to be with Universal to do that.
i'm probably missing something, but i don't really see why being with Universal
would change anything important in the Stones' relations with ABKCO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-18 22:45 by with sssoul.

Much is being made of Universal being the home of their sixties back catalog. This is a bit misleading. Universal distributes the ABKCO catalog the same way that Virgin/EMI distributes the post-1970 back catalog. There is no advantage to Universal distributing both catalogs as an agreement must exist between ABKCO and the band (as it did for FORTY LICKS) for any shared use of material to be possible. Others are making much of the emphasis on reissues in talk of a future contract. Again, this is nothing new. The CBS/Sony deal in 1983 and both Virin/EMI deals were about the back catalog as much as they were about new product. Finally, the claims that we would have seen RARITIES VOLUME TWO or reissues of REWIND and TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE but for negative posts here or on Amazon is ridiculous. The reissues were curtailed because of disappointing sales. LIVE LICKS was a release that was lambasted at Stones sites because of the editing and overdubbing and general attitude that it was a superfluous release following FOUR FLICKS. This did not stop it from being certified Gold and the band recognizing a market exists for a SHINE A LIGHT soundtrack barely three years later. I'm sure they don't care about naysayers. They look at the bottom line and make educated guesses based on the market like any business. They're not about to scrap a release just because obsessive fans think it should have been better.

Why oh why did the reissues sold poorly? Because it was very poorly done, just a very lazy effort. Take a look at artists like Paul Weller. Just bought his Wild Wood Deluxe edition. That is the way to do it!

>> There is no advantage to Universal distributing both catalogs <<

thanks Rocky Dijon - that's what i thought and i guess i was barking up a right tree after all.

Quote
barbabang
Why oh why did the reissues sold poorly? Because it was very poorly done, just a very lazy effort. Take a look at artists like Paul Weller. Just bought his Wild Wood Deluxe edition. That is the way to do it!

that album was recorded, what, in 1992? You can't really compare them. The stones' "vaults" from the 70s and 80s are just not in the same shape, to my understanding.

To my understanding there is plenty material (of every session)
It is just that there is no effort what so ever until now.

One need look no further than BEING MICK to see the digitized outtakes and alternate versions from the 70's through the 90's are preserved with an obvious goal of doing something with them eventually.

Quote
retired_dog

That's what I am afraid of too. If they stay with EMI, there is a great danger that the back catalog will be distributed in future just as it is now. With a new distributor like Universal there is a bigger chance for state-of-the-art remasters, bonus tracks or even expanded editions with material from the vaults. I believe a new distributor will have a fresh approach concerning the back catalog, and that is exactly what the back catalog needs.

I agree completely. Stones lovers all over the world should keep their fingers crossed that the Universal deal goes through. Staying with EMI would mean more of the same lackluster approach to managing and promoting the Stones' glorious music catalog.

Drew

The only advantage from moving their back catalog to Universal I see is, as mentioned elsewhere, the fresh approach of a new company trying to make the most out of the deal compared to the danger of just carrying on to distribute the catalog "as is", meaning in the form it is distributed since 1994.

Of course it is possible that the band is absolutely not interested in handling their back catalog in a more creative way - deluxe editions, the occasional archive release every now and then - whatever. And of course it is possible that a change of distributors would do nothing to change their minds.

But a more creative handling of their catalog and archive needs the full support of their distributors. From everything I have heard over the years, be it from sources (very) close to the band and sources (very) close to Virgin/EMI, Virgin never was too keen on any archive releases.

Remember that Virgin re-released Love You Live, Still Life and Flashpoint with a year-long delay after their 1994 remaster campaign of the studio albums? Sole reason was that Virgin did not see a big market potential for those live albums and even more important, they initially feared that the average consumer might confuse these albums with Greatest Hits and Best Of-compilations, and that market confusion might hurt the sales of their then-new Jump Back compilation!

It sounds ridiculous, but that was Virgin's way of thinking back in the day. Only because of the never-ending requests from the retail market itself a german distribution mananger finally succeeded in convincing the head of Virgin Records that there may be a buck or two to be made with those albums.

But it remains a fact that for a couple of years, those three live albums were not considered worthy for re-release by Virgin. No sales potential. Market confusion. Possibly hurting sales of Jump Back. Oh yes.

And our beloved Stones? They either did not care a shit about those albums or had to bow to those marketing decisions for contractual reasons.

And those marketing experts in record companies like Virgin? If they compared the sales of the Jump Back - Reissue (!!!) to the sales of "Rarities", they think they are proven right: A Best Of ? "Anytime". "Rarities" or even stuff from the vaults? "Uuuuh, difficult".

One can only hope that a change in distributors would result in some fresh air concerning the handling of their back catalog and vault material. A move to Universal is no guarantee that it will result in a change of the current sad state of affairs. But Universal is known for a creative handling of back catalog titles in a way that satisfies die-hard fans. This fact alone gives me some hope.

The fact that they also handle the ABKCO-controlled catalog does not mean a thing. In fact, this also shows Universal's limitations: There's no way for a deluxe treatment if either ABKCO or the Stones or both say "NO".

Another greatest hits album will sell way more than any vaults release, who cares about an outtake from the 70's? Die hard fans? How many are they? 3000 counting all the Stones forums including this one?

The Circus CD/VHS barely sold 100,000 copies back in the day, an we're talking about a big event with big stars. Sadly the people only wants to hear the hits, again an again, their best selling albums since VL were Forty Licks and Jump Back, simple as that.

Shine A Light has a chance to debut high on the U.S charts, the album sales are horrible at this time of the year, the #10 album this week sold 28,000 copies. Live Licks sold 20,000 copies during the first week in 2004, debuting at #50. It could be #16 this week with the same sales.

Quote
georgelicks
Another greatest hits album will sell way more than any vaults release, who cares about an outtake from the 70's? Die hard fans? How many are they? 3000 counting all the Stones forums including this one?

The Circus CD/VHS barely sold 100,000 copies back in the day, an we're talking about a big event with big stars. Sadly the people only wants to hear the hits, again an again, their best selling albums since VL were Forty Licks and Jump Back, simple as that.

That's it, in a nutshell.

Somehow I feel that the Stones accept the fact that their outtakes and recorded live performances are an important part of their legacy and therefore have come to terms with the trading of such material amongst fans as long as there is no commercial aspect involved (though avoiding to openly admit it) because they themselves have no plans for any commercial exploitation of that stuff - just because the historical value far outweights its commercial value.

The time for any financial rewarding archive release campaigns is running out with every year passing by, and it is well possible that in ten years time an album of outtakes would not generate more sales than a 1961 live album by Chuck Berry (or Ronnie's New & First Barbarians releases - despite Keith's involvement) would generate now.

As time moves on, the commercial value of the Stones vaults will more and more develop into sheer curiosity value.

Any release deal the Stones make will be in Stones dimensions. The Stones status does not allow them to give any discounts just because this is archive material. If you ask the huge sums for distribution deals the Stones usually demand, then record companies decisions will always be like "a Best Of sells much more, so let's do this and avoid the vault releases for fans only".

I am pretty sure that if a company would pay big money for a series of archive releases, the Stones would do it. Only thing is that any company willing to make such a deal must face the high risk of disappointing sales and non-recouped investents. And there's is not much money left to be burned in today's music industry!



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-19 05:56 by retired_dog.

If this album has Shine A Light stuff on it, then I won't buy it, but I will borrow a copy and make lots of copies for friends. I'll never spend a cent on anything related to the Beacon movie shoots. I had to fly to Atlantic City twice because they postponed AC at last minute because of extra rehearsals for Beacon (which caused Mick's voice problem). Plus RS.com lied about how Beacon ticket sales would be conducted. In 2 years of ABB tour, they never did a single real theatre show, as Cohl promised at start of tour. All they did was two movie shoots with very restriced attendance. I'll do my best to see that anything to do with Shine A Light makes no money.

Exception: If they do any concerts promoting it, I'm going to them.

Quote
James Kirk
Nobody cares about another live cd.

I do! When The Rolling Stones issues a new CD, not only should you go and buy it. You should RUN out and buy it!!!!

JumpingKentFlash

BTW: EMI denies the split.
[itn.co.uk]

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
BTW: EMI denies the split.
[itn.co.uk]

Hmm... I guess the 'aggressive offer' is to be expected by EMI. Perhaps at this moment when people liek Macca are running out of them, and they are getting bad publicity, EMI will do anything to keep the Stones. Jagger & co are making a big money out of this.

- Doxa

They probably are. I had no idea that The Stones make 3 million quid for EMI each year. That's a lot seeing as they don't put out a lot of material.

JumpingKentFlash

>> EMI denies the split. <<

smile: that cheers me up - thanks! a new company with a hopefully fresher approach sounds mighty appealing,
but EMI sweating and "aggressive counter-offers" sounds like the way it's supposed to be
when the Rolling Stones are prowling for a contract :E

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
They probably are. I had no idea that The Stones make 3 million quid for EMI each year. That's a lot seeing as they don't put out a lot of material.

Well, economically speaking, they should earn something like that. For five years they pay the Stones 14 million, and get 3 per year, that is, 15 millions... Well, I guess, the actual business is not that simple mathematics...

- Doxa

Hmm.. this 5-year-deal of which the band get estimated 14 million pounds, makes me wonder of what does it actually based on. During that period (2003-2008) they have only released two original products LIVE LICKS and A BIGGER A BANG. Then there are RARITIES, a reissue of ROLLED GOLD, and I can't recall if a re-issue of JUMP BACK was released in that time-frame. Do I miss something? Have there been more re-issues? Does that production relly earn them a three million pound annual income? Or is the incomes of their back catalog (released originally before 2003) also included in that sum (I don't know even know if they press those albums anymore - they cannot do that anymore if they don't have a deal with the band, right)? Anyone knows more about these kind of things?

- Doxa

>> they cannot do that anymore if they don't have a deal with the band, right? <<

right - but EMI does have a deal with the band, which runs apparently until may,
and the non-ABKCO back catalogue is certainly part of that.
they re-released the whole thing in that "national" edition in 2005, for example -
same disks repackaged in a slipcover sort of thing that varied from country to country, remember?

also, the 14 million is just someone's guess - someone in a position to make an educated guess, i reckon,
but still.

Quote
with sssoul
>> they cannot do that anymore if they don't have a deal with the band, right? <<

right - but EMI does have a deal with the band, which runs apparently until may,
and the non-ABKCO back catalogue is certainly part of that.
they re-released the whole thing in that "national" edition in 2005, for example -
same disks repackaged in a slipcover sort of thing that varied from country to country, remember?

.

¨

Oh, they did re-released the whole thing? Obviously, my mind had skipped that totally, but I thought something that sort of manouvre should have had happen. It makes sense. I guess, the totality of the sales still makes some nice sum of money annually. It is safe and sure income.

- Doxa

>> Oh, they did re-released the whole thing? <<

more than once, i imagine - i too have trouble keeping track of the different re-packagings,
because they haven't been particularly exciting, but there was at least one box set of the non-ABKCO catalog as well.
anyway EMI hasn't done a very impressive job lately, so it's fine with me that the Stones aren't happy either.

>> There's no way for a deluxe treatment if either ABKCO or the Stones or both say "NO". <<

well, a deluxe treatment of the non-ABKCO catalog is certainly possible, whoever gets the contract.
but i gather your main point is that sharing the same distributor wouldn't guarantee any sudden outpouring
of joint ABKCO/Stones Inc releases. right.

Quote
with sssoul
>> Oh, they did re-released the whole thing? <<

well, a deluxe treatment of the non-ABKCO catalog is certainly possible, whoever gets the contract.
but i gather your main point is that sharing the same distributor wouldn't guarantee any sudden outpouring
of joint ABKCO/Stones Inc releases. right.

Not quite; my main point was to say that a move to Universal would not guarantee anything. Even if Universal is able and willing to do deluxe treatments of their catalog, it has to be OK'ed by the band.

I used the ABKCO controlled catalog as an example to demonstrate Universal's legal limitations - I know that Universal is able and willing to do deluxe treatments, but ABKCO is not able to ok them because for unreleased material, the Stones have veto rights even concerning ABKCO-controlled material. These are complex legal affairs! So concerning unreleased stuff until 1971, Universal and ABKCO cannot do a thing without the Stones OK.

Things are a bit easier when it comes to unreleased material from 1971 onwards because ABKCO is not involved anymore. But still, deluxe treatments would have to ok'ed by the Stones. There's no way that a back catalog distribution deal would automatically include unlimited access to the vaults. The Stones would never sign such an "all inclusive" deal because such a deal would allow the release of any substandart material without further asking - unthinkable!

To round things up, things could be a bit easier with Universal because unlike EMI/Virgin, Universal IS interested in deluxe treatments. It all depends on the question if the Stones are interested too.

thanks for elucidating, retired_dog. of course any releases have to be okayed by the rights-owners,
but it's probably worth spelling it out like that. by the same token:

>> concerning unreleased stuff until 1971, Universal and ABKCO cannot do a thing without the Stones OK <<

with unreleased stuff up through 71, the Stones can't do a thing without ABKCO's OK either -
with or without Universal being involved.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-19 18:28 by with sssoul.

Sounds like Sir Mick is giving Universal a test run. Sort of "let's see what you can do with us. If we like it, you get the booty."

J

Quote
with sssoul

with unreleased stuff up through 71, the Stones can't do a thing without ABKCO's OK either -
with or without Universal being involved.

Exactly - concerning unreleased stuff up to 1971, ABKCO legally owns the tapes (if they are in their possession is another question!) or better tapes rights, but the Stones as performing artists have to give their ok for release. So neither ABKCO or the Stones alone are in a position to release, let's say Chess or Beggars outtakes. ABKCO can't release them without agreement from the Stones and the Stones can't release them on their own because the rights to the tapes are owned by ABKCO. Fans often tend to blame ABKCO for not releasing interesting studio or live stuff from the years up to 1971, but it is not known outside the very inner circle who is blocking who - ABKCO the Stones or the Stones ABKCO. Of course it's also possible that neither party is interested in releasing such stuff. I mean, the Stones are not famous for a fan-friendly handling of unreleased material they actually own ALONE (1971 onwards) either!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-19 18:57 by retired_dog.

News flash.....I'm gonna buy the CD...big surprise.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!