Quote
StonesBlake

Once they truly stop touring, you'll see the band dust off boxes and see what they have acquired. It will just take time.

"It will just take time." Until the older fans are in their 70s or 80s and only a handful of younger fans are left who cant think of a time before Ron Wood or at best believe Mick Taylor and Brian Jones were unimportant footnotes in Stones history?

Just joking, but its already late, if not too late to gain some commercial success from the vaults. problem is that if they wait another 5 or 10 years, the band could not care less to waste time, effort & energy into archive projects that will not sell more than a couple of thousand CDs, DVDs or downloads anyway.

I think it's pretty safe to guess that any unreleased but finished songs were taken care of when the catalog was remastered. Certainly everything was remastered in that year or so...I can't see them remastering the 12" Miss You just for a CD single release - it still costs the same amount of money to produce a single as it does a record as far as printing the record and mastering, etc...

Then again, as they continue to record new records and things get mastered, maybe they do call up and have this and that remastered...like they very well may have for Rarities with Let It Rock and Lonely Nights...

Just guessing. I doubt they're letting anything rot. Too much at hand to allow that to happen.

Quote
alimente

Just joking, but its already late, if not too late to gain some commercial success from the vaults. problem is that if they wait another 5 or 10 years, the band could not care less to waste time, effort & energy into archive projects that will not sell more than a couple of thousand CDs, DVDs or downloads anyway.

Hopefully releasing material from the vaults won't be done simply for commercial success. When Ronnie released 'Live from Kilburn' he had to know it wouldn't make a lot of money. Legacy, not money, will have to motivate them to open the vaults.

I remember watching 'Being Mick' and seeing a scene where he pointed to some boxes and mentioned something about them being outtakes and one day he'd have to look at them. Did I dream this?

No you didn't dream it. Quite a mischievious comment from Mick...and I suspect he knew it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-25 10:46 by Spud.

"Legacy, not money, will have to motivate them to open the vaults."

Exactly.

Quote
R
THERE AIN'T NUTHIN' THERE.

The way the Stones record leaves half finished jams and scraps of musical ideas in the vaults - not songs. The only thing they COULD release would be the same stuff we've been swapping for twenty years anyway.

You have a point here. I also can't imagine there's any "finished" studio work in the can, that we don't already know. Still it'd nice to have tracks like "Claudine" in pristine quality and fully realized.

These outtakes should amount to about one CD, which could form one quarter of a 4CD box set, the other three consisting of live recordings only. These could for example cover three different shows from three different phases (I can't imagine they'd release any shows in full, as this would go beyond the scope of a normal box set).

Full shows could then be released in an extra series with minimum artwork (to reduce costs). But the real marketing tool would be the box set with lavish design, unreleased photos, SACD-format etc.

Hm...OK, I'm just dreaming...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-26 10:27 by Greenblues.

Quote
StonesBlake
The difference is that selling boxers and glasses doesn't impact the band as a live entity.

it certainly impacts on their credibility though, which legacy wise when they're marketing this crap whilst choosing to ignore their music can be often as damning. In years and decades to come, how do you think they're going to remembered? As a band or a brand with a cool little logo? The "cash cow" obsession damages that legacy with every succeeding year.

Quote
StonesBlake
Releasing material from the vault does. It kind of says 'yeah we're not looking ahead anymore'.

You mean in the way that Neil Young, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen aren't 'looking ahead' by releasing archive material AND quality NEW albums?

Quote
StonesBlake
Releasing material from the vault does. It kind of says 'yeah we're not looking ahead anymore'.

>You mean in the way that Neil Young, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen aren't 'looking ahead' by releasing archive material AND quality NEW albums?


>>I don't think it's a good idea either. What reason would there be to put out something old? Why not wait?

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
I don't think it's a good idea either. What reason would there be to put out something old?

Eh, the reason; we want to hear it. ANd for Rolling Stones...they'd earn money, and would be proud of their work

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Why not wait?

Wait? Who's waiting and what for?
Because we are getting old - and some fans are allready dead. If they waited 20 years - there would be a lot less people interested in Rolling Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-25 15:50 by Erik_Snow.

I anxiously await the release of anything from the vaults. Hell yeah I'd buy it. I disc, 8 discs - I don't care. Give me the studio leftovers - finished songs that haven't been released - you do know they exist - as well as almost finished and instrumentals...

Live stuff - it would be nice to hear something other than the usual tracks that have been released over and over and over. Personally of all the live albums the only version of Brown Sugar that's worth a shit is on Live Licks. The only version of Honky Tonk Women that's worth a shit is on Love You Live. Start Me Up on Flashpoint. Etc...which is why I'm waiting for the soundtrack to make my own live compilation...a demo version for myself to edit later when I can do it properly (cross fade). I'll come up with what I would consider to be a good live comp and post it for opinions - in case I'm overlooking something. All officially live releases - I'll do another one with the few boots I have at some other point.

Quote
Gazza

it certainly impacts on their credibility though, which legacy wise when they're marketing this crap whilst choosing to ignore their music can be often as damning. In years and decades to come, how do you think they're going to remembered? As a band or a brand with a cool little logo? The "cash cow" obsession damages that legacy with every succeeding year.

I think this just erks hardcore fans. Other bands sell out just as much. Ultimately the Stones will be judged on their music, not the products they sold.

I think in essence it's not just that the Stones made and sold said cash cow things, it's that the fans - on all levels - that bought them and made them such a huge thing to behold in public, etc...afterall, the Stones just make the shit - the fans buy it.

most of the songs are on bootlegs,lot of the songs don't need much work,lot of the
songs are brilliant.Mick jagger does not want to go into the past,i don't know what
keith thoughts are on this,jimmy page did a good job on the led zepplin catlogue.
I hope one day STONES will wake up and give us BOOTLEGS SERIES.
IT'S ONLY ROCK-ROLL BUT WE LIKE IT.KISH

Quote
StonesBlake

Quote
Gazza

it certainly impacts on their credibility though, which legacy wise when they're marketing this crap whilst choosing to ignore their music can be often as damning. In years and decades to come, how do you think they're going to remembered? As a band or a brand with a cool little logo? The "cash cow" obsession damages that legacy with every succeeding year.

I think this just erks hardcore fans. Other bands sell out just as much. Ultimately the Stones will be judged on their music, not the products they sold.

If you can find another act with as much kitsch attached to their brand name or who have whored themselves as much, I'd 'love' to see it.

The Stones heyday as a great music act - to the masses at least - was decades ago. As time goes by, there are less and less of those people left who remember that era (for goodness sake, its evident with so-called 'hardcore' fans already, many of whom can barely acknowledge the existence of the band pre-Jumpin Jack Flash). To many people, they're a t-shirt selling machine who play nostalgia-drenched concerts every so often. Even at present, their musical legacy is greatly being eroded due to the fact that theyve produced such a paucity of new music for two decades.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-26 15:22 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
StonesBlake

Quote
Gazza

it certainly impacts on their credibility though, which legacy wise when they're marketing this crap whilst choosing to ignore their music can be often as damning. In years and decades to come, how do you think they're going to remembered? As a band or a brand with a cool little logo? The "cash cow" obsession damages that legacy with every succeeding year.

I think this just erks hardcore fans. Other bands sell out just as much. Ultimately the Stones will be judged on their music, not the products they sold.

If you can find another act with as much kitsch attached to their brand name or who have whored themselves as much, I'd 'love' to see it.

The Stones heyday as a great music act - to the masses at least - was decades ago. As time goes by, there are less and less of those people left who remember that era (for goodness sake, its evident with so-called 'hardcore' fans already, many of whom can barely acknowledge the existence of the band pre-Jumpin Jack Flash). To many people, they're a t-shirt selling machine who play nostalgia-drenched concerts every so often. Even at present, their musical legacy is greatly being eroded due to the fact that theyve produced such a paucity of new music for two decades.

Only one band who have whored themselves with kitsch in vastly greater quantity than the Rolling Stones: KISS

However, this just reinforces your point. To be fair, KISS has a few moments of rock glory under their belts but they were and are mostly a joke.

For opening the vaults, it requires a record company that is really keen to do that. Virgin is not that kind of company. As already mentioned elsewhere, they are the kind of company that always prefers another greatest hits compilation because it promises more sales than obscure material from the vaults. Virgin simply does not have the vision to do it. Nowadays, they are even not what our common sense understands under the term "record company". They are just a subsidiary of EMI, a trademark. That's why I hope that the Stones leave them.

Ryko? Rhino? Whichever one it is that did the Elvis Costello back catalog - they did a fu*cking BRILLIANT re-release with extras, etc...certainly they'd do some sort of box set. Or make the re-releases as they are now, in their original state, and also as double albums - disc 2 being the unreleased goodies and B-sides...etc.

WHY NOT?

I wish the Stones would see fit to do such a thing. Although I do tend to understand the Stones' point of view of not looking into the past (which of course is BULLSHIT since they love to release hits comps) because they are still moving forward, at least in their eyes - putting out new material versus being some pure nostalgic yawn like The Beach Boys (Mick said something to that effect) I agree with the people who pointed out that Bruce put out a box set of goodies and, shit, that's been quite a while since then and he's put out quite a few records since then as it is.

Um, does Bruce have a greatest hits comp? I really don't know. Whether he does or not, that's some funny irony there, between him and the Stones.

I think KISS is just the real life version of Spinal Tap in many ways - they've actually toured and put out records. The drums have always stunk and Paul can't sing for shit but Gene...he's the rock behind that band. Talk about...what was that word...paucity. HA! Gene Simmons is ALWAYS looking for any other and another way to promote and sell ANYTHING to do with KISS. I guess in one way he never bothers to deny it. And so what. He has fun with it. Someone might as well.

I bought the Stevie Ray Vaughn "box set" in 2000. ( Thank you Sony ) Three cd's and one dvd. Still priced the same today as when I bought it. Well worth the money, but it contains one glaring video on the dvd that I thought was just awful ( stevie plays voodoo chile with a wah-wah pedal and just mails it in (( cut from live in austin- a wah-wah pedal fer crissakes!!)) ). Anyhow, I would still buy any shows on video that the stones deemed to release. Another version of "Gimme Shelter" ( I bought the Critereon release) with a bonus dvd or two... bring it on!! A complete show from 1969? They were filmed. A "Four Flicks" dvd series from the 60's & 70's. Man, that would be awesome. And I would buy them. No "stealing" from the vaults. But you know, they may wait too long.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-27 00:01 by bikerboot.

I finally found the right person to be with last year. Had a horrendous last half of the year basically but it's all worked out. So that makes me really happy.

If I die before there is (totally depending on IF there ever is of course) some kind of Stones vaults release in whatever way or ways, so be it.

But it sure would be nice before I die, which is a long way off, to be able to hear with clarity all those goodies that they decided to leave off whatever albums etc...

So a Stones vaults release won't change my life - I'll just stick with It sure would be nice.

Lets say they open the vaults from the Taylor years. Am i safe to assume that, if they did that, they would have to pay royalties to Taylor?

Maybe that's why they are not doing it? To kind of give Taylor a big F.Y.?

There seems to still be some bad blood there, who knows?

I think that would be a silly reason to not release anything form the Taylor years. That's just stupid! I mean, to me that seems like a stupid reason to not do it.

Then again...Tattoo You does say something. Mick and his flip attitude about not putting any credits on it. You know, for making a shit-ton of money over the eons they sure are cheap ass bastards when it comes to silly stupid shit like that. What's that, in some book, not paying for Muscle Shoals (rumour? True? Lie?) and erasing everything there, leaving no trace. My guess has always been that Mick didn't want credits on Tattoo You because then they would have to dole out money to Taylor and whoever from the Black And Blue sessions and Sonny Rollins etc...although how not putting credits on the album and not paying who their due work together I don't know. I really doubt that.

Quote
skipstone
I think that would be a silly reason to not release anything form the Taylor years. That's just stupid! I mean, to me that seems like a stupid reason to not do it.

Then again...Tattoo You does say something. Mick and his flip attitude about not putting any credits on it. You know, for making a shit-ton of money over the eons they sure are cheap ass bastards when it comes to silly stupid shit like that. What's that, in some book, not paying for Muscle Shoals (rumour? True? Lie?) and erasing everything there, leaving no trace. My guess has always been that Mick didn't want credits on Tattoo You because then they would have to dole out money to Taylor and whoever from the Black And Blue sessions and Sonny Rollins etc...although how not putting credits on the album and not paying who their due work together I don't know. I really doubt that.

Exactly, it's doesn't seem right, but as you said, they do things at times that seem bitter.

Maybe there are a lot more folks who would get in that royalty line....especially from the Exile days.

If there is a reason why they did not want to have credits on Tattoo You it is because they wanted to hide the fact that it just was not an "all new" album, but a collection of previously unreleased songs from earlier album sessions, going back as far as to the 1972 Goat's Head Soup sessions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-27 00:46 by retired_dog.

Oh well yeah, that one as well. Gee, how come there are people playing on here that are on Black And Blue? And...Goats Head Soup? And...whatever. I can totally see that.

Of course, they HAD to figure at some point people would find out.

It's an odd thing - the last time there was ever a lot of people in the Superdome for a concert was the Tatoo You tour. Since then...it's been dwindling for some reason. Even the 89 tour was 20,000 LESS! U2 barely had over 15,000 there in 1997. And the Stones had just over 20,000 TOTAL! in 1994.

Probably the reasons neither of them bother with New Orleans anymore. Although the City might have something to do with it as well, being so..politely...corrupt. Then again, the post 1980s population doesn't really care about The Rolling Stones or U2 (or anyone big for that matter - it's fu*cking New Orleans! Fats is 80 years old today!!! And looks 30 years younger than Jagger! 50 years younger than Keith!). There's no reason to care really when there's always so much music going on. In New Orleans, going out to see/hear live music is like renting a video (in any manner) - it just doesn't matter if you go see ReBirth this Tuesday, next Tuesday or even last Tuesday. And so on....

Quote
retired_dog
For opening the vaults, it requires a record company that is really keen to do that. Virgin is not that kind of company. As already mentioned elsewhere, they are the kind of company that always prefers another greatest hits compilation because it promises more sales than obscure material from the vaults. Virgin simply does not have the vision to do it. Nowadays, they are even not what our common sense understands under the term "record company". They are just a subsidiary of EMI, a trademark. That's why I hope that the Stones leave them.

Check out the story on EMI in the latest Rolling Stone. The releasing of an unauthorized compilation from the back catalog ( Cold Play ? I think) is being hailed as the new business model for the industry. Terra Firma paid billions to take over EMI mainly for the catalog. Maybe there is hope.

So....if they were to release an unauthorised something or other - oh wait, they can't - they don't own the masters to the Stones. Nevermind.

Quote
skipstone
So....if they were to release an unauthorised something or other - oh wait, they can't - they don't own the masters to the Stones. Nevermind.

Maybe so, but the stones could throw the label a bone and offer something up. Rolling Stone magazine continuously beats the drum ( damn near every issue...dire, dire news )about the death of the music industry. Personally all I want to see are full, pristine, remastered dvd's of past years shows, say Oakland Coliseum 69, L&GTRS from '72, like Zeppelin did.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-27 15:19 by bikerboot.

>>>I don't think it's a good idea either. What reason would there be to put out something old?[/quote]

>>Eh, the reason; we want to hear it. ANd for Rolling Stones...they'd earn money, and would be proud of their work

>I want to hear it too. Don't get me wrong. My problem is that if they were to do this thing, let's say in 6 months, it couldn't be complete because they may have some tours left in them, and maybe even an album. Then we wouldn't get stuff from their last session and that would be a shame. I know that we they could start by releasing a "Vaults 1962 - 1967" or something, but that wouldn't be the best idea IMO. Many people would probably buy that, but when we get to the maybe 5th release in súch a series ("Vaults 1989 - 2008") people, with the exception of us hardcores, probably wouldn't mind buying it. Then the problem occurs: The Rolling Stones should be seen as a whole (Especially with a vault release). In other words: Don't give the people the choice to pick out their favourite years. Make them buy a complete boxed set of all years. Now I know that this would also cost a lot of money, but at least they'd be sure that the people who would buy such a thing, are the people that really appreciates it.
(For the album thing: I think they could well have a "last album" left to do. And wouldn't it be insanely awesome if they made a record of covers? If it was a last album they could kind of go full circle, album wise, with returning to doing covers. It would suit them very well I think).



>>>Why not wait?

>>Wait? Who's waiting and what for?
Because we are getting old - and some fans are allready dead. If they waited 20 years - there would be a lot less people interested in Rolling Stones.

>(First line: LOL).
You're probably right. But hang on for dear life until it is released my friends.

JumpingKentFlash

I understand Jagger when he says things like he wants to look forward rather than haul through their past. However with eight year gaps between albums I suspect that he is the least forward looking artist in pop history.

I don't expect them to produce an album every six months like they did in their early twenties. But come on, a Stones album every two years would sell at least a million copies every time. Especially if they varied the writing formula on each one.

Quote
Gazza
If you can find another act with as much kitsch attached to their brand name or who have whored themselves as much, I'd 'love' to see it.

The Beatles in the 60's top anything the Stones have done since. They sold anything they could with their names on it. They we never condemned like the Stones are today.

Quote
Gazza
The Stones heyday as a great music act - to the masses at least - was decades ago. As time goes by, there are less and less of those people left who remember that era (for goodness sake, its evident with so-called 'hardcore' fans already, many of whom can barely acknowledge the existence of the band pre-Jumpin Jack Flash). To many people, they're a t-shirt selling machine who play nostalgia-drenched concerts every so often. Even at present, their musical legacy is greatly being eroded due to the fact that theyve produced such a paucity of new music for two decades.

I agree with you that their lack of meaningful music lately (or should I say mainstream #1 hits) has hurt their legacy. Maybe I just don't place a huge importance in mainstream acceptance.