Quote
dcba
"I have a friend who worked as the [Hendrix family] lawyer for 2 years and hated it"

Do you have stories to share? Pretty soon we're going to regret Alan Douglas

Without getting into to much detail that I shouldn't share, the Hendrix family has a copy of 'Black Gold' the holy grail of all things Hendrix and all the musicians associated with Hendrix's name was pushing for a release (Cox, Redding, Mitchell) but the family wouldn't and Mitchell who has the original tape tried to release it under a third party label, and that's the best story I can give, and I can't finish it. (It's fill in the blank from there)

Look wat Springsteen did with the anniversary release of Born to Run Remastered and a great release of a 75 London DVD gig with it.

So f.. embarassing what the Stones do when it comes to this

Quote
kees
Look wat Springsteen did with the anniversary release of Born to Run Remastered and a great release of a 75 London DVD gig with it.

So f.. embarassing what the Stones do when it comes to this

Oh yeah, but apparently remasters are a big no-no on this forum, and most people have heard everything the Stones have in their vaults.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
kees
Look wat Springsteen did with the anniversary release of Born to Run Remastered and a great release of a 75 London DVD gig with it.

So f.. embarassing what the Stones do when it comes to this

Oh yeah, but apparently remasters are a big no-no on this forum, and most people have heard everything the Stones have in their vaults.

"Remasters are a big no-no on this forum"?

That is not my interpretation of all these critical posts. People are not disappointed, eben disillusioned with the Stones because these new releases are remasters, they feel so because these are just remasters and nothing else, defnitely not deluxe and expanded.

Although you are probably not too far off the mark that "most people have heard everything the Stones have in their vaults" (well, ok, it may be a bit exaggerated), having at least some of the great stuff from the vaults with "official" sound quality would be really nice after all these years. If not now, then when? Probably never? That's where all this disappointment and frustration comes from.

Quote
retired_dog
People are not disappointed, eben disillusioned with the Stones because these new releases are remasters, they feel so because these are just remasters and nothing else, defnitely not deluxe and expanded.

I wonder how much of all this disappointment is due to the unfortunate title of this thread.

If it had simply been titled "Universal to remaster Stones albums" maybe people here would be happier.

Drew

It's not the title, but the idea that another opportunity to release something interesting is wasted.

yeah but we havent seen everything in the vaults, do you know how many concerts must have been filmed that they can put out if they wanted to, the boots have not even scratched the surface IMO

With Keith's current physical state and Jagger's obvious disdain for the past of the band I wonder if there's actually ANYTHING valuable in the vaults.

If you didn't plan to organize your archives (like Neil Young did from Year One) there's probably not much hidden in the vaults (unless you count the 15-minute rehearsal versions of Undercover songs - yuck!)

The onlyone positive point about this reissues is that it could be the "beginning of the third-half"!!

There are only two reasons why the past and present Rolling Stones records are issued again.
No 1. Universal needs to get back the money they paind the band for the rights to issue their music
No 2. Rolling Stones music needs to be available on CD in every record shop in the Western World.
No more, no less.
The original records did not have any special additional stuff on them so that is why they do not have anything in the future either.
This reissue series has nothng to do with anyone reading this board. Yes, we need, want and demand additional stuff, but the general public... they do not care or know about rare stuff.
We should be extremely lucky that Universal bothered to do the remastering.

And one more thing, as long as Jagger is still alive and kicking: no unreleased material will come out.

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

In a nod to the band's diehard fans, UMG is doing absolutely nothing interesting.

Quote
drewmaster

I wonder how much of all this disappointment is due to the unfortunate title of this thread.

If it had simply been titled "Universal to remaster Stones albums" maybe people here would be happier.

Drew

Probably not. An unfortunate side-effect of being a hardcore fan is a certain crankiness that treats any kind of good news as being not good enough.

Quote
tatters

Quote
drewmaster

I wonder how much of all this disappointment is due to the unfortunate title of this thread.

If it had simply been titled "Universal to remaster Stones albums" maybe people here would be happier.

Drew

Probably not. An unfortunate side-effect of being a hardcore fan is a certain crankiness that treats any kind of good news as being not good enough.

To a degree, thats a fair comment, but when you follow a band which has styled itself as the 'greatest rock n roll band in the world', its natural to have high standards. The Stones didnt get to those lofty heights by being shambolic and having no sense of quality control when it comes to product being issued in their name. This however is precisely whats happened in recent years. When Decca started putting out shit like "Stone Age" in 1971 and reissuing old b-sides as singles, the Stones used to take out full page ads in the music press disassociating themselves from 'inferior product'. What would the 1971 version of the band make of the shoddiness that was evident on 'Live Licks' and 'Rarities Vol.1' or the reissuing of the same stuff for the 6th or 7th time? Unfortunately theyve turned into what they used to despise.

It becomes even more grating when you see pretty much every other major act on the planet embark on either archives or reissues projects which have some degree of professionalism and which don't reek of rip-off.

Quote
drewmaster
So much negativity on this thread recently ... IMO these remasters were long overdue, and they are perhaps just the appetizer to a (beggar's) banquet of Stones goodies to be released by Universal in the coming years...

Drew

and perhaps they won't be? I think thats more likely.

the Stones have signed to Universal for 5 years, apparently. Hard to see where there's going to be much scope for new material and lots of archive releases in that timeframe, considering theyve now prepared these remasters that some think are long overdue.

Quote
Jan Richards
This reissue series has nothng to do with anyone reading this board. Yes, we need, want and demand additional stuff, but the general public... they do not care or know about rare stuff.
.

Nonsense.

The 'general public' who like the Stones arent going to be rushing out to buy these releases either. If theyre casual fans, they wont be the sort of people who buy an album they already own over and over again. There are few people who are going to buy these albums who dont own them already.

The Stones are a big selling act compared to the vast majority of artists in the world today. If there's a market for archive releases for artists like The Who, Bob Dylan, Neil Young etc, then its absolutely nonsensical to assume there isn't one for the Rolling Stones. Anyone who cant see that is simply buying into this stupid myth that almost everyone who goes to see a Stones show only knows or cares about something like 10 songs.

But there are millions of people who goes to a record shop and buys CD's that do not have all Stoens CD's. I am not talking about fans who follow the band.
I can take myself as an example. I am not a Who fan but I kind of like their music and I maybe have 20% of their albums on CD. If I happens to find a Who CD that i do not own from before, I might just as well buy that one if I do not find any other interesting material on that day in my record shop.
This whole reissue series is for people like that,I call them the general public.
No one is going to rush to the shop to buy this stuff. I mean, the people who will buy them do not have any clue what so ever that they have just been reissued. They just buy them anyway.
The whole idea is just that the old Stones CD's has to be available in a record shop

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

That's it, 5 years? Ha ha! And then what? Sign with someone else to reissue the back catalog again? That's gotta stop at some point. My guess is this is it. UMG is the end of the road for the Stones.

The way they've been working that means they'll do one new album, a live album and maybe a comp. It'll take them 5 years just to do those three. There's no way they're gonna do more than one more new album. If they do they would only sell by the pure fact of being bizarrely interesting BECAUSE they'll be so old.

That is exactly what is going to happen. After five years another one comes along and gets the rights to issue the same stuff again. And they will issue it again because the new company will have to get back all money given to stones for the rights to issue old Stones albums.
A major part of the record companies income is from sale of old stuff. The old stuff just has to be available. This goes for Stones, Dylan; Abba or just about anyone who had a number one top hit in the 60's 70's and 80's

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

Universal cannot issue archive material of the Stones coz they have no access to that kind of material. That is why it will not come out. It is the record companies who issue records and the artist owns the material mostly. Jagger sits on the unreleased material and he will not let it be issued. It is not more difficult that that.

If there is a demand among us, well yes, but that will not change a thing. Universal cannot issue it and Jagger will not let them issue it.

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

I'm no audio expert, but people who are (like Steve Hoffman) claim that the Virgin remasters sound pretty good and don't have much (if any) room for improvement. So I don't see any reason to get excited about the remastering unless they found some never before used tapes (like for Beggars Banquet) but that's highly doubtful. I'm only afraid that they don't f*ck it up with noise reduction, compression, remixing or other trendy stuff... Am interested about what they'll do with Exile, hopefully a '72 show on CD2, but that's unlikely. If they remix it hope they keep the original mix as well cause the mix is one of the main reasons why Exile is such a great record.

if you want good the best sound - find some good vinyl pressings - like the japanese virgin ones.... cd's will never measure up to them....

Quote
Brano
I'm no audio expert, but people who are (like Steve Hoffman) claim that the Virgin remasters sound pretty good and don't have much (if any) room for improvement.

Anybody who says the Virgins don't have much room for improvement never listened to them on a really good system and compared them to, for example, the ABKCO remasters.

Drew

There is no remixing, only remastering.

I compared the Virgins to the Sonys and there was a huge difference. On a good system. If there is that kind of difference between the Virgins and the UMGs then we are in for a treat. I just doubt it.

Mick might want to do a whole new mix of Exile but I really doubt that will ever happen. As he won't take time to let whatever else be done, Exile will remain as it is. That's just what I think.

Quote
Jan Richards
That is exactly what is going to happen. After five years another one comes along and gets the rights to issue the same stuff again. And they will issue it again because the new company will have to get back all money given to stones for the rights to issue old Stones albums.
A major part of the record companies income is from sale of old stuff. The old stuff just has to be available. This goes for Stones, Dylan; Abba or just about anyone who had a number one top hit in the 60's 70's and 80's

The difference with Dylan though, Jan - is that, apart from 1 year (1974) he's always been with one label.

His back catalogue has always been available - its never been deleted. The only occasions when Dylan albums which have ever been deleted were when the 2 albums he made with Island/Asylum (Planet Waves/before The Flood) were briefly deleted by that label in the early 80's, before CBS acquired the rights. The 'Dylan' album which was released without his approval in 1973 by CBS when he left the label has not been available on CD for over a decade.

According to a newspaper article which was reporinted in the new issue of IORR, the Stones back catalogue generates £1.5 million a year, but Universal reckon it should be doing better. The new deal signed by the Stones was for £7.5 million over a period of 5 years. It doesnt specifically mention anything about new or archive releases.

I don't see why the Stones bother at all with the money aspect of the record deals. It's just stupid. It's nothing for them. Nowadays anyway. That amount is for the Stones almost the equivalent of an indie deal.

Quote
skipstone

I compared the Virgins to the Sonys and there was a huge difference. On a good system. If there is that kind of difference between the Virgins and the UMGs then we are in for a treat. I just doubt it.

I don't doubt it for a minute. Audio technology today is simply light years ahead of where it was 15 years ago.

But to understand you gotta listen on a good system. I expect to read lots of posts here on May 4 from people saying they don't hear an effing difference, or more likely, that the Virgins were better.

Drew

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
kees
Look wat Springsteen did with the anniversary release of Born to Run Remastered and a great release of a 75 London DVD gig with it.

So f.. embarassing what the Stones do when it comes to this

Oh yeah, but apparently remasters are a big no-no on this forum, and most people have heard everything the Stones have in their vaults.

Watch again BEING MICK and read what's written behind Mick on the boxes when he mentions that they are working on audio stuff in the studio. Several tracks you never heard before and remember how excited we were when Precious love was heard just 2 years ago...

Quote
Jan Richards
Universal cannot issue archive material of the Stones coz they have no access to that kind of material. That is why it will not come out. It is the record companies who issue records and the artist owns the material mostly. Jagger sits on the unreleased material and he will not let it be issued. It is not more difficult that that.

If there is a demand among us, well yes, but that will not change a thing. Universal cannot issue it and Jagger will not let them issue it.

I totally agree. Springsteen, Page, Eddie Kramer (since Hendrix is not here anymore) and others did the job themselves because this is really an artistic matter and the choice of the artist to release or not this stuff.
Can you imagine Jagger giving Universal the tapes, "ok guys pick what you want..."
But watch again "Jump back" video. Jagger did supervise the remasters.
We could have hoped however for the Universal editions because SLAVE was released in its extended way by Virgin. SO YOUNG appeared too.
And Mick did an effort with unreleased songs for his best of...

Finally some hype. WOO HOOOO:

[www.rollingstone.com]

Quote
Jan Richards
Universal cannot issue archive material of the Stones coz they have no access to that kind of material. That is why it will not come out. It is the record companies who issue records and the artist owns the material mostly. Jagger sits on the unreleased material and he will not let it be issued. It is not more difficult that that.

If there is a demand among us, well yes, but that will not change a thing. Universal cannot issue it and Jagger will not let them issue it.

Last time I was aware Jagger didnt have sole ownership of the Stones catalogue and was only one quarter of the band.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-04 19:49 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Jan Richards
Universal cannot issue archive material of the Stones coz they have no access to that kind of material. That is why it will not come out. It is the record companies who issue records and the artist owns the material mostly. Jagger sits on the unreleased material and he will not let it be issued. It is not more difficult that that.

If there is a demand among us, well yes, but that will not change a thing. Universal cannot issue it and Jagger will not let them issue it.

Last time I was aware Jagger didnt have sole ownership of the Stones catalogue and was only one quarter of the band.

Oh, come on!! Like Charlie or Ronnie, or even Keith, would ever want to make these decisions or take the control away from Mick.

Drew