... my understanding is that if a disk is on a store shelf, that means the store has bought it,
which means that whoever issued it has been paid, whether or not it stays on the store shelf for years afterwards.
so CBS had already long since been paid for any CBS disk that was still on a store shelf in 1994.
as far as i understand it. have some popcorn.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-24 19:00 by with sssoul.

Quote
with sssoul
... my understanding is that if a disk is on a store shelf, that means the store has bought it,
which means that whoever issued it has been paid, whether or not it stays on the store shelf for years afterwards.
so CBS had already long since been paid for any CBS disk that was still on a store shelf in 1994.
as far as i understand it. have some popcorn.

Thanks with sssoul.

Popcorn, however, gives me gas.

Drew

Quote
with sssoul
... my understanding is that if a disk is on a store shelf, that means the store has bought it,
which means that whoever issued it has been paid, whether or not it stays on the store shelf for years afterwards.
so CBS had already long since been paid for any CBS disk that was still on a store shelf in 1994.
as far as i understand it. have some popcorn.

OK. Thanks for clearing that up. Have some of the popcorn I just got from you.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
skipstone


Technically a CD is a record so you do have one in your car. Now, a turntable is a different matter.

I have never heard anyone refer to a compact disc as a record.A recording,yes.A record,no,although it technically may be one.

...and ALBUM is not synonymous with vinyl lp. Many people (even DJs) think that
and album has to be vinyl...and that a cd is different from an album. obviously (?)
an ALBUM is simply a COLLECTION....in this case, a collection of music. A
photo album is a collection of photos...and so on...and so on....

sorry...pet peeve.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
skipstone
Well a lot of bands still refer to a new CD coming out as "a new record" coming out. After all, a vinyl record is still a disc too. I get this with the band I'm in a lot - I always say Yes there are records for sale. 99% of the people get it. The new record coming out actually will be released on vinyl but regardless it's still a new record.

I should have said "gramophone record" . [en.wikipedia.org] I'm so far out of line on this one.Has anybody ever asked you to throw on or put in or play a record when you're driving down the road?

Quote
skipstone
I'm wondering...if they went through all the effort to make the ABKCO remasters so pristine, how come JJF still has that moment of a lag in it where it sounds like someone leaned on the tape during mixdown for a second?

They're not 100% perfect but,the sound quality is very close to perfect (for digital audio).They messed up Under My Thumb,Ruby Tuesday,and Stray Cat Blues (the mix,not the sound quality) but,all in all,aside from the lack of material from the "vaults",it turned out just about as well as Stones fans could have hoped for.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-25 03:50 by Winning Ugly VXII.

Quote
skipstone
I dunno. I compared the Virgins to the CBS issues on a good system and found the CBS issues to be basically garbage. With exception to Undercover, Dirty Work and Steel Wheels.

The CBS cd's are not that good but,neither are the Virgin cd's despite the fact that they applied equalization to make them louder.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-25 03:52 by Winning Ugly VXII.

sure glad i have all the vinyl. and reel to reel tapes made from the original vinyl releases when they were contemporary....

....not to be a killjoy or anything but i've heard far too many older albums specially released for the digital age that have outright sucked the original intensity and reality out of the projects.

the original history-making mixers and mastering engineers on these original projects (masterpieces) were listened to very carefully, created and approved by the band and their production help during the era they were released, and are very intentionally THE historical works of art imo. and deservedly so.

it's a marketing promo man's wet dream but often has little to do with the impact of the art imo. in fact it's often to the detriment of these projects.

i'm not saying things can't be improved upon necessarily, to some extent...but more often things are taken further away from the original impact....

.... but mostly i hear shite from these projects, in a general sense...the Beatles ONE for example is a travesty...and has little to do with the impact of the original releases. Entre kinks albums have been sped up with an unnatural emphasis on the treble...this is not uncommon...and the general clueless consumer says "WOW i never heard that tamborine....you can hear things you never heard before!!!, like duh...you weren't supposed to hear that shit as lead instruments...or the boyz woulda mixed it like that...can i get an amen anywhere here?

...these new engineer vunderkind dunderhaids get into the mastering 'loudness' wars, and leaving their own ego stamp on classic works, which is shameful AND imo, to the detriment of the fidelity and general impact of the sonics; they often sound harsh and steely and brutal, not warm or inviting...but i guess most people, (not here on iorr for the most part) have no clue one way or the other...
which makes them perfect fools for any kind of marketing hype...smf dilutes the very masterworks and their intention and impact. painting over picasso is not a good idea methinks.

some guy who wasn't even born when those works of art were created decides to re-EQ certain frequencies and imbeciles the world over say 'god you can hear things you NEVER heard before!!!" as if that's a positive attribute.
as if lead tamborine etc...was something that the glims were going for...
sigh and double sigh. often sounds harsh and steely...everything that is bad about digitizing electomagnetic signals onto tape.

the price is ten bucks more than an expensive full price cd....

....seems more suited for collector completists and people outside of the aural loop that made the Stones the best rock and roll band the world has ever seen. call me somewhat interested. also call me highly suspicious of these kind of (often) marketing scams that manage to bring you tinny steely music that is FAR AWAY from the approved product by the original artists and producers.
i take it with several grains of salt frankly.

to listen to certain latter day elvis re-releases and have his uniquely beautiful voice relegated to some upper mid range small yelps is painful to me.
and the engineering "genius'" behind this are proud of it and completely, and i mean completely clueless...

the albums themselves were perfect works of art...and imo, had the exact right timing for listening to an album all the way through...the more modern we go, often the less impactful the original music is...but you often get more quantity and one things they are getting value instead of being shat upon aesthetically.

it's frightening to think of modern day mastering engineers effing with the EQ...they've ruined Elvis releases, beatle releases and countless others...
the shame of it is, new generations of listeners often will have NO IDEA what the impact and deserved fuss was about...

maybe Universal will handle this more class, but i doubt it. washing machine detergent is constantly coming out with 'new improved delux recipes, but it's all marketing and mostly all bullshite imho.
just an opinion.

a record is an lp not a cd.

come on people! lets not devalue the language just because record companies decided to @#$%& everyone over!

an album is-technically- a collection of 78rpm recordings into a multiple 78 rpm disc package and subsequently -arguably-into an LP format..

not sure what a CD has in common with an album.

To attract as many buyers as possible, I think the deluxe versions must combine better sonics, 5.1 remixes and bonus tracks. Just a few bonus tracks or impoved sonics will probably not make people buy the same albums again?
Matt

The Stripped Deluxe Edition, could be one of the best Cd's/record/ of the Stones:

CD1
1 Street Fighting Man
2 Like a Rolling Stone (live)
3 Not Fade Away (remake)
4 Shine a Light
5 The Spider and the Fly (remake)
6 I'm Free (remake)
7 Wild Horses (remake)
8 Let It Bleed
9 Dead Flowers
10 Slipping Away (remake)
11 Angie
12 Love in Vain (remake)
13 Sweet Virginia (remake)
14 Little Baby


CD2
1 Like a Rolling Stone (edit)
2 All down the line
3 Black limousine
4 Tumbling dice
5 Live with me
6 Gimmie Shelter
7 Honest I do (remake)
8 Let's spend the night together (remake)
9 Memory Motel (remake)
10 Let it bleed (remake)
11 Beast of burden (remake)

What about some of this stuff : (from the Complete Works website)

" 3rd - 5th March: Tokyo, Japan, Toshiba-EMI Studios. Producers: Don Was &
The Glimmer Twins. Sound engineer: Ed Cherney. Additional musicians: Darryl
Jones (bass)/Chuck Leavell (keyb)/Bernard Fowler (bvoc)/Lisa Fisher (bvoc)/
Bobby Keys and The New West Horns (brass) on Slipping Away. Incl.
- Angie (MJ/KR) -unverified
- Beast Of Burden (MJ/KR)
- Heartbeat (Bob Montgomery/Norman Petty) -unverified
- Honest I Do (Jimmy Reed)
- I’m Left, You’re Right, She’s Gone (Kesler/Taylor) -unverified
- The Last Time (MJ/KR) -unverified
- Let It Bleed (MJ/KR)
- Let’s Spend The Night Together (MJ/KR)
- Little Baby (Willie Dixon)
- Love In Vain (Robert Johnson)
- Make No Mistake (KR/Steve Jordan) -unverified
- Memory Motel (MJ/KR)
- No Expectations (MJ/KR)
- Parachute Woman (MJ/KR) -unverified
- Slipping Away (MJ/KR)
- The Spider And The Fly (MJ/KR)
- Wild Horses 1 (MJ/KR) -alternate version
- Wild Horses 2 (MJ/KR) -Stripped version
- Wild Horses 3 (MJ/KR) -edit of version 2
- The Worst (MJ/KR) -unverified
Note: Parts of the sessions were filmed. "

??

The Worst,The Last Time,Parachute Woman and the covers would be interesting.It's amazing what can be done in three days of work.

[www.stevehoffman.tv]

Read the responses here. There's some good points.



PacificOceanBlue writes:
Most likely issuing vault material was part of the Universal deal. Universal needs to be able to move units of the back catalogue and what better way to increase sales potential on catalogue items that fans already have multiple versions of. Outtakes/live material will finally see the light of day. It probably won't be as plentiful as one would hope for, but hopefully it won't be a lame attempt like the recent 'Rarities' collection.

JumpingKentFlash

The back catalogue was being remastered as far back as 2002, I think. Remember the "Being Mick" doc, where he visits The Stones office and points to a box of tapes and says that the albums are being remastered. And an alternate take of an Exile song is playing in the background.

It figures that The Stones would have have had their albums remastered to modern standards - with the added incentive of extra material - long before signing a new deal.

Discs and cassettes and even reel to reel tapes are the medium a record, or an album, or a long player, is played on. Yeah, as a matter of fact, people I know say "Throw that record on!" when in a van or a truck or a car.

What's the big deal? CDs are records as vinyl is and cassette and whatever is deemed an album - 8-track even.

I agree 100% - with it being 30 years since the release of Some Girls, why not give it some attention?

I dunno how the hits comps get deluxified, seems rather stupid to me. Maybe they'll put the very first version of Start Me Up on the Black And Blue edition...Never Stop.

I always refer to a collection of songs as an album, whether the format is vinyl, CD, cassette, MP3, whatever. In 2005 I was asking people "have you heard the Stones' new studio album" and everybody knew what I meant. I use record as an interchangeable term with vinyl.

This thread brings up a good point, what is the proper way to refer to this stuff, or is there no proper way and we're all just making it up as we go?

the way people use words tends to win out over attempts to prescribe how we "should" use them,
but the way i use these words, album definitely refers to the content, not the format:
Beggars Banquet is the first album i bought with my own money on vinyl,
and also the first album i bought on cassette, and the first album i bought on CD.
i guess i do tend to use record to mean vinyl, but it doesn't bug me if someone uses it to mean a CD.

Quote
ohnonotyouagain
I always refer to a collection of songs as an album, whether the format is vinyl, CD, cassette, MP3, whatever. In 2005 I was asking people "have you heard the Stones' new studio album" and everybody knew what I meant. I use record as an interchangeable term with vinyl.

This thread brings up a good point, what is the proper way to refer to this stuff, or is there no proper way and we're all just making it up as we go?

I agree, an album is a collection of songs
BUT
I think record is also a good term, I mean they are recordings... records, if you will... and the term is, IMO, in no way limited to vinyl

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

PacificOceanBlue writes:
Most likely issuing vault material was part of the Universal deal. Universal needs to be able to move units of the back catalogue and what better way to increase sales potential on catalogue items that fans already have multiple versions of. Outtakes/live material will finally see the light of day. It probably won't be as plentiful as one would hope for, but hopefully it won't be a lame attempt like the recent 'Rarities' collection.

total speculation.

My whole point is that a CD - or even a download - is still a record - because for bands, records ARE albums as well as singles. To a Nancy or a Jim, it might be Hey I got the new OutKast CD! That, in fact, they did.

How it became to be known as a record when it holds recordings is beyond me. Path of least resistance or something. Almost like a building - if it's not being built anymore, how is it still a building? All I know is they are still called records no matter the format.

And come on - it sounds cool anyway! It says, in a way, it's a work of art. That's how I take it - performance art basically, that just needs to be played.

The sound on these remastered Universal Legacy deluxe editions released from the series so far (of which I have 18) is infinitely superior to the original studio albums.
A notable case in point is Jeff Buckley's "Grace," the legacy edition is like a different album in sound quality. Beyond this you get loads of additional the content:

Disc One: CD - original album brilliantly remastered.
Disc Two: CD - 7 previously unreleased songs, outtakes, alernative takes, live songs.
Disc Three: DVD - Making of the album documentary, videos of singles from the album, discography.

SD

[www.universaldeluxeedition.com]

Anybody have any idea about how long it will take before they get out? What is usual?

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-25 19:39 by JumpingKentFlash.

Quote
Nikolai
The back catalogue was being remastered as far back as 2002, I think. Remember the "Being Mick" doc, where he visits The Stones office and points to a box of tapes and says that the albums are being remastered. And an alternate take of an Exile song is playing in the background.

It figures that The Stones would have have had their albums remastered to modern standards - with the added incentive of extra material - long before signing a new deal.

That footage was filmed in 2001. I believe that there was an intention to unearth some vaults material for a 40th anniversary career retrospective in 2002, but - to the surprise of most of us - they were able to get an agreement with ABKCO which saw a career-spanning compilation for the first time eve, so they went with the much more lucrative option of 40 Licks instead.

The news about a box set of 3+CD with outtakes was all over the news in October/November 2001.

The music what was heard in the background in 'Being Mick' was not from exile, but the outtake 'Lonely at the top' (1979)if I remember correctly.


And Sonic Dreamer: You are absolutely right regarding the Grace deluxe edition; it sounds wonderful.
I've got both editions and the first one was good too, but Columbia's Legacy (not universal) is a great package.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Nikolai
The back catalogue was being remastered as far back as 2002, I think. Remember the "Being Mick" doc, where he visits The Stones office and points to a box of tapes and says that the albums are being remastered. And an alternate take of an Exile song is playing in the background.

It figures that The Stones would have have had their albums remastered to modern standards - with the added incentive of extra material - long before signing a new deal.

That footage was filmed in 2001. I believe that there was an intention to unearth some vaults material for a 40th anniversary career retrospective in 2002, but - to the surprise of most of us - they were able to get an agreement with ABKCO which saw a career-spanning compilation for the first time eve, so they went with the much more lucrative option of 40 Licks instead.

Yes, I even remember a document floating around at the time (purportedly from the record company) containing the tracks that they would choose from. Seems like it was known bootleg stuff, Brussels '73 and the like.

The list seemed fishy to me. When the vaults are finally opened, I fully expect their to be quite a few gems that we do not know anything about.

Quote
His Majesty
Universal Deluxe Editions at the very least usually come as 2 disc sets with previously unreleased material... promising news!

yes for my ears...but not for my wallet.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

So ABKCO said yes to what they would allow for Licks? That seems rather odd since they own the publishing to Wild Horses and Brown Sugar, of which WH was on the ABKCO record and one on the Virgin record.

I wonder who decided that. In terms of, how did those two get split up like that? And what does it matter?

I don't get why ABKCO would be pricks about live performances that were recorded and intended for live album releases back then when they've (the Stones) released a gazillion live albums with millions of ABKCO Music songs on 'em anyway.

That just makes zero sense to me.

So having started on possible Deluxe edition thread - does anyone else want to start one? Or all of them? I don't see why not. And regardless of whether or not it's part of the 19 they say they are going to do. Because they might in the future if they have any fu*cking brains.

I'm guessing it's safe to go with what the B-sides were but even those can be goofy - for instance, So Young actually belongs to the Some Girls sessions...Lonely Nights to the Soup sessions...Cook Cook for Dirty Work.

Quote
skipstone
So having started on possible Deluxe edition thread - does anyone else want to start one? Or all of them? I don't see why not. And regardless of whether or not it's part of the 19 they say they are going to do. Because they might in the future if they have any fu*cking brains.

I'm guessing it's safe to go with what the B-sides were but even those can be goofy - for instance, So Young actually belongs to the Some Girls sessions...Lonely Nights to the Soup sessions...Cook Cook for Dirty Work.

Well in that case, Tattoo You should not be re-released, but instead the individual tracks should be assigned to preceeding albums.....