I Heard from ICE About the Rolling Stones Reissues

[dolstein]

I wrote the following e-mail to Pete Howard about the Rolling Stones reissues:

> From: David_Olstein/NY/DEWEY@deweyballantine.com
> Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 18:03:43 -0400
> To: pete@icemagazine.com
> Subject: Rolling Stones Reissues (See Notice Below)
>
> I read your little blurb on the Rolling Stones reissues and look forward to
> reading the full story in the next issue of ICE. I was very disappointed
> to learn that there will be no bonus tracks. I spoke with Bob Irwin (of
> Sundazed Records and Sony Legacy) yesterday and he told me that Terry (sp?)
> Landy at ABKCO was trying to get some stereo mixes included as bonus tracks on
> some of the earlier albums. It sounds like she lost that fight.
>
> I hope your article in the June issue will answer all of the big questions
> people have about the reissue project. Questions such as:
>
> 1. Were these reissues mastered from the original master tapes? Although
> ABKCO has claimed that their original CD's were mastered from the original
> analog tapes, few people actually believe this.
>
> 2. Will any pre-Aftermath studio material be released in stereo? Around a
> dozen early Stones recordings are known to exist in true stereo, and have
> appeared on the early UK and Japanese CD reissues.
>
> 3. Will Aftermath and Between the Buttons be released in stereo, mono or
> both? The original UK CDs were in stereo. The US CDs contained some
> material in mono. Of course, true stereo and mono mixes exist for both
> albums, and since there are going to be two separate versions of each album
> released on hybrid SACD/CD, it ought to be possible to make all of the mono
> and stereo mixes available (as Bill Levenson did when he released both the
> US and UK versions of the first Traffic album on CD).
>
> 4. Will the Complete Singles Collection actually include the original single
> mixes?
>
> 5. Will the booklets be expanded, with liner notes and previously unpublished
> photos?

I received the following reply:

Hi David:

Thanks for the letter. We knew that there would be questions like this, of
course. What we chose to do was present our first, big story as an
"overview" piece and just let the people talk... the people who put these
new CDs together. It didn't seem like it would work to have a broad-stroke
piece and then drop in the 200 examples of, "What about the extra
three-second stereo fade found on the promo Brazilian pressing?" As a
collector myself I'm not knocking that concept, I just think it would have
been way to much to take on in our initial 2,000-word story.

So what I'm guessing we'll do is, once the discs are released, field all the
questions/complaints from ICE readers and then have a healthy Watchdog item
which addresses the shortcomings point-by-point. That would just seem to be
the best progression.

Thanks for writing & being an ICE reader,

Pete Howard
Publisher

I sent Pete the following reply:

Hi Pete:

Thanks for responding to my e-mail.

Personally, I think it's much better to raise these issues before the discs are released than to have to deal with them in a CD Watchdog column after the fact. After all, you guys are supposed to be journalists. ABKCO presumably already has their own PR staff to put a positive spin on this reissues series. And of course it is neither necessary nor desirable to include 200 examples of, "What about the extra three-second stereo fade found on the promo Brazilian pressing." But it is entirely legitimate to inquire as to why the producers of the reissues decided to go with the mono mixes of an album as opposed to stereo (or vice versa), and (as I suspect is the case), why they chose not to include both mixes (especially on the SACD layer, which can hold far more music than the CD layer). Anyone familiar with the Rolling Stones catalog and its mistreatment by ABKCO over the years would understanding that this is very much a "broad stroke" question. Quite frankly, given your readership, I would consider it downright irresponsible NOT to raise this issue. And certainly the decision to release to separate versions of the Aftermath and Between the Buttons albums, instead of including all the US and UK tracks on a single disc, is bound to be controversial. There's no sense in ducking that issue either. And certainly no ABKCO Rolling Stones release has come in for harsher criticism in the pages of ICE than the Singles Collection box set. Why would you consider it inappropriate or trivial to ask whether or not ABCKO has corrected the numerous problems with the original set?

I certainly hope that the people quoted in your article have anticipated these very fundamental questions and have chosen to address them on their own. But I am disappointed by your reluctance to deal with some of these very thorny issues before the product reaches the market.

Regards,

David Olstein

[Bob Lovely]

David,

Maybe Pete and Allan know each other!?

Bob :confused:

[-Ben]

Well done and said David.
Many Thanks...yet I am not sure ABKCO will ever listen to any logical suggestions.
BC

[dolstein]

Originally posted by Bob Lovely
David,

Maybe Pete and Allan know each other!?

Bob :confused:

Oh, it's pretty clear that ICE has entered into total suck-up mode. I think they're grateful that anyone from ABKCO is actually willing to talk to them about the reissues.

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by dolstein


Oh, it's pretty clear that ICE has entered into total suck-up mode. I think they're grateful that anyone from ABKCO is actually willing to talk to them about the reissues.

David,

I have noticed that over the recent years...they must hate publishing the Watchdog!

Bob ;)

[dolstein]

Originally posted by Bob Lovely


David,

I have noticed that over the recent years...they must hate publishing the Watchdog!

Bob ;)

I think what bothered me most was how patently insincere his response was. None of the questions I raised were anywhere near as trivial as that "three second stereo fade on the Brazilian pressing" ********. These are all very basic questions that virtually every reader of ICE would want to know the answer to. Of course, as Pete Howard obviously knows by now but isn't letting on, the answers are likely to be disappointing for many people. So ICE simply decides it's better not to ask the questions at all. That certainly doesn't serve the interests of ICE readers. But it does mean that that the ICE staff will get their ABKCO promo discs.

[Carl Hoffmann]

Good work David! One would think from the ICE approach that $250 worth of new consumer spending on these reissues is obligatory? God forbid they ask any real questions. Like a whole lot of things in our society, REAL often seems way too hard to handle. Geez!! :mad:

[RDK]

If there indeed _will not_ be any bonus tracks on these Stones re-issues (aside from the differences between US and UK albums), how do we really think they will sell?

I mean, I'm sure they'll be a sonic improvement - and they'll be in SACD, of course - but we've already established repeatedly here on this forum that the vast majority of the public doesn't really care about sound quality, let alone SACD. Sure, most audiophiles agree that the current CDs are pretty bad, but for the vast number of rank-and-file Rolling Stones fans out there they're perfectly acceptable. Will they be compelled to rebuy their collections (say, 10-20 discs) simply because they might sound better?

It seems to me that for these discs to really sell in large numbers, ABKO must give the public something besides the same ol' songs. At least better artwork, booklets, bonus tracks, whatever. We might think the SACD remastering alone is a groovy thing, but what will it take for the _normal_ ;) listener to rebuy their collection?

Any thoughts?

Ray

[Bill]

I have been a subscriber to ICE since its inception and was very disappointed by Pete's overly defensive response to your inquiry. While it may make sense from a business and advertising standpoint for him to defer tough questions about the releases for the CD Watchdog, to do so lets down the legion of ICE readers (who, last time I checked, pay for the magazine with their subscription dollars) by forcing them to buy the stuff and then learn the answers to their questions the hard way. One of the reasons that I have been a loyal ICE reader has been to learn the scoop on a product BEFORE I BUY. The only conclusion that I can draw is that, while ICE has come a long way from its tan and black newsletter days to today's glossy editions, it may have lost its gonads in the process. Maybe that's the price of progress- ICE sure is trumpeting its exclusive interviews with the key players in the Stones reissues on its web site, who I am certain will spin us all dizzy by telling us how much we all NEED both the 34 minute British and US versions of a particular release that duplicate 85% of the tracks. It also stinks.

[Sckott]

If you read the letter ICE sent back to David, you get the gist quite strongly. ICE (or anyone else for that matter) will not have any say in what goes in to what gets out to the public. It's very true though that concern should be a heated element of prevention, but yet I feel we have nothing to prevent collectively. A few people in the mindst of decision making, and if you don't like it, go jump over a bridge.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, I feel a lot of Stones fans will decide if these products ABKCO turns out will be fun to listen to and acceptable. If they turn out badly, the word will be out big and strong.

Again, like Pete Howard said quite honestly, we all have to wait. I have a feeling these SACDs will be a partial dissapointment, but I can't be a pessimist when the glass is clearly NOT on the table yet.

[dolstein]

Originally posted by Bill
While it may make sense from a business and advertising standpoint for him to defer tough questions about the releases for the CD Watchdog, to do so lets down the legion of ICE readers (who, last time I checked, pay for the magazine with their subscription dollars) by forcing them to buy the stuff and then learn the answers to their questions the hard way.

Actually, I suspect that advertising revenue it beginning to outpace subscription revenue. And it wouldn't surprise me if there's a full page ad from ABKCO in an upcoming issue. Hmmmm .... I think I've figured out why ICE is pulling its punches.

[dolstein]

Originally posted by Sckott
If you read the letter ICE sent back to David, you get the gist quite strongly. ICE (or anyone else for that matter) will not have any say in what goes in to what gets out to the public. It's very true though that concern should be a heated element of prevention, but yet I feel we have nothing to prevent collectively. A few people in the mindst of decision making, and if you don't like it, go jump over a bridge.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, I feel a lot of Stones fans will decide if these products ABKCO turns out will be fun to listen to and acceptable. If they turn out badly, the word will be out big and strong.

Again, like Pete Howard said quite honestly, we all have to wait. I have a feeling these SACDs will be a partial dissapointment, but I can't be a pessimist when the glass is clearly NOT on the table yet.

Uh, not quite. Nobody's asking ICE to lobby for higher quality reissues. And nobody around here thinks Pete Howard is in a position to influence ABKCO's decisions. Hell, Mick and Keith probably couldn't influence their decisions at this point. But what the readers of ICE do have a right to expect is that ICE will provide all the relevant information on upcoming Rolling Stones reissues. And information on the quality of the source tapes, whether the albums will be in mono or stereo, and whether there will be enhanced packaging is CLEARLY relevant.

This will, after all, be the lead story in the next issue. It's news -- BIG news. But ICE appears to want to cover it as a human interest story rather than news.

[RDK]

What irks me the most is ICE's decision to ask the relevent questions only _after_ the CDs are released, not before, completely killing any chance for our concerns/criticisms to be addressed and (possibly) fixed.

Who cares if everyone bitches about the remasters in the Watchdog? I'd rather everyone bitch beforehand and possibly get something changed.

[dolstein]

Originally posted by RDK
What irks me the most is ICE's decision to ask the relevent questions only _after_ the CDs are released, not before, completely killing any chance for our concerns/criticisms to be addressed and (possibly) fixed.

Who cares if everyone bitches about the remasters in the Watchdog? I'd rather everyone bitch beforehand and possibly get something changed.

It's particularly ridiculous that Pete would suggest that the CD Watchdog column is the appropriate forum for discussing problems with the upcoming ABKCO's releases. For one thing, that's supposed to be for problems that are discovered AFTER a title is released. Second, anyone familiar with ABKCO knows that they are an incredibly tight-lipped group over there. I have not known them to publicly comment on ANY of their releases, which is why I find it so amazing that they'd even bother to talk to ICE in the first place. So I suspect that any inquiries from the CD Watchdog will be met with stoney silence.

[Richard Feirstein]

Sony's Dr. Demary of their technical SACD team, has replied to me that it is not only possible to include both the mono and stereo version on the SACD layer, but that they have actively discussed doing just that. He reports that the decision is not for the SACD team to make but for the label to make and that there have been such discussions. This was not specific to Universal, mind you.

Perhaps Universal is thinking that the red book and SACD layers need to be the same and there is on room for one or the other on the red book layer. Marketing decision in this new world must be difficult to make. I know what I would do.

The real question: Will Borders and other anti SACD retailers stock the new Stones releases?

[Henry Love]

Originally posted by Richard Feirstein
Sony's Dr. Demary of their technical SACD team, has replied to me that it is not only possible to include both the mono and stereo version on the SACD layer, but that they have actively discussed doing just that. He reports that the decision is not for the SACD team to make but for the label to make and that there have been such discussions. This was not specific to Universal, mind you.

Perhaps Universal is thinking that the red book and SACD layers need to be the same and there is on room for one or the other on the red book layer. Marketing decision in this new world must be difficult to make. I know what I would do.

The real question: Will Borders and other anti SACD retailers stock the new Stones releases? I would guess that having mono and stereo on the SACD layer would be a real plus for the SACD forces.These have to be right,the average consumer is not going to rebuy their Stones collection. Luke,Dolstein keep pushing.

[dolstein]

Originally posted by Richard Feirstein
Perhaps Universal is thinking that the red book and SACD layers need to be the same and there is on room for one or the other on the red book layer. Marketing decision in this new world must be difficult to make. I know what I would do.

The real question: Will Borders and other anti SACD retailers stock the new Stones releases?


Actually, it's shouldn't be all that unusual for the contents of the SACD and red book layers to be different. I'm sure Tubular Bells isn't the only hybrid release where the SACD layer contained two mixes (multi and stereo) and the CD layer contained only one. I can understand why ABKCO might be reluctant to include both mono and stereo mixes on the SACD layer if they have to pay additional royalties, but can anyone around here confirm that that is really the case? It seems odd to have to pay double the royalties by presenting the EXACT SAME performance twice, only in different mixes. In any event, there are so many examples of CDs, SACDs and DVD-A's that contain multiple mixes of the same album that it's hard to believe that including both the mono and stereo mixes would be cost prohibitive.




Edited for content by moderators.

[sapianalien]

This reminds me of a episode of Mash where Hawkeye and i think Trapper John
are at a press conference and the press guy says; This is a press conference and
the last thing i want to do, is answer abunch of questions!