Rolling Stones to remaster post 1970 albums

I wasn't talking about sonics, because that might be pretty subjetive, I'm jus talking about remasters contents

In these days, if remasters don't include bonus tracks and/or alt mixes and/or outtakes,altogether with exciting booklet and/or special package, etc then (JUST TALKING ABOUT CONTENTS) is crap, crap on toast :thumbsdn:

 

And I would agree with him - in most cases.

 

I could agree with him about the box sets too, but that doesnt stop them putting out Deluxe editions of all those albums with a bonus disc or two of rarities, b-sides, out-takes, live material etc or a dvd of live stuff too. There is plenty of great Stones material that could be added to each album to provide a reason to go out and buy these again happily. And it would be relatively easily digestible too, as it would come in bite sized pieces rather than a 4 or 5 disc set which would be hard to listen to all at once.

Steve

 

But at least Genesis threw in all sorts of archival stuff, and you can still get the original mixes used. If the Stones offered a similar reissue program, I wouldn't care that the remastered albums are iffy - I'd want them just for the bonus stuff. I still have the old albums, so the bonus materials are the only real draw.

 

Agreed. Weren't those supposed to be the be-all, end-all in 1994? Is there some reason they're supposed to convince us they can do them better NOW?

 

CCR? Zombies? Pet Sounds?

 

I`m really interested in hearing Sticky Fingers,although I don`t have unrealistic expectations.
I`m hoping for some live material with Exile.

 

New record company having the license to sell them.

 

Where any of those hyped as being the greatest, truest EVER when they came out?

And is anyone claiming the new "Pet Sounds" will necessarily top the old one? I've not even see Steve claim it'll be a definite improvement...

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Are the Rolling Stones discs? Does it matter?

I seem to remember the CCR discs being claimed "best ever" back when they were released on SACD.

 

Remember "Tattoo You". The Stones wouldn't admit that the songs consisted of unfinished outtakes from the middle-'70s, especially as they were much stronger than their latest "true" studio album, "Emotional Rescue"

We all know that the band has long been past its prime but Jagger has been successfully able to put into the audience's minds, even during half a second during a show, that they can be as fresh and energetic as ever. It shows the Stones as a contemporary band, not the huge oldies act they are in almost any aspect.

If the band is still relevant, it has to focus on new "material" and new tours instead of delivering impressive recordings from the past that would bring negative comparisions with the present from the media and the fanbase. It's all about maintaining an image, an illusion, something Jagger is very strong with.

You can be sure that, when the band is really over, archive releases will be carefully planned for decades.

 

Heck, lots of will be six feet under by then....

I think that with the physical product situation now, Mick and Keith don't see it <archival releases> as worth the trouble, probably. As someone else said, they make much more $ touring, which seems to be the case with most musicians these days. That is unless your new album sells a million copies!

They may not want to shell out royalties to Mick Taylor and/or Bill Wyman for some of the really vintage material, that may be part of it as well, who knows. Probably lots of legal hassles involved.

 

Another problem attaches to the way the Stones tended to record material starting with their very earliest efforts: multiple sessions in multiple studios. I wouldn't be surprised if the "important" stuff--e.g. the album masters--is well organized and everything else is scattered to the four corners. Heck, nobody's touched most of the multitracks in years! Trudging through this material to find worthwhile stuff would probably be a full-time job.

 

Until the SACDs were assembled, even the 'important' stuff was strewn around the world. It was quite an exercise to track down the authoritative masters for those discs. I trust that material is now under lock and key, but who knows about the rest.

 

That isn't the material being discussed here.

 

Right - we're talking about "Sticky Fingers" forwards, not backwards.

I've mentioned this before, but in the "Being Mick" dvd, these's a scene in which Jagger displays a room full of master tapes/reels, etc. he is currently in possesion of.
I'll have to watch that again, but there was a bunch of them - I remember being quite impressed Mick had managed to secure all that stuff!

He's a slick old bird, nothing left to chance where his business is concerned.

 

I remember checking out some of the titles on the tape box reels shown in "Being Mick", but my hopes were deflated when they turned out to be some of the less-than-enthralling material from around the time of Black and Blue...hardly my favorite Stones period.

As for Mick's business prowess, his failure to authorize Universal to do Deluxe Editions is starting to make me wonder if his prowess is a bit exaggerated, and he's morphing into another Dave Clark.

 

Well, as I stated in my post, I don't think there's too much $ in deluxe editions anymore, really. Hey, it's 2009! Only us harcore fans buy these things anymore. I'd actually like to see the sales numbers - that would be an eye-opener. I know the US label miscalculated the popularity of The Who's "Sell Out" DE, and a second pressing has already happened. I've also seen countless DE's sit on the shelves endlessly until someone got a 40% off coupon or something and snagged them.

As for seeing reels from "Black & Blue", man, that's a good thing. They did countless auditions with a LOT of great guiarists for that LP. That's also not that recent, either, when you think about it. 30+ years?!

I'm going to watch that damn dvd tonight and see what's doin' - I haven't watched it since it came out. I remember everyone hated it, and I thought it was ok. Kept it, anyway....you can hardly give that puppy away on Ebay or Amazon.

 

I recall a lot of hype about the 1994 remasters being such an advance over earlier releases.

And if it doesn't matter, why did you argue with me about it in the first place?

 

Speaking of that, almost all of us here know that somehow TONS of unreleased stuff by the Stones has leaked out over the years. Anyone that wants it, no problem - it's out there on the net now in spades. Now THERE's a story - how did all this stuff get out? Did Keith hand over tapes to fast aquaintances or did roadies/studio help boost thier meager incomes by snagging this stuff?
At any rate, although there's no way of knowing for sure, I'd almost bet the "lion's share" of unreleased stuff is already floating around. The band obviously know this, too.
I don't think this is the case with Dave Clark. Nobody has been asking for his out-takes, etc., just good cd masterings of his recorded output. Big difference! All this is just my own speculation, mind you.
I'll bet I'm not the only one who'd like to have a few weeks to investigate Mick's stash and any others....

 

Well, think about the classic albums that might still sell in respectable amounts if a Deluxe Edition were prepared. Mainly Beatles, Stones, and Zeppelin albums, I would think. Those are probably three of the only groups where a deluxe version could be marketed to a group bigger than the core fanbase (us). None of these groups have done DEs.

As thrilled as I am that the Who, for example, are continuing to do DEs, I don't realistically think that the average Joe looking to pick up a Who CD—maybe he already owns the Ultimate Collection or Who's Next—is going to shell out for a DE of Sell Out. But a more "legendary" album like Pepper or IV might still be able to generate a bit of hype.

 

Like, say, the hype over the DCC Pet Sounds? Is anyone complaining that it was remastered again?

Hype is universal (pun unintended). As is doing things over and over. Regardless of marketing, my guess is most people honestly they believe they can do a better job than the people that came before them. Or even a better job than they themselves previously did.

The fact that a new label has acquired the rights to the catalog makes it all a no-brainer.

You brought it up! Even if they *were* hyped as being the "best ever"...so what?

 

That's possible, but it's all speculation now - and the industry is run by "bean-counters" and stockholders who probably don't share your optimism.

Maybe the Stones could start a website that sold "alternate/unreleased" recordings? That may be a model that would jibe with current music-buying trends. Has anyone really been successful doing this, though? Almost a "niche" thing, really. I think you're giving the Stones a lot more credit than they will get from the physical-media buying public nowadays.
I know, It's a bitter pill, and all that, but it may be the way things are going.
All signs point in that direction, I'm afraid.

How many DE's have to sell in order for the label to begin earning a profit?

"Exile" may do it, and, I'll be danged, that's the one they have earmarked for DE treatment. Lots of things could change by the projected release date of October 2009, though.

Don't get me wrong - I'd LOVE to see DE's of all the Stones cds. I'd buy every one <well, almost> but I'm just being realistic.