Post by Jed March 14, 2005 (1 of 8)
|
|
About 2-1/2 years ago, the Rolling Stones albums through "Let it Bleed" were released on SACD. Since then, none of the later albums have appeared in SACD ("Sticky Fingers" onward). Why not? Am I correct in assuming that it is because they formed their own record company after "Let it Bleed", and who owns rights to the recordings?
|
|
|
Post by zem06 March 14, 2005 (2 of 8)
|
|
Jed said:
About 2-1/2 years ago, the Rolling Stones albums through "Let it Bleed" were released on SACD. Since then, none of the later albums have appeared in SACD ("Sticky Fingers" onward). Why not? Am I correct in assuming that it is because they formed their own record company after "Let it Bleed", and who owns rights to the recordings?
Virgin owns the rights to the Stones albums from Sticky Fingers onwards (though you'll find 'Brown Sugar' and 'Wild Horses' from that album on the Hot Rocks SACD). Virgin will release 'Made in the Shade' and 'Sucking in the 70's', two best-ofs on RBCD this month, with a new album and (still unconfirmed) tour to follow. An SACD tie-in of both old and new material would be perfect, especially given Virgin's great track record with Peter Gabriel and Roxy Music.
|
|
|
Post by Jed March 15, 2005 (3 of 8)
|
|
zem05 said:
Virgin owns the rights to the Stones albums from Sticky Fingers onwards (though you'll find 'Brown Sugar' and 'Wild Horses' from that album on the Hot Rocks SACD).
Yes, I have the Hot Rocks LP and old RBCD. Yesterday I got "High tide and green grass" and "Through the past darkly" because I thought they were a better buy than Hot Rocks. These two are about 38 minutes each, so it looks like they could have added some songs to them, but they didn't. And they're stereo and mono only (no MC), so there sould be plenty of room. Actually both could be on one disc, but that's another issue...
|
|
|
Post by veltri March 15, 2005 (4 of 8)
|
|
zem05 said:
Virgin owns the rights to the Stones albums from Sticky Fingers onwards (though you'll find 'Brown Sugar' and 'Wild Horses' from that album on the Hot Rocks SACD). Virgin will release 'Made in the Shade' and 'Sucking in the 70's', two best-ofs on RBCD this month, with a new album and (still unconfirmed) tour to follow. An SACD tie-in of both old and new material would be perfect, especially given Virgin's great track record with Peter Gabriel and Roxy Music.
From the Hot Rocks SACD, "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses" are definite standouts.
The sound quality on these songs is on par with the "Beggars Banquet" and "Let it Bleed" SACD's.
What a tease!
|
|
|
Post by zem06 March 16, 2005 (5 of 8)
|
|
Jed said:
Yes, I have the Hot Rocks LP and old RBCD. Yesterday I got "High tide and green grass" and "Through the past darkly" because I thought they were a better buy than Hot Rocks. These two are about 38 minutes each, so it looks like they could have added some songs to them, but they didn't. And they're stereo and mono only (no MC), so there sould be plenty of room. Actually both could be on one disc, but that's another issue...
I forgot to mention this in yesterday's post, but 'Wild Horses' and 'Brown Sugar' are also available on the three-SACD 'Singles Collection: The London Years', for my money the best Stones compilation on the market. All of the Stone's UK A/B-sides are here, running times are generous, and repeats from great albums such as 'Beggars Banquet' (4), 'Let it Bleed' (the single edit of 'You Can't Always Get...'), and 'Get yer ya-ya's out' (0) are kept to a minimum.
|
|
|
Post by Jed March 17, 2005 (6 of 8)
|
|
zem05 said:
I forgot to mention this in yesterday's post, but 'Wild Horses' and 'Brown Sugar' are also available on the three-SACD 'Singles Collection: The London Years', for my money the best Stones compilation on the market.
Yes, i might should have gone that route instead. I wasn't going to buy both Hot Rocks and the two G.H. (too much duplication, of course). But I think you're right about the singles collection.
|
|
|
Post by Jed March 17, 2005 (7 of 8)
|
|
veltri said:
From the Hot Rocks SACD, "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses" are definite standouts.
The sound quality on these songs is on par with the "Beggars Banquet" and "Let it Bleed" SACD's.
Speaking of that, it seems to me that the earlier Stones material was recorded very poorly (same thing for the Who). Why was is recorded so poorly? Did they try to make it sound bad? Didn't think it mattered? Didn't care?
|
|
|
Post by zem06 March 18, 2005 (8 of 8)
|
|
Jed said:
Speaking of that, it seems to me that the earlier Stones material was recorded very poorly (same thing for the Who). Why was is recorded so poorly? Did they try to make it sound bad? Didn't think it mattered? Didn't care?
I read a Keith Richards interview in which he stated that aside from recording in the same studio as his idols, the biggest thrill in recording at Chess was to finally hear a bass guitar recorded properly. I think it took a while for UK studios to catch up in this area. Another problem was that once the Stones had broken through in the US with 'Satisfaction', they were kept on the road, with recording sessions squeezed in at various studios along the way. The Beatles were on the same two albums per year + singles + touring + promotional work schedule, but they had the advantage of a home studio and a veteran producer in George Martin to keep up with their creativity. The Stones didn't find such a combination until Jimmy Miller started producing them with 'Jumpin' Jack Flash', and a shift to an album-oriented market and less touring meant that they could spend more time polishing their material.
|
|
