| September 8th, 2004 04:24 PM |
|
|
| Chris Diemoz |
Live Licks supposedly delayed. More on chris73.blog.com.
Ciao,
Chris |
| September 8th, 2004 04:27 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Why? Why?? Oh why??? |
| September 8th, 2004 05:20 PM |
|
|
| mickmask |
Heard that one too.. but got it from a 'reliable' source that its still a go.
mm. |
| September 8th, 2004 08:11 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Why? Why?? Oh why???
Maybe they still have a little of honour or shame? |
| September 9th, 2004 01:07 PM |
|
|
| Stones |
Maybe they want to give Jump Back some room ? |
| September 9th, 2004 01:58 PM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Maybe waiting on Charlie to get healthy to do the overdubs? |
| September 9th, 2004 04:17 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
I have enough Live Licks already. |
| September 9th, 2004 10:05 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
Dan wrote:
I have enough Live Licks already.
That sure! |
| September 10th, 2004 03:00 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Test Spin: The Rolling Stones
Jump Back: '71 to '83
September 09, 2004
by Erica Stein
Red Letter Daze Staff Writer
A royal rock conundrum: you want to cash in some more on your amazing legacy by issuing yet another greatest hits album, one covering your later (and less famous) material. But any kind of chronological compilation will demonstrate the exact logistics of your decline and fall. But you really want that money. What to do?
If you're The Rolling Stones, simply continue to claim that your modern material is the equal of your youthful genius and stick tracks from Sticky Fingers throughout the entire compilation. Jump Back: The Best of the Rolling Stones '71- '93 manages to make witnessing the descent of the Stones from unfuckingbelieveable to mediocre less painful than it usually is.
The track order plays fast and loose with history, anchoring the center with Exile and the end with Some Girls, so we get to ignore almost the entirety of the unfortunate '80s. There's actually an intelligence behind the selection. We're usually too busy drowning in Jagger's honey and gravel voice and the masterful guitar weaving of Richards and Jones/Taylor/Wood to notice, but every Stones song is built from and around the bass and drums. Almost all the tracks on the album, from "Tumbling Dice" (tied with "Sweet Jane" for best song in the history of everything) to "Undercover," are anchored by a syncopated line from Wyman and precision percussion from Watts.
This approach allows the freakish chordal complexity of "Mixed Emotions" and the warmth of "Waiting on a Friend" to shine.
The only thing keeping Jump Back from truly being a "best of" is the omission of "Slipping Away" -- the best Stones song for five years in either direction -- and the inclusion of the excretion that is "Angie" over the sublime "Winter."
|
| September 10th, 2004 03:03 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Well, she sounds like a true fan. yet the only song she outright wishes had been dropped is "Angie." I think "Jump Back" is completely unnecessary since 40 Licks was released but maybe some warehouse in Bulgaria was overflowing with unsold Euro copies. |
| September 10th, 2004 03:11 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
I agree -- I thought the review was actually pretty much dead on -- except I am not quite sure how she heard any weaving from Brian Jones on an album the chronicles '71 on.
|
| September 10th, 2004 03:17 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
And how much weaving did he & Keith do even when he was alive? |
| September 10th, 2004 03:19 PM |
|
|
| T&A |
I think we can all live just fine without yet another lame live album full of overdubs. I imagine most of us have more boots from the tour than we'll ever really need. I frankly hope they drop the whole thing.... |
| September 10th, 2004 03:19 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
They both weaved quite a bit -- just not together!!!
[Edited by nankerphelge] |
| September 10th, 2004 03:25 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
"witnessing the descent of the Stones from unfuckingbelieveable to mediocre less painful than it usually is".
That hurts! |
| September 10th, 2004 07:33 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Jump Back is selling well, they delayed Live Licks for this reason... |
| September 10th, 2004 11:02 PM |
|
|
| LadyJane |
Nasty little review. I withhold my opinion until I actually listen to it.
LJ. |
| September 11th, 2004 04:11 AM |
|
|
| stones-addict |
I heard that the release date has been pushed back one month to October 27, 2004 because of poor sales of the Jump Back rerelease, and to put the album closer to the Christmas market. |
| September 11th, 2004 10:11 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
stones-addict wrote:
I heard that the release date has been pushed back one month to October 27, 2004 because of poor sales of the Jump Back rerelease, and to put the album closer to the Christmas market.
Poor sales?
The album sold 51,000 copies on two weeks and will sell stady for weeks... |
| September 13th, 2004 05:06 AM |
|
|
| stones-addict |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
Poor sales?
The album sold 51,000 copies on two weeks and will sell stady for weeks...
I've prolly been misinformed about the Jump Back sales...It happens. Besides, even with the Jump Back rerelease selling strong, having a second Stones album on the market would seriously impact the large number of sales made to casual fans. Many people would choose one or the other, but not buy both. If the releases are staggered, more money will filter into the pockets of those greedy Virgin fatcats... |
| September 13th, 2004 06:14 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Billboard position? |
| September 13th, 2004 01:54 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Billboard position?
First week #30, second week #52...
I'm sure that the album will be on the lowers positions 101-200 positions for a long time and selling not less than 5,000 copies for weeks. |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]