|
|
| Number two |
Am I crazy or did The Stones not reissue No. 2, their second proper album? |
|
|
| riccardo |
You are right,Abkco released Now and 12x5 but not number 2,which I think it's only out on cd in Japan. |
|
|
| Number two |
Why on earth would they choose that as the only one not to release. I mean it is just baffling!! They released the two versions of Between the Buttons that differ only slightly but 12x5 and No. 2 differ greatly. |
|
|
| jean-pierrre M |
...and the first UK album.!!!... |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
J-P--
The only difference between Rolling Stones and ENH is that RS has Mona but not Not Fade Away. ENH is the reverse. Mona is also on Now! while Not Fade Away is on several hits packages. |
|
|
| Mr T |
what's on No. 2 that wasn't on any other album?
sorry, but I'm a youngin, I don't know |
|
|
| jean-pierrre M |
Stonesthrow..
...That's make a BIG difference.... |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
J-P--
Why does it make a BIG difference? |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
When the albums were first re-issued on CD in 1986, Abkco,(in their infinate wisdom)decided to only issue The American releases as they were seen to be more commercial, which was the record companie's, and the bands intention originally. The greatest market for any recorded music remains America so it makes perfect sense. What is missing on early American releases is brought up to speed with 'NOW', 'December's Children''Flowers', etc. |
|
|
| Number two |
But don't you think it would have been better to preserve the integrity of the original British releases? They obviously are aware of this issue, they released two versions of Aftermath and BTB. I just don't understand why they would not treat the early albums in the same manner. The problem with the Amercian releases is that, in order for one to have a "complete" Stones collection, one has to buy many songs several times over. I think it would have been best to release the original UK albums, the singles collection, and if there was anything left behind put it on the UK albums as bonus tracks or release a cd with just those on it, much like the Beatles' Past Masters set. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
Numer two, I agree with you whole-heartedly, continuity to a true fan is paramount in all cases, and I'm a right stickler for continuity, but you have to understand the mentality of record companies who don't give a fairies fart in hell for anything but PROFITS. Back in 1986 the CD format in all but America, and Japan was a largely oblique concept, not to mention costly. Abkco were taking a risk in re-releasing the back catalogue in the hope it would sell. Personally, at the time I very much doubted when CD hit Australia in 1985 that I would be prepared to up date my large collection of Stones records to the CD format, I still haven't bothered to replace those early UK releases, and wouldn't even if they were available on CD. But I digress! Abkco were looking at what would sell quickly in America, and that to their way of thinking was what American Stones fans were familiar with. Add to that the thinking that so many American compiliation albums were ear-marked for future release, and you have a recipie for never seeing those old UK albums seeing the CD light of day. How about The UK release 'ROLLED GOLD', still IMHO the best by a country mile, 60s compiliation as far as the old double album(vinyl)is concerned, it's never been released on CD, a crime if there ever was one. Record companies don't give a shit about continuity. |
|
|
| Number two |
Indeed, yet somehow EMI had the wisdom to treat the Beatles catelogue with the respect it deserves. Finally, Abkco had the chance to do the same, but omitting the first two UK albums is just unforgivable. My real question is: Don't The Stones have anything to do with these re-releases? |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
Well no they don't! You see Allen Klien is Abkco, and Abkco took over Decca/London, and until recently, as far as I'm aware The Stones were still unable to access anything which Klein(Abkco)had the rights to, which encompasses anything from 1963, to 1969. Even 'Brown Sugar'& 'Wild Horses', released 1971 are, or were owned by Klein. So I don't think, in fact I'm certain that The Stones could not dictate what, when, or how the 60s material was released. |
|
|
| masoudi |
apparently Klein has plans to do NO2 and the rolling stones in the sacd format. i read that in a Jody Klein interview. Heres hoping. I personally love the new releases and sadly sold all my London west german cd's to get them. The sound is better and Ive only got a standard cd player, the future joy of listening to SACD still awaites and the packaging is cool, would have liked better quality photos though. Will be interesting to see what the Japs do when they release tere versions in Novemeber. I may be coughing up for them as well as there releases are always kick ase. |
|
|
| Number two |
Yeah, other than the two flagrant fuck yous to the fans (the missing first two albums), I'm pretty happy with the new remasters. They are bare bones though, no liner notes, no cool photos, and no outtakes/bonus tracks. I was personally hoping that Get Yer Ya Yas Out would be given the delux treatment that some similar shows, The Who Live At Leeds being a great example, have seen. Since we're kind of on this topic- what about an official BBC sessions release! Does anyone know why we are being cheated out of this? I badgered the BBC into giving me a reply, this is what they said:
Thank you for your enquiry relating to the commercial release of
certain
artists from the BBC radio archive.
Basically, the reason why the likes of the Stones, Animals etc. haven't
been
released yet, is that the members of the groups themselves haven't
wanted
it. All the members of a band have to agree on this, and in the case of
Pink
Floyd for example, all the members of the group can't agree on a
release.
I'm sure that the record labels would be only too glad to make some
easy
back catalogue money from a release, but some bands don't seem to
realise
how many of us would like to hear their early efforts created in an old
BBC
studio.
I just hope that more are released in the future. As a Producer of most
of
the Rock and Pop Years part of our site, I've tried to include sessions
that
haven't been released commercially so far, so people can at least get
to
hear a sample of some of this great music that continues to be stuck in
the
archives.
All the Best,
Chris Dancy
Producer, Radio Online
> Room 4352, Broadcasting House
> London WC1A 1AA
What do you think? |
|
|
| egon |
quote:
gypsymofo60 wrote:
When the albums were first re-issued on CD in 1986, Abkco,(in their infinate wisdom)decided to only issue The American releases as they were seen to be more commercial, which was the record companie's, and the bands intention originally. The greatest market for any recorded music remains America so it makes perfect sense. What is missing on early American releases is brought up to speed with 'NOW', 'December's Children''Flowers', etc.
i thought that they re-issued everything in 1986 and only later pulled the uk versions. i bought a couple of uk ones about 10 years ago and only after that they stopped selling them... |
|
|
| Number two |
I was under the impression that only the U.S. butcher jobs were released. |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
I don't know about the rest of them, but I do have the Decca UK version of Aftermath made in Germany circa 1985. It sounds really good. All of my '60s Stones cds are the German Decca ones. However, only Aftermath and The Rolling Stones have the UK play lists. The rest have the US play lists. Whether US or UK, they sound much better than the ABKCO versions.
|
|
|
| Number two |
The legal status of those German Cds is questionable, at least that's what I was led to believe. Either way, Abkco doesn't seem to understand that they are not dealing with a pop teeny market anymore, the only people who are willing to shell out the bucks to purchase those albums actually care about things like integrity, continuity, and completeness(without redundancy). It's hard to be a Stones fan and watch other bands' catalogues from the same era get much better treatment. We have Deluxe remasters (with outtakes), Live deluxe remasters, BBC sessions, and more from The Beatles, The Kinks, The Yardbirds, The Who, etc. But even in the new millenium we have to suffer with the American fuck ups instead of the original British releases. And then for them to concentrate on yet another greatest hits package instead of releasing vault material??? That's just what all the real Stones fans need, to buy Brown Sugar one more god damn time! Is this all the fault of Klein? |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
egon wrote:
i thought that they re-issued everything in 1986 and only later pulled the uk versions. i bought a couple of uk ones about 10 years ago and only after that they stopped selling them...
..You maybe right egon! Because last night I noticed that the liner booklet for the '86 release of 'Let It Bleed'& a few others does show that the original UK releases were available at that time, well some of them anyway, such as the debut album, and 'Aftermath'. It seems the original line up for CD release through Abkco/London/Decca is as follows. 'The Rolling Stones'-UK...12times5-US....'Out Of Our Heads'-US...'Now'-US...'DEC. Children'-US...'Got Live'-US...'Aftermath'-UK..Between The Buttons'-US.. 'Flowers'-US. It becomes more& more confusing, of course everything post 'BTB'is the same for both US& UK. |
|
|
| egon |
gypsy,
think your list is correct.
looked in some books and it seems the "rolling stones" & aftermath were the only uk ones they put on cd. the rest are the us versions.
though must say none of the books are very clear about it,
as they talk about seperate american (london) and uk/europe (abkco) releases.
(and digital re-releases, and special limited releases and...)
|
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
As a matter of fact egon, this has become quite an annoyance for me. I'm trying to organise all my Stones stuff chronologicaly, and every fucking discography I've got says something different. Did you ever see the debut album(UK), or 'Aftermath'(UK)on CD? |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
Did you not read my post about five up the line? That is exactly what I said about my Decca cds. All US play lists except RS and Aftermath which are the UK lists. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
Stonesthrow wrote:
Did you not read my post about five up the line? That is exactly what I said about my Decca cds. All US play lists except RS and Aftermath which are the UK lists.
..Sorry Stonesthrow! I'm not paying enough attention. You're right about The German Cds, much better, that's why I'm quite happy with my CDs. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
Stonesthrow wrote:
I don't know about the rest of them, but I do have the Decca UK version of Aftermath made in Germany circa 1985. It sounds really good. All of my '60s Stones cds are the German Decca ones. However, only Aftermath and The Rolling Stones have the UK play lists. The rest have the US play lists. Whether US or UK, they sound much better than the ABKCO versions.
My 'Let It Bleed' is French, and it's also very good! |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
A radio station here in Australia has been playing a version of 'Satisfaction' that I have never heard anywhere else. It is the original 1965 recording alright but, there is one very discernable difference, the acoustic guitar is very forward, and to the fore in the mix. I have listened to all sorts of compilations from 'Hot Rocks', to 40 Licks, and have still to hear such a clean & crisp recording of this song, mind you it may have something to do with the equipment that this station use I suppose. |
|
|
| egon |
gypsy,
have "rolling stones" (1st uk album) and afermath (uk as well as us version)
but don't know if they where brought out by
london or abkco or decca.
quality wise can't compare, cos have no other copies.
|
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
egon wrote:
gypsy,
have "rolling stones" (1st uk album) and afermath (uk as well as us version)
but don't know if they where brought out by
london or abkco or decca.
quality wise can't compare, cos have no other copies.
Egon, it should tell you on the face side of the disc where it was made. That then will be an indication of the disc quality. My copies of Beggars& Bleed were apparently released by Abkco,London& Decca, so there you go. I suppose at the end of the day it doesn't matter who actually did the releasing so long as you get good sound quality which thankfully I do with a little help from decent stereo gear.The only problem I've ever really encountered was with The London Years collection which seems a bit shall we say, muddy. Hey! But I'm still rapped that CDs with a little tender loving care don't distort, you shoulda heard my recordsgggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrshhhhhhhtt But I Like ittttttttsssssssssssddddd |
|
|
| egon |
how can there be a difference in sound between, let's say, german "pressings" and american ones.
i mean it's all digitally put on cd, right?
with albums i understand, cos it all depends how you press them, and the quality of the "press" etc.
???
will have a closer look this eve at my cd's this eve gypsy! |
|
|
| Moonisup |
The stones are the most difficult band to follow when it comes to releases on Lp and cd's from the sixties, I'd like to have some US releases on cd, but man it's hard to find!
A needle in a heistek
rik |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]