| October 11th, 2004 03:43 AM |
|
|
| JumpingKentFlash |
Gazza my man: It's a year after. That's right. But if they released some new live material from the seventies or sixties everyone would buy it. And that's 30-40 years ago.
I really do see your point. It's true that the CD is badly-timed, commercial and lazy. But it is also for the casuals (YES, that is relevant IMO). Don't you have a hard time dealing with that? 'Cause it seems that way. I had a hard time with it too, but then I got to thinking.
(And BTW: Even if the tracks are as listed (venue-wise) it's still gonna be better than No Security, Got Live If You Want It and Still Life.........don't you agree my pal)???
[Edited by JumpingKentFlash] |
| October 11th, 2004 05:49 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
JumpingKentFlash wrote:
Gazza my man: It's a year after. That's right. But if they released some new live material from the seventies or sixties everyone would buy it. And that's 30-40 years ago.
I really do see your point. It's true that the CD is badly-timed, commercial and lazy. But it is also for the casuals (YES, that is relevant IMO). Don't you have a hard time dealing with that? 'Cause it seems that way. I had a hard time with it too, but then I got to thinking.
(And BTW: Even if the tracks are as listed (venue-wise) it's still gonna be better than No Security, Got Live If You Want It and Still Life.........don't you agree my pal)???
[Edited by JumpingKentFlash]
Kent, I admire your enthusiasm. I just dont share it in this case. This is the FIRST time to me that the Stones have sanctioned the release of a album/CD that has NO point to it whatsoever. I've never got that excited about live albums anyway - that may be due to the fact that I collect every show I get my hands on - but I dont expect/want the band to cater just for the taste of people like myself. I'm the first to admit that my level of "fandom" is in a minority.
However, the Stones are the only band I know of who release a live album from every tour. I think after a while it becomes a bit pointless. They keep doing it, yet the whole concept of live albums from any artist now is very passe in an age when people generally prefer a visual document of a tour as opposed to an audio one. Last year the Stones put out what IMO was the greatest live DVD ever made by anyone. A brilliant release, not only in it's concept, but in it's packaging and in the quality of the material on it. It rendered once and for all the idea of the live album as redundant. It also featured a great cross section of familiar and unfamiliar material. Great for everyone and it's release date (just after the tour and in time for the Christmas season) was perfect.
Putting out a live album full of songs from a one year old DVD is a completely shitty idea. Pure and simple. I dont think its better than those other live albums you mentioned because the timing of their release was OK and they werent pointless as there wasnt a huge selling live video/DVD already released from the tour which consisted of the same performances.
To me, the Stones down the years have always been a byword for quality. Even if they put out a studio album that wasnt their best, they were at least trying to put something out that wasnt a contract filler or a complete waste of time. They also bitched for years about the way Decca would reissue and repackage old material after they left the label with no imagination or care for quality control. This is much the same thing IMO. With previous live albums they made an effort, whether it was in the song selection or the concept. With this release, they have put NO creative or artistic input into it worth a damn.
I'm not actually that bothered either way whether they release live material from the 60's and 70's. I'd actually prefer something new than rehashed stuff and actually, I disagree that everyone would buy such a release. Personally speaking, I dont think it would sell well at all (I'd imagine half of the people who go to Stones shows these days probably dont even know who Mick Taylor is anyway and I've been at Stones shows on the last two tours where I've actually overheard people asking where Bill Wyman was..). I'd rather that if they DID put that stuff out they did it when the band was no longer active, but it's no big deal to me either way. |
| October 11th, 2004 07:01 AM |
|
|
| F505 |
In short:
the rolling stones-releasing-a-live-album-concept is completely milked out.
If their upcoming (?) studio album sucks I personally think it will be the end. |
| October 11th, 2004 09:39 AM |
|
|
| justforyou |
But F505, you have wanted them to retire for years already....don't you regret your opinion ? |
| October 11th, 2004 10:38 AM |
|
|
| JumpingKentFlash |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Kent, I admire your enthusiasm. I just dont share it in this case. This is the FIRST time to me that the Stones have sanctioned the release of a album/CD that has NO point to it whatsoever. I've never got that excited about live albums anyway - that may be due to the fact that I collect every show I get my hands on - but I dont expect/want the band to cater just for the taste of people like myself. I'm the first to admit that my level of "fandom" is in a minority.
However, the Stones are the only band I know of who release a live album from every tour. I think after a while it becomes a bit pointless. They keep doing it, yet the whole concept of live albums from any artist now is very passe in an age when people generally prefer a visual document of a tour as opposed to an audio one. Last year the Stones put out what IMO was the greatest live DVD ever made by anyone. A brilliant release, not only in it's concept, but in it's packaging and in the quality of the material on it. It rendered once and for all the idea of the live album as redundant. It also featured a great cross section of familiar and unfamiliar material. Great for everyone and it's release date (just after the tour and in time for the Christmas season) was perfect.
Putting out a live album full of songs from a one year old DVD is a completely shitty idea. Pure and simple. I dont think its better than those other live albums you mentioned because the timing of their release was OK and they werent pointless as there wasnt a huge selling live video/DVD already released from the tour which consisted of the same performances.
To me, the Stones down the years have always been a byword for quality. Even if they put out a studio album that wasnt their best, they were at least trying to put something out that wasnt a contract filler or a complete waste of time. They also bitched for years about the way Decca would reissue and repackage old material after they left the label with no imagination or care for quality control. This is much the same thing IMO. With previous live albums they made an effort, whether it was in the song selection or the concept. With this release, they have put NO creative or artistic input into it worth a damn.
I'm not actually that bothered either way whether they release live material from the 60's and 70's. I'd actually prefer something new than rehashed stuff and actually, I disagree that everyone would buy such a release. Personally speaking, I dont think it would sell well at all (I'd imagine half of the people who go to Stones shows these days probably dont even know who Mick Taylor is anyway and I've been at Stones shows on the last two tours where I've actually overheard people asking where Bill Wyman was..). I'd rather that if they DID put that stuff out they did it when the band was no longer active, but it's no big deal to me either way.
Well Gazza. Maybe it is pass�, and releasing live albums is something gone old. But you know as well as I do that the Stones are timeless. You won't buy it and that's cool with me. And another thing: Love You Live was a contract filler in every sense of the word. But it still rocks. They just happened to put out a live album at a time when you and I liked their style of playing. Not much went in to making that artistically.
Maybe it's a contract filler (Anyone know what it says in the contract???). I agree in it not being the best idea they've had (lousy timing), but still it's the Stones. Still a byword for quality for me anyway.
(BTW: The Stones haven't released live material from the tours of '73, '78 or 72 to name a few......just a minor correction)
Still Life had Let's Spend The Night Together not long after and I wouldn't be without that one. It's great.
Let me ask you this to end this post: If they released their very first concert at the Marquee in good quality wouldn't you buy it???
(I'm glad to have a person against me for a change. Sometimes it gets too much with the "WE LOVE STONES ALWAYS AND FOREVER" thing. Thanks to Gazza for that). |
| October 11th, 2004 11:00 AM |
|
|
| orjan |
Not sure if this has been mentioned but according to swedish newspaper G�teborgs Posten "That�s how strong..." and "Worried.." are from the show at The Circus in Stockholm.
�rjan |
| October 11th, 2004 02:11 PM |
|
|
| marko |
WEll,everyone would buy Marquee stuff.And love you live was
a contract filler,but that had EL MOCAMBO side,and few songs
from 75 usa tour.And by the time this came out,they were
allready working on some girls. |
| October 11th, 2004 02:30 PM |
|
|
| M.O.W.A.T. |
"However, the Stones are the only band I know of who release a live album from every tour."
Actually, Rush started this practice.
I will buy this album although I wish they would have put the songs in order of an actual concert. |
| October 11th, 2004 02:53 PM |
|
|
| F505 |
quote:
justforyou wrote:
But F505, you have wanted them to retire for years already....don't you regret your opinion ?
My opinion is they should have stopped years ago. But on the other hand I was still hoping they'd make a sensational come back like Dylan with Oh Mercy. Unfortunately that has not happened. No one except their most devoted fans considers the band as musically important nowadays. And live they are coming to a point where they put their reputation at stake. |
| October 11th, 2004 05:34 PM |
|
|
| JumpingKentFlash |
quote:
F505 wrote:
My opinion is they should have stopped years ago. But on the other hand I was still hoping they'd make a sensational come back like Dylan with Oh Mercy. Unfortunately that has not happened. No one except their most devoted fans considers the band as musically important nowadays. And live they are coming to a point where they put their reputation at stake.
Don't you think Steel Wheels was a HUGE comeback??? Voodoo Lounge was also a BIG succes. Do you honestly believe that the Stones give a flying fuck if they are musically important??? How are they putting their rep at stake??? They did somewhat on the Licks Tour because they didn't have an album to tour behind (But it was still one of the best tours EVER). But on the next tour they will, and at that time I will be looking when you're eating your words.
I don't think the band is musically important (read: Innovative regarding the whole music business) anymore. But they are to themselves. THE BAND evolves. Don't you think that B2B was far away from the VL style??? Well I can tell you it was. |
| October 11th, 2004 08:40 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
However, the Stones are the only band I know of who release a live album from every tour. I think after a while it becomes a bit pointless. They keep doing it, yet the whole concept of live albums from any artist now is very passe in an age when people generally prefer a visual document of a tour as opposed to an audio one. Last year the Stones put out what IMO was the greatest live DVD ever made by anyone.
Good point. I've come to prefer the video/DVD of the tours over the albums. I throw them on quite a bit, the video really adds something to the experience, especially when coupled with a decent home theatre system.
I rarely buy/listen to the live albums anymore, they suck, especially when there's better live bootlegs from the tours widely available.
I thought FF was a great concept, nicely priced, and was satisfied with it as is, I've gotten a lot of milage out of it. It would be nice if they continued something like the FF concept in the future, instead of the standard live album. |
| October 11th, 2004 09:11 PM |
|
|
| exilestones@netscape |
quote:
orjan wrote:
Not sure if this has been mentioned but according to swedish newspaper G�teborgs Posten "That�s how strong..." and "Worried.." are from the show at The Circus in Stockholm.
�rjan
I read in another newsgroup that Worried was from Stockholm. I also read that Stockholm Cirkus was recorded and we know most of it was excellent. |
| October 11th, 2004 09:27 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Not much differences at all, this release is ridiculous. |
| October 14th, 2004 06:48 AM |
|
|
| Zeeta |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Just because we're happy theyre going to tour and record again doesnt mean we should all be having some kind of cyberwank because theyre 'kind' enough to throw something substandard 'product' at us
"Cyberwank" pure genius! |
| October 14th, 2004 06:56 AM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
quote:
JumpingKentFlash wrote:
Do you honestly believe that the Stones give a flying fuck if they are musically important??? How are they putting their rep at stake???
they do
quote:
How are they putting their rep at stake???
by not playing well (the guitarplayers) and that they are more and more relying on the sidemusicians. |
| October 14th, 2004 07:13 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
JumpingKentFlash wrote:
>Well Gazza. Maybe it is pass�, and releasing live albums is something gone old. But you know as well as I do that the Stones are timeless. You won't buy it and that's cool with me.
oh I didnt say I WOULDNT buy it. LOL. I might be pissed at the idea but when it comes down to it, I'm an idiot for the Stones and I freely admit it. But Ive bought every Stones album in the last 25 years on the day it was released. I doubt I'll be so enthusiastic about this one.
> And another thing: Love You Live was a contract filler in every sense of the word. But it still rocks. They just happened to put out a live album at a time when you and I liked their style of playing. Not much went in to making that artistically.
actually, Kent. I hate "Love You Live". Apart from the El Mocambo songs which I think are terrific, I find it almost unlistenable. The '76 tour was the nadir of their career for me as far as live shows are concerned. I MUCH prefer the Stones as a live band NOW to then. That said, everything on LYL was material that we didnt already own officially. Thats the difference. I wouldnt say not much went into it artistically. Theres about 8-10 shows documented on that record and they spent months working on it, with overdubs,editing,remixing etc as well as picking the songs they felt were best.(Obviously whether there should be so much overdubbing on a live album is another argument but my point is they WORKED on it) I'd doubt there was much work done in putting LL together.
>Maybe it's a contract filler (Anyone know what it says in the contract???).
I'd imagine its an "option" on their contract. Their contract was for three studio albums plus the repackaging rights to their back catalogue from 1971 onwards. To date on their current deal they have delivered two studio albums and this is their THIRD live album.
> I agree in it not being the best idea they've had (lousy timing), but still it's the Stones. Still a byword for quality for me anyway.
there we disagree. The Stones used to stand for quality. Now they stand for "cash-ins" (live albums of already officially available songs,cheesy overpriced merchandise, endless repackaged hits albums, ludicrously priced rip off fan clubs, overpriced concert tickets with the best seats ciphoned off to ticket brokers, corporate pigs and high rollers, private concerts for billionaires). More often than not, those ventures outnumber the "quality" ones.
>(BTW: The Stones haven't released live material from the tours of '73, '78 or 72 to name a few......just a minor correction)
every world tour since 75 has had a live album. And the only reason why there wasnt a live album from 1972-73 was for contractual problems with ABCKO over the pre-1971 material.
>Still Life had Let's Spend The Night Together not long after and I wouldn't be without that one. It's great.
different songs though. fair enough to release them both. (and the songs on LSTNT were almost all edited!)
>Let me ask you this to end this post: If they released their very first concert at the Marquee in good quality wouldn't you buy it???
absolutely. I'm a completist. I'd also think it was a worthy release as its something we've never had before.
>(I'm glad to have a person against me for a change. Sometimes it gets too much with the "WE LOVE STONES ALWAYS AND FOREVER" thing. Thanks to Gazza for that).
LOL..youre welcome. I respect your opinion, even if I dont happen to always agree with it. 
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]