| October 12th, 2004 12:05 AM |
|
|
| masoudi |
I have read with interest the criticism by members on the board about the latest Live release as well as the lack of a vinyl edition if this is the case.
I agree that it is a shame that there wasnt a vinyl release for Forty licks and possibly the new one Live Licks . What I dont get though is that this is the Stones fault. Dont the record companies make these decisions??? Why are the Stones being called money whores. Surely it is the record company Virgin Records who have made the decision of the Live Licks release and if or not there will be a vinyl edition.
Why do the Stones get blamed for the release. I presume they sign a deal for x amount of albums and the record company has the choice as to whether they want to add in live and greatest hits albums.
I look forward to an answer.
As far as Im concerned they can release what ever they want, when they want, how they want. How many other fans would love to be in our position after 40 years. Why do people throw their toys at a new release as if they are owed a particular product. Bloody hell by all reports we are going to get another studio album, a new tour and Ive got about another 40 years of record company releases once the boys do retire.
How do true fans feel they are being shafted if the Stones or the record company decide to put out a live album, even if many of the tracks we have heard before. Do the stones have to apologise for longevity??
Im still recovering from being front row at the enmore theatre about 2metres from Mick and the boys one and a half years ago. Ten years ago i thought i would never see the boys and now ive seen them 13 times. And they are still releasing product, what the hell would i have to complain about???
Brendon
PS How many of you moaners are going to act all tough and hard now bitching and complaining but as soon as that Live album is released youll be strutting out of that store straight home with a smile on your face, with a new cd in your hand. I know I will be anyway.
|
| October 12th, 2004 01:46 AM |
|
|
| marko |
It is up to mick&boys,and Michael Cohl,who is the greadiest
bastard.NOT up to record company.If it would be up to record
company,they wouldnīt probaply release this. |
| October 12th, 2004 04:38 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Surely it is the record company Virgin Records who have made the decision of the Live Licks release
er..no
> and if or not there will be a vinyl edition.
probably
>Why do the Stones get blamed for the release. I presume they sign a deal for x amount of albums and the record company has the choice as to whether they want to add in live and greatest hits albums.
er..wrong again. The Stones' contract is for studio albums. EMI are hardly going to pay them $100 million to release a series of live albums. The contract was for 3 studio albums plus the repackaging rights to their post-1970 back catalogue. The choice of putting out a live album plus deciding what tracks to use on it is theirs, not the record company's.
|
| October 12th, 2004 05:37 AM |
|
|
| F505 |
I don't blame the Stones. I think they are in a glorious position they don't have to prove anything anymore. Maybe that makes them lazy, I don't know. On the other hand my enthusiasm in buying new Stones records has slowly diminished. But I don't complain. That would be very ungrateful wouldn't it? |
| October 12th, 2004 06:01 AM |
|
|
| marko |
That would be very ungrateful wouldn't it?
Isnīt it also ungrateful NOT to get finally a decent live
cd,not for just casual fans?Im not the only hardcore fan.
Hardcore fans been here LOT LONGER than the usual bastards.
I mean,donīt stones know who they are,or who we are? |
| October 12th, 2004 06:26 AM |
|
|
| F505 |
quote:
marko wrote:
That would be very ungrateful wouldn't it?
Isnīt it also ungrateful NOT to get finally a decent live
cd,not for just casual fans?Im not the only hardcore fan.
Hardcore fans been here LOT LONGER than the usual bastards.
I mean,donīt stones know who they are,or who we are?
If you read this board you will find out that a lot of 'hardcore fans' are not too pleased either with the upcoming live cd.
Your last question I don't understand....Seems a bit philosophical |
| October 12th, 2004 07:04 AM |
|
|
| Monkeytonkman |
Should the Stones have desired that they wanted a Vinyl edition of their recent two releases (40 licks & Live Licks) Then it would have been so.
The buck stops with them, If they had consiedered that certain fans throughout the world might appreciate a vinyl release then they couldh have provided instruction that it was produced.
Like I say, other bands do it, still do it. I got Judas Priest's last studio album on Vinyl, as well as AC/DC, Manowar and loads others - they wouldn't even sell as many as a Live Licks Vinyl Version.
You can say as much as you want that it's all about the money. But I truly believe that a lot of rock bands truly want the best for the fans and are aware that many fans of these groups have been around for a while and would like to continue collecting their new material on vinyl. Thats why it's released in this format.
SO THERE! |
| October 12th, 2004 01:16 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
marko wrote:
That would be very ungrateful wouldn't it?
Isnīt it also ungrateful NOT to get finally a decent live
cd,not for just casual fans?Im not the only hardcore fan.
Hardcore fans been here LOT LONGER than the usual bastards.
I mean,donīt stones know who they are,or who we are?
Well s aid baby Marko |
| October 12th, 2004 02:04 PM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
quote:
marko wrote:
That would be very ungrateful wouldn't it?
Isnīt it also ungrateful NOT to get finally a decent live
cd,not for just casual fans?Im not the only hardcore fan.
Hardcore fans been here LOT LONGER than the usual bastards.
I mean,donīt stones know who they are,or who we are?
I saw them 2 years ago at Giants Stadium - one of the "Hot Rocks/Greatest Hits" shows - they still pulled out When The Whip Comes Down, Monkey Man, Can't Turn You Loose & Undercover - not exactly songs that everyone expects them to do (forget the fact that Undercover was on 40 Licks - its still been pretty much MIA for over a decade) now if I had gone to one of the theater or even arena shows I would've gotten a LOT more rarities. name a tour when they did Hand of Fate, Worried About You, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Stray Cat Blues etc? could you also have told me before the tour they were gonna do Loving Cup, Mannish Boy, Neighbors, Little Red Rooster
point is - yes this live album is VERY LAME, but I think you picked a bad time to complain about the Stones not playing for their fans.
and lets not forget about Four Flicks last year. for months half the people here said it was only a rumor or that a DVD set that size was too good to be true. and it happened, didn't it? so maybe it didn't have Ain't Too Proud To Beg in it, and maybe Chuck's keyboards in Heartbreaker were really fucking weak
and if it weren't for Four Flicks, right now you'd probably be looking at that tracklist saying "Oh my God, CYHMK, Worried About You, Monkey Man, Rocks Off .... a whole CD of songs never released on live album before - its every Stones fan's dream" all this live set is is just Four Flicks for people without DVD players watered down enough to fit on 2 cds.
and aside from No Security and GLIYWI, I'm having a tough time seeing how their live albums have been a disappointment thus far (Ya-Yas? Love You Live?... ????) |
| October 12th, 2004 02:10 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Because they have now made it a habit out of giving us crap live albums instead on good new material..it's a bit infuriating.... |
| October 12th, 2004 02:55 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
jb wrote:
.... instead of good new material..it's a bit infuriating....
Tell Me About it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
" It ain't EASY being a Muse Ronnie ! "
Jacky Moon !
|
| October 12th, 2004 03:01 PM |
|
|
| marko |
On licks tour,they did only few non played songs.And the
timing is the WORST possible for this release.To be honest,
as an long time fan,i deserve better than this.
Hand of fate was done 1976,on every show,neighbours,81-82,
every show.They didnt do stray cat blues very often,or even
rip this joint.
Heartbreaker indeed fell on its arse,heard it in Munich. |
| October 12th, 2004 03:02 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
marko wrote:
On licks tour,they did only few non played songs.And the
timing is the WORST possible for this release.To be honest,
as an long time fan,i deserve better than this.
Hand of fate was done 1976,on every show,neighbours,81-82,
every show.They didnt do stray cat blues very often,or even
rip this joint.
Heartbreaker indeed fell on its arse,heard it in Munich.
Hello Baby Marko ........ |
| October 12th, 2004 03:10 PM |
|
|
| F505 |
hi joey...
have you read the Dylan Chronicles Tome 1 yet?
Maybe the best Dylan yet
|
| October 12th, 2004 03:14 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
" It ain't EASY being a Muse Ronnie ! "
You are cooking on all 4 burners today, Baby Joey! |
| October 12th, 2004 03:16 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
glencar wrote:
" It ain't EASY being a Muse Ronnie ! "
You are cooking on all 4 burners today, Baby Joey!
Thanks Blue .......................I can " feel " the presence of the Lugar ....................and you ?!?!
In fact , Blue ! I have something I would like to ask you .
Please , let's keep this just between ourselves :
Vould you like to touch my monkey?
Go Ahead !! ... Touch him! Love him! Liebe meine abs-monkee."
Liebe Meine Abs-Monkee !!!
LIEBE MEINE ABS MONKEE !!!!!!!!!
LIEBE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| October 12th, 2004 03:18 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
F505 wrote:
hi joey...
have you read the Dylan Chronicles Tome 1 yet?
Maybe the best Dylan yet
Hello F505 ................
No.
Ninea . |
| October 12th, 2004 03:21 PM |
|
|
| F505 |
quote:
Joey wrote:
No.
 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| October 12th, 2004 03:25 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Read the chronicles? Why not just wait for the Lifetime biopic? |
| October 12th, 2004 06:42 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>ResidentMule wrote:
I saw them 2 years ago at Giants Stadium - one of the "Hot Rocks/Greatest Hits" shows -
me too!
>they still pulled out When The Whip Comes Down, Monkey Man, Can't Turn You Loose & Undercover - not exactly songs that everyone expects them to do (forget the fact that Undercover was on 40 Licks - its still been pretty much MIA for over a decade) now if I had gone to one of the theater or even arena shows I would've gotten a LOT more rarities. name a tour when they did Hand of Fate, Worried About You, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Stray Cat Blues etc? could you also have told me before the tour they were gonna do Loving Cup, Mannish Boy, Neighbors, Little Red Rooster
well..I could name the BTB tour when they did just as many songs, many of them equally as rare or "MIA" as those you suggested, but from my own point of view, I wasnt complaining about the setlists of the Licks shows or even the performances. Almost all of the 13 shows I saw were terrific (actually I thought Giants was one of the weaker ones, but thats not important)
>point is - yes this live album is VERY LAME,
thats the only point that matters IMO
>but I think you picked a bad time to complain about the Stones not playing for their fans.
and lets not forget about Four Flicks last year. for months half the people here said it was only a rumor or that a DVD set that size was too good to be true. and it happened, didn't it? so maybe it didn't have Ain't Too Proud To Beg in it, and maybe Chuck's keyboards in Heartbreaker were really fucking weak
and if it weren't for Four Flicks, right now you'd probably be looking at that tracklist saying "Oh my God, CYHMK, Worried About You, Monkey Man, Rocks Off .... a whole CD of songs never released on live album before -
a fair point but, with respect,the fact is you said "if it werent for Four Flicks", which isnt really relevant as...Four Flicks WAS indeed released, and yes, it was bloody excellent.
> its every Stones fan's dream" all this live set is is just Four Flicks for people without DVD players watered down enough to fit on 2 cds.
Come on... you cant really seriously say that putting out an edited soundtrack of a DVD for people without DVD players is a valid reason for releasing a live CD! Anyway, the issue apart from the lameness of duplicating the songs, is - why release it NOW? A year after the DVD? Whats the point? Christ, in all that time that Keith (in particular) has been sitting with his thumb in his ass, would it have been too much work to have mixed together a few other songs or different versions of the songs that were on the DVD? The FF songs were selected primarily for visual impact. That doesnt necessarily mean they were the best versions musically, unless the Stones really believe they struck it lucky over those shows and captured the most visually and musically perfect versions of the entire tour.
>and aside from No Security and GLIYWI, I'm having a tough time seeing how their live albums have been a disappointment thus far (Ya-Yas? Love You Live?... ????)
YaYa's is wonderful. Maybe the greatest live album in history. Love You Live I will always maintain is a terrible record (El Mocambo aside) with sloppy playing and the worst singing of Mick's career. But each to their own. I dont think overall the problem is what the performances are like on the live albums but the sheer amount of them.
I'm sure I wont have much quibble with the quality of the performances on Live Licks as I enjoyed the DVD. But putting out LiveLicks now is crappy timing and a lazy choice of track selection which reeks of cash-in, and nothing else.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| October 12th, 2004 06:52 PM |
|
|
| mickjaggersgrl |
i dont like the live 40 licks thing or whatever but the cd is cool. |
| October 12th, 2004 08:07 PM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
all I'm saying is I don't blame anyone who wants to bitch - if you don't feel like your getting your due I'm not gonna say you can't complain, I just don't see why you'd pick NOW. I'm a pretty young Stones fan so I don't have all the statistics - but how many tours have ethey played 80 different songs? and like I said, I was at one of the comparitively stale setlist shows in the tour and I ain't complaining. and with all the rarities one Four Flicks, I don't see how you couldn't give them credit for trying to play more songs. in fact, the only bands I can think of that I've ever seen who mix up their setlists even more than the Stones on the Licks tour were Gov't Mule or King's X (last friday) etc, bands that don't have any real hits. sure, you could say that CYHMK or something like that never lived up to its potential, but if your gonna take that argument I would think you'd have come to accept over the last 30 years that they don't have as good a guitarist as Mick Taylor. I think its a little late to hold that against them now
Gazza, that's cool. I wish I frequented this board before the Giants show so I would've known some of the people who were going. I would definitly agree with you about that show though - Keith wasn't really on that night. still, I wanted to see the Stones since I was 8 and finally got to go when I was 18, so I was happy
"thats the only point that matters IMO"
I agree with you there too but enough people are turning this lame live album as a general flaw of the Stones for recycling & selling old crap - as if the Stones stopped trying to please their fans somewhere in the last decade or so - that includes concerts, studio albums, etc - not just this particular cd
"Come on... you cant really seriously say that putting out an edited soundtrack of a DVD for people without DVD players is a valid reason for releasing a live CD!"
no, I don't mean that seriously, your right. I'm saying that if the existence of the live album bothers you, then that's the way you should think of it. I think the only reason anyone here is really let down by Live Licks is because their the same people who bought No Security, or worse yet, the Jump Back "re-release" (you've got to be kidding me if you fell for that one) - appearantly they feel pressured to buy whatever Stones CD comes out.
then again, I don't take this Live Licks as a serious release anyway. it sounds like something a record company would be behind - but some people have pointed out that wouldn't make sense according to the Stones' contract,, and when it comes to that I just don't know
and obviously my point about Four Flicks (IF it weren't released) wasn't "relevant" but you get where I'm going with that point. its just people bitching
"YaYa's is wonderful. Maybe the greatest live album in history. Love You Live I will always maintain is a terrible record (El Mocambo aside) with sloppy playing and the worst singing of Mick's career. But each to their own. I dont think overall the problem is what the performances are like on the live albums but the sheer amount of them.
I'm sure I wont have much quibble with the quality of the performances on Live Licks as I enjoyed the DVD. But putting out LiveLicks now is crappy timing and a lazy choice of track selection which reeks of cash-in, and nothing else."
yeah, I wasn't saying that because I'm a big LYL fan or anything - I just know some people here really love that album and I wrote that in response to somebody (maybe marko, maybe someone else, I don't remember) saying something to the effect of not being satisfied with any of the live albums. yeah, I think they've beaten the idea to death too, but I call that being overly-satisfied. they came out with some great ones, but after the first 4 or so I kinda thought who gives a fuck
yes, Live Licks is a cash-in, but to be honest with you I'm happier that way. if it was made up entirely of stuff I didn't have, then I'd buy it the day it came out - and that's not good since I'm a poor college student. I'd rather pick up the new A Perfect Circle album or the King's X Live album on Nov. 2nd anyway |
| October 12th, 2004 08:41 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Excuse me, there IS a vinyl version of 40 licks. I've seen it many times. In fact, i am going to the store where i know they have it tonight. But i am going to buy Dawn of the Dead. Stuff 40 licks. |
| October 12th, 2004 08:46 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Corgi, there is a large package that might look like a vinyl album set but it's filled with CD's. |
| October 12th, 2004 10:20 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Excuse me, there IS a vinyl version of 40 licks.
Wow, how many albums and sides have? |
| October 12th, 2004 10:46 PM |
|
|
| MP |
They need to write something along the lines of say...Voodoo Lounge...something with fresh NEW songs...AND they need to PERFORM those new songs on the next tour. We all know from experience, they won't. That's my gripe with the Stones. |
| October 12th, 2004 10:51 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
I will be the most happy man of the world with another album as Voodoo Lounge, it's the only that they can do now.
Voodoo Lounge was a success, why not another on the same style? |
| October 13th, 2004 05:10 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
MP wrote:
They need to write something along the lines of say...Voodoo Lounge...something with fresh NEW songs...AND they need to PERFORM those new songs on the next tour. We all know from experience, they won't. That's my gripe with the Stones.
They've played half (8 out of 16) of VL on stage - in the early part of the tour, sometimes as many as 7 songs from it at some shows. For most of that tour, it was usually around 5-6 songs per show.
Ten out of the 13 BTB songs were also played on the tour that followed it. Even though in a couple of cases, one show only. That wasnt bad, though.
One out of the four new songs on 40 Licks being performed over 117 shows wasnt a good indication of them having faith in their new material, however. |
| October 13th, 2004 05:23 AM |
|
|
| egon |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Corgi, there is a large package that might look like a vinyl album set but it's filled with CD's.
i've seen that one, but am pretty sure i saw the vinyl album as well at virgin |
| October 13th, 2004 12:11 PM |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
If the Rolling Stones wanted to put out these packages on vinyl they definitely could. They combine that much economic clout, easily. Vinyl releases only come out by bands who dictate it these days. There are a number of people (myself included) who prefer vinyl to CD and only buy new releases on vinyl if we can get away with it. Many musicians prefer the sound of vinyl and the presentation of vinyl to CD and make sure to get the job done.
The Stones have not released a US version of a vinyl release since Flashpoint. All subsequent (double LPs) have come out as European issues and been imported in mass quantities to the states.
I'm reasonably certain there was no vinyl on 40 licks and that there will be no vinyl on Live Licks. (Both would probably be 4 LP sets, which negates the usefulness of sticking them on wax, and I don't really care anyway). If there's no vinyl on the next studio album I will be one irate consumer, however. . .
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]