ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

Closing the British Tour - May 27, 1976 - Earl's Court, London
1976, 2002 The Associated Newspapers Archive
[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [SETLISTS 1962-2003] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN] [BERNARD FOWLER] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [CHUCK LEAVELL] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Did you buy the new album Return to archive Page: 1 2 3
November 9th, 2004 12:42 AM
VoodooChileInWOnderl I have been listening to it via Real Rhapsody and I already request my Japanese version to my dealer
November 9th, 2004 02:25 AM
Jumacfly DL of live licks is over...good sound, but those edits!!!
if you want to know more there s a mail from Bob Clearmountain on Iorr who deals whith that....

www.iorr.org
November 9th, 2004 02:42 AM
Monkey Woman Very interesting. Thanks for the heads-up, Ju. For those who want to go there directly:

http://iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,162509
November 9th, 2004 04:18 AM
Zack I found Cleamountain's comments (merci MW) to be fascinating. Some on IORR thought them to be fake, but if were, why would they were so disingenuous and noncommital.

I was amazed that:

1. Clearmountain admitted that "for every five licks" played by Keith and Ronnie only "two are usable" though he says those two are "amazing." What am I missing? I didn't catch THAT many bum notes on Four Flicks. And besides, I thought that was overdubbed too. Did they overdub the overdubs for the album?

He makes the astonishing statement: "Stones freaks like you guys may not mind hearing licks that have very little to do with the the song they're playing, but the general public, and the Stones themselves don't really want to know."

Want to know WHAT? Doesn't any good band improvise away from the studio version of a song during a concert, and isn't a good live album is in part a document of those diversions? What am I missing?

2 He says only lead vocal was completely overdubbed, but he wouldn't say which one. Someone else guessed SFM. I haven't heard LL yet so I can't opine on that. So if they let the original vocal out on Four Flicks, why overdub it for LL?

3. Another stunner trashing Bobby Keys: "The BK sax solo is the original solo (as far as I know) and if you were as much of a Stones fan as you claim you'd know that Bobby Keys has rarely, if ever played a solo that wasn't flat. It's kinda part of what makes him so unique. I was momentarily tempted to tune him up (would have been simple and only taken a few minutes) but didn't for fear that it would no longer sound like Bobby Keys." Why do they keep a guy who always plays flat? Old friendship is fine, but this is a professional gig here. Mind-boggling.

4. He explains away the RO edit by saying the band "fell apart" during that section," and justifies a big chunk removed from YCAGWYW because it "got boring."

5. What distresses me the most, though, is when he says every single song was cut in one place or another. Have the Stones that little respect for what they produce on stage? Guess so.

Bottom line: learning about how live albums are made is like watching sausage be made: Gross and you don't want it after you found out what's gone one.
November 9th, 2004 05:56 AM
luxury1 I havent listened to this yet--but did appreciate the Clearmountain letter. Most interesting.........our boys have a tendency to "fall apart?" Gee, I never noticed............

November 9th, 2004 06:31 AM
Jumacfly yes, thank you Bob...that s great to have an insider review of LL..
If i m correct the Rocks off version of Boston Orpheum didn t fallen apart but fucing rocked!!!
November 9th, 2004 07:05 AM
Monkeytonkman I bought It, I like It!

If four flicks hadn't have come out, there would have still been bitching, but not as much bitching. I also don't have the capacity to down load the music from the DVD to CD, whatever, So I am thankful for a new stones live album to rock out to.

I complelety understand the opposing views to the product. But I like it, and thats what matters to me!
November 9th, 2004 07:24 AM
corgi37 Aint bought it, and like so many other Stones fans, aint gonna.

I should say, "normal" Stones fans.


P.S. Not to insult my good buddies who HAVE bought it, but ya know my feelings on this subject.
November 9th, 2004 07:14 PM
Soldatti Good Clearmountain's comments, I'm angry with Mick and Don Was now...
November 10th, 2004 10:01 AM
J.J.Flash
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Aint bought it, and like so many other Stones fans, aint gonna.

I should say, "normal" Stones fans.


P.S. Not to insult my good buddies who HAVE bought it, but ya know my feelings on this subject.



That's why Corgi is a great man......like me, you ain't gonna buy..... This release is outrageous....I've stated that at least 100 times/day.

As for what you said "normal" Stones fans......I would say DIE-HARD Stones fans....yes we are....

I'm proud of that......so Joey is too.
November 10th, 2004 10:12 AM
FotiniD
quote:
Zack wrote:
1. Clearmountain admitted that "for every five licks" played by Keith and Ronnie only "two are usable" though he says those two are "amazing." What am I missing? I didn't catch THAT many bum notes on Four Flicks. And besides, I thought that was overdubbed too. Did they overdub the overdubs for the album?

He makes the astonishing statement: "Stones freaks like you guys may not mind hearing licks that have very little to do with the the song they're playing, but the general public, and the Stones themselves don't really want to know."

Want to know WHAT? Doesn't any good band improvise away from the studio version of a song during a concert, and isn't a good live album is in part a document of those diversions? What am I missing?




I couldn't agree more with you Zack. A live album is BY DEFINITION supposed to be full of diversions from the actual studio versions of the song. What's the point in going to a gig or listening to it back home if you're gonna end up with a sound virtually the same with the album? It's totally useless.

And I can't get my head to understand how the Stones would support something like that. For heck's sakes, improvise, improvise!

Tell you what, I'd love to get to hear a raw, REAL live record with no edits, no overdubs, no stupid cuts in the middle of the songs and no-one taking away the best part of Rocks Off from me. That's why I think bootlegs are the best way to go, especially now that recordings have improved so much.

Let US decide if the music was good or bad and keep the flaws in! Perfect is boring and dry. BAN OVERDUBS!
[Edited by FotiniD]
November 10th, 2004 10:15 AM
Jumacfly
quote:
FotiniD wrote:


Perfect is boring and dry. BAN OVERDUBS!
[Edited by FotiniD]


and ban chuckie too!!!
November 10th, 2004 10:18 AM
FotiniD
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:

and ban chuckie too!!!



INDEED! How could I forget?
By the way, can we leave out the horns, trumpets etc. section as well? PLEASE!
November 10th, 2004 10:32 AM
T&A I think Bob C's comments were very enlightening. Made me think about the album differently. Why should a product like this be unedited? It's the way the Stones want an album produced from live shows to sound on the CD. There's no crime in that, is there? They already gave us FF, which is unedited, so we have that. It is certainly reasonable to give them the latitude to express themselves differently via the CD medium, isn't it? Isn't that just another form of literary license or artistic freedom?

The bottom-line always must be: how does it sound? I think it sounds outstanding. Whether it's edited/overdubbed or not is really irrelevant to that singularly important question. Really no different than whether a song in the studio is created "live" or is edited/overdubbed.
November 10th, 2004 11:08 AM
Monkey Woman I must go with T&A. The sound is pure pleasure, the performances impressive and I have nothing against the principle of editing a live album to make it sound better, be more palatable to the public, etc. The Stones always did overdubs on live records after all, and we don't despise GYYO for that. We rabid fans will always have the boots, after all.

On the other hand, the choice of those edits and the ham-handed way they did it is not easy to explain... I'm beginning to wonder if "band decision" is not sometimes akin to "design by committee"!

There is also the question of: why release the same tracks on LL than on FF last year? Some say because of piracy. To late, then, the boots lifted from the DVDs have already been circulating for some months! It would have been smarter to pepper the CD with songs recorded in different venues or another day, to make the track choice unique. The casual fan wouldn't have minded (or even noticed) and the hard core fans would have felt the urge to buy it even if they already had the bootleg version. A lot of them, at least!

And about piracy and security, I have a major gripe about the "copy protection" device on LL. Not because you can't play the CDs on some players, that can be bypassed easily. But because it forced the Stones to cut the length of the songs so much!
I've learnt that yesterday on the french language Stones forum.
Link: http://membres.lycos.fr/stonesforum/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=95225e117507b7a1ea35efbd77d6a56f
The audio tracks for the songs occupy only about 500 Mb (or 1 hour) of disc space and the remaining 250 Mb are taken up by files for the same songs but encoded in a mp3-like format with auto-play feature for PC and Mac. So when you play the CD on your computer CD drive, you actually have inferior quality sound than on tthe standalone player and you can't transfer the files on a portable mp3 player. You don't have access to audio tracks, except if you use some grabbing software (EAC for instance, which is free). BUT you easily can do a disc-to-disc copy. And once you've grabbed the audio tracks, you can convert them to mp3...
So I don't see much security here, except that only the computer illiterate will be stopped from transfering files. If you know even a little, you can crack that supposed copy protection!
And meanwhile, there's less space on the disc for music itself. Not smart.
November 10th, 2004 11:10 AM
Zeeta I didn't buy it because I have 4 flicks.

Another big reason I didn't is because quite frankly it is a stupid release, a token release if you will. If I would have bought it I would have been acknowledging it as a good release, like I approved of it - which I don't. If I had of bought it the sales figures would have increased meaning that the Stone's record company or whoever is resposible for releasing this would think: "Hey this is really selling well, lets release more of the same - these Stones fans will just buy anyold shite!".
Which of course I don't want to happen - I have cast my vote on this release by just not purchasing it!
My opinion of course, I am not offended by anyone who buys the album, it's OK it's your cash!!!!!!!!!!!
November 10th, 2004 11:20 AM
T&A Zeeta:

I understand your points. But, your protest amounts to very little and you're really only cheating yourself in not listening to what amounts to the Best Sounding Stones Album in A QUARTER CENTURY. The sound blows away the sound on FF. Your loss.
November 10th, 2004 11:24 AM
Monkey Woman It sounds so good that I wish there were more of it... That double tracking sucks.
November 10th, 2004 11:33 AM
Zeeta
quote:
T&A wrote:
Zeeta:

Your loss.



Glad you enjoy it! Your Cash!
November 10th, 2004 11:36 AM
J.J.Flash
quote:
Zeeta wrote:


Glad you enjoy it! Your Cash!



November 10th, 2004 11:40 AM
FotiniD
quote:
T&A wrote:
It is certainly reasonable to give them the latitude to express themselves differently via the CD medium, isn't it? Isn't that just another form of literary license or artistic freedom?



Artistic freedom is one thing, but altering a "live" event into something that never actually happened "live" is another.

Sorry for my strong thoughts on this but I think the whole essence of a "live" album is totally lost and forsaken once you enter edits and overdubs. Improve the sound technically by all means - boost up a mic or the guitar or whatever; but please, don't change what happened that particular day, don't change the special way the music sounded on that day to create this weird close-to-perfect and totally fake image. That's why I don't like overdubs
November 10th, 2004 12:00 PM
Jair Just to the record:
Yesterday the LL price was $57,10 down here in Brasil.
This morning the price is another: $38,90.


OR ABOUT 47% LESS, IF MY MAT IS RIGHT.....


To Brazilian interested fans...just follow the rabbit
http://somlivre.globo.com/ProdutoCD.asp?ProductID=102494
November 10th, 2004 12:14 PM
T&A [quote]FotiniD wrote:


Artistic freedom is one thing, but altering a "live" event into something that never actually happened "live" is another.

Just a different definition than mine. The event DID happen. The event WASN'T the live album.
November 10th, 2004 12:21 PM
Joey
quote:
T&A wrote:
[quote]FotiniD wrote:



Just a different definition than mine. The event DID happen. The event WASN'T the live album.





You make Joey say , " Huh ?!?! "


Joey Ewing !
November 10th, 2004 04:20 PM
FotiniD
quote:
T&A wrote:

Just a different definition than mine. The event DID happen. The event WASN'T the live album.




Yes, but a live album is supposed to capture a live event. It's what happened THEN and THERE, not what the Stones, their managment or their company would WANT to have happened, right?

I say give me the real thing, flaws including. I don't want no perfect, shiny sh*t. This is the Stones for crying out loud.

Well now we're respected in society
We don't worry about the things that we used to be --- ???

No way!
November 10th, 2004 05:01 PM
T&A Totally get your points. But, I would argue that there are two EVENTS here - one is the concert(s), the other is the document. One happens in real-time; the other doesn't. Different perspective and one that I think Bob C was trying to articulate.
November 10th, 2004 08:32 PM
Soldatti
quote:
Jair wrote:
Just to the record:
Yesterday the LL price was $57,10 down here in Brasil.
This morning the price is another: $38,90.


OR ABOUT 47% LESS, IF MY MAT IS RIGHT.....




Wait a month and it will be 100% off...
[Edited by Soldatti]
November 10th, 2004 08:34 PM
glencar I bought one of each, topless & covered up. The 2nd disc is great. Great sounding & well done. I've only ever listened to the "hits" disc once & I might listen again a few months down the road.
November 10th, 2004 08:41 PM
Gazza I saw it in Virgin today.

For some obscure reason they were stocking both the "manga titties" and the "Moral Majority" covers together, without any mention of one of them being an import and they were the same price.

Cant imagine why theyd need to stock the censored one as well.

In US shops, is the topless cover listed as an import and, in that case, more expensive....and if its not an import, doesnt that defeat the purpose of censoring the cover?
November 10th, 2004 08:43 PM
glencar The topless one isn't an import here, as far as I know. One chain only sells the Moral one but amazon sells both for the same price. If Topless was an import, amazon would be trying to charge more. In fact, initially, they were charging an extra $2 for the Moral one.
Page: 1 2 3