ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

Albert Golgman "The Lives of John Lennon". Bantam books. New York, 1989
Thanks Irina!
[Ch1: Sike-ay-delic 60's] [Ch2: Random Sike-ay-delia] [Ch3: British Invasion]
Support these stations! Click and check



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


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

Topic: No Stones Anthology! Return to archive
11-22-01 09:22 AM
Mathijs There's been some debate on this list whether how to interpreter Jagger's words on furture Stones work. Here's a transcript from a Jagger interview, take from Sticky Fingers Journal:

Q: Can we expect a Rolling Stones equivalent of the Beatles' Anthology collections? There's a lot of unreleased material out there…

Jagger: "I think that would be interesting for some people. For others it would be the ultimate in boredom."

Q: Is it just something you never get round to?

Jagger "I don't want to do that job. I'm not really that interested in it. I mean I'm interested in hearing the result, but sifting through the tapes? I mean, nooo!
Please! Show me your favourites at the end…"

Q: Is that the kind of thing Keith takes more if an interest in?

Jagger: "I don't think he does either. I mean he wouldn't actually want to do it. He wouldn't mind listening to it when it's done, but none of the Rolling Stones are
all that interested. The only one who liked that kind of stuff was Bill, who is no longer in the Stones, but he had that librarian sort of mentality. He's the diary-keeper."

So much for your interest in the fans Mick...

11-22-01 11:18 AM
KeepRigid It would be a waste of time and the Stones know it.

There's just too much material and history to try and fit into a comprehensive Anthology like the Beatles did, which I assume is what Mick is shooting down here.

And there's no way that the fans would ever be satisfied with it, because invariably they couldn't fit everyone's favorite song, outtake, live take, or b-side onto it.

I honestly don't understand the appeal of a Stones Anthology. What do you guys expect? Do you really think that a Stones Anthology would feature every outtake in perfect stereo?

Even if they attempted to do something that gave an honest cross-section of all the different stages of their career, it would be massively overlong and overpriced.
11-22-01 12:06 PM
Mathijs what a load of crap! I don't know how far your Stones knowledge goes, but from my bootleg collection alone I can make at least a 10 CD anthology serie! There's just so many good outtakes -and I don't even count (or want) alternative or demo versions of officiallly released songs! Did you ever listen to Hillside Blues (VGP), Fast Talking (VGP), Lonely At The Top (TSP), Pathe Marconi Sessions (Fiji Gin, Jah is not Dead, Let's Go Steady, Appartment No. 9)! Ever listened to tracks like Stricly Memphis and What Am I Gonnan Do? There's so many FINISHED tracks gathering dust in the studio's vaults! I am not talking about take 33 and 54 like on the Beatles anthology, but real, finished songs! And what about finally releasing L&G on DVD? And what about releasing Brussels 73, LA Friday 1975, any good 1978 show?

Damn there's so much to release! And they don't even have to go through the tapes, just ask any Stones collector like Zentgraf, Hofman, Aeppli, Karnbach, Mulder or even me (if I may say so) and within two weeks you will have an excellent CD!

11-22-01 02:05 PM
yellow1 hum...What drugs are you on Mathijs ?!!!
You DO realize that there's practicly NOTHING that's releasable AS IS and yes I've got all the same bootlegs you do.
Most dongs would require quite a few overdubs to be put out to the general public. Besides there's probably little interest for such material outside of the hardcore fans who have most of the stuff anyway !
11-22-01 03:56 PM
KeepRigid Umm...thanks for backing up my point, Mathijs.

You DO realize that you basically just repeated what I said in my original post?

As I said, there's 40 years worth of material and no way that Stones fans would be satisfied with what makes the cut and what doesn't.

And who the hell- aside from really die-hard Stones fans- is going to plunk down serious money for a 10 CD Anthology?

We've all got their albums.

We've all got the bootlegs.

We all know what they've done in their career.

The only thing we could gain by an Anthology is expensive packaging.

What a load of crap, indeed.
11-22-01 08:13 PM
Mathijs And that’s exactly where you guys go wrong: 1) I can name at least 40 songs that are FINISHED product, ready to be released, no need for overdubs, nothing. We (collectors) might not have it all in good quality, but the Stones will have it on the original tape; 2) there’s only a very limited amount of hardcore collectors (VGP sell about 400 copies of every release, Dandelion about 1000), and even though all hardcore collectors of the Beatles had EVERYTHING that was in the Anthology series –it still want number ONE all over the world. Why? Because what the Beatles made between 1962 and 1970 is MAGIC. And I say that what the Stones made between 1968 and 1979 is MAGIC, and will find a quite big audience, only because it still is defining rock.

Who was waiting for the R&R Circus to be released after 30 years? We, hardcore collectors already had the whole bunch –in fact we even have outtakes and more. But still it is the best selling Rolling Stones album of the 1989 – 2001 period. There just seems to be a market and a demand for this kind of quality music! I am bloody happy with this release –even though we can argue about why Carol, Route 66 and Stray Cat Blues aren’t on the album, I am just happy there is something available for the bigger audience. Me, the hardcore collector will listen to some weird audience tape. I will not, and never will, fuss about what version of Fiji Gin (take 1, 2 or 3? I prefer 2, you probably 3!) should be on the anthology: just put any version out officially and I am happy!!

Something else: The Stones sold out the Amsterdam Arena five times, which equals about 350.000 people attending the show. At EVERY gig I ever went to in my live –it doesn’t matter how big the band was –you could buy the newest album, or even a recording from the same tour, as some kind of memory. Here we have 350.000 people attending the concerts, and what can we buy? Some dreadful T-shirts and some terribly expensive –and ugly- reproductions of tour posters.

What I am saying is this: it seems that whomever releases an anthology -Bowie, Beatles, Paul Weller, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Blind Faith- it all sells in rather large quantities, no matter what the quality is and no matter whether the “hardcore” fans already have it.

I just simply believe in “what’s good will eventually come up”. If Brussels 1973 is released officially, it will be picked up by the press as “damn those guys were good at that time”, and the audience, in search for something else than Britaney Spears or Garth Brooks –will eventually buy this.

And now I will retreat –and spend the rest of the night enjoying my latest purchase: Led Zeppelin, the BBC sessions ( and I don’t even like Led Zeppelin…)

11-23-01 12:14 AM
KeepRigid How would you like an hour alone in Mick's archives, Mathijs? (The one shown on Being Mick tonight.)


Anyway, I just have no interest in seeing an Anthology type release while the band is still around. When it's all said and done and the members have gone their own ways, THEN will be the time for us to reflect on how good they were.

As long as they are willing to keep giving us more, I want them to continue making new music.

Sing this all together, see what happens.
11-23-01 12:48 PM

keep rigid

goooood point, there.
11-23-01 05:11 PM
Gazza >So much for your interest in the fans Mick...

Dont agree. Mick is a forward looking guy who isnt obsessed with living in his past. Its as simple as that. Right now I see that comment as emphasising the fact that hes interested in making new music and is still creative - something which he should be congratulated for considering his age,wealth and the fact that hes been on top for four decades

for him it would be a waste of energy to spend months digging through old cast-offs and rejected songs whilst he considers himself and the band to be a "current" band,still capable of fresh inspiration in other ways. We look on the band in a different way than they do,because its not US who are creating the material - we're just the consumer,so its easy from our perspective

as for his "interest in the fans" - youre getting "fan" mixed up with "fanatic". A collection of left overs might be interesting to you and me,but I'd say most people would be more interested in a NEW album and a tour. I'd certainly much rather he devoted his time to that project than something which he can fall back on anytime when hes either between OTHER projects,short on fresh ideas or which can even wait until the band are no longer a working unit. Believe me,there'll be plenty of time for all that in the next few years. Most of the major acts who have released "Anthologies" projects in recent years have been acts who have either stopped creating new material altogether (ie The Beatles,The Who) or who are artists who at the time had a suitable anniversary to mark the event and were maybe "between albums" or in periods of creative drought (Dylan,Springsteen)

Neil Young has been talking about a multi CD project for what must be 15 years now - which I'd love to hear. However,he keeps writing new material and creating too... and for various reasons,the boxed set will have to wait..again. It'll happen eventually. So will the Stones one. Regardless of when it comes,the release date is just one day - the album is forever.

Give me new music anyday though. There'll come a time soon enough when there WONT be any new Stones music. Enjoy what we can get for now and when its all done,we'll get the retrospective stuff.

I'm sure whilst fans of the Grateful Dead,Hendrix,the Doors, Beatles and the rest have enjoyed their trawl through their fave bands back pages in recent years,theyd much rather Jerry,Jimi,Jim and John were all still around to be giving them fresh songs instead.

And by the way Mick - in the unlikely event your reading this! - if you cant be arsed to delve into the archives yourself to get an idea of whats releasable or of interest and need a diehard fan to do the job as a sort of "Dicks Picks" project - youve got a volunteer,mate!
11-23-01 05:54 PM
Cardinal Ximinez I'm volunteer #2 then. You give the Euro perspective, and I'll give a US perspective. Are there all access passes included in this deal?
11-23-01 06:16 PM
Gazza When Dylan put out "The bootleg series" in 91 the late John Bauldie - a professional journalist but more importantly the editor of a superb,quirky and quite deep Dylan fan magazine called "The Telegraph" - was asked to write the sleevenotes. Quite an honour for any fan and obviously he'd have had advance access to the material to have done so.

Whilst its great to get the artists perspective on the songs in the accompanying booklet,its cool to get a historian or collector's thoughts too - as Mark lewisohn did with the Beatles anthologies. I'm sure theres quite a few folks out there who could fit the bill in any Stones equivalent
11-23-01 07:26 PM
Cardinal Ximinez True enough, many people fit the bill. But why NOT us? We fit the bill as well as anyone else. Intelligent, witty, savvy, literate, and, at least in my case, ravishingly handsome and devestatingly sexy. Oh yeah, we both have this strange obsession with all things Rolling Stones. I think we'd kick some serious ass in that job.
11-23-01 10:34 PM
yellow1 Well I've got all the outtakes myself Mathijs and there's no way there are 40 finished songs. For those that have "vocals", Mick's calling out the chords most of the time !
Do you ever wonder why Jagger spent the end of 1993 at the Record Plant in NY to clean 6 tracks (presumably from the 78/80 period) and that only one (So Young) was deemed good enough for release as a B-Side ?
About the only songs that are REALLY finished are instrumentals like "Act Together" or Keith songs that were finished but that were above his then 1 song per LP quota, "We Had It All" and "Let's Go Steady" for EM or "Make It Now" and "You got it made" from VL. Then there's stuff with REAL Jagger vocals like "Living is a Harder Love", "Drift Away" or "Claudine" and possibly "Fast Talking" from 1972..honestly can't think of anything else that' releasable as is, but I welcome any additions !
11-23-01 11:58 PM
KeepRigid I can see a greatest hits anthology ala the Pink Floyd or Beatles 1 doing very well for the Stones, but I don't understand why something clearly marketed at a mass audience appeals to fans over new material!

I've always loved the fact that the Stones haven't taken the easy way out and resigned to being an oldies act. As Gazza pointed out, all of those other acts are essentially DEAD bands, in that either key members are gone or they've simply stopped creating new music. Why should we push the Stones into mining their past when they can still create something new?

For that matter, I don't understand why songs that weren't deemed good enough to release 4 years ago are more appealing than Mick and Keith sitting down and writing new material.

Sure, I'd love to hear For Your Precious Love or I'm Cured- but isn't it really just the thrill of getting to hear something that's been unattainable to collectors that is exciting?
11-24-01 12:57 PM
Cardinal Ximinez I think you make a very good point Mr. Rigid. Indeed, why do I need a greatest hits anthology? I already have all that stuff, AND most importantly, Jagger/Richards can still write new stuff that I DON'T have yet.


It sure would be fun to sit in those great Stonesian vaults, with all those master tapes, and put together a dream anthology package. Now that's what Im talking about. Mick and Keef don't want to be bothered with doing something like that. No problem. I'll gladly fall on THAT sword for them. Besides, if an anthology type project is gonna happen(the record company WANTS it to happen, oh yes they do), who better to put it together, if not the performers, than some diehard fans? Man what fun THAT would be!
11-24-01 01:13 PM
Gazza A lot of these songs that have surfaced on bootlegs - in fact 90% of them at least - were left off albums for one simple reason - they werent good enough..and I can say that as someone who has probably every outtake currently in circulation (and maybe even a few that HAVENT been widely circulated)

most of the songs we're talkin about arent properly finished and realised works - as stated earlier,in many cases what we've heard is songs with unfinished lyrics or vocals that have only been roughly worked on.

Hearing songs like "lets go steady","zip mouth angel", "fast talkin" etc on bootleg sound intriguing and interesting as a snapshot - but the appeal is mostly BECAUSE youre hearing something youre NOT supposed to hear and because you have access to something that very few other people have heard.. If many of these songs had been issued on albums at the time in the versions we've heard as collectors,a lot of the people who want these songs released would be among the first to say the songs were sub-standard. The Stones most famous bootlegged is "Cocksucker Blues" - its famous mostly for its notoriety and the controversial lyrics. Its amusing and shocking - but is it a great song? No..definitely not. Certainly nowhere near as good as the other songs they were recording at the time and which made it onto "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile"

Of course,its true that for the most part the studio outtakes we have in circulation arent the final take recorded before the band decided it was as good as they could do it. All we have to go on is whatever "version" was "stolen" or "leaked". For example,maybe theres a version out there of "Travellin man" with a finished lyric and great vocal that would do justice to what is basically litle more than a fabulous riff in need of a song...but I doubt that for many songs this would be the case. I think that at a relatively early stage of proceedings,the Stones have a fair idea of what songs are going to be in the running for inclusion on an album and which arent. It therefore makes more sense to devote more time on the songs that are potentially releasable than the throwaways - for me,I think that for most of their career the Stones have exercised good judgement on releasing the best of the songs from each album recording session. Someone like Dylan hasnt for example - which is partly why a Stones "anthology" wouldnt produce anything comparable to Dylan's "Bootleg series" set.
11-24-01 04:46 PM
KeepRigid There's something special about hearing bootleg Stones- the primal sound, Mick's unintelligible vocals buried in the mix, guitars that are too loud, the whole informal production, etc.

There are many songs I would love to hear on an anthology, but what would we lose in the process? Remember when Prince finally released his Black Album several years ago? Nearly everyone, critics and fans alike, admitted that it had lost "something" that it had had when it was just an infamous bootleg.

On June 16, 2001 the hit counter of the WET page was inserted here, it had 174,489 hits. Now the hit counter is for both the page and the board.
The hit counter of the ITW board had 1,127,645 hits when it was closed and the Coolboard didn't have hit counter but was on line only two months and a half.