| 12th December 2006 01:25 AM |
|
|
| lbb87 |
Is there any difference between the Made In The Shade digipak and the jewel case? I see that one is $4 less than the other. I was wondering if one had more pictures/info then the other? |
| 12th December 2006 07:30 AM |
|
|
| egon |
if i'm correct one is dsd remixed & the other is SACD
|
| 12th December 2006 03:53 PM |
|
|
| lbb87 |
I must be getting old. What does that mean?
I've looked at several websites that sell the CDs but they don't tell the difference between them other than one is a digipak. Amazon.com doesn't even say that one is a digipak, unless I'm not looking in the correct place. |
| 12th December 2006 03:55 PM |
|
|
| mrhipfl |
Just buy both of them. That's what the stones would want you to do. |
| 12th December 2006 05:02 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
its inclusion of "Dance Little Sister" makes Made In The Shade the only comprehensive and necessary greatest hits compilation.
without "Dance Little Sister", all the other 'best of' CDs are meaningless
the enthusiastic European fans understand this and will be treated to Dance Little Sister on the b-stage in 2007
bet on it!
my word is as solid as a Charlie cymbol crash |
| 13th December 2006 02:44 PM |
|
|
| Paranoid_Android |
Packaging...that's all it is... |
| 13th December 2006 08:28 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
The packaging is weak, but the 10 tracks are awesome. |
| 13th December 2006 09:43 PM |
|
|
| Play With Fire |
The first Stones album I ever bought when I was 13 - Made In The Shade.
Vinyl is the best.
|
| 14th December 2006 01:18 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
It was my second LP. My first was Between the Buttons. Made In The Shade is one of their weaker compilations. |
| 14th December 2006 05:58 AM |
|
|
| egon |
quote:
lbb87 wrote:
I must be getting old. What does that mean?
I've looked at several websites that sell the CDs but they don't tell the difference between them other than one is a digipak. Amazon.com doesn't even say that one is a digipak, unless I'm not looking in the correct place.
if you don't have a SACD buy the other one.
Since you don't even know what it means,
i doubt very much you'd hear the difference in quality
between the 2. |
| 14th December 2006 08:53 AM |
|
|
| silkcut1978 |
somebody else already pointed out: different package, that's all.
There is no SACD-version of Made In The Shade and it's ashame btw... |
| 14th December 2006 08:54 AM |
|
|
| egon |
shit my bad,
was thinking of the abkco releases.
i'll shut up now... |
| 14th December 2006 09:15 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
So has Made In The Shade been rereleased? Now I'm all confused. I have the same old copy I bought back in the early 90's. |
| 14th December 2006 05:17 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
It was re-issed on March 21, 2005, I see load of copies on the stores, who will buy a GH album with only 10 tracks?
Forty Licks has 40 and cost less! |
| 15th December 2006 12:23 AM |
|
|
| Throwaway |
Dance Little Sister is on this album, as Sway says, therefore it can't be that bad. Anyway just thinkin bout that grooving track makes me wanna share the joy of it..so heres an EXTENDED version of DLS
http://download.yousendit.com/3EA3D16F76B29B48 |
| 15th December 2006 02:28 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
Sucking In The Seventies & Made In The Shade were remastered and released last year or maybe the year before, it's all a blur of cash and stacks of Cd's... BUT!!! The more current remastering on 40 Licks and these titles, plus the ABKCO DSD stuff, the 94 remasters are shit, despite the best effort at the time, technology has already made them yesterdays papers. |
