Rolling Stones London-era comparison/Remastered FAQ ver .92E
David Goodwin
Version: .92E
Section 0: Legalese, et cetera
.10Q) What is this?
.10A) This started out as a FAQ on the "Rolling Stones Remastered"
series of compact discs that were released in late August, 2002.
However, by popular request, it's blossomed into something of a
versions-vs-versions guide, complicated a bit by the fact that nobody
on earth seems to own every version of a Stones release! Hopefully,
with input from the community, this document will grow into the most
comprehensive source of Stones "Decca-era" version information.
.20Q) Who wrote it?
.20A) Currently, this document is mostly the work of David Goodwin,
with invaluable input from Luke Pacholski. We've been major collectors
of the Stones "London Records"-era albums for quite some time, and as
we usually function as the "answer guys" for questions on this era, we
thought that it would be a good idea to write a document on the
subject.
.30Q) Why is this (currently) organized so poorly? Aintcha ever done a
FAQ before?
.30A) Err, nope. I have no idea what I'm doing. I don't even have good
ASCII art! Hopefully, this thing'll look more respectable (say, along
the lines of the 4-part Rolling Stones FAQ) in future revisions.
.40Q) What sort of legalese?
.40A) Ahh, the usual. This is the property of David Goodwin and Luke
Pacholski. Currently, this FAQ doesn't have a permanent home, but when
it does, we'll note it: you'll always be able to find the most recent
version there. Feel free to distribute it to friends, but don't
include it on your page, et cetera, without asking us first. Fear us,
for we are mighty!
.50Q) Version info.
.50A)
.4 : September 13th, 2002. Beginnings of the FAQ.
.7: September 15th, 2002. Added more album sections, slightly
reorganized data, slightly proofread.
.92E : First public version of the FAQ. E=Embryonic; we don't have
some albums yet, and some sections aren't filled out. Still isn't
proofread completely, and we don't have a table of contents…OK, AND it
could probably be organized better, but we're new at this, and some
public release is probably warranted at this point.
Section 1.0: Basic issues and format/terminology questions.
Q1.0) Rolling Stones Remasters?
A1.0) Yep. Finally, after several long years of waiting, ABKCO (the
company that owns the Rolling Stones' Decca material) has finally
decided to upgrade the catalogue. The new releases, which began to
trickle into stores on August 27th, 2002, are "hybrid SACDs/CDs,"
which is explained below. There were twenty-two titles re-released in
all.
Q1.1) Are they the CDs I see that say "Digitally Remastered from
Original Master Recordings" on the bottom?
A1.1) No. Those are the old ABKCO CDs. I wish I had a better term for
them, but I don't feel like originating anything pseudo-witty (i.e.
ABKCOlds, or anything like that) so I will refer to these as "old
ABKCO discs" throughout this document. You WILL get confused, so just
read carefully.
Q1.2) How can I tell the new ones apart from the old ones?
A1.2) This is simpler than you might think. The new releases (at least
the first run of the new releases) come in digipack form; that is,
they're not in standard jewel cases, and are actually pretty easy to
spot. Most have a 2002 copyright date somewhere on them. They also
pointedly do not have the "Digitally Remastered from Original Master
Recordings" banner.
Be careful, though. Several bootlegs were released not too
long ago (most of which are of pretty dubious quality) that also use
the digipack format. If you're in a Borders, this shouldn't be an
issue, but make sure you know what you're getting!
Q1.3) SACDs: What are they? What's the difference between SACD and
DVD-A? What's a hybrid SACD? Can these be played on my regular CD
player?
A1.3) Unfortunately, this issue involves the use of a bit of jargon,
so bear with us. The audio on conventional CDs is in a certain digital
format: stereo, 16 bit, 44100 PCM. That information might look
intimidating, but it's actually a surprisingly simple concept to
grasp. Think of the audio on a CD as a series of "snapshots" that
describe the sound. There are 44100 of these snapshots (called
"samples") per second. "16-bits" refers to the resolution of these
snapshots, or how much information is in each one. Stereo simply
refers to two simultaneous streams (in this case, the left and right
channels). This process is summarized by the description "PCM," or
Pulse Code Modulation. The audio you hear on a CD is (and this is an
oh-so-slight oversimplification) the translation of this information
into sound waves.
Now, while CD sound quality is pretty good, it isn't quite
"perfect sound forever." Thus, we're now in the middle of the
inevitable "format of the future" upgrade. While CD stood mostly alone
in the transfer of commercial music from analogue to digital, though,
the next generation is shaping up to be more like the VCR format wars
of the 1980s. As of September 2002, there are two competing—and,
unfortunately, incompatible—"next generation" technologies looming on
the horizon: DVD-A (the "a" being for "audio") and SACD.
1.3a) DVD-A: Of the two, DVD-A requires the least explanation.
Firstly, despite the "DVD" in the name of the format, discs in the
DVD-A specification are NOT automatically compatible with DVD players;
the DVD in DVD-A refers only to the fact that the discs used are DVD
discs. DVD-A discs use an upgrade of the PCM technology that CDs use.
Depending on whether playback is two-channel (stereo) or multi-channel
(surround), DVD-A discs use a variety of formats, including
24bit/96000hz (or 96khz) audio, and 32bit/192000hz audio. DVD-A discs
can also include features like videos, interactive menus, et cetera.
While DVD-A is promising, it does have several notable
drawbacks. The first revolves around backwards compatibility (a
concept that would not have applied in the jump from analogue to
digital, but that certainly is a valid concern now). While DVD-A discs
*can* include a DVD-V session (that would allow for the playing of
reduced-quality audio on standard DVD video players), they are
completely incompatible with the old CD format. Secondly, while
high-quality two-channel audio is certainly possible from the medium,
DVD-A has so far been geared more prominently to multichannel
releases. Thus, while it is possible to include both
multi-and-two-channel versions of the same content on one disc, the
home-theatre bias makes portability and "low end" use of DVD-A a
concern. Lastly, the watermarking/copy protection scheme for DVD-A is
typically very invasive, as it includes an audible degradation of the
signal that prevents copying.
DVD-A is currently supported heavily by both Warners and EMI. And for
those who skimmed the passage above, DVD-A discs CANNOT be played in
CD players.
1.3b) SACD: Like DVD-A discs, SACDs utilize DVD discs, but that's
pretty much where the similarities end. Whereas DVD-A uses an
"upgrade" of the old PCM format, SACD uses a relatively new technology
called "DSD," for Direct Stream Digital. To quote from Sony's SACD
website:
(Begin Fair-Use quote)
Direct Stream Digital® processing is dramatically different —
even when compared to the most sophisticated PCM technology.
A 1-bit system, DSD® encodes music at an astonishing
2,822,400
samples per second, resulting in more than just superb frequency
response and dynamic range. Capable of exposing the inner detail
of choral ensembles, the reverberation trailing from a guitar chord,
and even the acoustic space surrounding an instrument, DSD® technology
reproduces every nuance of sound with incredible ease and clarity.
(End Fair-Use quote)
So, um, in summary, SACD is kinda different from established
technologies. That said, it purports to be more like analogue, which
delights serious audiophiles to no end.
Indeed, while DVD-A seems aimed for the home-theatre crowd,
SACD tends to be aimed squarely at audiophiles and the reissue market;
DVD-A releases have so-far favored surround mixes, while SACD releases
have so far favored high-quality two-channel mixes (although surround
SACDs are availible as well). Depending on your point-of-view, this is
a good thing or a bad thing, but do realize that remixing to two-track
is a chore, and surround remixing is even worse.
Like DVD-A, SACD has several drawbacks. Firstly, as most
digital technology is made for PCM information, DSD tools are in their
infancy, and using a PCM-based tool on a DSD stream destroys the point
of having the information in DSD in the first place. This can be
viewed as a curse or a blessing, as it means that most digital
tinkering cannot as yet be duplicated on true DSD streams (and,
consequently, PCM processes like no-noise and workstation audio
editing haven't quite made the transition yet). Secondly, SACD also
has copy-protection, although it is hardware based, and thus does not
degrade the audio signal like DVD-A's protection. Thirdly, I've been
told it's harder to throw "extra content" onto an SACD, although this
could again be viewed as a blessing in disguised, retaining the "throw
it in and play it" vibe of CDs.
As SACD is Sony's technology, it comes as no surprise that
Sony-owned labels (Columbia, etc.) favor SACD. Indeed, the Rolling
Stones releases are viewed as a huge push for Sony's format, and are
probably to some degree the result of some talks between the
companies.
SACD is *not* compatible with CD technology, but can be made
backwards compatible to a degree. See the next entry.
1.3c) Hybrid SACD: This is the format that the new ABKCO releases are
in. Without getting too technical, this involves creating a "sandwich"
disc, with two layers of information. One is positioned at the CD
"focusing depth" and one is at the SACD focusing depth. CD players do
not "see" the SACD layer, and focus through it to play the CD layer,
while SACD players focus correctly on the SACD layer. What does this
mean in application? A disc that can be played in both SACD and CD
players (although, obviously, only the CD layer can be played in CD
players).
Most view backwards compatibility as a huge advantage to the
SACD format, as it allows labels to sell the consumer a "transparent"
upgrade that is automatically acquired once he purchases a new-format
player.
1.3d) So yes, you can play the new Stones discs on your CD player,
although you'll hear the "major" sound quality upgrade only if you
have an SACD player.
Q1.4) What's the difference between stereo and mono mixes? Why does
anybody care?
A1.4) This question could occupy an entire FAQ by itself! The
following answer is grossly oversimplified and slightly
over-objective, but is all we can reasonably manage without causing
this thing to balloon up to 60 pages.
This might be an alien concept to those not around in the
sixties (and/or those who're new to this whole "old-music" thing
and/or merely casual listeners who don't have time for obsessive bits
of miscellany like this), but once upon a time, most people on the
planet had mono-only sound systems. "Mono," by the way, is short for
"monaural," which is the term for sound that has only one musical
"channel." In today's terms, though, it applies to music that is the
same in both the left and right channels/speakers. Because most people
had mono-only rigs (and because AM-radio, a primary outlet, was
mono-only) music tended to be released in both mono and stereo, up
until about 1968 in the US and 1969 in the UK.
What tends to confuse most people is their assumption that the
"mono mixes" are just collapsed stereo mixes (i.e. the stereo mix with
the "MONO" button pushed). That isn't true at all; in fact,
frequently, the mono version would be created first.
Thankfully, the Stones tend to be pretty unexceptional on this
front, as much of what they recorded in the early days was actually
just released in mono; the mono/stereo issue, for the most part,
exists only from Aftermath to Beggars (contrast this with the Beatles,
who're a nightmare of alternate mixes from the very beginning).
Thus ends this oversimplified take on this issue. Do try us
again!
Section 2.0: General catalogue questions and answers.
Q2.1) What titles were released in ABKCO's new reissue campaign?
A2.1) In semi-chronological order, they are: Englands Newest
Hitmakers, 12x5, Now!, Out Of Our Heads! (US), Out Of Our Heads! (UK),
December's Children, Aftermath (US), Aftermath (UK), Got Live If You
Want It, Between the Buttons (UK), Between the Buttons (US), Their
Satanic Majesties Request, Flowers, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Get
Your Ya Yas Out, Metamorphosis (UK), Hot Rocks (2CDs), More Hot Rocks
(2CDs), Big Hits 1 (US), Big Hits 2 (US), Singles Collection (3CDs).
22 titles in all.
Q2.2) Wow! That's a lot of CDs! Do I need to get them all?
A2.2) No. See section 3.0 for more information on that issue (and a
good bit of criticism, too).
Q2.3) Where's Sticky Fingers? Exile on Main Street? BLACK AND BLUE?
A2.3) This is a drastic oversimplification, but the Stones were signed
to two "major" entities during their run, which in practical terms
means that their catalogue is available on two labels: ABKCO and
Virgin. The Virgin material was re-released in 1994 to great fanfare,
and includes the albums mentioned above and more. This current reissue
series includes everything up to (but not quite including) Sticky
Fingers, although Wild Horses and Brown Sugar make the cut due to
contractual issues.
Q2.3) How were these discs assembled?
A2.3) According to ABKCO, an exhaustive, worldwide search for
performed to acquire the best master tapes. Tapes were transferred by
a variety of people at a variety of locations to three formats:
24bit/96khz PCM, 30 ips analogue tape, and DSD. This was necessary, as
the original tapes aren't necessarily in the best condition, and it
was important to play each as few times as possible. The sources were
then compared, and the best candidates were chosen to be on the new
CDs. This "piecemeal" approach to the tapes yielded a few interesting
consequences, which are discussed in more detail in section 3.0. Final
mastering was performed by Bob Ludwig (the same guy who did the Virgin
CDs) at Gateway studios.
Q2.4) Are the old ABKCO CDs obsolete?
A2.4) For the most part, yes. The new discs are ALMOST a universal
upgrade to the old ABKCO discs.
Q2.5) Almost?
A2.5) Reissue campaigns are notorious for not picking up every last
piece of what they're supposed to be replacing, and ABKCO's is no
exception. That said, they do manage to get most of it.
Q2.6) Is everything that was put out by the Stones on vinyl during the
Decca era finally on CD?
A2.6) Frustratingly, no. It was hoped that ABKCO would finally include
some things (like the missing Got Live tracks, for example, or
alternate mono/stereo mixes) that had been MIA on CD before, but with
the exception of some warmly welcomed stereo mixes and the actual
single mixes on the Singles Collection set, this didn't quite happen.
Q2.7) What's this I heard about Beggars Banquet being faster? About
Let It Bleed running together?
A2.7) See Section 3.0 for an elaboration, but in summary, it turns out
that all tapes used to make versions of Beggars in the past were
copied from a single tape that had been copied on a machine that was
running slowly. For the first time, the actual source tape has been
accessed, and as a result the new CD of Beggars runs a smidgen faster
than all old versions.
Let It Bleed doesn't run together; gaps between the tracks are
simply very small, allegedly in accordance with the original plan for
the album.
Q2.8) I snuck ahead into sections 3 and 4, and I see talk of "London"
CDs. What does this mean?
A2.8) "A Brief History of the London Discs"
It's unsurprising that many USA Stones fans (those who aren't the kind
of obsessives we are, anyway) wouldn't know this, but here we go; in
summary, while the US had until now been stuck with the crap-tacular
early ABKCO CDs for the Stones' Decca albums, this was NOT the case
for the rest of the world. While ABKCO owned the CD rights for the
Stones' albums in the states, they didn't quite hold worldwide
influence, which led to the London label (which older Stones fans will
recognize as the label on which the original US records came out)
reissuing their OWN versions of the Stones discs right before ABKCO
got started. The thing is, while ABKCO utilized "whatever was on the
shelf" for their discs, and generally turned out a substandard product
full of muddy-sounding tracks, fake stereo mixes, and stereo
fold-downs, London managed to utilize tapes that had been prepared by
audiophile label Mobile Fidelity for their early-80s Stones LP
boxed-set. The result? The London discs were very un-craptacular, and
still sound rather swell today.
In particular, the London CDs introduced several stereo
versions of songs that had previously been only in mono (Satisfaction,
Get Off of My Cloud, Play With Fire), and had several rarities the
ABKCO discs completely lacked. London also chose to release the UK
versions of Aftermath and 1st instead of the American versions, and
ignored the Big Hits compilations entirely. For the most part, the
London discs were also free of some of the more heinous tampering that
marked ABKCO's catalogue, as folded-down stereo mixes and fake stereo
do not make an appearance on the London set.
[ADDITION: As Luke notes, those three songs I mentioned above are the
only three that were completely new stereo-wise. Other stereo tracks
that the London discs utilized actually has shown up in stereo
somewhere on vinyl. It's All Over Now, for example, was stereo on
Rolled Gold; Paint it, Black was stereo on the US Aftermath; Time is
On My Side was stereo on some later pressings of hits compilations.]
Note that while the London discs are usually preferred to the
ABKCO versions of the same titles, in many cases the differences are
pretty subtle. In particular, the early material (i.e. Now!, 12x5,
Heads) doesn't sound much different, as many of those tracks NEVER
sounded very good in the first place. Andrew Oldham wasn't quite
George Martin!
Mobile Fidelity, it should be noted, wasn't very happy about
London's use of their tapes (as one label head went on record and
bemoaned that London's use of the "Decca Digital" system had destroyed
the faithfulness of the tapes used), so while the back of some of the
London discs do credit MFSL, some do not. This is semi-random
throughout the releases, and its absence does NOT mean you have an
old-ABKCO version of a disc.
Now, the last degree of note with regard to the London discs
involves the various issues thereof. Simplifying a bit, we get a total
of 5 disparate London issues: the early, German pre-ABKCO discs (not
all titles were released in this batch, artwork is very bare-bones,
and some titles have a "DIGITALLY REMASTERED" banner in the upper-left
corner), the "regular period" German discs, the Japanese P33L series
(these might've been merely a reconfiguration of the first German
discs, as I've never seen one), the Japanese P25L series, and the
early POCD series. There are several subcatagories I'm ignoring (i.e.
the "regular issue" German discs actually went through several
different pressing runs), but these are the major variations. Here's
how the content of these various issues pans out:
a) The early-pressing German London discs sound like straight
transfers from the tapes; while the packaging and artwork isn't all
that hot, the discs sound great. Several titles are not included in
this run, including the MHRs, Got Live, Let It Bleed, and December's
Children. Note that EXTREMELY EARLY German pressings exist of only
self-titled and Beggars, which have a radically different disc-design
than the "regular" early pressings and the later pressings.
b) The regular-issue German London discs have a 12-page
booklet/catalogue. The "digitally remastered" banner is now retired on
all titles, and back-cover artwork is improved. While many entries in
this series seem to be clones of the earliest pressings, some notably
vary, including Hot Rocks (with fade-ups on some tracks), self-titled
(without the longest version of Tell Me), and others; see section 4.0
for precise details. These discs were in print until around 1995, and
there are several variations of this run which include
slightly-different disc designs, et cetera. Australian CD pressing
sexist of self-titled which are identical to this German version.
Because of the fade-ups inherent on some titles in this set, the
early-version variants of those titles are usually preferred.
These were forced out of print in 1995, and replaced by ABKCO discs.
Note that London discs have "820" catalogue prefixes, while the later
ABKCO discs have an "844" prefix.
c) Japanese P33L editions. I've never seen these, so I can't report on
them.
d) Japanese P25L editions. Released in 1989. Most of these are cloned
from the first German editions, so fade-ups, et cetera are generally
not present. Some discs, though, don't really correspond to anything
("December's Children" is all mono, perhaps a clone of ABKCO's disc?).
In addition to the titles included in the German catalogue, the
Japanese series adds the UK configs of both Big Hits comps and No. 2.
Artwork is very nice, with multi-page booklets (full of info I can't
begin to understand).
e) Japanese early POCD editions. These were introduced in 1995,
ostensibly due to ABKCO's actions regarding the German discs (i.e.
London knew they were going to change the catalogue in SOME way, but
didn't quite know how). They are mostly identical to the P25L discs,
with some variations in booklet page layout and possibly some
variation in information. Some come with promotional stickers, as
well. A few new titles are introduced into this run, including
Aftermath US, Englands Newest, and the US Big Hits comps, but all
signs point to these just being clones of the ABKCO discs.
These went out of print in 1997, with the ABKCO discs being
finally becoming standardized. Unfortunately, the ABKCO discs assumed
POCD prefixes as well, so telling the good apart from the bad can be
tricky; ABKCO's discs have "late" catalogue numbers as opposed to
London's "early" catalogue numbers, so POCD-1917 would be "good,"
while POCD-1967 would be "bad." When in doubt, look!
Q2.9) Wow…that was overwhelming! So these London discs aren't
obsolete?
A2.9) Nope. Details follow in sections 3 and 4. Do realize, though,
that the London discs (especially the Japanese versions) have several
issues that have never been adequately explained (why the fade-ups,
for example?) so some of our comments might be VERY version-specific.
Q2.10) What are "mock-stereo" and "stereo-reductions?" I see these and
similar terms used frequently.
A2.10) Mock-stereo should be a familiar concept to any music fan who
was around in the sixties. Essentially, it's the fairly-dubious
process of creating a simulated stereo track from a monaural
(one-channel) source. Its use was fairly common in the sixties,
especially in the US, where "stereo" versions of mono-only albums
could be created and sold to consumers, or mono-only songs could be
included on "stereo" albums.
The process had many variations, with the simplest being
shaving the bass off one channel and the treble off the other. Voila,
a mono track with all bass in the left, and all treble in the right.
Other approaches were more complicated, and included the use of stereo
ambiance/reverb, delaying channel sounds, et cetera.
Top-tier acts like the Beatles and Stones weren't immune from
this, either, and I'm sure many Beatles fans still quake in horror at
the thought of Capitol's fake-stereo "I Feel Fine/She's a Woman"
monstrosity on one of the domestic Beatles LPs. Pre-Aftermath, for
example, London US's Stones LPs exist in "mono" and "Electronically
Re-channeled for Stereo" (i.e. fake-stereo) versions.
The practice of fake-stereoizing mono sources largely stopped
after the sixties, so many were shocked when ABKCO included a few fake
stereo tracks on their first run of CDs. The one probably everyone has
is "Mother's Little Helper," which is in fake-stereo (treble in one
channel, bass in the other) on Hot Rocks.
Stereo fold-downs are a similar concept. Essentially, it
refers to the "collapsing" of a stereo track, which can be done to
several different degrees of severity. On ABKCO's initial CD series,
for example, most of Aftermath was collapsed from its original
wide-stereo mix into very "narrow" (i.e. not much difference between
each channel) stereo.
So why don't people like these effects? They're distracting,
gimmicky, and ultimately unnecessary. While some mock-stereo tracks
can be "fixed" into mono fairly easily, most cannot; similarly, many
folded-down stereo tracks cannot be "fixed" back into their wide
stereo versions. Fake-stereo processing is a relic of the mid-sixties,
and is completely unacceptable today; the source mono mixes are always
more pleasant than the resultant fake-stereo versions.
Both of these techniques also have the extra effect of
infuriating collectors, who normally want to have in their hands both
stereo and mono mixes. Collectors tend to complain like crazy, so
torturing them in that way tends to have a negative effect on the
entire community (bad vibes, man, they're contagious!).
Section 3.0: General critiques and issues raised
3.1) Questions raised by the released titles
Q3.1a) The UK/US issue
A3.1a) For many, the immediate critique that springs to mind upon
seeing the discs that were released is "why didn't they follow the
Beatles and release just the UK version of the catalogue? Isn't that
what the Stones intended?" It's a valid point, but it ignores that the
Stones had a very different approach to releasing material than the
Beatles did. There's no denying that discs like December's Children
are extremely patchy, but then again, it isn't like the Stones labored
over the layout of Out Of Our Heads (UK), either. Whereas the Beatles
principally recorded in one studio, and scheduled recording sessions
for singles/albums/Eps, the Stones were constantly recording wherever
they happened to be, with the way in which their material came out
being seemingly dictated by the order in which it happened to be
recorded.
There's also the case to be made for the old "The US releases
actually give you more than the UK releases," which is true. The US
version of the catalogue (and, consequently, what was released by
ABKCO) does actually give you more tracks than a straight
transcription of the UK albums would have. It would also be
significantly more difficult to assemble a cohesive Pastmasters-esque
collection of Eps and singles, although it could be done. Indeed, if
any evidence is needed for the rushed approach obviously taken to this
project ("get 'em out for the tour"), it's that a more sensible
restructuring wasn't attempted.
Q3.1b) The "Why is Flowers still in print?" issue (NOTE: This
mean-spirited rant has been moved to the end of the FAQ).
Q3.2) What do you have to get if you're a completist?
A3.2) This is, perhaps, easier to answer in the form of "what I
DON'T have to buy to get every track in the reissue programme." Ready?
The following aren't needed: both Big Hits comps (made
redundant by the Hot Rocks and individual albums, and only Hot Rocks
has the two Sticky Fingers tracks, anyway), Out Of Our Heads UK
(doesn't have tracks that ARE on Heads US or December's Children),
Aftermath US (Paint It Black is available elsewhere) and either
Buttons UK or US (you'll get the "contested" tracks elsewhere anyway).
You need everything else.
Q3.3) Are the tracks that are shared between discs distinct?
A3.3) Nope. This is the "piecemeal" effect I was talking about. Tracks
were mastered individually, so the common tracks between Aftermaths,
for example, are exactly the same. The exception to this, of course,
is where an alternate version is explicitly known to exist (the long
Out Of Time, the stereo Mother's Little Helper, etc.).
Q3.35) What about the tracks on the "Remastered" sampler? Are those
identical to the ones on the reissues?
A3.35) Strangely enough, no. Some work was apparently done (And not
for the better) between the time the sampler came out and the time the
official discs were released. See the section on the sampler in
section 4.
Q3.4) Are there some early-ABKCO discs I should hold onto?
A3.4) Maybe. This is still a new issue, remember, so we're not
entirely sure what's been duplicated yet. That said, ABKCO's More Hot
Rocks seems to have a few variations that were lost in transition (and
never showed up on the London discs), so don't dump that one yet.
Also, a slight alternate of Ruby Tuesday is used throughout the
reissue programme; early ABKCO discs have the original version, but so
do the London discs, so don't bother holding onto your old-ABKCO
Flowers for that one.
Q3.5) Are old pieces of insert wonderment (like posters) included?
A3.5) Kind of. More Hot Rocks has something that LOOKS like a
poster, but you can't remove it. I'm pretty sure the Let It Bleed
poster is MIA, unfortunately.
Q3.6) Are the mock-stereo tracks and stereo fold-downs gone from the
new issues?
A3.6) Mock-stereo's gone, but unfortunately there still are a few
stereo fold-downs. Some tracks in the After-math/Buttons era have
their stereo spectrum narrowed somewhat, although the exact nature of
this narrowing varies (check section 4.0 for elaboration). Note that
the fold-downs aren't NEARLY as bad as the near-mono dreck on the
early ABKCO discs.
Q3.7) What about noise-reduction?
A3.7) Unfortunately, some noise-reduction seems to have been used on
(drumroll, please) some tracks from the Aftermath/Buttons era.
Sometimes, just intros are noise-gated, and the hiss-level increases
after the intro. Other times, the NR exists throughout the track
By the way, a quick introduction to why people don't like
noise-reduction. Prior to digital technology coming to the fore, music
was recorded either direct to disc or (later) to analogue tape. We're
dealing with stuff recorded to tape here. Tape has hiss; it's a
property of the medium. What noise-reduction (at least the type we're
referring to) does is remove the hiss inherent in the medium.
The problem is that, despite what Jon Astley wants to think,
at this point in time we simply CANNOT remove hiss without affecting
the music. It just doesn't work that way. Neighboring frequencies get
affected, and you are left with OTHER background noise; it isn't hiss,
but it's often just as distracting. Now, noise-reduction can be used
well or poorly, but at best it's unnoticeable, and that occurs very
infrequently. At worst, it's distracting as all hell, and can make
stuff decidedly unlistenable.
Worse, do remember we're talking about SACDs here. From what I
know, no DSD noise-reduction utilities exist. That means that the
noise-reduction had to be done in the PCM domain, and the instant you
put a DSD signal through a PCM device, you lose most of the point of
having DSD in the first place (and yes, the NR is on the SACD layer,
too...see the next question).
Irritatingly, some tracks have NR on the actual discs, but
don't on the "Remastered" sampler that came out in mid-summer. Details
will be discussed in section 4.0.
Q3.8) Is the audio content on the SACD layer and the CD layer the
same? I.e. is processing that was applied to one layer applied to the
other?
A3.8) Yep. From all indication, it seems as if the CD layer is simply
a downconversion of the SACD layer.
Q3.9) Why do some of the disc times differ between the old issues and
the remasters (specifically, the London CDs and the remasters)?
A3.9) Well, in some cases, this is obvious; for example, the
remastered Beggars is running faster, so it figures that it would have
a shorter running time. In the case of the other discs, the older CDs
(ESPECIALLY the London discs) tended to have huge gaps between songs.
On Between the Buttons, for example, the song fades out, but there is
a good ~5 seconds of tape hiss before the next song starts, for
example. These transitions have been tightened a bit on the new discs,
which can shave off 3 seconds per song; this time definitely adds up.
Section 4.0: The Specifics, at last!
In this section, we'll run through all of the new reissues, and see
how they compare to earlier discs. Note that as we believe our basic
audience to be people without SACD players, most criticism will be
directed at the CD layer, although we will carry points through to
address the SACD layer at times.
And yes, folks, we need input! We don't have all of these discs, and
we are eager to hear people's evaluations of 'em. That said, if you
want to send us your feelings on or observations of a specific title,
do remember that this is a comparison document. If you write us saying
"this rocks," that doesn't help us; we need to know what it rocks
compared to. Also note that comments you send in will probably have
some editorializing surrounded them, as if we get a rave review and a
pan of the same disc, we need to reconcile the opinions somehow.
Also, remember that these discs (due to shortages caused by
the scarcity of hybrid-SACD pressing plants) have been somewhat hard
to find as of late. Most of my remasters still haven't gotten to me
yet.
4.1) Englands Newest Hitmakers
This title never appeared in the London catalogue, which used
the UK tracklisting (which has "Mona" instead of "Not Fade Away")
instead. The new remaster apparently sounds fine, but does NOT include
the 4:05 version of Tell Me; it uses a longer version that doesn't
quite reach the 4:05 length (note that the previous statement has not
yet been confirmed).
Thus, the only CD issues to use the correct, long LP version
of Tell Me are the first-pressing German London, and the Japanese
discs cloned from that release. Note that while the London versions of
More Hot Rocks and later London pressings of the first album claim
that their versions of Tell Me are the 4:05 version, they actually
have the common 3:46 version.
What's the difference between the two Tell Mes? The 4:05
continues past the point where the 3:46 ends, and ends itself with an
abrupt cut mid-phrase. ABKCO might've faded the new disc slightly
before that point, as it is pretty jarring.
4.2) 12x5
A massive upgrade. 12x5 is mostly comprised of tracks from the
UK EP 5x5, which consisted of songs recorded by the Stones at Chess
Studios in Chicago. It is a vast understatement to note that the
quality of the Chess recordings was higher than that of the Stones'
contemporary UK recordings, and one laments the fact that the Stones
didn't have the resources of a George Martin or an Abbey Road.
Whereas the 5x5 Ep was initially only a mono release, it was
accidentally re-issued in stereo (with mono labels!) in the eighties.
Thus, while all previous versions (ABKCO and London) of this CD were
mono-only, the remaster suddenly includes all of those Chess tracks in
stereo, marking the first time most of them have been legitimately
available on CD. The tracks in question are: Around and Around, If You
Need Me, Empty Heart, 2120 Michigan Avenue (present in its rare,
longer version), It's All Over Now (the only track to be released in
stereo on disc before, and NOT on previous versions of 12x5), and
Confessin' the Blues.
A delightful upgrade, this, and it really does make previous
versions obsolete. Thank god for unambiguity, eh?
4.3) Now!
After the straightforwardness of 12x5, you knew you'd hit
something this complicated.
Firstly, no reports are in about the remaster of Now, so
people, WE NEED REACTIONS (I'll be getting it once deepdiscount
decides to send mine). Offhand, I predict that the ABKCO remaster will
be fine, as no-doubt the tapes were relatively easy to find. Here's
how we stand currently, though.
"Now" is a really weird case. Firstly, it's the only place in
the pre-Aftermath catalogue that has stereo on its old-ABKCO
incarnation, as "What a Shame" and "Down the Road Apiece" are in fact
in stereo on ABKCO's disc. The weirdness doesn't stop there, though,
as the versions on ABKCO's old disc are slightly superior to the
versions on the second-issue London disc; specifically, the London
disc fades in "What a Shame," and it and "Down the Road" sound
slightly less dynamic than they do on the ABKCO disc. This makes
little sense to me, although the possibility exists that the
super-early German London discs don't have this problem.
The second-issue German "Now" also has odd track notations
that don't appear elsewhere in the London series. Some tracks are
listed as a specific version (i.e. "Everybody Needs Somebody To Love,
Version 2" and "Oh Baby, Version 1") which makes sense in some cases,
but doesn't in others, and it is strange that no other London disc
does this.
Lastly, an entry on "Now" simply wouldn't be complete without
a quick description of the Japanese No. 2 CD. That disc tends to be
thought of as quite valuable (due to its use of the UK version of the
album), but actually isn't very special. It's "What a Shame" and "Down
the Road" match the second-issue London Now! versions (i.e. they're
faded up and don't sound quite as stellar). Everybody Needs Somebody
is the long version, but is in mono. Time Is On My Side is in stereo.
Lastly, "Down Home Girl" fades up, while it doesn't seem to do that
anywhere else. No. 2 is a nice collector's item, but is unnecessary
otherwise.
The long version of "Everybody Needs Somebody to Love" does
exist in stereo (and has shown up on certain LP hits issues), but
inexplicably has not appeared on CD.
4.4) Out Of Our Heads! (US)
(note that since the UK variation is simply a combination of tracks
from other sources, it's easiest to go by the US tracklisting in these
cases)
I haven't heard the SACD of this yet, but reports aren't that
great. This is classically one of the worst sounding of the Stones
albums, though, so that isn't really a shock.
The London and old-ABKCO discs sound pretty similar. Note that
while both of those older issues are all mono, the new ABKCO
presumably sticks the new stereo mix of Satisfaction (everything
except acoustic guitar and piano centered, with those instruments
split left/right) in the middle of things. I repeat: the London issue
was 100% mono. The stereo Play with Fire and Satisfaction were only on
Hot Rocks 1. Presumably, some of the other tracks (Good Times) could
be mixed to stereo, but haven't shown up as such yet.
4.5) December's Children
A mess of variations, this. The ABKCO SACD is apparently all
mono, with the exception of "Look What You've Done." I haven't heard
it yet.
The old ABKCO disc was all mono. This is nice, cut 'n dried.
The London discs, however, seem to be a nightmare of variations.
Firstly, December's Children was NOT in the initial batch of German
London discs. Now, all German versions I've heard have had two stereo
tracks: Look What You've Done (which was actually stereo on the
original US LP), and Get Off of My Cloud (presumably taken from Hot
Rocks). This is apparently not universal, though.
The confusion is worsened by the fact that at least the
POCD-era Japanese discs were all mono, with slight variations of sound
quality in the shared tracks (i.e. She Said Yeah sounds slightly
different on the Japanese disc than on the German disc). Confusingly,
though, the Japanese disc does NOT seem to be a copy of the ABKCO
(which uses a slightly-chewed As Tears Go By) disc. Does it use its
own unique source tape? Who knows?
Verdict: the current ABKCO remaster will probably be fine. If
you really need the stereo Cloud, find it on Hot Rocks 1. This opinion
might change in the future, though.
4.6) Aftermath (UK/US)
Aftermath is a landmark album both musically and sonically for
the Stones. It marked an album full of Jagger/Richards songs, their "A
Hard Day's Night," if you will. It ALSO marked the first full-stereo
release, in both its US and UK incarnations.
The original ABKCO CD was absolute garbage, as it used the
(IMO) inferior US tracklisting, with several tracks collapsed to
near-mono. By contrast, the original London disc (which seems to be
constant in all of its German/Japanese versions) is a sonic gem,
utilizing the wiiiiideee stereo mixes from the original UK LP and
having the 14-track UK tracklisting, with the extended Out Of Time.
ABKCO, for reasons known only to them (which probably involve
the color green) have released both versions on CD. Frankly, I'd still
pick the UK edition, but if your nostalgia supplants your desire to
save $18.99, be my guest. In any case, the tracks shared between the
two discs are identical.
Unfortunately, Aftermath marks the beginning of the period
where the new remasters have been audibly "doctored." Firstly, the new
ABKCO disc simply sounds different from the London disc; it's slightly
more muffled and less open (this is, apparently, not as much of a
problem on the SACD layer, so sound-quality concerns in that
department are a bit subjective). The issues don't end there, though.
Some songs have been slightly collapsed, for no earthly reason (I Am
Waiting), while others have bizarre manipulations of the stereo
spectrum. Witness, for example, the stereo Mother's Little Helper,
which shows up here only; it sounds like they took the left channel,
shaved the treble, reverbed it, and pasted it in at low volume into
the right channel. Hiss reduction is also evident, sometimes merely on
the intros of songs (Lady Jane, for example…the hiss level perceptibly
increases when the vocals come in).
The verdict? If you only have the ABKCO disc, then by all
means upgrade. However, the London disc is still the most faithful to
the original album, and (especially to those who only have CD players)
still sounds really good.
4.7) Got Live if You Want It
Another case of some strange variations. Oddly enough, this
poorly-recorded mess had a true stereo release on LP, which is what is
presented on the London CD. This is where the simplicity ends, though.
The original ABKCO CD is pretty much mono, but does NOT
correspond to the mono mix, or to a knockdown of the stereo mix above.
Indeed, it sounds like the entire album was reworked! Intros are
different, "Thumb" has a different vocal track, the version of
"Fortune Teller" is the alternate studio version (discussed in the
More Hot Rocks entry), et cetera.
No reports are in on the remaster, but if the remastered disc
follows the London disc in layout, then the original ABKCO disc will
still be an essential item to own, as it's a marked variation. If, on
the other hand, the remaster is an update of ABKCO's version…well,
we'll see. In the meantime, though, the London disc is the recommended
issue, as it's clean, wide stereo, and sounds as good as this album
probably ever will sound.
4.8) Between the Buttons (UK/US)
As was the case with Aftermath, the original ABKCO disc of
Buttons was junk, with the same combination of mixed-down mono,
folded-down stereo and tinny sound quality that blighted the Aftermath
disc. This time, though, the ABKCO disc and the London disc at least
shared the same tracklisting; both used the US layout, which isn't
terribly different from the UK layout (Ruby Tuesday/Let's Spend is
exchanged for Backstreet Girl/Please Go Home, and My Obsession is
moved to side 2). The London disc, however, was the usual pure-stereo,
with excellent audio quality; in particular, London's version of Ruby
Tuesday lacked some artifacts that were present on the ABKCO version.
However, as stellar as the London disc was, it was obviously taken
from a master a few generations removed from the source (made even
more obvious on very first London pressings, which include a few
seconds of tape-hiss before the music starts!).
The new ABKCO reissues are a slightly mixed bag, although I'm
warmed up to them a bit. ABKCO clearly went back to the actual song
masters here, as most of the tracks sound simply stellar (especially
the vocals, which were the last elements added). The only problem is
that it seems as if a different approach was taken with each track;
some sound very "worked on," while some sound like they always have.
Thus, it's a bit of a discontinuous listening experience, although
certainly nothing that can't be tolerated.
Thankfully, fold-downs are mostly absent here, the one victim
being Miss Amanda Jones, which only has its intro mixed slightly
center. Noise-reduction, however, is evident. Miss Amanda Jones
(again!) gets it worst, with clear artifacting under the guitar at the
beginning; didn't anybody listen to this before they released it? It
still manages to sound heads above the old ABKCO version, though. Note
that this is NOT on the sampler! It sounds like light touches were
applied to Yesterday's Papers and All Sold Out, but it's pretty subtle
on those two songs.
This refers to the US version only, but note that ABKCO
seemingly pulled the wrong tape for Ruby Tuesday, which—due to the
piecemeal approach to putting together the CDs—consequently shows up
everywhere Ruby Tuesday shows up. It's mostly the same as the classic
version, but there seems to be a vocal either missing or mixed VERY
low during the chorus; if you've heard the song as many times are most
of us have, it's incredibly jarring. As Ruby Tuesday is a reasonably
high-profile song, one wonders what must've happened!
In any case, the new remasters are a big improvement
sound-quality wise on most songs from the older issues. However, the
London Buttons is still valuable, as it sounds pretty good and also
flows better as an album (i.e. there aren't any drastic mastering
changes between tracks). It also has the original mix of Ruby Tuesday,
and a wide-mix of Miss Amanda Jones, both of which are necessary.
4.9) Flowers
I have an aversion to discussing this "album" (see my rant
near the end of the FAQ for an explanation why). However, I'll be a
trooper, and will forge ahead.
The ABKCO version of this disc wasn't anything horrendous, but
wasn't all that great, either. The sound was somewhat tinny, "Ruby
Tuesday" had the few extra artifacts as usual, Mother's Little Helper
and Have You Seen were in awful, fake stereo, and…well, "My Girl" is
always sub-par, eh? Curiously, the Aftermath era material IS in wide
stereo.
Flowers wasn't part of the initial set of German London
releases, but was part of the second set. While it is an improvement
on the ABKCO disc, keep in mind that exactly four tracks (Backstreet
Girl, Please Go Home, My Girl, and Ride On, Baby) weren't available
elsewhere in the London catalogue. The album is standardized to the
"good" London versions, with a stereo Mother's Little Helper replacing
the mock-stereo version, and with a mono version of "Have You Seen"
replacing the slightly-more-awful mock stereo version.
I haven't heard the new reissue of Flowers, but as now it has
exactly TWO unique tracks (My Girl and Ride On, Baby), I can evaluate
it from the other titles I've heard. The verdict? An improvement, but
dear lord, it's still Flowers! If you MUST upgrade your copy, be my
guest.
4.10) Their Satanic Majesties Request
Unlike some of the other early-ABKCO discs, this one never
sounded too bad. Granted, the London is a step up, but it isn't like
the early-ABKCO is horrible or anything. The London sounds like it's a
few generations closer to source, though. Strangely enough, there ARE
slight differences between the early German London/Japanese discs and
the later German discs, although this is probably due to a slight EQ
change. Note that the early-ABKCO version of this disc is the only one
with a noticeable fade-up, this time on See What Happens.
The current remaster sounds fine, and I can't detect any
tampering. Tentatively, then, I'm going to name it the best out of the
lot, but keep in mind that the Londons are fine, and this album has
really never sounded all that bad.
4.11) Beggars Banquet
A "no contest" if I've ever heard one. Apparently, all
previous versions of this album were derived from a single copy
master, which had either been copied on a machine running too fast, or
copied FROM a machine running too slow. All previous issues of the
album have, therefore, been running slightly slow, a difference that
sounds unimportant but actually changes the texture of the entire
album. I'll get to that in a second, though.
Previous CD issues have been nothing to write home about. The
ABKCO didn't sound awful, but didn't sound great. The latter-period
German London was a slight upgrade, but nothing amazing. Curiously
enough, the Japanese disc has an audio glitch—the beginning of
Prodigal Son is truncated—which leads me to believe that this glitch
probably originates on the super-early London disc, which I haven't
heard otherwise.
I can say exactly one bad thing about the new remaster of
Beggars. There are audible dropouts in Stray Cat Blues that aren't in
evidence on other versions (probably because the damage on the source
tape hadn't yet occurred when that fateful slow copy was made). Other
than that? The remaster's absolutely amazing! Acoustic guitars
actually sound like acoustic guitars! It's positively breathtaking. I
never knew Beggars could sound this good. Hilariously enough, this now
proves that the tracks on the "RSVP" bootleg have always been running
at the correct speed (it was previously thought that RSVP ran slightly
fact).
A definite upgrade. Grab it. A small packaging nitpick,
though: where's the RSVP cover? Hmmmm?
4.11) Let It Bleed
The ABKCO CD sounded fine; the London versions sounded
slightly better, but not tremendously. I've heard mixed reports about
the current remaster—some are raving, some are panning it—so I'm going
to withhold judgment for now.
4.12) Get Yer Ya Yas Out
Pretty much the same case as Let It Bleed, above. I'm again
withholding judgment, although the rave/rant ratio is slightly higher
on this one.
4.13) Metamorphosis (UK)
It hasn't been on CD before, obviously, so the usual
comparison won't work.
ABKCO thankfully spared us from, say, a dual Metamorphosis
UK/US release (the UK simply has more tracks; it's the only
difference), but apparently produced this disc directly from the
masters prepared in the seventies. Accordingly, the slightly-odd
post-production that marked the original album is still intact,
including the mixed-down Don't Lie To Me and the narrowed "Downtown
Suzie" (can anybody explain, by the way, why that song is titled as
such?).
Unfortunately, at least some copies of the new disc seem to
have problems. There's digital clicking throughout the disc; check,
for example, the right channel of "Some Things Just Stick in Your
Mind." There's an occasional "tick" that doesn't correspond to the
music. This occurs in all tracks, but is at its most severe in Some
Things. Similarly, Jiving Sister Fanny has a digital "click" right
when the drums come in, while the version on the REMASTERED sampler is
clean at that point. Odd.
It's certainly possible that some are just poorly pressed; the
verdict isn't out on this yet. Safe to say, though, it isn't like you
have any other options, so if you're a Metamorphosis fan, this is the
one to get.
4.14) Big Hits 1 and 2
I'm not going to bother to write an entry on these, as
everything "unique" they include shows up on the Hot Rocks and More
Hot Rocks discs. Presumably, they're both improvements over the ABKCOs
of old.
Strangely enough, the Japanese London catalogue includes the
UK versions of these two albums, while the German London catalogue
ignores them completely. Through the Past even comes with an octagonal
cover (not actually octagonally shaped, but clearly denoted with black
corners)! Strangely enough, while most of the audio on these two is
just pinched from other sources, Through the Past uses a simple
mock-stereo (bass/treble cut) You Better Move On, which I can't recall
appearing on any other discs.
4.15) Hot Rocks
Some strange variations here. Firstly, this is at least one
instance where the US ABKCO set actually had two distinct versions, at
least of its first disc. One version has the "guitar intro" Time is On
My Side, a stereo-intro-mono-rest Heart of Stone, and an absolutely
chewed-to-pieces Ruby Tuesday; the other version has the organ-intro
Time is On My Side, an all-stereo Heart of Stone, and a slightly less
chewed Ruby Tuesday. Note that the first variation accidentally turns
up on some French pressings of the London Hot Rocks, so be careful.
The London Hot Rocks is probably the most famous/desired of
all of the London discs. Firstly, unlike the American set, it's split
into two volumes (Hot Rocks 1 and 2, which simply correspond to the
discs from the American set). Secondly, it marks a
first-time-in-stereo debut for no less than THREE songs! While
Satisfaction, Play With Fire, and Get Off of My Cloud are in mono on
the individual London discs of Heads and December's Children, they're
in extreme, wide-stereo here. [Addition: Note that the early ABKCO Hot
Rocks set apparently uses the stereo version of Play With Fire, but
narrowed down to almost mono] In fact, the ONLY mono tracks are As
Tears Go By and 19th Nervous Breakdown; everything else on the two CDs
is true stereo.
A slight variation on the above exists, though. The second
issue (i.e. non "Digitally Remastered" banner) London discs
unfortunately introduce fade-ups on a few tracks; they aren't too bad,
but most consequently tend to prefer the early German issues (or the
Japanese discs, which are derived from them).
The new ABKCO set has mostly stereo, with its mono tracks
being PWF, Tears, Cloud, and 19th Nervous Breakdown. Some tracks are
slightly downmixed, though; Honky Tonk Woman, for example, is
definitely narrowed than it was on the London disc. It was hoped that
ABKCO would retain the stereo mixes of Cloud and Play With Fire, and
possibly use the not-officially-released-but-circulating-in-CD-quality
19th Nervous Breakdown stereo mix, but that didn't happen.
As people're dumping the London Hot Rocks discs like mad,
now's a good time to pick them up. They will remain collector's items
(for the several true stereo tracks not included on ABKCOs set), and
in my opinion are still the best "Hot Rocks" out there. Hot Rocks 1
and 2 were—along with Aftermath—London's real trump cards, and manage
to beat out at least the CD layer of ABKCO's new remasters.
4.16) More Hot Rocks
A fascinating release, one parts hit collection, one parts
"well, we had to stick them SOMEWHERE" collection.
ABKCO's original set wasn't all that great, but DID include
two rarities that apparently haven't been carried over. "Fortune
Teller" on ABKCO's More Hot Rocks is actually a different mix from the
one that commonly appeared on LP; it has different overdubs, and a
slightly different structure. Strangely enough, this version (with
crowd noise overdubbed) suddenly appeared on ABKCO's "Got Live if You
Want It," while all other versions use the London MHR mix. Odd. Also,
ABKCO's "Poison Ivy" apparently is a rare version with mixed-out
percussion during the chorus. This has yet to be confirmed, though.
London's MHR 1 and 2 (split into two volumes, like the Hot
Rocks set) were not part of the very-early releases. That said,
they're excellent discs, far superior in sound-quality to the ABKCO
set. Strangely, they use a very different track-layout as well. Most
cuts that could be in stereo were (It's All Over Now), and a different
version of Poison Ivy (version 2 on the new ABKCO set) and a different
mix of Fortune Teller were used. Strangely enough, "Sitting on a
Fence" is faded up, and is EQed much differently from the version on
Flowers.
ABKCO's remaster of MHR is nice, but prompts even more
questions. Due to the piecemeal nature of the set, tracks taken from
other sources unfortunately suffer from whatever indignities might've
been handed to the source discs. Consequently, "Sitting on a Fence"
and "Lady Jane" both have NRed introductions, while "What To Do"
sounds slightly mixed down. Other than that, though, it sounds pretty
good.
[ADDITION: It would have been nice to have a long-stereo "Everybody
Needs," but…]
Here comes what is possibly a COMPLETELY UNWARRANTED
criticism, though. So we have More Hot Rocks, the only album that is
apparently un-sacred enough to desecrate with bonus cuts (which are
nice, by the way, and definitely add to the value of the set). All
well and good. Question: why not add "My Girl" and "Ride On, Baby" as
bonus tracks to disc one? I mean, look at More Hot Rocks. "Lady Jane,"
"Have You Seen," "Out Of Time (edit)," "Sitting on a Fence"…this album
is essentially Flowers at this point. Why not make Flowers completely
obsolete by adding those two tracks?
Ahh, I can wish, eh?
4.17) The Singles Collection (3CDs)
Note that—despite the existence of London German/Japan
catalogue numbers for this set—ALL versions are simply clones of the
ABKCO. OK?
Excellent. Now, the original ABKCO version of this set simply
wasn't very good. Sound-quality was questionable, and the original
single versions largely weren't used; instead, poorly-mixed-down
versions of stereo tracks were often substituted (witness the
absolutely ridiculous forgery of "The Lantern").
Thankfully, the ABKCO remaster represents a MAJOR upgrade; the
Singles Collection is now actually what it's supposed to be. Single
mixes seemed to be used throughout, many of them rare. For example,
the original single mix of Street Fighting Man (which was quickly
recalled in favor of a mix-down of the album version) shows up for the
first time in thirty years, and is an absolutely fascinating artifact
to behold. The sound quality isn't always great (as presumably these
single sources were often derived from heavily EQed tapes), but it's
authentic, and that's what counts.
Three gaffes have so far been pointed out, though. The version
of "Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man" used is apparently the
LP version, NOT the single version (which WAS included on ABKCO's
original set). Secondly, "Ruby Tuesday" seems to be a knockdown of the
weird stereo variation that has suddenly popped up on this reissue
series. Thirdly, Tell Me is the LP edit, not the single edit.
Other than that, though, the set is an excellent upgrade,
although one wishes it was either pared down a bit or slightly
cheaper! The original LP-sized packaging was also probably the best
format for this set, as in this incarnation it looses a few elements
of the original package.
4.18) "Remastered"
The sampler from the reissue series, this disc bizarrely has a
few things which didn't quite make it to the reissue series in the
same form. A quick summary:
Jiving Sister Fanny is clean here, while it has artifacts on
Metamorphosis.
Miss Amanda Jones still has a mixed-down intro, but has NO NR applied
to it.
The Aftermath tracks are still slightly collapsed, but don't have any
NR.
Section 5.0: The Rant and The End
5.1) The Rant (previously in section 3)
According to Jody Klein, the current ABKCO spokesperson/head, the
"Rolling Stones Remastered" series was intended to duplicate the feel
and integrity of the original albums. Bonus tracks would have been
inappropriate.
This is, likely, code. It is code for "We enjoy making money."
There is a variant on this that goes "We will market to appeal to your
nostalgia." That is similarly code for "We enjoy making money."
The Decca material has been out for more than thirty years. It
is archive material, and the ability to hold it in some sort of
otherworldly reverence and "contemporary meaning" allows this sort of
thing to happen. These are not dynamic new releases from a new beat
combo, and it's folly to pretend they are.
Accordingly, if ABKCO's been getting any lambasting from
Stones fans (and they have been, as ABKCO hasn't exactly endeared
themselves to people over the years), it's over the issue of bonus
tracks and an absurd amount of redundancy. If there's one golden rule
of reissues, it's that the catalogue should never be made MORE
complicated by a reissue program. For all of the abuse heaped upon The
Who reissues, for example, at least MCA had the good sense to not
release remastered versions of decried-for-ages discs like "Happy
Jack," "Magic Bus: The Who on Tour" and 60s hits comps like "Direct
Hits" (sadly, MCA forgot that one part of deleting obsolete discs is
making sure that all of the material successfully migrates over, but I
digress).
ABKCO's original line of discs got nailed for ages. The
response? The same discs, except now there're *a few more*. That's
nice, and I'm sure some people will swallow the "respect the original
albums" line as being the reason for having no bonus tracks or liner
notes, but I think the actual reason is closer to what I mentioned
above: "We enjoy making money." Clearly, the albums weren't respected
enough to have accurate reproductions of covers and inserts (if you
never saw an LP of Beggars Banquet, you might not know that the RSVP
cover ever existed), and I guess More Hot Rocks is an exception, as it
alone has bonus tracks.
Flowers was a ripoff before, when it featured only a few
tracks that were unavailable elsewhere (a few Aftermath and Buttons
tracks if you were coming from the ABKCO CDs, plus My Girl and Ride On
Baby, and just the Buttons tracks and MG/RoB if you were in the London
groove). With the release of Aftermath UK and Buttons UK, Flowers
(which is still in print, and retails for $18.99) contains exactly two
unique tracks, one of which is My Girl.
The new discs are perfectly enjoyable, but taking a
completist's approach to this is folly, as you probably deserve
better. If you seriously must have the two (yes, two) unique tracks on
Flowers in SACD quality, or if you're really used to the layout of
Aftermath US, so be it; you have your option. That said, a version of
"Aftermath" UK with Paint It Black as a bonus track, or a version of
Between the Buttons with "Ruby Tuesday" and "Let's Spend" as bonus
tracks, or mono-stereo versions of albums, would have simplified
things greatly. I've said my piece.
5.1) Future Updates of this FAQ
As stated above, we'd love to have input from people. In fact,
at this point, we NEED input from people to make this the most
comprehensive source on the new reissues. At current, we haven't quite
figured out how we're going to manage this, but one good way is to
post your feedback/additions/criticisms on the Rolling Stones
newsgroup (alt.rock-n-roll.stones), where we can pick it up without
overloading our email inboxes.
5.2) Thanks for reading .92E of our FAQ. Yeah, it's unprofessional,
but we'll be beefing it up in the future, and hopefully this'll
provide a nice reference for y'all.
Stephen Carter
<ksg...@yifan.net> wrote:
>The ROLLING STONES "London-Era on CD/Remasters Review" FAQ
>Version: .92E
Thanks for your efforts Dave - all 10,000+ words!
--
st...@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
James Wong
Super job on the FAQ. Thanks.
James Wong
TeddyB1018
>>The ROLLING STONES "London-Era on CD/Remasters Review" FAQ
>>Version: .92E
What is the URL?
Luke Pacholski
Dave Allen <twod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure which London version of Aftermath I have. It says
>"manufactured by Polygram in Hanover, West Germany". From your
>description of the various London versions, it would appear to be one of
>the early-pressing German London discs (pre-ABKCO). What makes me
>wonder if I'm wrong is the presence of the ABKCO trademark in addition
>to the London trademark (on the disc, inside the booklet and on the back
>cover).
Not to worry - many of the London CDs have ABKCO logos in places.
As long as your CD has 14 tracks, you've got the "London" version.
Luke
--
Bruce Butz
Still ,I don't really get the Flowers "rant".
Of the 22 SACDs Flowers;with two unique
songs,is more relevant than Big Hits and Past
Darkly.(Why are they still in print?)
And Flowers,no doubt,sounds better than the
dreadful "Got Live".One of the worst sounding
live rock albums in history.Even the wonderful
SACD format (of which I am a big proponent)
can not make that piece of shit sound good.
BTW all DVD-A discs have a subordinate
Dolby Digital 5.1 Audio track,and are therefore
playable on DVD Video players
Bruce
Luke Pacholski
Br...@webtv.net (Bruce Butz) wrote:
>David & Luke: Great job on the FAQ.
Thanks.
>Still ,I don't really get the Flowers "rant".
>Of the 22 SACDs Flowers;with two unique
>songs,is more relevant than Big Hits and Past
>Darkly.(Why are they still in print?)
That's true, but in that case, just because ABKCO is selling them,
there's no reason you need to buy them, unless you want the packaging.
On the other hand, you *have* to buy Flowers if you want all the songs.
>And Flowers,no doubt,sounds better than the
>dreadful "Got Live".One of the worst sounding
>live rock albums in history.Even the wonderful
>SACD format (of which I am a big proponent)
>can not make that piece of shit sound good.
Well, keep in mind there are two distinctly different mixes of that
album. I *believe* the SACD uses the same mix as the old ABKCO CD, which
IMO is pretty poor next to the old LP. Not that the LP was great or
anything, but it was a lot more enjoyable to listen to.
Luke
--
David Goodwin
wrote:
>David & Luke: Great job on the FAQ.
>Still ,I don't really get the Flowers "rant".
>Of the 22 SACDs Flowers;with two unique
>songs,is more relevant than Big Hits and Past
>Darkly.(Why are they still in print?)
Well, we ask that question too. The thing is, you can COMPLETELY
ignore those, while if you're a completist, you have to get Flowers.
And people've been bitching about Flowers for untold YEARS...
>
>BTW all DVD-A discs have a subordinate
>Dolby Digital 5.1 Audio track,and are therefore
>playable on DVD Video players
>
I'm not sure that they have to.
-D
Don Lindbergh
>
> A3.2) This is, perhaps, easier to answer in the form of "what I
> DON'T have to buy to get every track in the reissue programme." Ready?
>
> The following aren't needed: both Big Hits comps (made
> redundant by the Hot Rocks and individual albums, and only Hot Rocks
> has the two Sticky Fingers tracks, anyway), Out Of Our Heads UK
> (doesn't have tracks that ARE on Heads US or December's Children),
> Aftermath US (Paint It Black is available elsewhere) and either
> Buttons UK or US (you'll get the "contested" tracks elsewhere anyway).
> You need everything else.
Thanks very much for this FAQ. I'm new to the early Stones discography. I
may be missing something but just to clarify, for the completist you're
saying only the three Abcko remasters below not are needed, assuming one
will buy everything else?
Big Hits (High Tide & Green Grass)
Through The Past, Darkly
Out of Our Heads - UK Version
and one can pick either Buttons UK or US?
Where do I get the track 'One More Try' found on theOut of Our Heads - UK
Version?
--Don
Luke Pacholski
"Don Lindbergh" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Thanks very much for this FAQ. I'm new to the early Stones discography. I
>may be missing something but just to clarify, for the completist you're
>saying only the three Abcko remasters below not are needed, assuming one
>will buy everything else?
>
>Big Hits (High Tide & Green Grass)
>Through The Past, Darkly
>Out of Our Heads - UK Version
You can also skip the US Aftermath.
>and one can pick either Buttons UK or US?
Yes. If you buy either the US or UK version, AND Flowers, you'll have
all the tracks on both versions.
>Where do I get the track 'One More Try' found on theOut of Our Heads - UK
>Version?
Actually, that song is only on the *US* version.
Luke
--
Don Lindbergh
Heads US/UK versions reversed and forgotten about skipping the Aftermath US
version.
--Don
"Luke Pacholski" <lukpac...@lukpac.org> wrote in message
news:lukpac+usenet-222...@teta.doit.wisc.edu...
toptentwist
> In article <10461-3D...@storefull-2197.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> Br...@webtv.net (Bruce Butz) wrote:
>
> >David & Luke: Great job on the FAQ.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >Still ,I don't really get the Flowers "rant".
> >Of the 22 SACDs Flowers;with two unique
> >songs,is more relevant than Big Hits and Past
> >Darkly.(Why are they still in print?)
>
> That's true, but in that case, just because ABKCO is selling them,
> there's no reason you need to buy them, unless you want the packaging.
> On the other hand, you *have* to buy Flowers if you want all the songs.
>
It is certainly true that Flowers has only 2 unique tracks
*TODAY* - but this wasn't true when it was first released.
At the time of its release, it was a good value - especially
if you lived in the US and were not in the habit of buying
imported LPs.
I'd actually prefer that they leave "Flowers" as is - and
reconfigure "More Hot Rocks" - which was always more
of a "Post Mortem" record in its day.
What actually boggles my mind with the new set of releases
is that they didn't seem to adopt a consistent policy regarding mono
and stereo mixes for the hits (where both mixes existed..
I think the Singles collection is a good place for the
mono single mixes - but that SHOULD have set the stage
for the hits LPs (Hot Rocks, More Hot Rocks, Big Hits
and High Tides, Through The Past Darkly) being ALL stereo.
Then could then target the hits LPs at the
casual fan....
And the singles box would be more for purists/completists
who want the single mixes and the b-sides in one
place.
As it currently stands - I had to sit down for
three hours with a spread sheet and plan my
attack - LOL
Luke Pacholski
topte...@yahoo.com (toptentwist) wrote:
>It is certainly true that Flowers has only 2 unique tracks
>*TODAY* - but this wasn't true when it was first released.
Well, it IS true today, plain and simple.
>At the time of its release, it was a good value - especially
>if you lived in the US and were not in the habit of buying
>imported LPs.
Again, this isn't the time of its release. While people looking to
"complete" their collections can avoid both of the Big Hits discs, the
UK Out Of Our Heads, and the US Aftermath and Between The Buttons (and
still have all the songs on those), you HAVE to buy Flowers. For what?
Exactly *two* unique songs.
If people want Flowers, fine, keep it available. ABKCO has already done
that for the albums I already mentioned. However, I don't see why they
had to keep it essential.
>I'd actually prefer that they leave "Flowers" as is - and
>reconfigure "More Hot Rocks" - which was always more
>of a "Post Mortem" record in its day.
How would you reconfigure it?
As confusing as some people make it to be, MHR is really pretty logical
- 3 sides of "lesser hits" (and key album tracks), and one side of
material that wasn't released in the US at the time. Kind of a "greatest
hits part 2" and "rarities" rolled into one.
It would have been easy to add My Girl as a bonus track to Out Of Our
Heads US and Ride On Baby as a bonus track to Aftermath UK (or, if you
wish, both as bonus tracks to More Hot Rocks), and either dump Flowers,
or leave it as "inessential", like the aforementioned albums are.
However, ABKCO is making you buy it for exactly two unique songs.
>What actually boggles my mind with the new set of releases
>is that they didn't seem to adopt a consistent policy regarding mono
>and stereo mixes for the hits (where both mixes existed..
Well, when the stereo mixes are available, I don't think the policy is
*too* confusing. The problem is the songs that have stereo mixes that
ABKCO didn't bother using - Everybody Needs Somebody To Love, The Last
Time, Play With Fire, Satisfaction (original stereo mix), Get Off Of My
Cloud, 19th Nervous Breakdown, Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby. For all
we know, there could be many others in the vaults that people have never
heard - for example, who knew that a nice stereo mix of I've Been Loving
You Too Long existed before now? Who knows what other previously unheard
mixes are sitting in the vaults...
Luke
--
David Goodwin
wrote:
>It is certainly true that Flowers has only 2 unique tracks
>*TODAY* - but this wasn't true when it was first released.
>
>At the time of its release, it was a good value - especially
>if you lived in the US and were not in the habit of buying
>imported LPs.
>
Ehh, it was a ripoff when it came out too, though. How exactly can you
rationalize the inclusion of Lady Jane? Or the Buttons single? They
had a few unused tracks, and padded them out with an awful lot of
filler.
-D
toptentwist
> In article <2aae8552.02092...@posting.google.com>,
> topte...@yahoo.com (toptentwist) wrote:
>
> >It is certainly true that Flowers has only 2 unique tracks
> >*TODAY* - but this wasn't true when it was first released.
>
> Well, it IS true today, plain and simple.
>
I grabbed "Flowers" last night and I tried to figure out what WAS
relevant at the time of its release.
9 out of the 12 tracks were not released previously on a US
album. The three that were availble previously were big
hits.
I then looked at the Beatles blue album and Magical Mystery
Tour.
If you buy the Blue album first - MMT is largely redundant.
You only get 4 unique tracks. 7 tracks are redundant.
I realize I'm comparing Apples vs. Oranges (or more precisely
Beatles vs Stones) but it looks like the main reason
to dump "Flowers" is because of a double LP that
followed it 5-6 years later happened to have
some of the tracks. That's pretty close to arguing
that EMI should have dumped MMT because almost all of
its tracks are on the Blue album.
In fact - if buy "More Hot Rocks" - and then Flowers
the overlap is actually LESS than if you buy the Beatles
blue album and then follow it with MMT. And 3 of the
4 unique tracks left are probably 3 of the Beatles
most boring ("Flying" - "Blue Jay Way" - "Your Mother
Should Know"). Thankfully the 4th track is "Baby
You're A Rich Man"...
The "only 2 tracks" thing only starts to kick in
after you buy THREE other Rolling Stones album
(two of which were double LPs ("Hot Rocks",
"More Hot Rocks") and one that was hard
to get on this side of the pond ("Aftermath - UK").
The biggest problem I see with "Flowers" is
it never included the long version of "Out
Of Time".
If the situation was similar to the Beatles
"Hey Jude" album - which WAS a very strange
collection - even in its day - I agree that
dumping it would be a good idea.
Even still - I understand your sentiment
and if I had been in charge I'd have thrown
thrown "My Girl" and "Ride On Baby"
onto "More Hot Rocks" - to help out the
people who feel like you do.
>
> >I'd actually prefer that they leave "Flowers" as is - and
> >reconfigure "More Hot Rocks" - which was always more
> >of a "Post Mortem" record in its day.
>
> How would you reconfigure it?
>
I'd get rid of the "Flowers" tracks and replace them with
rare tracks. Like the Italian version of "As Tears Go By",
or the "Andrew Loog Oldham" b-sides that are really
The Stones - there's about 4 or 5 of them, mostly
instrumentals that feature Stu's piano - but one
even has Mick Jagger singing lead ("Da Doo Run Run")
it was included on some Stones 70s era compilations.
Plus there's "Tell Me Why, Baby". It was accidently
used in a German box set instead of "Tell Me"
> As confusing as some people make it to be, MHR is really pretty logical
I'd also have given serious though to combining Hot Rocks and More Hot
Rocks into one double CD set. If it doesn't fit - it comes
damn close....
>
>
> heard - for example, who knew that a nice stereo mix of I've Been Loving
> You Too Long existed before now?
Was that only in mono on the "For Collectors Only" LP ?
toptentwist
I believe 9 of the 12 were new to LP in the US when "Flowers" was
released.
1.) Have You Seen Your Mother Baby (previously a 45)
2.) Out Of Time (not previously issued in the US)
3.) My Girl (not available anywhere)
4.) Back Street Girl (not previously issued in the US)
5.) Please Go Home (not previously issued in the US)
6.) Mother's Little Helper (previously a 45)
7.) Take It Or Leave It (not previously issued in the US)
8.) Ride On Baby (not available anywhere)
9.) Sitting On A Fence (not available anywhere)
7 of those 9 were new to the US period.
3 of those 7 were not available elsewhere.
3 of the 9 remain unique today if you count
the short version of "Out Of Our Time" as
unique...
What the deal is with "Out Of Time" ? Is
it a different take or is there an
obvious edit in the short version. I have
yet to compare (I never owned the UK version
of Aftermath before its release on sacd)
I believe "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby" was on the
UK version of "Big Hits and High Tides" - but it was
not on the US counterpart.
I see how this looks like a ripoff IF you had
previously purchased the UK version of "Aftermath" - but
I don't think it was a common practice to purchase
imported records in the 60s....
And if you were a US fan who was buying each
LP as they came out - I believe you had MORE tracks
circa 1967 than your cousins in the UK.
Or maybe it was close to even if you count
singles plus LPs...
I believe the UK folks had some 45 rpm b-sides
that weren't available in the US...
Luke Pacholski
>I believe 9 of the 12 were new to LP in the US when "Flowers" was
>released.
>
>3 of the 9 remain unique today if you count
>the short version of "Out Of Our Time" as
>unique...
Well, you can't, since it is also on More Hot Rocks.
>What the deal is with "Out Of Time" ? Is
>it a different take or is there an
>obvious edit in the short version. I have
>yet to compare (I never owned the UK version
>of Aftermath before its release on sacd)
Same take, but shorter. Without doing an A/B, I believe there's an edit,
and I think and early fade out.
>I believe "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby" was on the
>UK version of "Big Hits and High Tides" - but it was
>not on the US counterpart.
Correct. However, it is on the US Through The Past Darkly (and More Hot
Rocks).
>I see how this looks like a ripoff IF you had
>previously purchased the UK version of "Aftermath" - but
>I don't think it was a common practice to purchase
>imported records in the 60s....
Again, not being a ripoff in 1967 isn't the same as not being a ripoff
today. While it wasn't a ripoff then, it is today.
Luke
--
Luke Pacholski
>I then looked at the Beatles blue album and Magical Mystery
>Tour.
>
>If you buy the Blue album first - MMT is largely redundant.
>You only get 4 unique tracks. 7 tracks are redundant.
>
>I realize I'm comparing Apples vs. Oranges (or more precisely
>Beatles vs Stones) but it looks like the main reason
>to dump "Flowers" is because of a double LP that
>followed it 5-6 years later happened to have
>some of the tracks. That's pretty close to arguing
>that EMI should have dumped MMT because almost all of
>its tracks are on the Blue album.
There's a big difference here. The Blue album is nothing but a hits
package - there is NOTHING unique to it - everything is available either
on the albums or the Past Masters singles comps. As with "Beatles 1",
you don't have to buy it if you want all the songs. I think in the CD
era (and this wasn't the case in the LP era), the only remotely "unique"
thing to the Blue CD is the clean intro version of A Day In The Life
(and slightly different mastering).
More Hot Rocks is another story - while three of the original sides were
"hits" (and b-sides), the fourth side was all stuff previously
unavilable in the US. As it stands today, there are 8 tracks on MHR that
aren't available anywhere else in the SACD issues. You HAVE to buy it if
you want all the songs on it. Plus, there are a few stereo mixes that
aren't available elsewhere.
>In fact - if buy "More Hot Rocks" - and then Flowers
>the overlap is actually LESS than if you buy the Beatles
>blue album and then follow it with MMT. And 3 of the
>4 unique tracks left are probably 3 of the Beatles
>most boring ("Flying" - "Blue Jay Way" - "Your Mother
>Should Know"). Thankfully the 4th track is "Baby
>You're A Rich Man"...
See above - everything on the Blue album is available elsewhere. MHR has
a number of tracks not available anywhere else.
Also, this isn't simply a "MHR vs. Flowers" debate - it's a "if you want
everything, what is unique to Flowers?"
>The "only 2 tracks" thing only starts to kick in
>after you buy THREE other Rolling Stones album
>(two of which were double LPs ("Hot Rocks",
>"More Hot Rocks") and one that was hard
>to get on this side of the pond ("Aftermath - UK").
It isn't any more - Aftermath UK is around "wherever CDs are sold."
As David and I have been saying, we're looking at this from a
collector's perspective, TODAY. If you want all the songs, you HAVE to
buy Flowers - for two unique songs. Some may complain about More Hot
Rocks, but there *are* 8 unique songs to that package.
If ABKCO wants to keep Flowers in print (like the Big Hits comps), fine.
It is just silly that collectors have to buy it for a total of two songs.
>I'd get rid of the "Flowers" tracks and replace them with
>rare tracks. Like the Italian version of "As Tears Go By",
>or the "Andrew Loog Oldham" b-sides that are really
>The Stones - there's about 4 or 5 of them, mostly
>instrumentals that feature Stu's piano - but one
>even has Mick Jagger singing lead ("Da Doo Run Run")
>it was included on some Stones 70s era compilations.
>Plus there's "Tell Me Why, Baby". It was accidently
>used in a German box set instead of "Tell Me"
Well, I think you run into huge problems when you start to *take away*
songs. The shit would hit the fan, much moreso than the current Flowers
issue.
>Was that only in mono on the "For Collectors Only" LP ?
Yes. The version on the stereo Got Live LP was stereo, but it wasn't the
same mix - all of the backing was left, the vocal was center, and the
crowd noise was right. It isn't clear when this (MHR) stereo mix would
have been made, or why.
Luke
--
David Goodwin
wrote:
>
>I then looked at the Beatles blue album and Magical Mystery
>Tour.
>
>If you buy the Blue album first - MMT is largely redundant.
>You only get 4 unique tracks. 7 tracks are redundant.
>
>I realize I'm comparing Apples vs. Oranges (or more precisely
>Beatles vs Stones) but it looks like the main reason
>to dump "Flowers" is because of a double LP that
>followed it 5-6 years later happened to have
>some of the tracks. That's pretty close to arguing
>that EMI should have dumped MMT because almost all of
>its tracks are on the Blue album.
Okay. Let's repeat this again.
The Blue Album has *nothing* exclusive on it. At all. Its remastered
MMT tracks (which are NOT the same masterings that're on the MMT CD)
are also availible on the EP collection (a rip-off, but a collector's
rip-off). At all. At all at all at all. There's nothing saying "Hey,
buy me! I have a few exclusivities you won't find elsewhere!"
More Hot Rocks *does*, though. And not only that, it re-comps stuff
that was on Flowers...and the stuff makes just as much sense among the
MHR stuff as it does among, say, "My Girl" on Flowers.
>
>In fact - if buy "More Hot Rocks" - and then Flowers
>the overlap is actually LESS than if you buy the Beatles
>blue album and then follow it with MMT. And 3 of the
>4 unique tracks left are probably 3 of the Beatles
>most boring ("Flying" - "Blue Jay Way" - "Your Mother
>Should Know"). Thankfully the 4th track is "Baby
>You're A Rich Man"...
MMT was an album released in the US that collected a few un-comped
singles and the MMT EP. Flowers was a US collection that comped some
unavailible stuff and some stuff everyone already had on LP.
>
>
>The "only 2 tracks" thing only starts to kick in
>after you buy THREE other Rolling Stones album
>(two of which were double LPs ("Hot Rocks",
>"More Hot Rocks") and one that was hard
>to get on this side of the pond ("Aftermath - UK").
Hard to get on thsi side of the pond, but certainly worth your time
and effort.
And guess what? It isn't hard to get anymore. Why is Flowers still in
print?
>
>The biggest problem I see with "Flowers" is
>it never included the long version of "Out
>Of Time".
Well, neither did More Hot Rocks.
>If the situation was similar to the Beatles
>"Hey Jude" album - which WAS a very strange
>collection - even in its day - I agree that
>dumping it would be a good idea.
It IS similar to Hey Jude! Lots of tracks you can get elsewhere, a few
tracks that you couldn't (but have since shown up elsewhere). If Hey
Jude were in print, and was the only place to get, say, a stereo "I
Should Have Known Better," it would be just as irritating!
>Even still - I understand your sentiment
>and if I had been in charge I'd have thrown
>thrown "My Girl" and "Ride On Baby"
>onto "More Hot Rocks" - to help out the
>people who feel like you do.
It isn't a "help out the people who feel like I do" problem, really.
It's just such a pure showing of GREED from ABKCO. I wouldn't mind
Flowers if it were COMPLETELY obselete, so nobody HAD to buy it. OK,
example: I don't mind that the two Big hits comps are in print,
because nobody is obligated to buy 'em (of course, completists who
don't realize that are fucked, but...). But Flowers DOES have unique
tracks, which makes it "necessary."
>I'd get rid of the "Flowers" tracks and replace them with
>rare tracks. Like the Italian version of "As Tears Go By",
>or the "Andrew Loog Oldham" b-sides that are really
>The Stones - there's about 4 or 5 of them, mostly
>instrumentals that feature Stu's piano - but one
>even has Mick Jagger singing lead ("Da Doo Run Run")
>it was included on some Stones 70s era compilations.
>Plus there's "Tell Me Why, Baby". It was accidently
>used in a German box set instead of "Tell Me"
Well, then there's no point in calling it "More Hot Rocks." Might as
well just have an ENTIRELY NEW compilation that collects just stuff
you can't get elsewhere (and, gee, retire Hot Rocks and make the
necessary "Decca-Era Hits" collection more comprehensive...maybe a
single album with 24 well-chosen tracks? Nawww).
>
>Was that only in mono on the "For Collectors Only" LP ?
Yep. I love that LP, btw. What a nice collection!
-D
David Goodwin
<lukpac...@lukpac.org> wrote:
>There's a big difference here. The Blue album is nothing but a hits
>package - there is NOTHING unique to it - everything is available either
>on the albums or the Past Masters singles comps. As with "Beatles 1",
>you don't have to buy it if you want all the songs. I think in the CD
>era (and this wasn't the case in the LP era), the only remotely "unique"
>thing to the Blue CD is the clean intro version of A Day In The Life
>(and slightly different mastering).
Which (random note time) you can get a lot of better places, like the
excellent "Imagine - The Soundtrack" album.
-D
Luke Pacholski
David Goodwin <ksg...@yifan.net> wrote:
>Which (random note time) you can get a lot of better places, like the
>excellent "Imagine - The Soundtrack" album.
Ahh, yes, I forgot about that.
So, to correct myself, there is NOTHING unique about the Blue CD. Unlike
More Hot Rocks (8 songs, 12 if you count the Flowers-only songs and
stereo mixes).
Luke
--
toptentwist
OK... but The Singles Collection only has 5 unique tracks and
it's three discs... that's less than 2 tracks per disc...
Yes - you get the mono singles on a digital format - but that's
basically the whole thing. That was much less of a value
in its day - and still is...
David Goodwin
wrote:
>OK... but The Singles Collection only has 5 unique tracks and
>it's three discs... that's less than 2 tracks per disc...
>
>
>Yes - you get the mono singles on a digital format - but that's
>basically the whole thing. That was much less of a value
>in its day - and still is...
Well, the point of the Singles Collection is the mono mixes. That
tends to be the point of Singles Collections...for example, if the
Beatles Singles Collection were on 2 discs instead of being a
collector's-only release, it'd be a great value. Similarly, the
Stones' singles collection could probably be trimmed down to two discs
by dropping the obvious filler (i.e. everything after Brown Sugar,
pretty much).
-D