[kj] It's a Boxing Day miracle!

[Jim Harper]

That's a question that I've had to consider a few times recently. I don't know if there are any hardened/ardent Stones fans on the list, but if there is, they've probably had to assess the 'viability' of the recent re-releases of Exile on Main Street and Some Girls, two albums I hold in high regard. The Rolling Stones are my absolute musical deities; they are the only band I've been a fan of since I was 13. Killing Joke and Bauhaus come after the Stones for me. Anyway.  
 
Both of these two albums are remastered and come with an extra CD. Jolly good. But after a little digging around, I discovered that with the exception of 2 songs, all of the material on the Exile rerelease has been touched up by Mick and Keith, as well as long-time producer Don Was. This really threw me. I don't want to hear the M&K of 2010 tweaking and fiddling with earlier songs- I want to hear the Stones of '72, which is why I bought the album in the first place. Even worse is the presence of Mr Was. Although I've loved all of the post-Steel Wheels album, without fail I've been disappointed with his production. Somehow, he manages to make them sound nothing like the live, fired-up Stones. The revelation that he'd be adding his 'magic' to the outtakes did not make me happy. Then it turned out they drafted Mick Taylor to add a new solo to a track; once again, Mick Taylor of '72 was fantastic, but the MT of 2010 ain't. Still, at least they didn't get Ron
 Wood to do it.
 
As any Stones fan will tell you, they've released whole albums of outtakes from other sessions, particularly when Mick & Keith were having a lovers' tiff. That poses the question, do songs *written* in '72 but not actually *recorded* until 1983 should be included? Besides, the lineup that recorded the song included Ron Wood, but the lineup that wrote had Mick Taylor. So Christ knows.
 
The same problems emerged with Some Girls. I did buy it, and immediately noticed the Was-provided flatness. There's some good songs on there, but you can't honestly say you're getting an expanded version of a classic album.
 
Sorry for the ramble. Truly in two minds about these editions.
 
Jim.
 

________________________________
From: Alexander Smith <vassifer at earthlink.net>
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!) <gathering at misera.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, 27 December 2011, 13:38
Subject: Re: [kj] It's a Boxing Day miracle!




I think even the most celebrated live albums out there have overdubbing. It's a bit like believing in Santa Claus. If you want to dispel your inherent cynicism and buy into to the theory that x-band really sounds that dynamic in the live setting, it's there for you to believe. But even if the finished product involves some sneaky "finishing touches" applied in a studio -- does that make the document any less nice to listen to? (i.e. even when you find out Santa doesn't exist, that doesn't mean you stop getting presents).

Alex in NYC


On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Paul Rangecroft wrote:

Will need to have a proper listen with headphones. Can't decide if I think that's right or wrong! Should live albums be genuinely live, or should they sound as good as possible?

>

>

>On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Rob Moss <rob.moss at gmx.com> wrote:

>

>

>>

>>Wondering if the guitars have been dubbed in places? 

>>

>>

>>On 26 Dec 2011, at 19:15, Paul Rangecroft <paul.rangecroft at gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>

>>Listening to Down By The River.

>>>

>_______________________________________________

>Gathering mailing list

>Gathering at misera.net

>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>


_______________________________________________
Gathering mailing list
Gathering at misera.net
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20111227/53150eb2/attachment.html>