The Rolling Stones

philco · Post by **philco** » Wed May 07, 2003 2:26 pm

The Rolling Stones have released their entire back catalog again in HDCD format this time. Has anybody bought any of these recordings, and does the upgraded audio sound meet the hype it has been given? The effect is reported as easily noticeable even on modest playback equipment, and very noticeable on audiophile equipment.

My old Rotel 1991 era RCD-855 can pick up a difference between an HDCD disc and a standard one, but I was wondering what people with more modern CD players had experieced with the new HDCD and SACD discs. My old Rotel still blows away most standard CD players on standard discs.

I don't want to invest in the new technology unless I can really hear it.

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu May 08, 2003 1:34 am

Philco: You can never get too much early stones. Later Stones material, however, has not been my favourite and to my way of thinking lacks the spontaneity and originality of their early work. For a Brian Jones flashback visit here.

philco · Post by **philco** » Thu May 08, 2003 3:32 am

Peter, for the most part what you say is true. However, listen to "Stealing My Heart" from the new Forty Licks CD and realize that the Stones can still crank 'em out like they used to, if they want to. Also, songs like "I Go Wild" from their Voodoo Lounge album of 1994 proved they were still the Bad Boys of Rock.

I understand that the Stones have released ALL their old albums in the higher fidelity format. Mick was an astute businessman from a long ways back, he never lost control of the Stones music the way the Beatles did. It this respect, they have outperformed the Beatles. They also stayed together to become the greatest live act in rock music. They have the top three revenue grossing tours of all time, and five of the top ten are theirs as well. Their music videos are among my favorites. They show no indication of growing old too gracefully. They already have three times more top hits than they can perform in a single concert, so I guess their present priority is milking the golden goose and keeping the quality of the show up rather than making the golden goose any fatter. Strangely, they have never released a fully comprehensive boxed set of ALL their top hits and other notable works. Forty Licks leaves out some major works, such as "Heartbreaker", "*****", and "Play With Fire". I guess they are letting it be known that their career isn't over yet, and they will do something like that when the end is finally reached. Forty Licks is a fairly decent anthology, but definitely falls short as a complete compilation of all their notable songs.

Of course, all Stones fans miss Brian Jones. The Stones must miss him even more. He held the band together in the early days when the others were ready to pack it in and quit. Ironically, he was the least capable of handling success when it finally came around. Sad, sad, sad.

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu May 08, 2003 3:54 am

Philip: One of my all time favourites with "Play With Fire". This song was so unique and different for its time. I have the CD set with the London singles which is a terrific collection. That Brian Jones played a Rickenbacker 12 string or two, didn't hurt the Stones sound either.

philco · Post by **philco** » Thu May 08, 2003 10:44 am

I was talking to a woman in England on the phone a couple of weekends ago. Her nearby neighbor was once a roadie for the Stones. He told her how the Stones really were in real life. It turns out the real life Mick is a very different person from his stage image as a "strutting rooster". He said that Mick was quite a decent person in real life, and acted rather normal. I always figured their public image was rather manipulated, and about as authentic as professional wrestling. Of course, they were wilder in their youth for sure. Unfortunately, Brian got carried away by the lifestyle.

The Stones don't play any Rickenbackers on the music videos I have of them, and it's really a shame. It would really put back the original tone into the earlier songs they still do on tour. The big companies buy their way onto concert stages, and it sometimes leads artists to use guitars that they ordinarily would not use. I do have a video of Bill Wyman playing a Steinberger bass, and Steinberger, like RIC, didn't do endorsements back then. At least Bill was playing what he genuinely liked. However, I think it would have sounded better had he used a Rickenbacker or Fender bass, the "technical superiority" of the Steinberger notwithstanding. Rickenbacker and Fender have developed their bass tone by constant experimentation down through the years. The Steinberger never made a bad sound, but I never heard any "magic sounds" like I hear from Rickenbackers and Fenders. Daryl Stuermer plays a Steinberger bass on a Genesis concert video as well, and I have the same opinion of it there, good sound all the way around but just no "magic sounds". I can tolerate a dead note now and then if the rest are exceptional. The Stones should go back to using Rickenbackers on some of their songs at concerts, especially when recording for music videos. You don't get that unique jangle and growl anywhere else.

Of course, Keith has been a Telecaster slinger for a long time. However, Ron has filled the slot that Brian once had, and it would be nice if he used a Rick or two on stage to help add some authenticity to their old songs.

But back to my original question: Is the new CD format so good that you can hear a real difference, and is it worth buying new CD's to replace old ones, or to buy a new CD player to take full advantage of the new CD formats. The experience you hear at home is often different than "gee whiz" demonstrations put on by manufacturers at shows and in stores.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Wed May 14, 2003 5:32 am

Re: their real personas-I read a quote recently from one of them (sorry, don't remember who, But obviously it was either Mick or Keef) in which he said that their manager always pushed the bad boy image, as it sold. They said they'd go to hospitals and cheer up the kids, but their manager would only publicize their arrests for public peeing, or some such nonsense. However, tons of bands since have adopted that bad boy selling stance since, successfully (see: the '80's). P.S. 40 licks, while worthwhile, leaves too much out. And yeah, they still write killer songs, but dang whipersnappers today wouldn't know real rock 'n roll if it peed in their face!

sir_andrew_of_left_coast · Wed May 14, 2003 6:59 am

The quote you refer to, said by Mick, is in the 25x5 video; which is a documentary of the band's first 25 years. Their manager in the early days was Andrew Oldham.

admin · Post by **admin** » Wed May 14, 2003 8:10 am

This is so interesting because The Beatles were one of the "rough and tumble" leathers' gang to some extent in the very beginning. Part of Epstein's reasoning was that they needed cleaning up and the more professional look paid off. Would they have been just as successful as the Stones had they stuck to their original attire? Would the Stones have been as successful as they became had they adopted the clean-cut Beatles' image?

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Thu May 15, 2003 6:04 am

Ying and yang, their images played off each other, and helped them not to too directly compete with one another. The fabs' music was cheerier (in the beginning)so that worked for them. The Stones' music, based in the blues, was grittier. It seems everyone's managers figured their images just right. The fabs clean image broadened their appeal to the max, tho if you were observant enough, you'd pick up the street smarts of em. I did and I was ten. They were drinkin, smokin, skirt chasers. The press loved 'em and didn't report the orgies. Parents still hated them for the hair, wild music and the effect on their kids (both bands) Funny how a lot of bands tried to outdo them on the clean nice guy thing. I remember a blurb at the time about the Dave Clark 5 touting that they (DC5) were even more polite than the fabs. This might have been on one of the liner notes on their album! The Stones (to my small circle) were a bit scary, and I even remember a caption under a picture of them in a newspaper "The (ugly) Rolling Stones". ! Honest! And, in '65, there was a rumor that Bill Wyman was 30! That disgusted my 12 year old sister! The tough rock stance seems to have won the derby, and bands still today go to ridiculous and transparent means to convey this. Would either have succeeded with a different image? I'd say yes, perhaps to a slightly different degree. So much talent would have seeped out somehow.

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu May 15, 2003 4:49 pm

Good point Jerry. Music is a fickle business, however, and I am not convinced that The Beatles would have emerged from the rubble of Liverpool as a success without Epstein. There were hundreds of groups and many great artists that got lost in the shuffle. As an example one of the best versions of "Do You Love Me", seeing as you mentioned Dave Clark, was by Faron and the Flamingos. Yet the DC5 soared in the charts while Faron did not.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Thu May 15, 2003 6:11 pm

Wry toe. The Beatles needed what they got from Brian to succeed. They also needed what they got from George Martin. Apart from talent, they were extremely lucky, things came together perfectly for them. But the DC5, Stones, et al wouldn't have made a ripple had it not been for the coat tails of the fabs. Everything English was being eaten up at the time because of them, so much so that American bands had to affect the British look and sound (save for Motown/Stax, the folkies and Dylan). America was ripe for a diversion after the Kennedy assasination, millions of kids were reaching record buying age at a time when watered down Elvises flooded the charts (a pun). I think a good question to ponder is would the British Invasion happened at all had Kennedy not been assasinated. Remember, apart from their music, their personalities and fame captivated the western world. Cheered us up immensely, at a time of national, international grief, giving even those who didn't like them something to focus upon (remember all the anti-beatle pop records)?

philco · Post by **philco** » Sun May 18, 2003 5:59 am

The original question is still if anybody has compared their remastered high definition CD reissues to the original CD's on the latest compatible CD players that gets the most out of HDCD. I read that the difference is way beyond subtle, but would like to hear it from actual users rather than a reviewer before I invest a lot of money.

I can hear a DEFINITE improvement on the 2002 reissue of The Who: The Ultimate Collection. It does not; however, have me wanting to run out and get an HDCD player until somebody tells me I can get AT LEAST that much improvement again in sound by playing it in an HDCD player. Does anybody out there have high end audio equipment and an HDCD player they have played the old and new reissue Stones' CD's through?

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Sun May 18, 2003 11:05 am

The industry is gearing up to make the standard 5.1, rendering, in their hopes at least, two channel stereo CD players in car/home units obsolete. Already autos are equipped from the factory that way, and many of us already have home theater systems. So we'll all have to buy our CD collections all over again. My band is mixing our CD in 5.1, and we're major small time. I don't know if I'd invest in anything right now. You know they'll just re-issue everything in the new format. Some of my computer buddies are talking 10.2! And a live music club in my area has just installed a 5.1 p.a. system for their live band situation. It's inevitable, folks. Might be nice to hear a Beatles/Stones record sounding like you're in the middle of the audience. Be afraid. Be very afraid (for your wallet).

philco · Post by **philco** » Sun May 18, 2003 4:29 pm

Thanks for the info! I won't be buying all my albums again on 5.1 CD. I still collect and spin LP's even! I've got a pro level Tascam cassette recorder, and I even still use that thing frequently. Alan Blumlein's two-channel stereo system was a stroke of genius (He realized we process all the spatial aural clues with only two ears), just like Nicola Tesla's three-phase alternating current electrical power distribution system. 5.1 audio can add a new dimension, but that doesn't mean it necessarily sounds better than PROPERLY executed two-channel stereo. People who NEVER properly installed and used a good two-channel sound system aren't about to suddenly get it right with a five-channel one. However, many people enjoy screwing things up at a higher level, so I expect 5.1 to enjoy some commercial success. Why listen through two GREAT loudspeakers, when you can have five lesser ones and a "contrafart subwoofer" for the same amount of money?

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 5:30 am

Hi Phil,
You said that you still spin records. I won't even buy a Stones CD because what little I have heard was remixed bringing up the vocals, cutting the bass etc. I activally seek out the original LP's, even the monos which sound better than the electronically rechanneled stereo versions of the LP's. The first time I heard a Stones CD was a big disappointment to me (Sticky Fingers). I like the LP's because they have balls which the CD's seem to lack. I'll put up with the scratches and surface noise to hear the real thing.
And Peter the Brian Jones stuff is also my favorite, although I like all their stuff, they were never the same after he passed on. I think that Ron Woods was a much better bass player than a guitar player, listen to Beckola, he was great on bass.
On the other hand, I think that the Beatles Cd's sound great, and I own many CD's, but I do not rush out and buy the latest technology, look what happened with quadraphonic. I also don't like to help the electronics industry's latest attempts to make everything obsolete so they can screw everyone again as they did when they changed over from Lp's to CD's. I still remember the day I walked into my local record store to pick up some LP's and saw that they had cleaned out all the LP's and replaced them with CD's! And I didn't evem own a CD player at that time. That reason they did that was simple, they doubled the price on Cd's for no reason except that they saw another way to screw the consumer. Wow that resentment was in there for a long time. I feel better now.