The Rolling Stones On Air In The Sixties Book and Album

Why does the booklet list the years 1963 - 1969 across the first two pages, then include a photo from 1969 right before the tracklist. There are no tracks here later than fall 1965.

 

As far as this sounding inferior to the available boots.... I say rubbish. This sounds as good or better.

 

I think you're being overly suspicious. I've anybody was going to be sidelined, it would be Bill. They actually edited him out of the cover shot from Rarities 1971-2003.

 

Well, they did manage to edit the 1969 photo in the booklet so Mick Taylor does not appear.

 

At least, Apple found clean copy of "Words of love", "Ooh! my soul" and "Sweet little sixteen" for their BBC releases which Abkco even did NOT try to find. And I doubt that Abkco used original BBC transcriptiopn discs for this release.

 

Other than the Blues In Rhythm Show, which was broadcast in stereo much of The Beatles BBC “stuff” does sound better.

 

Got recent bootlegs (for free) and don't compare it to rubbish from 20 years ago (this release sounds even worse than THAT old crap). And that skip on Last Time sounds amazing on top of that.

 

bill asked to be edited out .

 

In addition to the mislabelling of Ain't That Loving You Baby (which is from Top Gear 1964), the version of Hi Heel Sneakers on this set appears to be the version from the Joe Loss Pop Show rather than Saturday Club as listed on the sleeve. Though Saturday Club occasionally featured a live in front of audience session (2 examples are by Cliff Richard and The Drifters and of course, every Stones fans best friends the lovable Mop Tops) this was pretty rare and didn't happen for any of the Stones appearances.
Small, forgivable error pointed out to me by Felix Aeppli who asked if the track had been edited. I think it's always been missing the first verse on boot though didn't when originally aired.
Felix's and also Nico Zentgraf's Stones websites are well worth a visit btw.

 

What boots are you comparing it to?

I really wanted to enjoy this new BBC compilation. But I'm struggling to find anything on the two-disc version that beats the boot I own (a 2007 double CD called "BBC Sessions"). The whole thing sounds haphazardly done. The fact they missed the repeat on "The Last Time" suggests that they didn't even listen to the final product after mastering it. That repeat could have been fixed with 30 seconds of work in Audacity. The added distortion on the live songs like "It's All Over Now," "Confessin the Blues," and "If You Need Me" renders them virtually unlistenable. The boot had none of that.

I'm glad this material was finally deemed worthy for an official release. I just wish they had put a little effort into it.

 

"For all tracks that have been through Abbey Road's new de-mix process, original BBC master tapes and transcription discs have been used wherever possible..."

Of course the "wherever possible" is a convenient escape route. Furthermore, it could be that none of the tracks have been through the new de-mix process. Nevertheless and notwithstanding if what czeskleba states expressly is true it would be interesting to see how the statement in the CD booklet stands up to the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

Do you stand by your statement Jason? If that is the case I shall refer the matter to the trading standards people.

 

I like the new set. Phooey to the naysayers!


edit : but the skip on The Last Time is a joke. How did they let that out?

 

Agreed.

 

I'm sure that next stage in preparing archival releases such as this would be grabbing stuff simply from youtube. Why bother with bootlegs? Go to youtube, grab audio, add compression... Sure people still be praising this

 

I know, really. If people will praise this (sourced from a bootleg, reverb added, processed into fake stereo), then they will praise anything.

Sadly, this is no longer an audiophile forum.

 

Whoa there Nellie. Where did you read that?

"Wyman is keen to quash the rumours about lingering bad blood between him and his former bandmates. He concedes that the airbrushing of his image from the archive photographs that appeared on the sleeve of the Stones' 2005 retrospective album Rarities was "disappointing and petty, but I don't know whose decision that was. I don't bring those things up."

Bill Wyman: I can't live off the Stones royalties

 

The presumption that digital signal processing (de-mixing in this case) is automatically bad (or non-audiophile) is why some of us find *some* self-proclaimed "audiophiles" to be, uh, well, easily dismissed.

Just my 2 cents.

 

I agree, I'm a long time Stones fan, my first rock album was the Stones England's Newest Hit Makers in 1965. I'm stunned how bad this sounds, it's not just the sound but the performances.
It's like all the energy of the band was sucked out of the room.

 

No sitting on shelf anymore collecting dust, Discogs and away it goes out the door.

 

Very heavy flat sounding bass on the cd, I can imagine how crappy it's going to sound on vinyl.

 

Rumor is that is exactly what they did with a song or two on the Led Zep Deluxe BBC release.

 

Grab it and then contact youtube with request to delete stuff as copyright holder. Excellent!

 

Are you kidding? There are a multitude of reasons why this release stinks and we have explained it in detail a dozen times now. You're just being flat-out ignorant.

 

I haven't commented on what I think of this release.

This means you haven't comprehended my statement. This also means you are necessarily incorrect in saying I'm "being flat out ignorant". This also means I could easily call you the same (and actually, arguably, be correct); however, I'll refrain.

 

This. I have multiple boots and I have the official release now. I am happy.