Did the Stones have a say in how their pre-1967 albums were released?

Supposedly Andrew Loog Oldham sequenced the U.S. albums, so he had input on the U.S. releases and he knew the U.S. market wanted the hits on the albums.

 

I have commented on all this previously. As I stated a while back in the thread - where is the evidence of this? Besides that one little note someone posted. Oldham is not a reliable commentator, and I bet he couldn't even remember which album was which these days. No way did he sequence Englands Newest...12 x5 was released to coincide with Stones US tour - the argument of US record companies was "Oh EPs don't sell here" - but they did fine everywhere else. Basically it was more profitable to take an EP whack a few extra tracks on it and make more dosh. Why did the Stones complain about Decembers Children if Oldham put it together...they were all tight at this time. The whole Oldham "sequenced" US albums is something I have never really believed...he may have thrown the US companies the odd spare track when they needed to fill out an album...but I'd say that was about it.

 

What do you mean? The Stones recorded on the go, but the band certainly made choices as to what material appeared on their UK albums. Which is the argument that is being made...they were a British band and their choices of content for the UK albums were far closer to what they wanted than what came out in the US. The Stones collected together their material for the "proper" UK releases. Discards like My Girl etc etc - were just used as filler for the US - years after their recording, and with their rapid development all the more anachronistic as well. No way that these were learned "artistic decisions".

 

How did Oldham, who was like 21 during the first couple of albums "understand the US market"? Did understanding the US market mean releasing the "wrong" version of Everybody Needs Somebody etc? I think Oldham's input has been overstated, and retroactively justified. At best, I'd say he had a hand in the US singles, but that's about it. The band themselves obviously did have a say in what they wanted because, for example, they scrapped the organ version of Time and rerecorded it at Chess when they had the chance...

 

Well, you can discount what Oldham says if you want but I tend to believe it until proven otherwise.

 

And were not the UK albums similarly assembled with market considerations?

This was disposable teen pop music. It was all about moving product on both sides of the Atlantic. There was no "art" involved.

 

Sure...the only person who I think might be able to answer with any authority is Bill, although he was somewhat removed from release decisions...

 

Yes, market considerations were of course important, but this is the crux of the discussion, in the UK/Europe "value for money" was inherent to those release decisions, and that is why singles etc weren't duplicated. Of course how one's work is presented is an "artistic decision" even if it wasn't perhaps considered "high art". They were always trying to progress, and present this progression. The US albums don't really do this...The US was more product oriented. The Beatles/Stones put more thought into UK releases, and adhered to cultural proclivities because that was the environment the groups were immersed in. Despite all this "Oldham knew US market" - no he didn't. None of the British groups did - they were just happy to have an audience over there, but were at the mercy of US record companies who made more albums with single cuts and leftovers.

 

Thanks, but we'll agree to disagree.

 

Side note: E.P.'s where also not the norm in other countries such as Germany & Italy for example.

 

Well the Beatles (for example) released a lot of EPs in Germany and I'd have to check Italy. But EPs were common in other parts of Europe like France and Spain as well as Australia and Mexico andn pretty much elsewhere

 

Please don't paint it black.

 

I know I wanted the hits in stereo on my USA albums. I already had the mono 45s

 

What "re-processed" Stereo? There were few actual true Stereo releases in the US until Aftermath. Maybe "re-processed" stereo was another decision made by Andrew Oldham for the US market.

 

as a young kid I didn't know the difference

 

Fair enough!

 

There is a very good reason why often German e.p's are collectable and can command big money.
Unlike France (who was nearer to the opposite, at least in the 60's) the German public far more embraced singles and consequently they sold very heavily and were often repressed or reissued with new artwork sleeves.
The E.P's were made in lesser numbers as in comparison they were generally not big sellers.

 

I remember the dc5 ,animals and kinks first greatest hits albums. Those fake stereo albums but I liked them. I can't remember if stones first greatest hits was fake stereo. It had some cool pictures pages inside.

 

Big Hits? Yes, it was fake stereo.

 

OK, I am not up on EPs really, good to know, I'll keep an eye out. I once had a first pressing of German Around and Around (without cover) that I sold years ago. With annotations on label like "shake" "limbo" etc...but I digress...

 

I suppose that you're right, he was probably just following the record company's lead.

A character like Oldham is fascinating, and mysterious. I mean, if I was in his position at his age, rubbing elbows with a young group called The Rolling Stones, I would NOT have become their manager and nominal record producer. I hung around a lot of musicians when I was in my mid-to-late-20's and I didn't enter the music business. There are elements of ambition, ego, hubris - whatever you want to call it - that distinguish a man like Andrew Oldham. At some point, the Stones realized that he was out of his league. Then what? They signed-on with Allen Klein. Ooops. I mean OOOPS!!!!!
:

:

:

:

:

:

:

OOOPS!!!!!

 

Indeed.

 

My question is, regardless of historical reasons, shouldn't whoever is in charge of their back catalog put some order NOW and set up a unified discography? Wouldn't it be easier then to have access to each and every song released by the Stones in the early sixties? The reason I propose their UK albums as a starting point is plain to see: they are a british act! How did other UK bands solve this problem themselves?
And let's all bear in mind that streaming is now (or, if you prefer, will most probably be) the preferred way of listening to music. We should completely forget the concept of "selling albums". It's out of the question.

 

Unfortunately it is never going to happen. ABKCOs agreement with the Stones means they have to leave the original albums as they are, and even if they did reach an agreement to sort things out - and maintain UK catalogue as standard, there would little financial incentive to do so now. Might be nice to sort it out for the digital age, as you say, but even before a unified discography - I'd prefer some actual stereo mixes where multitracks are available! Like RCA stuff...The Stones have pretty much been alienated from their 60s catalogue, and until they go into public domain or burn up in a fire through neglect - the Stones 60s stuff is going to sadly remain a mess.

 

Yes, I think you're right.