Yeah, I totally agree with you! Unfortunately we’re in the middle of this and we’re paying for it. Pity really. Beave
I would if the hardback book and lithographs weren’t included, it’s my favourite album by the stones so to have it another four times is here or there. I don’t save money with The Stones unfortunately.
Exactly why they missed the boat with this and Beggars Banquet as well for that matter. Two of the best albums of all time and no outtakes.
Totally agree, I just like the look of the book and litho’s, agree about the music but the album is good enough to own again. I’ve given up hope now on Stones studio material/outtakes from the vaults.
Alright - so I'm a bit of a Rolling Stones aficionado and Let It Bleed is probably my favorite album ever. Here are the questions I have surrounding this set: -Restored art What do they mean when they say "restored?" The 2002 remaster, and even the original ABKCO and London CDs, has the original album artwork. Were those versions not accurate to the original released in 1969? -Remastering Why do they advertise it as "newly remastered?" The stereo mix was remastered in 2002 by Bob Ludwig for DSD and released as a hybrid SACD and CD in 2002. The mono mix was remastered by Bob Ludwig and released in I think 2016? as part of the mono box set. Why would they take the time to create all new transfers and remaster them? What would they improve on that they got wrong in 2002 and 2016? Even the original London and ABKCO discs were not bad. The London discs were mastered very well, but as I understand, the newer ones come from tapes much closer to the original masters. -Mono mix What is all of the hype over the mono mix? The mono mix as I understand is just a fold-down of the stereo mix? Sometimes mono mixes back then were more powerful so I get why some people might like them. But I understand that the original was recorded in stereo and released in stereo in the US on London and released in mono (fold down) on Decca in the UK. -Extras I do agree that getting those figurines would be neat. The same way we got some scarves and marbles in the Immersion box sets for Pink Floyd. I do think the booklet and lithographs are a neat touch. The Pink Floyd Immersion boxes included some of those. But in terms of the music - unlike with Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main St deluxe editions, no working mixes, no live tracks, no unreleased stuff. -Vinyl Where will the vinyl be pressed? Is it half-speed mastered? I have the clear vinyl released in 2013 or something and my copy skips grooves. I thought it was a pos pressing. The original US stereo Londons are better in my experience for any Rolling Stones vinyl pressing. Same goes for their post 1970 catalog - the originals (Rolling Stones Records) are superior quality. I just don't feel like it's worth it to spend $125 on this. I might spend $90 or $100, but not $125 especially when it's so lacking in extras. It's hard telling if it's ABKCO who doesn't want to put out a bunch of unreleased material or if it's the band holding it up. It's too bad they can't make these worthwhile like Sticky Fingers and Exile.
Because it was re-mastered this year by Bob Ludwig. It has been 17 years. I'm not commenting on the sound quality of either re-issue, just that it has been re-mastered again. Here is what Bob Ludwig said about his new version: “When we did the first Let It Bleed remaster in 2002, our intention was to pay homage to the original work,” said Ludwig, who is no stranger to the Stones catalog, having mastered or remastered many of their classic albums over the past four decades. “When we did this new version, the purpose was to make it as great as it could possibly sound. If you listen on a good set of speakers or good headphones, you’ll hear subtle things in the background that are now much more clear that were somewhat hidden before.”
In regards to ‘restored art’, what label variation are they using? Sleeve variation? Inner sleeve variation? I’m sure they’re not even paying attention to this level of detail, but if they themselves are bringing up restored art, they should be. Variations outlined here: https://www.stonesondecca.com/the-60s-decca/let-it-bleed/
AFAIK the original poster has not been reproduced in decades -- certainly not in any of the reissues you cite. Doubt those included purple inner sleeve either.
I don't get the hate for Country Honk. Mick and Keith were staying at a ranch and discovered old Hank Williams and country blues stuff and wrote the song. Keith's guitar tones on the record are incredible. I suppose if one hates country music fair enough. But I submit listening to the real country music, like Han just blasted it through my system via Tidal and it sounded great to me.
Anyone had a chance to compare Monkey Man - Remastered 2019 to the 2002 remaster or original ABKCO/London discs? I'm curious to know what, if any, differences people find.
Yeah, in the UK red sleeves for the mono, blue inner sleeves for the stereo. That way, you could verify the contents looking through the cutout hole in the jacket.
Thought I’d share this here. Obviously it won’t be in the upcoming anniversary box, but here is a picture of the fan club flyer that came in my original US stereo copy with purple inner sleeve with lyrics, the poster, and a sticker on the front cover touting the enclosed poster. “Are you a member of The Rolling Stones fan club?”
I'm hoping Lukpac will have some information on this, once the set has been released. Always informative: http://www.lukpac.org/stereostones/stones-cd-faq.txt X Which is the core question raised in regard to every box set discussed here on the Forum. It's interesting to watch. Some will remain adamant that it's not worth it. As the release date becomes imminent or if the set is limited, some will turn around and pick up the set they've sworn is not worth it, for weeks before. Just interesting to watch the opinions flow.
Yes and funny how people are still surprised upon each release that: "Abkco have not issued studio outtakes this time around!"
