Upcoming Rolling Stones release "Honk"

I understand the completist thing better than most anyone - but with The Stones you have to prioritise as the extended discography is so vast - so I guess one has to set ( invent) some parameters. Do you have every single worldwide comp. leading up to 'Honk'? If you don't then there's stuff out there far more aesthetically pleasing for your money than this gaudy slab.

The completist's argument, in terms of performances, rather than vinyl artefacts, is that last disc in the deluxe package. But I do, as stated, have a bug-bear with these live duets. Bo Diddley or Buddy Guy - that's different. The selections they're currently allowing are the decisions of clueless and desperate old men - which I know they're not, beyond Jagger's now decades old desperation to be relevant. These are the decisions that lead to some of his more regrettable solo productions. Or else at the behest of labels/ investors. They're the kind of thing that a fully functioning Keith or a more engaged Charlie would have nixed in seconds. In 1975 they begrudgingly allowed Elton John up on the stand, and then bitched about it, publicly, afterwards. That was Elton John. And Mr Sheeran, you're no Elton John.

 

I’ve got it all...multiple times over. The Stones and The Beach Boys are my obsessions.

 

Same master. Any difference is down to format/playback

GRRR! included songs from the Decca/London era, which so far have escaped the same amount of limiting in mastering — so that will raise the average overall. The tracks that overlap between both are the same DR

 

My parameter increasingly becomes “did Brian Jones or Mick Taylor play on this?”.

Agreed. Call me an old man yelling at clouds, but I don’t care, the Stones stooping to share the stage with mediocrities such as Ed Sheeran, Brad Paisley, or Dave Grohl is an embarrassment.

 

What if it’s attractive to the new potential fans?
Why not appreciate that? Everything is not aimed at the collector. A new comp sells better than an older one because of it’s fresh nature.

 

You're an old man yelling at artists that many people like, not clouds. Paisley's playing on "Dead Flowers" is far from mediocre anyhow, so it's your loss

 

I understand the concept, and I'm sure that's how the label / Jagger will have pitched it. I believe it's wrong-headed though, and, to be similarly cynical and ad-speak, diminishes the brand.

Firstly - they're selling out football stadiums, still. Any pan of the crowd will show a good mix of younger people. They're there anyway. They're there, for the very most part, because of the cool and mystique that the band built in its first two decades. The Rolling Stones are The Rolling Stones precisely because they didn't do stuff like this. I know that they haven't had a genuinely wicked, dangerous and subversive bone in their collective body since Jones was hauled from the pool. But they maintained the illusion.

Now, Sheeran and Welsh are a very old man's idea of what might represent a 'young' music. And they're not, unless you've utterly lost all grip of the concept, cool. All of these acts, Grohl included, are middle of the road entertainers for thirty-somethings and beyond. So I don't feel like an old man railing at the sky. I'm totally up for bringing on a bunch of modern nihilists like Fat White Family for 'Street Fighting Man', or, heaven forfend, finding a Sugar Blue on the streets and giving them a break. The Rolling Stones find and define cool, they give props where they're due. They don't look for a leg up or a prop for themselves. That isn't The Rolling Stones.

And - something for the guy who has everything...

I very much doubt that you do. How could you? Bill Wyman doesn't have everything. So we have to have parameters. I'm saying that I'd not have to scroll far down the 212,617 current entries for the Stones on ebay before I found something I needed more than Florence Welsh bellowing her way through 'Wild Horses'.

Actually, I may just have discovered the derivation of the album title.

 

I think this is it. These tracks are available elsewhere in higher fidelity (except possibly Doom And Gloom and the live tracks?).

 

Florence on "Wild Horses" is terrible. I noticed the back cover of "Honk" looks a lot like the back cover of "Jump Back". Was this done on purpose?

 

I noticed that too. It has to be a nod to the earlier collection.

 

True, but as with Honk, it's aimed at the casual or younger fan who wants to have something in their collection by these legendary artists. A bold, simplified, colorful,, broad-stroked cover that can easily be seen--and recognized- from 100 paces away at the local Target or Walmart does the trick.

 

See, this is the thing. Is a single 'young person' going to drop £50 plus for a triple vinyl physical product in 2019 to add to their (non-existent) Florence Welsh or Ed Sheeran 'miscellaneous' collection. They're absolutely not. Are a great deal of Stones fans going to look at that live side, shudder, and put it back in the rack. I'd say plenty. It's an idiot record execs idea of a 2019 Rolling Stones release - and no one else's.

 

You're right and as a Stones fan I'm not the least bit interested at all in the deluxe version. But I was referring to the standard editions of Honk and similar types of compilations. that are aimed at the general public.

 

I'm pretty sure it's a nod to it's own front cover.

Though, that they'd be completely unaware of the overall similarities with Jump Back album art seems unlikely.

 

Inconceivable.

Honk deluxe edition is a LOSSY CD
with ave.DR 7.

Album details - Dynamic Range Database

To hell with Universal, to hell with the Stones.

Tossers, one and all.

 

That's... not what that means

 

Okay,, youre saying it's not DR7 ?

..it's not a lossy CD, as the poster stated ?

*I do realise the database is unofficial,
perhaps you or someone from SHF with
access to relevant software would care to
post an accurate measurement (?)
If anyone can post data at
dr.loudness-war.info,
then a correction is needed

 

The person who uploaded that didn't state that the CD was lossy. They uploaded a report generated from an MP3 rip

Long ago I gave up on adding to databases with glaring omissions, misleading layouts, and poor visual implementation. Too aggravating to spend the time adding information while never making a dent in those systemic problems. I do refer to that site from time to time, but only when the data is fully complete and from a verified lossless digital rip

 

Understood. Thank you for the reply,
and words of cautionary discretion.

 

I've got to hand it to Mick. He still can move Man. I saw PiL this last year and John Lydon stood completely still at a mic stand and read lyrics from a music stand the whole night. Mick makes John look old.

 

Great Post.
In 75' Elton was to guest on only one or two numbers max but would not give up the piano stool.
Keith later said something vaguely like, "I've worked with Elton & Elephants and thats enough."

 

I’m with you Spencer. This is The Rolling Stones we are talking about here. No need for the latest flavor of the day to show up and duet with Mick!!

This was cemented in me back in 75, my first Stones concert, when they allowed Billy Preston to do two songs in the middle of a Stones concert!!! Are you kidding me???! Rediculous!

 

I'm a casual Stones fan who enjoys their work, but not enough nor have the shelf space to own all the essential albums (plus the ones with only one song I like), the 3-lp Honk is on preorder from Amazon and definitely compliments Hot Rocks as a good companion piece as Honk covers the post-1971 albums so outside of the Brown Sugar/Wild Horses, there's no overlapping between the two and you have a killer collection of nearly 60 hits between the two.

 

Yes, I don't see the need for the duets either. Why not just include some of the rarer songs that won the fan votes on the last few tours.

 

Wild Hoarse..s