Thier Satanic Majesties Request: Sgt. Pepper's imatation or true psych rock classic?

[JJ88]

^'Ride On Baby' and 'My Girl' (sure,it's not very good, but it was released at the time so is part of the 'canon'!) could have been put on More Hot Rocks when it was remastered in 2002. That was the only CD which they added bonus tracks to. 'Sittin' On A Fence' is already on it. I have a soft spot for Flowers if only because it may have been the first of their albums I heard, via a library copy, and most of the songs on it are of course great. But I don't think it really needs to be out there anymore.

What I'd have done was to have four CDs which would cover all the non-singles songs; the UK The Rolling Stones, The Rolling Stones No.2, only the UK Out Of Our Heads and a one-disc EP/offcuts collection. Instead, that exact same material was spread out across eight releases- the US version of the debut, 12 x 5, Now!, December's Children, the US Out Of Our Heads, Flowers, Hot Rocks and More Hot Rocks. It's no wonder people are so confused by this period!!

[Chuck AzEee!]

Never would I consider this a Beatles sound alike, this was the lesser version of The Pretty Things that dusted The 'Stones in that department. A good album with four excellent songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuitarGeek]

^'Ride On Baby' and 'My Girl' (sure,it's not very good, but it was released at the time so is part of the 'canon'!) could have been put on More Hot Rocks when it was remastered in 2002. That was the only CD which they added bonus tracks to. 'Sittin' On A Fence' is already on it. I have a soft spot for Flowers if only because it may have been the first of their albums I heard, via a library copy, and most of the songs on it are of course great. But I don't think it really needs to be out there anymore.

What I'd have done was to have four CDs which would cover all the non-singles songs; the UK The Rolling Stones, The Rolling Stones No.2, only the UK Out Of Our Heads and a one-disc EP/offcuts collection. Instead, that exact same material was spread out across eight releases- the US version of the debut, 12 x 5, Now!, December's Children, the US Out Of Our Heads, Flowers, Hot Rocks and More Hot Rocks. It's no wonder people are so confused by this period!!

What they should have done was put out one CD covering each UK album, with the songs from the US version plus whatever singles from the respective era that weren't on either version, as bonus tracks. So you'd have one album for The Rolling Stones/England's Latest Hitmakers (plus the early singles), one for 12x5/Rolling Stones No. 2/The Rolling Stones, Now!, one for Out Of Our Heads/December's Children, etc.

Between The Buttons could have had Let's Spend The Night Together, Ruby Tuesday, Sittin' On A Fence, Ride On Baby, My Girl, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby Standing In The Shadows and Who's Driving Your Plane as bonus tracks.

This is exactly what i did with the CD's I burned from the mp3's I got off Amazon, ie my very own custom deluxe editions of each album.

[JJ88]

^I wasn't counting singles because they are all collected on the excellent The Singles Collection, and all in mono too.

[GuitarGeek]

^I wasn't counting singles because they are all collected on the excellent The Singles Collection, and all in mono too.

Excellent if you don't mind being ripped off by Allen Klein yet again. I would rather have the singles as bonus tracks on the regular albums. But then, I guess that wouldn't very exploitative/capitalistic of Klein (or whoever is running his grave robbing operation since he passed away), would it?

[Jerjo]

Well, there's plenty of used copies out there if you don't want the Klein estate to profit. It's a great little box.

[JJ88]

Excellent if you don't mind being ripped off by Allen Klein yet again. I would rather have the singles as bonus tracks on the regular albums. But then, I guess that wouldn't very exploitative/capitalistic of Klein (or whoever is running his grave robbing operation since he passed away), would it?

I'm sorry but in no way is this set a rip off. It's the only place you'll find many of the songs in mono...a significant amount of Their Satanic Majesties Request is on it, in mono.

[miamiscot]

It's neither and it's both.

But I like it. Yes I do.

[GuitarGeek]

I'm sorry but in no way is this set a rip off. It's the only place you'll find many of the songs in mono...a significant amount of Their Satanic Majesties Request is on it, in mono.

I'm sorry, but all best of releases are rip offs. They exist solely for the purpose of exploiting the devotion of the fanbase pure and simple. Even if they're gathering together songs that aren't on the regular albums, they always manage to leave something off so that you have to buy whichever other best of that has the one or two songs that were left off.

And there's absolutely no reason, other than pure capitalism, to not stick the singles onto the regular albums as bonus tracks.

[bob_32_116]

I have a problem with calling something a "rip-off" when the purchaser is fully aware of both the price and the contents before buying. In what sense is anyone being swindled?

It may or may not be good value, but that's a different issue, and is largely subjective anyway. For example, I have "Ladies and Gentlemen: The Best of George Michael". For me it represents excellent value. I like George Michael but I do not particularly need to own everything he has recorded. For someone who already owned his first three albums, it would be a bit of a waste of money - though there are several non-album tracks - but even then, buying or not buying it is their decision.

Paul Kelly is another example. As anyone familiar with his music knows, it covers a range of styles. The compilation "Songs From the South" (vols 1 & 2)
contains 40 songs spanning his career. It's a very diverse collection, and while there are a couple of songs I miss on it, it's probably all the Paul Kelly I need, and better value for me than buying all of his dozen or so albums.

[JJ88]

I'm sorry, but all best of releases are rip offs. They exist solely for the purpose of exploiting the devotion of the fanbase pure and simple. Even if they're gathering together songs that aren't on the regular albums, they always manage to leave something off so that you have to buy whichever other best of that has the one or two songs that were left off.

And there's absolutely no reason, other than pure capitalism, to not stick the singles onto the regular albums as bonus tracks.

It's not a best-of as most of it is not available anywhere else! 'Best of' applies more to Hot Rocks/More Hot Rocks etc.

[jkelman]

I'm sorry, but all best of releases are rip offs. They exist solely for the purpose of exploiting the devotion of the fanbase pure and simple. Even if they're gathering together songs that aren't on the regular albums, they always manage to leave something off so that you have to buy whichever other best of that has the one or two songs that were left off.

Sorry, but I cannot agree. Best ofs, more often than not, are aimed at the casual fan - not the completist fans who already own most, if not all, the material. For those who don't want to own all of Pink Floyd's records, for example, but instead just the songs they know largely from radio, a best of is exactly what they want.

I remember someone who bought Peter Gabriel's Security based on the strength of the single, "Shock the Monkey." Obviously, songs like "Rhythm of the Heat," "The Family and the Fishing Net" and even "San Jacinto" were big surprises...and overall she hated the record. For her, an album like Shaking the Tree would be perfect, as it was largely songs that were more radio-friendly and accessible.

Yes, there are a couple tracks only available there, and for pathological fans, they might consider themselves ripped off...except nobody is twisting their arms to buy these collections.

The other thing to consider is this: while certainly not applicable in every case, in many cases best of collections are sequenced in a way that makes the album worthy as a stand-alone release, where the tracks, heard in this order, create a very different experience. In the classical world, ECM's recent Arvo Part's Musica Selecta - A Sequence by Manfred Eicher (hot linked to my review) is a two-disc set that tells its own story. There is one track never before released, but more than that it's a perfect way for the casual Part fan to get a lot of his best work in one two-disc package. To me, that's no ripoff.

So, GG, it depends on how you look at it, and to whom you feel these compilations are aimed. In general, they are NOT aimed at the pathological fan, and if you're that pathological that you must buy a collection to get those one or two previously unreleased tracks, well then, you're a pathological fan (I know whereof I speak: I'm one ) and it's up to you to decide if you are so pathological that you must buy the compilation in order to own those couple of tracks. If you are, I'd say, with no disrespect: stop complaining, as nobody is forcing you to buy these collections. Just accept you're a pathological fan who must have everything,


Like I said, I know whereof I speak, as I'm one of 'em. And before anyone starts in on the "you get free promos," let me remind you (a) they aren't free; I put in a lot of hours writing about them, so they're hardly free; they're quid pro quo; and (b) I actually spend more money on music than I did before I became a writer. All the free music simply fuels the addiction even further. And now that I'm heading into a book project, I am buying even more as there are so many groups, from the earliest days of Prog to the most current, that I need to get my ears on.

And sometimes, a best of collaboration is all i need for certain artists. So they have value for me as well.

Just wanted to point out there are reasons for best ofs, and it's not all about ripping people off. Something to consider.

Cheers!
John

[RapidRefresh]

This may be a loose rip off of the Beatles' concept (which itself was a loose concept), but this music seems only superficially related as opposed to a group like Klaatu. Who I like, btw.

[Jerjo]

Sorry, but I cannot agree. Best ofs, more often than not, are aimed at the casual fan - not the completist fans who already own most, if not all, the material. For those who don't want to own all of Pink Floyd's records, for example, but instead just the songs they know largely from radio, a best of is exactly what they want.

I remember someone who bought Peter Gabriel's Security based on the strength of the single, "Shock the Monkey." Obviously, songs like "Rhythm of the Heat," "The Family and the Fishing Net" and even "San Jacinto" were big surprises...and overall she hated the record. For her, an album like Shaking the Tree would be perfect, as it was largely songs that were more radio-friendly and accessible.

Yes, there are a couple tracks only available there, and for pathological fans, they might consider themselves ripped off...except nobody is twisting their arms to buy these collections.

The other thing to consider is this: while certainly not applicable in every case, in many cases best of collections are sequenced in a way that makes the album worthy as a stand-alone release, where the tracks, heard in this order, create a very different experience. In the classical world, ECM's recent Arvo Part's Musica Selecta - A Sequence by Manfred Eicher (hot linked to my review) is a two-disc set that tells its own story. There is one track never before released, but more than that it's a perfect way for the casual Part fan to get a lot of his best work in one two-disc package. To me, that's no ripoff.

So, GG, it depends on how you look at it, and to whom you feel these compilations are aimed. In general, they are NOT aimed at the pathological fan, and if you're that pathological that you must buy a collection to get those one or two previously unreleased tracks, well then, you're a pathological fan (I know whereof I speak: I'm one ) and it's up to you to decide if you are so pathological that you must buy the compilation in order to own those couple of tracks. If you are, I'd say, with no disrespect: stop complaining, as nobody is forcing you to buy these collections. Just accept you're a pathological fan who must have everything,


Like I said, I know whereof I speak, as I'm one of 'em. And before anyone starts in on the "you get free promos," let me remind you (a) they aren't free; I put in a lot of hours writing about them, so they're hardly free; they're quid pro quo; and (b) I actually spend more money on music than I did before I became a writer. All the free music simply fuels the addiction even further. And now that I'm heading into a book project, I am buying even more as there are so many groups, from the earliest days of Prog to the most current, that I need to get my ears on.

And sometimes, a best of collaboration is all i need for certain artists. So they have value for me as well.

Just wanted to point out there are reasons for best ofs, and it's not all about ripping people off. Something to consider.

Cheers!
John

True. My wife has a "singles" mentality and albums are often wasted on her. She wants the hits. There's maybe a few dozen albums that she'll play through front to back. So hits collections are fine for her. Me, I take the "album as art" view so while there's some compilations in my collection, I prefer to get the original albums.

Back to the Stones. The London Years package was the only collection of all the A sides and B sides (up to the point where the Stones separated themselves from Klein), something that previously couldn't be pieced together. There's some controversy over whether the old version or the remaster is better. I've got the old one and from what I understand and hear, it's mostly mono. The remaster swapped out several songs on the third disc for stereo versions.