Quote
Gazza
However, such material belongs on unauthorised or bootleg releases, not on commercial products. The fact that something exists doesnt automatically make it releasable. The GRNRBITW should be about quality - not just content to release any old crap.

Quote
stoneswashed77
i own some bootlegs, but don´t think this is illegal.

Quote
72stones
The newest issue of Rolling Stone (with Shawn White on the cover and dated March 18th) has an article on the upcoming Exile box. In this particular article,Don Was essentially let the cat out of the bag. I am quoting directly from the article "...but Was doesn't deny rumors that guitarist Mick Taylor, who left the group in 1974, was brought back to cut new parts for the release. "I'm not saying that's not true, " Was says. "I'm simply not going to deny to it or say it didn't happen."
Was also said that Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman were not needed for extra overdubs. So, it appears that Taylor was, indeed, involved in the bonus track sessions. Why would Don Was need to be speaking specifically in this manner concerning Taylor?

Quote
tatters

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Slick
i will reserve judgment until i actually hear the 'new' stuff, just hope they dont botch it up. ie. adding 2010 mick vocals to vintage 1970's tracks will sound horrible.

Problem is, we dont really know how much leftover material was releasable. Its pretty much well documented that the bulk of the vocals (according to Mick anyway) werent finished until they did the overdubs in LA. By that stage, once youve worked on 18 songs for what was, after all, a double album, which came out just one year after their previous record its quite feasible that not a lot of other songs were finished. When youve finished 18 songs and have deadlines, there's no need to waste valuable time finishing songs that you have no intention (at the time anyway) of putting out.

Taking that into account, you maybe have four possible options here for a bonus CD :

1) They could have released the known, circulating Exile-era outtakes 'as is', which would have led to endless complaints about just putting out stuff that a lot of people already have.

2) they could have released a CD of leftover songs which were unfinished and just put them out as they are. Cue multiple complaints about 'filler' and the sheer cheek of putting out half finished sketches and expecting fans to buy any old rubbish.

3) They could release a hybrid of finished but previously unbootlegged tracks and previously unbootlegged unfinished tracks, adding some latter day overdubs to the latter to make them sound finished.

4) They could release absolutely nothing at all.

Given the choice, I'd prefer option 3). Thats the option theyve chosen.

Although, that said, I wouldnt have objected to them filling out the CD with a few songs from option 1), which would have been in better quality than what was previously available.

However, its still a better alternative than the other three.

Of the four choices you listed, a combination of 1 and 2 would have been better than 3. Not everyone has the bootlegs, and even the people who do would still have appreciated having that material in official-release-quality sound. Also, "filler" and "any old rubbish" are terms that can hardly be applied to unfinished tracks recorded when the Stones were at the peak of their creativity. Having the Stones tinkering with these tracks nearly 40 years PAST the peak of their creativity, however, is something that could very well turn these historic recordings INTO rubbish! A better option than any of these would have been to put the unmolested studio scrapings on the second disc, the unreleased 1972 live album on a THIRD disc, and the entire L & G on the DVD.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
stoneswashed77
i own some bootlegs, but don´t think this is illegal.

You have double standards Mr stonewashed77! But it's ok so do the stones and most humans.

The band gets no money from those bootlegs nor did they authorize them.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
stoneswashed77
i own some bootlegs, but don´t think this is illegal.

You have double standards Mr stonewashed77! But it's ok so do the stones and most humans.

The band gets no money from those bootlegs nor did they authorize them.

Quote
T&A

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
stoneswashed77
i own some bootlegs, but don´t think this is illegal.

You have double standards Mr stonewashed77! But it's ok so do the stones and most humans.

The band gets no money from those bootlegs nor did they authorize them.

it's much better to have no standards at all - like me....no dilemmas or confusion...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
tatters
Also, "filler" and "any old rubbish" are terms that can hardly be applied to unfinished tracks recorded when the Stones were at the peak of their creativity.

Sorry, but it can. Doodling is doodling, and singing out of tune unfinished lyrics is just as unlistenable whether it was recorded in 1970 or recorded in 2010.

People actually want them to release stuff like 'Exile On Main Street Blues' for goodness sake. Its still a throwaway piece of crap, no matter when it was recorded.

I can see your point entirely about tinkering with 40 year old recordings, but if the alternative is something half arsed that sounds like Keith farting in the bath, then the fact that it happened to be recorded for Exile doesn't suddenly make it appetising or anything worth listening to more than once.

Quote
stoneswashed77
no that´s not double standart. bootlegs are a completely different story than stealing official releases!

i would consider bootlegs illegal only if they would sound good.

but as long as a small recorder and two mics is not gonna get you anywhere near the quality of an official live recording it´s not stealing.

that´s like telling me making a video with my cell phone was stealing! rubbish!!

i have anyway only two bootlegs from the early 70´s which i listened to once, couldn´t stand the sound quality, and also performance, and never listened again.
but i bought all their official live releases instead.

keep on stealing and still feel good ass-hole!

Quote
Gazza
Tatters. Like yourself. no doubt, I've listened to enough of them down the years. As unreleased recordings or 'forbidden fruit', they're nice to have.

As to whether they're releasable? Some are. Most however are unreleased for a very good reason.

Quote
studiorambo
So what are they going to include on the DVD from L&G and CS Blues? By My count, there's six Exile tracks on L&G. I can't remember what's on CS Blues. If they're just referring to L&G and CS Blues as an amalgam of the filmed performances from 1972, then maybe 20 or so minutes could just be six or so live performances of Exiile songs.

Quote
72stones
Was also said that Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman were not needed for extra overdubs. So, it appears that Taylor was, indeed, involved in the bonus track sessions. Why would Don Was need to be speaking specifically in this manner concerning Taylor?

Quote
KeefintheNight82

My point of view is, bootlegs are not the same as downloading illegally. You are not taking money directly out of the hands of the artist. If the material is offcially released, then yes, you are stealing if you have an illegal copy.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
The Greek
this is a joke to me another typical money grab .remixing exile to me is sacreligious .what are we gonna condone the repainting of the sistene chapel in the vatican because of a perceived smudge ?it's a masterpiece dont mess with it

They're not repainting the 'masterpiece'. They're releasing it as it is. Same songs. Remastered. Not remixed. The 18-track album is getting the same treatment as the rest of the UMG remasters.

All they're doing is touching up a few of the original, unseen sketches and adding them separately.

Different project entirely.

Quote
72stones
The newest issue of Rolling Stone (with Shawn White on the cover and dated March 18th) has an article on the upcoming Exile box. In this particular article,Don Was essentially let the cat out of the bag. I am quoting directly from the article "...but Was doesn't deny rumors that guitarist Mick Taylor, who left the group in 1974, was brought back to cut new parts for the release. "I'm not saying that's not true, " Was says. "I'm simply not going to deny to it or say it didn't happen."
Was also said that Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman were not needed for extra overdubs. So, it appears that Taylor was, indeed, involved in the bonus track sessions. Why would Don Was need to be speaking specifically in this manner concerning Taylor?

Quote
71Tele

Yes, complaints from people who never got Exile in the first place and would much prefer another lame, decrepit stadium tour behind another lame "new" studio album along the lines of ABB. The Stones are releasing perhaps the greatest rock record of all time with ten new tracks and they complain about overdubs, the price, and the fact that they are doing it at all.

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
72stones
The newest issue of Rolling Stone (with Shawn White on the cover and dated March 18th) has an article on the upcoming Exile box. In this particular article,Don Was essentially let the cat out of the bag. I am quoting directly from the article "...but Was doesn't deny rumors that guitarist Mick Taylor, who left the group in 1974, was brought back to cut new parts for the release. "I'm not saying that's not true, " Was says. "I'm simply not going to deny to it or say it didn't happen."
Was also said that Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman were not needed for extra overdubs. So, it appears that Taylor was, indeed, involved in the bonus track sessions. Why would Don Was need to be speaking specifically in this manner concerning Taylor?

Because the Stones camp hadn't let the cat out the bag. Now that it was out through other sources, Don wasn't going to lie but was still choosing his words carefully. When I asked Don about Taylor adding overdubs sometime ago, having heard about it from other sources, he turned pale and asked who'd told me. By the way, I don't think Taylor was in the studio with either Mick or Keith.