Quote
Gazza

Quote
GOO
Where is Title 5 on the exile bonus from? I just listened to 8 satanic outtake CDs , couldn't find it?

..and you reckon that collection includes every recording session done for that album?

No I don't. Where do u think title 5 is from?

Quote
GOO

Quote
Gazza

Quote
GOO
Where is Title 5 on the exile bonus from? I just listened to 8 satanic outtake CDs , couldn't find it?

..and you reckon that collection includes every recording session done for that album?

No I don't. Where do u think title 5 is from?

Pretty certain it's from Satanic Majesties sessions. Thought as much when I first heard it. I certainly wouldnt imagine its from any later than 1968.

Theyve been very coy and misleading about the recording info on both the Exile and Some Girls deluxe albums - the latter contains recordings which were made after 'Some Girls' came out, taking place during the Emotional Rescue sessions - Tallahassee Lassie is from the LA session in Aug/Sept 78 and We Had It All is from summer 1979 in Paris.

Jagger arbitrarily decided that the 'Exile' sessions (for the sake of the authenticity of the deluxe version) begin in July 1969 as thats where the take of Loving Cup supposedly dated from (even though it was left off two studio albums before being considered for Exile), but you can take any info they provided with a grain of salt. I wouldnt be surprised if there were more songs on the Exile deluxe where the basic tracks DONT date from the July 1969-early 1972 time frame. Maybe not as early as 'Title 5' is but quite possibly from the GHS sessions.

The ABKCO issue mentioned earlier isnt important. Besides, it wouldnt be the first time that they provided misleading information on recording sources for an album to avoid contractual wrangles with that company ("Love You Live" springs to mind - stating that the entire album was recorded in 1976-77 when some of it was actually recorded in 1975, when they were under a different publishing contract)

Well the some girls bonus songs are at least close to the some girls LP release in time, title 5 is as everybody thinks is from 1967, most of exile is 70-72, 3-5 years before exile, seems little much to be considered the same era, I still find it hard to believe abkco wouldnt want $$$ rights to title 5......

Thus it must be from a later date.....who knows

I like the little jam

Quote
His Majesty

That's Glyn Johns anouncing the take

I thought it was Charlie's voice. That's the only reason I chose the announcement for my SN! Disappointment!

Quote
Gazza

Theyve been very coy and misleading about the recording info on both the Exile and Some Girls deluxe albums

Mick promoted the EXILE REISSUE in England before America. So—before I read any American press—I read a Mojo interview with Mick when he was trying to pass off everything (including his 21st Century vocals on PLUNDERED, RIVER, etc.) as coming from the original EXILE sessions. But the journalist had done his research and said it was impossible that some of Mick's vocals hadn't been recently added. Mick hedged, "Well, it doesn't really matter when they were recorded." But he basically fessed up. Then when he subsequently talked to Rolling Stone Magazine he was up front about his recent additions, sort of praising himself for his honesty. But he was only honest because he'd already been busted when trying to fib in England.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-19 08:20 by Title5Take1.

Quote
GOO
Thus it must be from a later date.....who knows

We know......it's not.



“If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use two feet.”

Quote
GOO
Well the some girls bonus songs are at least close to the some girls LP release in time,

two cover versions recorded after the album came out so the fact that theyre 'close' makes them less Some Girls outtakes than anything left off ANY album the band recorded prior to Exile - as the recordings didnt even exist in June 1978. Putting a 60's outtake on the Some Girls deluxe instead would have had more authenticity as the song could (had they wanted it) been considered for the original album!

Calling a 1967 instrumental an outtake from an album released in 1972 is no less authentic than making the same claim about a song that only had its lyrics written and vocals added in 2009.

Quote
GOO

title 5 is as everybody thinks is from 1967, most of exile is 70-72, 3-5 years before exile, seems little much to be considered the same era,
I still find it hard to believe abkco wouldnt want $$$ rights to title 5......

if the Stones havent acknowledged its from the 60's (and presumably didnt copyright it back then) then ABKCO dont really have a case.


I still find it hard to believe that there are fans out there who blindly accept everything the band says as fact. The Stones are pretty good at revising history to suit themselves - their recording history is no different.

Quote
GOO
Thus it must be from a later date.....who knows

I reckon I do. And it isn't.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-19 18:38 by Gazza.

Quote
Title5Take1
Mick promoted the EXILE REISSUE in England before America. So—before I read any American press—I read a Mojo interview with Mick when he was trying to pass off everything (including his 21st Century vocals on PLUNDERED, RIVER, etc.) as coming from the original EXILE sessions. But the journalist had done his research and said it was impossible that some of Mick's vocals hadn't been recently added. Mick hedged, "Well, it doesn't really matter when they were recorded." But he basically fessed up. Then when he subsequently talked to Rolling Stone Magazine he was up front about his recent additions, sort of praising himself for his honesty. But he was only honest because he'd already been busted when trying to fib in England.

All correct. And dont forget the way they couldnt even keep their fibs consistent over Plundered My Soul. Taylor claimed he added an overdub in 2009, Mick was non committal about whether he had or not and Keith flat-out denied that it had happened!

Hee ... funny how they tried subterfuge that didn't work. Look ... "Title 5" was prolly chosen
'cuz it sorta fits, they liked it, and thought we'd like it. Publishing nonsense aside, it rocks.
Two, I like the fact Mick recorded the lead to "Plundered ..." recently 'cuz it means he still
has "it". I know ... his voice is aging, but it works. Better finish 'em now while they can.

Otherwise, all this stuff would've gone unfinished, and one can argue 'til the cows come home
whether it's more valid to finish stuff from their prime than attempt another album some here
will hate. Yeah ... count me in as one of the haters of some recent stuff.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-19 17:03 by latebloomer.

Quote
GOO
Well the some girls bonus songs are at least close to the some girls LP release in time...

That's convenient but...recording after the LP came out doesn't make it a Some Girls SESSIONS era recording.

Just like with Title 5. They recorded a bunch of material between the supposed time the songs were recorded for Exile. So why go to something from 1967? To me it seems a bit odd yet perhaps they either don't want to bother (very likely) with releasing anything else or (hopefully) there will be a box set of 'unearthed' songs etc and these are just 'something' to put out.

Quote
theanchorman
I still don't understand how this one made it onto the exile outakes

Mick couldn't be bothered to be historically correct, just as with Some Girls' extra album release.

Quote
GOO

Quote
Gazza

Quote
GOO
Where is Title 5 on the exile bonus from? I just listened to 8 satanic outtake CDs , couldn't find it?

..and you reckon that collection includes every recording session done for that album?

No I don't. Where do u think title 5 is from?

Obviously you can't read. Or remember. One of those. Yeah, it's the remember part you have trouble with.

Well it's pretty sad if this is from 1967, missed chance to included other bonus material
All down the line-early version
Sweet Virginia
Bent green needles- sweet black angel-instr
Let it loose- instr

How long is the bonus cd? 40 minutes? It's frustrating , 30 minutes of an empty cd could of easily been filled up

I do like the alt all down the line from the plunder 7"

I think they were conscious of not duplicating too many tracks that had been bootlegged already - Jagger mentioned this, I think. And theres only so many alternate versions of released songs that theyd want to release, I suppose. Especially as the vocals were probably amongst the last things to be added (would you really want ten songs of gibberish lyrics like the alternate take of Soul Survivor? On second thoughts, dont answer that because there are actually some people who consider this to be 'great' or the best track on the bonus CD...)

I've mentioned this before, but Exile was probably the least appropriate album to get a bonafide expanded treatment, because there arent really any (or many) completed songs that were recorded specifically for the album but left off. Dont forget - it was a double album and about half the songs were already leftovers from their two previous albums. They were already plundering their vaults to fill a double album in 1972 and pretty much all the songs that were finished made the album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-19 18:37 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza
I think they were conscious of not duplicating too many tracks that had been bootlegged already - Jagger mentioned this, I think. And theres only so many alternate versions of released songs that theyd want to release, I suppose. Especially as the vocals were probably amongst the last things to be added (would you really want ten songs of gibberish lyrics like the alternate take of Soul Survivor? On second thoughts, dont answer that because there are actually some people who consider this to be 'great' or the best track on the bonus CD...)

I've mentioned this before, but Exile was probably the least appropriate album to get a bonafide expanded treatment, because there arent really any (or many) completed songs that were recorded specifically for the album but left off. Dont forget - it was a double album and about half the songs were already leftovers from their two previous albums. They were already plundering their vaults to fill a double album in 1972 and pretty much all the songs that were finished made the album.

Agreed 100%

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
Hee ... funny how they tried subterfuge that didn't work. Look ... "Title 5" was prolly chosen
'cuz it sorta fits, they liked it, and thought we'd like it. Publishing nonsense aside, it rocks.
Two, I like the fact Mick recorded the lead to "Plundered ..." recently 'cuz it means he still
has "it". I know ... his voice is aging, but it works. Better finish 'em now while they can.

Otherwise, all this stuff would've gone unfinished, and one can argue 'til the cows come home
whether it's more valid to finish stuff from their prime than attempt another album some here
will hate. Yeah ... count me in as one of the haters of some recent stuff.

I can understand that logic and broadly agree. I like the two cds they did put out - the route they chose is much better than the alternative of putting out ten songs with dummy lyrics and half arsed vocals for the sake of authenticity.

I just dont consider either release (especially the Exile one) as bonafide 'snapshots' from the time frame they've been linked to. And the band pretending that they are is pretty pathetic, to be honest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-19 18:43 by Gazza.

And just think, Gazza, Keith made it sound like they released everything for Exile.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GOO
I guess , it just doesn't sound like tsmr.
Even don was couldn't of been that stupid to put a tsmr outtake on an exile bonus disc

Apparently he did...

It's a weird track to place in many ways; The sound, the music style, the way it's played etc.

Well, at least we have a unique piece of instrumental surf-music by the Stones. Who would have guessed that?

I agree, DandyPM - it's cool. I like to play to non-Stones people - no one believes it's the Stones.