Gospel Zone Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 http://www.americansongwriter.com/2009/09/rolling-stones-to-reissue-seminal-live-album-get-your-ya-yas-out/ Quote
59LesPaul Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) WooHoo!!!! Edited September 10, 2009 by 59LesPaul Quote
SteveAJones Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Essential. Makes a great Christmas gift (hint hint). Quote
Reggie29 Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Like The Beatles Remastered another "collectors item"! Well they would be, only they'll sell a gazillion of 'em! Still Ya's-Ya's is in my top ten live albums. Is it just another instance of The Stones trying to catch up to The Beatles and steal their thunder? My guess is both projects would've been common knowledge within the business! Quote
JTM Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 I just hope that Sympathy for the Devil has it's missing verse restored...........other than that..roll on November. Quote
59LesPaul Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Is it just another instance of The Stones trying to catch up to The Beatles and steal their thunder? I don't think so....it's more an anniversary thing.... I also don't think that there's any "catching up" to do. Quote
ally Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 It's on my list ! Thanks for posting this Quote
Gospel Zone Posted September 10, 2009 Author Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) It's on my list ! Thanks for posting this You're welcome! I first heard about this yesterday from a Beatles fan when I was at Best Buy checking out the new releases. When I got home I got on the computer and looked it up. Edited September 10, 2009 by Gospel Zone Quote
Reggie29 Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 I don't think so....it's more an anniversary thing.... I also don't think that there's any "catching up" to do. Even with emoticons, some people just don't get jokes? The difference between the two is that The Beatles had the same line up for the entire time they were together. Pete Best decided NOT to play with them because he didn't think it would be a good move on his part and that's when Ringo came in! The Stones on the other hand have had three line ups. After sacking Brian Jones from HIS own band, which led to his suicide and IMO their most productive period and they were never the same again. This paved the way for Mick Taylor to join, who left because he was bored with what they were doing. Some time after Bill Wyman left for pretty much the same reason and then Ron Wood joined. You're right, they never caught up to The Beatles who were far more innovative and influential than The Stones during the sixties and we can only imagine what they would have created had they stayed together. That said, The Rolling Stones who are one of my favourites, were and shall remain a damned fine Rock 'n' Roll band! Quote
Mr E Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Even with emoticons, some people just don't get jokes? The difference between the two is that The Beatles had the same line up for the entire time they were together. Pete Best decided NOT to play with them because he didn't think it would be a good move on his part and that's when Ringo came in! The Stones on the other hand have had three line ups. After sacking Brian Jones from HIS own band, which led to his suicide and IMO their most productive period and they were never the same again. This paved the way for Mick Taylor to join, who left because he was bored with what they were doing. Some time after Bill Wyman left for pretty much the same reason and then Ron Wood joined. You're right, they never caught up to The Beatles who were far more innovative and influential than The Stones during the sixties and we can only imagine what they would have created had they stayed together. That said, The Rolling Stones who are one of my favourites, were and shall remain a damned fine Rock 'n' Roll band! That may be true to an extent but anyone with any real taste knows that The Stones made far better music. Can't wait for this new special edition. Rock and roll! Quote
Reggie29 Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 That may be true to an extent but anyone with any real taste knows that The Stones made far better music. Can't wait for this new special edition. Rock and roll! Dunno about you but I've been listening to both of them for over fourty years and they never made better music than anyone let alone The Beatles! However they wrote some darn good songs. Don't question my taste in music because I like many, many styles and bands that you probably never heard of! My all time favourite is Led Zeppelin, that's why I'm here. Quote
Reggie29 Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Mick said the two groups were always meticulous about not doing simultaneous album releases. Even this won't be out for a few more weeks. They had a healthy respect for each other. Mick amongst others appeared in the All You Need Is Love clip that was shown simultaneously around the world. Pretty darn good seeing it was when satellite technology was in it's infancy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzJ2NKp23WU Quote
greenman Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 While I enjoy Get you Ya Ya's Out I always thought it was a shame contract issues ment the Stones couldnt put out a live album in the early 70's. In 69 they were still working on there new sound in a live setting and intergrating Mick Taylor into the band, by 72/73 they'd really hit there peak with alot of shows leaving the MSG 69 ones in the shade IMHO. Quote
Gospel Zone Posted September 11, 2009 Author Posted September 11, 2009 Even with emoticons, some people just don't get jokes? The difference between the two is that The Beatles had the same line up for the entire time they were together. Pete Best decided NOT to play with them because he didn't think it would be a good move on his part and that's when Ringo came in! The Stones on the other hand have had three line ups. After sacking Brian Jones from HIS own band, which led to his suicide and IMO their most productive period and they were never the same again. This paved the way for Mick Taylor to join, who left because he was bored with what they were doing. Some time after Bill Wyman left for pretty much the same reason and then Ron Wood joined. You're right, they never caught up to The Beatles who were far more innovative and influential than The Stones during the sixties and we can only imagine what they would have created had they stayed together. That said, The Rolling Stones who are one of my favourites, were and shall remain a damned fine Rock 'n' Roll band! As far as Brian Jones being sacked from HIS own band, he never had the confidence it takes to be a leader. My favorite version of the band was the one with Mick Taylor. Quote
Gospel Zone Posted September 11, 2009 Author Posted September 11, 2009 While I enjoy Get you Ya Ya's Out I always thought it was a shame contract issues ment the Stones couldnt put out a live album in the early 70's. In 69 they were still working on there new sound in a live setting and intergrating Mick Taylor into the band, by 72/73 they'd really hit there peak with alot of shows leaving the MSG 69 ones in the shade IMHO. It would be nice if, when the Exile On Main Street Deluxe Edition comes out, that they could get Ladies And Gentlemen The Rolling Stones out on DVD and the aborted live album from the '72 tour out on CD also. Quote
greenman Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Personally I thought both bands growth and decline alternated, I'v never been a massive fan of Beatlemania era Beatles stuff while I'v always loved the Stones early RnB work. Then as the Beatles started to expand there sound in the mid 60's the Stones struggled to find direction, finally as the Beatles started to break apart the Stones hit the strongest patch with there new roots style. Quote
Rock Action Posted September 13, 2009 Posted September 13, 2009 While I enjoy Get you Ya Ya's Out I always thought it was a shame contract issues ment the Stones couldnt put out a live album in the early 70's. In 69 they were still working on there new sound in a live setting and intergrating Mick Taylor into the band, by 72/73 they'd really hit there peak with alot of shows leaving the MSG 69 ones in the shade IMHO. Boy do I agree with that. The Stones live in 72-73 were fucking MONSTERS. "Ya-Ya's" was NOTHING in comparison. But ya know what? I want it!!! Quote
Rock Action Posted September 13, 2009 Posted September 13, 2009 It would be nice if, when the Exile On Main Street Deluxe Edition comes out, that they could get Ladies And Gentlemen The Rolling Stones out on DVD and the aborted live album from the '72 tour out on CD also. That would be a miracle beyond my wildest dreams. With that said, at least I have some great boots to hold me over until then... Quote
MadScreamingGallery Posted September 13, 2009 Posted September 13, 2009 My husband and I are looking forward to this release. For me, the Mick Taylor years (the albums produced and the concerts, including these '69 MSG shows and the S.T.P. tour) were the Stones best years. On a related note: I think this is tragic on many levels: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke Quote
Dzldoc Posted September 13, 2009 Posted September 13, 2009 My husband and I are looking forward to this release. For me, the Mick Taylor years (the albums produced and the concerts, including these '69 MSG shows and the S.T.P. tour) were the Stones best years. On a related note: I think this is tragic on many levels: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke It's sad what people will do to one another for money MSG Quote
Zepaholic Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 I think this is tragic on many levels: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke Many levels indeed. Mick and Keith need to go to their Lawyer and demand that Taylor gets his royalties. I mean, it's not like they need the extra cash. If they had any integrity at all, they would take care of a member who was such an intregal part of the bands success. This article actually infuriates me.... Quote
ally Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 Many levels indeed. Mick and Keith need to go to their Lawyer and demand that Taylor gets his royalties. I mean, it's not like they need the extra cash. If they had any integrity at all, they would take care of a member who was such an intregal part of the bands success. This article actually infuriates me.... Me too ! Quote
Gospel Zone Posted September 14, 2009 Author Posted September 14, 2009 My husband and I are looking forward to this release. For me, the Mick Taylor years (the albums produced and the concerts, including these '69 MSG shows and the S.T.P. tour) were the Stones best years. On a related note: I think this is tragic on many levels: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke The Rolling Stones have become as big of finaglers as Allen Klein. Only, I think ABKCO has done a better job of reissuing their material than the Stones have themselves. Quote
Mr E Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 That's sad news about Mick Taylor. Do artists get royalties from Spotify? I've been listening to his solo album quite a bit on Spotify recently, hopefully he's getting some money from that. Quote
Zepaholic Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Jagger and Richard could each cut a check for a Mil a piece and never even notice it. Damn, i'm such a huge Taylor fan...i'll shut up now. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.