Are you going to buy the Rolling Stones SACDs?


I've preordered a few already. I suspect that the recordings, despite remastering, will be far less than what SACD is capable of reproducing. But it is exciting to see a large block of music from major artists come out in the new format, and that's why I'm buying. What do you think the major labels (especially Sony, that controls vast numbers of recordings AND manufactures SACD equipment) are waiting for? Seems logical to me that getting more software out would speed sales of the electronics and interest more of the general public in the new format. Releasing SACDs would also immediately protect the record companies from copyright infringement, at least until someone manufactures an SACD burner.
thsalmon
An endorsement by the masses is hardly a benchmark of quality (see Bush's approval rating). In the case of the Stones not unlike The Grateful Dead there are new generations of fans who didn't grow up seeing these bands at their peak and are thrilled to buy the latterday, geriatric commercial crap these stayed -too long -at-the dance dinosaurs are spewing out in abundance. There was nothing sadder than seeing The Grateful Dead in '91 with Jerry (seemingly on life support) just going through the motions. Not unlike the Stones every studio album from Shakedown Street on was just as irrelevant as the Stones'post Some Girls albums. If you missed the bus, you missed it. Don't get on it 20 years later when its run out of gas.
An endorsement by the masses certainly counts for something so from an economic standpoint it matters. In art and politics it's also very persuasive. People of all ages evidently want to see these bands. Your opinion is your own personal benchmark for quality when it comes to art. You can vote for who you want and pay for art and entertainment of your choice. Besides art is subjective, what I like you might despise and vice versa. The Stones put out arguably the 4 best R&R albums back to back in history. Have they churned out that kind of work since? No - but I disagree with your assessment of every piece of music as irrelevant with the exception of Some Girls. I got on the bus in the very early 70's and I didn't jump off - mine has plenty of gas.
Hey Pops. I think you misinterpreted my comment. I said that every Stones album since Some Girls was irrelevant. Catering to the masses is what gave us the current disposable rock era we must suffer through now. (Brittney,Matchbox 20, Pink etc.). Ironic that the music industry has downsized 45% in the last few years and although bootlegging and the internet are mostly to blame the overall product mix being mediocre factors in as well. I'd gladly buy the enhanced versions of any classic Stones albums, but I shudder at having to watch their HBO special or go and see The Dead.I've seen The Eagles, Stones, Grateful Dead and The Who(Townshend on acoustic the entire show!?) in the latter stages of their touring career. Having also seen them at times closer to their peak, I can only say that seeing them later in the game only made me miss the music that used to be theirs all the more.I respect subjectivity in the arts and may live in a musical time warp, but it seems like home to me.
Miles Davis didn't have much to offer the last 20 years of his life either. I wish these artists would consult experts like jsonic and, when told they are past their peaks, go off somewhere and die. They're just ripping us off by continuing to make music, and we're idiots to enjoy it.
Jsonic, sorry if I misinterpreted your take, I don't mean to sound aggressive in my reply - probably sounds that way because I'm becoming a relic myself - I say play and perform as long as you can. Classic music like the Stones work from the 60's and 70's should only be performed by the Stones and I for one enjoy hearing it. I didn't start enjoying John Lee Hooker until he was older than dirt and I thoroughly enjoy his last 3 albums.