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
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.
Drubin. Going off and dying doesn't ensure that the artist won't still issue an album. Seems like Hendrix came out with way more albums post-humously than he did while breathing. (A good thing.) There are indeed artists who in my opinion retain their magic into their later years. Neil Young and Jorma Kaukonen are two that come to mind. I'm not familiar with Miles Davis'
repertoire, but I catch your sarcasm. There is a certain sense of nobility in dying at your peak. Joplin, Morrison and Hendrix burned brightly albeit too briefly. Eric Clapton and Stevie Winwood have taken the adult contemporary route. Michael Jackson has become a caricature. Where's Stevie Wonder been? I'm constantly looking for new music to listen to. So far The White Stipes is what I've found. Why? Because it sounds old. Expert? Me? Hardly! Thanks Pops for the J. L. Hooker tip. I welcome any suggestions on long in the tooth rockers who still kick ass.
Jsonic, you young whippersnaper! We agree on something - Neil Young has aged like a nice cabernet! And he can kick ass - your also right about Hendrix. How many tapes and different takes of songs can they dig up - literally!