THE ROLLING STONES "Plundered My Soul (2010) (Advance Listen)

Give a listen to this Exile On Main Street reissue bonus track, “Plundered My Soul.” Gentlemen, start your salivary glands. The powerful production bodes well for the long-awaited Exile remaster. There’s a vigorous debate about the merits of it all in comments. There’s a super expensive, Super Deluxe Edition (and poor man’s versions) at Amazon, which hits the streets (and your wallet) in May.

79 Comments

  • 1
    Ray
    April 23, 2010 - 00:56 | Permalink

    Amazon is offering 3 versions: the cheapo-cheapo reissue, the reissue + 2nd CD of unearthed tracks, and the masturbatory edition w/ photos (what masturbatory experience can do w/out photos?). The second option doesn't hit one's wallet too badly.

    I agree, it sucks that there's still no complete dvd of "Cocksucker Blues"!

  • 2
    Art Ducko
    April 23, 2010 - 06:09 | Permalink

    Oh yes, bring on the outtakes. Don Was can be thanked for seeing this project through. When approached about it, Jagger couldn't be bothered. "Plundered" sounds fantastic. Was did say he had goodies to surprise the bootleggers. They claim Jagger only did new vocals for one track, apparently not this one. I'm also hoping Mick Taylor got a nice fat check out of this, seeing how he's been screwed royally over the years by Mr. Jagger & Co. Keith Richards has added new guitar to this track, so it'll be interesting to hear the rest. I'm with "." on wondering how the remaster of "Exile" will stack up against the Mickboy boots. Those will be hard to beat.

  • 3
    Anonymous
    April 23, 2010 - 08:07 | Permalink

    Could you please just post link to download "Plundered My Soul"?
    The other procedure is too complicated particularly when I don't want to register nowhere.
    Thanks

  • 4
    Capt. Willard
    April 23, 2010 - 08:14 | Permalink

    It says "advance listen," it's not for download.

  • 5
    Capt. Willard
    April 23, 2010 - 09:44 | Permalink

    Too "complicated." He doesn't want to register nowhere. You should read the tongue lashing Green Alien Chick gave this guy.

  • 6
    Daniel Rubin
    April 23, 2010 - 11:43 | Permalink

    ok, and now about the song. I'm dropping dead presidents for this one.

  • 7
    Pete
    April 23, 2010 - 16:34 | Permalink

    Surely this is a contemporary vocal? And, I strongly suspect, lyric. And backing vocals. I like Bigger Bang, and I think this would have fit there, but Exile? Hmmm.

  • 8
    Art Ducko
    April 23, 2010 - 17:55 | Permalink

    Supposedly this is an original outtake from "Exile", but it does sound pretty contemporary. Credit Don Was for an amazing job remastering all this. Richards did fill in some guitar here & there, but to leave it off "Exile"? They must have been wacky on the junk.

  • 9
    Pete
    April 23, 2010 - 20:08 | Permalink

    I've been poking around the net and found several people stating authoritatively that the vocal and lyric are new, though the basic backing track is old. Not that that's necessarily bad — it's how they made Tattoo You, with old tracks cleaned up. But I have not yet found it from the horse's mouth (i.e. something worth linking). To me, Jagger's voice just has to be new, just based on how it sounds. But I guess the bastard is just happy we're talking about him …

  • 10
    Pythag
    April 24, 2010 - 20:20 | Permalink

    ….salivating here. Such a fantastic album. Unearthed material!

  • 11
    Keith Richards
    April 25, 2010 - 10:06 | Permalink

    I seem to recall cutting a few tracks at me place in France with that Graham Parker fellow. Nice bloke, kept singin' about squeezing out sparks. That ought to be on the new set. I'll have to ask Mick when I see him. That wanker said he just laid down some new vocals, but to what fuckin' song? It's all been a bit hazy since I fell out of that tree…

  • 12
    Sir Mick Jagger
    April 25, 2010 - 11:54 | Permalink

    Faaaark! Yew kneauw worra mean, roight? Farkin fweeloaders, innit? Evwyboddy tryin' to gerra piece moy action, faaaark. Oy ham norra farkin' chewidee, maaan, I ham not moy bravver's farkin' keeper, kneauw worra mean, roight? Vey can kiss moy harse.

  • 13
    Pete
    April 25, 2010 - 15:16 | Permalink

    Fair point on Pet Sounds & Yellow Submarine, except that the clean-ups there revealed the music while for Exile the mud is part of the music. Given that Jagger has consistently said that he thinks Exile is overrated, one does wonder how he would "improve" it. Perhaps, with a nod to Paulie's rewrite of "Let It Be," he could call it "Exile … Clothed."

    (Yeah, we should wait and listen but I'll forget that joke.)

  • 14
    Capt. Willard
    April 25, 2010 - 15:45 | Permalink

    I disagree. The mud isn't part of the music, it's part of the production. Unfortunately, it's all that's ever been available. When you listen to something for almost 40 years, you start to think you can't live without certain characteristics, or that it's not the "original" anymore if it gets cleaned up. I can live without the mud, and I've been pining for a clean version of Exile since the day it came out. Frankly, I want to hear the 5th and 6th strings on these guitars and I want to hear what The Stones actually sounded like live in the studio. Personally, I'm not a purist that has to have everything replicate the first time I heard something. Especially since the vinyl is still on the shelf whenever the urge strikes to revisit the past. I'm not defending (or yet complaining about) the overdub concept they've embraced on the outtakes, but I like how "Plundered" sounds, and if the rest of the remaster sounds this crackling alive, I'll be a happy camper. Lack of warts and all.

  • 15
    Pete
    April 25, 2010 - 18:11 | Permalink

    Well, it's on my instant-buy list and I look forward to an informed discussion. For now, I'll just point out that mixing and mastering, not to mention fixing and overdubbing, always change the sound — they're supposed to — so the question of what what the band actually sounded like in the studio is essentially moot. To me, the "mud" was an aesthetic decision I like (very different from the Sticky Fingers mix, which I also like) … but maybe I'll prefer the re-release — I am open to it, and definitely look forward to playing it.

  • 16
    Capt. Willard
    April 25, 2010 - 18:36 | Permalink

    Mixing and mastering changing the actual live in the studio sound is a given. It doesn't moot the point, since I'm talking about getting something/anything closer to the real thing. I'll submit, however, that if you would have been given a choice, 40 odd years ago, between a cleaner, more accurate studio sound and Exile's muddy, near bootleg quality, you would have opted for the higher quality in a heartbeat. We all would have. "Demo-itis" is a term used when musicians get so accustomed to the sound of their quickly made demos, they can't shake it when trying to make a cleaner, more dynamic studio recording. That same thing happens to all of us who've lived with certain recordings for decades. Not that I'm suggesting this is your case, but it's probably the prime reason most purists don't want anyone monkeying with their memories. While I fully understand folks who might be put off by the Stones and Was rewriting history… I can't fathom any defense for Exile's original lack of production – beyond just being used to it. Calling it an aesthetic decision is a guess. Just as it's a guess on my part that it's possible the reason Jagger thinks it's overrated is because of the muddy sound. As for liking the new one, and/or comparing it to the old one… that's a moot point, because they're bound to be totally different beasts, invented in two different centuries.

  • 17
    Pete
    April 25, 2010 - 21:15 | Permalink

    To be continued in the middle of May! And if I then want to defend the original mix, and you don't, we'll really have fun. Thanks as ever …

  • 18
    Keith Richards
    April 25, 2010 - 21:25 | Permalink

    Or was it Alan Parsons we jammed with? Cor, can't seem to bloody remember anything. Where's me drink?

  • 19
    Capt. Willard
    April 25, 2010 - 22:33 | Permalink

    Fair enough. But, the bottom line is a pretty simple one. Everyone agrees it's a muddy mix. Even yourself. You just happen to like it. Whereas I don't. Whatever they put out in May, however, will have no bearing on the original. It will sound sonically better, of that there's no dispute. Personal preference, however, will decide who embraces or dismisss that new clarity. And, in some cases, that preference will be based simply on what some people are used to hearing.

  • 20
    Keith Richards
    April 26, 2010 - 08:44 | Permalink

    Oooh, now I remember. We were listening to the playback in the basement, which sounded fuckin' great, like the best we ever did, & somebody goosed Mick, so he went "Eeek!" & spilt his little glass of Drambuie all over the console which started sparkin' like hell. After the smoke cleared, little Jimmy, God bless 'im, said he'd clean it up in the final mix. So that's how we did the album. I think.

  • 21
    Pete
    April 26, 2010 - 18:51 | Permalink

    That Keith Richards guy may be on to something. Or do I mean on something?

  • 22
    Mylene Mc Snapper
    April 27, 2010 - 07:56 | Permalink

    Some albums are supposed to sound terrible. There's a Riot Going On, Raw Power, Histoire De Melody Nelson and Exile are the most well known examples. I like that the lyrics are indecipherable and there's no separation between instruments. A clear mix of I Just Want to See His Face is unimaginable. The brass is so powerful in Let it Loose BECAUSE it cuts through the mud. It also plays better as four different sides than one long play (CDs stuffed that up big time) Side one's bluesy, side two's country rock, side three's esoteric and side four's Stonsey. Hearing Happy straight after Lovin Cup or All Down the Line after Let it Loose sort of sucks. Walking to the turntable and flipping over the disc leaves just the right amount of anticipation.

  • 23
    Capt. Willard
    April 27, 2010 - 12:32 | Permalink

    Seriously… do you actually believe that you arrived at these conclusions through the Stones' subtle manipulation of your senses, and not your own developed tastes?

    Albums being broken up into stylistic sides is one thing. That's often by design. And, over the years, fans will often listen in bite size chunks by choosing (and appreciating) particular sides. Sequencing is key to any album. Indecipherable lyrics can often add to music's mystique. I've listen to Roxy Music's Avalon hundreds of times and, except for the choruses I still don't know what Ferry is singing. And… my imagination often made up better lyrics for early Costello albums than Costello did.

    But, think about what you're suggesting… "Some albums are supposed to sound terrible?" Really? Terrible means bad, awful, horrible. Are you saying you prefer albums to sound bad and awful and horrible. That's your ideal choice? Doesn't it make more sense that you've just simply grown accustomed, and grown to appreciate, the album you were given?

    The first few times you heard it, you didn't marvel at the few seconds of anticipation between "Let It Loose" and "All Down The Line." You didn't believe the mud enhanced the horns. Instead, you were wondering why it sounded like it was underwater. You grew your appreciation via repetition. You tried to understand the lyrics, you strained to hear what was going on in the mix… you worked at it. And it's probably the same, hard fought appreciation that comes after any struggle, like climbing a mountain or figuring out a Rubik's Cube.

    But, come on… "Walking over to the turntable and flipping over the disc leaves just the right amount of anticipation." Surely, you yourself can see with that statement that your appreciation has developed by repeatedly studying "what was there" – and NOT that "what was there" was the finest representation of the art.

    It's also safe to assume that you won't even be listening to the remastered versions of Exile and Raw Power because, as you say, they're supposed to sound terrible. And… it's merely coincidental that that's the way you remember them.

  • 24
    redsock
    April 27, 2010 - 16:25 | Permalink

    For anyone to suggest (and no one yet has) that it didn't sound like shit on that first needle drop, is full of said shit.

    I'll suggest that. I have always loved the sound and am always hearing little new bits bubble up through the murk. It's by design, not the result of a shitty studio or too many drugs or lack of time. The music, the lyrics, the album art, and the mix all work together.

    It's actually an amazing production job. It's a mystery how Jagger/Richards created that murky mood yet still retained so much vitality that the songs stands up to hundreds and hundreds of repeated listens, and constitute, in the opinion of many people, including me, the best rock and roll album of all time.

    I admit I have often wondered what the album would sound like with a clean, crisp Tattoo You-esque production, but I'm pretty sure I would not prefer it to the original.

    And Plundered is obviously a new Mick vocal. The phrasing is totally modern (and overdone; listen to when he relaxes late in the song and immediately sounds far better). The use and enunciation of a word like "repartee" is a dead giveaway. Damn song is catchy as all hell, though, and I love the Jagger falsetto on the chorus.

  • 25
    Capt. Willard
    April 27, 2010 - 17:46 | Permalink

    Revisionism. I'll stand by the quote.

  • 26
    Mylene Mc Snapper
    April 27, 2010 - 23:56 | Permalink

    Rock Around the Clock, from 1953, sounds great. You can understand every word the guitar and sax jump out at you and there's full separation between instruments. Quarter to 3 by Gary US Bonds is exactly the opposite, sludgy production, inaudible lyrics etc. In both cases they were what the producer wanted and in both cases they work. White Light White Heat is probably the worst sounding album on a major label but again, that's how it's meant to sound and as a rock and roll record it works.

    I bought Exile on the day of release but I had a pretty good idea how it was going to sound as radio was playing Rocks Off and Tumbling Dice in high rotation. In Australia it was the first album ever to enter the charts at #1. Because it sounds different from every other Stones album (in fact it sounds different from EVERY other album) is part of what makes it a classic. Jimmy Miller wasn't a dunce when it came to production and this is the mix both he and the Stones approved (it was their label so they had right of refusal).

    I'll definitely buy the remaster and I'll listen to it totally without prejudice but I'm not junking the original vinyl for it.

  • 27
    Capt. Willard
    April 28, 2010 - 00:06 | Permalink

    Never suggested you should. Exile is one of my favorite albums. My continuing diatribe is about how some people justify what they've come to enjoy… not about how enjoyable it is.

  • 28
    redsock
    April 28, 2010 - 00:12 | Permalink

    So the album is a favorite and it sounded like shit from the first listen?

    Exile is what it is — on purpose — like Finnegan's Wake is not a standard novel.

  • 29
    Capt. Willard
    April 28, 2010 - 00:14 | Permalink

    You've never disliked an album at first and grown to love it?

  • 30
    Capt. Willard
    April 28, 2010 - 00:15 | Permalink

    And, to be accurate, I said it sounded like shit ON first listen.

  • 31
    redsock
    April 28, 2010 - 00:20 | Permalink

    plenty of times! .. maybe the exile sound was an experiment like spector's wall of sound?

    i'm more annoyed by the stones futzing with 40 year old tracks.

  • 32
    Capt. Willard
    April 28, 2010 - 00:25 | Permalink

    So the album is a favorite and it sounded like shit from the first listen?

    I don't get it. If you've experienced the same thing… why are you questioning my similar experience?

  • 33
    redsock
    April 28, 2010 - 00:30 | Permalink

    No. I have never had a problem with the sound. (And I did not mean to question your experience. It's as valid as mine. But it seemed odd to hear you say it sounded horrible (and still does, I guess), but it is a fave.)

    I did not hear it in 1972, though. I was only 8 then. So admittedly it did have its glowing reputation by the time I first encountered it.

  • 34
    Capt. Willard
    April 28, 2010 - 01:57 | Permalink

    Again, why would it seem odd if it happens to you, too?

    But, more importantly, your age explains everything. You grew up with Exile (and its descendants) in the background of your life for years before you ever actually sat down to really listen to it. You heard some of it when you were 8, or 10 or 12, before you even knew what it was. You never actually had a first listen, because it was always around. That is a completely different experience than hearing it cold in 1972.

  • 35
    Mylene Mc Snapper
    April 28, 2010 - 02:56 | Permalink

    When I bought it I had a cheese mono record player with a 7" turntable and the speaker under the playing surface. I didn't even hear it in stereo until I took it to school and played it in art class. Even on first needle drop I knew it was better than Thick as a Brick (the album I'd bought when Exile was delayed for a week back in the day). The muddy sound and mumbled lyrics made it mysterious and unfathomable to my teeny ears. The cover, the postcards, the inners and the way the album sounds are all part of the mythology.

    THe original CBS CD is also extremely poorly mastered thus adding to the mythology. The Virgin remastered version still sounds bad but too clean. I can't wait to hear the Universal remaster (even if they destroy it). The suspenders are killing me :-p

  • 36
    redsock
    April 28, 2010 - 05:22 | Permalink

    If we are talking about hearing it on the day it was released, then I'm out. It doesn't apply to me.

    Also, I do not mean to argue simply to argue (i.e., be an asshole). I've got no desire to needlessly piss you (or anyone else) off. But for me, the Exile mix is part of its charm, allure, and (yes, since most of it was NOT recorded in that French basement) mythology. To go back to at least one of your original points, I don't think there exists an "original lack of production" for Exile. It sounds the way it does because the Stones wanted it to sound that way, and worked the tapes to make it sound that way.

    I suppose that as long as I have my original LPs, they can do whatever they want with it (like I could stop them). I'll still buy it in May to check it out. That will be my 8th copy! And actually, the more different versions (remastered, remixed, whatever) of Exile out there, the better. It is an endlessly fascinating album. If in the future, anyone wants the original mix, it will be available.

    I just wish this damn deluxe package was cheaper.

  • 37
    Mylene Mc Snapper
    April 28, 2010 - 06:53 | Permalink

    Lovin Cup was recorded for Let it Bleed but ended up on Exile where it fits perfectly. Proof positive the album was supposed to sound the way it was released.

    Every time someone tries to "improve" music they always stuff it up. The remixed songs on The Legend of Paul Revere, unphasing The Big Hurt on the Libery CD, Let it Be Naked, Frank Zappa's remixing We're Only in it for the Money and Ruben & the Jets. The list goes on. I like Don Was, Return to the Valley of Out Come the Freaks is one of my all time favourite songs but you don't mess with the classics. Anytime anyone says "it's like being in the studio with … " my heart dies a little. Records aren't documents of live music. Sam Phillips knew it, Spector knew it. Pop music is surrealism or abstract art at it's best. Shove realism. I want the magic.

  • 38
    Capt. Willard
    April 28, 2010 - 06:59 | Permalink

    McSnapper, I'll take your point. Your suggesting that you responded in a visceral way as opposed to a critical one because of youthful ignorance. You heard it was different (and maybe even wrong) but were intrigued rather than repulsed – as if you hadn't developed a critic's ear yet. I get that. (Even if I don't get the Tull LP reference, which was sonically advanced in comparison.) I'd be the first to admit that I approach things in critical terms, and may have forgotten the earliest of years when it was all about curiosity and was less about judgment and critique. Though, by Exile, I had already developed those traits, whereas, with The Monkees, I hadn't. But, I don't buy the mythology angle either, especially as it applies to later editions. Up until now, the Exile CDs have all just been digital remasters of the same, poorly mixed two track safety masters. Squeezing the same shit through different strainers. (Coming up will be the first revisit to the original master reels, for better or worse.) But, I'll still stand by my basic crux, which is that too many people simply justify Exile's mix because they know it – and feel it's intentionally bad (which is insane) only because they're accustomed to it through years of examination.

  • 39
    Capt. Willard
    April 28, 2010 - 07:04 | Permalink

    Records aren't documents of live music.

    You mean some records aren't documents of live music. Some most certainly are… and Exile should have been one of the best.

  • 40
    Keith Richards
    April 28, 2010 - 07:43 | Permalink

    I'm telling you, man, it was the Drambuie.

  • 41
    Mylene McSnapper
    April 28, 2010 - 08:44 | Permalink

    The Beach Boys twofers attempted to sound exactly like the records. No one tried to improve the sound. It's in the sleeve notes for EVERY CD. The Beatles Mono remasters are the same (except for a bit of hiss removed on Martha My Dear). The Monkees on Rhino took SEVEN attempts to get the right mix of Pleasant Valley Sunday (which makes Sony's Blonde on Blonde look almost competent). Stereo Pet Sounds left out the dual vocal on Wouldn't it be Nice and left the talking out of Hear Today. (It does sound good though. It's just not the way it was intended to sound). I can think of better things for audio engineers to do than create a 5.01 mix of Louie Louie.

  • 42
    Mylene McSnapper
    April 28, 2010 - 23:31 | Permalink

    Let's colourise Psycho and straighten Dali's watches (or better yet digitally change them to iphones). Let's not assume because this is a new century we know better than the artist. The technology was there in 1972 to create a clear mix of Exile and the band, the producer and the record label all went for a muddy, distorted mix. Even to consider remixing it is like the guy who cut a doorway in Leonardo's Last Supper.

    I h8 being the person who has to have the last word so someone please add something constructive to this argument :-p

  • 43
    Capt. Willard
    April 28, 2010 - 23:41 | Permalink

    Would your thoughts be different if the original participants, namely Miller and Jagger/Richards, admitted to not liking the original mix, or thinking it was too muddy?

  • 44
    Mylene McSnapper
    April 28, 2010 - 23:56 | Permalink

    They've had almost 40 years to revise their thoughts on the mix. It's like doo wop groups who rerecorded their hits with synthesizers or George Harrison saying he hated the reverb on All Things Must Pass when he himself was the one responsible for most of it (Spector left midway though the sessions and Harrison kept on overdubbing). If the tracks recorded in 1969 at Olympic sounded any different from the tracks recorded in France I might think differently. But they don't. LOving Cup is just as muddy and distorted as I Just Want To See His Face.

  • 45
    redsock
    April 29, 2010 - 00:09 | Permalink

    If they said we never meant to make it sound like that, that might be different. Since Mylene is saying exactly what I would be saying, I'll ask:

    Are there interviews where Mick, Keith or Miller ever talk about what they wanted Exile to sound like, "this was the plan" and what they did to get that sound, to create or emphasize the murk? I can't remember anything like that, ever. I'd love to read anything like that, though.

  • 46
    Mylene McSnapper
    April 29, 2010 - 00:12 | Permalink

    When it came out NME had a Exile special edition with reviews, interviews and a flexi disc. I'll see if I can find it. It might include their game plan :-)

  • 47
    Capt. Willard
    April 29, 2010 - 00:20 | Permalink

    OK… That wasn't a set up. I asked the question, and then it made sense to see if an answer existed. In particular, I wanted to find something from Jimmy Miller, but what I got were a few quotes from them all about how awful the conditions were in the French basement they recorded in. There are conflicting quotes from them all to be found, but this one from Jagger really hits the nail on a lot of the things being offered here as excuses, and/or reasons, regarding the actual intent and purpose behind of album's mix…

    Exile On Main Street is not one of my favourite albums, although I think the record does have a particular feeling. I'm not too sure how great the songs are, but put together it's a nice piece. However, when I listen to Exile it has some of the worst mixes I've ever heard. I'd love to remix the record, not just because of the vocals, but because generally I think it sounds lousy… Of course I'm ultimately responsible for it, but it's really not good and there's no concerted effort or intention… As long as people like the album, that's fine. It's just that I don't particularly think it's a great album. – Mick Jagger

    Now… one of the reasons he may not be as excited about the album itself (not the mix) is because he wasn't there a lot of the time. He was off with Bianca in Paris a lot and it was pissing Keith off. But his comments on the "lousy" sound and the unintentional mix are pretty concrete thoughts that directly contradict a lot of beliefs here. And, since they're from the horse's mouth, they hold a lot more weight than listeners who also had 40 years to revise their thoughts. Personally, I can't remember yesterday, and who said what on this thread (without re-reading it all). But… here's one critical viewpoint on the mix.

  • 48
    redsock
    April 29, 2010 - 00:22 | Permalink

    what year is that quote from?

  • 49
    Capt. Willard
    April 29, 2010 - 00:22 | Permalink

    PS… that's a straight, copied quote (from who knows where). Those ellipses are not mine.

  • 50
    Mylene McSnapper
    April 29, 2010 - 00:24 | Permalink

    If someone asks me a question I'm going to answer it. :-P

    MIck Jagger's a perfectionist who, until now, has never looked back. (How many officially sanctioned Stones archival releases can you name?). He's looking at it from an old man's point of view. To most people Exile is the last relevant Stones album. Do you really want it tampered with by the guy that made Undercover and Bridges to Babylon?

    Cutting a doorway in The Last Supper probably seemed like a good idea at the time too.

  • 51
    Capt. Willard
    April 29, 2010 - 00:25 | Permalink

    Not sure… and, I'm not sure it matters, as it's quite succinct, and is directly related to what we've been discussing.

  • 52
    redsock
    April 29, 2010 - 00:29 | Permalink

    Well, I think there would be a difference if he said it in 1974 versus 2004.

    But honestly, I'd love to hear a new Mick Jagger mix of Exile. And I'd love to hear a Keith mix. I'm sure I'd find tons of things to love about both of them.

  • 53
    Capt. Willard
    April 29, 2010 - 00:29 | Permalink

    McSnapper, you're asking a whole other question there. The gist of what we've been talking about is the original mix and the artist's intentions and (for my argument) listeners' growing accustomed to the sound of crap. Your question is a whole different debate.

  • 54
    Mylene McSnapper
    April 29, 2010 - 00:30 | Permalink

    Capt Willard's quote's from "The Rolling Stones An Illustrated Record" by Roy Carr. December 1976

    I fully remember it.

  • 55
    Capt. Willard
    April 29, 2010 - 00:33 | Permalink

    Can't imagine why it would even matter.

    Listen to the clarity of his opinion and, more importantly, that there was "no concerted effort or intention."

    "It has some of the worst mixes I ever heard." THAT would even be more damning in 2004 than in 1974.

  • 56
    redsock
    April 29, 2010 - 00:33 | Permalink

    1976? That's interesting!

    Willard: Do you think the poor mix might have been the result of trying to get the LP done and in stores before the summer tour? Would more time have helped?

  • 57
    Capt. Willard
    April 29, 2010 - 00:37 | Permalink

    You're asking the wrong guy, Sox, but the few dozen quotes I read before finding this one were all about how shitty the basement was. It wasn't a recording studio at all. I would think THAT played the most important role. Other quotes had to do with how fucked up everybody was and all the hanger ons. But… in absence of other pertinent quotes, this kind of puts the kabash on the idea that it was all intentional, wouldn't you think?

  • 58
    redsock
    April 29, 2010 - 00:37 | Permalink

    missing too much of my baseball game, so i have to cut out. will check back tonight/tomorrow.

  • 59
    redsock
    April 29, 2010 - 00:40 | Permalink

    i don't know. it's only one quote.

    so much of it was recorded or redone in LA, i'm not sure the shitty basement plays that big a factor at the end of the day. if things were that shitty sounding on Song X, they likely redid it in LA.

  • 60
    Capt. Willard
    April 29, 2010 - 00:42 | Permalink

    Most of it was MIXED in LA. Still working with the same original recordings.

  • 61
    Capt. Willard
    April 29, 2010 - 00:57 | Permalink

    I'll paraphrase another quote that kind of bolsters both arguments (though, one more than the other). Keith was talking about recording in this dank basement, them going to the truck to listen back and it sounding nothing like what he just played. He said something about the cymbals sounding like trash lids. "But, it sounded great." So on one hand… the tapes admittedly (in this quoted instance) sounded nothing like when they were playing, but on the other hand, Keith thought it sounded cool and kept it (or was stuck with it, who's to say). It does, however, point out that they weren't getting what they actually sounded like on tape. Which also suggests it all wasn't intentional at all. Since, they had no place else to go but that basement. They put out what they had instead of what they were after.

  • 62
    Mylene McSnapper
    April 29, 2010 - 01:03 | Permalink

    Just the cast of extras on the album (Billy Preston, Vanetta Fields, Dr John etc) suggests a lot of the album was recorded or completed in LA. The basement is just part of the mythology. If they didn't like what they recorded they either overdubbed, remixed or started again from scratch. The album was created in at least three studios in three different countries over a five year period (1968 to 72 according to wiki) and yet it sounds so consistent that most people believe it to be recorded in a dank basement in 1972. That's the strength of the original mix

  • 63
    Art Ducko
    April 29, 2010 - 05:47 | Permalink

    Hey, have you guys heard that remastered Iggy Pop cd? Wow, what a stinker.

  • 64
    Anonymous
    April 29, 2010 - 19:51 | Permalink

    Don't like the remastered "All Down the Line." Jagger's vocals are now higher in the mix… go figure. Sounds sterile.

  • 65
    Capt. Willard
    April 29, 2010 - 19:58 | Permalink

    I think I like this, it has a punchy, powerful feel. But it does sound sterile by comparison. I had a real problem with the Beatles remasters because of the sterility. This, at least, sounds like a band in the studio.

  • 66
    redsock
    April 29, 2010 - 20:47 | Permalink

    I'll have to listen a few more times. Also it may be hard to tell with this mp3 file vs the new CD/vinyl.

    The guitars (esp. in the beginning) seem to have had a layer of gauze removed, which I admit makes them a bit more snarly and biting — which is good in my book. But that, coupled with the possible higher vocal, makes the song sound less like a complete machine barreling along. The greater separation of the instruments and vocals might make it sound "better", but it also could detract from the feel of the song/album.

    The alternate ADTL out there that has more piano and background singers is really good.

  • 67
    Anonymous
    April 29, 2010 - 21:06 | Permalink

    I don't understand people saying that this song sounds like a recent song. To my ears, it totally sounds like what I would expect any song from the Stones, circa early-70s to sound. Maybe it's just me, but as soon as I heard it I knew it was from that era. The Stones, to me, simply don't sound like that anymore (which is no knock on any of their recent stuff). So, regardless of whether the song was finished now or not, it definitely sounds like then. I think it's a very good track too.

  • 68
    Capt. Willard
    April 29, 2010 - 21:45 | Permalink

    The composition does come from back then, and presumably some or much of the instrumentation. What people are picking out are certain overdubbed elements. I also agree that it sounds like a new Jagger vocal. His phrasing and tone is, naturally, different 40 years later, and this vocal sounds a lot like the Bigger Bang recordings. I haven't studied them, nor would I probably be able to pick out modern guitar lines, and such. Others can.

  • 69
    Mylene McSnapper
    April 29, 2010 - 23:20 | Permalink

    ADTL sounds identical to the Exile mix. There's nothing added or subtracted. Both these songs came out on a 7" for record store day so some blogger has to have them both in higher fidelity. Someone find a link :-p

  • 70
    Capt. Willard
    April 30, 2010 - 00:32 | Permalink

    Actually, the pitch is different. This is pitched slightly faster (either by the mixers or by whoever made this rip) than my Virgin version, which is 10 seconds longer. The pitch change doesn't account for all 10 seconds, but it seems to account for about half of it.

  • 71
    Mylene McSnapper
    April 30, 2010 - 01:14 | Permalink

    It's 3:48 on the CBS (CD) version and it sounds at least semitone lower.

  • 72
    Fred Lamarca
    April 30, 2010 - 01:23 | Permalink

    I like Exile,But this new song is nothing like the album. 98% of Bonus tracks are always disappointing. This one is no exception . I would just prefer a super clean version of the original album. Let it Bleed , Beggars ,and Sticky Fingers are better albums to me . To Bad The Stones have been a parody of themselves for well over 3 decades. Thanks for those Guess Who albums . So many songs(album cuts ) I never knew. Indeed Good Stuff.

  • 73
    Pythag
    April 30, 2010 - 01:25 | Permalink

    Well I was born 10 years after this album was released. I fell in love with it the first time I heard it and Exile has held the #1 spot on my desert-island-album-list since I was 10 years old. I'm excited to hear ANY revision or fresh material and will judge all releases separately. Thanks for the interesting dialogue!!

  • 74
    Art Ducko
    April 30, 2010 - 07:33 | Permalink

    Wow, I keep playing the new mix of ADTL back & forth with the original vinyl cut, & there's a lot of difference. The guitars & horns are punchier for sure, but I seem to like the original vocal mix better. Don't ask me why, it just seems fuller. Overall, I'm still going with the remaster, as I'm curious as hell to hear it on my stereo system rather than my computer speakers. We'll know soon enough, won't we?

  • 75
    Pete
    April 30, 2010 - 17:30 | Permalink

    Great news — I don't care! I just a/b'd the new ADTL and the old one (probably the first CD, ripped into iTunes at 256) and I like them both. Yes, the pitch is different and the new one runs shorter; the horns seem to rip in more dramatically in the old mix; the rhythm guitar sounds better in the new one, which has more bottom in general … and I don't much care. Seems like a good clean-up to me.

    After all the to-ing and fro-ing (of which I have been guilty), the controversy is now reminding me of the Blonde on Blonde one — OK, the vinyl mono BoB is canonical, and the Canadian one has more piano or something, and I personally dislike the first Original Master CD (too much cymbal and treble in general) but you know what? It's a great record in any given version.

    Perfect, shmerfect, let's dance.

  • 76
    Pete
    May 1, 2010 - 17:44 | Permalink

    Hey, that was strictly a positive "I don't care"! Besides, I wasn't talking about Mickboy (whose version I have but have not a/b'd with the new one), I was talking about the new one vs the old CD. I like them both. As my Blonde on Blonde comments show, I can get into this stuff, it's fun, just not the end (or beginning) of the world. Glad you like his, too. Enjoy!

  • 77
    Virginia
    May 1, 2010 - 18:21 | Permalink

    Itunes has it up now to preview the tracks and there are songs that are not on the 2 boots I have from the sessions. Was said in Uncut he found stuff in the vaults

  • 78
    redsock
    May 3, 2010 - 02:27 | Permalink

    We need someone in the UK to d/l the previously uncirculated "All Down The Line" outtake that is being offered by Amazon.uk for free right now — and for the next week — and share it 'round!

    USA posters at IORR came up empty, as did I, in Toe-ron-toe.

  • 79
    Willard
    August 22, 2012 - 21:43 | Permalink

    .
    .
    .
    Get it HERE.
    .
    .
    .

  • Leave a Reply