I dunno if "Gimme Shelter" is a great [i]song[i], but I think Greil Marcus described it as "the greatest ever rock and roll recording", and I reckon he's about right. It's the sound of the recording which is about 90% of it's greatness, I reckon. It's practically lo-fi. From top to tail, the mix is so laden, so overwhelmed, that a big piano chord splits it asunder at one point. A harmonica acts as a steam whistle at various points, releasing some of the crush, but never enough. Just when you think it could bear no more, and certainly nothing like Merry Clayton screaming her lungs out, it does. At various times you have to wonder "What is driving this?", and then you can hear Keith, playing rhythm guitar inside there somewhere and you hope he gets out OK.
Honest to god, I well up with tears when I even think about "Gimme Shelter", never mind listen to it. I had to stop and rest for a wee bit even just typing this out.
Advances in hi-fi technology do not apply to this record. If the camera had been invented in Da Vinci's time, he'd still have sat down and painted Mona Lisa, I think.

I was intrigued to hear again about "Beggars Banquet" playing at the wrong speed for all these years. Have we been listening to it too fast or too slow? You'd think someone would have noticed. How long is the SACD "Beggars.."? The one I've worshipped for all these years is nigh on perfect at 38 minutes and odd...

Ah, well possibly not. I'm a firm believer in there being only one version of "Gimme Shelter". And "Sympathy For The Devil".
As I mentioned in my previous post, I think what these are are great records, as distinct from great songs. (Not that the two need be mutually exclusive, of course. I think "Brown Sugar" and "Jumpin' Jack Flash" manage to be both, among many others)
I just always felt The Stones never were able to do either of them justice on stage. (Or in television studios for that matter, but I must say I do like the 'Rock And Roll Circus' version of "Sympathy.." Probably because it's about the only time they played it 'live' using the same arrangement as on the LP. The TV show was intended to plug the LP, so that all works. When "Sympathy.." became a staple of their set, post US 69 tour, it was as a radically rearranged number, which probably had a lot to do with accomodating Mick Taylor. It's not the same, man..)
As a veteran of many Stones tours, I would take no pleasure in hearing them forever 'updating' "Sympathy For The Devil", so you would know what was 'all the go' in pop music at the time. You'd get big horn sections on there, you'd get drum n bass. You'd get Chuck Leavell. It's a bit pointless and daft. When Mick shouted out "Who killed the Kennedys?" on 'Beggars Banquet', it was an epoch making moment, placing rock and roll music firmly and squarely in history, and our entire culture. He doesn't do it the same in some athletics stadium, on the 46th night of a tour, he just doesn't.
I'd seen them on 4 tours before I saw them play a show without either SFTD or GS, which was at Glasgow SECC, Sept. 2003. First time I saw them indoors, also. (Size of an aircraft hangar, mind, but 'intimate' for The Stones!) When they left the stage before an encore a couple of lads in front of me, who I'd bet a pint that they'd open with "If You Can't Rock Me" (and lost. It was "Street Fighting Man".) started going: "Well, they've GOT to do SFTD or GS. Do they think folk won't notice they've not been in the set so far? I countered this with basically the argument I've presented here, pointing out that the set had managed pretty well without these 'standards, and had had as it's 'centrepiece' an absolutely staggering "Midnight Rambler", which must have been about 12 minutes long and had fans of all ages clasping their hands to their heads in wonderment, it was so brilliant. This is a working rock and roll turn with an awesome back catalogue, which it can play the absolute shit out of on any given night is what I'm saying.
Hey, don't get me wrong; I love Lisa Fischer, but when she sashays up stage front to tell us that rape and murder is just a shot away it just looks like showbusiness. Not enough distress, despair , desperation, defiance. Definitely doesn't scream herself inside out like yer spozed to. One might argue that Lisa's legs are worth the ticket price on their own, however, I spoze. Damn statuesque woman, so she is....

Thank you very much for your positive comments, people.

I'd love to post more here. I've been a member on here, on and off, for maybe four years now. (Possibly under different usernames sometimes, I can't quite remember.) As far as Stones fan communities on the net go, there's no question this is where it's at. News on the Stones seems to break here faster than the AP and the knowledge some of the members have of the band is deeper and broader than can be found in some big selling books by 'respected' writers! Gazza does a bang up job running a top class site. (Gazza still runs this place, right?)

Problem I had in the past, you see, was that I could always sense that I was less than welcome on the forums. I could see a definite 'clique' of maybe a half dozen members which dominated almost every page of every topic. And no matter what the topic started as, it always seemed to wind up as basically a chatroom consisting of this same handful of people. If you posted anything, be it a question or a comment or whatever, on or off topic, it would be met with a few sly winks and in-jokes between the 'guys' before any kind of response would appear. If it appeared at all!

I recall once, in a discussion about bootlegs, asking if there was anywhere I could get hold of the 'Top Of The Pops' performance of "Brown Sugar" and the 'Oscar Wilde' promo for "We Love You", and maybe one or two other bits n pieces, and the response, in essence, was "Have you never heard of the internet, dummy?"!!! Nice.
I'd thought if anyone, anywhere could answer my query, it'd be on here. It seemed like they maybe could, but hey, they weren't about to tell an 'outsider' anything!
I'd find this infuriating, and go off to find some other good Stones fan community/source of info on the net, but would be unable to, and always wind up back here!

Anyway, hark at me and my 'nobody luvs me', self pitying cobblers! Honest, that's not what I'm on about, not at all. And I'm sure this place isn't 'clique ridden' now.
I just want to be a member, get involved, chip in my tuppence worth now and then, y'know?

And not have my lunch money taken off me by the bigger boys.

Noonan McKane wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 1:34pm:


i'd say you're off to a good start....some guy seems to love you

Noonan McKane wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 4:41pm:



OK you can call me B! Bitch is my favorite song btw, I am NOT a Bitch, haha. Well, maybe sometimes, on a bad day.... OK, so you seem smart and you say you are loveable, huh? So where do you call home, Noonan?   

sacd and bluray are different animals. w/o getting too technical, sacd is 1bit and like a million (or so) samples per second, bluray has a top of 24bit/192kHz (i think). sacd is an audio only format. bluray is audio and video. for the record, redbook cds (regular cds) are 16 bit/44.1kHz. now, i can tell you that increasing the word length from 16 to 24 makes an audible difference - this has certainly proven true when recording. i have not used one of those sonoma desks that master dsd (which is the format that is read from the sacd), but i have heard, and believe that the one bit/million+ samples per second does a fabulous job of recreating the sound waves; i really think that the "truest" sound i have heard from a recorded medium is via dsd. this goes contrary to what i have observed in my own recording - i could tell a difference immediately when increasing the word length, but the difference when upping the sample rate were much more subtle. bottom line - all hi resolution formats have audible benefits to their redbook counterparts. most often people notice the increased dynamic range and the clarity of the sound of the instruments (no artifacts from compression during mastering that just doesnt translate well to the redbook cd spec)...

not much has been released on blu ray that is purely audio focused (there are the obligatory concert videos, but not much else). when running those concert vids, use the lpcm track, or the dts master track, and check the audio specs when playing - you will see just how much bandwidth this stuff takes. neil young is using the bluray format for his archive series. the firstinstallment, if it ever ships, is supposed to be like 6 blu rays (with a capacity of 50 gigs each), and it will have EVERYTHING from the birth of neil's musical career through the early 70's. there will be further installments over time. should be cool for the neil young fan, but i am very interested to see how he does it, and how the old stuff sounds. who knows? it might just be the impetus for other bands, with HUGE catalogs, and scores of officially unreleased stuff, to put out their own "archive releases" in a high-rez, quality manner...

if you can find a 60gig ps3 (buy one new, not used), you will have a player that does both the sacd and the bluray formats.

hth

oh, and i would love to join the discussion re: gimme shelter on the lib sacd, but alas, my gear is still boxed until i can finish construction on the listening room (eta feb '09) - i havent listened to my vinyl rig in like two years...

macdaddy you sure know your systems! I'm impressed! I might look into buying a blu ray ~ any recommendations?

Noonan, UK/British men are my favorite men on the planet! I knew about Scotland, it's Ireland that gets confusing. I live in New Jersey, between NY & Philly. Lots of concerts here, and I never run out of things to do!

Bitch wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 7:29pm:



If you're into games or have kids into games, get a PS3 for Blu-Ray.

I think you can still pick up the SACD versions-they have the letters SDS on the cases. Saw one yesterday for Let It Bleed.  Perhaps someone here can verify.

Closing the loop on this, I popped it into an SACD player and it was NOT recognized as an SACD so that takes care of it. On the other hand it's the best sounding LIB I've heard, even better than the Flac RIP of the 2002 CD remaster, which doesn't make sense since it's supposed to be the same source, oh well...