When a rock critic blows it bad and the band doesn't care

Some of you may be interested in this story even if you are not that interested in the band:

A couple of weeks ago, the Rolling Stones released a CD called Rarities 1971-2003. The bottom line is that nothing on the album is particularly rare. It is made up of B-Sides, Dance Mixes, etc. (even a few album cuts) and the only reasons to buy it are to get high quality versions of a couple of vinyl b-sides from the 70's and to complete your collection if you are a big fan (like me).

So, I bought it at Starbucks with my eyes open and was not disappointed with the content (even though it could have easily been a zillion times better if they had truly compiled the best of the bootleg stuff). However, I started reading the liner notes (describing the origins of each of the songs) and was soon beside myself with dismay.

Virgin, Starbucks, The Stones, whoever was responsible for this set, blew it in a major way. According to the credits, a person named Tom Moon was hired to write the liner notes. This seems to be the Pop Critic for the Philadelphia Enquirer and a sometime contributor to Rolling Stone magazine. This clown muffed the job in a way that I suggest has never been seen before on a major label release by a major band.

I am not talking about punctuation errors, I mean this idiot just does not know his Stones and evidently the label left him to figure out the origin of the songs on his own and he neglected to spend a half hour doing Google searches to get the facts. If you are interested in the detail, see my Amazon review, it is the first spotlight review titled: A Bigger Bust:

[www.amazon.com]

I checked my facts by asking for comments at the IORR.org message board and the other hardcore Stones fans there concurred with my analysis. I already owned most of the stuff included on this album so I am quite sure of the claims I am making.


Ultimately, the real tragedy is that nobody connected with the band could be bothered to spend 20 minutes proofreading their own product prior to release.

you read the liner notes? cool!

I haven't seen the notes, and don't know the details, but Tom Moon is an excellent and experienced music journalist with a wide range of interests and expertise. As the victim of a liner notes assignment from hell myself, i would ask what the circumstances were before simply flaming a real pro.

Sorta off-topic but Tom Moon is my local paper critic here in Philly - um at least I think he still is. He's a good writer, sometimes insane with his biases though (his love for Alanis for her first album was quite disturbing). At least he writes well though which counts for something - I'm not always down with his taste but he can articulate an opinion.....I might be in the minority here but "Some Girls" doesn't get the great tag from me. Really good, but "great"? I can't go quite that far. I know it finished 2nd in the Pazz & Jop poll that year, but that was too high !

Well, flame the greedy, jaded band then who couldn't be bothered to look at their own product. But if this guy is a real pro as you say, he ought to know that when you put your name to something, you put your name to something. Jason Blair and the editors who got fired from the New York Times were real pros too.

Fortunately for Tom Moon, he's unlikely to be fired from *Rolling Stone* (or any other magazine he contributes to) over this liner notes gaffe.

As for the Rolling Stones, they've milked their back catalog for so many anthologies, compilations and best-ofs that their efforts at quality control on most of them went way downhill, ages ago. Witness *Sucking in the Seventies*. Few albums have been so aptly named.

why or when was blair a pro? because of a paycheck? why is fictionalizing unethically sources comparable to sloppy criticism? those editors btw are real folk heroes in many ways for their lifetime accomplishments. they made a serious mistake re blair but that doesn't wipe away those men's contributions to journalism. we shouldn't take potshots at the Times. without their 9/11 coverage. pentagon papers, and their analysis of the break up of USSR this country would be the poorer. do they make mistakes? hell, they hired that witch Judith Miller and gave her extensive by-lines. but they do an OK job. you almost seem mad that charlie watts did not proof the liners on the 645th RS lp.
blame the record company.


cheating and lying ain't getting facts mixed up.

Jayson Blair is a sociopath. (Witness his race-baiting tome "Burning Down My Master's House," which romanticizes and borderline justifies his actions.) Seems a far cry to invoke his name in this forum because someone *allegedly* can't distinguish "Tattoo You"-era Stones discards from "Black & Blue"-era Stones outtakes. (I'm not being literal.)

The real story is the endurance of a band that hasn't made a decent album since 1972.

>
> The real story is the endurance of a band that hasn't made a
> decent album since 1972.


1981

many decent since 72


none great since 78

michael baker wrote:

> many decent since 72
>
>
> none great since 78



i'm not so stubborn as to insist tattoo you was great (it was, haha), but it sure as hell qualifies as decent.

is "cherry oh baby'" from black and blue worth much to anyone?
when did the word "reggae" become a term?

toots

63?

satch

i'm not so stubborn as to insist tattoo you was great (it was, haha), but it sure as hell qualifies as decent.


Brother:
hey me too

i meant decent since exile (i count ten, but i'm generous towards new one, emotional rescue, and steel, but mos def tattoo) but only some girls is a great record

no, actually, Jayson Blair was a fraud with a job. The people he took down with him were pros undone by racism.