Don't! It's useless. Stop it 'cause you can't! Do live your life comparing your children??

Dont want comparisons? Then dont post on this board. Its a forum. We like discussions.

I don't get this gripe at all. What does comparing children have to do with comparing Stones albums?

Of course everybody is going to compare albums. That's EXACTLY what it is all about, Michrud.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-12 23:38 by StonesTod.

I can see both sides of the argument.


When a Stones album get's compared it is usally against the mother of all measuring sticks, "Exile on Main St."

This for the Stones and Rock & Rock Roll is a Major Statement in Musical History.

They were at their peak both lyrically , instrumentally & were the top force in 72.


This is almost a curse to artists everywhere in any genre.

John Steinbeck never wrote another "East of Eden"

The Doors never wrote another " Light My Fire"

Francis Ford Coppola never made another "Apocolyspe Now"

Hitchcock will ALWAYS be remembered for "Physco"

People tend to encapsulate the best of artists and want them to stay there! And damned if you do anything different!!!!!

And I can see how you can take a painting or movie or song and compare it to other's and a starting point for discussion....

But on the other side of the coin......

How do you compare a song that was written in 1972 in their 20's and compare it to something written 33 years later in thier 60's?

I mean that is an amazing gap of history that has taken place in between.

Look at life and the lifestyle then , and the politics, art's and songs..

As an artist you have to grow, move, shift......

I think I would bet a 1,000 dollars that the same people who complain that every new album is NOT like Exile, would be the first one's bitchin' if the new album was like Exile...

They would complain "it's just the same" "nothing new" "can't write anything new" "same idea's " etc. ad nasuem........

So, I guess it is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Judge at your own risk hehe





"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

I'm not so sure Exile is The Stones best work, I mean is there a song on there that is better than Brown Sugar? Or, Midnight Rambler? I could go on but you get my point. It's obviously a 'bulk' of work which gave people a chance to see the 'depth' of the band. I think it's considered their 'best' work partly because of that, it's a double album. And, secondly because by that point in history people could no longer minimalize The Stones talent, so all the critics (and this was a long time coming for those old enough to remember) jumped on the band wagon. Another way to say this is that people have heard so many times that it's their best work that they just 'assume' that it is.

Like I started out, break it down song by song and compare the songs to previous Stones work and I think you'll find it harder to claim it's their 'greatest' work. I do however think it's on a par with some of their previous works but not 'unquestionably' their greatest. Maybe I should have started another thread with this but there you have it.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

So far 1963 --- 2005 is the best Stones work.

ROCKMAN

Very good point Rockman.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-13 01:22 by RankOutsider.

God point Marhsall; but some comment:

"The Doors never wrote another ' Light My Fire' " - No, but the second album was just as good as the first.That is, Strange Days. Plus the "tough, fragile third"
- Waiting For The Sun was really good. And finally; L.A. Woman is a lot heavier, rootsier, bluesier AND at a same time more innovative *** than the earliest works. I can even picture they (the mark/mach with Astbury of course, not the REAL James Douglas f---cking Morrison-stuff) are far more mature, heavier AND innovative today than in 1971. The latter yet to be heard.
*** Compare with early, classic & current material by the Stones
if you please.

RankOutsider: "I mean is there a song on there that is better than Brown Sugar?"
- Raw Justice, maybe.... "Or, Midnight Rambler?"
- Maybe not, but BOMH isnt too far behind.
And that goes for IWTL and TPIE too.

Which lead to the always superb commentor Rockman´s:
"So far 1963 --- 2005 is the best Stones work."

Earlier on I threw in the metaphor with the kids. That´s because I got a bunch of´em (5). When pressured, I usually say something smooth about the oldest ones, like: "I have had you the longest time". I think that is also the
psychology behind why people never wanna give up Exile or so.
- If EOMS was made now, it would be said never to be as good as SF etc etc.
...But Bjornulf´s words that ABB is better than EOMS, maybe as good as SF, are
thinkworthy.

well said rockman..a biggerbang is what the stones do now...we not in 1972..put it this way if a biggerbang was like exile witch i love..people would be moaning they havent moved on, and sound the same...and at the end of the day this is how the stones want to sound in 2005.what ive heard so far of a biggerbang sounds very promising

Good Point Bro about the Doors....

And I agree with you complettly....

But the fans ALWAYS WANTED TO HEAR LIGHT MY FIRE!

You are known by your hits......Just as Morrsion always complained bout them wanting to hear Light My Fire, so he would give them a nice "Celebration of the Lizard"

So that was what I might by being encaspulated by your fans... and even peers.


GREAT POST!

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Between the Buttons is by far the best.

Hay Virgil that is interesting you say that....

Becasue I have always personally felt that Between the Buttons
was their Sgt. Pepper....... even outdoing the Beatles "masterpiece" , if you agree with that well worn statement.

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Majesties & Buttons would make a monumentary masterpiece as a doublealbum.
Nice idea for a box; and put away some totally 3-4 less explosive numbers.
Plus add We Love YOu and some other goodies 1966-1969.

We fans are lucky to have the stones so stop moaning and enjoy the music.
STONES OF 2005 ARE STILL THE GREATEST ROCK-ROLL BAND,MOST OF THE MUSIC OF STONES IS V.GOOD,FOR ME THEY ARE WAY OF LIFE SINCE 1968,SO GET STONED WITH THE
MUSIC.KISH

Between the Buttons was a transitional album and a very good one at that.
But lets face it Let It Bleed is the true masterpiece.
Why?
Because its basically just Mick and Keith and Charlie and Bill
with just a little Brian and M. Taylor
Every song off this album has been performed live and sounds as fresh today as it did 35 plus years ago.
Just listen to
Let it Bleed off Stripped
Monkey Man off Live Licks
Live With Me and Gimme Shelter off No Security
Midnight Rambler from 4 Flicks or Ya Yas
You Can't Always Get Want You Want and Gimme Shelter are anthems for a least 1 or 2 generations if not more.
Need I say more.

tatoo me i couldn't agree more. let it bleed is as fresh today as in '69

I find it fun--and agonizing--to try and make a choice about which is the best Stones record.

In the end, track-for-track, is there really anything better than "Let It Bleed?" Really? "Beggar's Banquet" and "Some Girls" are pretty close, though...

What has always seemed indisputible, somehow, is that "Exile" is, if not the best album, then certainly the "Stonsiest" album. The influences, the attitude, the fantasy of the Rolling Stones--they leap out of that album.

And what about "Bridges to Babyon?" I love the thought of these rich, jaded old bastards in some studios in LA grinding out a trashy little thing like "Lowdown." Or when Jagger, just as his relationship with Jerry H. is disintigrating, throws out that line: "...I wonder how time is going to change her" in "Out of Control?" What about the Beck-meets-Howing Wolf "Might As Well Get Juiced?" Or Wayne Shorter's arching, sublime sax playing to lay the album gently to bed?

In due time, we will all realize just how much great work the Stones did in the latter phases of their career. I'm sure that "A Bigger Bang" will prove a worthy addition to the canon...

Hey, everyone here has a valid point, which leads me to my thought - isn't all music pretty much subjective? That is, everyone finds something to like or dislike about any song that comes around, whether it's from a favorite artist or someone you've never heard from. Of course, in the case of the Stones, we are all ravishing in the tremendous (subjective) songs that they put out in their most creative and prolific era (subjective). To cut straight to the point, I have not liked every song created by the Stones (subjective), but I look to each new offering with an open mind and tell myself "This is the guys' latest creation. I am so thankful they still produce 'latest creations' because I don't get that from some of my favorite bands of all time (Slade, Clash, Foghat, Ramones, Beatles, etc, etc, etc). Anyway, I enjoy reading what you all have to say and I respect your rights to voice your opinions. Makes this a fantastic community that we belong to!

Amen UnionHall

"Physco"??

My earliest childhood memory is seeing that blue London vinyl label going around in circles on my fisherprice record player. I had some Beatles albums too, but Let It Bleed and Now! got the most airplay. Always dug Down the Road Apiece...

I'm continually suprised by how many people consider Exile their favorite. Personally I'd take Let It Bleed over Exile. Sticky Fingers, Some Girls and Emotional Rescue are somewhere on the charts too.

Pserchia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Physco"??


Psycho is not considered (by critics) one of Hitchcock's better movies. It was a shocker for movie goers at the time. But, both it and Birds (another of the more "popular" Alfred flix) are considered among his worst by most critics.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's EXACTLY what it is all about, Michrud.

You're wrong there compadre. It's about diggin' it, and diggin' it the cool way.


JumpingKentFlash

The magic and mystery of Exile is something you can't just explain in a couple of sentences. You probably can't explain it at all. Exile is a place, it is more then just an album. I consider it the best album of all time. Someone said it has no stand out tracks? Every track is a standout here, because all tracks need each other to be truly great. It's a masterpiece all together.

I wlould agree that there's no real stand-out tracks. That's why I prefer SF.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> StonesTod Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's EXACTLY what it is all about, Michrud.
>
>
> You're wrong there compadre. It's about diggin'
> it, and diggin' it the cool way.
>
>
>

spoken like someone who hasn't listened to a whole lot of music.

Exile does not have that war horses like Brown Sugar or Rambler but I think it's outstanding because it stands for the entire strong work of the album. (And it has Bill on Bill on bass besides Keith and Mick T. also on bass)

think about this
if there is a boat called 'the Moonlight Mile' and one night in a storm, the boat losses its mast. the next day i put on an entirely new mast, then the next night, i run a shore and break the hull, i then have to replace everything but the mast.
with none of the original part's intact, is it still the same boat?

the band as musicians, has changed over the years, and those individual player's have changed (brian jones, mick taylor, ron wood, bill wymann, ian stewart etc.)
even those musician's in the band have changed (grown musically in what they like, and skill level has ebb and flowed... honestly ron and keith can't play as fast as they once could).
the musician's as people have changed (im sure many of feel differently between age 22 and now... (whatever now is for any of you).

of course the band and the music will change, the music is based on the people creating it, not only do the people change, but their individual change affects the group dynamic. that is why they aren't making exile now, they made it when they were in their late 20's (if think). they are making bigger band now, for the same reason they didn't make bigger bang in 62 or 82. bigger bang is who they are now.

i can go on and on, but the simple fact is a that a band changes, and changes a lot over the course of 43 years. the magic of exile was based on who the guys were then, just as much as every stand out track was dependent upon the guys being where they were at.

a musician in his early 20's on drugs, with little money will have a different view on their art, then a 60 year old millionaire who eats well and sees a different part of the world everyday.

That's what make music great .. everybody has their favorite album, song etc. and for different reasons often not about the merits of the song itself.

The first album I ever got was "Got Live if you Want it" ... and as you know you can hardly hear the songs for the screaming but for me it is the most memorable album because it seemed like I was right there at the Stones concert ... I wore that vinyl out! (mostly because of the pennies I had to tape on the stylus to keep from skipping)

Over the years of course I appreciated the Stones incredible growth as musicians and loved the landmark albums but I think Got Live kicked my ass like none other .. but that's just me




...

Ultimate Rock Music Poll
[www.squidoo.com]

I shall always compare everything I hear new from the Stones to Get Your Yas Yas Out simply because that was the very first Stones album I had heard. I just loved the hard metallic guitar sound of that album. When I first heard GHS and IRRO, Black & Blue...I was so confused because the albums were not totally filled with the driving guitar sound that I first loved in Ya Yas. All of the albums are different, you really can't compare them, but it gets down to personal taste and preferences. My personal preference is for the Stones to rock......I get my experimental stuff from other sources. I still go back to Ya Yas........how does the guitar sound compare to that?