This month Q Magazine has a Rolling Stones buyer's guide. Always count on music mags to disregard the latter years. Typical.


Essential:
- Let It Bleed.
- Sticky Fingers.
- Exile On Main Street.
- Beggars Banquet.


Also good:
- Aftermath.
- Goats Head Soup.
- Some Girls.
- Tattoo You.


Not for everyone:
- England's Newest Hitmakers.
- Their Satanic Majesties Request.
- Voodoo Lounge.
- Between The Buttons.


Live:
- Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out.

Avoid:
- Dirty Work.

Hits Collection:
- Forty Licks.

JumpingKentFlash

Well, the latter years are ignored for fairly obvoius reasons, as many contributors to the forum have pointed out on many occasions. Personally, I would have their first album as an "essential" - not in regards to overall quality of music/production perhaps but just to illustrate where they were coming from at the time

What would the "fairly obvious reasons" be?

JumpingKentFlash

Puzzles me in some ways.
As a fan since the early '70s I actually prefer the sound of the modern band in many ways. I've never preferred one "era" to another. My favourites span their whole career really.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-21 15:49 by Spud.

Although highly predictable, I think it’s a decent enough list.

It’s supposed to be a buyer’s introduction to the Rolling Stones and the likes of Steel Wheels and Bigger Bang should rightly be at the bottom of the pile in terms of essentialness.

It covers the albums which any new fan should/must know about.

For a novice's 'buyers guide',
it's pretty much, a spot-on and accurate list.

It's quite funny how they have Dirty Work as the one to avoid. Because I certainly would never advise anyone to get that record either unless they are looking to have One Hit (To The Body) or to complete their collection.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
What would the "fairly obvious reasons" be?

Erm - that the latter day stuff is a pile of crap compared to Beggars - Exile era.

I had a friend who has now passed on - she was old enough to be my mother and from the 60's generation, but was never so aware of the Stones as she became after being around me at work for so long (at the time I was 23 when we started working together, and she was late 40's), and finally she asked me to make some suggestions as to what she should get as introductions into them. Here's what I gave her.......

Start with Voodoo Lounge (obviously)

then add Sticky Fingers, Let It Bleed, Aftermath US, Flashpoint, and Flowers if you'd like

If want more from there, Some Girls, Tattoo You, Steel Wheels, Stripped

Essentials are Exile and Beggars, but I don't think novices would find these acccessible (this is exactly what I told her), so if you've gone thru all that and still find yourself wanting more then I'd pick up those two.

The London years is a great way to get all of their early hits, but if you're just looking to get acquainted this might be a bit pricey for starters (she did later pick up 40 licks).

...At the time I didn't like Ya-Yas at all, and I've since grown more fond of it, but I'd still only put it in the "If you want more from there" category. I'd add A Bigger Bang (which she did buy when it came out) to the "Then Add" category along with SAL. Alas, for this latter one she is no longer here to enjoy. I still think I'd go this way for introducing new fans.

Exile and Beggars are great, but I'd not start with them. For years I couldn't see what all the fuss was over Exile, and I still don't think it their masterpiece. It is great, but there are better IMO and I don't think for a new fan this would be the easiest album to start with. I would introduce them to some of the other albums (after VL) that they would be more familiar with the songs on it, like Sticky Fingers. Flashpoint, at the time - 1999 - remained the quintessential live album for me of the band's sound. I still think that in a lot of ways, but SAL has really captured how they sound currently compared to I guess how they sounded on the SW/UJ tour, which I never actually witnessed. Either way, the songs on Flashpoint are almost all well known and great renditions, which would be great fodder for a novice.

After exhausting all of that above, I'd say explore any of the others you may want to, and my only caveat would be (and I think I mentioned this to my friend), Satanic Majesties.

I'd also recommend avoiding Satanic Majesties if one has bought some of the singles comps that have Rainbow and Light Years on them. With exception to 2000 Man and Citadel, that album is one ahead of Dirty Work.

Actually, I'd start someone off with Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers. Those two are almost a continous album and are something to really chew on for a while.

It's dissapointing that their 1st album is a "not for everyone".

To me, it's a top 5!

I'd love to buy a Rolling Stone but I think I need to start saving up. Now if only Tumbling Dice had come in...

their disregarding of the early years is even more blatant that than of the later. Nice to see Aftermath at least in the 2nd rank, but the 1st album "not for everyone" and nothing in between even mentioned?! Their best years are missing.

Sounds about right to me.

I do think Rolled Gold is truly the essential compilation though.

The first album is an essential ,play loud and often.

This list sounds almost right to me. I would like to see 2 changes:

- The first stones album should have been included in the " good" category instead of Goats Head Soup.

- In the "not for everyone" category i would have replaced Between The Buttons with Undercover.

_________________________________________
turnersmemo

Avoid Dirty Work? They don't have a clue - it's a great album!

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
This month Q Magazine has a Rolling Stones buyer's guide. Always count on music mags to disregard the latter years. Typical.

In this case its justified. If youre limited to picking only four Stones album as their most 'essential', then only someone with cloth ears would pick anything after 1978.

Their choice of the band's best eight studio albums, best live album and best compilation is pretty much spot-on. And its a toss up between DW and Satanic for the 'avoid' category.

yeah, Gazza, the choices are reasonable--glad especially to see GHS recovering from its unjustified turkey status--but I do think something from the '64-65 albums should have been included as essential.

I wonder if all the pre-Aftermath LPs would fit on 2 CDs? Maybe sequenced in order by session, or by album would be fine, combining US & UK, including the UK Got Live EP... now that would be an essential buy.

Quote
cc
yeah, Gazza, the choices are reasonable--glad especially to see GHS recovering from its unjustified turkey status--but I do think something from the '64-65 albums should have been included as essential.

I think thats a fair point, but when youve made as much great music over such a long period as the Stones have, its very hard to pin it down to just 3 or 4 albums (presuming youre accepting that theres about 4 albums that are absolute shoe-ins)

well, I don't know why 4 should be the number. Seems to coincide too neatly with the "Big 4" "Golden Age" concept that I prefer to reject (even though those are probably my fave 4, too). If you're going to go with only 4, it makes more sense to hit a number of different eras, or to make a compilation one of the essentials. (though I wouldn't extent that approach to including anything recent, especially for a beginner)

Quote
Gazza
In this case its justified. If youre limited to picking only four Stones album as their most 'essential', then only someone with cloth ears would pick anything after 1978.

hah - such delicate elegant phrasing. A career in the United Nations is surely your true calling, sir...

Trust you'll be enjoying our hospitality 'down south' over the next few days; i hear some chancer from New Jersey is swinging by to play a few tunes. I'm going m'self on sunday; you'll know me. I'll be the one decrying the fact that Courtney Cox hasn't been brought up to dance during Dancing in the Dark...

Back on Topic - Q mag printed something v similar around the time of the Virgin re-issues in 1993/4 and the first 3 albums i bought in the 'miniature' series (i only had Hot Rocks on cassette at the time) were Sticky Fingers, Exile and Some Girls. The next to be bought was Let it Bleed. It's not that I slavishly followed one guide, but did a bit of research and, in fairness, among even the Stones faithful, most would agree with the choices of essentials - i know I sure as heck would.

I don't think the more sensitive of our Brethren here should take any of the comments here as being a slight on the first album and so on. I have it, and whilst it's good in a charming, lo-fi sort of way and sounds darned good turned up to 11, it doesn't have the 'meat and two veg' that you get with the more confident swaggering late sixties/early seventies stuff. That was the purple patch and no amount of revisionism, however well intentioned, will shake off that perception. I consider the later albums, Steel Wheels et al to be fine 'rock' albums, showcasing occasional glimpses of brilliance, but they're not *brilliant* all-round rescue-from-the-house-if-it-was-burning-down Rolling Stones albums.

Quote
Roll73

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
What would the "fairly obvious reasons" be?

Erm - that the latter day stuff is a pile of crap compared to Beggars - Exile era.

and thats being generous.........

the rub is the word "essential." Why "essential," and essential to what? To a library of the best rock albums, then fine, those are probably the best, but again why is 4 the number. To a understanding of the Stones specifically,as jlowe said, where they were coming from, then one of the early records would be essential.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
This month Q Magazine has a Rolling Stones buyer's guide. Always count on music mags to disregard the latter years. Typical.

In this case its justified. If youre limited to picking only four Stones album as their most 'essential', then only someone with cloth ears would pick anything after 1978.

Their choice of the band's best eight studio albums, best live album and best compilation is pretty much spot-on. And its a toss up between DW and Satanic for the 'avoid' category.

I don't refute the top 4. These are the best of course. The compilation category is right, as is live (Although you might wanna ask Mathijs if it should be regarded a live record or not). It's the "Also Good" category I have a problem with. Tattoo You and Some Girls should be there along with Voodoo Lounge (Certainly) and either of these four: Bridges To Babylon, A Bigger Bang, Out Of Our Heads or Black & Blue (These four come very close to each other in quality). Aftermath and Goats Head Soup does not come close to those. So it's not justified.
And what's up with having Satanic and Buttons ranking that high? I know it says "Not for everyone", but if they can pick those in that category, I could certainly pick about 6 others that would be better for it.

I recently re-read the Keith interview from Mojo where a panel picks their fave Stones songs. I think the oldest song picked (Out of 50!!!) was Undercover Of The Night. Citadel was even mentioned. People simply pick these favourites with a closed mind and closed ears. As if Citadel is better than anything they made after 1983. That's simply not true. There's also some guy from The Byrds picking some 60s song and starts his reasons with "You know why I like it? Brian Jones is on it". Gimme a break.

JumpingKentFlash

Kent, I will pm ya... Ya'll be online for another while?

Yup. I'm online for a while since I haven't been working last night. My teeth hurt like a son of a bitch.

JumpingKentFlash

quote]

I don't refute the top 4. These are the best of course. The compilation category is right, as is live (Although you might wanna ask Mathijs if it should be regarded a live record or not). It's the "Also Good" category I have a problem with. Tattoo You and Some Girls should be there along with Voodoo Lounge (Certainly) and either of these four: Bridges To Babylon, A Bigger Bang, Out Of Our Heads or Black & Blue (These four come very close to each other in quality). Aftermath and Goats Head Soup does not come close to those. So it's not justified.
And what's up with having Satanic and Buttons ranking that high? I know it says "Not for everyone", but if they can pick those in that category, I could certainly pick about 6 others that would be better for it.

I recently re-read the Keith interview from Mojo where a panel picks their fave Stones songs. I think the oldest song picked (Out of 50!!!) was Undercover Of The Night. Citadel was even mentioned. People simply pick these favourites with a closed mind and closed ears. As if Citadel is better than anything they made after 1983. That's simply not true. There's also some guy from The Byrds picking some 60s song and starts his reasons with "You know why I like it? Brian Jones is on it". Gimme a break.[/quote]


I really don't think the likes of Bridges To Babylon or A Bigger Bang, or even Tattoo You, are likely to appeal much to the readers of Q magazine. It has a fairly young readership and the 60's is what apeals to them the most. With its target audience in mind, its a very good list.

Quote
Big Al
I really don't think the likes of Bridges To Babylon or A Bigger Bang, or even Tattoo You, are likely to appeal much to the readers of Q magazine. It has a fairly young readership and the 60's is what apeals to them the most. With its target audience in mind, its a very good list.

If they have the audacity to make a buyer's guide (I.e. Telling people what to prefer), they should do it properly instead of their usual sucking up. But since it's Q Magazine (Real name: "Music Polls & Lists Monthly") we couldn't expect more than this I guess.

JumpingKentFlash