Hi all, I've been really digging into the older Stones albums lately (everything that was released before Beggars Banquet). I know all the songs of BB and after but from before that period I only knew the big hits (as most hits were only released as a single, not on an album, there were a lot of old Stones songs / albumtracks I didn't know yet).

I took one album a week. Listened to it at least once a day in it's entirety. I started with England's Newest Hit Makers and at the moment I'm arrived at Between The Buttons.

What struck me is that it took me so very very long each time to memorize the songs because they're all very much like each other. Similar structure, similar melody's etc. When, after listening an album at least 7 times, I took the playlist and tried to remember the melodies when running through the songtitles it was still very very hard to do. Pretty different from the way albums as Let It Bleed and Tattoo You grow on you: you listen to them 3 times and you can easily rembember the melodies. How come it takes so long to memorize the old album tracks? Is it poor songmaterial? Is it because the songs are very much like each other?

What's your aprreciation of early Stones album work? And how do you appreciate material on albums as Aftermath and Between The Buttons (besides the hits that are on hit...).

And how was the Stones work compared with other artists at that time?

Thanks!!!

They just had to grow as songwriters. Early on, I find their strongest material to be their singles. They weren't making good albums yet, they were releasing strong singles. But that's how it was for a lot of bands back then because the concept of the album was still pretty new and the emphasis was still on singles. I would argue that "Aftermath" is their first ALBUM-album. After the experimentation in '66 - '67, they came back with an album in '68 that was closer to their roots, but by then they had sort of developed their own identity. It didn't just sound like some band playing blues and rock and roll anymore...it sounded like The Rolling Stones. They finally found a way to take all of those elements and make it their own and I think that's what makes the Beggars - Exile albums so strong. They weren't concerned with following trends or being anything other than what they were. They were at their peak with their roots intact making music that only the Rolling Stones could have made.

i like aftermath and out of our heads and 12 x 5 and between the buttons has particularly strong songs and i feel totally under-rated, due to production sounds or something, for most people, but i'm a big champion for all sold out and my obsession and connection and others from buttonsl; im glad you're listening to Buttons and would love to know how it feels to you....please.

i really like very early stones. they had big hits compilation out fairly early; the early stuff is magnificent magnificent; really important to me; almost all of it. to watch them, and enjoy them, and appreciate them, discover them from album to album anew, one of the big joys and gifts in my life....

Quote
Beelyboy
i like aftermath and out of our heads and 12 x 5 and between the buttons has particularly strong songs and i feel totally under-rated, due to production sounds or something, for most people, but i'm a big champion for all sold out and my obsession and connection and others from buttonsl; im glad you're listening to Buttons and would love to know how it feels to you....please.

Agreed, Beely! Not to forget Their Satanic. A very underrated album.

One should also realize that at this time, music like this wasn't played in Britain. Also the Stones were more of a live band and it was a bit hard to try and capture their feel on an album. Although at times they did.
Bill Wyman's Stone Alone book is a good read to see how things were and how the Stones effected and changed things during this time. It's much harder to see or understand looking back from later years after all the changes were done. But the Stones really helped cause the changes that makes music what it was to later become in sound as well as attitude and puplic acceptance.

Oh I just can not agree at all that earlier Stones stuff is inferior. First album "Hitmakers" is to this day one of my favorites, as is "Between the Buttons", IMO their most underrated album; also their most British.
It MIGHT be MrRocknRoll that you are absorbing so much material in a relatively short time ( but Hats off! I have said many times that the pre -Beggars stuff doesn';t get near enough attention here). And this is a big amount of songs from the hectic years you are digesting. yes, the Stones did a lot of R&B Blues material; so you have that; plus the intrumentation wasn't as varied yet; i.e. you don't have a synth dominated song, you don't have the "song with the choir", you don't have the horns - so yes, most songs do have the guitars, piano, and then beginning in 65 Brian expands their sound palette.
If I may, I would suggest not to give up, and maybe give them each another week again, and then maybe again. By then you will have found so many subtleties that break it up, and you will notice huge differences between the first and second album; huge differences between Aftermath and Buttons.

Currently jamming to Aftermath (US version) ....man it's great! "OH NO! Don't ya bother me no more..."
So much great depth to these songs. Uncanny observations about life (relationships with women in general) that is just so spot on, at least in the experiences I had myself with some in my late teens and early adulthood.
Listen to "Think"...think back baby, tell me who's fault could that be? "
And I still love the sexual innuendo of It's Not Easy...."it's HARD baby, and it's a haaaard, it's not easy living on your own...
Every thing we love about the Stones over the years is all here, new and bravely put out there for the world to see. Much to the dismay of the establishment..
Or Out Of Our Heads with Mercy, Mercy...or Blue Turns to Grey on December's Children or The Singer Not The Song....or dang just about any song on any album from those years....just great through and through. The only song from that period that I never loved was Lady Jane and I've come to appreciate it more now also..

Not to mention the seeming Prophetic words on 2000 Man, seeming to fortell of what is a normal thing now days of cheating on someone online...just so much depth in so many songs to go through and discover layer by layer during this time period. Enjoy it as you discover this "new" to you period.

Quote
mrrockandroll
And how was the Stones work compared with other artists at that time?

???? The Rolling Stones are MADE by the pre-Beggars era. This is the period they conquered the world and became world famous. The Stones would not have been the great band they are today if it hadn't been for the early years, those are the years that had put the Stones on the map, and everything since are only attampts to stay on it, which they have done very succesfully by the way.

This seperation of Beggars Banquet from what came before is both puzzling and annoying.

Beggars Banquet is very much part of the original Rolling Stones 7 year run of creative and interesting music whether it was via singles, ep's or albums. There's many tracks from the original 1963 - 1969 era band which are better and or equal to anything that followed it.

Quote
His Majesty
TThere's many tracks from the original 1963 - 1969 era band which are better and or equal to anything that followed it.

I'd say mostly better--rather than equal to.

Quote
behroez

Quote
mrrockandroll
And how was the Stones work compared with other artists at that time?

???? The Rolling Stones are MADE by the pre-Beggars era. This is the period they conquered the world and became world famous. The Stones would not have been the great band they are today if it hadn't been for the early years, those are the years that had put the Stones on the map, and everything since are only attampts to stay on it, which they have done very succesfully by the way.

word. in many ways, this was best stones era of all, back when they were still hungry with a lot left to prove.

The pre-Beggars Banquet are the Stones. Nevermind that most of their hit singles where in this period, but this was their most adventurous time. You never knew what new instrument Brian was going to add, they payed blues, pop, rock, country. The chugging of the Chuck Berry sound. The rawness of this period has not been matched since. Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile was the Band still doing what they were always doing just a little better produced (Jimmy Miller).

It's so very lonely, you're 2,000 Light Years from home

the stones reinvented themeselves several times during the 60,s.

the beggars era sounds nothing like the early years which sound nothing like the 1967 period.

i appreciatte the diversity of the stones sound from the early recordings through to the present day but particularly the first 7 years when the band changed dramatically over short periods of time.

some of the stuff on buttons and satanic is very underrated, personally i think "cool calm and collected" is a masterpiece but for some reason dosent fit the stones blues and rock image and therefore isnt highly thought of by most critics.

2120 south michigan avenue and jigsaw puzzle are two other underrated classics which i find amazing could be written and recorded by the same band as they sound so different.

if anyone ever records a succession of songs to better the stones in the 60,s dont bother telling me, i wont believe you.

The Stones did great songs before BB, but I listen mostly to their songs from 1968 on.

I really enjoy the early output of the Rolling Stones. I span the 5x5 EP earlier - fantastic stuff. Their U.K. debut is a firm favourite and that sublime run of 60's singles... well! I'll tell you what: take out the LP's and you'd still find that the Stones were the prime 60's pop act.

From 1963 to 1967, the Rolling Stones were the no. 2 rock band in the world right behind the Beatles (some would say no. 1!). They redefined rock n' roll during that period. Why so many idiots believe the 'Rolling Stones' didn't come to fruition til 1968 or 69 is beyond me.

my fav. Stones era 1963-1968

Quote
neptune
From 1963 to 1967, the Rolling Stones were the no. 2 rock band in the world right behind the Beatles (some would say no. 1!). They redefined rock n' roll during that period. Why so many idiots believe the 'Rolling Stones' didn't come to fruition til 1968 or 69 is beyond me.

I guess that "many idiots" as you call them think that (me not included) because of the fact that after the Beatles era the Stones were unarguably the greatest rock n roll/blues/pop act in the world, in the studio as well as on stage.

Love the early stuff - especially the surliness in Mick's voice. Can't out-punk that. Rest of the band ain't bad either!

I agree that Beggar's Banquet marks a very clear dividing point between
what came before and what came after. Change from Brian to Mick Taylor,
etc.

Not sure why you still don't memorize the songs but growing up with them over
the years, I had plenty of time to do that after lots of listening in
my room with the cover in my hands.

I pretty much love every track on every LP up to Beggar's Banquet although
Satanic Majesties didn't do much for me. I think this period is their best
work. For everything that came after it, only a few songs have moved me.

Production techniques have changed over the years but give me the roughness
of analog. Digital can make even poor songs sound passable but that's
about it.

It was also a more innocent poppy kind of world back then. So, although some
of the early Stones stuff sounds kind of light now, it was pretty heavy when
compared to what else was being done back then.

I know this will sound almost sacrelige here but I kind of fell out with the
Stones over Exile. Watching the clips of the new movie this week, kind of
brought it all back. It just seemed like they were into excess for the only
point of being into excess. Yes, there were a couple of decent songs there
but so many just seemed pointless, hopeless, and kind of depressing.

Then the whole sort of disco phase came along and I have no idea what the
Stones were thinking for the most part then.

For me, it wasn't until Steel Wheels that the Stones sort of rediscovered
themselves. I still mostly don't like the new stuff with a few exceptions
but I mostly like their re-working of some of the classics or
war horses as they are described here.

I also realize that when you are around 18, whatever you hear is what you think
is the greatest and that seems pretty much true for me. So, I could be shrugged
off as just an old fart.

Marv Peck

Y'all remember that rubber legged boy

They never bettered the 1963 IBC demos.

Starting with those IBC demos, here´s some 1963 to 1967 non-7"s to appreciate:

Road Runner
Honey What´s Wrong
Bright Lights, Big City
Route 66
Mona (I Need You Baby)
Honest I Do
I`m A King Bee
Cops And Robbers
I Can´t Be Satisfied
Look What You´ve Done
Down In The Bottom
Everybody Needs Somebody To Love
Down Home Girl
Pain In My heart
Mercy Mercy
That´s How Strong My Love Is
Cry To Me
Fanny Mae
She Said Yeah
Talkin´´Bout You
Goin´ Home
Sittin´ On A Fence
Under My Thumb
Get Yourself Together
Yesterday´s Papers
Backstreet Girl
Connection
All Sold Out
Please Go Home
Who´s Been Sleeping Here
Citadel
2000 Man
Gomper