Quote
jamesfdouglas
A lot of it is very enjoyable indeed, for what it is. There are several classics here; Ruby Tuesday, Let's Spend the Night, Paint It Black. They succeeded with some of their blues covers too.

But at the same time, there's a lot of stuff that's pretty disposable too.
I mean... it's not The Beatles we're talking about. They were second to them by a long shot. Give the Red Album complation a spin, and that fact becomes so glaringly obvious.

edited for grammar

Before I say this, I do love the beatles, however I think some of the early stones material has held up better than the beatles. The beatles golden period started some time in late 65 pr 66 amd extended to 69 IMHO.
They were great before then, but improved.

A fascinating period indeed. There is that vital, young, crazy "I can do anything" attitude and energy that makes it so unique in compared to anything they have doen ever since. Everything was done so quickly and without second thoughts, and much to surprise, the results are usually outstanding, at least if we look at the hinglights. They might be more 'mature' and 'sophisticated' and 'professional' since then, but not so productive and creative!

A quick look at their productivity from 1964 to 1967.

Their first album is one of the graetest blues albums white folks ever have done - an incredible statement of its own. The Chess sessions provide another one. The foundation of the sound of the band is there provided.

The 1965 singles provide an argument for originality, and a blueprint for any rock music since to come: "The Last Time", "Satisfaction", "Get Off of My Cloud"... and all that is backed up with experiment of latest black music trends.

The year 1966 is a triumphal year for Jagger/Richard creativity. Just think of "Paint It Black", "19th Nervous Breakdown", "Under My Thumb", "Mother's Little Helper", "Lady Jane", "Out of Time"... Brian Jones makes his most memorable trace on songs.

The 1967 is a crazy year for experimentation. The songs still are outstanding - "Ruby Tuesday", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "We Love You", "Dandelion", "She's A Rainbow"... - but the focus starts to be on albums, SATANIC MAJESTIES being the first real artistic - even though uneven - statement of that sort.

- Doxa

Yep, and I also like most of the stuff in music-business released 1962-67....

I love the whole period from the start to around 1972. The 60s stuff is brilliant...yeah it's pop but pop with attitude. The single of Get Off Of My Cloud is incredible (the stereo mix is pathetic) and the chaos of Have You Seen Your Mother and We Love You is, well i bet they scared loads of parents unlike the Fab 4.
Beggars is my fave Stones LP.
Probably should have split after Exile but then a crap Stones album is preferable to a crap solo album by Mick,Keith,Ronnie or Bill.
I think the band really lost it's way from Goats Head Soup onwards with the occasional exception. Having said that 10 or so years of such high quality output is virtually unmatched in pop music. How many bands have made 2 or more genuine classic songs let alone albums. We don't have to list them but it isn't all that many is it?
The 60's is why the Stones were and remain one of the best and most important bands of the post-war era.
(PS Wish they'd release Bill's 1964 Radio Luxembourg acetate)

Quote
ash
I love the whole period from the start to around 1972. The 60s stuff is brilliant...yeah it's pop but pop with attitude. The single of Get Off Of My Cloud is incredible (the stereo mix is pathetic) and the chaos of Have You Seen Your Mother and We Love You is, well i bet they scared loads of parents unlike the Fab 4.
Beggars is my fave Stones LP.
Probably should have split after Exile but then a crap Stones album is preferable to a crap solo album by Mick,Keith,Ronnie or Bill.
I think the band really lost it's way from Goats Head Soup onwards with the occasional exception. Having said that 10 or so years of such high quality output is virtually unmatched in pop music. How many bands have made 2 or more genuine classic songs let alone albums. We don't have to list them but it isn't all that many is it?
The 60's is why the Stones were and remain one of the best and most important bands of the post-war era.
(PS Wish they'd release Bill's 1964 Radio Luxembourg acetate)

What is your opinion on why/how they lost their way?

Quote
Doxa
A fascinating period indeed. There is that vital, young, crazy "I can do anything" attitude and energy that makes it so unique in compared to anything they have doen ever since. Everything was done so quickly and without second thoughts, and much to surprise, the results are usually outstanding, at least if we look at the hinglights. They might be more 'mature' and 'sophisticated' and 'professional' since then, but not so productive and creative!

A quick look at their productivity from 1964 to 1967.

Their first album is one of the graetest blues albums white folks ever have done - an incredible statement of its own. The Chess sessions provide another one. The foundation of the sound of the band is there provided.

The 1965 singles provide an argument for originality, and a blueprint for any rock music since to come: "The Last Time", "Satisfaction", "Get Off of My Cloud"... and all that is backed up with experiment of latest black music trends.

The year 1966 is a triumphal year for Jagger/Richard creativity. Just think of "Paint It Black", "19th Nervous Breakdown", "Under My Thumb", "Mother's Little Helper", "Lady Jane", "Out of Time"... Brian Jones makes his most memorable trace on songs.

The 1967 is a crazy year for experimentation. The songs still are outstanding - "Ruby Tuesday", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "We Love You", "Dandelion", "She's A Rainbow"... - but the focus starts to be on albums, SATANIC MAJESTIES being the first real artistic - even though uneven - statement of that sort.

- Doxa

Are we sure this is the same group that is still touring/recording/breathing?

Hi 2000 LYFH

I guess it's hard to say for sure but i'd give a number of reasons
1. All bands have a limited "creative" lifespan. Ten years is pretty phenomenal.
2. Keith's drug use.
3. Downturn in band relations.
4. Mick steps up to fill the gap left by KR. Not good. Both are needed (ditto lennon and mccartney)
5. Recording techniques and styles changed in the 70s(for the worse in my opinion)
6. They bought into their own mythology (or to be less polite disappeared up their own butts).
7. There was no beneficial competition from their peers (previously Beatles,who,kinks,Peter green's fleetwood mac etc.)
8. Ultimately most 60's acts went totally crap in the 70s in no small part due to the "blizzard" that engulfed the film and music industry from top to bottom ie.coke.
9.They simply ran out of anything new to say and stuck to songs in open G with lyrics about how crap women are (sweeping generalisation i know). Musically The Who did virtually nothing "new" after who's next - every song has that A G D chord slam thing. It was great at first but....
10. When a band becomes that big who can tell them when they are crap (apart from Stu)? McCartney has same problem. That nameless $%@(+ who killed John robbed us of the only person able to tell Macca to shut up and write something good.
11. Laziness.
12. Productivity was forced on them in the 60s. When they had to have a new single out, they did it brilliantly (ditto fab 4,kinks,etc.) plus at least 1 album every year plus extensive touring. Suddenly in he 70s you only had to make an album every year or two (to support a tour) and singles were taken off albums. The rest of the time you can spend getting wasted,clubbing and not playing with your band.
13. They were unlucky
i'll stop now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-14 16:33 by ash.

I much prefer their underrated rockabilly era in the late 50s when Andy Anderson was still in charge.

Quote
ash
Hi 2000 LYFH

I guess it's hard to say for sure but i'd give a number of reasons
1. All bands have a limited "creative" lifespan. Ten years is pretty phenomenal.
2. Keith's drug use.
3. Downturn in band relations.
4. Mick steps up to fill the gap left by KR. Not good. Both are needed (ditto lennon and mccartney)
5. Recording techniques and styles changed in the 70s(for the worse in my opinion)
6. They bought into their own mythology (or to be less polite disappeared up their own butts).
7. There was no beneficial competition from their peers (previously Beatles,who,kinks,Peter green's fleetwood mac etc.)
8. Ultimately most 60's acts went totally crap in the 70s in no small part due to the "blizzard" that engulfed the film and music industry from top to bottom ie.coke.
9.They simply ran out of anything new to say and stuck to songs in open G with lyrics about how crap women are (sweeping generalisation i know). Musically The Who did virtually nothing "new" after who's next - every song has that A G D chord slam thing. It was great at first but....
10. When a band becomes that big who can tell them when they are crap (apart from Stu)? McCartney has same problem. That nameless $%@(+ who killed John robbed us of the only person able to tell Macca to shut up and write something good.
11. Laziness.
12. Productivity was forced on them in the 60s. When they had to have a new single out, they did it brilliantly (ditto fab 4,kinks,etc.) plus at least 1 album every year plus extensive touring. Suddenly in he 70s you only had to make an album every year or two (to support a tour) and singles were taken off albums. The rest of the time you can spend getting wasted,clubbing and not playing with your band.
13. They were unlucky
i'll stop now.

That's some list

I don't know, I don't think they should have ended it after Exile. I guess it's easy to look backwards and say this and that, but when you are living it, its a little more difficult to come to that conclusion. Maybe you could argue after Black and Blue or the 1977 bust, but in 1972 to say let's throw in the towel - who do you think they are, The Beatles

Nothing wrong with this run :

100 Years Ago
Angie
Can You Hear The Music
Coming Down Again
Dancing With Mr- D
Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo -Heartbreaker-
Hide Your Love
Silver Train
Star Star
Winter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-15 22:21 by 2000 LYFH.

Quote
NICOS

Quote
Starr
I do listen to the early albums and especially Aftermath (which was their first album of own songs) quite a lot but I suppose it depends how old you are - the Stones have gone through different periods with great music at all stages of their evolution - I have been lucky enough to grow up with the greatest band there ever will be, and the best thing is... they are still doin' it!
Second to the Beatles... i think no chance. It is of course, personal taste, but for me, nothing comes anywhere near the Stones. There will never be another.

"...till the next time..." 14 days and counting down!!!

but I suppose it depends how old you are

Your right...my oldest brother (68) stopped listing to the Stones after Aftermath

I'm 35 and Aftermath is one of my favourite albums!

It depends how old you Feel!

Goats Head is another great album...

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
Doxa
A fascinating period indeed. There is that vital, young, crazy "I can do anything" attitude and energy that makes it so unique in compared to anything they have doen ever since. Everything was done so quickly and without second thoughts, and much to surprise, the results are usually outstanding, at least if we look at the hinglights. They might be more 'mature' and 'sophisticated' and 'professional' since then, but not so productive and creative!

A quick look at their productivity from 1964 to 1967.

Their first album is one of the graetest blues albums white folks ever have done - an incredible statement of its own. The Chess sessions provide another one. The foundation of the sound of the band is there provided.

The 1965 singles provide an argument for originality, and a blueprint for any rock music since to come: "The Last Time", "Satisfaction", "Get Off of My Cloud"... and all that is backed up with experiment of latest black music trends.

The year 1966 is a triumphal year for Jagger/Richard creativity. Just think of "Paint It Black", "19th Nervous Breakdown", "Under My Thumb", "Mother's Little Helper", "Lady Jane", "Out of Time"... Brian Jones makes his most memorable trace on songs.

The 1967 is a crazy year for experimentation. The songs still are outstanding - "Ruby Tuesday", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "We Love You", "Dandelion", "She's A Rainbow"... - but the focus starts to be on albums, SATANIC MAJESTIES being the first real artistic - even though uneven - statement of that sort.

- Doxa

Are we sure this is the same group that is still touring/recording/breathing?

Hell not!

- Doxa

Quote
NICOS

Quote
Starr
I do listen to the early albums and especially Aftermath (which was their first album of own songs) quite a lot but I suppose it depends how old you are - the Stones have gone through different periods with great music at all stages of their evolution - I have been lucky enough to grow up with the greatest band there ever will be, and the best thing is... they are still doin' it!
Second to the Beatles... i think no chance. It is of course, personal taste, but for me, nothing comes anywhere near the Stones. There will never be another.

"...till the next time..." 14 days and counting down!!!

but I suppose it depends how old you are

Your right...my oldest brother (68) stopped listing to the Stones after Aftermath

I appreciate your brother's decision. Being fanatic towards a certain group of certian men who happen to have a certain name, no matter what they do, is not the point - the point is the music - and if that doesn't appeal any longer, so be it. I know a lot of 'old' sixties Stones fans who doesn' give a shit of what happened since they didn't like the music the guys provided any longer (they probably even don't know who Mick Taylor or Ronnie Wood are, and couldn't care less). That doesn't change the fact that those people were totally stunned by the band at the time.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-15 23:20 by Doxa.

Besides, it is a common feature in board like ours like that the 60's - the time when the Rolling Stones actually was THE thing, truely relevant, revolutionary band - is over-looked. I can easily understand that if one really was hooked at the time - listening to "Satisfaction" from radio and AFTERMATH from a vinyl player or so - and that blowing one's mind, that that sort of thing cannot be repeated, especially if one is not eager to 'grow up' with the band and the change of musical climate. It is damn easy to 'judge' now, decades afterwards, and not really living in the environment when The Stones really made a difference.

Now it is all judged and put into history books of twentieth century about what is good and bad, and what is so significiant and everlasting and so, but it is funny to read for example, the review of STICKY FINGERS in ROLLING STONE magazine back in 1971, where they declare that the Stones have lost the 'vitality' and 'energy' they used to have in tracks like "Around and Around".

So I salute people like Havo for bringing us memories of those times!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-15 23:42 by Doxa.

...has anyone actually heard anything from 1962 besides the snippet of the 'can't judge a book..' radio show?...curly clayton demos remain locked up tight but someday maybe we will hear how good they may have been that first time in the studio....

Quote
lunar!!!
...has anyone actually heard anything from 1962 besides the snippet of the 'can't judge a book..' radio show?...curly clayton demos remain locked up tight but someday maybe we will hear how good they may have been that first time in the studio....

I think there actually are people who heard The Stones live back in 1962. What difference does that to make, for example, compared to those happy ones who happen to see The Stones rehearsing in Paris last week?

- Doxa

Stones 1962 - 1967 has some good material.

Come On isn't too bad as a first single, but then it wasn't a great Chuck tune to begin with.

Stoned is a sub-Green Onions instrumental, with Keith and Brian trying their best Steve Cropper riffs.

Not Fade Away is where the floodgates start opening: it is more than just a cover, as it is an excellent re-write, combining both Buddy Holly and Bo Diddley. Holly's original sounded too clean, but the Stones' version is a savage voodoo blues, as if they were listening to Excello Records and Slim Harpo way back when.

I Wanna Be Your Man is far better than the pale pathetic Ringo version on With The Beatles, and has a real punk energy that probably inspired half the acts on the Lenny Kaye compiled Nuggets.

The first album has some excellent moments, ranging from the Merseybeat-esque Tell Me, I'm A King Bee, Route 66, Can I Get A Witness. 12 X 5 also has some good covers, such as Around & Around, Confessing The Blues, but the misfires began to kick in with the soul covers.

With the exception of That's How Strong My Love Is, and later Ain't Too Proud To Beg, Just My Imagination, and Harlem Shuffle, soul was not something the Stones could cope with. Don Covay, Wilson Pickett, and Marvin Gaye were best left to the originals. You Better Move On is also an exception to the rule, as it is an excellent cover, and introduced many to Arthur Alexander.

What happened, up to Aftermath, was that the Stones albums consisted of the hit singles, and a couple of fillers. By and large, the singles were excellent from Little Red Rooster onwards. The Last Time, Satisfaction, Get Off Of My Cloud, 19th Nervous Breakdown, were amazing soul/blues based singles, without a trace of Merseybeat.

Post Aftermath, and the Stones started to follow what they were hearing around them. The Blues was briefly returned to with Who's Driving Your Plane, the bside to Have You Seen Your Mother, but, for the most part, it was a case of The Beatles and The Byrds doing raga-rock, so we'd better do likewise: granted the likewise of Paint It, Black was amazingly excellent. Vaudavilian English rock a la Kinks, mid 60s Beatles, Small Faces ! Ok, let's do Cool, Calm, Collected, My Obsession, Something Happened to Me Yesterday. Likewise, Dylan's word-play, and they come up with Who's Been Sleeping Here. In some ways, individualism was being lost to what they heard around them.

1967 was, basically, a bad year, but the psychedelic Stones were underrated. She's A Rainbow may be peace and love, but 2,000 Man, 2,000 Light Years From Home, and We Love You all reek of alienation, pre-dating Roger Waters and David Bowie's Major Tom. Though, however, the Stones did return to psychedelia with Child Of The Moon.

Quote
tomcasagranda
Stones 1962 - 1967 has some good material.

Come On isn't too bad as a first single, but then it wasn't a great Chuck tune to begin with.

Stoned is a sub-Green Onions instrumental, with Keith and Brian trying their best Steve Cropper riffs.

Not Fade Away is where the floodgates start opening: it is more than just a cover, as it is an excellent re-write, combining both Buddy Holly and Bo Diddley. Holly's original sounded too clean, but the Stones' version is a savage voodoo blues, as if they were listening to Excello Records and Slim Harpo way back when.

I Wanna Be Your Man is far better than the pale pathetic Ringo version on With The Beatles, and has a real punk energy that probably inspired half the acts on the Lenny Kaye compiled Nuggets.

The first album has some excellent moments, ranging from the Merseybeat-esque Tell Me, I'm A King Bee, Route 66, Can I Get A Witness. 12 X 5 also has some good covers, such as Around & Around, Confessing The Blues, but the misfires began to kick in with the soul covers.

With the exception of That's How Strong My Love Is, and later Ain't Too Proud To Beg, Just My Imagination, and Harlem Shuffle, soul was not something the Stones could cope with. Don Covay, Wilson Pickett, and Marvin Gaye were best left to the originals. You Better Move On is also an exception to the rule, as it is an excellent cover, and introduced many to Arthur Alexander.

What happened, up to Aftermath, was that the Stones albums consisted of the hit singles, and a couple of fillers. By and large, the singles were excellent from Little Red Rooster onwards. The Last Time, Satisfaction, Get Off Of My Cloud, 19th Nervous Breakdown, were amazing soul/blues based singles, without a trace of Merseybeat.

Post Aftermath, and the Stones started to follow what they were hearing around them. The Blues was briefly returned to with Who's Driving Your Plane, the bside to Have You Seen Your Mother, but, for the most part, it was a case of The Beatles and The Byrds doing raga-rock, so we'd better do likewise: granted the likewise of Paint It, Black was amazingly excellent. Vaudavilian English rock a la Kinks, mid 60s Beatles, Small Faces ! Ok, let's do Cool, Calm, Collected, My Obsession, Something Happened to Me Yesterday. Likewise, Dylan's word-play, and they come up with Who's Been Sleeping Here. In some ways, individualism was being lost to what they heard around them.

1967 was, basically, a bad year, but the psychedelic Stones were underrated. She's A Rainbow may be peace and love, but 2,000 Man, 2,000 Light Years From Home, and We Love You all reek of alienation, pre-dating Roger Waters and David Bowie's Major Tom. Though, however, the Stones did return to psychedelia with Child Of The Moon.

Only if you follow the American versions of the albums. In UK The Stones were careful not including any of their singles to their albums (that possilibity would have considered as a rip off in that market). That's why the US market also got more albums (including also the UK EP material).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-16 00:19 by Doxa.

Quote
tomcasagranda

Post Aftermath, and the Stones started to follow what they were hearing around them. The Blues was briefly returned to with Who's Driving Your Plane, the bside to Have You Seen Your Mother, but, for the most part, it was a case of The Beatles and The Byrds doing raga-rock, so we'd better do likewise: granted the likewise of Paint It, Black was amazingly excellent. Vaudavilian English rock a la Kinks, mid 60s Beatles, Small Faces ! Ok, let's do Cool, Calm, Collected, My Obsession, Something Happened to Me Yesterday. Likewise, Dylan's word-play, and they come up with Who's Been Sleeping Here. In some ways, individualism was being lost to what they heard around them.

1967 was, basically, a bad year, but the psychedelic Stones were underrated. She's A Rainbow may be peace and love, but 2,000 Man, 2,000 Light Years From Home, and We Love You all reek of alienation, pre-dating Roger Waters and David Bowie's Major Tom. Though, however, the Stones did return to psychedelia with Child Of The Moon.

A really fine description of so called 'pop era' (66/67); The Stones really were following what was going on 'at home', in the Swingin' London as the heart of pop music scene at the time (plus that Dylan influence), and not really studying any longer the latest currents in American black music market, or listening to their own blues/rock'n'roll intuitions. They never been so 'English' as they were during those two years, from AFTERMATH to SATANIC MAJESTIES.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-16 00:30 by Doxa.

I wasn't going to post in this thread, because the soundtrack to your teenage years is always the golden age, so I can't be objective about it (the studio version of Satisfaction BORING??? What's the emoticon for "I really can't get my head around this"?)

However. A couple of background notes about the "copying" question:

- the Stones have always been copycats. Passionate, dedicated copycats, and in their earliest days their originality lay in what they chose to copy, and what they added to those copies.

- very few acts wrote their own material then - probably more true in the UK than the US, but not all that many even in the US. The Beatles got the idea from Buddy Holly - and ALO got the idea from the Beatles. Nowadays everyone is expected to compose their own songs and anyone who doesn't is thought inferior and unoriginal, but in 1964, "singer" and "songwriter" were separate professions.

- the US originals of the early Stones material were not generally well known here. The band's motive was to get them better known by playing their cover versions, but for many people the Stones version was the first they heard. By the way, it was routine then that a big US hit record would be covered note-for-note by a British act, and often became a bigger seller here than the original - which might only be available as a difficult-to-get import. Sort of a Transatlantic version of the white acts who covered black music in the States. In the days of the BBC's monopoly of the UK airwaves, hearing more than middle of the road "puerile pop" took an effort that most people didn't make.

- on their visits to the US, all the Stones bought huge quantities of records - but by then, their frantic schedules meant that they didn't have the leisure to sit and listen and learn for hours like they did at Edith Grove. Those influences didn't really start to kick in until they stopped touring for a while in the late 60s - and then we got Beggars Banquet.

- meanwhile, they were writing songs for the first time - and copying from many sources: the blues covers, the folk-blues Keith learned at Sidcup, and the rock'n'roll and pop music they heard around them. In 1967 they couldn't get to the US, so a big influence was what they heard around them in London. It took a while for those sources to merge and make one unique Stones sound, but long before that happened, whatever they copied had that unique Stones attack and attitude that made it more than a copy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-16 09:42 by Green Lady.

Quote
Doxa
Besides, it is a common feature in board like ours like that the 60's - the time when the Rolling Stones actually was THE thing, truely relevant, revolutionary band - is over-looked. I can easily understand that if one really was hooked at the time - listening to "Satisfaction" from radio and AFTERMATH from a vinyl player or so - and that blowing one's mind, that that sort of thing cannot be repeated, especially if one is not eager to 'grow up' with the band and the change of musical climate. It is damn easy to 'judge' now, decades afterwards, and not really living in the environment when The Stones really made a difference.

Now it is all judged and put into history books of twentieth century about what is good and bad, and what is so significiant and everlasting and so, but it is funny to read for example, the review of STICKY FINGERS in ROLLING STONE magazine back in 1971, where they declare that the Stones have lost the 'vitality' and 'energy' they used to have in tracks like "Around and Around".

So I salute people like Havo for bringing us memories of those times!

- Doxa

I've said before that I'm one who stopped listening to the Stones for quite a while in the 70s (but it's all right now...). So I do understand the 68-72 Taylor classicists - it's just that time stopped for me a bit sooner than that, before the great god CLASSICROCK was invented, and the musicologists and rock historians got busy pinning our 60s musical butterflies down in glass cases. You can't go back. But I'm glad I was there, to listen under the bedclothes on a newly-invented transistor radio to Not Fade Away on a dodgy signal from Radio Luxembourg, watch the black-and-white weekend start HERE with the Stones on Ready Steady Go, and make reel-to-reel tape "illegal downloads" with the microphone up against the TV or radio speaker.

Oh dear - nostalgia ain't what it used to be! But you can imagine just how much I'm enjoying Charlie Is My Darling.

Excellent points, Green Lady.

- Doxa

Another one here who was listening to Radio Luxembourg on a tiny TRANSISTOR RADIO
to all that great music they where transmitting!

I'm looking forward to see Charlie is My Darling


Cheers

I love ALL eras. It is like a revolving door, of which era is my fave. An era for every mood.

I'd say the Stones' greatest achievement was the run of singles from 64-69, NOT the Big4 classic albums everyone obsesses over.
Those 45's are the reason they can charge £400 a ticket. Oh And their rebel stance. Haha.

I think the sense of Englishness continued into Mick's solo single, Memo From Turner.

Quote
vertigojoe
I'd say the Stones' greatest achievement was the run of singles from 64-69, NOT the Big4 classic albums everyone obsesses over.
Those 45's are the reason they can charge £400 a ticket. Oh And their rebel stance. Haha.

Yes - Doxa talks about "listening to Aftermath on vinyl" - but albums weren't the big thing then that they became later. It was that fantastic run of great singles that made the Stones superstars.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-16 15:42 by Green Lady.

They were pretty good at these folkish English ballads, i.e. Play With Fire, Out Of Time, Sitting on a Fence, Ride On, Ruby Tuesday, She Smiled Sweetly.

When Jagger returned to the folkish ballads, i.e his performance of As Tears Go By on Shine A Light, it was done purely as tongue-in-cheek, which was disappointing in my opinion. The closest thing, of late, to these folkish ballads was Anyway You Look At It, and it's a shame the Stones cannot do these types of songs anymore.

I love almost everything from the beginning up to Satanic Majesties Request.
But hey, everyone can make at least one mistake.
They redemmed themselves with Beggar's Banquest.
Then Brian died.
The magic was over at that point.
They did manage to put out a couple of decent tracks but
the LP's mostly sucked IMO.

Of course, I was 16 in 1966 so I suspect my age might have something
to do with it.

Marv

Marv Peck

Y'all remember that rubber legged boy

YES! ABSOLUTELY!