Aftermath is one of my favourite Stones albums but it's not a patch on Revolver which in my opinion is The Beatles finest by quite a long way. Pepper was a groundbreaking package at the time (but time has put its musical qualities into perspective), Abbey Road is a Wings album with special guests, let it be is weak and The White Album is a magnificent sprawling mess/compendium of 20th century pop.
I think the main factors in my preference for Revolver and the fabs in general is the variety of styles (Revolver is almost like a compilation but somehow still cohesive) and that on revolver a different singer is featured with every track. This formula stopped working for the band after Revolver as internal differences and personal agendas took over.
The techniques on Tomorrow Never Knows almost invent the template for modern dance and rap except they had to play and make loops coz no-one had invented samplers. This is 2 and a half years after I Want To Hold Your Hand.
The Stones came back at this with We Love You which i think is one of their best.
Ultimately the competition/inspiration between these 2 bands and beach boys, dylan,byrds,the who and kinks benefitted them and us. What a brilliant bunch of records we have to listen to from this era - many remain unmatched. UK wise from 1966 - Revolver, Face To Face (buy it now !) by the Kinks and Aftermath are all pretty magnificent. We should have all 3 in our collections. In mono !

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers


And Paint it, Black in particular.

Well, of course. The Stones moments of mid-60's greatness were on par with Beatles. It's just that Lennon and McCarthey were more consistent in their quality of songwriting from the beginning. It took Mick and Keith a little longer to develop. By the time of Jumpin' Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet, they had caught up. There are times when I would take Beggars Banquet over The Beatles (White Album). As much as I enjoy Abbey Road, Let It Bleed is miles better.

I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you have said, Big Al, apart from the last sentence.

THE BEATLES (White album) probably has as many great songs on it as BEGGARS BANQUET, but whereas BEGGARS BANQUET was sharp and focused, The White Album was pretty messy and uneven. Maybe 'messy' is the wrong term because most of those songs are meticulously crafted, yet so many of them seem so trivial and inconsequential compared to much of the Beatles previous output. My thoughts are that The Beatles had reached a point in their career when they felt they had the freedom to do whatever they liked. This resulted in them becoming over indulgent. Snippets of songs and almost nursery rhyme lyrics, in addition to the notorious 'Revolution 9' tended to dilute the strength of the album, which had some very strong moments, the strongest of which, in my opinion, were mainly Lennon's. I think a track like 'Helter Skelter' showed the Beatles chasing trends instead of inspiring trends. The Beatles simply wanting to create the loudest 'rock' song, as an answer to the more progressive music scene, but the Beatles version of rock lacked any kind of finesse. I think overall BEGGARS BANQUET makes for a much more cohesive statement.

LET IT BLEED, however, despite some of the Stones most classic songs, is a little more uneven than BEGGARS BANQUET, and ABBEY ROAD tends to hang together much better than The White Album, so i think these two albums are much closer in terms of their quality.

I would have say Blonde On Blonde followed by the English Aftermath.

'66 was the best pop music year ever, period.

The Stones followed The Beatles, but "Aftermath" remains
among their best. Whatever it lacked in rock, the pop shined.

1965



It was a very good year...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
1965



It was a very good year...

I'm certainly 'satisfied' with that.