As far as I know, both of the songs were recorded during the same sessions as the albums that followed the respective single: Beggars Banquet and Let it Bleed.
Jumpin' Jack Flash and Honky Tonk Woman are two of the bands best songs and not including them on their respective album is a big wonder to me.

Imagine Beggars Banquet starting off with JJF followed by SFTD and the rest of the album. Wow, a nearly perfect record just got even better!
Or what about replacing Country Honk with HTW on Let it Bleed or including both? It's like just releasing Brown Sugar as a single, leaving it out from Sticky Fingers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-03 18:37 by DiscoVolante.

It was common in the 60s not to include the singles on the albums.

For instance, LSTNT was not on the original Aftermath.

Satisfaction was not on the original Out Of Our Heads, and so on...

Well, LSTNT would not have been on Aftermath anyway but it was on the US version of BTB and Satisfaction was on the US version of Out Of Our Heads. The no singles on LPs habit was more of a UK thing,not in the States tho. Like Paint It Black was on the US lineup of Aftermath...With the release of "Satanic" tho the song line-up were usually the same on both sides of the pond.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-03 17:33 by scottkeef.

Quote
scottkeef
Well, LSTNT would not have been on Aftermath anyway but it was on the US version of BTB and Satisfaction was on the US version of Out Of Our Heads. The no singles on LPs habit was more of a UK thing,not in the States tho. Like Paint It Black was on the US lineup of Aftermath...With the release of "Satanic" tho the song line-up were usually the same on both sides of the pond.

Sorry, I meant Buttons...

However, the Stones swapped the a and b-side of the single HTW/YCAGWYW, and the latter became the a-side AND was on the album.

The 60s was an amazing time musically.

Bands like the Beatles and Stones made TWO quality albums a year AND released singles that mostly were not included on albums.

Now you're lucky of you get an album every 4 years.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It was common in the 60s not to include the singles on the albums....

Correct ... actually I've read before that it was more common in UK to not have singles on albums, but that they were expected in US to be on them, which is why the earlier albums had 2 different releases -- the US version w/ the singles (such as BTB with Spend Night/Ruby Tuesday) and the UK version without.

Quote
GravityBoy
The 60s was an amazing time musically.

Bands like the Beatles and Stones made TWO quality albums a year AND released singles that mostly were not included on albums.

Now you're lucky of you get an album every 4 years.

Yep - and don't forget the EP's filled with exclusive material: The Rolling Stones, 5x5, Got Live If You Want It, Long Tall Sally, Ready Steady Who!

Putting singles on your album used to be thought of (in the UK) as cheating: making your fans pay twice for songs they'd already bought.

(How times have changed!).

Quote
DiscoVolante
As far as I know, both of the songs were recorded during the same sessions as the albums that followed the respective single: Beggars Banquet and Let it Bleed.
Jumpin' Jack Flash and Honky Tonk Woman are two of the bands best songs and not including them on their respective album is a big wonder to me.

Imagine Beggars Banquet starting off with JJF followed by SFTD and the rest of the album. Wow, a nearly perfect record just got even better!
Or what about replacing Country Honk with HTW on Let it Bleed or including both? It's like just releasing Brown Sugar as a single, leaving it out from Stocky Fingers.

Because you can make more money releasing singles separately from an LP...I never bought a single if it was released on a LP

__________________________

Quote
Green Lady
Putting singles on your album used to be thought of (in the UK) as cheating: making your fans pay twice for songs they'd already bought.

(How times have changed!).

So theoretically there should never have been any "Big Hits" albums?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-03 18:21 by tatters.

I think the idea was that you didn't mix hit singles with album tracks - which still left room for an all-singles Greatest Hits once in a while.

Things just worked differently, and perhaps better back in the day. The way I'm familiar with singles working since I've gotten into music was a band releases an album, and songs that seemed like hits would be released as singles. Where singles used to be a separate entity, now it's just another word for "popular song from an album". So much so that I've seen MANY complaints about Gimme Shelter not being on Singles collections, it's just another word for Greatest Hit to people of my and later generations. Which is kind of pointless, because if you like the song well enough to buy the album, then you wind up with a redundant single, unless the B-Side is actually worth listening to. I saw an interview with George Martin in some Beatles documentary where he kind of slammed this practice. I don't think he liked the idea of having people pay for the same thing twice.

According to Wikipedia, the importance of singles was because record companies knew their target audience (teenagers) had limited finances. This was also the reason they didn't put the singles on albums, as people might be more hesitant to buy something that is at least partially redundant. One might look at a track listing, and if they owned the "best songs" on singles already, they might not invest in the LP. And from what I've read, an LP really was an investment to some. Also, rock and pop music wasn't really album oriented until the likes of Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds, etc. From what I've heard, LP's were basically for completists, who couldn't get enough. They were often mainly filler, songs that weren't considered good enough to be a single, etc.

Non-Album singles certainly weren't unique to The Stones. Look how many good songs are on Past Masters, or the singles that were added to the Magical Mystery Tour EP to make it an LP in the U.S. It was just a practice (and a pretty good one I think) back in the day. These days singles only exist for collectors or completists who want all the B-Sides, although even B-sides are becoming somewhat extinct. Singles only exist to promote an album, and not as a legitimate medium in their own right.

Also, I think singles were used as stop-gaps. In the time it took to write/record a whole LP (though I think they cranked them out faster), they could put out singles in-between to keep a band's name out there. The idea of several years between albums like many bands do today was probably unimaginable. I think record companies believed Rock/Pop music was a fad, and they needed to strike while the iron was hot. Not even Jagger (from interviews I've seen) thought the Stones would be around for a long time. And I think the record companies didn't think the kids had enough of an attention span to follow a band if they went too long between releases, they'd just move on to whatever else was hot at the time.

In hindsight it's pretty easy to pick hit singles and say, imagine if it was on the album, but they served a purpose in keeping a band relevant, and whetting the public's appetite between LP's.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
However, the Stones swapped the a and b-side of the single HTW/YCAGWYW, and the latter became the a-side AND was on the album.

HTW was the A side and it isn't on Let It Bleed, although it kinda is as an alternative version.

The U.S. was a different animal. We expected the big songs on albums. There were usually stickers attached to LPs like 'Out of Our Heads' along the lines of WITH THEIR SMASH HIT 'SATISFACTION'. Beggar's Banquet and Let It Bleed might have sold even better in the States if they'd led off with JJF & HTW respectively. We thought of hits on albums in the sense of, "Oh, that's the Kinks album with All Day and All Of The Night".

You'll notice the Stones, once they got their own label, never did that separate singles thing again. They might not have led off every new work with the single, ala Sticky Fingers, but everybody knew the monster track, or tracks, were there.

Charted as # 42 on the US charts, after becoming an A-side.

I always thought of JJF like this...after Satanic...they may have knew they turned off some fans...so I always thought they put out Flash to kind of say.......We're Baaaaaack !! Now get a load of THIS....

undercover1

The USA way of doing things won out in the end as it made more business sense in the evolving late 60's early 70's rock era in which albums sold more than singles.

I dislike having singles on albums and/or the process of pulling singles from albums.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Charted as # 42 on the US charts, after becoming an A-side.

Not the stones doing and it was a few years after the original single release.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
scottkeef
Well, LSTNT would not have been on Aftermath anyway but it was on the US version of BTB and Satisfaction was on the US version of Out Of Our Heads. The no singles on LPs habit was more of a UK thing,not in the States tho. Like Paint It Black was on the US lineup of Aftermath...With the release of "Satanic" tho the song line-up were usually the same on both sides of the pond.

Sorry, I meant Buttons...

I didn't know LSTNT was on Bridges To Babylon!? Funny how they have to LPs that are BTB...

Quote
GasLightStreet
I didn't know LSTNT was on Bridges To Babylon!? Funny how they have to LPs that are BTB...

That's why I think the standard abbreviation for Bridges To Babylon is "B2B".

The abbreviations are great for typing, but when I'm reading I sometimes (usually with songs, not albums) sit there for a minute or longer trying to decipher the code. Some are so common that's I've gotten used to them (HTW, YCAGWYW, etc), others leave me scratching my head. There was one the other day that I saw and never figured out. I think we all need secret decoder rings or something.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
scottkeef
Well, LSTNT would not have been on Aftermath anyway but it was on the US version of BTB and Satisfaction was on the US version of Out Of Our Heads. The no singles on LPs habit was more of a UK thing,not in the States tho. Like Paint It Black was on the US lineup of Aftermath...With the release of "Satanic" tho the song line-up were usually the same on both sides of the pond.

Sorry, I meant Buttons...

I didn't know LSTNT was on Bridges To Babylon!? Funny how they have to LPs that are BTB...

Ironic that you spelled two wrong too!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
scottkeef
Well, LSTNT would not have been on Aftermath anyway but it was on the US version of BTB and Satisfaction was on the US version of Out Of Our Heads. The no singles on LPs habit was more of a UK thing,not in the States tho. Like Paint It Black was on the US lineup of Aftermath...With the release of "Satanic" tho the song line-up were usually the same on both sides of the pond.

Sorry, I meant Buttons...

I didn't know LSTNT was on Bridges To Babylon!? Funny how they have to LPs that are BTB...

Ironic that you spelled two wrong too!

I was tipeing to faast.

Yeah, guess I shoulda just said "Buttons" !! The UK got more for their money too with most early LPs having 14 songs and most US having 12. Up until "Satanic" for The Stones and "Pepper's" for Beatles US LPs were just kinda a collection of singles, UK EPs and mixture of LP songs. Plus there were alot more US releases than UK, think it was because in the early to mid sixties how American teenagers had such a large amount of disposable income? "Flowers" was created mainly because the US market demanded more product just like the Beatles had to rush out "Yesterday and Today" with UK Rubber Soul tracks and advance tracks from Revolver..

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
scottkeef
Well, LSTNT would not have been on Aftermath anyway but it was on the US version of BTB and Satisfaction was on the US version of Out Of Our Heads. The no singles on LPs habit was more of a UK thing,not in the States tho. Like Paint It Black was on the US lineup of Aftermath...With the release of "Satanic" tho the song line-up were usually the same on both sides of the pond.

Sorry, I meant Buttons...

I didn't know LSTNT was on Bridges To Babylon!? Funny how they have to LPs that are BTB...

Ironic that you spelled two wrong too!

I was tipeing to faast.

And it you were drivng too fast, you may hve inded up on a stoenes aslbun.

Quote
GravityBoy
The 60s was an amazing time musically.

Bands like the Beatles and Stones made TWO quality albums a year AND released singles that mostly were not included on albums.

Now you're lucky of you get an album every 4 years.

Ironically, it was The Beatles themselves who started the trend of longer gaps between album releases. Whereas Please Please Me was recording in 13 hours of a single day, Sgt. Pepper was took over 700 hours to complete spread out over several months.

Changes in the music industry account for today's long gaps between album releases. In the mid-60s a tour took only weeks, whereas now they take months and even years, because that's where the money is. Rather than an album-oriented market, it's now a singles-oriented market, and with singles [downloads] selling for the same rate as in the 1960s there's no money at all to come from it, which is further incentive to tour, rather than record, extensively.

Also, a CD can hold up to 80 minutes of music, whereas in the mid-60s a long-playing vinyl disc would run for 25 to 30 minutes tops.