1973

In 1972 the Stones released arguably their ultimate statement, Exile on Main Street. They followed this up, after a wildly successful US tour, fifteen months later with an album, GHS, that was a huge depature in both sound and style from its predecessor.

Lead single EOMS-Tumblin' Dice 1972
Lead single GHS-Angie 1973

The difference between lead singles and album could, in some ways sound as being done by two entirely different bands. There are a few of EOMS-styled songs like HYL and ST but over all GHS captures a hazy, out of focus and reflective as well as vulnerable side of the band never heard again or before from beginning to end.

Fast forward a decade-

In 1981 the Stones released what many view the last stone-cold Stones classic album, Tattoo Yoo. A hodgepoge assortment of outtakes from the previous decade, with two new tracks thrown in. It hung together remarkably well and in some ways redefined the band to a new generation of fans. They followed this up over two years later with UC, which like GHS a decade earlier was a huge depature in sound and style from its predecessor. Also, like between EOMS and GHS a wildly successful tour happened and the band went in a direction they never had before or would again. Aggressive, funky, gratuitous, experimental, and visceral, are a few adjectives to describe UC, which is a somewhat poloarizing release among Stones fans. It's one either viewed as their last classic album or the beginning of the end.

Lead single TTY-Start Me Up 1981
Lead Single UC-Undercover of the Night 1983

The former a lean and mean, classic Keef riff fueled rocker while the latter still ranks as one of the most sonically experimental songs by the band since their flirtations with pyschedelia in the '60s. Each song so different, much like TD and Angie a decade earlier, as if it could've come from different bands.

This is less about which album is better or worse. Instead tt would be interesting to hear other's thoughts not just on each individual album but also how the band changed during the decade between, how each album became so distinctly different from one another, how the band was able to absorb new styles and dynamics into their sound to such a huge degree.

The Stones grew a great deal in their first decade from 1962-1972 but their second decade produced a series of albums that saw the transition of the band from tax-exile outlaw superstars into well-respected elder statesman (relative to that time).

Good observation....i never really thought about that...i think it shows the willingness of the Stones to "change it up" after a very successful album or string of albums.

Neither of the hit albums were very contemporary at the time. Exile being considered a "rock and roll revival" album, "old shit", and Tattoo You actually being recycled old shit with a few new things thrown in. Both became popular and they tried to follow them up with more contemporary albums, and they didn't necessarily fly. I think the moral of the story is that The Stones do better when they don't over-think stuff and just throw it out there, but when they try to make an album people will like to follow up the unlikely hit, they fail. Not that GHS failed per se, but in the eyes of many it fails in that it doesn't live up to Exile. I love it though.

Of course both follow up albums suffered from issues other than creative direction. GHS coming on the tail end of the STP, Keith's drug use beginning to take up more time than music, etc. And UC coming about during some intense Jagger/Richards feuding. So there's that too.

I stick with they ultimately are their own individual product.
If you go ahead another 10 years are the VL sessions a "re-evolution"?

Quote
nick
I stick with they ultimately are their own individual product.
If you go ahead another 10 years are the VL sessions a "re-evolution"?

Well, I wasn't really lending much to the "evolution" thing myself, I was just thinking of how the follow-ups came off. When you think about it, there's not much evolved about Exile or TY. Exile being a little trip into rocks past, back to the basics, and TY being a bunch of outtakes and a couple of new songs. There wasn't much evolution going on, they just struck the right nerve, I think the follow-ups are where they tried to evolve.

I think GHS is much intricate of an album, more intimate of a work. The Stones after Black And Blue became much simpler of a rock and roll band. Gone were the long jams and it was more 3 minutes and out. UC had the MTV era/80s new wave bands as competition and I think it held its own for a bunch of 40 yr old guys at that time writing depraved tunes like 'Pretty Beat Up', 'Tie You Up', 'Too Much Blood'...etc.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 17:02 by camper88.

I see where you're going with the comparison but because Tattoo You was really a Mick surgical effort, not unlike Some Girls Deluxe or Plundered My Soul, I'd be inclined to say that you should be comparing Exile to Some Girls, and the follow-ups to each, GHS and Emotional Rescue...both good but uneven albums.

<<In 1972 the Stones released arguably their ultimate statement, Exile on Main Street.>>

I stopped reading that post at the end of that opening sentence, because it sounds like every music critic and their intern. It's the same as the endless chorus that claims that Stairway To Heaven is the ultimate Led Zeppelin song, that same restrictive "classic rock radio" mentality. I hardly ever listen to Exile, and I can think of several other albums I'd rather hear first. Though it has many great songs, as a front-to-back listening experience I always found Exile tedious and murky with all the layers of overdubs, which is why the tracks never go over as well live. Speaking of live performance, if Exile is their greatest album, how come they only play two songs off it on a regular basis? They only play the two Charlie didn't play on (and the sax player actually had to teach the beat to Charlie so he could play on Ventilator Blues)....

Wait, what was this thread about again? Oh, yes, Goat's Head Soup, lovely album, it's really grown on me over the years, I'll play it back to front on most any day. Undercover? Not so much, half and half, it hits and misses, about half the album I could do without, like Black and Blue

I used the word "arguably" instead of "unarguably" for a reason and responses like yours is a reason why I did. I was trying to create some debate about rather it is or isn't.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 17:01 by camper88.

Quote
camper88

Quote
stonehearted
I always found Exile tedious and murky with all the layers of overdubs, which is why the tracks never go over as well live

Really?

Rip This Joint, All Down the Line, Tumbling Dice and Happy never go over well live?

Stunning.

I guess everyone's got an opinion on what goes over well live.

Tumbling Dice and Happy were the ones I was referring to in my post that are most frequently played from the album, the ones that Jimmy Miller plays on in Charlie's place on the record (the playout for TD). All Down The Line works out well enough. Have they played Rip This Joint in this century. Rocks Off can be hit or miss, and Loving Cup, by the bands own admission, is clunky onstage.

There are 18 tracks on the album, but only 2 are regularly played. The album didn't go over well with critics at the time, and it didn't yield a top 5 single--probably the first Rolling Stones album to not produce a top 5 single.

But you're right, it is a matter of opinion, and of taste. For what it's worth, even Mick has gone on record as saying it's overrated.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 17:00 by camper88.

Quote
NoCode0680
Neither of the hit albums were very contemporary at the time. Exile being considered a "rock and roll revival" album, "old shit",

Was it really? I'm not arguing with you, just saying I don't remember that at all, and I must have read SOME reviews at the time. I loved it from the very first playing, but I have no recollection of what others were saying about it--I remember there was a rather lukewarm initial reception, but I didn't remember it being for those reasons.

Ah, those murky days of yesteryear . . . .

Quote
camper88
What album that's not a compilation gets more than 3 songs played regularly? That's as much as any album they've ever done.

Some Girls. And on their '89/90 tour they presented 75% of Steel Wheels in concert. To this day Some Girls, with considerably less tracks, gets more songs represented live than their supposed magnum opus Exile. And yes, it happens to be true, most of the tracks on Exile would not go over well live.

You should just accept the fact that not everyone sees Exile as their favorite Stones album, and just leave it at that.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
camper88

Quote
stonehearted
I always found Exile tedious and murky with all the layers of overdubs, which is why the tracks never go over as well live

Really?

Rip This Joint, All Down the Line, Tumbling Dice and Happy never go over well live?

Stunning.

I guess everyone's got an opinion on what goes over well live.

Tumbling Dice and Happy were the ones I was referring to in my post that are most frequently played from the album, the ones that Jimmy Miller plays on in Charlie's place on the record (the playout for TD). All Down The Line works out well enough. Have they played Rip This Joint in this century. Rocks Off can be hit or miss, and Loving Cup, by the bands own admission, is clunky onstage.

There are 18 tracks on the album, but only 2 are regularly played. The album didn't go over well with critics at the time, and it didn't yield a top 5 single--probably the first Rolling Stones album to not produce a top 5 single.

But you're right, it is a matter of opinion, and of taste. For what it's worth, even Mick has gone on record as saying it's overrated.

They've played All Down The Line on 8 out of the 9 Stones-shows I've attended. Guess I was lucky

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 17:00 by camper88.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
NoCode0680
Neither of the hit albums were very contemporary at the time. Exile being considered a "rock and roll revival" album, "old shit",

Was it really? I'm not arguing with you, just saying I don't remember that at all, and I must have read SOME reviews at the time. I loved it from the very first playing, but I have no recollection of what others were saying about it--I remember there was a rather lukewarm initial reception, but I didn't remember it being for those reasons.

Ah, those murky days of yesteryear . . . .

I wasn't alive then, but that's what most of my reading suggests. Maybe it just was for Mick:

At the time of Exile's release, Jagger said, "This new album is @#$%& mad. There's so many different tracks. It's very rock & roll, you know. I didn't want it to be like that. I'm the more experimental person in the group, you see I like to experiment. Not go over the same thing over and over. Since I've left England, I've had this thing I've wanted to do. I'm not against rock & roll, but I really want to experiment. The new album's very rock & roll and it's good. I mean, I'm very bored with rock & roll. The revival. Everyone knows what their roots are, but you've got to explore everywhere. You've got to explore the sky too." - Wikipedia

Seems Keith sort of talked about it that way in Life as well, but I don't have a copy handy to find quotes. But it definitely has the feel of old school country and blues, at a time when rock music was really heading in the opposite direction with Prog Rock and Glam Rock on the rise, Led Zeppelin had moved past blues and were in between IV and Houses Of The Holy. Maybe Exile just seems that way in retrospect.

Probably it is wrong to pick these examples as Tattoo You was no new songs / new session record.
But the impression is somehow correct and my thesis is that the classical rockers on the follow-up are rather blank in comparison.
There is no Start Me Up (even Neighbors is gutsier than anything) on Undercover. There is no Rocks Off nor Soul Survivor on Goat's Head Soup.
It is even very interesting what Keith did on the follow-ups. Little T&A became a classic of his that Wanna Hold You couldn't match. But on the other Hand he also became more sophisticated with Feel On Baby. The same goes for Coming Down Again in comparison to Happy that even got single-release status.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-20 19:49 by JJHMick.

Kind of a opening and closing for me.

I got GHS for my 13th birthday (my folks hadn't heard SS obviously!), and had seen the 1981 tour before Still Life and UC were released.

I think GHS is a wonderful album with a few not so great moments. Loved 100YA, CDA, and SS instantly. Thought Angie and Dododododododo were nice hits. CYHTM has grown on me. Hide Your Love is filler. Never warmed to Silver or Mr. D. 7.5

Nearly the same with UC. Loved She Was Hot, Pain, Too Tough, and All The Way Down. Wanna Hold You is okay, as is Feel On Baby. Never "got" UCOTN and Too Much Blood. Pretty Beat Up (AKA Dogshit) earns its name. IMBH pales next to Soul Survivor. 7.5 also

Both albums have some great moments for sure, but also some uninspired stuff, too.

A really nice comparison and observation, big4!

There is really a point in what you say - me thinks - and what is fascinating is how many different ways we 're-describe' the past in novel ways, even though I tend to to see UNDERCOVER more like an analogical album to IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL than to GOATS HEAD SOUP. Namely, I think UNDERCOVER is not actually so re-inventive or experimental as it is many times claimed to be. For me the actual 'novelty' in it is more like a make up thing: some current studio tricks and sounds are just applied to some basic Stones songs, and not very convincingly at all.

But I think you are a spot on recognizing the similar 'retro' nature in both EXILE and TATTOO YOU. (And actually both to an extent were completed from the left-overs from the previous records, by the way)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-20 20:09 by Doxa.

what ive always loved about the stones is the ability to change styles, sounds, textures and images from one album to another.

they reinvented themselves often in the 60,s, going from the early rough sound of the blues, rock,roll and soul, through to the more classical sound of the 1966-67 period on to pop, psychedelia and back to playing blues and rock in their own mould.

to the bands credit they changed, reinvented themselves again and again right through the 70,s and early to mid 80,s, changing sound and tone on every album as if it was a completely different band from the last album.

even latterday albums although not as many, still have that feel of being unique and unlike any other.

i dont know another band who have done that for as long as the stones have.

Quote
camper88
Go back ten years, they don't regularly play more than three songs from Some Girls. Changing your language to now say "more songs represented live" doesn't change this fact.

And you didn't say "most of the songs would not go over well, you said that they never go over well live, When if fact, they do go over very well.

As for the fact that not everyone sees Exile as their favorite Stones album, when have I or any one else ever suggested otherwise? Of course not everyone sees one Stones album as their personal favorite. That's an asinine idea that no one has ever made here.

So yeah, I pretty much accept that fact, but I always have.

There seems to be a language barrier here. By "going over well live" I don't mean audience response, I mean the band's performance. Loving Cup does not go over well live--by that I mean the band does not play it well, it's tricky to play and comes off clunky in performance, and so they rarely attempt it. The recordings on Exile are heavily layered with overdubs and are more complex musically--the sax player Bobby Keys had to actually teach Charlie how to play the drums on Ventilator Blues, whereas the songs from Some Girls are more basic and easier to play--therefore they go over well live, meaning when I say "go over" that the band performs them well.

Exile is the choice of the critics, whereas Some Girls is the choice of the band. The only song that is regularly played from Exile is Tumbling Dice--that song is played every show, whereas on the last tour Happy was played interchangeably (with Before They Make Me Run) and All Down The Line was played intermittently, and Rocks Off was played only twice. On this most recent tour they played 6 songs from Some Girls, as opposed to only 4 from Exile.

Since 1978, more songs have been played more times from Some Girls than from Exile. It remains the choice of the band and with the fans, as Some Girls is also their top-selling album.

If Exile is so great, then why don't they play more tracks off the album--answer, because more people would rather hear more tracks from the top-selling Stones album of all time. Exile is only the best album if you want to compile "best of" lists and write for a mag like Rolling Stone, arguably.

Kinda makes me sad to read about all these great old records. They came out during the prime of life for me anyway and it sure was an exciting time. Those days are long gone however and a new Stones album now really wouldn't create much of a stir in my life anyway. They just aren't terribly important anymore and I quess I've just gotten too old.