Do you really think that Their Satanic Majesties Request is better than Sticky Fingers and Tattoo You???

You must really like those paper dots

"it is more like a typical, short «US» rock album where you get two full A/B single tracks stuck in there. So taking away the single, what is left... "
There is no (UK) single or b-side on Beggars Banquet.

I´m afraid I also think SF is slightly overrated.
And of course I dont mean the songs but production is a bit metallic.
I donnow if I dare say anymore; I sense the tar & feathers are approaching.
But note this is this very day´s list (& I wouldt claim I heard all records 100% carefully, since I got most of them last summer).

I would love to see the Stones sitting on chairs (yes i mean it) for once during a club show and see them play almost every song from Beggar's. Keith and Ronnie interchanging beautiful notes from their acoustics, Charlie swinging on the background and Mick singing some of the sweetest notes he ever sang. Throw some other blues songs in and we would see how @#$%& great these musicians are.

Thanks Tseverin. But if I rely on what I have seen on some of those discography pages yesterday, those two songs (SFM + NE) >did< came out as a single in North America as early as August '68. So if this is accurate, "American" fans (probably an awful lot of people in '68) still got ripped off of two tracks with the album of December.

To Baboon Bro: I sometimes feel SF is overrated too, because it doesn't sound like a "real" album. I see Zeppelin 's "Physical Graffiti" a bit like that too, a hodge-podge (albeit a highly excellent one). Not that the effect of hearing all those beautiful songs jumbled together is "unpleasant", but you feel like they don't really belong together, or most of it, and you can sort of pinpoint the other albums/sessions were they sprang from.

IT IS NOT ONLY THEIR BEST - IT IS THE BEST EVER.

It's a good album (guess that shows my age) for sure, but I don't think it's quite up to the other 3 (LIB, SF, & EOMS) of that era. "Stray Cat Blues" is a personal favorite though.

I have never been a huge Beggars Banquet fan. I love some of it and some of it and take or leave. It is no where near as sublime as Let It Bleed. Now that is the Stones at their darekest and most majestic.

Each to their own Odd Beat, and I do respect your opinion.

But frankly I don't give a crap how it's generally regarded, to my ears it is simply a masterpiece.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

I agree Rockman. I think we're dealing with some people here who really don't know the Stones that well, not to mention musical terms like 'roots. But hey, as long as they're Stones fans that's ok. You gotta start somewhere.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Thanks, RankOutsider! Glad to know I'm in the presence of such knowledge and greatness. There's a reason they're called opinions. Your view does not make it fact for the rest of us. I've been a fan since the early 70's, seen the band repeatedly, have all the official stuff as well as a lot of boots, and read everything I can get my hands on about this band. I'm pretty sure I know the Stones as well as you. My guess is you're a fairly new convert (probably in your early 20's) who thinks he knows all.

P. S. I was listening to blues when you were in diapers.

A: Just because someone has been listening longer does not mean they understand it better.

B: Beggars is the greatest album ever recorded. Dear Doctor is the only soft spot, but the rest is so strong it beats out albums that have no soft spots.

Agree with point A, but not point B. Thanks sdstonesguy for some intelligent comments and opinion. I personally don't hear any soft spots on Sticky or Tattoo.

So the big guys (=RankO...) want to make a point of this: is it like Luther´s 10 thesises: Thou Shalt Love Beggar´s Banquet. Most of the posters here said in fact BB is n o t their favorite.
Elmo: " I personally don't hear any soft spots on Sticky or Tattoo."
Ok. But I do: I was listening to it today because of this discussion (I´m also listening right now). "Worried about You", Heaven" & "No Use In Crying" is unbearable cause of Mick´s falsetto, castrate singing which he practised, as I got it, in the early 80´s. The latter is a smasher, but its partly destroyed by this @#$%& singing. Worried... is something I could learn to stand (even though his vocie cuts diamonds), but "Heaven" is pure shite.
The rest is Rock History.

Beggars Banquet is a really great album - i believe quite possibly their very best. I believe song for song it's the most consistent. Possibly what it does lack is a heavier electric sound which is more prevalent on the other albums considered to represent their prime.I don't think the acoustic country/blues influences are negative influences in any way - in my opinion they only enhance and distinguishes what is a fine, fine album.

This may make me an exception on this board but I actually LOVE the music of the Rolling Stones and don't feel a need to criticize every little thing (e.g. - Ronnie, Leavell, lack of guitar playing, Mick's lips,). I also think the tours are great! Perfect? No. Do I think all the songs are great? No way, but it beats everything else out there.

I have in the past done a lengthy examination of Beggars & detailed why it is the greatest album of all time. Some of it has to do with when it came out, the song sequence, etc. I understand not everyone will agree...but it really is the greatest album of all time. This is not a matter of opinion...it is simple fact.

Even if Beggars Banquet consisted solely of a 45 minute version of Sympathy, it would have stood the test of time and rank up there with some of the all-time greatest albums ever made by anyone.

Over-rated?

You must be high to think that...VERY high as a matter of fact!

BB: A nice tight little
rootsy British blues rock
album, quite refreshing at the
time, IMHO still holds up quite well,
especially the remastered, time corrected
SACD version. Very Salt of the Earth. Nuff said.

Elmo said: P. S. I was listening to blues when you were in diapers.


Well Elmo I guess you were listening to the blues from 54-57 'cause that's when I would have been in diapers. My hats off to ya in that case.


I think it's safe to say that Beggars Banquet represents something different to people who were Stones fans prior to it's release. It's the Stones finally finding their way again musically after, (losing it), much searching, (the high point of which is TSMR). I think at that point someone or someones in the band said, "Man, what kind of !@#$&^% band is this going to be anyway! Where do we go from here? "Maybe we should call Timothy Leary! "Or, better yet, Peter Max! Instead someone wisely said, "Maybe we should play what's in our hearts. So, they took it back to the basics, (roots: blues, country blues, and, rock 'n' roll), in a way and to a depth that they had never done before. JJF being the first result of this new direction. (And I don't know about anyone else on this board, but the first time I heard JJF on an AM car radio, ((I was 14 and being driven to a band practice by my grandfather, I actually forgot to tell him where to turn I was so mesmerized)), I could feel the earth shift in a rock 'n' roll sort of way I didn't know for sure that it was the Stones but I thought it had to be, who else could play rock 'n' roll like this! No one I had ever heard up to that point. It certainly wasn't The Beatles!)

Ok, back to BB. It's the bedrock upon which LIB, SF, and, EOMS where built. It 'defined' who the Stones were going to be for years to come. And it IS them at shall we say, their 'earthiest? And for those who were fans during that 'searching' period it was like they had found the Holy Grail. (God I'm tired of preaching!)

So, is it overrated, maybe to some people.


Ya gotta love this board!

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-29 01:03 by RankOutsider.

Just as "Some Girls" was a good album coming on the heels of a critically slagged bad album (B&, so "Beggar's Banquet" sounded magnificent when compared w/"Satanic Majesties".

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

Fair enough, RankOutsider. Your opinion is very valid for the reasons you listed.

P. S. Maybe you were listening to the blues when I was in diapers. I was born in 1960!!!!LOL

I have this album in glorious mono - the guitars are more raunchy and punchy than the stereo version, its more 'in your face' kind of sound.
I also think they mixed it slightly different for mono, for instance the talking at the begining of SFTD is mixed out.
Bearing in mind that mono was still the biggest selling format of the day back then,(in the Uk anyway), the mono version was the one they spent more time mixing and producing and I personally think is the definitive version.

It's sad that this is Brians swan song album after which he alegedly said, "I don't see eye to eye on the discs we are cutting", being a blues man I would have thought this was the album HE of all people would have been craving for - particularly coming after the 'nightmare' Satanic Majestys. Obviously not.

With JJF Bill took them back to the bluesly course. With miss you he took them to the danceera.

LA Forum you could fit in the history revisionist troopers.
So because Bill Bagger Perks found some tunes among all hundreds of Jagger-.Richards song, he "took them back to the bluesly course". It was sooner Keith & Mick & the others (Brian & Stu for a starter) that learned Bill to turn his back to Elvis & Cliff Richard & go to the REAL stuff. Read some books on it, please.

Can anyone tell me a group that did n o t go to psychedelia in 1966-67?

O, all you ortodoxists on the boards... Why is 1967 & the two albums from that year som darned frightening?

Can anyone tell me a group that did n o t go to psychedelia in 1966-67?

eeerrr... um.... Paul Revere and the Raiders?

ROCKMAN

According to Bill in 'Rolling With The Stones' (I read the book), he, Brian, and Charlie were !@#$%&^ around in the studio one day with a riff Bill had come up with, (Bill on keyboard, ((he played organ on the final cut) when Mick & Keith walked in and said, 'keep playing that,it sounds great, and don't forget it.' They didn't and it became their next single JJF.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Beggars Banquet, my favorite album.
And I wasn't even born when it came out... so the album is not only appreciated because they went back to their roots (because I wasn't around, so I can't really care about that). Also because of the enire mood of the album and the terrific songwriting and performance on the album.

How can an album be overrated if all the songs can be ranked among their very best?

BowieStone; its the same phenomenon that hits with me with SF; a terrifying-wonderful hord of golden songs... But flat production. I brought one Stones-studio album with me last summer while driving to a cottage in Denmark (guess which?). I became bored before arriving. Something aint right with the production. I´m sorry, but I will not give up. And the playtime feels way too short... But most of the songs are masterpieces, sheer rock history. That´s not the point.

Apparently we touched a taboo here: BB. It isnt taboo for me; maybe within some years, when I have been a hard core fan as long as some of you others here.
But I know the feeling... Someone pickin on GHS; I´d go beserk.

Maybe I skip or miss the technichal threads; maybe I shouldnt: I believe production is central, crucial. GHS could have been anything between mediocre and shite, but its not. There was this sonic fashion just around -73 that gave a very crispy, clear sound. You can hear it partly on EOMS & on IORR (mostly on the latter), but on GHS its very explicite.
...You can compare with any other rock band from the Western world from 1973 vis-a-vis other years. And even if the treble is much used, so is the middle register, and the bass is still pounding heavy like in reggae.

Baboon wrote:

LA Forum you could fit in the history revisionist troopers.

Come on Baboon! You're the 'commander' of the history revisionist troopers!


And, what's 'flat' about the production of BB and SF? Jimmy miller is without a doubt the best producer they ever had! He produced GHS you know

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-29 07:05 by RankOutsider.