We can also make it the BIG 9 with:

The Rolling Stones
The Rolling Stones No 2
Out of Our Heads
Got live if you want it
Aftermath
Between the Buttons
Their Satanic Majesties Request
Beggar's Banquet
Let it Bleed
Get yer Ya Ya's out

The BIG Decca Years....

2 1 2 0

This is one of the best, most illuminating statements I have ever read regarding the Stones: what HM says about the 3rd voice. Most deep thinking, yes.

Somewhere earlier I was also mentioning that IMO Let if Bleed is a bit sketchy. I mention Keith's slide playing. But going with the 3rd voice premise, it is that there is no 3rd voice on LIB. That in itself would be the reason Keith does the slide. The slide only being one outcome though.

Credit should go to kleermaker, he helped me voice something I previously struggled to express when he introduced that perfect third man observation a few years back.

Quote
His Majesty
Credit should go to kleermaker, he helped me voice something I previously struggled to express when he introduced that perfect third man observation a few years back.

I recognized that. Great. My presence here has finally been of a bit of use.

Someone mentioned Hopkins and the horns etc.

The Jones era band was self sufficient onstage during 1963 - 1967.

In the studio it's true that both Keith and Hopkins covered for the floundering Jones. It's reflected in the music. That didn't really work live though as witnessed on the R&R Circus.

That show makes it clear how important that third man role is.

In a way Hopkins re-introduced some of the elements that Stu graciously accepted needed to be lessened in order for the fab 5 to blossom.

...

Taylor was a full on third man, maybe even at times pushing beyond a level that was acceptable to Keith.

The 1969 tour immediatley shows that they didn't really need anything other than the core (altered) 5 man band onstage. Like 1963 - 1967, they are once again an effective self sufficient unit. The horns etc during 1971 - 1973 are not essential, it's just bringing a bit more of the augmented studio sound to the stage. To add ineterest, not to cover any holes ala the augmented line up at R&R Circus.

...

Ronnie was a bit different to either Jones or Taylor, he's not there to push too much or rock the boat, but most importantly to be supportive.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-31 20:55 by His Majesty.

I cannot add GHS to any essential list primarily because I really think Dancing With Mr. D is pretty bad. I like the early Brussels version and all that but I think that song is one of the weakest Stones opening songs ever. Put Criss Cross in its place and I am more open to including GHS as an album I really love but I can't get past that opening song on the album as is.

Though GHS is a very fine album in its own right it is a drop in quality from the previous 4 albums.

HM- Let It Bleed is my second favorite Stones album after EMOS and in no way sounds weird. It is one of the best albums ever by a rock band. You seem to hate it because it is a complete departure from their earlier work which I can tell is your favorite and nothing wrong with that but I happen to like the Taylor years best, I wish you would stop trashing the era and stating anything forward is not the real Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones is whatever Mick and Keith want them to be and has been since they started writing the music.

Quote
slew
Though GHS is a very fine album in its own right it is a drop in quality from the previous 4 albums.

HM- Let It Bleed is my second favorite Stones album after EMOS and in no way sounds weird. It is one of the best albums ever by a rock band. You seem to hate it because it is a complete departure from their earlier work which I can tell is your favorite and nothing wrong with that but I happen to like the Taylor years best, I wish you would stop trashing the era and stating anything forward is not the real Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones is whatever Mick and Keith want them to be and has been since they started writing the music.

O that simple statement that the Stones is just Mick and Keith or Keith and Mick. Utter nonsense.

Quote
2000 LYFH
Should GHS be added to the BIG 4 list and make it a 5 album run of the greatest music ever recorded?

Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed
Sticky Fingers
Exile on Main St
Goats Head Soup


Love this album:

Dancing with Mr. D
100 Years Ago
Coming Down Again
Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker)
Angie
Silver Train
Hide Your Love
Winter
Can You Hear the Music
Star Star

No.

GHS is a notch below the "Big 4". Looking at it objectively, and I know its hard because GHS has a special place in my heart, the album on the whole is a weaker effort than BB, LIB, SF, EOMS. Perhaps its to be expected after a run like that. The muse only stays for short periods of time . . .

Dancing with Mr. D (the lyrics sounds cartoonish to me, I love the guitars but this seems like a cover band to me, the deliverly and overall feel seems cheesey compared to their delivery and feel in something like Sympathy, JJF, etc.,
100 Years Ago (good song but just misses)
Coming Down Again (my favorite keith song)
Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker) (classic)
Angie (a number 1 hit, a little to sentimental for me)
Silver Train (always loved it, but just misses)
Hide Your Love (love it, viewed but some as a filler)
Winter (there was a story Miller told that jagger had finished his vocal when Bianca summonsed, he left and Miller says he just knew the next take would have been the one, always love it, always curious of what could have been)
Can You Hear the Music (love it but I can see why many feel its filler)
Star Star (aww the sleeze, seems out of place for me)

Agree..goats is below "the big four":
Beggars
Lib
Sticky
Exile

I think any album that starts with gimme shelter is always in the top 4 no matter how disjointed it sounds.
YaYa's is the greatest live album they have done and could make it a "big 5" !

The other thing that sets GHS apart from the previous albums is that there are really no classic tracks on the album. An argument could be made for "Star Star" I suppose, but that's always been a track that makes up for in spirit what it lacks in originality. The closest you come to an iconic track on GHS is "Angie", which can't compare to the previous four albums. Let it Bleed features two of the greatest tracks in rock history, but also - with the exception of Country Honk and maybe You Got the Silver, every track is iconic, known to even casual fans.

kleermaker - You misunderstand me. The Stones is not just Mick and Keith but they are the ones who have made all of the decisions for years. I believe I said I like the Taylor years best. One of the reasons he left is because Mick and Keith would not give the guy any credit.

Quote
BluzDude
When I first saw this topic, I thought this thread was about accounting firms...
...anyway, to me it's the big 4

I remember when the accounting firms were the Big Six, but that was a long time ago.

My idea of the Big 5 would involve splitting Exile. The first LP, with "Tumblng Dice" and no real filler, holds up well. The second disk has a great opener "Happy" and would have had "All Down the Line", which should have been a hit, as the first single. I personally think that either one would compare favorably to Goat's Head Soup, or at least they rock more convincingly.

Quote
slew
Though GHS is a very fine album in its own right it is a drop in quality from the previous 4 albums.

HM- Let It Bleed is my second favorite Stones album after EMOS and in no way sounds weird. It is one of the best albums ever by a rock band. You seem to hate it because it is a complete departure from their earlier work which I can tell is your favorite and nothing wrong with that but I happen to like the Taylor years best, I wish you would stop trashing the era and stating anything forward is not the real Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones is whatever Mick and Keith want them to be and has been since they started writing the music.

I am vocal about original line ups etc, and that viewpoint doesn't just relate to The Rolling Stones. I hope that within my previous post just above that others could recognise that despite my viewpoint I can and do appreciate music that is made by the various following incarnations of any band that is forced to evolve outside of those original members.

The original Rolling Stones were special! Can you not understand why that combination needs to be kept in mind, commented on, remembered? It is the big bang as far as everything that follows. I over state things, but this is the essence behind it all.

Regarding Let It Bleed and ignoring my thoughts on original line ups, it isn't fully part of the Taylor era, it is very much a transitional album.

That you consider it to be your 2nd favourite stones album makes sense given your view point on the importance of Jagger Richards. They became THE door to the future in 1965, without them the stones were nothing, but a R&B cover band.

My choice of words may be overly dramatic, but I think that all things considered LIB is very much a transitional album. It's disjointed or weird in that it let's us see and hear the cross over from the old band to the new without ever giving us the fully functioning version of either. It is an album made by a four piece Rolling Stones with additional musicians. In essence, something is missing. It isn't an attempt at a definitive statement like Beggars Banquet is.

That they could pull off Gimme Shelter essentially as a four piece shows how important every member was. Let It Bleed features unique moments that never appeared before or after... Transitions are interesting.

For better or worse, the music is always a reflection of who they are at that given time.


Happy new year!



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-01 17:26 by His Majesty.

i love the Rolling Stones

Long night? Happy new year!

IORR what a great album!

To me the question has to be answered in the negative;

In the first instance, there are not any "big 4". Only 4, that is. Instead, in my multi peak perspective, among albums there are more great ones than that. Distributed in four peak periods:
[ROLLING STONES vol 1, the German Decca compilation AROUND AND AROUND considered as an album] [AFTERMATH, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST - BEGGARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS, EXILE ON MAIN STREET] (constituting two peaks, spanning more than one development period, in one uninterrupted sweep, despite all involved upheavals) [SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, (then an omission, with me an absolute bottom as its sounds, but I understand and acknowledge not seen this way by many others, after that omission) UNDERCOVER]

For in the second instance, GOATS HEAD SOUP includes some songs that were clearly "great album" material, but not enough to make it. It rather to me becomes a semi-great album in a manner some more albums are or might be said to aspire to, either in their entireties or in parts ROLLING STONES vol 2; OUT OF OUR HEADS; BRIDGES TO BABYLON; A BIGGER BANG. That leaves only VOODOO LOUNGE as a good album, IORR and BLACK AND BLUE both maybe better sometimes, sometimes not, but more "worn out" by overplaying to me personally in the past, by their weaknesses. Neither of the following without some moments, that leaves in their turn DIRTY WORK (rather often well played with good or adequate sound, but with too weak song material fot this band), and STEEL WHEELS (better material, but with much too awkvard sound to this listener). At last, with rather a quite good scheme, but in its realization, an outright miscarriage, there remains TATTOO YOU.

I abstain from including live albums despite GET YER YA YAS OUT's importance. Because that album to me is contrasted by and related to a couple of even better among my not too many bootlegs.

Despite it does not qualify to me among the GREAT albums, GOATS HEAD SOUP, with its lethargic coming down again feel is unique among Stones albums. Not always ought it be a question about the ranking of albums. The development of a favourite band is more interesting than sometimes sterile ranking. A ranking perspective even loses sight of the unique aspects of the truly truly great albums and songs. With its concentration on ranking.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
slew
Though GHS is a very fine album in its own right it is a drop in quality from the previous 4 albums.

HM- Let It Bleed is my second favorite Stones album after EMOS and in no way sounds weird. It is one of the best albums ever by a rock band. You seem to hate it because it is a complete departure from their earlier work which I can tell is your favorite and nothing wrong with that but I happen to like the Taylor years best, I wish you would stop trashing the era and stating anything forward is not the real Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones is whatever Mick and Keith want them to be and has been since they started writing the music.

O that simple statement that the Stones is just Mick and Keith or Keith and Mick. Utter nonsense.

In my understanding, this "third voice" representation AND the direction and orientation of Jagger/Richards songwriting and the songs arrangements and productions involve two ot maybe three mechanisms as to how the band developed.(GasLightStreet indirectly seems to nominate this third mechanism with his Jimmy Miller period name.) These mechanisms to one extent give rivalling organizing principles as to question of periodisation. All of them are interesting for the question of peak periods/ slump periods and partially incommensurable "development periods". By my answer above I have chosen among such principles, without myself always being aware which in my varying hierarchy of them.

[www.iorr.org]

Not changed my mind on anything I wrote back then,

Bought ALL the re releases since ,all pretty good,Brussells Affair official flac the highlight,GRRR Super Deluxe most expensive sum up those briefly here.
Big surprise Summer in the Sun ,much better than could ever have hoped for.

Quote
Witness


Not always ought it be a question about the ranking of albums. The development of a favourite band is more interesting than sometimes sterile ranking. A ranking perspective even loses sight of the unique aspects of the truly truly great albums and songs. With its concentration on ranking.

Of the highly interesting post - which with its mathematical precision seems to conclude that TATTOO YOU is their all-time low, and who am I to counter that logic, even though it might be my all-time favourite Stones album - I just picked up the above one.

You hitted something crucial here as far as all these rankings go. I have always had difficulties to say whether, say, BLACK AND BLUE or UNDERCOVER is better album than, say, OUT OF OUR HEADS or BETWEEN THE BUTTONS, because they coming out of so different stages in their career, that is, reflect different moments in their artistic development. As His Majesty just mentioned insightfully (he is in a great shape in this thread, by the way!) that "the music is always a reflection of who they are at that given time". And those times differ so much from one to other. So what I find more interesting is the artistic development over-all. It is somehow within the grasp to see the obvious highlights or peaks in their career - for example, the "Big 4" or some individual songs like "Satisfaction", "Jumping Jack Flash", "Gimme Shelter", etc. - but then again, like someone mentioned (sorry, can't recall who) in this thread, the weaker points are also important to understand the highlights.

There are really goods thoughts about GOATS HEAD SOUP in this thread, and I think many of them reflect, if I can summarize it, the idea that even though many rates it personally very high (that is, like it very much personally), they still recognize certain weaknesses in it, that is, is not so good as the four previous albums (which most of the people see as obvious masterpieces). In to my eyes, that says that the album is really important as a part of their artistic development; they hit something important there, which affects us, and makes them artistically even more convincing. I think the whole 'mid seventies low period' - GHS, IORR, B&B - is now in a hindsight a damn interesting period, and I think the time has been very good to it. There is that kind of artistic honesty and authencity, that even though obviously not being able to come up with masterpieces, still produced genuine, time-reflecting - and -defying - music. It probably drove them back then into irrelevance as far as contempory scenes go, but it is meaningful in their own artistic development. They were a living and breathing band which used creating and releasing new music as their main artistic impression.

It is similar effect as in their earlier important music, which probably couldn't quite hit the rank of obvious masterpieces (even though them being the most relavant music of the times), such as BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES or singles like "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby?" and "We Love You". There we find the band in the height of their creative powers, sometimes hitting and sometimes missing the mark, but being helluva interesting all the time.

So happy new year to all of ya! This is my first, but most probably not the last post in 2014...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-01 16:41 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Long night? Happy new year!

I'm confused now I always thought the Big 4 to be

- Rolling Stones

- Their Satanic Majesties Request

- Between the Buttons

- Rolling Stones 2

- Some Girls

And I would add the UK version "Out Of Our Heads" as five.

So, let's make the second one...

In regards to LET IT BLEED album, I wholeheartidly agree with its transitional nature and the third man hypothesis (similar later with BLACK AND BLUE).

There is another feature to count in. LET IT BLEED was the third album in a row that they constructed from the base of a "studio band", that is, they have lost the touch to playing on a stage, as a cohesive unit, but had by then mastered the studio technology possibilities they had available then. In a way, they alraedy had started that during AFTERMATH days, and the way the songs sounded on records was not even planned to work on stage, but being just recorded works of art (and one cannot underestimate the significance of Brian Jones had the time in achieving that). Especially Keith had became a master there, especially in the art of over-dubbing.

Even though Keith peaked as a song-writer and innovative guitar-player (those things seemingly went hand in hand; a new tuning or guitar experiment sounded like always offering another memorable riff and Stones classic), there is a certain feel in LET IT BLEED that it is not a band effort any longer, but just a Jagger/Richards show with all the rest contributors just adding the cake. The album has a certain 'artificial' feel on it, and some studio tricks do not quite compansate the lost of the cohesive band feel. Just thinking of, say, the choir of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (pure 'Baroque pop'), the car horn of "Country Honk", Hopkins' (wonderful) piano in "Monkey Man", which could have became from SATANIC MAJESTIES sessions, the endless guitar dubs of "Let It Bleed"... The result is not any longer as cohesive artistic statement as BEGGARS BANQUET is - even though it tries to follow the template of it). Usually taking individually, each track is a strong one (and it contains some of their best tracks ever), but taking all of them together, the over-all effect is a bit uneven. Like something is missing. Some over-all vision or feel or something.

So my addition to 'third man hypothesis' to see the problem in LET IT BLEED is the lack of playing live experience, the band feel in music, which goes with it.

I think a crucial song where these problems can be hear is "Live With Me". Even though Taylor is already in it, the whole track is like constructed of different elements, and it lacks some sort of coherence. The over-emphasized bass riff - played, of course, by Keith - the really 'icing the cake' piano, the sax - all good alone, and played fine, but the wholeness just don't 'click'. The parts do not meet each other so naturally and effortlessly as they do in their best recordings. As a song it actually points out to the future of hard rocking blues days, but it is done still within the 60's studio band mindset. Its cousin two years later is an example how a track like this really works, if it is played by an organic, cohesive rock band. In "Bitch" we can heare what the concert experience does to the cohesion of the band. There we not just hear an effect of integral 'third man', but also that of getting the band feel back again.

So to really make a third man integral part of the band and of its sound, one needed to have the concert experience. That translated to their studio work as well (as long Brian Jones contributed to their music, he had that natural connection to their music, and with the rest of them).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-01 17:59 by Doxa.

Happy new year to you, Doxa, as well, and to everybody else!

I usually voice my negative verdict on TATTOO YOU, I would say, by telling that I have problems with it, and that saying, in addition to politeness, approaches not total, but some sincerety. Done in another way, my judgement of that album, could in fact have been different. It was not "bad", had another potential as well, but was made to become "bad". The studio version of "Hang Fire" is only one indication for myself of what could have been different.

Then it makes good to read the more philosophical outlook you deliver, Doxa. You probably will need some opposition to make you move further. (I discover that to be wrong, of course. I write much too slowly.)

I will try to make one kind of response, though. When in a post after a long abscence (only few post before that) I once tried to present how I saw Stones music in all, I said as to the points of view posters directly or indirectly take on Stones releases: "They imply musical horizons, that often supply us with yardsticks, with which we tend to measure this lifelong band's musical achievements. Else, it might be to much for one person to take in."

Maybe, we seldom manage to that, really. Is there one valid viewpoint from which we can evaluate everything? When we cannot avoid our subjectivity, on the other hand, we need that subjectivity.

I often feel that the albums that mostly become preys of this dilemma, are the first ones, given the age of most posters, and, from hardcore veteran posters, especially the latterday releases. Those who most recently became Stones fans, and tend to be more open towards newer releases, on the other hand have not the same possibilty to weigh newer songs and albums, informed by the earlier albums.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-01 18:06 by Witness.

Quote
slew
kleermaker - You misunderstand me. The Stones is not just Mick and Keith but they are the ones who have made all of the decisions for years. I believe I said I like the Taylor years best. One of the reasons he left is because Mick and Keith would not give the guy any credit.

I agree.

As one, not necessarily representative, listener out of those who carried home albums when they were new, from AFTERMATH and on, I feel estranged by the idea that LET IT BLEED is taken to SOUND like a transitional album. To me that is a constructed truth. Nothing wrong from my point of view, in my perspective truths are constructed rather than discovered. But does this truth apply? To me it is not obvious. LET IT BLEED contains some artistic music and songs, artistic as contrasted with artifical, But what does STICKY FINGERS? Is "Moonlight Mile" less artistic and studiowise as a song than "You Can't always Get wHt You Want" is? I Wonder.

To me, what is transitional about LET IT BLEED, is rather some aspects of periodisation for LET IT BLEED, so far as the "third voice" criterium is employed as leading criterium.
Added: By that not meaning that they not were in need of a new guitarist, especially with a view to playing live. But LET IT BLEED does not suffer largely thereby.

Having opened the post again, I also add: Tne album of the thread's subject, GOATS HEADS SOUP is to me more of a transitional album, mostly regarding a passing mental state and feeling, caught in the moment's flight.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-01 18:44 by Witness.

Quote
Doxa
So, let's make the second one...

In regards to LET IT BLEED album, I wholeheartidly agree with its transitional nature and the third man hypothesis (similar later with BLACK AND BLUE).

There is another feature to count in. LET IT BLEED was the third album in a row that they constructed from the base of a "studio band", that is, they have lost the touch to playing on a stage, as a cohesive unit, but had by then mastered the studio technology possibilities they had available then. In a way, they alraedy had started that during AFTERMATH days, and the way the songs sounded on records was not even planned to work on stage, but being just recorded works of art (and one cannot underestimate the significance of Brian Jones had the time in achieving that). Especially Keith had became a master there, especially in the art of over-dubbing.

Even though Keith peaked as a song-writer and innovative guitar-player (those things seemingly went hand in hand; a new tuning or guitar experiment sounded like always offering another memorable riff and Stones classic), there is a certain feel in LET IT BLEED that it is not a band effort any longer, but just a Jagger/Richards show with all the rest contributors just adding the cake. The album has a certain 'artificial' feel on it, and some studio tricks do not quite compansate the lost of the cohesive band feel. Just thinking of, say, the choir of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (pure 'Baroque pop'), the car horn of "Country Honk", Hopkins' (wonderful) piano in "Monkey Man", which could have became from SATANIC MAJESTIES sessions, the endless guitar dubs of "Let It Bleed"... The result is not any longer as cohesive artistic statement as BEGGARS BANQUET is - even though it tries to follow the template of it). Usually taking individually, each track is a strong one (and it contains some of their best tracks ever), but taking all of them together, the over-all effect is a bit uneven. Like something is missing. Some over-all vision or feel or something.

So my addition to 'third man hypothesis' to see the problem in LET IT BLEED is the lack of playing live experience, the band feel in music, which goes with it.

I think a crucial song where these problems can be hear is "Live With Me". Even though Taylor is already in it, the whole track is like constructed of different elements, and it lacks some sort of coherence. The over-emphasized bass riff - played, of course, by Keith - the really 'icing the cake' piano, the sax - all good alone, and played fine, but the wholeness just don't 'click'. The parts do not meet each other so naturally and effortlessly as they do in their best recordings. As a song it actually points out to the future of hard rocking blues days, but it is done still within the 60's studio band mindset. Its cousin two years later is an example how a track like this really works, if it is played by an organic, cohesive rock band. In "Bitch" we can heare what the concert experience does to the cohesion of the band. There we not just hear an effect of integral 'third man', but also that of getting the band feel back again.

So to really make a third man integral part of the band and of its sound, one needed to have the concert experience. That translated to their studio work as well (as long Brian Jones contributed to their music, he had that natural connection to their music, and with the rest of them).

- Doxa

Very interesting post and a synthesis of my third man theory and HM's (just) qualification of Let It Bleed as being "very much a transitional album. It's disjointed or weird in that it let's us see and hear the cross over from the old band to the new without ever giving us the fully functioning version of either. It is an album made by a four piece Rolling Stones with additional musicians. In essence, something is missing. It isn't an attempt at a definitive statement like Beggars Banquet is."

Sometimes a discussion really leads to very interesting viewpoints indeed! And I agree with you Doxa that His M is in very fine form in this thread (as he was in the Kansas 1981 gig-thread). He can be irritating as hell but I would very much miss him if he wouldn't participate any longer.

So let's drink to His Majesty, the salt of this board!

I like the musical contents of the "transitional" LIB. Some of my favourite guitar tunes are in there, as well as groundbreaking stuff like MR, GS and YCAGWYW.

Keith's finest guitar album.

Nonsense. LIB is one of the finest rock and roll albums ever released, transitional or not. There's absolutely nothing artificial about it. I think you all need to get some coffee and start over.

Quote
latebloomer
Nonsense. LIB is one of the finest rock and roll albums ever released, transitional or not. There's absolutely nothing artificial about it. I think you all need to get some coffee and start over.

Aah, this critical note offers a good excuse to 'over-dub' my sayings of LET IT BLEED. I re-read my post of it, and I think it gives a way too critical account of it as it was intended (I guess I generally have the tendency to do that). I think it is "one of the finest rock and roll albums ever released", a true masterpiece and its place in the "Big Four" should not be even doubted.

But what I think is wonderful in those four masterpieces is that each is like a cake of its own. What makes one good is not the reason why some other is so good. That alone makes that run of albums an incredible achievement of its own. The band was in such an artistic self-creation process, that even changing one constitutive player in the process didn't matter (but it, of course, helped the process of artistic re-invention).

So what makes one good does not apply to the others, means that there are features in some albums that lack in others. For example, I think EXILE ON MAIN STREET is not any longer having such so strong individual songs as the former ones. There is no era-defining rock and roll anthems like "Gimme Shelter", "Street Fighting Man", "Sympathy For The Devil", "You Can't Always Get What You Want" there, and not even such classics as "Brown Sugar", "Wild Horses" or "Moonlight Mile" there. But that doesn't make EXILE any worse as an album. There is something else in there, which the other three lack, and that extra seem to so essential that many hail it - including me - their greatest artistic statement ever.

I think the albums BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED catch Jagger and Richards in their absolute peak years as song-writers, and that is the driving force in those albums - the songs themselves. There they had just discovered their own signature style to write; after years of learning the game and experimenting, they sound mature and original, which reflects the times better than they ever could do. And they had all the time in the world (in studio) to perfect those songs. The songs from 1968 and 1969 would also consist the bulk of the highlight material in their concerts ever since.

So for me the talk of "being transitional" or "lacking the third man" or "not having a band feel" should not be taken like taking any merit away from the album. It just recognizes some peculiar feature in the album that makes it different from the rest of the three ace albums. It is great as it is, presenting Jagger and Richards in the height of their powers, and that alone makes it a masterpiece. But to repeat, there is not that particular greatness which would define STICKY FINGERS and even more EXILE ON MAIN STREET. If compared to BEGGARS BANQUET, it probably is stronger in highlights, but it lacks the over-all quality and cohesion. With the latter, the spirit, if not the presence, of Brian Jones still having a lot of to do with.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-01 21:53 by Doxa.