Tell Me :
Talk
ROCKMAN
It's the only copy in town, and they want it (along with a time machine so they can play it!).
No, they're being patronizing about it. That was my objection, and I was not being insulting in my posts by claiming that they lack comprehension or should be pitied because they don't see things the way I do--and their subsequent posts only prove my point about their patronizing attitudes. I mean, grow the @#$%& up already! Are they still in grade school? "I suggest you get over it". Yeah, how about they just get over themselves and we'll consider the problem solved? Disagreement is one thing, but being childish about it just gets up my nose.
and to think that StonesTod/GRNRBITW is missing all this!
Judging from the above comments I don't thnk it's me who is being childish...passionate about this album, yes, childish and patronizing, no. When people express opinions like Exile contains "filler" or should have been a single album, I do think they lack comprehension. Sorry if that bothers you so much.
Nicely put. Really nicely put. I think you've captured the Exile "gestalt" very well in just a few choice sentences.
That's exactly right.
Well said. I think SOME GIRLS was the first album that was actually, and with a justification, described "best since EXILE" (look at the ROLLING STONE review above). That was accurate then, since (a) EXILE's greatness was widely recognized by then, and partly because (b) they had released a couple of not so great albums betweeen EXILE and this new product. The quality of both EXILE and SOME GIRLS was easily recognizable against teh three records between them. The improvement could easily seen then, which probably makes SOME GIRLS a bit difficult one to rate 'objectively'. For that reason I also kind of agree with the people who say that SOME GIRLS is a bit over-rated. It is easily better than, say, BLACK AND BLUE and IORR, and since the band hasn't been able to anything as strong ever since, it kind of stands alone in their 'latter' output, after golden era records. And the album being their best seller ever. But I don't think it actually is in same level in quality as the 'big four', probably not even close. That creativity peak when Jagger/Richards and the band were touching a kind of immortal transcendency in quality, was gone. (I would say that GOATS HEAD SOUP is a bit underrated due the very reason that it starts the recognizable creative downhill, and is compared too easily to those four masterpieces it follows. But is it actually weaker than, say, celebrated SOME GIRLS, pretty hard to say).
Anyway, the cliche "best since EXILE" seems to be the epitaph we are too often confronted in the hype of latest Stones record. And since TATTOO YOU, a bit more critical and realistic reviews add the remark "at least best since SOME GIRLS"... By that logic the Stones are just getting better and better by every new record, even though never reaching the EXILE/SOME GIRLS quality...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-05 09:15 by Doxa.
Even though I to an extent accept SOME GIRLS is a bit over-rated account, I really dig your view. For me it shows why SOME GIRLS is so important album. There was another thread recently in which I talked about 'relevance', and I thnk it applies very well to SOME GIRLS. After rather irrelevant releases, LOVE YOU LIVE included, the album made them look relevant again, showing that they weren't locked into their idiosyncratic musical sphere, which didn't sound resonate with the trends any longer, but could actually still had a say in the contemporary musical world. One shouldn't count them out yet, was the message. But still I think SOME GIRLS have not passed the test time so well as their golden era masterpieces. I think the rather lame reception, compared to EXILE, of SOME GIRLS re-edition (including the awesome TEXAS film), not among die-hards, but wider audience, shows that the then so popular era is not so 'sexy' or 'exciting' as their earlier peaks. But this is not to say that SOME GIRLS is not a very good, awesome album. It is!
- Doxa
I guess I would pick up these two too, and I think you pick up the essential points here. I think what you said of SOME GIRLS, applies to AFTERMATH as well - that of "it did the job it was made to do at the time". And that was showing teh artistic independence of The Stones. That they are in the same game as the biggest song-writers at the time, Dylan and the Beatles. That was its artistic statement - we are here too! It served that function. But still I think pointing out that statement went a bit too far - Jagger/Richards pen was producing wonderful material, Jones was on fire, and everything sounded fresh (they would never sound so fresh again!), novel and even competent, but compared to Dylan's and Beatles' masterpieces (their peak albums forever) from the time, the album is fated to be second-rate. The album has not such a focus, each track having a point, like Dylan and Beatles albums have. The Stones is just reaching there - full artistic maturity - in where those artists were. I think especially the B-side of UK edition suffers from 'quantity' over 'quality' problem. It has the feeling 'okay, let's put there any song experiment we have, with not much second-thoughts'. But okay, probably it is not AFTERMATH's fault that it is to be compared against some of the greatest rock albums ever done.
I would say that the 'general account' of rock history does not actually over-rate AFTERMATH (I have read articles in which teh album is defended against the lack of recognition compared to Dylan/Beatles albums), but it is us Stones fans who tend to have 'sin'. Mainly I guess because the album enjoys such a huge role in their career. Like SOME GIRLS does.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-05 10:13 by Doxa.
They don't understand how YOU think, but they're having their own perspective on how the album is
I agree with you, of course, but let's respect other takes on this. It's just an album..
I haven't seen a sober day since who knows when...
But who cares, let's have another one...
- Doxa
When Love Is Strong was released, the reviews stated that it was the best RS-single since Start Me Up. When VL came out it was hyped as their best since Tattoo You
Did the SG Deluxe release get a lame reception, compared with the Exile re-release???
This is exactly what I mean by the soul of the Stones as opposed to the more mechanical and calculated incarnation the band became from Some Girls onwards. The mystique that you so brilliantly describe generally gave way to a safer, Stones by numbers with fewer risks being taken and everything calculated to light up those cash registers.
Exile was, for me, the peak of the Stones' journey into the heart of rock'n'roll...an Apocalypse Now like trip to discover the roots of modern American music.
Instead of trekking up the Mekon River they metaphorically sailed down the Mississippi to absorb everything offered on the way, from country, blues, country blues, straight up rock'n'roll, New Orleans style Voodoo swamp blues, and cooked it all up in an incredible gumbo called Exile On Main Street.
Yep. Spot on, Treacle. Very well put. A great EXILE discussion is over-all going on this thread, so let me take part a bit too. I take teh issue why it turned to be like it is, a double album.
I think we have to remember that the Stones had just released a couple of perfect 'single' albums, each showing an artistic progression, and in which the quality of song-writing have been extremely high. It wasn't that easy to come up with another 'best of' kind of album. I think especially STICKY FINGERS was almost too perfect album, setting the bar too high - like EXILE would show, the band was not any longer changing too much in sound - the Taylor band sound was kind of fixed by then, and Jagger/Richards workshop was not taking such huge steps forwards in difference any longer. How to follow such a perfect album in which each track is artistically speaking spot on, a perfect artistic statement of its own? If you have a hit material like "Tumbling Dice" to compete with "Brown Sugar", country songs like "Sweet Virginia" and "Torn & Frayed" to compete with "Wild Horses" and "Dead Flowers", what would happen?
I think the Stones actually recognized the problem - that of them not probably couldn't meet the challenge of STICKY FINGERS in its own field, not having enough of top-class material - and decided to change the tactics - to do something completely different, but still great. Remember, they still then were damn ambitious artistically, and each new record was treated as a artistic statemnt that needed to show some sort of progression, or at least something 'novel'. (Those were the days).
So, they decided to give us a more deeper, thorough-going exhibition of their sound and music in its all richness. Them looking more 'inside' than 'outside'. In where we could see the nuances and sides that probably were not so recognizable in their masterful individual songs earlier. The songs themselves didn't matter so much any longer, it was the way they were presented, each completing each other, and since there was enough of room for everything, there was no forced feeling that like 'every track needs to be radio-friendly, easily accessible'. It was more like let us play, and damn relaese, anything we seem to like, things we play by instinct, relying solely on our taste in good music. That turned to be their most ambitious, daring artistic statement ever. And greatest rock and roll album ever released.
To put it simply, and to repeat myself to emphasize the point, I think the uniqueness of EXILE is that it was not any longer the songs themselves, or their greatness, that was driving them. It was more the way they were presented. It was the total sound of the songs (taking alone or together), of which the 'written' songs themselves were just one component, that took command. In EXILE the Stones put all their creative energy and passion into performing, to the delivery. With that dedication, no matter what they played, it was perfect all the same. The timeless star of EXILE is the performance itself. Rock and roll cannot be played any better - it is the ultimate ideal of that. There is so much passion, incredible little nuances, odd choices - but taking together, it is a damn cohesive, strong musical statement by a precise vision. But to 'get' it, we need to hear the whole album, even though each track still represents the whole album - each having an "EXILE feel". STICKY FINGERS sounded very professional, but a bit uptight - The Stones showing that they are not just great song-writers, but masters in any given genre of modern rock, like a master thesis of rock band credibility. EXILE, by contrast, couldn't care less of the 'form' any longer, but just showing the band relying on their own insticts, and being damn proud of it. The result is much more relaxed than STICKY FINGERS.
But I can easily understand the the frustration the band had after EXILE. In that record they actually had used about the last card what they have offer, by letting us to see their musical intuition in its purity, playing anything they know from their heart. A bit like a stripper finally getting rid of last of her/his clothings, and knowing that after that it is impossible to excite the audience more any longer, and even repeat the act again so excitingly again... After using that card, they must have felt artistically empty. I think EXILE is a kind of thing one can honestly do only once. You can't fake that. To reveal your soul. It could be their biggest win ever, but probably a kind of Pyrrho's win in a long run artistic-wise.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-05 12:08 by Doxa.
Highly interesting and very well formulated, Doxa.
Dare I present one or two objections, though, even if I can't know for sure that what I will say is more certain. However, I wonder if the music was that deliberately made after such a masterplan. Rather I think one aspect of the recorded result might be that it happened more as a non-planned process. As such, probably more than its predecessors. To some extent as a consequence of their more or less improvised exile in France, not out of one leading idea what the result was to end up as. In the creative process, the musical output profitted from their talents in a less directed way under such circumstances. They counted on their ability. Come what may. After the many nights of recording hours ebbing out, they (Jagger and Richards) succeded in laying a certain "unstructured structure" on some of the heaps of recorded material.
Afterwards, after the release of EXILE, they seemed to feel drained from creating on that high level. But that exhaustion had not to arrive that way just then. It could have happened before that album or later. We tend to think that what happened, is what had to happen, I believe, and in some contexts that may be right to think as well. But not in this case, I wonder.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-05 12:40 by Witness.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
SilverBlanket
()
Date: September 5, 2014 01:09
Some girls/tattoo you
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 5, 2014 01:11
I think the problem some people have with Exile (though I am not claiming to speak for any particular person here) is that perhaps they are more used to classic "rock" music and therefore the soulful black vibe of songs like Casino Boogie, Hip Shake, Just Want To See His Face, and Turd don't resonate with them. These songs are a juke joint swampy summer night, with a flask in the back pocket and a blade in the boot. The music at times can barely be heard over the crash of pool balls, bottles breaking, and the shouts of joy (or anger). But the beat is always there: churning, throbbing, incessant. The air is full of sex, menace, and possibilities. So yeah, if you don't dig that and want "rock hits" served to you on a platter, I can see how you would mistake these essential songs as "filler" and yearn for the safe harbor of more familiar musical territory...If that makes me a "snob", so be it.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-05 01:15 by 71Tele.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-05 01:15 by 71Tele.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: September 5, 2014 01:19
The ones that don't entirely live up to their reputation for me are:
Some Girls - it did the job it was made to do at the time, giving the Stones an answer to the challenges of punk and disco, and there are some great things on it, but after Miss You my ears just switch off through Whip/Imagination/Some Girls/Lies. Faraway Eyes is a nice bit of fun, and the rest is wonderful, but it's not on a par with any of the Big 4. The outtakes album shows that some quality tracks were left out in order to include the punky stuff.
Aftermath - gets all the attention for this era because the Stones wrote all the songs for the first time, but some of them aren't that brilliant, and the famous long jam on Going Home is fun to listen to but probably didn't really deserve to be included in full. I think I prefer Out Of Our Heads.
Some Girls - it did the job it was made to do at the time, giving the Stones an answer to the challenges of punk and disco, and there are some great things on it, but after Miss You my ears just switch off through Whip/Imagination/Some Girls/Lies. Faraway Eyes is a nice bit of fun, and the rest is wonderful, but it's not on a par with any of the Big 4. The outtakes album shows that some quality tracks were left out in order to include the punky stuff.
Aftermath - gets all the attention for this era because the Stones wrote all the songs for the first time, but some of them aren't that brilliant, and the famous long jam on Going Home is fun to listen to but probably didn't really deserve to be included in full. I think I prefer Out Of Our Heads.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: September 5, 2014 01:23
ROCKMAN
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: September 5, 2014 01:33
there are no "overrated" rolling stones albums.just the fact that the average idiot thinks the beatles were a better studio band means the entire catalog is underrated.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: September 5, 2014 01:43
i went back to some of the original reviews of the albums mentioned most often here, to remind myself of how they were received at the time.
what struck me was how much "the rolling stone"'s review of Some Girls really nails the impact of the album:
"Q: Do you think the music of the Rolling Stones has an overall theme?
A: Yeah. Women.
—Keith Richards
With Bob Dylan no longer bringing it all back home, Elvis Presley dead and the Beatles already harmlessly cloned in the wax-museum nostalgia of a Broadway musical, it's no wonder the Rolling Stones decided to make a serious record. Not particularly ambitious, mind you, but serious. These guys aren't dumb, and when the handwriting on the wall starts to smell like formaldehyde and that age-old claim, "the greatest rock & roll band in the world," suddenly sounds less laudatory than laughable — well, if you want to survive the Seventies and enter the Eighties with something more than your bankbook and dignity intact, you'd better dredge up your leftover pride, bite the bullet and try like hell to sweat out some good music. Which is exactly what the Stones have done. Though time may not exactly be on their side, with Some Girls they've at least managed to stop the clock for a while.
This is no small accomplishment. It's not a big one either. Thus far, the critical line claims that Some Girls is the band's finest LP since its certified masterpiece, Exile on Main Street, and I'll buy that gladly. What I won't buy is that the two albums deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. (Listen to "Tumbling Dice" or, better yet, "Let It Loose" from the earlier record, and then to the exemplary "Beast of Burden" or "When the Whip Comes Down" from this year's model, and tell me that the passion, power and near-awesome completeness of the 1972 performances are in any way matched by the new ones.) Instead, Some Girls is like a marriage of convenience: when it works — which is often — it can be meaningful, memorable and quite moving, but it rarely sends the arrow straight through the heart. "It took me a long time to discover that the key to acting is honesty," an actor told the anthropologist Edmund Carpenter. "Once you know how to fake that, you've got it made."
For the most part, the Stones "act" superbly on the new LP. They've stripped down to the archetypal sound of two or three guitars, bass and drums (and, more importantly, ditched the vacuousness of Billy Preston), and it's wonderful to hear the group blazing away again with little more than the basics to protect them. Everything's apparently been recorded as close to live as we'd want it, and the overdubbing and extra musicians have been kept to a minimum. But at their best, the Rolling Stones used to play and sing a brand of rock & roll noir as moody, smoke-filled and ambiguous as the steamy and harmful atmosphere of such film noir classics as The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep. Where Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were once a pair of Humphrey Bogarts (or, in keeping with Some Girls' imagery, Lauren Bacalls), they're now more like — who? — Warren Beatty and Robert Blake. Gone is the black and white murk, and the vocals are way up in a nicely messy but pastel mix. While the Stones may have gone back a dozen or more years for the sound and style of the current album, what they've really done is to reshoot Rebel Without a Cause as a scaled-down, made-for-TV movie. The rebellion — with the exception of Richards' powerful "Before They Make Me Run" — lacks a certain credibility, and the cause is simply survival. (If you don't think that credibility is a major issue here, you haven't seen any of the band's recent concerts, most of which have been poor.)"
Read more: [www.rollingstone.com]
what struck me was how much "the rolling stone"'s review of Some Girls really nails the impact of the album:
"Q: Do you think the music of the Rolling Stones has an overall theme?
A: Yeah. Women.
—Keith Richards
With Bob Dylan no longer bringing it all back home, Elvis Presley dead and the Beatles already harmlessly cloned in the wax-museum nostalgia of a Broadway musical, it's no wonder the Rolling Stones decided to make a serious record. Not particularly ambitious, mind you, but serious. These guys aren't dumb, and when the handwriting on the wall starts to smell like formaldehyde and that age-old claim, "the greatest rock & roll band in the world," suddenly sounds less laudatory than laughable — well, if you want to survive the Seventies and enter the Eighties with something more than your bankbook and dignity intact, you'd better dredge up your leftover pride, bite the bullet and try like hell to sweat out some good music. Which is exactly what the Stones have done. Though time may not exactly be on their side, with Some Girls they've at least managed to stop the clock for a while.
This is no small accomplishment. It's not a big one either. Thus far, the critical line claims that Some Girls is the band's finest LP since its certified masterpiece, Exile on Main Street, and I'll buy that gladly. What I won't buy is that the two albums deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. (Listen to "Tumbling Dice" or, better yet, "Let It Loose" from the earlier record, and then to the exemplary "Beast of Burden" or "When the Whip Comes Down" from this year's model, and tell me that the passion, power and near-awesome completeness of the 1972 performances are in any way matched by the new ones.) Instead, Some Girls is like a marriage of convenience: when it works — which is often — it can be meaningful, memorable and quite moving, but it rarely sends the arrow straight through the heart. "It took me a long time to discover that the key to acting is honesty," an actor told the anthropologist Edmund Carpenter. "Once you know how to fake that, you've got it made."
For the most part, the Stones "act" superbly on the new LP. They've stripped down to the archetypal sound of two or three guitars, bass and drums (and, more importantly, ditched the vacuousness of Billy Preston), and it's wonderful to hear the group blazing away again with little more than the basics to protect them. Everything's apparently been recorded as close to live as we'd want it, and the overdubbing and extra musicians have been kept to a minimum. But at their best, the Rolling Stones used to play and sing a brand of rock & roll noir as moody, smoke-filled and ambiguous as the steamy and harmful atmosphere of such film noir classics as The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep. Where Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were once a pair of Humphrey Bogarts (or, in keeping with Some Girls' imagery, Lauren Bacalls), they're now more like — who? — Warren Beatty and Robert Blake. Gone is the black and white murk, and the vocals are way up in a nicely messy but pastel mix. While the Stones may have gone back a dozen or more years for the sound and style of the current album, what they've really done is to reshoot Rebel Without a Cause as a scaled-down, made-for-TV movie. The rebellion — with the exception of Richards' powerful "Before They Make Me Run" — lacks a certain credibility, and the cause is simply survival. (If you don't think that credibility is a major issue here, you haven't seen any of the band's recent concerts, most of which have been poor.)"
Read more: [www.rollingstone.com]
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 5, 2014 01:45
Quote
Rockman
It's the only copy in town, and they want it (along with a time machine so they can play it!).
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: September 5, 2014 02:23
Quote
treaclefingers
But people are merely disagreeing with you, just as you're disagreeing with them.
No, they're being patronizing about it. That was my objection, and I was not being insulting in my posts by claiming that they lack comprehension or should be pitied because they don't see things the way I do--and their subsequent posts only prove my point about their patronizing attitudes. I mean, grow the @#$%& up already! Are they still in grade school? "I suggest you get over it". Yeah, how about they just get over themselves and we'll consider the problem solved? Disagreement is one thing, but being childish about it just gets up my nose.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: September 5, 2014 02:37
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
treaclefingers
But people are merely disagreeing with you, just as you're disagreeing with them.
No, they're being patronizing about it. That was my objection, and I was not being insulting in my posts by claiming that they lack comprehension or should be pitied because they don't see things the way I do--and their subsequent posts only prove my point about their patronizing attitudes. I mean, grow the @#$%& up already! Are they still in grade school? "I suggest you get over it". Yeah, how about they just get over themselves and we'll consider the problem solved? Disagreement is one thing, but being childish about it just gets up my nose.
and to think that StonesTod/GRNRBITW is missing all this!
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: September 5, 2014 02:43
that "rolling stone" review was a piece of shit.
they ditched the "vacuousness" of billy preston?? anyone who uses a ten dollar word to make a ten cent point is a douche.
"what they've done is re-shoot rebel without a cause as a made -for-tv movie"??
"they lack a certain credibility" ???most of the recent concerts have been poor????
its just proves how lame that rag has been for so long now,it was never that good anyway but they had really turned into bozos at that point.
they're so pathetic they panned every zep album,one after the other and then re-reviewed them years later in a more favorable light to hide just what a bunch of un-rock and roll,clueless a-holes they always really were.
they ditched the "vacuousness" of billy preston?? anyone who uses a ten dollar word to make a ten cent point is a douche.
"what they've done is re-shoot rebel without a cause as a made -for-tv movie"??
"they lack a certain credibility" ???most of the recent concerts have been poor????
its just proves how lame that rag has been for so long now,it was never that good anyway but they had really turned into bozos at that point.
they're so pathetic they panned every zep album,one after the other and then re-reviewed them years later in a more favorable light to hide just what a bunch of un-rock and roll,clueless a-holes they always really were.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: September 5, 2014 03:35
Quote
sonomastone
and to think that StonesTod/GRNRBITW is missing all this!
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: September 5, 2014 05:43
Some Girls
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Stoner72
()
Date: September 5, 2014 06:13
Gotta confess I'm shocked at the number of people who cite Some Girls as the most overrated Stones album.
I was 21 when that album came out, and after the mildly disappointing Goat's Heads Soup, the-good-but It's Only Rock N' Roll and the not-yet-ripened Black & Blue, Some Girls sounded fresh, invigorating and most-importantly, a bit dangerous.
Don't forget the execrable Love You Live had also recently been released, and up until June of 1978 many of my friends were wondering if the Stones shouldn't just hang it up.
Needless to say, Some Girls blew those concerns right out of the water.
Yes, there's a clinker or two (namely the cover of Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)), but on balance this is a great Stones record.
In fact, it's so great some of you may have heard it far too often, which might account for the numerous most-overrated citations.
I was 21 when that album came out, and after the mildly disappointing Goat's Heads Soup, the-good-but It's Only Rock N' Roll and the not-yet-ripened Black & Blue, Some Girls sounded fresh, invigorating and most-importantly, a bit dangerous.
Don't forget the execrable Love You Live had also recently been released, and up until June of 1978 many of my friends were wondering if the Stones shouldn't just hang it up.
Needless to say, Some Girls blew those concerns right out of the water.
Yes, there's a clinker or two (namely the cover of Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)), but on balance this is a great Stones record.
In fact, it's so great some of you may have heard it far too often, which might account for the numerous most-overrated citations.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 5, 2014 06:15
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
treaclefingers
But people are merely disagreeing with you, just as you're disagreeing with them.
No, they're being patronizing about it. That was my objection, and I was not being insulting in my posts by claiming that they lack comprehension or should be pitied because they don't see things the way I do--and their subsequent posts only prove my point about their patronizing attitudes. I mean, grow the @#$%& up already! Are they still in grade school? "I suggest you get over it". Yeah, how about they just get over themselves and we'll consider the problem solved? Disagreement is one thing, but being childish about it just gets up my nose.
Judging from the above comments I don't thnk it's me who is being childish...passionate about this album, yes, childish and patronizing, no. When people express opinions like Exile contains "filler" or should have been a single album, I do think they lack comprehension. Sorry if that bothers you so much.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: September 5, 2014 06:20
When people express opinions like Exile contains "filler" or should have been a single album,
Jagger stated way back .. that Exile the double album was meant to be listened to as four separate sides/albums ... something that was lost with the release on CD
ROCKMAN
Jagger stated way back .. that Exile the double album was meant to be listened to as four separate sides/albums ... something that was lost with the release on CD
ROCKMAN
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: September 5, 2014 06:36
Quote
71Tele
When people express opinions like Exile contains "filler" or should have been a single album, I do think they lack comprehension.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
rocker1
()
Date: September 5, 2014 07:01
Quote
71Tele
I think the problem some people have with Exile (though I am not claiming to speak for any particular person here) is that perhaps they are more used to classic "rock" music and therefore the soulful black vibe of songs like Casino Boogie, Hip Shake, Just Want To See His Face, and Turd don't resonate with them. These songs are a juke joint swampy summer night, with a flask in the back pocket and a blade in the boot. The music at times can barely be heard over the crash of pool balls, bottles breaking, and the shouts of joy (or anger). But the beat is always there: churning, throbbing, incessant. The air is full of sex, menace, and possibilities. So yeah, if you don't dig that and want "rock hits" served to you on a platter, I can see how you would mistake these essential songs as "filler" and yearn for the safe harbor of more familiar musical territory...If that makes me a "snob", so be it.
Nicely put. Really nicely put. I think you've captured the Exile "gestalt" very well in just a few choice sentences.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: September 5, 2014 08:35
Quote
Rockman
When people express opinions like Exile contains "filler" or should have been a single album,
Jagger stated way back .. that Exile the double album was meant to be listened to as four separate sides/albums ... something that was lost with the release on CD
That's exactly right.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 5, 2014 08:58
Quote
Greenblues
... the latest one (for quite a long time) -
meaning that since Tattoo You we've seen many, many reviews praising the various latest albums as "their best album since Exile On Main Street" or using siminlar terms ;-) Which doesn't mean those albums were bad ones at all, but speaks volumes nevertheless in terms of high expectations.
Well said. I think SOME GIRLS was the first album that was actually, and with a justification, described "best since EXILE" (look at the ROLLING STONE review above). That was accurate then, since (a) EXILE's greatness was widely recognized by then, and partly because (b) they had released a couple of not so great albums betweeen EXILE and this new product. The quality of both EXILE and SOME GIRLS was easily recognizable against teh three records between them. The improvement could easily seen then, which probably makes SOME GIRLS a bit difficult one to rate 'objectively'. For that reason I also kind of agree with the people who say that SOME GIRLS is a bit over-rated. It is easily better than, say, BLACK AND BLUE and IORR, and since the band hasn't been able to anything as strong ever since, it kind of stands alone in their 'latter' output, after golden era records. And the album being their best seller ever. But I don't think it actually is in same level in quality as the 'big four', probably not even close. That creativity peak when Jagger/Richards and the band were touching a kind of immortal transcendency in quality, was gone. (I would say that GOATS HEAD SOUP is a bit underrated due the very reason that it starts the recognizable creative downhill, and is compared too easily to those four masterpieces it follows. But is it actually weaker than, say, celebrated SOME GIRLS, pretty hard to say).
Anyway, the cliche "best since EXILE" seems to be the epitaph we are too often confronted in the hype of latest Stones record. And since TATTOO YOU, a bit more critical and realistic reviews add the remark "at least best since SOME GIRLS"... By that logic the Stones are just getting better and better by every new record, even though never reaching the EXILE/SOME GIRLS quality...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-05 09:15 by Doxa.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 5, 2014 09:32
Quote
Stoner72
Gotta confess I'm shocked at the number of people who cite Some Girls as the most overrated Stones album.
I was 21 when that album came out, and after the mildly disappointing Goat's Heads Soup, the-good-but It's Only Rock N' Roll and the not-yet-ripened Black & Blue, Some Girls sounded fresh, invigorating and most-importantly, a bit dangerous.
Don't forget the execrable Love You Live had also recently been released, and up until June of 1978 many of my friends were wondering if the Stones shouldn't just hang it up.
Needless to say, Some Girls blew those concerns right out of the water.
Yes, there's a clinker or two (namely the cover of Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)), but on balance this is a great Stones record.
In fact, it's so great some of you may have heard it far too often, which might account for the numerous most-overrated citations.
Even though I to an extent accept SOME GIRLS is a bit over-rated account, I really dig your view. For me it shows why SOME GIRLS is so important album. There was another thread recently in which I talked about 'relevance', and I thnk it applies very well to SOME GIRLS. After rather irrelevant releases, LOVE YOU LIVE included, the album made them look relevant again, showing that they weren't locked into their idiosyncratic musical sphere, which didn't sound resonate with the trends any longer, but could actually still had a say in the contemporary musical world. One shouldn't count them out yet, was the message. But still I think SOME GIRLS have not passed the test time so well as their golden era masterpieces. I think the rather lame reception, compared to EXILE, of SOME GIRLS re-edition (including the awesome TEXAS film), not among die-hards, but wider audience, shows that the then so popular era is not so 'sexy' or 'exciting' as their earlier peaks. But this is not to say that SOME GIRLS is not a very good, awesome album. It is!
- Doxa
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: September 5, 2014 09:48
Welcome back to the IORR saloon Doxa. The discussion's become rather lively.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: September 5, 2014 09:56
As long as bv doesn't have to fetch the shotgun out from under the counter...
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 5, 2014 10:01
Quote
Green Lady
The ones that don't entirely live up to their reputation for me are:
Some Girls - it did the job it was made to do at the time, giving the Stones an answer to the challenges of punk and disco, and there are some great things on it, but after Miss You my ears just switch off through Whip/Imagination/Some Girls/Lies. Faraway Eyes is a nice bit of fun, and the rest is wonderful, but it's not on a par with any of the Big 4. The outtakes album shows that some quality tracks were left out in order to include the punky stuff.
Aftermath - gets all the attention for this era because the Stones wrote all the songs for the first time, but some of them aren't that brilliant, and the famous long jam on Going Home is fun to listen to but probably didn't really deserve to be included in full. I think I prefer Out Of Our Heads.
I guess I would pick up these two too, and I think you pick up the essential points here. I think what you said of SOME GIRLS, applies to AFTERMATH as well - that of "it did the job it was made to do at the time". And that was showing teh artistic independence of The Stones. That they are in the same game as the biggest song-writers at the time, Dylan and the Beatles. That was its artistic statement - we are here too! It served that function. But still I think pointing out that statement went a bit too far - Jagger/Richards pen was producing wonderful material, Jones was on fire, and everything sounded fresh (they would never sound so fresh again!), novel and even competent, but compared to Dylan's and Beatles' masterpieces (their peak albums forever) from the time, the album is fated to be second-rate. The album has not such a focus, each track having a point, like Dylan and Beatles albums have. The Stones is just reaching there - full artistic maturity - in where those artists were. I think especially the B-side of UK edition suffers from 'quantity' over 'quality' problem. It has the feeling 'okay, let's put there any song experiment we have, with not much second-thoughts'. But okay, probably it is not AFTERMATH's fault that it is to be compared against some of the greatest rock albums ever done.
I would say that the 'general account' of rock history does not actually over-rate AFTERMATH (I have read articles in which teh album is defended against the lack of recognition compared to Dylan/Beatles albums), but it is us Stones fans who tend to have 'sin'. Mainly I guess because the album enjoys such a huge role in their career. Like SOME GIRLS does.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-05 10:13 by Doxa.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 5, 2014 10:09
Quote
71Tele
Those who think Exile has "filler" just don't understand what Exile is all about. I pity them.
They don't understand how YOU think, but they're having their own perspective on how the album is
I agree with you, of course, but let's respect other takes on this. It's just an album..
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 5, 2014 10:21
Quote
Silver Dagger
Welcome back to the IORR saloon Doxa. The discussion's become rather lively.
I haven't seen a sober day since who knows when...
But who cares, let's have another one...
- Doxa
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 5, 2014 10:27
Quote
DoxaQuote
Greenblues
... the latest one (for quite a long time) -
meaning that since Tattoo You we've seen many, many reviews praising the various latest albums as "their best album since Exile On Main Street" or using siminlar terms ;-) Which doesn't mean those albums were bad ones at all, but speaks volumes nevertheless in terms of high expectations.
Well said. I think SOME GIRLS was the first album that was actually, and with a justification, described "best since EXILE" (look at the ROLLING STONE review above). That was accurate then, since (a) EXILE's greatness was widely recognized by then, and partly because (b) they had released a couple of not so great albums betweeen EXILE and this new product. The quality of both EXILE and SOME GIRLS was easily recognizable against teh three records between them. The improvement could easily seen then, which probably makes SOME GIRLS a bit difficult one to rate 'objectively'. For that reason I also kind of agree with the people who say that SOME GIRLS is a bit over-rated. It is easily better than, say, BLACK AND BLUE and IORR, and since the band hasn't been able to anything as strong ever since, it kind of stands alone in their 'latter' output, after golden era records. And the album being their best seller ever. But I don't think it actually is in same level in quality as the 'big four', probably not even close. That creativity peak when Jagger/Richards and the band were touching a kind of immortal transcendency in quality, was gone. (I would say that GOATS HEAD SOUP is a bit underrated due the very reason that it starts the recognizable creative downhill, and is compared too easily to those four masterpieces it follows. But is it actually weaker than, say, celebrated SOME GIRLS, pretty hard to say).
Anyway, the cliche "best since EXILE" seems to be the epitaph we are too often confronted in the hype of latest Stones record. And since TATTOO YOU, a bit more critical and realistic reviews add the remark "at least best since SOME GIRLS"... By that logic the Stones are just getting better and better by every new record, even though never reaching the EXILE/SOME GIRLS quality...
- Doxa
When Love Is Strong was released, the reviews stated that it was the best RS-single since Start Me Up. When VL came out it was hyped as their best since Tattoo You
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 5, 2014 10:30
Quote
DoxaQuote
Stoner72
Gotta confess I'm shocked at the number of people who cite Some Girls as the most overrated Stones album.
I was 21 when that album came out, and after the mildly disappointing Goat's Heads Soup, the-good-but It's Only Rock N' Roll and the not-yet-ripened Black & Blue, Some Girls sounded fresh, invigorating and most-importantly, a bit dangerous.
Don't forget the execrable Love You Live had also recently been released, and up until June of 1978 many of my friends were wondering if the Stones shouldn't just hang it up.
Needless to say, Some Girls blew those concerns right out of the water.
Yes, there's a clinker or two (namely the cover of Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)), but on balance this is a great Stones record.
In fact, it's so great some of you may have heard it far too often, which might account for the numerous most-overrated citations.
Even though I to an extent accept SOME GIRLS is a bit over-rated account, I really dig your view. For me it shows why SOME GIRLS is so important album. There was another thread recently in which I talked about 'relevance', and I thnk it applies very well to SOME GIRLS. After rather irrelevant releases, LOVE YOU LIVE included, the album made them look relevant again, showing that they weren't locked into their idiosyncratic musical sphere, which didn't sound resonate with the trends any longer, but could actually still had a say in the contemporary musical world. One shouldn't count them out yet, was the message. But still I think SOME GIRLS have not passed the test time so well as their golden era masterpieces. I think the rather lame reception, compared to EXILE, of SOME GIRLS re-edition (including the awesome TEXAS film), not among die-hards, but wider audience, shows that the then so popular era is not so 'sexy' or 'exciting' as their earlier peaks. But this is not to say that SOME GIRLS is not a very good, awesome album. It is!
- Doxa
Did the SG Deluxe release get a lame reception, compared with the Exile re-release???
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: September 5, 2014 10:46
Quote
71Tele
I think the problem some people have with Exile (though I am not claiming to speak for any particular person here) is that perhaps they are more used to classic "rock" music and therefore the soulful black vibe of songs like Casino Boogie, Hip Shake, Just Want To See His Face, and Turd don't resonate with them. These songs are a juke joint swampy summer night, with a flask in the back pocket and a blade in the boot. The music at times can barely be heard over the crash of pool balls, bottles breaking, and the shouts of joy (or anger). But the beat is always there: churning, throbbing, incessant. The air is full of sex, menace, and possibilities. So yeah, if you don't dig that and want "rock hits" served to you on a platter, I can see how you would mistake these essential songs as "filler" and yearn for the safe harbor of more familiar musical territory...If that makes me a "snob", so be it.
This is exactly what I mean by the soul of the Stones as opposed to the more mechanical and calculated incarnation the band became from Some Girls onwards. The mystique that you so brilliantly describe generally gave way to a safer, Stones by numbers with fewer risks being taken and everything calculated to light up those cash registers.
Exile was, for me, the peak of the Stones' journey into the heart of rock'n'roll...an Apocalypse Now like trip to discover the roots of modern American music.
Instead of trekking up the Mekon River they metaphorically sailed down the Mississippi to absorb everything offered on the way, from country, blues, country blues, straight up rock'n'roll, New Orleans style Voodoo swamp blues, and cooked it all up in an incredible gumbo called Exile On Main Street.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 5, 2014 11:53
Quote
Silver DaggerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
LoveYouLiveQuote
RollingFreak
Exile. An incredible album, but its never my number 1 despite the fact that many others consider it theirs. Whether you like it or not, its got a few songs that are filler whereas their other 40 minute albums are concise masterpieces.
Sorry. Someone had to say it.
Well said (written) and I completely agree.
Just to give this balance, I think you're both completely missing the point of EOMS. If you remove those songs, it just doesn't compete with the other Big 3...it's because of those songs that this is a top album, possibly the best double album of all time, certainly better than the Beatles White album.
EOMS is the exception to the rule, less is more.
Spot on. A man with good taste and good sense.
Yep. Spot on, Treacle. Very well put. A great EXILE discussion is over-all going on this thread, so let me take part a bit too. I take teh issue why it turned to be like it is, a double album.
I think we have to remember that the Stones had just released a couple of perfect 'single' albums, each showing an artistic progression, and in which the quality of song-writing have been extremely high. It wasn't that easy to come up with another 'best of' kind of album. I think especially STICKY FINGERS was almost too perfect album, setting the bar too high - like EXILE would show, the band was not any longer changing too much in sound - the Taylor band sound was kind of fixed by then, and Jagger/Richards workshop was not taking such huge steps forwards in difference any longer. How to follow such a perfect album in which each track is artistically speaking spot on, a perfect artistic statement of its own? If you have a hit material like "Tumbling Dice" to compete with "Brown Sugar", country songs like "Sweet Virginia" and "Torn & Frayed" to compete with "Wild Horses" and "Dead Flowers", what would happen?
I think the Stones actually recognized the problem - that of them not probably couldn't meet the challenge of STICKY FINGERS in its own field, not having enough of top-class material - and decided to change the tactics - to do something completely different, but still great. Remember, they still then were damn ambitious artistically, and each new record was treated as a artistic statemnt that needed to show some sort of progression, or at least something 'novel'. (Those were the days).
So, they decided to give us a more deeper, thorough-going exhibition of their sound and music in its all richness. Them looking more 'inside' than 'outside'. In where we could see the nuances and sides that probably were not so recognizable in their masterful individual songs earlier. The songs themselves didn't matter so much any longer, it was the way they were presented, each completing each other, and since there was enough of room for everything, there was no forced feeling that like 'every track needs to be radio-friendly, easily accessible'. It was more like let us play, and damn relaese, anything we seem to like, things we play by instinct, relying solely on our taste in good music. That turned to be their most ambitious, daring artistic statement ever. And greatest rock and roll album ever released.
To put it simply, and to repeat myself to emphasize the point, I think the uniqueness of EXILE is that it was not any longer the songs themselves, or their greatness, that was driving them. It was more the way they were presented. It was the total sound of the songs (taking alone or together), of which the 'written' songs themselves were just one component, that took command. In EXILE the Stones put all their creative energy and passion into performing, to the delivery. With that dedication, no matter what they played, it was perfect all the same. The timeless star of EXILE is the performance itself. Rock and roll cannot be played any better - it is the ultimate ideal of that. There is so much passion, incredible little nuances, odd choices - but taking together, it is a damn cohesive, strong musical statement by a precise vision. But to 'get' it, we need to hear the whole album, even though each track still represents the whole album - each having an "EXILE feel". STICKY FINGERS sounded very professional, but a bit uptight - The Stones showing that they are not just great song-writers, but masters in any given genre of modern rock, like a master thesis of rock band credibility. EXILE, by contrast, couldn't care less of the 'form' any longer, but just showing the band relying on their own insticts, and being damn proud of it. The result is much more relaxed than STICKY FINGERS.
But I can easily understand the the frustration the band had after EXILE. In that record they actually had used about the last card what they have offer, by letting us to see their musical intuition in its purity, playing anything they know from their heart. A bit like a stripper finally getting rid of last of her/his clothings, and knowing that after that it is impossible to excite the audience more any longer, and even repeat the act again so excitingly again... After using that card, they must have felt artistically empty. I think EXILE is a kind of thing one can honestly do only once. You can't fake that. To reveal your soul. It could be their biggest win ever, but probably a kind of Pyrrho's win in a long run artistic-wise.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-05 12:08 by Doxa.
Re: What is the most overrated stones album?
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: September 5, 2014 12:34
Quote
DoxaQuote
Silver DaggerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
LoveYouLiveQuote
RollingFreak
Exile. An incredible album, but its never my number 1 despite the fact that many others consider it theirs. Whether you like it or not, its got a few songs that are filler whereas their other 40 minute albums are concise masterpieces.
Sorry. Someone had to say it.
Well said (written) and I completely agree.
Just to give this balance, I think you're both completely missing the point of EOMS. If you remove those songs, it just doesn't compete with the other Big 3...it's because of those songs that this is a top album, possibly the best double album of all time, certainly better than the Beatles White album.
EOMS is the exception to the rule, less is more.
Spot on. A man with good taste and good sense.
Yep. Spot on, Treacle. Very well put. A great EXILE discussion is over-all going on this thread, so let me take part a bit too. I take teh issue why it turned to be like it is, a double album.
I think we have to remember that the Stones had just released a couple of perfect 'single' albums, each showing an artistic progression, and in which the quality of song-writing have been extremely high. It wasn't that easy to come up with another 'best of' kind of album. I think especially STICKY FINGERS was almost too perfect album, setting the bar too high - like EXILE would show, the band was not any longer changing too much in sound - the Taylor band sound was kind of fixed by then, and Jagger/Richards workshop was not taking such huge steps forwards in difference any longer. How to follow such a perfect album in which each track is artistically speaking spot on, a perfect artistic statement of its own? If you have a hit material like "Tumbling Dice" to compete with "Brown Sugar", country songs like "Sweet Virginia" and "Torn & Frayed" to compete with "Wild Horses" and "Dead Flowers", what would happen?
I think the Stones actually recognized the problem - that of them not probably couldn't meet the challenge of STICKY FINGERS in its own field, not having enough of top-class material - and decided to change the tactics - to do something completely different, but still great. Remember, they still then were damn ambitious artistically, and each new record was treated as a artistic statemnt that needed to show some sort of progression, or at least something 'novel'. (Those were the days).
So, they decided to give us a more deeper, thorough-going exhibition of their sound and music in its all richness. Them looking more 'inside' than 'outside'. In where we could see the nuances and sides that probably were not so recognizable in their masterful individual songs earlier. The songs themselves didn't matter so much any longer, it was the way they were presented, each completing each other, and since there was enough of room for everything, there was no forced feeling that like 'every track needs to be radio-friendly, easily accessible'. It was more like let us play, and damn relaese, anything we seem to like, things we play by instinct, relying solely on our taste in good music. That turned to be their most ambitious, daring artistic statement ever. And greatest rock and roll album ever released.
To put it simply, and to repeat myself to emphasize the point, I think the uniqueness of EXILE is that it was not any longer the songs themselves, or their greatness, that was driving them. It was more the way they were presented. It was the total sound of the songs (taking alone or together), of which the 'written' songs themselves were just one component, that took command. In EXILE the Stones put all their creative energy and passion into performing, to the delivery. With that dedication, no matter what they played, it was perfect all the same. The timeless star of EXILE is the performance itself. Rock and roll cannot be played any better - it is the ultimate ideal of that. There is so much passion, incredible little nuances, odd choices - but taking together, it is a damn cohesive, strong musical statement by a precise vision. But to 'get' it, we need to hear the whole album, even though each track still represents the whole album - each having an "EXILE feel". STICKY FINGERS sounded very professional, but a bit uptight - The Stones showing that they are not just great song-writers, but masters in any given genre of modern rock, like a master thesis of rock band credibility. EXILE, by contrast, couldn't care less of the 'form' any longer, but just showing the band relying on their own insticts, and being damn proud of it. The result is much more relaxed than STICKY FINGERS.
But I can easily understand the the frustration the band had after EXILE. In that record they actually had used about the last card what they have offer, by letting us to see their musical intuition in its purity, playing anything they know from their heart. A bit like a stripper finally getting rid of last of her/his clothings, and knowing that after that it is impossible to excite the audience more any longer, and even repeat the act again so excitingly again... After using that card, they must have felt artistically empty. I think EXILE is a kind of thing one can honestly do only once. You can't fake that. To reveal your soul. It could be their biggest win ever, but probably a kind of Pyrrho's win in a long run artistic-wise.
- Doxa
Highly interesting and very well formulated, Doxa.
Dare I present one or two objections, though, even if I can't know for sure that what I will say is more certain. However, I wonder if the music was that deliberately made after such a masterplan. Rather I think one aspect of the recorded result might be that it happened more as a non-planned process. As such, probably more than its predecessors. To some extent as a consequence of their more or less improvised exile in France, not out of one leading idea what the result was to end up as. In the creative process, the musical output profitted from their talents in a less directed way under such circumstances. They counted on their ability. Come what may. After the many nights of recording hours ebbing out, they (Jagger and Richards) succeded in laying a certain "unstructured structure" on some of the heaps of recorded material.
Afterwards, after the release of EXILE, they seemed to feel drained from creating on that high level. But that exhaustion had not to arrive that way just then. It could have happened before that album or later. We tend to think that what happened, is what had to happen, I believe, and in some contexts that may be right to think as well. But not in this case, I wonder.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-05 12:40 by Witness.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
abbiatti , alexander paul , babyblue , BowieStone , crholmstrom , dishevelmentblues , EJM , imthemastah , MisterDDDD , MJAGGER123 , NedKellyBandit , Nobbi82 , snoopy2 , snorton , soundboard , syrel , TW2019 , werner67976 , wineaux , wiredallnight
Guests:
2029
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10