For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Naturalust
Although, in all fairness, I have no idea what "spavined" means ...
I know it is a type of arthritis old horses get, seems a strange adjective for a song. Keith's fingers maybe....
peace
Quote
NaturalustQuote
TheBlockbuster
Exile has to many ''weak'' songs to be their best album.
Rip This Joint
Shake Your Hips
Casino Boogie
Sweet Black Angel
Turd On The Run
Ventilator Blues
I Just Want To See His Face
All those tracks are bad song material by Stones 70's standards.
Exile On Main Street without those 7 relatively weak songs would at least been a candidate for the #1 Stones album imo.
Ventilator Blues weak? You need to listen to it about 30 mores times, it'll grow on ya like a fungus, just like the rest of the record. Those arguably aren't the stand out tracks but the energy, sax and piano on Rip This Joint is a lot of fun. And Mick's vocals on all those tunes are a delight to me. Compared to the output since Steel Wheels they are all classics, imo
Curious what you think the #1 Stones album is?
peace
Quote
NaturalustQuote
TheBlockbuster
Exile has to many ''weak'' songs to be their best album.
Rip This Joint
Shake Your Hips
Casino Boogie
Sweet Black Angel
Turd On The Run
Ventilator Blues
I Just Want To See His Face
All those tracks are bad song material by Stones 70's standards.
Exile On Main Street without those 7 relatively weak songs would at least been a candidate for the #1 Stones album imo.
Ventilator Blues weak? You need to listen to it about 30 mores times, it'll grow on ya like a fungus, just like the rest of the record. Those arguably aren't the stand out tracks but the energy, sax and piano on Rip This Joint is a lot of fun. And Mick's vocals on all those tunes are a delight to me. Compared to the output since Steel Wheels they are all classics, imo
Curious what you think the #1 Stones album is?
peace
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
EasterManQuote
LeonidPQuote
2120Wolf
I would like to hear definitions of what one thinks a "Real Stones Fan" is.
....
To me, if a so-called fan says that Exile is not the Stones masterpiece, I pretty much dismiss them as a fake fan.
I would rather say if a person says that Exile is not the best Stones record, then they probably are a Real Stones Fan since it's an indicator saying this person has listened to their whole catalogue more than once.
And lots of younger fans just say Exile is best because it's more or less a law or a habit to say that since people like LeonidP keep posting bs like this.
The album really wasn't that well received back in the day (after SF!). We discussed it...that was not the best way to celebrate a new RS album after BB, LIB & SF!!
And when GHS came it brought new discussions between people in favor of EOMS and those in favor of GHS; we were still evaluating EOMS because it was different. GHS was seen as more in line or a logical folow up to SF, LIB & BB and in those days GHS was also seen as a symbol of the change as a band: we knew what they were doing and creating because we were following them since there was nothing else to follow cause they were our culture - and they were following us.
EOMS wasn't celebrated as the best they ever did. It was SF, LIB & BB that was played over and over again and at the end of the party it was GHS.
EOMS really wasn't that special back then...
People who don't know arguments like this can still be called a fan. I don't care. Just don't say something because of peer pressure and develope your own taste and create your own opinion.
This is interesting ... but is not what I remember. EXILE was definitely met with a certain puzzlement. The vocal mix, scruffiness, general downbeat vibe, etc., were all remarked upon. But my recollection is that fairly quickly, perhaps as soon as the end of the 72 STP tour of No Amer, opinions were already being revised pretty dramatically in the record's favor.
GOAT'S HEAD SOUP, on the other hand, was almost universally derided. There were some outliers who gave the band points for a certain 'experimental' spirit, stretching boundaries of r'n'r, etc. But I recall the overall reaction being very negative. Plus, then the glammed out Mick led the band in the televised DANCING/ANGIE/SILVER TRAIN on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert and the floodgates of "the Stones are now officially a) parodying themselves, and b) no longer leading but rather reacting to Bowie, et al" were open.
By who?
And in the case of GHS you're probably not quoting consumers: Angie sailed to No. 1 in the US and became a worldwide hit and the album also shot to No. 1 worldwide (went triple platinum in the US)...
Edit:
By the late 1970s, critics had suddenly come to view EOMS as the RS' greatest record...
On the response to the album, KR said:
"When Exile came out it didn't sell particularly well at the beginning, and it was also pretty much universally panned. But within a few years the people who had written the reviews saying it was a piece of crap were extolling it as the best frigging album in the world."
As pointed out in a post below by Bsebastian, Lester Bangs had revised his opinion of EXILE within 6 mos of its release. And in the Rolling Stone mag review of GOATS HEAD SOUP of Aug 73 the following appeared:
"At first, Exile on Main Street seemed a terrible disappointment, with its murky, mindless mixes and concentration on the trivial. Over time, it emerged as a masterful study in poetic vulgarity."
I may have been a bit aggressive about saying the tide on EXILE had turned by the time the STP tour was over ... but it certainly didn't take more than 6-12 mos for the critical consensus to begin to change.
As for the commercial appeal of GHS: sure, it sold a ton of records. As we know, though, from this band, and from many others, contemporary levels of commerical success are not always the best gauge of quality and artistic merit.
I've always pretty much agreed with Robert Christgau on GHS:
"Except for the spavined "Dancing With Mr. D," and the oxymoronic "Can You Hear the Music," these are good songs. But the execution is slovenly. I don't mean sloppy, which can be exciting--I mean arrogant and enervated all at once. Mick's phrasing is always indolent, but usually it's calculated down to the last minibeat as well; here the words sometimes catch him yawning. Without trying to be "tight" the band usually grooves into a reckless, sweaty coherence; here they hope the licks will stand on their own. Only on "@#$%&," the most outrageous Chuck Berry throwaway of the band's career, does this record really take off."
Although, in all fairness, I have no idea what "spavined" means ...
Quote
LeonioidLove is all you need...Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
stones2000
I just love the Stones!
That's all it takes
wait...
;)
Quote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
EasterManQuote
LeonidPQuote
2120Wolf
I would like to hear definitions of what one thinks a "Real Stones Fan" is.
....
To me, if a so-called fan says that Exile is not the Stones masterpiece, I pretty much dismiss them as a fake fan.
I would rather say if a person says that Exile is not the best Stones record, then they probably are a Real Stones Fan since it's an indicator saying this person has listened to their whole catalogue more than once.
And lots of younger fans just say Exile is best because it's more or less a law or a habit to say that since people like LeonidP keep posting bs like this.
The album really wasn't that well received back in the day (after SF!). We discussed it...that was not the best way to celebrate a new RS album after BB, LIB & SF!!
And when GHS came it brought new discussions between people in favor of EOMS and those in favor of GHS; we were still evaluating EOMS because it was different. GHS was seen as more in line or a logical folow up to SF, LIB & BB and in those days GHS was also seen as a symbol of the change as a band: we knew what they were doing and creating because we were following them since there was nothing else to follow cause they were our culture - and they were following us.
EOMS wasn't celebrated as the best they ever did. It was SF, LIB & BB that was played over and over again and at the end of the party it was GHS.
EOMS really wasn't that special back then...
People who don't know arguments like this can still be called a fan. I don't care. Just don't say something because of peer pressure and develope your own taste and create your own opinion.
This is interesting ... but is not what I remember. EXILE was definitely met with a certain puzzlement. The vocal mix, scruffiness, general downbeat vibe, etc., were all remarked upon. But my recollection is that fairly quickly, perhaps as soon as the end of the 72 STP tour of No Amer, opinions were already being revised pretty dramatically in the record's favor.
GOAT'S HEAD SOUP, on the other hand, was almost universally derided. There were some outliers who gave the band points for a certain 'experimental' spirit, stretching boundaries of r'n'r, etc. But I recall the overall reaction being very negative. Plus, then the glammed out Mick led the band in the televised DANCING/ANGIE/SILVER TRAIN on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert and the floodgates of "the Stones are now officially a) parodying themselves, and b) no longer leading but rather reacting to Bowie, et al" were open.
By who?
And in the case of GHS you're probably not quoting consumers: Angie sailed to No. 1 in the US and became a worldwide hit and the album also shot to No. 1 worldwide (went triple platinum in the US)...
Edit:
By the late 1970s, critics had suddenly come to view EOMS as the RS' greatest record...
On the response to the album, KR said:
"When Exile came out it didn't sell particularly well at the beginning, and it was also pretty much universally panned. But within a few years the people who had written the reviews saying it was a piece of crap were extolling it as the best frigging album in the world."
As pointed out in a post below by Bsebastian, Lester Bangs had revised his opinion of EXILE within 6 mos of its release. And in the Rolling Stone mag review of GOATS HEAD SOUP of Aug 73 the following appeared:
"At first, Exile on Main Street seemed a terrible disappointment, with its murky, mindless mixes and concentration on the trivial. Over time, it emerged as a masterful study in poetic vulgarity."
I may have been a bit aggressive about saying the tide on EXILE had turned by the time the STP tour was over ... but it certainly didn't take more than 6-12 mos for the critical consensus to begin to change.
As for the commercial appeal of GHS: sure, it sold a ton of records. As we know, though, from this band, and from many others, contemporary levels of commerical success are not always the best gauge of quality and artistic merit.
I've always pretty much agreed with Robert Christgau on GHS:
"Except for the spavined "Dancing With Mr. D," and the oxymoronic "Can You Hear the Music," these are good songs. But the execution is slovenly. I don't mean sloppy, which can be exciting--I mean arrogant and enervated all at once. Mick's phrasing is always indolent, but usually it's calculated down to the last minibeat as well; here the words sometimes catch him yawning. Without trying to be "tight" the band usually grooves into a reckless, sweaty coherence; here they hope the licks will stand on their own. Only on "@#$%&," the most outrageous Chuck Berry throwaway of the band's career, does this record really take off."
Although, in all fairness, I have no idea what "spavined" means ...
Thanks for your reaction LBA72.
First: (Levels of) commercial succes can travel hand in hand with quality and artistic merit my friend. Or is it prove of quality that EOMS sold less and got less airtime and did not have a No.1 single? Is it prove of quality when five critics say it's their greatest record?
Maybe their pr machine worked very well in those days and they felt they needed to do something after those somewhat disappointing sales and airtime...the reviews could get better! You know how many 'critics' were on the road with them? I never counted them but I tell you this: a five star review can travel hand in hand with all sorts of pleasure (sexually, philosophically and financially).
The difference is that my opinion dates from back in the day and hasn't changed that much (later on I listened to it more often and now I think it's good but still GHS is better to me). What I use to evaluate an album is my own ears and remembering what we all said about it and if it was played often or not and which songs were played most (and stuff like that). Plus I like to read what the makers think about their own work in retrospect (see my other post) and other people working in the same 'business.'
Of course (in the sixties and early seventies) it was interesting to read about the RS but not in the way that it mattered to us a lot how the magazines (there were just a few) would write about an album: we would buy those albums anyway and form our own opinion on the spot. Things changed - today much more people base their opinion as well as their buying behaviour on what they read (or hear or see). Also on sites like IORR there are younger people who feel the need to be acknowledged as a true fan so when they read a quote by LB their opinion is formed. And there are a lot of people here who like to specialize in giving opinions and reviews based on old reviews by guys like LB because they feel it might give them some importance.
That's why I appreciate your reaction; not many people have an opinion based on their own memory and experience.
Oh and in his review of EOMS in Rolling Stone Lenny Kaye wrote:
"...they've stuck close to home, doing the sort of things that come naturally, not stepping out of the realm in which they feel most comfortable. Undeniably it makes for some fine music, and it surely is a good sign to see them recording so prolifically again; but I still think that the great Stones album of their mature period is yet to come."
Together with my own memory of how we discussed the albums in those days and the airtime the albums and singles got it's absolutely fair to say EOMS wasn't that well received by fans (SF was and GHS was!) when it came out...and that by the late 1970s critics had come to view EOMS as their greatest record. And that has been repeated so many times by so many 'critics' that practically everyone on IORR will believe it is.
I wonder how many people on IORR remember their reaction when the album came out?
Quote
ChelseaGirls
The more I listen to Tumbling Dice the more it gets awful. I love Exile and SF actually, I just think that Beggars is better and that there are songs on GHS which are better than some EOMS songs... Well... NOW I have my typical "music message board hair-splitting debate" sentence!
mainly money... lots and lots and lots of moneyQuote
treaclefingersQuote
LeonioidLove is all you need...Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
stones2000
I just love the Stones!
That's all it takes
wait...
;)
well...love AND money to be a Stones fan with any kind of credibility.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
EasterManQuote
LeonidPQuote
2120Wolf
I would like to hear definitions of what one thinks a "Real Stones Fan" is.
....
To me, if a so-called fan says that Exile is not the Stones masterpiece, I pretty much dismiss them as a fake fan.
I would rather say if a person says that Exile is not the best Stones record, then they probably are a Real Stones Fan since it's an indicator saying this person has listened to their whole catalogue more than once.
And lots of younger fans just say Exile is best because it's more or less a law or a habit to say that since people like LeonidP keep posting bs like this.
The album really wasn't that well received back in the day (after SF!). We discussed it...that was not the best way to celebrate a new RS album after BB, LIB & SF!!
And when GHS came it brought new discussions between people in favor of EOMS and those in favor of GHS; we were still evaluating EOMS because it was different. GHS was seen as more in line or a logical folow up to SF, LIB & BB and in those days GHS was also seen as a symbol of the change as a band: we knew what they were doing and creating because we were following them since there was nothing else to follow cause they were our culture - and they were following us.
EOMS wasn't celebrated as the best they ever did. It was SF, LIB & BB that was played over and over again and at the end of the party it was GHS.
EOMS really wasn't that special back then...
People who don't know arguments like this can still be called a fan. I don't care. Just don't say something because of peer pressure and develope your own taste and create your own opinion.
This is interesting ... but is not what I remember. EXILE was definitely met with a certain puzzlement. The vocal mix, scruffiness, general downbeat vibe, etc., were all remarked upon. But my recollection is that fairly quickly, perhaps as soon as the end of the 72 STP tour of No Amer, opinions were already being revised pretty dramatically in the record's favor.
GOAT'S HEAD SOUP, on the other hand, was almost universally derided. There were some outliers who gave the band points for a certain 'experimental' spirit, stretching boundaries of r'n'r, etc. But I recall the overall reaction being very negative. Plus, then the glammed out Mick led the band in the televised DANCING/ANGIE/SILVER TRAIN on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert and the floodgates of "the Stones are now officially a) parodying themselves, and b) no longer leading but rather reacting to Bowie, et al" were open.
By who?
And in the case of GHS you're probably not quoting consumers: Angie sailed to No. 1 in the US and became a worldwide hit and the album also shot to No. 1 worldwide (went triple platinum in the US)...
Edit:
By the late 1970s, critics had suddenly come to view EOMS as the RS' greatest record...
On the response to the album, KR said:
"When Exile came out it didn't sell particularly well at the beginning, and it was also pretty much universally panned. But within a few years the people who had written the reviews saying it was a piece of crap were extolling it as the best frigging album in the world."
As pointed out in a post below by Bsebastian, Lester Bangs had revised his opinion of EXILE within 6 mos of its release. And in the Rolling Stone mag review of GOATS HEAD SOUP of Aug 73 the following appeared:
"At first, Exile on Main Street seemed a terrible disappointment, with its murky, mindless mixes and concentration on the trivial. Over time, it emerged as a masterful study in poetic vulgarity."
I may have been a bit aggressive about saying the tide on EXILE had turned by the time the STP tour was over ... but it certainly didn't take more than 6-12 mos for the critical consensus to begin to change.
As for the commercial appeal of GHS: sure, it sold a ton of records. As we know, though, from this band, and from many others, contemporary levels of commerical success are not always the best gauge of quality and artistic merit.
I've always pretty much agreed with Robert Christgau on GHS:
"Except for the spavined "Dancing With Mr. D," and the oxymoronic "Can You Hear the Music," these are good songs. But the execution is slovenly. I don't mean sloppy, which can be exciting--I mean arrogant and enervated all at once. Mick's phrasing is always indolent, but usually it's calculated down to the last minibeat as well; here the words sometimes catch him yawning. Without trying to be "tight" the band usually grooves into a reckless, sweaty coherence; here they hope the licks will stand on their own. Only on "@#$%&," the most outrageous Chuck Berry throwaway of the band's career, does this record really take off."
Although, in all fairness, I have no idea what "spavined" means ...
Thanks for your reaction LBA72.
First: (Levels of) commercial succes can travel hand in hand with quality and artistic merit my friend. Or is it prove of quality that EOMS sold less and got less airtime and did not have a No.1 single? Is it prove of quality when five critics say it's their greatest record?
Maybe their pr machine worked very well in those days and they felt they needed to do something after those somewhat disappointing sales and airtime...the reviews could get better! You know how many 'critics' were on the road with them? I never counted them but I tell you this: a five star review can travel hand in hand with all sorts of pleasure (sexually, philosophically and financially).
The difference is that my opinion dates from back in the day and hasn't changed that much (later on I listened to it more often and now I think it's good but still GHS is better to me). What I use to evaluate an album is my own ears and remembering what we all said about it and if it was played often or not and which songs were played most (and stuff like that). Plus I like to read what the makers think about their own work in retrospect (see my other post) and other people working in the same 'business.'
Of course (in the sixties and early seventies) it was interesting to read about the RS but not in the way that it mattered to us a lot how the magazines (there were just a few) would write about an album: we would buy those albums anyway and form our own opinion on the spot. Things changed - today much more people base their opinion as well as their buying behaviour on what they read (or hear or see). Also on sites like IORR there are younger people who feel the need to be acknowledged as a true fan so when they read a quote by LB their opinion is formed. And there are a lot of people here who like to specialize in giving opinions and reviews based on old reviews by guys like LB because they feel it might give them some importance.
That's why I appreciate your reaction; not many people have an opinion based on their own memory and experience.
Oh and in his review of EOMS in Rolling Stone Lenny Kaye wrote:
"...they've stuck close to home, doing the sort of things that come naturally, not stepping out of the realm in which they feel most comfortable. Undeniably it makes for some fine music, and it surely is a good sign to see them recording so prolifically again; but I still think that the great Stones album of their mature period is yet to come."
Together with my own memory of how we discussed the albums in those days and the airtime the albums and singles got it's absolutely fair to say EOMS wasn't that well received by fans (SF was and GHS was!) when it came out...and that by the late 1970s critics had come to view EOMS as their greatest record. And that has been repeated so many times by so many 'critics' that practically everyone on IORR will believe it is.
I wonder how many people on IORR remember their reaction when the album came out?
First of all, I never new latebloomer's reviews held such sway but I'll accept that. Secondly, EOMS's a grower not a show-er. The fact that it wasn't universally admired initially but grew in stature over time is sort of like comparing songs on any one album. You've got the first single, which is usually the one that has the immediate 'hook' that people love and will drive sales of the album. Once there, you get to what really matters, which quite often are better songs than the single.
A lot of people love 'Brown Sugar', but will pick Sway, CYHMK, Bitch, Dead Flowers, Moonlight Mile...in a heart beat as their favourite song on SF's.
EOMS didn't have what would generally be considered a strong single, at least for them. But the songs on the album, Tumbling Dice included, just get stronger and more interesting with repeat listens.
So that's why ultimately Tumbling Dice is better than Angie, and EOMS is far preferable to GHS.
Quote
DreamerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
EasterManQuote
LeonidPQuote
2120Wolf
I would like to hear definitions of what one thinks a "Real Stones Fan" is.
....
To me, if a so-called fan says that Exile is not the Stones masterpiece, I pretty much dismiss them as a fake fan.
I would rather say if a person says that Exile is not the best Stones record, then they probably are a Real Stones Fan since it's an indicator saying this person has listened to their whole catalogue more than once.
And lots of younger fans just say Exile is best because it's more or less a law or a habit to say that since people like LeonidP keep posting bs like this.
The album really wasn't that well received back in the day (after SF!). We discussed it...that was not the best way to celebrate a new RS album after BB, LIB & SF!!
And when GHS came it brought new discussions between people in favor of EOMS and those in favor of GHS; we were still evaluating EOMS because it was different. GHS was seen as more in line or a logical folow up to SF, LIB & BB and in those days GHS was also seen as a symbol of the change as a band: we knew what they were doing and creating because we were following them since there was nothing else to follow cause they were our culture - and they were following us.
EOMS wasn't celebrated as the best they ever did. It was SF, LIB & BB that was played over and over again and at the end of the party it was GHS.
EOMS really wasn't that special back then...
People who don't know arguments like this can still be called a fan. I don't care. Just don't say something because of peer pressure and develope your own taste and create your own opinion.
This is interesting ... but is not what I remember. EXILE was definitely met with a certain puzzlement. The vocal mix, scruffiness, general downbeat vibe, etc., were all remarked upon. But my recollection is that fairly quickly, perhaps as soon as the end of the 72 STP tour of No Amer, opinions were already being revised pretty dramatically in the record's favor.
GOAT'S HEAD SOUP, on the other hand, was almost universally derided. There were some outliers who gave the band points for a certain 'experimental' spirit, stretching boundaries of r'n'r, etc. But I recall the overall reaction being very negative. Plus, then the glammed out Mick led the band in the televised DANCING/ANGIE/SILVER TRAIN on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert and the floodgates of "the Stones are now officially a) parodying themselves, and b) no longer leading but rather reacting to Bowie, et al" were open.
By who?
And in the case of GHS you're probably not quoting consumers: Angie sailed to No. 1 in the US and became a worldwide hit and the album also shot to No. 1 worldwide (went triple platinum in the US)...
Edit:
By the late 1970s, critics had suddenly come to view EOMS as the RS' greatest record...
On the response to the album, KR said:
"When Exile came out it didn't sell particularly well at the beginning, and it was also pretty much universally panned. But within a few years the people who had written the reviews saying it was a piece of crap were extolling it as the best frigging album in the world."
As pointed out in a post below by Bsebastian, Lester Bangs had revised his opinion of EXILE within 6 mos of its release. And in the Rolling Stone mag review of GOATS HEAD SOUP of Aug 73 the following appeared:
"At first, Exile on Main Street seemed a terrible disappointment, with its murky, mindless mixes and concentration on the trivial. Over time, it emerged as a masterful study in poetic vulgarity."
I may have been a bit aggressive about saying the tide on EXILE had turned by the time the STP tour was over ... but it certainly didn't take more than 6-12 mos for the critical consensus to begin to change.
As for the commercial appeal of GHS: sure, it sold a ton of records. As we know, though, from this band, and from many others, contemporary levels of commerical success are not always the best gauge of quality and artistic merit.
I've always pretty much agreed with Robert Christgau on GHS:
"Except for the spavined "Dancing With Mr. D," and the oxymoronic "Can You Hear the Music," these are good songs. But the execution is slovenly. I don't mean sloppy, which can be exciting--I mean arrogant and enervated all at once. Mick's phrasing is always indolent, but usually it's calculated down to the last minibeat as well; here the words sometimes catch him yawning. Without trying to be "tight" the band usually grooves into a reckless, sweaty coherence; here they hope the licks will stand on their own. Only on "@#$%&," the most outrageous Chuck Berry throwaway of the band's career, does this record really take off."
Although, in all fairness, I have no idea what "spavined" means ...
Thanks for your reaction LBA72.
First: (Levels of) commercial succes can travel hand in hand with quality and artistic merit my friend. Or is it prove of quality that EOMS sold less and got less airtime and did not have a No.1 single? Is it prove of quality when five critics say it's their greatest record?
Maybe their pr machine worked very well in those days and they felt they needed to do something after those somewhat disappointing sales and airtime...the reviews could get better! You know how many 'critics' were on the road with them? I never counted them but I tell you this: a five star review can travel hand in hand with all sorts of pleasure (sexually, philosophically and financially).
The difference is that my opinion dates from back in the day and hasn't changed that much (later on I listened to it more often and now I think it's good but still GHS is better to me). What I use to evaluate an album is my own ears and remembering what we all said about it and if it was played often or not and which songs were played most (and stuff like that). Plus I like to read what the makers think about their own work in retrospect (see my other post) and other people working in the same 'business.'
Of course (in the sixties and early seventies) it was interesting to read about the RS but not in the way that it mattered to us a lot how the magazines (there were just a few) would write about an album: we would buy those albums anyway and form our own opinion on the spot. Things changed - today much more people base their opinion as well as their buying behaviour on what they read (or hear or see). Also on sites like IORR there are younger people who feel the need to be acknowledged as a true fan so when they read a quote by LB their opinion is formed. And there are a lot of people here who like to specialize in giving opinions and reviews based on old reviews by guys like LB because they feel it might give them some importance.
That's why I appreciate your reaction; not many people have an opinion based on their own memory and experience.
Oh and in his review of EOMS in Rolling Stone Lenny Kaye wrote:
"...they've stuck close to home, doing the sort of things that come naturally, not stepping out of the realm in which they feel most comfortable. Undeniably it makes for some fine music, and it surely is a good sign to see them recording so prolifically again; but I still think that the great Stones album of their mature period is yet to come."
Together with my own memory of how we discussed the albums in those days and the airtime the albums and singles got it's absolutely fair to say EOMS wasn't that well received by fans (SF was and GHS was!) when it came out...and that by the late 1970s critics had come to view EOMS as their greatest record. And that has been repeated so many times by so many 'critics' that practically everyone on IORR will believe it is.
I wonder how many people on IORR remember their reaction when the album came out?
First of all, I never new latebloomer's reviews held such sway but I'll accept that. Secondly, EOMS's a grower not a show-er. The fact that it wasn't universally admired initially but grew in stature over time is sort of like comparing songs on any one album. You've got the first single, which is usually the one that has the immediate 'hook' that people love and will drive sales of the album. Once there, you get to what really matters, which quite often are better songs than the single.
A lot of people love 'Brown Sugar', but will pick Sway, CYHMK, Bitch, Dead Flowers, Moonlight Mile...in a heart beat as their favourite song on SF's.
EOMS didn't have what would generally be considered a strong single, at least for them. But the songs on the album, Tumbling Dice included, just get stronger and more interesting with repeat listens.
So that's why ultimately Tumbling Dice is better than Angie, and EOMS is far preferable to GHS.
I meant Lester Bangs but of course I'm interested in Latebloomer's views and reviews on GHS and/or EOMS anytime.
It's not about the fact how good EOMS or GHS exactly is. I was just showing how opinions are formed depending on circumstances and that EOMS wasn't felt as such a good album at the moment it came out.
If your theory bares any holding for the future we need to listen to ABB six times a day to make it a 'grower' so critics can mark it as essential or even their greatest after SF, BB, LIB & GHS
Quote
DandelionPowderman
GHS it too inconsistent for me. Some great stuff, sure, but as an album it lacks a wholeness, imo.
That's exactly where Exile, SF and BB are great, imo. SG, too, of course.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DreamerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
EasterManQuote
LeonidPQuote
2120Wolf
I would like to hear definitions of what one thinks a "Real Stones Fan" is.
....
To me, if a so-called fan says that Exile is not the Stones masterpiece, I pretty much dismiss them as a fake fan.
I would rather say if a person says that Exile is not the best Stones record, then they probably are a Real Stones Fan since it's an indicator saying this person has listened to their whole catalogue more than once.
And lots of younger fans just say Exile is best because it's more or less a law or a habit to say that since people like LeonidP keep posting bs like this.
The album really wasn't that well received back in the day (after SF!). We discussed it...that was not the best way to celebrate a new RS album after BB, LIB & SF!!
And when GHS came it brought new discussions between people in favor of EOMS and those in favor of GHS; we were still evaluating EOMS because it was different. GHS was seen as more in line or a logical folow up to SF, LIB & BB and in those days GHS was also seen as a symbol of the change as a band: we knew what they were doing and creating because we were following them since there was nothing else to follow cause they were our culture - and they were following us.
EOMS wasn't celebrated as the best they ever did. It was SF, LIB & BB that was played over and over again and at the end of the party it was GHS.
EOMS really wasn't that special back then...
People who don't know arguments like this can still be called a fan. I don't care. Just don't say something because of peer pressure and develope your own taste and create your own opinion.
This is interesting ... but is not what I remember. EXILE was definitely met with a certain puzzlement. The vocal mix, scruffiness, general downbeat vibe, etc., were all remarked upon. But my recollection is that fairly quickly, perhaps as soon as the end of the 72 STP tour of No Amer, opinions were already being revised pretty dramatically in the record's favor.
GOAT'S HEAD SOUP, on the other hand, was almost universally derided. There were some outliers who gave the band points for a certain 'experimental' spirit, stretching boundaries of r'n'r, etc. But I recall the overall reaction being very negative. Plus, then the glammed out Mick led the band in the televised DANCING/ANGIE/SILVER TRAIN on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert and the floodgates of "the Stones are now officially a) parodying themselves, and b) no longer leading but rather reacting to Bowie, et al" were open.
By who?
And in the case of GHS you're probably not quoting consumers: Angie sailed to No. 1 in the US and became a worldwide hit and the album also shot to No. 1 worldwide (went triple platinum in the US)...
Edit:
By the late 1970s, critics had suddenly come to view EOMS as the RS' greatest record...
On the response to the album, KR said:
"When Exile came out it didn't sell particularly well at the beginning, and it was also pretty much universally panned. But within a few years the people who had written the reviews saying it was a piece of crap were extolling it as the best frigging album in the world."
As pointed out in a post below by Bsebastian, Lester Bangs had revised his opinion of EXILE within 6 mos of its release. And in the Rolling Stone mag review of GOATS HEAD SOUP of Aug 73 the following appeared:
"At first, Exile on Main Street seemed a terrible disappointment, with its murky, mindless mixes and concentration on the trivial. Over time, it emerged as a masterful study in poetic vulgarity."
I may have been a bit aggressive about saying the tide on EXILE had turned by the time the STP tour was over ... but it certainly didn't take more than 6-12 mos for the critical consensus to begin to change.
As for the commercial appeal of GHS: sure, it sold a ton of records. As we know, though, from this band, and from many others, contemporary levels of commerical success are not always the best gauge of quality and artistic merit.
I've always pretty much agreed with Robert Christgau on GHS:
"Except for the spavined "Dancing With Mr. D," and the oxymoronic "Can You Hear the Music," these are good songs. But the execution is slovenly. I don't mean sloppy, which can be exciting--I mean arrogant and enervated all at once. Mick's phrasing is always indolent, but usually it's calculated down to the last minibeat as well; here the words sometimes catch him yawning. Without trying to be "tight" the band usually grooves into a reckless, sweaty coherence; here they hope the licks will stand on their own. Only on "@#$%&," the most outrageous Chuck Berry throwaway of the band's career, does this record really take off."
Although, in all fairness, I have no idea what "spavined" means ...
Thanks for your reaction LBA72.
First: (Levels of) commercial succes can travel hand in hand with quality and artistic merit my friend. Or is it prove of quality that EOMS sold less and got less airtime and did not have a No.1 single? Is it prove of quality when five critics say it's their greatest record?
Maybe their pr machine worked very well in those days and they felt they needed to do something after those somewhat disappointing sales and airtime...the reviews could get better! You know how many 'critics' were on the road with them? I never counted them but I tell you this: a five star review can travel hand in hand with all sorts of pleasure (sexually, philosophically and financially).
The difference is that my opinion dates from back in the day and hasn't changed that much (later on I listened to it more often and now I think it's good but still GHS is better to me). What I use to evaluate an album is my own ears and remembering what we all said about it and if it was played often or not and which songs were played most (and stuff like that). Plus I like to read what the makers think about their own work in retrospect (see my other post) and other people working in the same 'business.'
Of course (in the sixties and early seventies) it was interesting to read about the RS but not in the way that it mattered to us a lot how the magazines (there were just a few) would write about an album: we would buy those albums anyway and form our own opinion on the spot. Things changed - today much more people base their opinion as well as their buying behaviour on what they read (or hear or see). Also on sites like IORR there are younger people who feel the need to be acknowledged as a true fan so when they read a quote by LB their opinion is formed. And there are a lot of people here who like to specialize in giving opinions and reviews based on old reviews by guys like LB because they feel it might give them some importance.
That's why I appreciate your reaction; not many people have an opinion based on their own memory and experience.
Oh and in his review of EOMS in Rolling Stone Lenny Kaye wrote:
"...they've stuck close to home, doing the sort of things that come naturally, not stepping out of the realm in which they feel most comfortable. Undeniably it makes for some fine music, and it surely is a good sign to see them recording so prolifically again; but I still think that the great Stones album of their mature period is yet to come."
Together with my own memory of how we discussed the albums in those days and the airtime the albums and singles got it's absolutely fair to say EOMS wasn't that well received by fans (SF was and GHS was!) when it came out...and that by the late 1970s critics had come to view EOMS as their greatest record. And that has been repeated so many times by so many 'critics' that practically everyone on IORR will believe it is.
I wonder how many people on IORR remember their reaction when the album came out?
First of all, I never new latebloomer's reviews held such sway but I'll accept that. Secondly, EOMS's a grower not a show-er. The fact that it wasn't universally admired initially but grew in stature over time is sort of like comparing songs on any one album. You've got the first single, which is usually the one that has the immediate 'hook' that people love and will drive sales of the album. Once there, you get to what really matters, which quite often are better songs than the single.
A lot of people love 'Brown Sugar', but will pick Sway, CYHMK, Bitch, Dead Flowers, Moonlight Mile...in a heart beat as their favourite song on SF's.
EOMS didn't have what would generally be considered a strong single, at least for them. But the songs on the album, Tumbling Dice included, just get stronger and more interesting with repeat listens.
So that's why ultimately Tumbling Dice is better than Angie, and EOMS is far preferable to GHS.
I meant Lester Bangs but of course I'm interested in Latebloomer's views and reviews on GHS and/or EOMS anytime.
It's not about the fact how good EOMS or GHS exactly is. I was just showing how opinions are formed depending on circumstances and that EOMS wasn't felt as such a good album at the moment it came out.
If your theory bares any holding for the future we need to listen to ABB six times a day to make it a 'grower' so critics can mark it as essential or even their greatest after SF, BB, LIB & GHS
Yeah, I knew you meant Lester Bangs...as far as ABB is concerned, all I`m saying is that certain albums get better with each listen, and certain albums get worse.
Just because you listen to an album 6 times a day doesn`t mean you`ll end up liking it.
Quote
DreamerQuote
DandelionPowderman
GHS it too inconsistent for me. Some great stuff, sure, but as an album it lacks a wholeness, imo.
That's exactly where Exile, SF and BB are great, imo. SG, too, of course.
Of course...I know your preferences. And I agree for 90%
At the same time I think EOMS is the one that's more inconsistent...
(But) to me it was just interesting to realise/see how lots of people years after EOMS came out instead of form an opinion after they bought and listened to the album (develope their own taste) they nowadays (influenced by media all over) just consume or otherwise 'take' the 'opinion' and spread it all over the place as the truth: look honey I just bought the greatest album by the RS. And they forget they have to 'let it grow' on them...
They just state EOMS was and is and will be their greatest album because all their friends at IORR and in the pit say the same. Of course peer pressure always exists but I get the feeling opinions/feelings were more discussed with friends after we bought the album...not before.
Quote
sundevil
real stones fans pack a 12 inch c*ck. too bad you're unqualified to talk about "real" stones fans.
Quote
StoneageQuote
sundevil
real stones fans pack a 12 inch c*ck. too bad you're unqualified to talk about "real" stones fans.
I think Sundevil nailed it here. It's the size of your todger that decides it. If it's tiny you're not a real Stones fan. Didn't Keith write a song about it by the way?
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DreamerQuote
DandelionPowderman
GHS it too inconsistent for me. Some great stuff, sure, but as an album it lacks a wholeness, imo.
That's exactly where Exile, SF and BB are great, imo. SG, too, of course.
Of course...I know your preferences. And I agree for 90%
At the same time I think EOMS is the one that's more inconsistent...
(But) to me it was just interesting to realise/see how lots of people years after EOMS came out instead of form an opinion after they bought and listened to the album (develope their own taste) they nowadays (influenced by media all over) just consume or otherwise 'take' the 'opinion' and spread it all over the place as the truth: look honey I just bought the greatest album by the RS. And they forget they have to 'let it grow' on them...
They just state EOMS was and is and will be their greatest album because all their friends at IORR and in the pit say the same. Of course peer pressure always exists but I get the feeling opinions/feelings were more discussed with friends after we bought the album...not before.
Your suggesting that there is some sort of `group think` happening, or a `conspiracy` to rewrite music history and give no credence to the idea that people may actually `prefer` EOMS album to most others.
MJ himself has not shown much love for EOMS, yet even still it has grown huge in stature over the years.
RSs went `rough and tumble` with EOMS and this, coupled perhaps with Sticky Fingers, are their archetypal albums...if people are talking about them in 100 years, it`ll be satisfaction, gimme shelter and these two.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DreamerQuote
DandelionPowderman
GHS it too inconsistent for me. Some great stuff, sure, but as an album it lacks a wholeness, imo.
That's exactly where Exile, SF and BB are great, imo. SG, too, of course.
Of course...I know your preferences. And I agree for 90%
At the same time I think EOMS is the one that's more inconsistent...
(But) to me it was just interesting to realise/see how lots of people years after EOMS came out instead of form an opinion after they bought and listened to the album (develope their own taste) they nowadays (influenced by media all over) just consume or otherwise 'take' the 'opinion' and spread it all over the place as the truth: look honey I just bought the greatest album by the RS. And they forget they have to 'let it grow' on them...
They just state EOMS was and is and will be their greatest album because all their friends at IORR and in the pit say the same. Of course peer pressure always exists but I get the feeling opinions/feelings were more discussed with friends after we bought the album...not before.
Your suggesting that there is some sort of `group think` happening, or a `conspiracy` to rewrite music history and give no credence to the idea that people may actually `prefer` EOMS album to most others.
MJ himself has not shown much love for EOMS, yet even still it has grown huge in stature over the years.
RSs went `rough and tumble` with EOMS and this, coupled perhaps with Sticky Fingers, are their archetypal albums...if people are talking about them in 100 years, it`ll be satisfaction, gimme shelter and these two.
Quote
DreamerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
EasterManQuote
LeonidPQuote
2120Wolf
I would like to hear definitions of what one thinks a "Real Stones Fan" is.
....
To me, if a so-called fan says that Exile is not the Stones masterpiece, I pretty much dismiss them as a fake fan.
I would rather say if a person says that Exile is not the best Stones record, then they probably are a Real Stones Fan since it's an indicator saying this person has listened to their whole catalogue more than once.
And lots of younger fans just say Exile is best because it's more or less a law or a habit to say that since people like LeonidP keep posting bs like this.
The album really wasn't that well received back in the day (after SF!). We discussed it...that was not the best way to celebrate a new RS album after BB, LIB & SF!!
And when GHS came it brought new discussions between people in favor of EOMS and those in favor of GHS; we were still evaluating EOMS because it was different. GHS was seen as more in line or a logical folow up to SF, LIB & BB and in those days GHS was also seen as a symbol of the change as a band: we knew what they were doing and creating because we were following them since there was nothing else to follow cause they were our culture - and they were following us.
EOMS wasn't celebrated as the best they ever did. It was SF, LIB & BB that was played over and over again and at the end of the party it was GHS.
EOMS really wasn't that special back then...
People who don't know arguments like this can still be called a fan. I don't care. Just don't say something because of peer pressure and develope your own taste and create your own opinion.
This is interesting ... but is not what I remember. EXILE was definitely met with a certain puzzlement. The vocal mix, scruffiness, general downbeat vibe, etc., were all remarked upon. But my recollection is that fairly quickly, perhaps as soon as the end of the 72 STP tour of No Amer, opinions were already being revised pretty dramatically in the record's favor.
GOAT'S HEAD SOUP, on the other hand, was almost universally derided. There were some outliers who gave the band points for a certain 'experimental' spirit, stretching boundaries of r'n'r, etc. But I recall the overall reaction being very negative. Plus, then the glammed out Mick led the band in the televised DANCING/ANGIE/SILVER TRAIN on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert and the floodgates of "the Stones are now officially a) parodying themselves, and b) no longer leading but rather reacting to Bowie, et al" were open.
By who?
And in the case of GHS you're probably not quoting consumers: Angie sailed to No. 1 in the US and became a worldwide hit and the album also shot to No. 1 worldwide (went triple platinum in the US)...
Edit:
By the late 1970s, critics had suddenly come to view EOMS as the RS' greatest record...
On the response to the album, KR said:
"When Exile came out it didn't sell particularly well at the beginning, and it was also pretty much universally panned. But within a few years the people who had written the reviews saying it was a piece of crap were extolling it as the best frigging album in the world."
As pointed out in a post below by Bsebastian, Lester Bangs had revised his opinion of EXILE within 6 mos of its release. And in the Rolling Stone mag review of GOATS HEAD SOUP of Aug 73 the following appeared:
"At first, Exile on Main Street seemed a terrible disappointment, with its murky, mindless mixes and concentration on the trivial. Over time, it emerged as a masterful study in poetic vulgarity."
I may have been a bit aggressive about saying the tide on EXILE had turned by the time the STP tour was over ... but it certainly didn't take more than 6-12 mos for the critical consensus to begin to change.
As for the commercial appeal of GHS: sure, it sold a ton of records. As we know, though, from this band, and from many others, contemporary levels of commerical success are not always the best gauge of quality and artistic merit.
I've always pretty much agreed with Robert Christgau on GHS:
"Except for the spavined "Dancing With Mr. D," and the oxymoronic "Can You Hear the Music," these are good songs. But the execution is slovenly. I don't mean sloppy, which can be exciting--I mean arrogant and enervated all at once. Mick's phrasing is always indolent, but usually it's calculated down to the last minibeat as well; here the words sometimes catch him yawning. Without trying to be "tight" the band usually grooves into a reckless, sweaty coherence; here they hope the licks will stand on their own. Only on "@#$%&," the most outrageous Chuck Berry throwaway of the band's career, does this record really take off."
Although, in all fairness, I have no idea what "spavined" means ...
Thanks for your reaction LBA72.
First: (Levels of) commercial succes can travel hand in hand with quality and artistic merit my friend. Or is it prove of quality that EOMS sold less and got less airtime and did not have a No.1 single? Is it prove of quality when five critics say it's their greatest record?
Maybe their pr machine worked very well in those days and they felt they needed to do something after those somewhat disappointing sales and airtime...the reviews could get better! You know how many 'critics' were on the road with them? I never counted them but I tell you this: a five star review can travel hand in hand with all sorts of pleasure (sexually, philosophically and financially).
The difference is that my opinion dates from back in the day and hasn't changed that much (later on I listened to it more often and now I think it's good but still GHS is better to me). What I use to evaluate an album is my own ears and remembering what we all said about it and if it was played often or not and which songs were played most (and stuff like that). Plus I like to read what the makers think about their own work in retrospect (see my other post) and other people working in the same 'business.'
Of course (in the sixties and early seventies) it was interesting to read about the RS but not in the way that it mattered to us a lot how the magazines (there were just a few) would write about an album: we would buy those albums anyway and form our own opinion on the spot. Things changed - today much more people base their opinion as well as their buying behaviour on what they read (or hear or see). Also on sites like IORR there are younger people who feel the need to be acknowledged as a true fan so when they read a quote by LB their opinion is formed. And there are a lot of people here who like to specialize in giving opinions and reviews based on old reviews by guys like LB because they feel it might give them some importance.
That's why I appreciate your reaction; not many people have an opinion based on their own memory and experience.
Oh and in his review of EOMS in Rolling Stone Lenny Kaye wrote:
"...they've stuck close to home, doing the sort of things that come naturally, not stepping out of the realm in which they feel most comfortable. Undeniably it makes for some fine music, and it surely is a good sign to see them recording so prolifically again; but I still think that the great Stones album of their mature period is yet to come."
Together with my own memory of how we discussed the albums in those days and the airtime the albums and singles got it's absolutely fair to say EOMS wasn't that well received by fans (SF was and GHS was!) when it came out...and that by the late 1970s critics had come to view EOMS as their greatest record. And that has been repeated so many times by so many 'critics' that practically everyone on IORR will believe it is.
I wonder how many people on IORR remember their reaction when the album came out?
First of all, I never new latebloomer's reviews held such sway but I'll accept that. Secondly, EOMS's a grower not a show-er. The fact that it wasn't universally admired initially but grew in stature over time is sort of like comparing songs on any one album. You've got the first single, which is usually the one that has the immediate 'hook' that people love and will drive sales of the album. Once there, you get to what really matters, which quite often are better songs than the single.
A lot of people love 'Brown Sugar', but will pick Sway, CYHMK, Bitch, Dead Flowers, Moonlight Mile...in a heart beat as their favourite song on SF's.
EOMS didn't have what would generally be considered a strong single, at least for them. But the songs on the album, Tumbling Dice included, just get stronger and more interesting with repeat listens.
So that's why ultimately Tumbling Dice is better than Angie, and EOMS is far preferable to GHS.
I meant Lester Bangs but of course I'm interested in Latebloomer's views and reviews on GHS and/or EOMS anytime.
It's not about the fact how good EOMS or GHS exactly is. I was just showing how opinions are formed depending on circumstances and that EOMS wasn't felt as such a good album at the moment it came out.
If your theory bares any holding for the future we need to listen to ABB six times a day to make it a 'grower' so critics can mark it as essential or even their greatest after SF, BB, LIB & GHS
Quote
NaturalustQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DreamerQuote
DandelionPowderman
GHS it too inconsistent for me. Some great stuff, sure, but as an album it lacks a wholeness, imo.
That's exactly where Exile, SF and BB are great, imo. SG, too, of course.
Of course...I know your preferences. And I agree for 90%
At the same time I think EOMS is the one that's more inconsistent...
(But) to me it was just interesting to realise/see how lots of people years after EOMS came out instead of form an opinion after they bought and listened to the album (develope their own taste) they nowadays (influenced by media all over) just consume or otherwise 'take' the 'opinion' and spread it all over the place as the truth: look honey I just bought the greatest album by the RS. And they forget they have to 'let it grow' on them...
They just state EOMS was and is and will be their greatest album because all their friends at IORR and in the pit say the same. Of course peer pressure always exists but I get the feeling opinions/feelings were more discussed with friends after we bought the album...not before.
Your suggesting that there is some sort of `group think` happening, or a `conspiracy` to rewrite music history and give no credence to the idea that people may actually `prefer` EOMS album to most others.
MJ himself has not shown much love for EOMS, yet even still it has grown huge in stature over the years.
RSs went `rough and tumble` with EOMS and this, coupled perhaps with Sticky Fingers, are their archetypal albums...if people are talking about them in 100 years, it`ll be satisfaction, gimme shelter and these two.
I also think Exile was way more inconsistent that GHS. It's all over the place musically. I also think there is an aspect of group think peer pressure that helped Exile achieve it's legendary status. No doubt the "masterpiece" descriptions that eventually got attached to it caused many people to give it another chance after an early dismissal. I also believe the Nellcote stories and many excellent photos from that period helped propel it to legendary status. Exile became more than just a bunch of songs, it was a bohemian lifestyle, freaks in wonderland, orgy of excess statement that helped define 70's hip culture.
As far as Jagger not showing much love for Exile, I think it has considerably grown on him just like the rest of us. For someone who thrives on adoration, no doubt this record has given him much such affection from the media and fans.
peace
Quote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
DreamerQuote
EasterManQuote
LeonidPQuote
2120Wolf
I would like to hear definitions of what one thinks a "Real Stones Fan" is.
....
To me, if a so-called fan says that Exile is not the Stones masterpiece, I pretty much dismiss them as a fake fan.
I would rather say if a person says that Exile is not the best Stones record, then they probably are a Real Stones Fan since it's an indicator saying this person has listened to their whole catalogue more than once.
And lots of younger fans just say Exile is best because it's more or less a law or a habit to say that since people like LeonidP keep posting bs like this.
The album really wasn't that well received back in the day (after SF!). We discussed it...that was not the best way to celebrate a new RS album after BB, LIB & SF!!
And when GHS came it brought new discussions between people in favor of EOMS and those in favor of GHS; we were still evaluating EOMS because it was different. GHS was seen as more in line or a logical folow up to SF, LIB & BB and in those days GHS was also seen as a symbol of the change as a band: we knew what they were doing and creating because we were following them since there was nothing else to follow cause they were our culture - and they were following us.
EOMS wasn't celebrated as the best they ever did. It was SF, LIB & BB that was played over and over again and at the end of the party it was GHS.
EOMS really wasn't that special back then...
People who don't know arguments like this can still be called a fan. I don't care. Just don't say something because of peer pressure and develope your own taste and create your own opinion.
This is interesting ... but is not what I remember. EXILE was definitely met with a certain puzzlement. The vocal mix, scruffiness, general downbeat vibe, etc., were all remarked upon. But my recollection is that fairly quickly, perhaps as soon as the end of the 72 STP tour of No Amer, opinions were already being revised pretty dramatically in the record's favor.
GOAT'S HEAD SOUP, on the other hand, was almost universally derided. There were some outliers who gave the band points for a certain 'experimental' spirit, stretching boundaries of r'n'r, etc. But I recall the overall reaction being very negative. Plus, then the glammed out Mick led the band in the televised DANCING/ANGIE/SILVER TRAIN on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert and the floodgates of "the Stones are now officially a) parodying themselves, and b) no longer leading but rather reacting to Bowie, et al" were open.
By who?
And in the case of GHS you're probably not quoting consumers: Angie sailed to No. 1 in the US and became a worldwide hit and the album also shot to No. 1 worldwide (went triple platinum in the US)...
Edit:
By the late 1970s, critics had suddenly come to view EOMS as the RS' greatest record...
On the response to the album, KR said:
"When Exile came out it didn't sell particularly well at the beginning, and it was also pretty much universally panned. But within a few years the people who had written the reviews saying it was a piece of crap were extolling it as the best frigging album in the world."
As pointed out in a post below by Bsebastian, Lester Bangs had revised his opinion of EXILE within 6 mos of its release. And in the Rolling Stone mag review of GOATS HEAD SOUP of Aug 73 the following appeared:
"At first, Exile on Main Street seemed a terrible disappointment, with its murky, mindless mixes and concentration on the trivial. Over time, it emerged as a masterful study in poetic vulgarity."
I may have been a bit aggressive about saying the tide on EXILE had turned by the time the STP tour was over ... but it certainly didn't take more than 6-12 mos for the critical consensus to begin to change.
As for the commercial appeal of GHS: sure, it sold a ton of records. As we know, though, from this band, and from many others, contemporary levels of commerical success are not always the best gauge of quality and artistic merit.
I've always pretty much agreed with Robert Christgau on GHS:
"Except for the spavined "Dancing With Mr. D," and the oxymoronic "Can You Hear the Music," these are good songs. But the execution is slovenly. I don't mean sloppy, which can be exciting--I mean arrogant and enervated all at once. Mick's phrasing is always indolent, but usually it's calculated down to the last minibeat as well; here the words sometimes catch him yawning. Without trying to be "tight" the band usually grooves into a reckless, sweaty coherence; here they hope the licks will stand on their own. Only on "@#$%&," the most outrageous Chuck Berry throwaway of the band's career, does this record really take off."
Although, in all fairness, I have no idea what "spavined" means ...
Thanks for your reaction LBA72.
First: (Levels of) commercial succes can travel hand in hand with quality and artistic merit my friend. Or is it prove of quality that EOMS sold less and got less airtime and did not have a No.1 single? Is it prove of quality when five critics say it's their greatest record?
Maybe their pr machine worked very well in those days and they felt they needed to do something after those somewhat disappointing sales and airtime...the reviews could get better! You know how many 'critics' were on the road with them? I never counted them but I tell you this: a five star review can travel hand in hand with all sorts of pleasure (sexually, philosophically and financially).
The difference is that my opinion dates from back in the day and hasn't changed that much (later on I listened to it more often and now I think it's good but still GHS is better to me). What I use to evaluate an album is my own ears and remembering what we all said about it and if it was played often or not and which songs were played most (and stuff like that). Plus I like to read what the makers think about their own work in retrospect (see my other post) and other people working in the same 'business.'
Of course (in the sixties and early seventies) it was interesting to read about the RS but not in the way that it mattered to us a lot how the magazines (there were just a few) would write about an album: we would buy those albums anyway and form our own opinion on the spot. Things changed - today much more people base their opinion as well as their buying behaviour on what they read (or hear or see). Also on sites like IORR there are younger people who feel the need to be acknowledged as a true fan so when they read a quote by LB their opinion is formed. And there are a lot of people here who like to specialize in giving opinions and reviews based on old reviews by guys like LB because they feel it might give them some importance.
That's why I appreciate your reaction; not many people have an opinion based on their own memory and experience.
Oh and in his review of EOMS in Rolling Stone Lenny Kaye wrote:
"...they've stuck close to home, doing the sort of things that come naturally, not stepping out of the realm in which they feel most comfortable. Undeniably it makes for some fine music, and it surely is a good sign to see them recording so prolifically again; but I still think that the great Stones album of their mature period is yet to come."
Together with my own memory of how we discussed the albums in those days and the airtime the albums and singles got it's absolutely fair to say EOMS wasn't that well received by fans (SF was and GHS was!) when it came out...and that by the late 1970s critics had come to view EOMS as their greatest record. And that has been repeated so many times by so many 'critics' that practically everyone on IORR will believe it is.
I wonder how many people on IORR remember their reaction when the album came out?