Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
EasterMan

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
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?

It's impossible for me to be objective about EXILE. I didn't really "get" The Stones till '71 when at 16 I bought HOT ROCKS and proceeced to wear out Side 3. Then when the '72 tour was announced I showed up at a ticketmaster at a Broadway dept store at 5am and got shut out so had to hustle across town to a broker to buy two floor seats at $20 per ... which was about 3X face value and a fortune at the time.

Then EXILE came out and ... I couldn't @#$%& believe it. It was the first rock record I'd ever bought on the day of its release and I disappeared down the rabbit hole of its 4 sides and those Robt Frank photos and all those track by track credits on the sleeves wondering who all those people were. Suffice to say, lots of dope was smoked and lots of late night headphone sessions ensued.

(I still to this day cannot listen to "Let It Loose" w/o getting goosebumps; Mick's most courageous vocal, by far, and my second favorite Stones studio recording--behind only "Gimme Shelter.")

Then came the show and I was of course blown away. I was struck by how integral the new songs were and I couldn't imagine a band not touring behind whatever they had just released. It was all very exciting and new.

I spent the rest of the summer going to all kinds of rock concerts and saw GIMME SHELTER at a local theatre about 11 times in a 30-day run. And something dawned on me ... the band I had just seen in June, as unbelievable as they were, were not the band that had toured America just 3 years earlier, in 1969. I realized I had missed The Rolling Stones at their peak!

In '72 they were The Greatest Show on Earth ... but in 69 (or at least it seemed to me), an entire world looked into their eyes for ... something. They were IT in '69, culturally. And I never quite got over GIMME SHELTER's portrait of a powerless-to-help Mick at the mikestand while everything unraveled before his very eyes. It was, I realized then, never the same band.

I'm exaggerating for effect, of course. The band recorded great music and stellar albums after Altamont. STICKY FINGERS and the beautiful sprawling mess of EXILE are masterpieces. But by the time GOAT'S HEAD SOUP came out, The Stones had already proven that time, indeed, waits for no man. It was a waffling, weak record, in my opinion, and squandered their legacy as bad-ass rock'n'roll gunslingers. I had seen Bowie in late '72 and he was SO MUCH BETTER as a glammed out vision of rock'n'roll's future than a dissipated Mick camping his way through "Dancing with Mr. D."

But they all lived happily ever after! One guitarist moved on, another replaced him and they became a good time party jukebox band and made hundreds of millions of dollars making tens of millions of fans happy over the next FORTY YEARS!

I'll always treasure, though, what they once were ... and what they could have gone on to be, had they not blinked and then lost their way, artistically speaking. Just the opinion of one man who lived through it ...

Quote
Dreamer
as a certified fan you are accepted instantly and you're welcome in the pit at all times.

Quote
ChelseaGirls
LongBeach: During the 70's no one was better than Bowie anyway... To answer to the thread question, well I wonder... if your favourite writer is Oscar Wilde, will you describe yourself as "an Oscar Wilde fan"? Unless you're Morrissey... I doubt it.

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

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.

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

Exactly! For some people reasons enough to name it masterpiece or legendary; as a certified fan you are accepted instantly and you're welcome in the pit at all times.

I think MJ still likes SF & GHS most.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick didn't like Exile (publicly) because it was regarded Keith's baby, musically

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

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.

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

Exactly! For some people reasons enough to name it masterpiece or legendary; as a certified fan you are accepted instantly and you're welcome in the pit at all times.

I think MJ still likes SF & GHS most.

WTF? And you know that because of how many GHS songs are always on the setlist?

I'll give you SF, but Some Girls is massively above GHS in terms of what's on MJs radar.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
Dreamer is right..GHS and SF are more MJ favs due to his input..and lack of keith.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
Dreamer is right..GHS and SF are more MJ favs due to his input..and lack of keith.

Thank god...someone wading into the conversation that has at least heard this from Mick directly.

Your contribution is a breath of fresh air.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
Dreamer is right..GHS and SF are more MJ favs due to his input..and lack of keith.

Thank god...someone wading into the conversation that has at least heard this from Mick directly.

Your contribution is a breath of fresh air.

Treacle wins post of the day.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
There is a reason why they made Deluxe versions of Exile, Ya Yas and SG, and not GHS and IORR.

Just saying...

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
There is a reason why they made Deluxe versions of Exile, Ya Yas and SG, and not GHS and IORR.

Just saying...

Because...?

Quote
alimente
Nothing is real.

Quote
Rockman
I don't get anything ........

Quote
Stoneage
The list I made is of course made in tongue and cheek. In case someone didn't get that...

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rockman
I don't get anything ........

what she said.

Quote
Stoneage
So I'm a Stones heretic now? Always something I guess...