Quote
LeonidP

Quote
SomeGuy
I couldn't agree with you more on the Big Four issue. Actually I never wholeheartedly embraced that concept, because it suggests that the previous and later albums are less valuable, which of course is not the case. I for one love the early years a lot.
Perhaps that's part of the reason why I felt the need to extend the number of 'Big' albums a bit. Most Stones albums are Big! Seeing how many records they have made and how very few of them aren't good, I mean, really.
Having said that, of course some albums are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell. To me, the next Biggest Record after IORR that came out was TY. For others, SG was that moment, so there ya go...

The 'big 4', from my perspective (and I think many others would agree) are the 'big 4' for a reason. It really starts with Let's Spend the Night/Ruby Tuesday, this is when the Stones took their songwriting (and playing) to a whole new level of brilliance, including non-album songs like JJF and Honky Tonk W. It's not necessarily saying the previous albums are less valuable - they are fantastic too (most of them) and have a huge place in the Stones history. But 95% of the people that know/love the Stones do know them from songs in those 'big 4' for the most part. JJF, Sympathy, Honky, You Can't Always Get, Brown Sugar, Happy, etc. WOW, it was truly an amazing run, one that I wished I could have experienced real time, rather than discovering about them in the 80s.

Well if you're including singles clearly you'd have to go back to Satisfaction as the spark that started it all and you also missed Paint It Black. If you look at the most streamed Stones songs I think those two sit on top.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-11-20 22:34 by SomeGuy.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
SomeGuy
I couldn't agree with you more on the Big Four issue. Actually I never wholeheartedly embraced that concept, because it suggests that the previous and later albums are less valuable, which of course is not the case. I for one love the early years a lot.
Perhaps that's part of the reason why I felt the need to extend the number of 'Big' albums a bit. Most Stones albums are Big! Seeing how many records they have made and how very few of them aren't good, I mean, really.
Having said that, of course some albums are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell. To me, the next Biggest Record after IORR that came out was TY. For others, SG was that moment, so there ya go...

The 'big 4', from my perspective (and I think many others would agree) are the 'big 4' for a reason. It really starts with Let's Spend the Night/Ruby Tuesday, this is when the Stones took their songwriting (and playing) to a whole new level of brilliance, including non-album songs like JJF and Honky Tonk W. It's not necessarily saying the previous albums are less valuable - they are fantastic too (most of them) and have a huge place in the Stones history. But 95% of the people that know/love the Stones do know them from songs in those 'big 4' for the most part. JJF, Sympathy, Honky, You Can't Always Get, Brown Sugar, Happy, etc. WOW, it was truly an amazing run, one that I wished I could have experienced real time, rather than discovering about them in the 80s.

Those songs that you missed in real time are (still and always will be) great; the print doesn't change. When you found them was your now.

Think of fans like VoodooLounge13 - way late, yet still has found a love for everything else.

Someone saying they only like the Taylor years, well, that's snobbery. But someone saying they only like SOME GIRLS... that's specific.

The critics, those of album and show reviews, have been tied down to a growing narrative - the history of The Rolling Stones.

Critics in 1975-1978 sound completely different than those in 1981, 1989 or 1997. Etc on and on.

A fan, however, can listen to an album and not be swayed because they know. Critically SANTANIC MAJESTIES is a horrendous album, their second worst ever, yet... there are times when a fan's view coincides with a critical view.

So be it. It's only rock'n'roll. But that album should've been an EP - it has some great tracks on it. As an album it sucks.

It's a joy to see HACKNEY DIAMONDS do well on the charts all the while knowing it's just a moment, it's not 1989 or 1994 when record sales were a continuous thing.

Think about that for a minute - not the best of The Rolling Stones in terms of charting, right, yet... the charts said people loved whatever for a moment.

They loved EMOTIONAL RESCUE, too.

But.

That's not what the charts said. The charts aren't totally about how people feel. "Oh so how do you explain DARK SIDE OF THE MOON or LED ZEPPELIN 4 or The Eagles hits album and Michael Jackson..."

That part of "That's not what the charts said/how people feel" is absolutely clear. It may be for a moment, like Hootie And The Blowfish (14 million people can be wrong etc), but The Rolling Stones have how many moments?

Let's see... 1964-2023. With a few off years.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
SomeGuy
I couldn't agree with you more on the Big Four issue. Actually I never wholeheartedly embraced that concept, because it suggests that the previous and later albums are less valuable, which of course is not the case. I for one love the early years a lot.
Perhaps that's part of the reason why I felt the need to extend the number of 'Big' albums a bit. Most Stones albums are Big! Seeing how many records they have made and how very few of them aren't good, I mean, really.
Having said that, of course some albums are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell. To me, the next Biggest Record after IORR that came out was TY. For others, SG was that moment, so there ya go...

The 'big 4', from my perspective (and I think many others would agree) are the 'big 4' for a reason. It really starts with Let's Spend the Night/Ruby Tuesday, this is when the Stones took their songwriting (and playing) to a whole new level of brilliance, including non-album songs like JJF and Honky Tonk W. It's not necessarily saying the previous albums are less valuable - they are fantastic too (most of them) and have a huge place in the Stones history. But 95% of the people that know/love the Stones do know them from songs in those 'big 4' for the most part. JJF, Sympathy, Honky, You Can't Always Get, Brown Sugar, Happy, etc. WOW, it was truly an amazing run, one that I wished I could have experienced real time, rather than discovering about them in the 80s.

Well if you're including singles clearly you'd have to go back to Satisfaction as the spark that started it all and you also missed Paint It Black. If you look at the most streamed Stones songs I think those two sit on top.

Although all the Big Four albums are classics and recognized masterpieces among rock fans, I still think people in general see the Stones as hits band. Their three most streamed songs are not Big Four songs (Paint It Black, Satisfaction, Start Me Up) plus the top ten includes three others (Beast of Burden, Angie and Miss You). So as far as albums go, it is the hit collections - HOT ROCKS, FORTY LICKS etc. - people prefer/are most awere of. It is also from the collections people only get such songs as "Flash" and "Honky Tonk" (plus the key numbers from the Big Four).

Besides, those 'key' Big Four numbers - such as "Sympathy", "Street Fighting Man", "Gimme Shelter", "Can't Always Get What You Want", "Brown Sugar", "Wild Horses", etc. - they have been for ages classics of their own, household stuff, era anthems, familiar from radio, movies, tv series, ads etc. that people recognize without having a clue of their origin (deriving from such and such album).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-11-21 11:53 by Doxa.

Quote
Blueranger
The first time they played it safe all over.
Not one single note on the album points forward.
There are decent songs, but they are alarmingly uneven and this is were they took it one step further in creating 'Stones-by-numbers' tracks - something that started on Goats Head Soup. On this record, if was the first time (but not the last) on which they started to sound like a copy of themselves on certain tracks.

Not forward? Reggae with Luxury, Latin jazz fusion with Time Waits, Funk and rap with Fingerprint File...All quite modern and forward for tracks recorded in 1973 and early 1974.

It's a great record in my opinion, marred by very dull mastering that really takes out a lot of the energy. Listen to the outtake of If You Can't Rock Me which has proper mastering -it jumps from the speakers with much more oomph and energy, with Preston's rhythm part much more clear. This album deserves a good remaster.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Blueranger
The first time they played it safe all over.
Not one single note on the album points forward.
There are decent songs, but they are alarmingly uneven and this is were they took it one step further in creating 'Stones-by-numbers' tracks - something that started on Goats Head Soup. On this record, if was the first time (but not the last) on which they started to sound like a copy of themselves on certain tracks.

Not forward? Reggae with Luxury, Latin jazz fusion with Time Waits, Funk and rap with Fingerprint File...All quite modern and forward for tracks recorded in 1973 and early 1974.

It's a great record in my opinion, marred by very dull mastering that really takes out a lot of the energy. Listen to the outtake of If You Can't Rock Me which has proper mastering -it jumps from the speakers with much more oomph and energy, with Preston's rhythm part much more clear. This album deserves a good remaster.

Mathijs

What do you think of the '94 Virgin remaster? It's a lot better than the CBS one for CD from the mid 80s or thereabout.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-11-21 14:45 by SomeGuy.

Not sure if it's the mastering, as some songs sound excellent (Short And Curlies, Fingerprint File) and others sound like they're wrapped in wool or cardboard (If You Can't Rock Me, Dance Little Sister).

That points to the mixing, imo.

Quote
SomeGuy
What do you think of the '94 Virgin remaster? It's a lot better than the CBS one for CD from the mid 80s or thereabout.

Virgin remaster is always a safe choice . Besides, it has longer version of Luxury.

But I would not say there is a 'day and night' difference with CBS CD. This album originally had a kind of muddy sound. Although, Virgin positively came from different tape transfer and is mastered a bit louder.

The most authentic are Japanese only versions that originated from flat transfers of the original master tapes with prolonged fade for Time Waits For No One and speed corrected Fingerprint File. Currently the only version in print is [UICY-79243] that is available at cdjapan. It also came with full length Luxury.

Stay away from EU version [UICY-79243K]! This one is sourced from 2009 brickwall remaster.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not sure if it's the mastering, as some songs sound excellent (Short And Curlies, Fingerprint File) and others sound like they're wrapped in wool or cardboard (If You Can't Rock Me, Dance Little Sister).

That points to the mixing, imo.

Keith has stated this in an interview, that the album is too long for the vinyl format and that they mastered the life out of it. There's also an interview with Glyn Johns where he reviews the album and remarks something similar as Keith's statement.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not sure if it's the mastering, as some songs sound excellent (Short And Curlies, Fingerprint File) and others sound like they're wrapped in wool or cardboard (If You Can't Rock Me, Dance Little Sister).

That points to the mixing, imo.

Keith has stated this in an interview, that the album is too long for the vinyl format and that they mastered the life out of it. There's also an interview with Glyn Johns where he reviews the album and remarks something similar as Keith's statement.

Mathijs

Yeah, I've read that. Not sure about Keith's mastering abilities, though

In that case the ending songs, TWFNO and FF should sound crappy, but they don't.

I've always wondered about the too long LPs. Todd Rundgreen has a couple of super-long one disc-albums (I think one of them held the record for longest, single vinyl album) that sound pretty good.

Then we have Aftermath...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not sure if it's the mastering, as some songs sound excellent (Short And Curlies, Fingerprint File) and others sound like they're wrapped in wool or cardboard (If You Can't Rock Me, Dance Little Sister).

That points to the mixing, imo.

Keith has stated this in an interview, that the album is too long for the vinyl format and that they mastered the life out of it. There's also an interview with Glyn Johns where he reviews the album and remarks something similar as Keith's statement.

Mathijs

Yeah, I've read that. Not sure about Keith's mastering abilities, though

In that case the ending songs, TWFNO and FF should sound crappy, but they don't.

I've always wondered about the too long LPs. Todd Rundgreen has a couple of super-long one disc-albums (I think one of them held the record for longest, single vinyl album) that sound pretty good.

Then we have Aftermath...

Aftermath has a very thin sound, and lots of empty space, as it were.

Btw, shouldn't the mastering for cd be a different job than for vinyl? Time constraints don't apply there, so ideally they could make it sound better because there's no need to fit the clicks and bumps within the right grooves so to speak.

Quote
SomeGuy
Aftermath has a very thin sound, and lots of empty space, as it were.

Btw, shouldn't the mastering for cd be a different job than for vinyl? Time constraints don't apply there, so ideally they could make it sound better because there's no need to fit the clicks and bumps within the right grooves so to speak.

Correct. If you will start from original multitracks. But in the case of CDs they were limited to 2-tracks master tapes. And you do not know how those tapes were mixed/equalized initially.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
SomeGuy
One of my favourite albums, still. Actually the first Stones record I owned.

I have always regarded it as a fresher, more modern sounding album than the more or less stale sounding GHS, something which was confirmed by the story about Jimmy Miller wasting their time at the studio and Keith and Mick taking over the production duties at the time.

The only slightly dull song is Luxury, too monotonous and repetitive really. Ain't Too Proud To Beg I don't like at all.
Lyrically the songs vary greatly from arrogant and provocative to deeply sensitive, so it has all, really.

I call this the sixth golden era album, after BB, LIB, SF, EOMS and GHS (GHS was actually a step back in the series as it were, so there's only five really).

Sadly this level became more of an exception than rule, starting with the next album. But I'm sure that many differ with me

I don't disagree at all with you here...however if we're going to be revisionist in terms of classifying "The Big Four" to stretch it to IORR, then I think Black and Blue certainly isn't a low point by any means, which takes you to Some Girls an the "next" big 4, Some Girls through Undercover. That means what you've got is a BIG 11. Now that's big!

On the other side, I think that TSMR is a bit of a dip, like GHS as you've opined, but not a bad album...you could then go further past BtB to Aftermath.

The album run is then 14...stunning. But really, that's why we like this band so much isn't it? It's not bullet proof by any means but staggeringly high quality for the most part.

Nothing wrong with OOOH's either...ok, you have to stop somewhere!

Totally agree. After the Big 4 we have somehow decided there was a dip. And one could say that IORR would be the low point of that dip. But IMo (much like Voodoo lounge) this should have been a much stronger album. The songs, the mixes were there. But powers that be, sent it other ways.
I definitely see 'Black and Blue" as an excellent album. So maybe the run goes all the way up to SG.
And to peoplewitheyes - I should have included a link. It's on youtube under 'Goat's Head Soup outtakes & alternative'.