I've been listening to the early Woodie-period albums in preparation for the tour, and one thing that jumps out at you is the inconsistency of their albums during that period. How can you have great albums like Some Girls, and Tatoo You with lows as low as Emotional Rescue and Dirty Work. I think that Black and Blue and Undercover are somewhere in the middle (both have their moments, but can't be regarded as classics).

it's simply a matter of personal taste. I think that DW is a classic. and ER is a good album as well. I think that if you compare one album to another in the post Jimmy Miller era, you will be disappointed with some of their releases

I rate DW too. Fresh, varied, imaginitive and direct.

Actually SG, though invigorating at the time, now seems rather thin and two-dimensional, (except Imagination and Beast of . Ditto a lot of Tattoo You, (which was out-takes anyway).

ER has some duff tracks but I think it has more variety, depth and warmth overall than SG or TY. Like GHS compared with Exile and IORR. Stonesworld would be much poorer without tracks like Winter, Can You Hear...., Coming Down Again, 100 Years Ago.

Opinion ofcourse, but i think Let Me Go, Send It To Me, She's So Cold and All About You are more accomplished and will last longer than stuff Like Whip, Lies, Start Me Up, Respectable, Neighbours. All the latter may have been more energised/raw - but like their punk style, I feel they are a bit 'flash-in-the-pan'.

I give you the inconsistency output is real. None of the albums have the same quality but ER a bad album? Shame, shame, shame... shame on you! LOL




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-17 20:37 by harlito1969.

The Stones output was definitely patchy (74-81) with the Stones recording some of their best music along with some of their most uninspiring. Their music levelled out somewhat after Tattoo You when those great moments all but disappeared leaving mostly uninspiring music with very occasional hints of what the Stones could potentially be capable of.
It's Only Rock 'N' Roll is the Stones weakest album of the seventies but there are still one or two really great moments which makes the album very desirable.
Emotional Rescue is weak but i did like the direction the Stones were taking at this point in time - they were experimenting and still sounded contemporary although the quality of many of the songs left a lot to be desired.
The quality of the post Tattoo You output has been generally poor where many of the songs have been sketchy and the arrangements lacking. More time was needed spending on the albums because there are a number of promising songs which fail to come to fruition fully.
I have been more impressed with what i've heard from their new album so maybe the Stones will buck the trend of recent times.

ER, most underrated Stones album of all time.

I enjoy listening to ER from time to time, but isn't it just stuff that didn't make the cut for SG?

ER songs were from recording sessions that took place in 1979 - two years after the SG sessions. Strong album, but not quite up there with SG, IMO....

SG is a strong coherent entity - but its caught in a time capsule.

ER is less coherent, somewhat sketchy, but imo many of the tracks are more endearing and enduring. Mature, relaxed warmth; (except for the second-rate SG wannabees 'Boys Go' and 'Summer Romance').

You can divide up the Stones career into different era's...all of them with their share of endearing qualities. And great songs.

But, in my opinion, after Undercover, the band was never the same. It just wasn't the same band like it was 1963-1983. Once all those fellows hit their 40's, it just seemd to change.
Jagger's solo's, Dirty Work, Live Aid, the 80's for God's sake...none of that helped.

The decline in quality may have had more to do with the brief flirtation Charlie Watts had with heroin than people realize. His input on the overall "feel" of the studio environment is something that shouldn't be underrated, considering the current closeness of the "core" -- Mick, Keith AND Charlie. Bill Wyman, by temperament and by choice, was never part of the core, despite the fact that he was a long-term Stone. This is no denigration of Bill, at all, but a realization about how the relationships affected the band's output. When both Keith AND Charlie were in a brief fog, it was Mick who had to hold it all together. For anyone, including the most famous frontman in the world, it had to have been a difficult task.