Haven't done this for some time, so let's try it again.

There are the obvious four best ones, impossible to put in order (depends on the day and on mood - no mental ability to do that today):

- BEGGARS BANQUET (masterpiece)
- LET IT BLEED (masterpiece)
- STICKY FINGERS (masterpiece)
- EXILE ON MAN STREET (masterpiece)

The best albums since The Big Four

1. SOME GIRLS (over-estimated by many, partly due to its huge US summer sales, but still a masterpiece - probably the only album outside the Big Four deserving the title even without thickest fan glasses)
2. GOATS HEAD SOUP (the last album the Stones sounded on-going, writing excellent songs (mostly), serious at heart, and still dark and masterful, but fragile; much better than its reputation)
3. TATTOO YOU (just for personal reasons - my first Stones album, winner by default for sure; set the the standard too high, every album since it has been a disappointment)
4. BLUE & LONESOME (shit, best since TATTOO YOU indeed, and even beats some of the 70's albums! Not bad for veterans!)
5. IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL (the first 'Stones-by-numbers' album - a forerunner in that sense... still a lot of hey-day greatness and depth in it)
6. BLACK AND BLUE (aging surprisingly well, taking how irrelevant and passe, as the French say, the album made the Stones at the time; people didn't want the Stones to mature up back then?)
7. EMOTIONAL RESCUE (another album aging well - but the first Stones album without any outstanding, distinguished songs to remember, though the dirty but tasty playing compensating a lot)
8. UNDERCOVER (not aging so well at all - the problem is not just the 80's production)
9. STEEL WHEELS (the last Stones album having a thing called a flow in it, not just a random collection of whatever songs - before the blues album, that is; aged awfully sonic-wise, but the biggest reason is a rather mediocre song material)
10. BRIDGES TO BABYLON (damn uneven and shapeless, but the highlights shine; didn't like it much at the time, but it has, to use the slogan, grown on me in time better than any of latter-day albums)
11. DIRTY WORK (why so 'high'? Because they still were going somewhere then, though failing. The Stones are able to even fail masterfully...)
12. VOODOO LOUNGE (Stones For Dummies Vol. 1)
13. A BIGGER BANG (Stones For Dummies Vol. 2)

The best UK albums before The Big Four

1. AFTERMATH (a coherent artistic statement, though a bit too many fillers - and too long - to call it a masterpiece. Probably their most ambitious and brave release ever. Eternally fresh and charmatic: 'we can do anything!').
2. THE ROLLING STONES (their most compact album all the way until BEGGARS BANQUET - one of the best debut albums by anyone ever. Sounds still fresh and exciting. They were a damn hot British-flavoured R&B blues band already and especially then)
3. THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST (the years has been treating this notorious album nicely - it just get better and better - far from a masterpiece, but a fascinating and important album)
4. OUT OF OUR HEADS (probably their most energetic package of songs ever, but a rather low profile relaese nowadays from their under-rated cover days - unfortunately)
5. BETWEEN THE BUTTONS (under-estimated also by me! Lots of bravy experentialism, nice songs and 60's music liberalism, but mostly ending up with with rather uneven results; some odd production tricks that not not have aged nicely, like the whole album to a degree)
6. THE ROLLING STONES NO 2 (sounds bad rating this good R&B album as low... but c'mon, it actually is better than any album since, say, 1983)

The best US albums before The Big Four

1. OUT OF OUR HEADS (their all-time most underrated album - probably all time #5 - better than SOME GIRLS! A perfect showcase of the rebellious Rolling Stones captured in their huge international breakthrough year 1965.)
2. AFTERMATH (pretty hard to think if being shorter and including "Paint It Black" would make it stronger than the UK version, probably it does - but not so ambitious)
3. ENGLAND'S NEWEST HITMAKERS (a corny title, but hey - that's the way of selling blues to America!)
4. THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST (see above)
5. BETWEEN THE BUTTONS (wins its UK counterpart by those two distinguished big hit songs - and the history is winner's history)
6. 12x5 (more energetic US R&B covers to Americans)
7. NOW! (and selling some more fridges to eskimos, but still good ones)
8. DECEMBER'S CHILDREN (quickly another album out, uneven collection of hits & fillers - a bit odd to grasp nowadays).
9. FLOWERS (to count or not... I don't know. Surely nice pop songs in it, but isn't this just rather cheaply milking out the summer of love? Now the whole album looks and even sounds odd - which isn't necessarily a bad thing)

Huh... Let me add that I like very much each of those albums ranked!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-28 21:11 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Witness

Quote
Dan

Quote
Witness
It is refreshing to see TATTOO YOU decidedly away from the top, in marked contrast to the views among so many posters on IORR, which so often have much puzzled me. Only fault, it should have been further down, towards the bottom.

Because so many of us younger fans (in our 40s and 50s) this was our introduction to the Rolling Stones as a still current band, and a vital part of our musical formative years. My cousin had this when I was 8 years and songs like Slave and Heaven somewhat fascinated me. I don't even remember Undercover being out, so next up was Harlem Shuffle all over KLOS.

Early 1980's a lot of record buying peeps only had Hot Rocks and Tattoo You and maybe a mix tape of whatever was taped off the radio.

You manage to present the viewpoint with more emphasis than I have seen before. The reflection makes me wonder if there is an element of generation bias about the popularity of TATTOO YOU. That is, more than it is the case for other Stones albums.

Yep, I have noticed this too. I get the feeling that fans around 60, or older, tend to grade all the early albums (the ones before 1968) way ahead of TY. And TY ends up in the bottom list. It was TY that got me into The Rolling Stones. So I will always grade it high. It's an age thing then. I guess...

Since Mick Taylor is on TY, I somehow doubt that. SG is a popular album, no matter which generation you belong to. TY, however, had an even more nuanced musical feel to it (with the quiet b-side) and many of the guys who got their kicks to Moonlight Mile, Time Waits For No One or Winter might love Worried About You, Tops and Waiting On A Friend for the same reasons.

That said, most of TY is sort of a SG, part III, with its Pathe Marconi-sound and Keith and Ronnie's weaving-style. That's what I fell in love with. And, yes, it was my first Stones-album.

As I grew older, I learned to appreciated side B even more.

Good, good points by all of you here (that's why I quote all of you - sorry for aesthetic reasons). I also belong to the generation hooked up by TATTOO YOU (and "Start Me Up" leading me to the album), so it has a special place in my heart. But I guess it also gave a bit wrong signal of the state of the band at the time. When I bought their previous albums, they sounded much way one-dimensional than TATTOO YOU, like Dandie hinted at. To my ears EMOTIONAL RESCUE was actually a huge disappointment, and even briefly much hyped SOME GIRLS (it had stellar songs, yeah, but it altogether sounded a bit light-weight, like not done very seriously at all - which, quite quickly, I realized being its very charm)). It was not the issue of covering less or more different musical styles or genres (I couldn't give a shit about those kind of things at the time), but some sort of depthness TATTOO YOU had, was missing in those albums - a quality I would discover from BLACK & BLUE and the albums prior that. And at the time I get to know all those albums I didn't have any idea of the origin of certain TATTOO YOU songs (can't recall when I exactly get to know that). And once UNDERCOVER was released that was also a rather different listening experience than TATTOO YOU (a feature that I welcomed at the time, though).

We have to also note that even though "Start Me Up" derives from SOME GIRLS sessions, there is not that sort of trademark Richardsian Open G riff used in those previous albums (I have the picture that they didn't want to release it at the time because they didn't want to sound too "retro" but were seriously re-inventing their sound). It was, as Witness aptly put it, 'mother of all "Stones-by-numbers"'. So also in that sense there is a certain 'retro'-feel in TATTOO YOU, pointing out more to late 60's/early 70's soundscapes than SOME GIRLS or EMOTIONAL RESCUE and then UNDERCOVER do, all of which tried to be more 'current' sounding albums. Besides, there was no a 'pure' dance track in TATTOO YOU, if we don't count the funkyish "Slave"...

My point here was not say what is good and what is not, but more just to point at that those who were hooked by TATTOO YOU, like me, were a bit fooled in where our band was actually creativity-wise being and going at the time... But as Dandie pointed out, there was also a lot of (most of it) common with TATTOO YOU and SOME GIRLS/EMOTIONAL RESCUE (that loose, punkish Marconi sound and style), so that was a feature I was very much attracted to at the time, and still am.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-30 01:35 by Doxa.

- THE BIG SIX: -
1. EXILE ON MAIN STREET
2. LET IT BLEED
3. BEGGARS BANQUET
4. TATTOO YOU
5. STICKY FINGERS
6. SOME GIRLS

- VERY GREAT ALBUMS -
7. THE ROLLING STONES
8. AFTERMATH
9. OUT OF OUR HEADS

- FLAWED BUT VERY GOOD ALBUMS -
10. EMOTIONAL RESCUE
11. THE ROLLING STONES NO. 2
12. GOATS HEAD SOUP
13. UNDERCOVER

- NOT SO GOOD BUT THERE'S SOME GOOD STUFF ON IT -
14. BLUE AND LONESOME
15. BLACK AND BLUE
16. IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL

- MOSTLY MEDIOCRE BUT SOME GOOD STUFF ON IT -
17. STEEL WHEELS
18. BRIDGES TO BABYLON
19. VOODOO LOUNGE
20. A BIGGER BANG

- PART HUGELY EMBARRASING & IMPOSSIBLE TO LISTEN TO, BUT A FEW GEMS -
21. THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST
22. DIRTY WORK

- WASTE OF TIME -
23. BETWEEN THE BUTTONS

Back Street Girl, Connection, All Sold Out. Miss Amanda Jones, Something Happened To Me Yesterday and She Smiled Sweetly is a "waste of time"? Come on!

….and and that crazy Bo Diddley driven Pleeeeeeze Go Home ….Play It LOUD



ROCKMAN

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Back Street Girl, Connection, All Sold Out. Miss Amanda Jones, Something Happened To Me Yesterday and She Smiled Sweetly is a "waste of time"? Come on!

Believe me, I tried and I tried and I tried. I can't stand that album. Actually, of that list of songs you mention, most of them never made any impression on me, except for Connection which is fine but full of silly noises (the Keith's solo version is more listenable) and Something Happened To Me Yesterday which for its cringeworthiness should have been on Their Satanic Majesties. It deeply annoys me. And no, I am not necessarily anti-pop of the early 60s, I can listen to Revolver without problem (skipping Yellow Nonsense of course).

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Back Street Girl, Connection, All Sold Out. Miss Amanda Jones, Something Happened To Me Yesterday and She Smiled Sweetly is a "waste of time"? Come on!

Believe me, I tried and I tried and I tried. I can't stand that album. Actually, of that list of songs you mention, most of them never made any impression on me, except for Connection which is fine but full of silly noises (the Keith's solo version is more listenable) and Something Happened To Me Yesterday which for its cringeworthiness should have been on Their Satanic Majesties. It deeply annoys me. And no, I am not necessarily anti-pop of the early 60s, I can listen to Revolver without problem (skipping Yellow Nonsense of course).

Not a big Kinks- or Music Hall-fan either, I presume

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Back Street Girl, Connection, All Sold Out. Miss Amanda Jones, Something Happened To Me Yesterday and She Smiled Sweetly is a "waste of time"? Come on!

Believe me, I tried and I tried and I tried. I can't stand that album. Actually, of that list of songs you mention, most of them never made any impression on me, except for Connection which is fine but full of silly noises (the Keith's solo version is more listenable) and Something Happened To Me Yesterday which for its cringeworthiness should have been on Their Satanic Majesties. It deeply annoys me. And no, I am not necessarily anti-pop of the early 60s, I can listen to Revolver without problem (skipping Yellow Nonsense of course).

Not a big Kinks- or Music Hall-fan either, I presume

Certainly not a Music Hall fan, you got that right
I know a few songs of the Kinks, some of which I like (Lola, Summer Afternoon) and some I strongly dislike (All Day And All Of The Night). I didn't know they made Music Hall, I thought that was just one of McCartney's weaker tendencies.

An OT-remark:

How wonderful those early signature songs from the Kinks really were! With a family resemblance, but still different: "You Really Got Me", "All the Day And All of the Night", "Set Me Free" and "Till the End of the Day"! And, of course, "Sunny Afternoon" splendid as well!

Don't forget David Watts, Party Line, Johnny Thunder, Alcohol etc. etc.

To me the other five (plus "Lola") are in a class of their own though. Well, there are a couple of tracks on their first and third albums in addition. Among them "Where Have All the Good Times Gone". (The first album I owned, was the Kinks' first album, in fact.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-30 16:31 by Witness.

I love the old EPs. Lots of good stuff there. «Kwyet Kinks», «Kinksize Sessions», «A Well Respected Man», among others.

Oh well, we're digressing a bit here...

Still some random thoughts about TATTOO YOU...

For me it's been always the album that has been the most difficult Stones album to rate due to my personal attachment to it (without it, probably I wouldn't be here...). It was not until a few years ago I started to be certain that it actually is as good album as it sounds for me to be. It could be that at the time it sounded 'Stones-by-numbers' - not really giving any new musical horizons or anything like that unlike any album before it - at least for trained Stones fan ears like Witness had/has. But for those totally fresh ears like mine that sounded brilliant in the context of time - compared to any other artists at the time. I cannot - then or now - think a better stemming out album from 1981 as TATTOO YOU.

But I think father time has rather kind to it. More kind than to any other album from those Pathe Marconi years (from SOME GIRLS to UNDERCOVER/DIRTY WORK). The album sounds ageless, a bit like their Big Four albums: no need have any clue about the context of time (or no need to try to understand the music from the base of that) - the music defies time and place. Partly to do with great production, but also that of the songs being rather close to a familiar Stones vocabulary (no any emotionalrescues or dances or toomuchbloods or toorudes in it, probably "Heaven" being the only odd man out), and within that most of them are rather strong, some of them being even classics today (no hope to find the latter from EMOTIONAL RESCUE or UNDERCOVER). Add there the perfect mix of songs from Pathe Marconi period and GOATS HEAD SOUP and BLACK& BLUE sessions that gives the album an unique sense of variety of different moods. And the band, in any track, is also in a perfect tight fighting form plus after the Great Four period, Jagger's vocals are in stronger form than ever (I would go so far to claim that probably TATTOO YOU is a best 'Jagger as a singer' showcase ever).

As a result of all of this, I would say nowadays TATTOO YOU will be quite close in quality to even legendary and an 'obvious' masterpiece SOME GIRLS. The latter has more stronger, classical individual songs, and in retrospect the importance of that album at the time cannot be over-estimated (it bought them future, as BEGGARS BANQUET did a decade earlier) but TATTOO YOU has certain different strong time-defying qualities (such as depthness) which make the gap not so big any longer.

It could be that the both artistic and commercial success of TATTOO YOU (and of "Start Me Up" as a hit single), and knowing how 'easily' they done it, gave a wrong signal for the band in the following years - after noticing that it started to be harder and harder to evolve or update their sound to fit to the recent currents. Just rely solely on their past strenghts and not trying to do anything else. But the situation in any way wasn't similar any longer: the band after not 'living and breathing togther' wasn't any longer in such a great shape to provide such strong backing tracks as before. Nor Jagger and Richards were any longer able to provide such strong songs as they they did in the past. Taking also that while making TATTOO YOU tracks from 1972 to 1981 they didn't try to sound like the Stones, or copying themselves intentionally or trying to make an impression of a classical Stones sound. All those songs still were sort of natural products stemming from evolving artists and of their creative spirits. That some of them sounded too much retro or 'Stones-by-numbers' - "Start Me Up" is probably the only obvious one in that sense, probably "Black Limousine" and "Little T&A" as well - or too much like some of the other songs they were doing at the time - "Waiting On A Friend", "Slave", "Tops", "Worried About You", "Hang Fire", etc, etc.- was the reason they were initially rejected.

That is why I dont think albums like VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG, which sort of follow the pattern of TATTOO YOU, are not not able to come up with such memorable and time-defying results as the 1981 masterpiece (yes I call it that!). But still I think, as some younger fans here have pointed out, the function of those albums, especially VOODOO LOUNGE, could be that of introducing fresh ears to the classical Stones sound. Those albums stem out from the contemporary context. A sort of as "Start Me Up" did for me at the time. That said, I think more likely today, or for some 25 years or something, it is some of their greatest hits collections - or any of their gigs - that are the true inspiration to discover the greatness of this band.

One last point goes for VOODOO LOUNGE - despite of my generally harsh criticism of that album (elitist shit like "Stones For Dummies"), it needs to be noted out that it is their best selling album since TATTOO YOU. They obviously did something right with that album.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-31 11:14 by Doxa.

29 years have passed, and I think that SW deserves more praise than we've given it. IMO, it's the album with the best songs and the best playing since Undercover.

The production was top notch in 1989, but dated quickly. I don't know what happened, but I'm starting to find peace with that sound (maybe the 80s are back?) and the overall feel of the album.

Perhaps I could do without one or two of the songs where Mick plays the main rhythm guitar? No, I think they're fine (especially Sad Sad Sad and Hearts For Sale).

IMO, tracks like ME, T, HFS, BBL, AHYS, BTS and SA are very strong songs - really good. That's seven tracks. I don't know if we find seven great tracks on VL, B2B and ABB (there is good stuff on ALL the Stones albums, though).

Bill's bouncing bass also made SW a special album for me.

EDIT: How could I forget my fave song on the album? Continental Drift! Great, great track!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-31 11:19 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
29 years have passed, and I think that SW deserves more praise than we've given it. IMO, it's the album with the best songs and the best playing since Undercover.

The production was top notch in 1989, but dated quickly. I don't know what happened, but I'm starting to find peace with that sound (maybe the 80s are back?) and the overall feel of the album.

Perhaps I could do without one or two of the songs where Mick plays the main rhythm guitar? No, I think they're fine (especially Sad Sad Sad and Hearts For Sale).

IMO, tracks like ME, T, HFS, BBL, AHYS, BTS and SA are very strong songs - really good. That's seven tracks. I don't know if we find seven great tracks on VL, B2B and ABB (there is good stuff on ALL the Stones albums, though).

Bill's bouncing bass also made SW a special album for me.

Am I the only one who likes "Between A Rock And A Hard Place" too?
I agree that SW is the best post-Undercover album. It's the last album that actually still feels like a genuine album. From any other band, this would count as a very good album. But the Stones are not any other band, and it simply lacks in the "extra magic spark" (whatever that is).
The last album that really had that "magic", is, and I agree with Doxa here, Tattoo You.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
(there is good stuff on ALL the Stones albums, though).

Indeed there is.

Re the 80's sound(s). It gets boring hearing the same thing over and over, listening to them in different production clothes is refreshing for the ears.

By 1989 even I was, more or less, a fanboy. I was looking forward to this album and the tour. They had kept me waiting half a decade for this. I really wanted the album to be great. But it wasn't.
Sure, good production but a tad sterile. And no hit song on the album. There was an obsolete touch to the album even when it was fresh. It had nothing to do with the contemporary music scene.
Out of touch. Listening to it now I kind of like Mixed Emotions. The sharp production and the guitars in the intro. Still good enough for radio listening. The rest of the album. Foggedaboutit...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
29 years have passed, and I think that SW deserves more praise than we've given it. IMO, it's the album with the best songs and the best playing since Undercover.

The production was top notch in 1989, but dated quickly. I don't know what happened, but I'm starting to find peace with that sound (maybe the 80s are back?) and the overall feel of the album.

I have similar feelings about the album as well. There is no really memorable songs in that album, but over-all I think it is a rather strong artistic statement: great variety of songs, even some real adventurous stuff (such as "Continental Drift", and to a lesser degree in "Strange Desires" or what was that one called), though over-all feel the album has a certain retro-feel (looking much futher back than any of their albums before it) married with recent production tricks and some novel instrumental ideas. It is also the last album they somehow kept the concept of an album and the flow in their mind (before BLUE & LONESOME, that is). To state the point differently: if the new album they are now making turns out to be anything close in quality of STEEL WHEELS that will be a great, even incredble achievement now.

What goes for the latter point in bold: Dandie, my friend, you are just getting old and nostalgic... (me too - there was a time I just hated 80's sounds, though having growing up in the middle of that, but now they sound just fine.. I even like some stuff that I absolutely hated back then; all that zeitgeist is written in my DNA do I want or not... ).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-31 11:09 by Doxa.

Your last paragraph, Doxa: So true!

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
(there is good stuff on ALL the Stones albums, though).

Indeed there is.

Re the 80's sound(s). It gets boring hearing the same thing over and over, listening to them in different production clothes is refreshing for the ears.

I think the same: that's exactly is the about only real difference the albums make in the long run, and make them nowadays somehow interesting, even unique listening experiences. It started in UNDERCOVER, continued in DIRTY WORK and ended up in STEEL WHEELS (what a hat trick!). Same old shit - no musical evolvement or true inspiration but just re-cicling the same old ideas in Jagger/Richards originals - just clothed differently. I think over-all the experimentalism or doing something actually novel and adventurous especially in UNDERCOVER is highly over-estimated. I think the title song is a good example of that: a typical blues-based Jagger/Richards song clothed fancily (like "Gotta Get A Grip" decades later).

It could that the reason VOODOO LOUNGE sounded/sounds so boring, or that they have given up artistically to evolve/change, to my ears was that of the fancy clothing missing: the mediocrity of Jagger/Richards originals was so clearly to be seen, and them resting solely on their trademark sounds without a shame - even proud of that by over-emphasizing those plain and naked.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-31 11:48 by Doxa.

It wasn't meant as a comment on the song writing, just that as a listener and a musician hearing the same sound over and over is boring.

IMO, it's also interesting that the number of fresh songs in open G (Keith) between 1978 and 1994 was kept to a bare minimum.

– BTMMR is the only track in open G on SG (Mick might have played it on the title track, though)
– No open G-songs on ER
- SMU, BL and Tops were in open G on TY (but not fresh songs)
– Undercover, Wanna Hold You and It Must Be Hell were the only fresh songs on U in open G. Too Tough was from the BAB-sessions (and they kept the backing tracks for U)
– Fight is the only obvious open G-sounding track on DW (although there could be one in One Hit and Hold Back, too?)
– Mixed Emotions is the only Keith open G-track on SW (Mick plays it on SSS and HOTYH)

The «retro Stones» or «Stones by numbers»-terms are often affiliated with the open G-guitar. Was Keith tired of it? Were they afraid of going too retro? Wasn't there more magic to be picked up by Keith's «antenna»?

I just find it interesting that they didn't use that «weapon» more in this period..



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-31 11:55 by DandelionPowderman.

Later added: I wrote this so slowly and did not notice the arrival of several posts, else I would have abstained from entering this post so much out of context and of current attitudes.

Quote
Doxa
...................................... It could be that at the time it sounded 'Stones-by-numbers' - not really giving any new musical horizons or anything like that unlike any album before it - at least for trained Stones fan ears like Witness had/has. But for those totally fresh ears like mine that sounded brilliant in the context of time - compared to any other artists at the time. .......................

One last point goes for VOODOO LOUNGE - despite of my generally harsh criticism of that album (elitist shit like "Stones For Dummies"), it needs to be noted out that it is their best selling album since TATTOO YOU. They obviously did something right with that album.

- Doxa

First this: I have to admit that I have not got trained ears, like you have developed. I am not equipped with the capability to develop that. But with my always untrained ears I still had had all the preceding released albums as a close personal experience since the midddle of the '60s.

Then on that basis, it seems, therefore not in the same manner and not quite for the same reasons, but with some semblance on the surface, that TATTOO YOU to me happened to become what VOODOO LOUNGE soon started to mean to you.

It was my privilege to receive one more great Stones album after such a downfall, when I had been thinking sadly that it was all over, UNDERCOVER.

I myself find it impossible to make a total list, ranking in detail every Rolling Stones album. In the past it was many years, when I thought about BEGGARS BANQUET as their best album. I left that idea later, now decades ago. For a long time period up to the moment I operate with a list of maybe 12 GREAT albums in a Stones context, but do not at all rank within that list. After date of release, (UK), they comprise ROLLING STONES (v 1), AFTERMATH, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST, BEGGARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS, EXILE ON MAIN STREET, SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, UNDERCOVER. Maybe BLUE AND LONESOME ought to enter that list, too. And as I met it as an album, the German Decca compilation of two EPs and a couple of early singles, AROUND AND AROUND, also features on my list of great Stones albums as album.

Other Stones album releases have their allotted groups status. However, their status is under subconscious revision at the time, so I can't say anything further.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-31 13:55 by Witness.

Quote
His Majesty
It wasn't meant as a comment on the song writing, just that as a listener and a musician hearing the same sound over and over is boring.

May I as a non-musician and in some respects a very simple listener ask a possibly very naive question to you or other posters on the threadpage of this quote:

Do[es] the 80's sound(s) apply to every band / group that released music in the 80s? And if will be said that it was, was it intruding equally as much on music from any band from then?

Quote
Witness

Quote
His Majesty
It wasn't meant as a comment on the song writing, just that as a listener and a musician hearing the same sound over and over is boring.

May I as a non-musician and in some respects a very simple listener ask a possibly very naive question to you or other posters on the threadpage of this quote:

Do[es] the 80's sound(s) apply to every band / group that released music in the 80s? And if will be said that it was, was it intruding equally as much on music from any band from then?

Firstly, the early 80s still had a lot of the 70s sound (the big, gated drum sound and the (over)use of synthesisers and drum/percussion machines had yet to come - that came in the last half of the 80s in full force).

Secondly, all bands and artists welcomed the new production techniques to different extents. Some embraced it and used it in their overall sound (Peter Wolf is imo a good example, as it differed so much from the classic J Geils Band-stuff. David Bowie as well). Other bands, like the Stones, were more careful. There is classic-sounding Stones music on TY, Undercover, Dirty Work and Steel Wheels in addition to the more modern-sounding stuff.

The opposites on SW may be Rock And A Hard Place and Hold on To Your Hat. Both are rockers, but only the former is 80s-sounding.

Just my two pennies worth on this topic



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-31 14:38 by DandelionPowderman.

Thank you, Dandelion!

I ask as one who listenend and/or listen to bands like New Order, early Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds (at the moment also the remainder), early Sonic Youth (soon going to listen to the remainder), to Bauhaus (and splinter bands) and the Pixies, but not aware of or engaged in such issues. As to the first half of the 90s I was interested in Creation label-bands, (sometimes these days once again listening to Slowdive.) However, I am not an analytical listener.

And even when I may more or less gather that there are periodtypical ingrediences from the 80s, that does not end as an objection for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-31 15:04 by Witness.

It was the gated reverb on the snare drum and the synthesisers, used as basis for the band-sound that I had a beef with. Many of the bands/artists you mention are alternative/indie/experimental bands/artists. They had their own sound, often contrary to what was perceived popular at the time sound-wise.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


The «retro Stones» or «Stones by numbers»-terms are often affiliated with the open G-guitar. Was Keith tired of it? Were they afraid of going too retro? Wasn't there more magic to be picked up by Keith's «antenna»?

I just find it interesting that they didn't use that «weapon» more in this period..

Very interesting questions. I guess it could be both that of Keith being bored with the tuning - not being anymore inspired discovering some new magic things from that source - and them intentionally not trying to sound "too retro". In 1994 that was all 'legitimate' again - even though my picture of Keith using the "weapon" is that it hasn't been that inspired even since then - more like providing the typical trademark sound of his just to add his bit or make sure the given song sounds like the Stones.

What goes for Keith being 'bored with it' - I wouldn't be so surprised about it. Wasn't that the reason why he started to fool with those opening tunings in the first place, feeling he wasn't going anywhere with the standard tuning any longer. By the mid-70's he would have milked out that source rather extensively and the danger of start repeating oneself was there for him as to any creative artist like he surely was back then (does, for example, the riff of "If You Can't Rock Me" sound that inspired after all those Exiles and everything). That of him thinking 'I use this weapon to sound 'trademark' or 'Stonesy'' wasn't the thing he had in his mind back then I am rather sure. He was still looking forward.

By the way, thanks or providing that list of "weapon uses", Dandie!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-31 15:17 by Doxa.

Another thing to notice in regards to the Open G is that of its 'golden age' co-incidents with Mick Taylor being in the band, and the kind of typical Stones sound was created - or at least mastered - during those years. It's counter-part, especially live, turned out to be Taylor's lead guitar, while Keith providing the riffs and rhythmn (taking care of of the 'bottom'). When Keith says in LIFE that he started write songs especially Taylor in mind that probably meant that he crafted that sort of songs that left enough room - empty spaces - for Taylor to add his finger magic, while Keith just providing the 'riff bottom' and general structure, probably pretty much laid by Open G. And then later, when Taylor was gone, and a new guitarist in the band, and the band still looking forward, probably getting rid of what we now call his signature thing was a part of re-inventing their sound. Probably Ron's presence alone changed the dynamics within the guitarists, which also had an effect on Keith's way of writing. Keith I think has this great habit of his being awere of the social nature of making music, being affected by the people he works with, knowing how to use them best, etc.

Just thinking aloud, as usual....

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-31 15:52 by Doxa.

Good points, Doxa. And BB and LIB might have been the «discovery and experimental phase» (although the only one who plays open G on LIB is... Taylor )

Well, open tuning, at least

It was the 1969-tour that unleashed «the beast» totally, I'd say.