Quote
Taylor1
Why they released BTB and Flowers the same year is strange.Had they added Let’s Spend the Night Together ,Ruby Tuesday,Sitting on a Fence,HaveYouSeen Your Mother Baby to the UKVersion of BTB, and removed Please go aHome All sold Out and Cool Calm Collected they would have had a top 7Stone’s Album

Had they included the single songs into an album that would have thought as cheating in UK at the time - selling the same item twice. That wasn't any artistic decision but a norm of the business at the time. Albums were rather expensive items back then for a typical audience, consisting of teenagers, so they made sure that the content is as unique as possible - not over-lapping with the content of singles (or EPs).

In US it was all different. Seemingly people wanted the hits they heard on the radio and if they were going to buy an album, those needed to be found there. Thereby the idea of singles being like ads for albums, like it has been the norm since the early 70's around the globe, was already used there. Bottom line is that the American teenagers had more money in their pockets, so they were more eager to buy albums than 'only' singles. The management of the Stones sure knew about it: they pretty much milked out the market by releasing about three new albums a year from 1964 to 1967. FLOWERS is a typical product of this approach.

We have to remember that when the Stones - and The Beatles - started releasing albums the whole product of long-player album was only about ten years+ old. It was a pretty new concept, and just about getting in shape. No one knew what kind of cultural icon, an artistic statement and a commercial jackpot it would turn out to be (all history now, though). So it was natural that the different markets were treated differently.

Interestingly, as the concept of album developed, it took influences from both US and UK releasing policies (The Beatles and the Stones were showing a lead there, but of course, there very many others). The idea of an album as an artistic statement and wholeness of its own sounds more deriving from the UK. Like an album is more 'serious' product than a hastily collected compilation of whatever tracks available to be build up around hit singles (surely there were some 'serious' people like Dylan making albums like coherent artistic statements from the day one, but Sir Bob was initially a 'non-commercial' folk artist with his own artistic freedom the record company accepted (read: no hits), and not a pure pop act like The Beatles or the Stones who were in the business basically just to make money and hit records). However, the American idea of singles being like short ads for selling albums ('the most commercial sounding songs picked up from albums) became a norm as well. For The Stones BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED were like transitional albums, STICKY FINGERS being the first 'modern' album in this sense.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-15 13:21 by Doxa.

You must admit though ,combining the best songs from both albums and the singles make a great album

Quote
Taylor1
You must admit though ,combining the best songs from both albums and the singles make a great album

Surely! Even though the year 1967 is probably not remembered as their highest moment in their career - none of the albums BETWEEN THE BUTTONS, FLOWERS or SATANIC MAJESTIES are among their most hailed masterpieces for sure - but just think of one does one 'best of' album from those three albums and singles - and compare that to any album they have done since then (when they release an album per year/two years/seven years/15 years). It includes stuff like "Ruby Tuesday", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "She's A Rainbow", "2000 Light Years From Home", "We Love You", "Dandelion", "Backstreet Girl", "Connection", "Yesterday's Papers", "Sittin On A Fence" etc. etc. It says that they were in the height of their artistic power back then - within a year Mick and Keith coming up with a load of incredible tunes (no matter how 'poppish' they mostly are). But it was the hectic times - there was no time for 'wait the inspiration to come' or develop ideas much further (although by SATANIC MAJESTIES they started getting there). The deadlines had no mercy. That's I think is the reason is that the albums are a bit uneven (the lack of good producer with a distinctive vision has a role there too). But there surely not was lack of awesome material.

By the way, I think AFTERMATH is a stronger album than BETWEEN THE BUTTONS.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-15 01:31 by Doxa.

I think Flowers is a gem. Strictly speaking it's a compilation album, but a bit of an odd record, torn between Aftermath and Between The Buttons.

To anyone familiar with the UK releases, Flowers was mostly a throwaway album, yet another compilation. But if you grew up on the USA versions, it filled a lot of holes. And it turned out to stand pretty well on its own.

And Doxa is absolutely correct about the different marketing models used in the UK vs the US. In the UK it was considered cheating to put the single on the LP as most were already buying the single. In the USA it was transitioning to an LP based market and the single was becoming less important and the LPs largely were sold as a way to get the single along with a lot of other material.

That was the largest problem with the UK Aftermath for me, if it had included Paint It Black it would have been perfect.

jb

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Taylor1
Why they released BTB and Flowers the same year is strange.Had they added Let’s Spend the Night Together ,Ruby Tuesday,Sitting on a Fence,HaveYouSeen Your Mother Baby to the UKVersion of BTB, and removed Please go aHome All sold Out and Cool Calm Collected they would have had a top 7Stone’s Album

Had they included the single songs into an album that would have thought as cheating in UK at the time - selling the same item twice. That wasn't any artistic decision but a norm of the business at the time. Albums were rather expensive items back then for a typical audience, consisting of teenagers, so they made sure that the content is as unique as possible - not over-lapping with the content of singles (or EPs).

In US it was all different. Seemingly people wanted the hits they heard on the radio and thereby the idea of singles being like ads for albums, like it has been the norm since the early 70's around the globe, was already used there. American teenagers also had more money in their pockets, so they were more eager to buy albums than 'only' singles. The management of the Stones sure knew about it: they pretty much milked out the market by releasing about three new albums a year from 1964 to 1967. FLOWERS is a typical product of this approach.

We have to remember that when the Stones - and The Beatles - started releasing albums the whole product of long-player album was only about ten years+ old. It was a pretty new concept, and just about getting in shape. No one knew what kind of cultural icon, an artistic statement and a commercial jackpot it would turn out to be (all history now, though). So it was natural that the different markets were treated differently.

Interestingly, as the concept of album developed, it took influences from both US and UK releasing policies (The Beatles and the Stones were showing a lead there, but of course, there very many others). The idea of an album as an artistic statement and wholeness of its own sounds more deriving from the UK. Like an album is more 'serious' product than a hastily collected compilation of whatever tracks available to be build up around hit singles (surely there were some 'serious' people like Dylan making albums like coherent artistic statements from the day one, but Sir Bob was initially a 'non-commercial' folk artist with his own artistic freedom the record company accepted (read: no hits), and not a pure pop act like The Beatles or the Stones who were in the business basically just to make money and hit records). However, the American idea of singles being like short ads for selling albums ('the most commercial sounding songs picked up from albums) became a norm as well. For The Stones BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED were like transitional albums, STICKY FINGERS being the first 'modern' album in this sense.

- Doxa

Top post.
Learned something new.

1967 was a great year for the stones, if you add in the best songs from each album, include the singles, b -sides, outtakes and instrumentals.

and for some on here, to make it a masterpiece add in yellow submarine, obla di obla da and penny lane.

you know the real deep heavy, mind arranging psychedelic rockers the beatles became famous for.

am i dissing the beatles again, sorry, but its a habit.

Flowers would have been more useful to U.S. fans if they deleted the repeated tracks from the U.S. versions of Aftermath and Between The Buttons Ruby Tuesday, Let's Spend The Night Together and Lady Jane and included the missing b-sides and U.K. only tracks Sad Day, Long, Long While, Who's Driving Your Plane and What To Do. This would have made Flowers a more useful catch all for the missing tracks from the Aftermath & Between The Buttons time period. They could have even thrown in If You Let Me from which appeared on Metamorphosis.

I belong to the minority here that listened to these two albums when they were released, that is, in that order towards albums to follow, whereas many posters probably heard their '68-'72 studio output before.

In fact, myself I did not became Stones fan from one day to another, but rather as a drawn out process over a couple of years. In that respect, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS was a vital album to fulfill my fanship. This outcome was not because I necessarily thought it better than the preceding albums. Instead it was a result of experiencing that the Rolling Stones on top of all other attraction could satisfy me musically in addition even in other respects than before. Especially the song"She Smiled Sweetly" impressed me that way and was an important song in my further approach to the Rolling Stones.

As to albums' greatness, it was years later, with great studio albums to come, like the '68-'72 studio albums that also I so much adored and listened to that much, sometimes maybe too much, over some time I made a rather startling private discovery. To my surprise I became aware that BETWEEN THE BUTTONS felt fresher than the '68-'72 albums and often gave me more joy and pleasure than those. From about this time I gave up earlier rankings between albums. Instead I nominated approximately twelve studio albums as great Rolling Stones studio albums without internal ranking.

Among these albums are then both AFTERMATH and BETWEEN THE BUTTONS. So I cannot and will not choose one of them as greater than the other, even if probably BETWEEN THE BUTTONS may be the album of all Stones albums or by any other band that I am most fond of. Besides, at its time I never thought of that album as especially " English" really, only that it was different.

Both albums many regard as pop oriented, often by them seen as an objection. I have never thought that pop necessarily is bad or whatever. It always depends. Apart from that, the way the Stones were a pop band, it was as progressive pop as much as commercial pop.

Which version of the two albums count? To me it was and is the UK versions. Why? Because the Rolling Stones output consisted of both albums and their fantastic single A- and B-sides. Albums and singles were vital. To have included singles in albums to me, instead of enhancing them, would have detracted from either the singles' or the albums' greatness by making the band repeat themselves.

One often neglected aspect by this duel consideration of albums, by some even with track against track evaluation, is what is lost thereby. It is the most wonderful experience of a band journey in grand development during various phases of their career. The journey perspective to me is much more rewarding than the competition perspective.

>Flowers would have been more useful to U.S. fans if they deleted the repeated
>tracks from the U.S. versions of Aftermath and Between The Buttons Ruby Tuesday,
>Let's Spend The Night Together and Lady Jane and included the missing b-sides and
>U.K. only tracks Sad Day, Long, Long While, Who's Driving Your Plane and What To
>Do.

absolutely correct, in fact your statement makes me go back on mine earlier: Flowers was basically just another compilation on both sides of the Atlantic. As I mentioned, to me at least, it stands on its own, but only if you don't consider you have heard it all before. Or most of it. And shortening Out of Time was a crime.

jb

Quote
Witness
I belong to the minority here that listened to these two albums when they were released, that is, in that order towards albums to follow, whereas many posters probably heard their '68-'72 studio output before.

In fact, myself I did not became Stones fan from one day to another, but rather as a drawn out process over a couple of years. In that respect, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS was a vital album to fulfill my fanship. This outcome was not because I necessarily thought it better than the preceding albums. Instead it was a result of experiencing that the Rolling Stones on top of all other attraction could satisfy me musically in addition even in other respects than before. Especially the song"She Smiled Sweetly" impressed me that way and was an important song in my further approach to the Rolling Stones.

As to albums' greatness, it was years later, with great studio albums to come, like the '68-'72 studio albums that also I so much adored and listened to that much, sometimes maybe too much, over some time I made a rather startling private discovery. To my surprise I became aware that BETWEEN THE BUTTONS felt fresher than the '68-'72 albums and often gave me more joy and pleasure than those. From about this time I gave up earlier rankings between albums. Instead I nominated approximately twelve studio albums as great Rolling Stones studio albums without internal ranking.

Among these albums are then both AFTERMATH and BETWEEN THE BUTTONS. So I cannot and will not choose one of them as greater than the other, even if probably BETWEEN THE BUTTONS may be the album of all Stones albums or by any other band that I am most fond of. Besides, at its time I never thought of that album as especially " English" really, only that it was different.

Both albums many regard as pop oriented, often by them seen as an objection. I have never thought that pop necessarily is bad or whatever. It always depends. Apart from that, the way the Stones were a pop band, it was as progressive pop as much as commercial pop.

Which version of the two albums count? To me it was and is the UK versions. Why? Because the Rolling Stones output consisted of both albums and their fantastic single A- and B-sides. Albums and singles were vital. To have included singles in albums to me, instead of enhancing them, would have detracted from either the singles' or the albums' greatness by making the band repeat themselves.

One often neglected aspect by this duel consideration of albums, by some even with track against track evaluation, is what is lost thereby. It is the most wonderful experience of a band journey in grand development during various phases of their career. The journey perspective to me is much more rewarding than the competition perspective.

I love everything you said.

I find Aftermath one of the top 5 albums of the 1960's, and belonging to a group of live changing albums of the 1960's. Aftermath is like a change from black and white TV to color TV. Together with The Beatles Rubber Soul and Revolver, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde, Kinks Face to Face and Sunshine Superman by Donovan it were game changers. And Buttons to me is a nice pop album, a bit experimental, but a bit too much influenced by the Kinks approach to being British, while the Stones are good at being a British band playing American music.

Mathijs

Big fan of Donovan...but not so much of his trippy psychedelic output on record.

Much prefer just him and his guitar.