I listened to this tonight, and realized that it's just too long. Thinking of BB, LIB, Sticky Fingers, Tatoo You, Some Girls -- those albums are 1/2 - 2/3 the length of ABB, but they are tight. If you keep the classic numbers (RJ, ONNYA, IWTL) and add Under the Radar, I'm not sure it matters which 4-5 you drop. It would have been a much stronger effort. Would LIB have been improved if they included Don't Know Why I Love You and Jivin Sister Fanny? Probably not.

Most radio's have a program function; just program the songs you like, et voila!! The more, the better.

the CD era ushered in a problem for all artists - many feel compelled to fill discs to near capacity and the result is usually that the albums contain lots of filler. there are very few albums that hold together well for 60+ minutes. ABB's no exception.

Artists don't think in terms of filler's. Why else would they include 16 songs?! They could do about 12 and it would still be fine..

Great truth, T&A. Most of greatest rock albums are about 45 minutes long.

I remember when my friends and me used to copy two albums in a 90 min tape...

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Artists don't think in terms of filler's. Why else
> would they include 16 songs?! They could do about
> 12 and it would still be fine..


You explain why so many albums have so much filler these days, then. Go ahead. Scoot....

Personally, I think that is a good problem to have. The general consensus is that ABB could have been better as a shorter album, and I agree. But, but when you try to get a consensus on which songs to cut, people seem to be all over the place. Everybody's opinion of the indespensible tracks differs.

My take is just give me all of the songs, I'll sort them out based on my taste. Otherwise, I would desparately be searching the boots for the deleted tracks and would pay whatever it took to get them...no matter how sub-par they were. (of course, these days someone would post them somewhere!)

BUT...I fully understand how adding lessor tracks (or "filler" - I hate that word) can dilute the whole of the album from artistic standpoint. To me, the ebb and flow of Sticky Fingers is perfect. If at that time they felt the need to pad out that perfect 45 minute album to fit a 60 to 70 minute format it would definitely disrupt the flow and Sticky Fingers would have been something else entirely.

So, given that I am mixed on the subject, I will take the additional songs! As I recall, people on here seemed to enjoy sequencing their own version of ABB based on their favorite cuts or how they liked it to flow. An "interactive" Stones album, if you will.


Ross (rambling!)

Ross - come back when you have an actual opinion on the subject, eh? All I got out of that is that you prefer "lesser tracks" to "filler".....

My ABB, would be:

1. Rough Justice
2. It won't take Long
3. Rain Fall Down
4. Back Of My Hand
5. This Place Is Empty
6. ONNYA
7. Dangerous Beauty
8. Under The Radar (must have on the original cd)
9. Look What The Cat Dragged In
10. Laugh I Nearly Die.
11. Driving Too Fast
12. Infamy.

Read it again slowly,T&A. My opinion is that I prefer having the additional tracks. Although I understand why others have a different opinion, I personally prefer getting all of the tracks. There is no right or wrong here, just personal preference.

Ross

yes its fine for diehards to sequence their own album but once you've done that you can't really say its a good album as such, can you? it becomes an album with good songs and a few clunkers...

also, most people who here streets of love or biggest mistake just head for the toilet and leave their copies behind..

i think the trend towards 60 or 70 minute cds (not a trend actually..now a reality) is very unfortunate....

sorry to add that i disagree... there is right or wrong.. you either have a great album or you don't ... sequencing to your heart's content isn't going to change that reality!

sorry to come off so strongly but i feel really deeply on this one...

also, its not too much to ask that the artist themself do a little pruning

there's right: Sticky Fingers

there's wrong: ABB

what about Exile on Main Street...is that too long???!!!

I'll take all of the Bang you can gimme....WITH the bonus trax, too...

JR

stone-relics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what about Exile on Main Street...is that too
> long???!!!
>
>

I suppose if you're an ADD sufferer, perhaps. But, the discussion here is the sacrific of quality for quantity. No, EOMS is not too long....

exile on main street too long?

are you kidding? it might be the greatest rock and roll record of all time! if its not the greatest its in the top ten for sure...

so, no it is not too long...its perfect the way it is...

i don't think anyone is saying there can't be a great 60-70 minute album.. there can.. but examples are few and far between...


you can go to www.acclaimedmusic.net and check out the best albums of all time.. only a handful are that long..but there are cases..

alas, bigger bang will never make that cut... i think if it had been 12 songs it could have been a solid 4 star album.. with the padding its 3 stars...

midrambler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My ABB, would be:
>
> 1. Rough Justice
> 2. It won't take Long
> 3. Rain Fall Down
> 4. Back Of My Hand
> 5. This Place Is Empty
> 6. ONNYA
> 7. Dangerous Beauty
> 8. Under The Radar (must have on the original
> cd)
> 9. Look What The Cat Dragged In
> 10. Laugh I Nearly Die.
> 11. Driving Too Fast
> 12. Infamy.


Yes, and mine would be significantly different.
Which is why Ross is dead on.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there's right: Sticky Fingers
>
> there's wrong: ABB

Exactly, T&A

Mick, Keith and the ghost of Jimmy Miller himself could edit the ABB sessions for a year and could't come up with anything near the perfection of Sticky Fingers.

None of this changes the fact that I personally like the idea of getting all of the tracks, even though I can see where it might dilute the artistic integrity of the work.

Ross

by the "Ross argument" - every artist should put out every burp and note from the recording session - spanning as many discs as necessary - and leave it to the consumer to whittle it down to something they like....

I must agree. A bit long and in need of some reshaping (adding UTR and WDWGH) would have been more to my liking. Still, obviously not Exile, but a Damn Fine effort for a band that has a drummer at 64 (is he 65 yet?) and two guitar players who've definitely dodged the Reaper through constitutional fortitude that baffles modern medicine.

And T&A, regarding your post (a couple back), I'm not buying S-A-C-R-I-F-I-C??
I am the official spell-checker for this board you know !

oh, go sacrifuck yerself....

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh, go sacrifuck yerself....

You sure u don't reside in the Northeastern part of the US, say Cleveland, Buffalo or maybe NYC? What's that last track on Voodoo Lounge? "Mean Disposition"?? Have a better day my brother.

lol

It's all between the ears, if they made the same amount of songs on a doubble cd it wouldn't be a problem.

Probaly the discussion would be, I like the first on better then the second one.




__________________________

so - I think the point that some of us are trying to raise is that in the LP era, the goal was to come up with (typically) 10 good songs that would round out an single disc that would clock in at somewhere between 35-45 minutes. The chance of coming up with a great album was contingent on developing those "10" great songs.

In the modern era, the paradigm has shifted and the challenge now is to find 16-18 good songs to round out the 70-80 minutes afforded by the CD.

You do the math...very few albums (lp or cd) hold "steady" for that many songs. Hence, there are significantly fewer great albums in the modern era (that's at least one reason and argument why, anyway).

Most of my favorite albums of the "modern" era are ones that eschewed the extra space available on the CD....it ain't just a coincidence, either....

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> by the "Ross argument" - every artist should put
> out every burp and note from the recording session
> - spanning as many discs as necessary - and leave
> it to the consumer to whittle it down to something
> they like....


That is just silly. You're stretching. We are talking about 4 or 5 complete tracks that The Stones obviously deemed worthy of inclusion.

It is not an "argument" at all, I just stated my preference to have all of the material, with full understanding of how that MIGHT affect the work. I am not even disagreeing with you, I just have a different preference.

Ross

Give me all the songs. The Stones put out a new album every 4-7 years, so give me as much as you got. If the next album was 40 minutes long we would all say. "hmm I wonder what they left off." If you don't like it then press "skip" to the next song. I want all the music The Stones can produce. Charlie Watts Farting into a microphone is better than 99% of the music being released these days.


Go Dawgs!

i'm just having fun with you, Ross....just taking your reasoning to the "nth" degree for the light of public scrutiny....

No prob, T&A. I read your posts regurlary and know you like a good debate. You are usually spot-on and always manage to keep this board interesting!

Ross

Too much filler, I'm afraid.

Had it been the same length as Some Girls, we might have been talking about an excellent album.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> by the "Ross argument" - every artist should put
> out every burp and note from the recording session
> - spanning as many discs as necessary - and leave
> it to the consumer to whittle it down to something
> they like....

Sounds damn cool, doesn't it?