WE have threads about every individual album. except it seems for that early 60's period after the firts album, up to "Aftermath". So that would be "12 X5", "Now!", "Out of our heads" and "December's Children". Not to forget "Got Live" the album and th different EP.
Any thoughts?
They became a very good cover band. Song selection went south at times. Eveb back then they left some of the ebst stuff off at times. Those incredible IBC sessions..
What about the originals from then? Are they a single band at that time?

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

i spent yesterday listening to the first three US LPs, pondering what guitars we're hearing on them.
beautiful beautiful stuff - and apart from a couple of dubious choices, MAN did that handful of skinny English cats
have an ear for numbers with long long legs! they did such a superb job of showing us all
how everlasting great this music is that we kind of take it for granted, but
it's amazing what a gift they had for sniffing out brilliant stuff and holding it up to the light for us.

"swing on, gentlemen - you are sounding most well if i may say so."

I tried from time to time to pop one up for discussion, but never caught great interest. Then you read threads on best stones albums and / or interests in music besides the stones and you understand why. I have the impression that for many the stones commence with beggars banquet / sticky fingers era, and that the perspective from which the Stones are appreciated is more that of the british 60/70 rock phenomenon rather, as I believe it should be, that of the tradition african american music.

C

Liddas wrote: I have the impression that for many the stones commence with beggars banquet / sticky fingers era, and that the perspective from which the Stones are appreciated is more that of the british 60/70 rock phenomenon rather, as I believe it should be, that of the tradition african american music.


A while back I made a compliation cd of my favorite R & B and soul covers from the first 4 albums. they really were brilliant on these songs. I think one reason why many people tend to overlook them is that when they did cover these songs they had so much respect or reverence for the music itself- they didnt think it was there role to "improve" on it they just "covered" it tastefully. But later, with Clapton, Beck and other groups listeners got used to extended blues jams and that became the norm. So hearing a 3 minute version of Little Red Rooster didnt seem to measure up.But extended blues solos after a while (yawn yawn) start to sound the same and can't match the great momment on some of these early discs.

BTW- I'd love to see a version of King Bee live. THink about it. first song first album. I think Micks Harp playing has greatly improved over the years and I like to hear Daryl on the WoooM bass part. Also if the stones ever do call it quits I would be perfect to go back to that song before the end.

I think Hitmakers is their best album. Worked w/a woman, older than me (>48) and offered her anything from the Stones collection. She told me two things. 1) Hitmakers is the best album 2) After they lost Brian they sucked. Draconian? Yes. Does she have something to say and think on? Yes.

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

... they caught me primetime,, 13/14 years old,,, we didnt care if they were 'covers' or anything else,,, it was an instant magnatism to them,,
sound/looks/attitude... there was little room in the beginning for anything else, they were that captivating for the ones who seem'd a bit closer to the perimeter than most,,,, there was air guitar and mic twitch from the beginning... that early period was far more powerfull as some think beggars etal was..... rolling stones NOW is an incrediable spin ...... the got live junk was throw away at the time,,, but when keith and jagger began pen'n there own stuff,, it was like the fort became really fortified,, they were already the greatest band in many eyes,, ,, ......... next.

Maybe it's because I'm in the process of slowly forming my collection of Stones CD's chronologically and have had Hitmakers through December's Children the longest (so have listend to these the most), but these are my favorite records. The sound is so honest, I don't know else to describe it. They seem to be playing it because they really love it.

Of the first three albums 2 are in my top 10 of favorite Stones albums (hitmakers and Now!) Keith and Brian are absolutely amazing on those two albums. This is clearly the era when they were seen as a four armed creature when they were playing together.
A few highlights, apart from the obvious ones, are Little by little, I'm a king bee, Confessin' the blues and Mona.

>> first song first album <<

King Bee was the first track on side 2, actually. my favourite track when it first came out.

>> They seem to be playing it because they really love it. <<

absolutely! and that's so crucial to their incredible energy and tenacity:
they honest-to-God care about this music, and treat it right.

I'd really love a compilation that sequenced the songs in blocks, based on which session they come from. Then I think I'd have a much better sense of the band's development. I know some of you have the sessionography in your heads (or are "out of your heads"), but I can't always remember which is which. There's already a Chess Sessions bootleg, I think, which gathers that material. I guess I have most of the stuff on CD and could do it myself. For a rainy day...

2 points: which are "the obvious ones"? and did they really "sniff out" obscure material? I thought most of the songs they covered were US R&B hits, even if they had to import the records and maybe the music papers. Granted, they were far ahead of the curve in the UK.

>> and did they really "sniff out" obscure material? <<

if that's my "sniff out" you're quoting there: i didn't mean it was all obscure -
although as you note, in the UK at the time (and for the most part among young white middleclass Americans as well)
what they were into was pretty far from mainstream-hit territory.

what i meant is that - maybe with a few exceptions - they had a gift for recognizing the difference
between music of lasting value and forgettable short-term-entertainment-type fluff
like I'm a Blue Toothbrush or whatever that title is that Keith likes to use as an example
of the kind of thing that was being marketed at the time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-02 18:24 by with sssoul.

>
> 2 points: which are "the obvious ones"? a


I guess the obvious highlights on the first albums are the hits, like Not fade away, Route 66, Time is on my side, It's all over now and Little red rooster. No one will deny these are great songs, performed in an outstanding way.
I was just asking attention for a couple of real great tunes, the true examples of "the skillful guitar work of Keith Richards and Brian Jones".

marcovandereijk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the true examples of "the skillful
> guitar work of Keith Richards and Brian Jones".

Hey marco, welcome to the Board. I've always thought the solos on Walkin the Dog are some of the hottest Keith EVER did.

Wow, here I go again...

This era is not my favourite - I'm guessing you had to have been there. To me, they're playing England's "Blues Society's" idea of what 'authentic' R&B was at the time. They were mere imitators at first, and melders, second.
In 2007, though, this stuff sounds antiquated. The tinny sound values somehow sounds like black & white tv shows which represent the era.

Too many of these tracks pose questions like "Sure, 'Mona' is good - but why not listen to Bo Diddley's instead?"

What I'm trying to say is, I'm sure the albums are very relatable to those who were there. But if you're born ten years after the fact, you have a different perspective. Kinda like the early Beatles. Their first 3 albums do absolutely nothing for me in the same way. I, personally, would definaltely hesitate to refer to the first 3 Beatles or first 4 Stones LP's as 'timeless'.

..... yep... ya had to be there,, , ,,,even uranium has a life span...

You raise a good point. Maybe you did have to be there. I was there and the first albums are pretty much pure magic to me. It's hard for me to step aside and listen to them from another perspective.

To me, there is a vast difference between the earliest Beatle albums and their later stuff. However, the early stuff has a similiar magic for me and it's almost like a guilty pleasure, perhaps.

I'd have to say my favorite era is the Brian Jones era. Yes, they were a cover band but then all good bands start out that way. I think it's pretty much the height of arrogance to think you can start out as a new musician writing your own music when you can't really play. I see a lot of that.

I suppose it's not easy to really put the Stones in perspective if you were not around when they started. Some of the tunes they covered might be thought of as cheesy now, but there really wasn't much of a blues scene in England at the time. Just listen to some of the songs on the first Beatle LP's and get an idea of what was popular and what was selling.

Maybe it's kind of like Elvis. His early seems pretty tame but he sure caused an uproar at the time for being so out there.

Just a few thoughts.

Marv Peck

Y'all remember that rubber legged boy

JaggerFan

Everybody's entitled to their opinions, which I respect. If you don't like the early Stones' albums, fine. But I have to say it's a little cynical to say "you had to be there", or "if you were born ten years after they were released".

I love Hank Williams, Clfford Brown, Bob Wills, Chet Baker, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc. They were all popular, or in some cases dead, before I was born. Likewise I like Radiohead, Sublime, Apples in Stereo, American Analog Set, and lots of other stuff that became popular long after my youth. Good music is good music, your taste doesn't have any relationship to your age. And, I listen to the Stones' Mona cause I like the way Mick Jagger sings it. To each his/her own, but just don't see it as a function of age.

KSIE

I respect you for actually offeing some insight and counter-opinions which actually mean something to you. It's a refreshing change to stonewall-negating or "lol"-ing I usually recieve.

Cheers.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KSIE
>
> I respect you for actually offeing some insight
> and counter-opinions which actually mean something
> to you. It's a refreshing change to
> stonewall-negating or "lol"-ing I usually
> recieve.
>
> Cheers.


But, will you respect me in the morning?

Cheers to you too, keep on rockin.

Man I'm glad I was there then and I'm still here now. There were some other really good British blues cover bands back (The Animals, Georgie Fame...) then but no one blew me away on first listen like the Stones. Ww had pretty cheezy record players back then (yes, not even stereos!) so we couldn't even hear how good it really was until the remasters came out years later.
You think the magic is gone now? Just look at their faces when they're doing the jam from MR for the millionth time and something clicks up there. Even better just watch Keith crank up that solo from HTW again. I'm happy to be here, I'm happy to be anywhere!

Who was that other British cover band?

The early Stones - Brian Jones era - is still my favorite. I listen to those lps all the time still. I disagree with the comment you had to be there/or that you could just listen to the originals. For many of those early covers, I really feel they made them in there own stlye & differ from the originals. The passion & rawness of the early Stones was so incredible.

Look at a lot of the early Beatles songs: Do You Want To Know A Secret, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Twist & Shout, She Loves You etc. mostly cute pop songs about teenage love. The early Stones were more edgy looking at love gone bad or wanting to do more than hold your hand.

The Stones music at an early age was very mature. I also don't think Brian gets his due, but the interplay with Brian & Keith on these early lps is pure magic.

My backround briefly: born in 1965, started listening Stones after IORR, really made up to fan in the 80`s (liked even Dirty W then..!)

After that started to collect 60`s era, but didn`t get much vibes from earlier stuff. Crazy of 68-72 era.

Now, I`m little obsessed of GHS-SG era, found myself listening to that A LOT, this evening mostly GHS inspired by the threads on this board (Hide Your Love, 100 Years Ago).

Maybe, but just maybe, the next discovery in my music life is RS 63-67..??

Wesley

>> you could just listen to the originals <<

sure - especially now that a lot of the artists the early Stones covered are much more widely known,
and their recordings much easier to find, than they were in the early 60s. which has a lot to do with the Stones.
in fact that was a major part of the early Stones' point: to promote the music they love
so that we'd get into it too. thanks & praises: it worked.

>> the passion & rawness of the early Stones was so incredible. <<

smile: i was just watching the 1964 NME Awards gig - my my MY that is ferocious!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-02 21:04 by with sssoul.

I don't agree that you "had to be there" to appreciate these songs. I was born in 62 been listening to the stones since 1977. I think these albums stand up well with time just listen to some of the other fluffy pop sounding songs from the same era- the stones were way ahead of their time. On the first album Jagger finds his singing style- listen to "tell me", a really simple pop song but Micks vocals give it a moody weight. compare that to pre-1964 Diddley Daddy and your really hear the difference.

For the original question: YES, don't forget about STONED.

2 1 2 0

voodoocat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't agree that you "had to be there" to
> appreciate these songs. I was born in 62 been
> listening to the stones since 1977. I think these
> albums stand up well with time just listen to some
> of the other fluffy pop sounding songs from the
> same era- the stones were way ahead of their time.
> On the first album Jagger finds his singing style-
> listen to "tell me", a really simple pop song but
> Micks vocals give it a moody weight. compare that
> to pre-1964 Diddley Daddy and your really hear the
> difference.


I have to agree, even though I find the songs too much pop songs, I listen to Hot Rocks 1 quite often, but listening to whole original album of the early 60`s Stones is not for me..

I don't believe you had to be there when the records came out to appreciate them. I was born in 1985 but, as I mentioned before, my favorite records are the early ones. To me it just seems that they are being honest to them selves and the music by playing what they love so others can enjoy it. Like others have said, the originals of these songs were not readily available so they helped them become known so that others could enjoy them too.

I grew up on the Beatles and as a kid loved their music. But once I discovered the Stones my love of the Beatles has greatly diminished since they are so much better. I still like select songs but more often than not when a Beatles song comes up when I’m listening to shuffle on my iPod I skip it. I rarely, if ever, do that with Stones songs. Even my dad who loves the Beatles and never liked the Stones before because they were “too rough” has become a Stones fan. Ironically, when I would play him songs (like YCAGWYW or JJF) he’d recognize them and remember loving them, just didn’t realize that those were Stones songs.

cali stones fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ironically, when I would
> play him songs (like YCAGWYW or JJF) he’d
> recognize them and remember loving them, just
> didn’t realize that those were Stones songs.

That`s funny, I`ve had the same experience with the live performances: I´ve taken my three different friends to three different Stones gigs. The say exactly same things: "I reckon the song, and it`s so good. Didn`t realize it`s a Stones song"

Cheers, Cali!

i'm sure glad i can't imagine listening to - for example! - Now and not getting into it -
never mind the rock - just listen to that ~*ROLL!*~
the early albums are the heart of that swing, that cool, that unstoppable combination
of talent and tenacity, energy and hormones, attitude and sheer love for the music -
you can hear the whole avalanche of what's to come in those early albums.

i find that i almost always agree with some people..