Tell Me :
Talk
We've had many discussions on this topic, but again: for history sakes it absolutely isn't important who played what. It's all about who wrote it. Wilson wrote Pet Sounds on his own, and history forgets who played the actual parts. Unfortunately, the same fate is on Brian Jones and Mick Taylor.
Mathijs
So you now finally say that the Stones aren´t even great? That´s the
end of your journey I guess.
The Stones released a dozen albums that ended up in the top three of the albums released that year. We can only conclude that with every album the Stones released another album has become more famous or was more important. I guess the main claim to faim of the Stones is that they were in the top five for more years than any other band.
We have to be real here: how many epic albums does a band release? Dylan and the Beatles got three or four, the Stones have two or three, there's a dozen of bands with one epic album.
When all is said and done, in 20 years time people will remember the Stones for Satisfaction and Paint it Black, and when you're a bit more into music you know about Begars and Exile.
And that's it.
Mathijs
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-15 09:27 by Mathijs.
Indeed. That was Dingo's (Ringo's) suggestion.
In fact, my first band in high school was called Aftermath.
I have a feeling that was used quite a bit by Stones-influenced bands.
I disagree. Music or any form of art is not created in a vaccum.
Agreed 100%.
I don't know why they would be embarassed of these songs. I mean, there are 'stupid' girls out there. And with all the single mothers in this world, I'm sure they would fully appreciate the lyrics of MLH. Thank god for Mick's direct, anti-PC approach to writing such songs. In my opinion, 1966-1968 was the highpoint of his career as a lyrics writer.
I guess you are right. There is just so much of that teenager boy angst flavor in those songs... Just imagine Jagger to start singing "What a drag it is getting old"... >
<
- Doxa
I've expressed similar wishes too .
I love to hear a lot of the album stuff up to 66 reworked with the sound of the modern band. I think a few great and potentially "classic" live numbers could come out of such an exercise.
Sometimes it is I guess. The Velvet Underground produced music unheared of before, Captain Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica does not seem to have many influences, Zappa produced some unheard work, Hendrix basically invented the idom of "rock guitar", Gram Parson invented "cosmic music", Pet Sounds does not draw on too many influences. These albums all come from somewhere else than for example Exile on Main Street. Exile is the perfect example of a band that had absorped all these different American music styles, and presented it as a perfect blend. Genius yes, but it's a different league than Pet Sounds or Safe as Milk.
Mathijs
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: July 14, 2008 18:53
I have always believed Aftermath to be one of the most underrated rock albums of all time. It is not even considered in the top five of Stones albums by most of the bands' fans and pundits. Aftermath always seems to take a back seat to the Beach Boys' 'Pet Sounds', the Beatles' 'Revolver', and Dylan's 'Blond On Blond', the other celebrated albums of 1966. Yet, Aftermath arguably has just as many great hits as those albums. PIB has to be considered by far the most enduringly popular and relevant song from that year. Stylistically, Aftermath did more than any of the other albums of 1966 to widen the musical horizons of the rock genre. The Stones showed how you could effectively play exotic instruments like dulcimers, marimbas, and sitars in rock songs. True, 'Pet Sounds' used a wide array of instruments and sounds, but these were created by a bunch of session musicians outside the band. The Beach Boys didn't inspire young musicians back then or since to pick up a sitar or a recorder or a dulcimer like the Stones did. All four albums from that year represented bold artistic departures for the respective bands. Dylan went electric, Wilson went orchestra, and the Beatles went studio wizardry via George Martin. That's great but why haven't the Stones been given more credit for their efforts in changing the face of rock music through Aftermath. And are the Stones themselves to blame for this since they never have really supported the album over the years? Keith in 1969 about the Stones' musical direction: "There'll be no Lady Janes!" Mick and Keith have talked endlessly and with much affection about albums like Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, Exile, and LIB, but hardly anything about Aftermath. Too bad . . .
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 14, 2008 19:36
A good topic.
One could expect that AFTERMARTH should matter a lot to Mick and Keith, for being their first real 'baby', but they don't seem to talk very much about it. I have an old interview - written in Finnish - where Jagger says to the effect that if one wants to hear true Rolling Stones that's AFTERMATH, and NOT as critics usually say BEGGARS BANQUET (He critises the latter quite much, and especially the political rambling of "Street Fighting Man"). Anyway, Mick says that he likes the album (AFTERMATH) but not the way the songs were written. Well, the interview was made after the release of EMOTIONAL RESCUE which was not much critically acclaimed, and perhaps that's one of the reasons Jagger wants to offer non-orthodox views of their past, just to piss off the critics, probably.
But of all their tracks, I think Jagger has not tried to explain the meaning of the lyrics more than that of "Under My Thumb"! (But perhaps THAT is an album both Mick and Keith are a bit embarrassed these days. Just think "Stupid Girl", or "Mother's Little Helper")
Just one more thing. AFTERMATH is one of those cases when the BRitish and US versions are significantly different. I have learned to think of it as British version, so I can not locate "Paint It Black" on it at all. But I think for the people get to know the American version the song is essential part of the album.
- Doxa
One could expect that AFTERMARTH should matter a lot to Mick and Keith, for being their first real 'baby', but they don't seem to talk very much about it. I have an old interview - written in Finnish - where Jagger says to the effect that if one wants to hear true Rolling Stones that's AFTERMATH, and NOT as critics usually say BEGGARS BANQUET (He critises the latter quite much, and especially the political rambling of "Street Fighting Man"). Anyway, Mick says that he likes the album (AFTERMATH) but not the way the songs were written. Well, the interview was made after the release of EMOTIONAL RESCUE which was not much critically acclaimed, and perhaps that's one of the reasons Jagger wants to offer non-orthodox views of their past, just to piss off the critics, probably.
But of all their tracks, I think Jagger has not tried to explain the meaning of the lyrics more than that of "Under My Thumb"! (But perhaps THAT is an album both Mick and Keith are a bit embarrassed these days. Just think "Stupid Girl", or "Mother's Little Helper")
Just one more thing. AFTERMATH is one of those cases when the BRitish and US versions are significantly different. I have learned to think of it as British version, so I can not locate "Paint It Black" on it at all. But I think for the people get to know the American version the song is essential part of the album.
- Doxa
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
pike bishop
()
Date: July 14, 2008 20:15
Yep I couldnt agree more,I mentioned a while ago I"d love to hear The Stones play Aftermath in its entirety (in concert )Theres not much chance of that.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: July 14, 2008 21:06
Well...first thing is whether Aftermath truly is underrated. You compare the album with Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, Beatles -well, Aftermath is what put the Stones in that league, and not the other way around. Aftermath put the Stones in eternal stardom, it was the transformation of a R&B band that was the London answer to the Beatles to a band that competed with the Greats of the music bizz. Aftermath made them millionaires, which gave them the freedom to be the bad boys of R&R.
Musically, albums of the Stones have always been 2nd to someone elses work -at least until Exile. With every album they released they always competed with the "flavour of the Day". The Velvet Underground & Nico's first album sold zilch, still it is one of the most important albums ever. Pet Sounds has never been a multi-million seller, still it is a landmark album.
In this respect I think it is fair to say that in the end, the Stones are more of a fashion-following band than creators of fashion. The Stones didn't experiment with exotic instruments before the Beach Boys and Beatles did. The athmosphere of the Velvet Underground is clearly present on Beggar's, Sticky Fingers has a Americana flavour, picked up from American bands like the Byrds,
The Stones absorb before they create while the truly great create without absorbing.
Mathijs
Musically, albums of the Stones have always been 2nd to someone elses work -at least until Exile. With every album they released they always competed with the "flavour of the Day". The Velvet Underground & Nico's first album sold zilch, still it is one of the most important albums ever. Pet Sounds has never been a multi-million seller, still it is a landmark album.
In this respect I think it is fair to say that in the end, the Stones are more of a fashion-following band than creators of fashion. The Stones didn't experiment with exotic instruments before the Beach Boys and Beatles did. The athmosphere of the Velvet Underground is clearly present on Beggar's, Sticky Fingers has a Americana flavour, picked up from American bands like the Byrds,
The Stones absorb before they create while the truly great create without absorbing.
Mathijs
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: July 14, 2008 21:09
Quote
neptune
The Stones showed how you could effectively play exotic instruments like dulcimers, marimbas, and sitars in rock songs. True, 'Pet Sounds' used a wide array of instruments and sounds, but these were created by a bunch of session musicians outside the band.
We've had many discussions on this topic, but again: for history sakes it absolutely isn't important who played what. It's all about who wrote it. Wilson wrote Pet Sounds on his own, and history forgets who played the actual parts. Unfortunately, the same fate is on Brian Jones and Mick Taylor.
Mathijs
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
HEILOOBAAS
()
Date: July 14, 2008 21:11
Mathijs, Exile is flap snot compared to Let It Bleed and Beggars Banquet.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: July 14, 2008 21:19
>> The Stones absorb before they create while ... <<
smile: i was right with you up to the last sentence, Mathijs - all the Truly Greats i know of draw on esteemed traditions.
but anyway: yeah it's difficult for me to think of Aftermath as underappreciated, since i appreciate it something fierce.
the word "quirky" keeps nudging me, so i have to get it typed: so many of the songs on it are wonderfully quirky and compact.
smile: i was right with you up to the last sentence, Mathijs - all the Truly Greats i know of draw on esteemed traditions.
but anyway: yeah it's difficult for me to think of Aftermath as underappreciated, since i appreciate it something fierce.
the word "quirky" keeps nudging me, so i have to get it typed: so many of the songs on it are wonderfully quirky and compact.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
TooTough
()
Date: July 14, 2008 21:56
Quote
Mathijs
The Stones absorb before they create while the truly great create without absorbing.
So you now finally say that the Stones aren´t even great? That´s the
end of your journey I guess.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
tomk
()
Date: July 14, 2008 22:33
Also note that Aftermath was recorded BEFORE Blonde On Blonde and Revolver,
and Aftermath and Pet Sounds were recorded at about the same time
[late 1965-early 1966) in the same city, LA.
In the UK, the album was released earler than the other albums (March or April),
but was released in the States in June.
PEt Sounds and Blonde On Blonde released in May, Revolver in August.
I don't think Aftermath is underrated. It's without a doubt one of
the Stones' greatest records. True, it does seem to be under-appreciated
when compared to the other records mentioned. But it's only been in the last
15 years or so that the status of Revolver as one rock's greatest albums has changed. It was kind of over-shadowed by Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, and Rubber SOul for a while (maybe due to the US vinyl version missing 3 key Lennon songs).
Indeed, 1966 was certainly rock/pop music's greatest year.
Look at the charts!
Also, to give the Stones some credit, I always thought the
"sea of green" line in Yellow Submarine, although attributed to Donovan,
came from the line in Paint It, Black recorded some months before.
and Aftermath and Pet Sounds were recorded at about the same time
[late 1965-early 1966) in the same city, LA.
In the UK, the album was released earler than the other albums (March or April),
but was released in the States in June.
PEt Sounds and Blonde On Blonde released in May, Revolver in August.
I don't think Aftermath is underrated. It's without a doubt one of
the Stones' greatest records. True, it does seem to be under-appreciated
when compared to the other records mentioned. But it's only been in the last
15 years or so that the status of Revolver as one rock's greatest albums has changed. It was kind of over-shadowed by Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, and Rubber SOul for a while (maybe due to the US vinyl version missing 3 key Lennon songs).
Indeed, 1966 was certainly rock/pop music's greatest year.
Look at the charts!
Also, to give the Stones some credit, I always thought the
"sea of green" line in Yellow Submarine, although attributed to Donovan,
came from the line in Paint It, Black recorded some months before.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: July 14, 2008 22:41
Out Of Our Heads
Aftermath
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed
Those are the essential 1960s Rolling Stones records for me - UK or US versions, doesn't matter. Personally it's not underrated. Critically and historically it is.
Aftermath
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed
Those are the essential 1960s Rolling Stones records for me - UK or US versions, doesn't matter. Personally it's not underrated. Critically and historically it is.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
Sir Craven of Cottage
()
Date: July 14, 2008 22:53
Did you know that the Beatles briefly toyed with the dea of calling Revolver After Geography?
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: July 14, 2008 23:04
Quote
TooToughQuote
Mathijs
The Stones absorb before they create while the truly great create without absorbing.
So you now finally say that the Stones aren´t even great? That´s the
end of your journey I guess.
The Stones released a dozen albums that ended up in the top three of the albums released that year. We can only conclude that with every album the Stones released another album has become more famous or was more important. I guess the main claim to faim of the Stones is that they were in the top five for more years than any other band.
We have to be real here: how many epic albums does a band release? Dylan and the Beatles got three or four, the Stones have two or three, there's a dozen of bands with one epic album.
When all is said and done, in 20 years time people will remember the Stones for Satisfaction and Paint it Black, and when you're a bit more into music you know about Begars and Exile.
And that's it.
Mathijs
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-15 09:27 by Mathijs.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
tomk
()
Date: July 14, 2008 23:04
Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage
Did you know that the Beatles briefly toyed with the dea of calling Revolver After Geography?
Indeed. That was Dingo's (Ringo's) suggestion.
In fact, my first band in high school was called Aftermath.
I have a feeling that was used quite a bit by Stones-influenced bands.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: July 14, 2008 23:11
Quote
Mathijs
The Stones absorb before they create while the truly great create without absorbing.
Mathijs
I disagree. Music or any form of art is not created in a vaccum.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: July 14, 2008 23:33
I think it's underrated on this board, or at least not talked about as much here as such topics as the tours beginning with '69, the Some Girls-->Tattoo You era, more polarizing albums like Undercover and Dirty Work, and of course the Stones' current activities. But maybe that's because it's beyond question a great album, and I think that's aptly recognized in the wider world, which justly doesn't pay much attention to the band's recent work.
true, it's not an album that blows you away in the manner of the "classic rock" monuments to come, but that's part of its charm. Yeah, quirky, and not quite as confident/indulgent/lax as later albums. Adventurous & ambitious without being downright experimental (the strangest thing about it is the whopping blues jam where the only instrument doing much of anything is the voice!), but covering a wide range of emotions, mostly negative and brooding. "I Am Waiting" was in a movie soundtrack a few years ago, so the album's hardly undiscovered.
true, it's not an album that blows you away in the manner of the "classic rock" monuments to come, but that's part of its charm. Yeah, quirky, and not quite as confident/indulgent/lax as later albums. Adventurous & ambitious without being downright experimental (the strangest thing about it is the whopping blues jam where the only instrument doing much of anything is the voice!), but covering a wide range of emotions, mostly negative and brooding. "I Am Waiting" was in a movie soundtrack a few years ago, so the album's hardly undiscovered.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
beatbabe
()
Date: July 15, 2008 00:24
I think it is definitely one of their best. Brian really shined as a musician on this one especially with the introduction of the exotic instruments he played. In fact, "Goin Home" really sticks out to me because of Mick's adlibs. It sounds like what Jim Morrison would do later on on some of The Door's tracks. But all in all I love the album.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
magenta
()
Date: July 15, 2008 01:14
1966 was just a good year period, all of major cats were cooking. Stones. the Beatles, the Zim, can't forget "Sunshine Superman", the Beach Boys and Face To Face" by the Kinks. A very good year indeed.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
scottkeef
()
Date: July 15, 2008 02:26
Being 9 yrs old when I bought it(figure THAT one out)of course I loved the "hits" but I just was not mature enough to appreciate it at the time. Imagine my delight
a few years later in 72 when after seeing them( 15 this time) in Ft Worth breaking the album out the stack o wax and digging it like a new record!
Underappreciated indeed!!
a few years later in 72 when after seeing them( 15 this time) in Ft Worth breaking the album out the stack o wax and digging it like a new record!
Underappreciated indeed!!
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: July 15, 2008 05:22
Quote
MathijsQuote
neptune
The Stones showed how you could effectively play exotic instruments like dulcimers, marimbas, and sitars in rock songs. True, 'Pet Sounds' used a wide array of instruments and sounds, but these were created by a bunch of session musicians outside the band.
We've had many discussions on this topic, but again: for history sakes it absolutely isn't important who played what. It's all about who wrote it. Wilson wrote Pet Sounds on his own, and history forgets who played the actual parts. Unfortunately, the same fate is on Brian Jones and Mick Taylor.
Mathijs
Agreed 100%.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: July 15, 2008 05:28
Quote
Doxa
A good topic.
But of all their tracks, I think Jagger has not tried to explain the meaning of the lyrics more than that of "Under My Thumb"! (But perhaps THAT is an album both Mick and Keith are a bit embarrassed these days. Just think "Stupid Girl", or "Mother's Little Helper")
- Doxa
I don't know why they would be embarassed of these songs. I mean, there are 'stupid' girls out there. And with all the single mothers in this world, I'm sure they would fully appreciate the lyrics of MLH. Thank god for Mick's direct, anti-PC approach to writing such songs. In my opinion, 1966-1968 was the highpoint of his career as a lyrics writer.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: July 15, 2008 06:08
I love the aftermath ablum. I prefer the US edition. Brian is a major creative force here, his marimbas on under my thumb and sitar on PIB are essential to those tracks which today remain among the very best songs in all of classic rock. Songs like Stupid Girl, think Flight 505 and Its not easy to me kind of make up the body of this album... they have this loose-jam feel to them. Its the weaving sound of Keith and Brian. Lady Jane and espeially I am Waiting are beautiful ballads. Dontcha Bother me and High And dry have a real down home feel, the latter could easily fit on Beggars Banquet IMO. Micks was reaching new heights with his vocals on Aftermath but his ad libbing on Goin Home shows he still had a little ways to go before perfecting his bluesy growl. Still a fun and interesting song to listen to though.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-15 06:15 by ryanpow.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-15 06:15 by ryanpow.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: July 15, 2008 06:23
Quote
ryanpow
Songs like Stupid Girl, think Flight 505 and Its not easy to me kind of make up the body of this album... they have this loose-jam feel to them. Its the weaving sound of Keith and Brian. /quote]
My favorite track on Aftermath is 'Think'. It exemplifies everything you stated above. Keith playing the rhythm chops plus solo in the right channel and Brian on the toned-down lead in the left. Great drumming by Charlie, deep bass sound by Bill. Awesome!
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: July 15, 2008 06:26
yep, all that and Mick's Howlin' Vocals too ... "Think, Think Think Back Bababyy!"
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 15, 2008 08:13
Quote
neptuneQuote
Doxa
A good topic.
But of all their tracks, I think Jagger has not tried to explain the meaning of the lyrics more than that of "Under My Thumb"! (But perhaps THAT is an album both Mick and Keith are a bit embarrassed these days. Just think "Stupid Girl", or "Mother's Little Helper")
- Doxa
I don't know why they would be embarassed of these songs. I mean, there are 'stupid' girls out there. And with all the single mothers in this world, I'm sure they would fully appreciate the lyrics of MLH. Thank god for Mick's direct, anti-PC approach to writing such songs. In my opinion, 1966-1968 was the highpoint of his career as a lyrics writer.
I guess you are right. There is just so much of that teenager boy angst flavor in those songs... Just imagine Jagger to start singing "What a drag it is getting old"... >
<- Doxa
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
keeffriffhard
()
Date: July 15, 2008 09:34
Aftermath is a nice pop-album....one of my favourites
(En Mathijs zegt weer eens hele verstandige dingen).
The Stones were dedicated followers of fashion (nothing wrong with that), back in '66 , always have been
(En Mathijs zegt weer eens hele verstandige dingen).
The Stones were dedicated followers of fashion (nothing wrong with that), back in '66 , always have been
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: July 15, 2008 09:59
Quote
pike bishop
Yep I couldnt agree more,I mentioned a while ago I"d love to hear The Stones play Aftermath in its entirety (in concert )Theres not much chance of that.
I've expressed similar wishes too .
I love to hear a lot of the album stuff up to 66 reworked with the sound of the modern band. I think a few great and potentially "classic" live numbers could come out of such an exercise.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 15, 2008 16:39
It's one hell of an important album, their first REAL album imo, but I've always viewed it as the stones answer to Rubber Soul.
I think it may get overlooked due to the production which sounds rather weak in places and because 1966 was chock full of amazing releases which changed popular music.
The albums crowning glory for me is I Am Waiting, the playing, sounds, feel and song writing on that is perfect!
I think it may get overlooked due to the production which sounds rather weak in places and because 1966 was chock full of amazing releases which changed popular music.
The albums crowning glory for me is I Am Waiting, the playing, sounds, feel and song writing on that is perfect!
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: July 15, 2008 16:43
Quote
ryanpowQuote
Mathijs
The Stones absorb before they create while the truly great create without absorbing.
Mathijs
I disagree. Music or any form of art is not created in a vaccum.
Sometimes it is I guess. The Velvet Underground produced music unheared of before, Captain Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica does not seem to have many influences, Zappa produced some unheard work, Hendrix basically invented the idom of "rock guitar", Gram Parson invented "cosmic music", Pet Sounds does not draw on too many influences. These albums all come from somewhere else than for example Exile on Main Street. Exile is the perfect example of a band that had absorped all these different American music styles, and presented it as a perfect blend. Genius yes, but it's a different league than Pet Sounds or Safe as Milk.
Mathijs
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
Thommie
()
Date: July 15, 2008 16:48
It's a great album. A REAL album of the old school when the singles weren't included at the albums. It's also a milestone for the Rolling Stones because of the 100 % own material.
I think HM is right about the production.
And if you want to be critical it also lacks of real classic songs. Under my thumb and Out of time are more of the type "forgotten gems" than real classics.
But still, I really like it very much.
I think HM is right about the production.
And if you want to be critical it also lacks of real classic songs. Under my thumb and Out of time are more of the type "forgotten gems" than real classics.
But still, I really like it very much.
Re: Aftermath: Underrated?
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: July 15, 2008 17:08
Overall, yes, I think Aftermath is a little under appreciated. It was one of the key releases of 1966, but unfortunately for the Stones, so were Pet Sounds, Revolver, Blonde On Blonde etc. All LP's that to this day, are hugely influential. I personally don't think Aftermath is QUITE in the same league and certaionly doesn't hod the same 'classic status'.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bob C. , Britney , chpoutre , ChrisMahavishnu , EddieByword , jmd , Kuntaman , lincolnblues , mariano , Milan , pjb , rattler2004 , Slop , Taylor1 , thecitadel , Tubeman , tumblinbrian , TW2019
Guests:
1498
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10