I cannot think of any band that has been done a greater disservice by the music critical establishment (particularly, ironically, Rolling Stone) than the Rolling Stones. Of course, this is not because the group is hated by the establishment, not by a long shot. Rather, it's because the Stones are presented, more often than not, in one and only one light - simplistic, "down-to-earth" roots rockers and generic rock'n'rollers that had a good formula but couldn't be successful outside of this paradigm. The implication of this, then, is that this is a band for the lowest common denominator, a band that just plays regular rock'n'roll better than anybody else (of course, it IS true that they play regular rock'n'roll better than anybody else, but hopefully you see my point) and doesn't do anything else. As a result, this is a good band for the lowly, uneducated "working man," but for anybody who demands some degree of intelligence and sophistication, it's a band to be dismissed almost outright.
I can say this because, just as with the Beatles and the Who, I started out thinking I hated this band for these exact reasons. And just as with the Beatles and the Who, when I actually started buying albums and not relying on what I'd heard on the radio and what I'd read, I quickly learned that I was more wrong than words could express. At this point in time, the Stones are only one of four bands/artists that I would even consider giving a 5-star rating to, beating out such art-rock giants as Yes and Genesis (and if you know me, you know that says a lot), and leaving them on the same level as the Beatles, the Who and Bob Dylan.
So what would cause such a change of attitude on my part? Well, to answer this question, one must first examine the basic line that is spun about the Stones by the musical press, and to do that, one must examine the various eras of the band. Best as I can figure, the band's history can best be divided into the following six epochs:
With all due respect, I have more than a few issues with that line of thinking. My take is more like this: with (1), the Stones did indeed establish themselves as a great cover band of proto-rock and blues numbers. By December's Children, however, this formula had begun to run dry for the band, and to head off stagnation the band veered in a new direction. But where many would tell you that this was a mistake, I can only say that it was the best thing that the band could have done. During (2), not only did Jagger and Richards gain a firm mastery of hooks and melody-writing, they also learned the importance of using the studio as an ally, both in production and in variation of arrangments. These lessons would prove to be utterly invaluable as the band moved into (3), the "classic years" (I should emphasize, though, that this era of the Stones was hardly just a training ground - it is my belief that the Stones were one of the finest pop bands on earth at this time, as will be evidenced in the album ratings). The center of the band's sound was "roots rock," sure, but this couldn't be any 'normal' roots rock, not after the band's pop training. Drawing upon all sorts of sources for inspiration, as well as messing around in the studio in all sorts of ways, the band created two absolute classics in Beggar's Banquet and Let it Bleed, before replacing Brian Jones (RIP) with Mick Taylor and creating two more classics in Sticky Fingers and Exile. Of course, Exile was more of a 'pure' roots rock album, but by this time the band had an utter mastery of riff and melody-writing, so it was ok.
As for the post-Exile eras, I won't lie and say I love all of their work from then, but I would never dismiss all of the band's experimentation outright. After all, one could easily compile a 90-minute tape of post-Exile tracks and name it one of the best compilations ever, and such an album would contain everything from disco to cheezy pop to punk to psuedo-ambient! Hell, it wouldn't be an incredible stretch for me to give post-Exile Stones an overall rating of four, even if some of their albums did kind of blow ... But that's for later.
Now for the members of the band themselves, all of whom have gained some level of infamy through the years. In case you aren't from this planet, I guess I should mention that the lead singer is one Mick Jagger, whose great sense of vocal hooks and commercial saavy have been a huge part of the band's success through the years. Not to mention that he is one of the most incredible showmen alive, shamelessly promoting himself as an androgynous sex machine (thank you, oh thank you to the reader on the Starostin site who used that phrase) even in his old age (and even pulling it off now, to some degree). But if Mick was the sex in Sex, Drugs and Rock'n'roll, then Keith Richards is certainly the drugs. Unfortunately for him, Keith has, in many cases, become best known for his heroin addiction, not to mention the legends that surround it (like the story that he needs to get a complete blood transfusion every couple of years to live). This is a shame, because this obfuscates the fact that Keith was one of the greatest songwriters of the 20th century. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in rock'n'roll had a better mastery of writing solid riffs, the basis for any decent song of that type. He's also boasted one of the greatest guitar tones ever (especially in the band's prime), a tone that just screams "ROCK AND ROLL!!!" with every chord, as well as the ability to pound out crisp, exciting rhythms on his guitar with the greatest of ease.
The other three positions have been filled by people who aren't quite as famous as "the glimmer twins" but are famous nonetheless. Most important has been drummer Charlie Watts, a man whose sense of rhythm could put any metronome in the world to shame. He's not particularly fancy in his approach, but that's ok - although he mostly plays in "standard" key signatures, I cannot think of a single instance where his drumming merely "plods" along. A similar statement could be made about bassist Bill Wyman (who left before the Voodoo Lounge sessions) - he's also not a fancy player by any means, but as far as chugging along underneath the guitars and keeping the rhythm of the piece together (and, yes, coming up with small revolutions of his own when needed), one would be hard pressed to find somebody who would be a better fit for the band.
The position that has seen substantial turnover in the group's long history, of course, is that of "lead guitarist." Originally, the slot was filled by one Brian Jones, who was initially a very traditional blues and r'n'r guitarist. Eventually, he got the band into drugs as well as more diverse approaches to music writing, which of course was the key to the band's pop successes. Unfortunately, he drowned in a swimming pool in '69, which opened the door for Mick Taylor. Taylor was by far the most virtuostic player the band ever had, bringing in wonderful guitar solos that could elevate (and in cases like Goat's Head Soup, sometimes rescue) the band's compositions to all new levels of enjoyment.
Alas, during his time with the band, Taylor developed a bad drug habit, and as a result he left in '74. His replacement was ultimately Ron Wood, with whom the band went back to a "guitar interplay" sound rather than a definite split between rhythm and lead. He's not a great player, but he has an interesting tone that works well in conjunction with Keith, so I'm happy. I can tell you this, though - Ron brings a very debauched and decadent feel into his playing, and that in itself seemingly elevates his parts into something more than they might seem on the surface. Maybe that's why he's so entertaining ...
On with the reviews.
What do you think of the Rolling Stones?
Ogdensgoneflake@aol.com (8/25/01)
I disagree completely with one of your last lines, Ron Wood is a great
player, no Mick Taylor mind but he is a wonderful slide player. You have
to
hear Ronnie's solo stuff (especially 'Slide On This and Slide On Live')
to
truly appreciate him though. Plus having been with The Birds, The
Creation,
Jeff Beck Group, The Faces, he stands as one of rocks most important
historical figures.
Joseph Spaulding
Debashish Burman (8/25/01)
Excellent point, that, about the Stones' sound. Certainly, Ruby
Tuesday and Satisfaction are quite sufficient to show that.
But, lets face it, you and I wouldn't feel the way we do about the Stones
without the classic '68 - '72 stuff, so I can understand why people say
what they say. Among the non-peak albums, I'd pick the rawer, more
energetic early R&B stuff over the newer albums. Save, maybe, Tattoo
You .
Pat D. (blppt@hotmail.com) (8/25/01)
I like Charlie Watts. Hes far from a technical genius, but man, the guy
always seemed to have killer snare tone. And Keith? What can i say. The
man has one hell of a library of riffage, as John no doubt mentioned.
However, i hate Mick Jagger. Hes a moron. Everytime i see the guy on
stage i just want to go up there and kick him in the head. Hes a pompous
asshole, plain and simple. Maybe thats one of the reasons the Stones are
still badass nowadays. I dunno. I just cant stand the man.
Robert Grazer (xeernoflax@juno.com) (8/25/01)
I'm not the biggest fan of The Rolling Stones (actually I hate them), for
the usual reasons, mostly. Richards' riffs get worn out easily, Jagger
can't sing, many of their songs are generic, they're full of themselves
and so on. I have tried to appreciate their music (and I do, at least
more than I used to) and I don't mean just their singles. Album after
album I sat through, with reactions that would range from actually
enjoying a song or two to straining to keep my eyes open to looking up
and praying for God to take me now. But I still don't see what everyone
else does in The Rolling Stones. To me they are no more than just
overrated jerks who write melodically dead emotionally dry music. The
most overrated band I know of, actually. The Rolling Stones receive way
too much praise and credit for everything from influence to the quality
of their hooks. I'd give them a one at best. That said, there are a bunch
of Stones songs that I do like (even a couple that I love) and I can
easily say Beggar's Banquet is a really good album, but for the most part
they really leave me cold. Sorry, this is just how I feel.
LeMysterioso@aol.com (1/08/02)
I actually got into the Stones very late in my musical quest. I've always
had it in my mind that this band was an inferior one, being that I am a
graduated Beatle fanatic. And I could never understand why people would
actually put them on the same level as the Beatles. Now five years later,
out of total boredom, I began getting all these Stones songs and lo and
behold, I got hooked. I couldn't help but find all these wonderful
connections between what the Stones did and everything that came after
them. They are an UNBELIEVABLY influential band (of course I'm talking
about their 1964-1972 period) For me, it is the December's Children -
Between the Buttons period that did it for me. I still think they were
never anything near The Beatles, but they certainly deserve a spot in the
highest echalon of rock and roll.
Raghavan RANGANATHAN (S3046624@student.rmit.edu.au) (06/07/03)
hi John
Don (donsr923@comcast.net) (1/08/04)
Cool site. Ive been to alot of Stones sites and
I don't think I have ever seen "High Tides and Green Grass"
mentioned, which was my first Stones album. Why is it ignored?
Alfred Gismondi (AGismondi@dawestchester.org) (4/29/04)
unfortunate but the stones have never releassd their live
performance from 1972 and especially 1973 with mick taylor.
these performances are the stones' at their live peak
Anthony Stewart (sweetblackangel@speedfactory.net) (6/12/04)
Hiya John, I just stumbled upon your site. I spend an inordibate amount of
time on the Net yakking about the Stones, dealing Stones, listening Stones
etc
I love the Stones.
Hats off to an excellent site. Your essays and reviews are very good writing
and thinking. Even if I don't agree with some opinions here and there I like
to see views that I respect. You put a lot of work into this place.
jascha herdt (jrok78@hotmail.com) (8/24/04)
I drifted into your Stones site and found it to be interesting. Let me ask
you this: Why in the hell do you post a message from some of these people
that hate the Stones? In fact, here's the bigger question: What are they
doing in a fans website if they hate the band? They should go get a life,
because it pisses me off that they are even in the conversation. They are
just mindless twits who are probably incapable of creating anything.
Shannon Carey (kissing_daylight@hotmail.com) (11/05/05)
I am a 17 year-old aspiring music journalist and I am incredibly fond of you
website. I love classic rock music more than I am able to put into words
and I discovered the WRC a little over a year ago (I know, so late into its
life on the 'net!) I have been pouring over countless reviews ever since.
To start off with, I would like to commend you on the general quality of
your entire website. I am a big fan of at least eight of the sites in the
WRC and I have to say that I find your site one of the most refreshing and
intelligent from a writing stand point. I have often purchased a new album
and immediately ran over to your site to see what your opinion is on the
opening song or the sequencing or some other obsessive thing. I can't say
that we always agree, but I have complete respect and appreciation for
everything you write.
This email does have a specific purpose (other than just me rambling on and
on about how much I enjoy your site for pages on end). The Rolling Stones
are my joint favorite band of all time, along with the Beatles. I have seen
them live two times and I am nearing the completion of my Stones collection.
Like all the people who read sites in the WRC, I pay closest attention to
the reviews of artists and albums that I am particulary fond of. I took a
different approach with your site than usual, saving my own favorite artists
until last for my reading pleasure. I already knew you were an excellent
writer with a unique talent for casting a light on what exactly makes a song
or album great. I loved all of reviews I read, even if I had not yet heard
the album in question. In fact, your reviews even convinced me to go out
and buy some Moody Blues, Talking Heads and Frank Zappa (thanks for that by
the way!)
Oh, there I go again with the rambling. Let me get right down to the point.
After reading all of the other reviews on your site, I finally buckled down
and spent a good three hours with your Rolling Stones page last night. I
was completely blown away. Of course, the Stones have yet to get the
complete shaft on any of the WRC sites, but it has never seemed like any of
the reviewers love and respect this band as much as I do. As I began your
introduction, I found myself actually shouting "Yes!" in complete agreement
with you. You seem to understand this band better than any other reviewer
in the WRC. Each new album review revealed another layer of the band and
painted mesmerizing and thoughtful descriptions of songs as far-reaching in
quality and style as one can imagine. When I finally read the last sentence
of the "Live Licks" review, my fingers itched to click away on a keyboard
for a little while and send you my serious thanks.
I won't bore you with the details of my own relationship with the Rolling
Stones (but just for the record, my favorite albums are indeed the Big Four,
along with the criminally overlooked "Black and Blue," the precise "Tattoo
You" and the enchanting "Between the Buttons"). I didn't ALWAYS agree with
you, of course. For instance, I actually quite like "Emotional Rescue" and
would give it a higher rating, but that isn't the point (plus, fandom has
played a dirty trick on me and I find it hard to give any Stones album
anything lower than a 6). I just wanted to commend you on being the first
reviewer I have yet come across who has really captured the mesmerizing
quality, depth, diversity, drive, emotion, vision and tremendous intensity
of this band. I simply cannot understand how someone could dislike the
Rolling Stones and I curse their stereotypical "rock and roll, dude" label
every day. Thanks again, John, for being honest and fair of your
assessments of this band and still hitting the nail right on the head. It's
writers like you that make me want to be a music journalist.
Sincerely,
P.S. I haven't read your Beatles page yet, so be prepared for another
endless gushing email in the near future. :-)
Best song: I'm A King Bee
The musical world was substantially different in 1964 from today. Rock'n'roll was gaining a following among rebellious teenagers, of course, but from a "serious" perspective, it had little going for it. It was a laughable 'phase' that most thought would pass, and there were reasons for that. For one thing, musical competency was highly lacking in most bands of the day - virtually anybody who was skilled at their instrument was in Motown, not wasting their time with r'n'r. If a band was aggressive in their approach, then they were almost certainly sloppy; if they were careful, then they were boring as hell. And, of course, there was the problem of song selection - simply put, most bands didn't write most of their own music. Instead, they would write maybe one or two songs themselves and then fill out the album with numbers from a relatively small collection of Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and other songs.
Now, by this time in 1964, the Beatles had at least partially broken down the last barrier (two albums composed of a majority of originals, one album containing nothing but originals), but even they had failed to conquer the musical competency hurdle. Not that they were bad instrumentally, per se, but even when they went "full throttle" in their playing the intensity and excitement wasn't always that high. So who was going to break the "a band is either aggressive and sloppy or restrained and boring" rule? Yup, the Rolling Stones.
That said, when I speak of the instrumental skills of the Stones, I don't mean that they were in any position to compete with Yes of ten years later, or with Metallica or anybody like that. But skills of that calibre weren't at all necessary, namely because the numbers they were covering weren't in any position to accomodate "shredding" or anything like that. No, when I speak of instrumental skills, I merely mean that not only was each person sufficiently skilled to not sound amateur, they were able to be fast, aggressive and tight all at the same time. And THAT, in and of itself, was enough to make this album a huge smash in Britain upon its release.
Of course, many people scoff at this album today, dismissing it as a mere artifact of a distant and irrelevant past. "It's just 50's mediocrity and boring blues covers! Why in the hell should anybody care about this primitive stuff when music has advanced so far since then?" If you feel a bias against all proto-rock and roots-rock, then of course you'll hate this album, but if you can learn to at least tolerate (heck, I'm not exactly a 50's aficiondo, and I like this album) music from that era, you are sure to get your kicks out of this album. Why? BECAUSE NOBODY DID THESE SONGS BETTER.
Well, ok, I would make one general exception to that statement - anything Motownish done by the band. There are three Motown covers on the album, and two of them, You Can Make it If You Try and Can I Get a Witness? blow (a third, Honest I Do, isn't that bad). And just as annoying, they throw in an instrumental counterpart to the latter called Now I've Got a Witness - it's not a total throwaway, as I appreciate the chugging bassline throughout, but I'd hardly call it a highlight.
However, every other cover on the album smokes. Wyman and Watts are tight as a thistle throughout, the guitar interplay is terrific, and Jagger complements his singing with some really enjoyable harmonica playing in places. The highlight of the album (as shown above) is I'm a King Bee, mainly because of Jones' great slide work that imitates a buzzing bee, while Richards contributes some "stinging" guitar lines over it. But none of the rest of the covers are significantly worse, especially the opening Not Fade Away and the closing Walking the Dog (I LOVE those backing vocals and whistles).
There's also a couple of originals to be found here (well, one of them was co-written with Phil Spector), and while they hardly rank with the very very best numbers of the band, they're cumulatively good. Little by Little is a bit throwawayish, but Tell Me is a great little pop ditty with both a catchy chorus and vocal melody, not to mention the way they echo up the production to make the acoustic guitar sound almost like a mandolin. Who ever said the band didn't experiment until 1966??
So yeah, this album is as essential today as it ever was. If you're cynical, it won't sound like much, but you try and play these numbers better and tighter then the Stones did!
Robert Grazer (xeernoflax@juno.com) (8/29/01)
It's one of the most important debuts for the whole "we are bad boys"
thing they started, but it's definitely not one of the best debuts I've
heard. Quite the opposite, actually. I hate this album, probably the
worst of all of the Stones release I've sat through. "You Can Make It If
You Try," "Carol," and "I Just Want to Make Love To You" all strike me as
some of the worst songs I've heard. Even so I'll say that Hitmakers has
its highlights. "Tell Me" is okay, and I can't see your problem with "Now
I've Got A Witness," which is such a catchy instrumental and easily my
favorite song on the album. It's just such a catchy instrumental, and I
don't have to hear Jagger's annoying voice! It still can't save the album
(which I'd probably give a high 2) at all, but it provides a nice break
from the boring blues covers.
Best song: It's All Over Now
The biggest problem with the Stones' second album is the presence of a whopping five original compositions. Sure, within a couple of years, Richards and Jagger would be songwrighting mastuhs, but right now they didn't quite have the hang of it. Only the terrific Grown Up Wrong even registers as a minor classic, with a cute little vocal riff that pops up the whole two minutes while Richards throws in some little Berry licks here and there. The rest of them, alas, are sloppy attempts at writing something in a blues-rock style, but without any kind of memorable hooks (Empty Heart is a particularly low point) or, in the case of 2120 South Michigan Avenue, another dippy instrumental that doesn't do much at all. As a result, the amount of filler on the album seems astronomically higher than on the debut, and this hurts the rating considerably.
A couple of the covers also fail to interest me much. Not coincidentally, both are covers of pop songs, and since that wasn't yet the band's forte, it should be no surprise that they stink a bit. Well, ok, I can understand how somebody might get some guilty pleasure out of Under the Boardwalk, but the group's cover of Wilson Pickett's If You Need Me annoys me to the point of insanity, much more so than even You Can Make It If You Try.
The question should now, of course, be why I'm then giving this album as high a grade as I did. Well, that's because the other five songs, all covers, absolutely rule, easily surpassing the quality of most of the numbers on Hitmakers. Chuck Berry's Around and Around (with some of Keith's best playing yet) and someone else's Confessin' the Blues are a terrific one-two opening combo, with Jagger chipping in some great vocals over the already classic numbers. After the lousy Empty Heart comes an even more famous number, though, the gospelish Time is on my Side. Of all the non-bluesy and non-rock songs the band covered, this is arguably the best, as the group's backing harmonies are of high quality (for once), not to mention that it's hard to wreck such a classic melody in the first place.
The generally acknowledged best song here, though, is the Bobby Womack cover It's All Over Now. In addition to some of the 'raunchiest' lyrics yet found in a Stones song, as well as Keith's very best Berry imitation yet, it also features a hella interesting echo effect in the fadeout, creating a sort of bombast not really found in any recording to that point. And again I ask - "Who ever said the band didn't experiment until 1966??"
Oh, and the album ends with a stellar runthrough of Suzie-Q, a classic r'n'r number in its own right. What else do you want me to say about it? Just because something is great doesn't mean I can write a long essay about it! Well, ok, CCR did a longer, more famous cover of the number - there's your piece of information - but one shouldn't minimize this runthrough at all.
So all in all, the album aptly demonstrates that, at this point, the band was still quite limited in what they could do well. Blues and proto-rock? The band couldn't be topped. Most anything else? Forget about it. Fortunately, though, the band probably knew it themselves, and got back to the "basics" on their next release ...
Robert Grazer (xeernoflax@juno.com) (9/02/01)
Better. Well, there's "If You Need Me" which is absolutely atrocious, but
there are quite a few songs on here that I really like, most notably the
instrumental "2120 south Michigan Avenue" which for some reason I find
catchy enough to become my favorite song on the album. Other than that
"Around and Around" is a strong opener, and I do enjoy "Suzie Q" as well.
I can see how you could call "It's All Over Now" the best song on the
album (though I wouldn't) as it's an interesting song. For early Stones
anyway. The rest of the album (other than maybe "Congratulations," which
I like more than I should) is nothing worth mentioning at all as it seems
to me like just the same old boring covers that may be catchy but offer
nothing else.
Best song: Down Home Girl. Maybe Little Red Rooster
Better, and how! On their third release, while not completely eschewing softer, poppier influences, the group seemingly remembered that it was stuff like Carol and Around and Around that had made them famous, not stuff like You Can Make It If You Try and If You Need Me. Hence, the band re-emphasized the basics - straightup rock'n'roll and blues. Of course, the cynical among us could consider this a regression of sorts, but I don't really mind - if anything, the group just sounds like a more mature, more confident version of the band that had taken Britain by storm a year earlier. There's just as much grit and energy as ever, just with a little more control over them.
The result, then, is that the first three tracks may be the best stretch of covers the band ever undertook. The opening Everybody Needs Somebody to Love, running over five minutes (despite the fact that my liner notes clock it at under three) finds Mick hilariously preachin' it over the simple but genial bassline to great effect (and don't forget the great harmonies in the chorus!). Downhome Girl, my favorite of the album, grooves along mightily thanks to the guitar interplay, and the coarse production values help give the song a slightly eerie vibe not normally expected from the early Stones (and, of course, there's plenty of sweet sweet Jagger harmonica). Likewise, You Can't Catch Me, the classic Chuck Berry cover from which John Lennon stole lyrics for Come Together, thunders along with Keith repeatedly outdoing the master.
Three of the other covers also grab me in a substantial way. Mona (I Need You Baby) sounds weird here, especially because of the odd guitar tone that Richards employs (which is made all the stranger by the production), not to mention that crossing Bo Diddley rhythms with Berry-esque guitars is a strange venture anyways. And what's that I hear from time to time in that song? Is that ... a divebomb? In 1965??!! Where else could you hear something like that this early? But I digress - Down the Road Apiece is even better, smoking in a manner that we haven't heard since the debut (I just love the way it seems like Mick and Keith are trying to outdo each other as they alternate their position as focus of the song).
And of course, there's the fabulous cover of Willie Dixon's Little Red Rooster. I'm a big fan of the way the beat of the piece so easily creates the image of a rooster strutting his stuff around the farm, not to mention the "barking" guitar part after we hear "dogs begin to bark," but of course those are not the most important features of the song. No, those would be (a) Jones' fabulous slide guitar work and (b) Jagger's cocky-as-hell vocals that pop up intermittently. And this was released as a single?? Man, these guys had brass ones ...
Of course, not every cover on the album is all that hot (both Pain in My Heart and Oh Baby (We Got a Good Thing Goin') bore me significantly). Fortunately, this is at least partially compensated by the presence of original compositions that, while not not quite on the genius level that would distinguish the band in years to come, are at least better than the sludge from 12*5. Heart of Stone is certainly a blatant attempt to write something Motownish, but at least it has a nice guitar solo in the middle. What a Shame, though, is a bit better to me, especially because I dig the bassline and the "shooting" slide riff that pops up from time to time. Off the Hook is mostly distinguished by (a) the fact that the song is at least a bit amusing in nature and (b) there's actually a decent hook in the song! And finally, while the band could have chosen a better number to close with than Surprise, Surprise, they sure as heck could have chosen worse - I dig the hook here even more than the one in Off the Hook.
Regardless of what slight gripes I may have about the album, then, I'm VERY pleased with the ending result. Although Hitmakers may have been more important historically, if you plan to get into the earliest period of the Stones, this is the place to start. Never again would the cover-tune version of the Stones sound this tight and convincing from start to finish.
Robert Grazer (xeernoflax@juno.com) (9/06/01)
Hey, there isn't a complete piece of crap on here! "Pain in My Heart"
comes close, but is still no where near as bad as "You Can Make It If You
Try" or "If You Need Me" in my opinion. Though I don't see what you do in
"Little Red Rooster." That track really annoys me. But even then it's got
a few redeeming qualities. But there's "Surprise, Surprise," which a fun
catchy little tune. And then there's "Down Home Girl" and "What A Shame,"
another pair of highlights. And "Heart of Stone" friggin' rules. Easily
hits my top 5 Stones tracks. It should hit yours too. It's everything
good about the early Stones stuffed into one track, and the best thing
they'd do until December's Children. The other songs are your typical
early stuff. Boring. Not a good album at all, but not without some good
songs.
Charles Oliver (charles@cfs.com.au) (10/11/01)
Although I am familiar with the 'Americanized' Stones recordings (ie. the
first 5 albums which were actually made up from 3 UK albums plus some hit
singles plus a couple of EPs), I much prefer to listen to their
early recordings in the format in which they were originally released.
The Rolling Stones Now! comprises of roughly 50% of The Rolling Stones
No. 2 album. Mona, as you pointed out, sounds weird here probably because
it was lifted from their 1st album. I guess this album is most notable
(to my ears, anyway) for the 3 stereo tracks which appear on it - 'Heart
of stone', 'What a shame' and the smokin' 'Down the road apiece'. The
latter being my favourite song on the album. The biggest crime with Now!
was the ommission of 'I can't be satisfied', which can be found on More
Hot Rocks - check it out. As usual, the UK versions have more of an
'album feel' about them but, you don't get to hear their great hit
singles unless you buy a hit's compilation (ie. Hot Rocks) as well. Try
making a CD of Rolling Stones No. 2 and see what I mean - you'll need
Now!, 12 X 5 and More Hot Rocks to do this.
Best song: Satisfaction or The Last Time
Oh oh oh. I have a feeling I'm gonna spark some controversy with this one. See, the consensus held by most is that with this album, the Stones finally made the "big jump" that established them as a full-fledged songwriting unit, not just as a really good cover band. And on the surface, that makes sense - not only does the album feature a full seven original compositions, it contains three superb singles (one of which is their most famous song ever). So everything's great, right?
Nope, it's not. See, while I'd be the last to deny the greatness of the "big three" on this album, I am not AT ALL bowled over by the other four group numbers here. Where are the hooks? Where are the memorable riffs? The Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man and The Spider and the Fly are regarded by many as minor classics, but why? The latter's kinda amusing in places, but I still can't tell you anything else about it after five listens (which is a problem when you're dealing with shorter songs like those the Stones would write). Likewise, TUAWCPM has done NOTHING to stick in my head, no matter how hard I've tried to make it do so. And One More Try? A complete, utter mess (albeit with some nice harmonica). And finally, I'm All Right, although it has a decent riff, is obfuscated horridly by screaming girls and murky-as-hell production.
An even worse blow is that the covers have started to slip a bit. Not that they're bad, of course - the opening Mercy Mercy is tight as anything they'd done to that point (love that introduction, too), and Jagger puts in another solid vocal performance. Likewise, although Hitch Hike is a bit wussier than I'd like (man, I guess they used up all the toughness on Now!), it has a nice, quiet solo in the middle, so I can't complain too badly. But the rest are, for lack of a better term, very routine. And that's not a good thing for somebody who isn't in love with proto-rock as a whole, but who liked the early Stones covers for providing a spark of excitement and energy (combined with solid playing) not otherwise found among others of the day.
Ah, but who cares about those? There are three reasons to buy this album, reasons that would give the album a 7 even if the rest of the album was painfully mediocre (oh wait, it is painfully mediocre). First in line: the incredible, simply INCREDIBLE pop-rocker The Last Time. Featuring one of the greatest pop riffs ever constructed by a mortal man, not to mention some pretty harmonies when necessary, this is almost undeniably my favorite song of the early Stones era, a number with impeccable construction in every possible way.
Of course, in a perfect world, that would be the song that everybody in the universe knows, but 'tis not so. Not that the alternative is a bad one, of course. Say what you will, but as far as riff-rock goes, it's hard to find any song that beats this. Combining another one of the most amazing riffs EVER with some of the greatest young-man angst lyrics ever, a cool vocal delivery and slightly rough production values, it certainly deserves to be one of the main benchmarks against which all rock songs should be judged. Yup, good song. Magnifcation, I think it's called (no, wait, that's the name of a late-period Yes album. Oops).
The third is slightly less well-known, but certainly no worse than the other two. Play with Fire is most notable in that it's the band's first song to have a really dark aura around it, what with the low-key vocal delivery combined with sneering lyrics and the "world's most cheerless harpsichord" (thanks Jeff!). But it also has one heck of a great melody, so it's not like it's just getting by on vibe alone.
And there's your album. For some, this is a masterpiece. For me, this is a woefully inconsistent and ultimately mediocre (not bad, just ok) album buoyed by three incredible songs. Do you need it? I dunno - if you're a completist you do, but otherwise, well, that's what MP3's are for.
Robert Grazer (xeernoflax@juno.com) (9/10/01)
Hey, by Stones standards "The Spider And The Fly" and "The Under
Assistant Premonition Man" are minor classics. Catchy little
Stones tunes that can get stuck in your head for hours -- what more do
you want from the early years of this band?
(author's note): Just wanted to point out that my problem with them is that, while it is likely a problem on my end, I CANNOT get these songs to stick in my head! At all! I don't understand why!!
But my vote for favorite song
on the album goes the "The Last Time," and while I disagree with you
about it being the best early Stones song, or even in the top five, it's
certainly the best thing they did here, with a cool riff and such. Then
there's that other riff... You know, that song where The Rolling Stones
proved themselves to be really bad boys by hiding the word "pregnant" in
it, and it became one of the three or so most acclaimed singles ever? I
hate "Satisfaction." A lot. If you ask me, the first real good version of
that song that I'm aware of was recorded in 1986 by The Residents. Now
THAT'S a great tune. But the best thing that ever grew out of it, was, of
course, "(I Can't Get No) Cooperation" from the Sesame Street folks.
Classic. Unlike the bore on this album, which sums up pretty much
everything mediocre about the Stones' early years. The riffs that just
repeat until they completely wear themselves out and Jagger with his ugly
voice, and so on. Overall I find the album to be for the most part dull
(like the three before it), but I won't complain too much. Especially
with December's Children around the corner.
Best song: Get Off Of My Cloud
Blah, and I do mean blah. I mean, this album isn't bad, not by any means (even if we consider the fact that it has no right to exist). But ... but ... it's been done! Except for the random live versions of Route 66 and a Hank Snow number called I'm Moving On (both of which rule, even with the screaming girls abounding), none of the cover songs on here excite me or get my blood pumping. And the originals, while showing some artistic progress, aren't anywhere near as brilliant as the three gems of the last album (well, ok, with a couple of exceptions that come close). If it weren't for the fact that not a single song on here is truly nasty, I'd probably hate the album - as is, I just find it alright.
Details, ask ye? The album kicks off with four straight cover tunes, none of which rank among the band's best work. If I had to sum it up, it's like the Stones are trying too hard to be the Stones, you know what I mean? Well, ok, She Said Yeah is certainly different (very short, a sort of jazz/proto-metal hybrid) from anything the band had ever tried, but the other three? Talkin' About You (a very, very average Chuck Berry runthrough), You Better Move On (an ok motownish piece) and Look What You've Done (a very, very average blues cover) - get the idea? Haven't we already had better? And is there any chance I'll stop asking questions instead of writing sentences?
Ok, I'm better now. The originals are certainly the better half of the album, but still spotty. The most famous, and probably best, of the lot is the pot anthem Get Off of My Cloud, which at least boasts a memorable chorus, an interesting verse melody and weird lyrics (good drumming too). Equally interesting, though slightly sappy, is the string-laced ballad As Tears Go By. With a gentle, swaying melody, it's VERY different from anything the band had tried before; a ballad that isn't heavily motownish, and provides a slight forshadowing of the poppy material that the band would show such strength at in '66 and '67.
The other four originals, alas, are only so so. Not bad, again, but nothing special. Just non descript. The Singer not the Song is a bit clumsy, but memorable nonetheless, which I wish I could say for Blue Turns to Grey. I'm Free is a nice pop song, with a nice singalongly chorus, but Gotta Get Away is just kinda blah. The melody is ok, but very predictable, and in an annoying way at that.
Of course, again, it's hard to really blame the Stones too much here. This album is practially a compilation, made up of some singles and some older outtakes, and it shows. Clocking in at less than half an hour, it's hardly worth the $15 that stores where I live charge for it (if they have it at all), and it really shows that by this time, the Stones' potential in their initial form had been practically exhausted. Even though the album's at least decent. Were they still good? Sure. Were they yet anywhere near the level of the Beatles? Not really (though, in my opinion, the Beatles also stagnated a bit on their fifth album ... but that's another page).
But that would change. Thank goodness.
Robert Grazer (xeernoflax@juno.com) (9/14/01)
What you call stagnation and exhausted potential I call (at last) a
little bit of artistic maturity. They finally figured out how to make
some decent music! Three of the songs here rank among their best ever. I
mean, "As Tears Go By" not only gets my vote for the best song on the
album, it's also my all-time favorite Rolling Stones song. Period. It
isn't often Jagger can squeeze out a good vocal performance, and at the
same time have a beautiful melody to back it up. Slightly sappy? No way!
If you want to say that then we can begin to make a list of Beatles songs
that can be classified as quite sappy as well (wow, I'm sounding like a
real Stones fan here). And why does everyone hate "Blue Turns To Grey" so
much? I love that song. The vocal melody may seem somewhat weak, but the
overall mood is quite effective. Finally, we all know that "Get Off Of My
Cloud" absolutely rules as well, with one of the greatest choruses I've
ever heard in a while. You see? Three great songs on one Stones album!
That's progress. Unfortunately the album isn't without its many flaws,
"You Better Move On," being the worst thing they've done since "If You
Need Me," and there's a few other missteps along the way, but who cares
about that? If I were to focus on everything I don't like about The
Rolling Stones we could be here all day. In my opinion it's the best of
the early Stones albums, and that says enough.
LeMysterioso@aol.com (1/08/02)
I know this isn't the most consistent Stones album, but I also don't see
it as such a clumsy effort. Actually, I see this album as a sort of
"coming-out" party for the Stones. heh heh. I think this is the first
album the Stones did to challenge the Beatles throne. Some of the songs
just kick maximum ass. "She Said Yeah" is probably the most deliberately
loud proto-punk song to be released at the time, almost sounding like a
Stooges song (only the The Kinks and The Who could match it); the same
goes for "Get off My Cloud" which just rocks!. I think the Stones proved
that the Beatles could never rock as hard as they could. And if that is
just one stone (pardon the pun) that could be thrown at The Beatles, then
it means that this album is a success in that aspect. The rest of the
songs are all great, but I think it could've done without the live
covers. But it's still a great album.
Best song: Paint It Black
The Rolling Stones' Rubber Soul, in more ways than one. For the first time, not a single cover song can be found - more than that, though, is that there isn't a single duffer amongst the original numbers, not a one. Not to mention that the stylistics have changed - after all, Chuck Berry covers were so two years ago. Whereas the previous albums (for the most part) had found the band sticking to a fairly conservative blues and proto-rock shtick, with more or less the same instrumentation in every song, Aftermath saw the Stones bringing in marimbas, sitars and dulcimers to their aid. In short, the band had suddenly leapt forward artistically.
The most amazing thing about all these additions, though, is that the band doesn't really betray its roots. Sure, there's all sorts of exotic instrumentation about, but most of these songs, at their heart, are still rock songs. Richards' guitar still plays an important role, it's just that the tone is slightly subdued and the method of attack restrained, serving more as an anchor and foundation for the songs rather than as the driving force. Conversely, though, Wyman becomes an absolute beast on this album, creating a pounding, lumbering tone that provides a fascinating counterpart to the "fancier" instruments. And that dichotomy alone makes Aftermath a truly unique part of my collection - no other album provides such a strange balance between artistry and sheer basic Rawk.
This sense of artistic schizophrenia is best shown in the most well-known and most incredible number of the album, the exquisite Paint it Black. Sure, its most immediately noticable feature is the terrific sitar part (yay Brian!), but heck, Rubber Soul (great an album as it is) had lots of sitars, and it sure as heck didn't have ANYTHING that rocked this hard. The melody is ominous as hell, the "hmm hmm hmm"'s are eerie beyond words, and while you may need headphones to tell, Bill and Charlie are walloping up a storm underneath it all. And the lyrics, well, the lyrics have to be among the darkest, most twisted texts ever dreamed up, at least pre-Doors.
PIB is hardly the only highlight of the album, though. Under My Thumb is another absolute Stones classic, driven forward by a great bassline (with marimbas sprinkled darkly on top) while Jagger sings some of the most incredibly misogynistic lyrics to date. And the vocal melody is great, not to mention that Mick's vocal asides from time to time and and at the end give the song another sick twist (like it needed any more).
Misogyny makes another appearance in the hilarious Stupid Girl, with an exciting organ line underpinning some of the most amusingly juvenile lyrics I've heard in a while. But heck, could ANYBODY sing about how much women suck better than Mick?? Nope, can't think of any. Fortunately, though, Mick had some other talents up his sleeve other than just complaining about girls, as is demonstrated in the lovely Lady Jane. If you've never heard it, you'd hardly believe it was the Stones - it's as close as one can come to a truly authentic 16th century ballad (complete with dulcimers, and lacking drums), with a startlingly beautiful melody whose potential could only have been hinted at with As Tears Go By. Of course, you might complain that Mick sounds fake and cheezy sounding here, but no matter, I doubt anybody could pull off such an unusual singing task 100% successfully.
After the deluge of the first four tracks, the album settles down a bit, and as such none of the songs (with one weird exception) quite make it to the classic level of PIB and UMT. But they're all interesting nonetheless. Doncha Bother Me (with a jolly upwards guitar riff) and High and Dry are both vaguely country-western numbers - in fact, the latter sounds like the band will break into a square dance any moment. Think is slightly weaker, but that's mostly because it seems to me that the band was trying too hard to make the song like it would belong on Rubber Soul - except for the Keith's guitar lurking to the side, it just seems like a slightly-darker-than-normal Beatles track.
As for the other three "normal" tracks, Flight 505 is cool, if only for the funny lyrics about a plane crash (although I must say that given what happened earlier this week, they're not quite so funny) and the amusing vaudeville-style piano part at the beginning (not to mention more cool bass work). It's Not Easy is even better, though, as Bill distorts his bass in a way never before heard on record while Mick whines and occasionally declares, "It's haaaaard" (after which Keith chimes in with "It's not easy." Cool, huh?). And as for I Am Waiting, well, while I do appreciate the middle-8 chunk, the bulk of the song has never particularly excited me. It's interesting to hear the band play something with this sort of weird vibe, and the melody is ok, but ... I dunno.
Ah, but let's forget about these last few tracks for a second, and turn to a really tasty bit. Going Home seems like an absolute waste of time to many, a blues jam that seemingly rambles on and on to no good effect. That's bull. The reason it lasts so long is that Jagger makes a point to throw in TONS of lyrical and intonational twists and turns, while Keith follows suit and Brian blows the hell out of his harmonica. I mean, do you really want to tell me that the way the band transists from the beginning chunk to the "She make me feel alRIGHT alRIGHT alRIGHT alRIGHT" is conventional? If you do think so, well, you're gonna hate all blues music (not that I love all blues music, but you get the point). For me, though, the effect is such that I can't help but enjoy the piece almost from start to finish, simply because it's probably the most comical blues jam ever. I NEVER skip it when listening to this album, and in fact I look forward to it heavily whenever I put on the album. So there.
And that's your album. At long last, the Stones as we know and love them, the brilliant fusors of traditional rock and roll to all sorts of other sources, arrived, and the result is the first of many, MANY great studio albums...
Charles Oliver (charles@cfs.com.au) (9/28/01)
John,
Great reviews, I keep checking back now and then to see how far you've
got through the Stones catalogue. Aftermath is one of their best in my
humble opinion although, it's worth seeking out the original British
release which you can still get secondhand on CD. It's on the LONDON
label and has 14 tracks ALL in glorious stereo. The cover picture is also
different this one being a 'purple' picture of the band. The original
track listing was :- Mother's little helper; Stupid girl; Lady Jane;
Under my thumb; Doncha bother me; Goin' home; Flight 505; High & dry; Out
of time; It's not easy; I am waiting; Take it or leave it; Think; What to
do.
This version of the CD 'flows' a little better than the currently
available Abkco release & sounds a great deal better. Best
track? Probably 'Under my thumb' although honourable mentions to
'Mother's little helper' & 'Out of time'.
Wouldn't it be nice if, AlanBloodyKlein Co. could release the original
album in stereo plus additional bonus tracks ie. Paint it black, Sittin'
on a fence, Who's drivin' your plane etc.?
Robert C Grazer (xeernoflax@juno.com) (10/02/01)
Not really better than December's Children, but it's still
alright. "Paint It Black" rules, "Under My Thumb" is nice and so on. The
album falls flat toward the end, until they hit "Going Home," which is
probably the worst Stones song they'd done up until that point. One
interesting note about it, though. I've long wondered how many of the
people who say they love it would still enjoy such a stupid jam if it
weren't done by The Rolling Stones. That name brings out a bias in
people, and I bet there's plenty of people who wouldn't have given
it a second thought if it were done by a band that was held on the level
of Styx or Kansas. As for someone like me who holds the Stones as at best
a one star group, I can tell you that it isn't worth a second listen, no
matter what the crazy fans say.
LeMysterioso@aol.com (1/08/02)
This is easily my favorite Stones album. It captures a moment in which I
think the Stones' sound was at its best and most interesting: slightly
entering Brit-pop but still very bluesy. For that reason I can listen to
this album alot more than any other Stones album. And the songs: They are
just great! Absolutely classic! "Lady Jane" is such a beautiful song, my
favorite. Even such obscurities like "Out of Time", "I Am Waiting" and
"What to Do" are great.
Best song: Fortune Teller
Unfortunately, the band first decided to give us this not-so-great live album. It's not bad, of course - the only song that is played horridly is The Last Time, which ruins the tight pop riff of the original as it's done too quickly and sloppily for my tastes. But the album is an absolute train wreck upon the ears - in addition to the expected rough production of a mid-60's live album, half the time it seems that the highest mixed sound is the screaming girls. I mean, did we really need proof of this nature to know that there were hordes of *ahem* "women of mediocre virtue" throwing themselves at the band during concerts? I would've taken their word for it!
That said, though, while the album is also annoyingly short, the energy level is incredibly high, and helps make the album far more enjoyable than it would otherwise be. Under My Thumb suddenly becomes a classic hard rock song (with aggressive vocals from Mick, even more so than in the studio), Not Fade Away is FAR more intense than before, Satisfaction rules as much as usual ... basically, every track benefits from the heightened energy and emotion. Except maybe Lady Jane, which doesn't quite sound right without the exotic instruments or with a drum beat in the background. But that's ok, because as a special treat, we get a live performance of the Aftermath-era single 19th Nervous Breakdown (with another one of those special riffs that make us so giddy).
Oh, and setting a precedent for all future Stones live albums, the band throws in a pair of covers that didn't ever make it onto studio albums. I've Been Loving You Too Long kinda sucks, but Fortune Teller is a GREAT cover of Benny Spellman's classic. Compared to some, I don't find this version that much better than the one the Who did on Live at Leeds (c'mon, George, there's nothing wrong with the slower intro!), but it's driving throughout (and I like that sorta Easterny intro).
Er, and there's not really a lot more to say about this album. If you can get past the horrid sound and get to the energy and enthusiasm, you'll have a blast - if not, well, you definitely won't.
Best song: Let's Spend The Night Together or Ruby Tuesday
This is pop! Yeah yeah! If you're a "Stones purist," it's possible you won't like it - this album is NOTHING like anything the band had ever done before, as the band took a further step away from roots rock and the like. In other words, if you only know and love the Stones from your Hot Rocks collection, you'll probably dismiss this album as just a goofy experiment. But if you don't need for music to be in a particular form in order to enjoy it, you'll have an absolute blast. Simply put, this is one of the very very best pop albums I've ever heard in my life, and only proves just how much Jagger and Richards had advanced in their melody-writing and hook creating.
So what makes the biggest difference? Well, it's simply that this album was made in 1967, one of the absolute peak years for creativity and quality in the history of rock music - as such, the Stones simply had to pick it up a notch to keep up. Now most people, when they think of 1967, think of trippiness and psychadelia and all of that. Between the Buttons has none of that, but that hardly means it isn't a product of the epoch. In fact, it was released very, very early in 1967, and this time in rock music was heavily devoted not to psychadelia per se, but rather unfettered experimentation and a willingness to tackle any genre imaginable to make a quality album. So the Stones merely followed suit by creating a British music hall album with occasionally Dylanesque lyrics mostly devoted to ... trashing women. Hmm, I guess they didn't change that much ...
Ah, but let's put that aside for a second and concentrate on the cool pop melodies. The hooks on here are STRONG in every track, and by themselves would be enough to make this album an utter classic. Of course, the only two songs on here that you've ever heard on the radio (er, unless you own this album) are Let's Spend the Night Together and Ruby Tuesday, but there's plenty more than those two completely genial ditties. I can only imagine that they were a nightmare for "true" Stones fans back in '67, but hopefully they came to their senses. Let's Spend the Night Together, with one of the most enjoyable piano parts imaginable underpinning the intro while the band chirps in with "fa la la la buh buh buh duh duh" (or whatever) backing vocal parts is an absolute pop masterpiece, with a melody that any band in the world would kill for. And dig that organ holding down the fort during the rest of the song, why don't ya!
Ruby Tuesday sure isn't any worse, though - Brian has finally gotten ahold of a mellotron, and as a result we get some absolutely gorgeous flute and violin parts while Mick sings the most beautiful ballad of the band's career. Of course, it takes a little bit of time to get used to Jagger singing a sissy pop song (I know it did for me, and in fact that's one of the things I'm not wild about wrt the Stones' pop era), but that's the only complaint one could even vaguely give. Verse and chorus, all are gorgeous in ways that cannot be expressed properly in words.
But there's more, oh so much more to this album! For one thing, the production is stunningly good, an incredible breath of fresh air in comparison to the early albums. The Aftermath fiesta of including all manner of instruments continues here, and while some may regret another slight reduction in Richards' guitar volume, Watts and Wyman are still quite busily doing their thing while Brian tinkles on a piano or mellotron or whatever. Plus, they have all sorts of fun with the production effects on this album, tossing backing vocals and other things from channel to channel.
The one drawback of the album, though, is that it's a bit samey. The style RULES, but, well, there's only so much sarcastic Brit-pop that one can take at one time. Honestly, though, that's just a complaint that knocks the rating of the album down one point. Song by song, I can't gripe at all. The major highlights are the closing Something Happened to Me Yesterday (with Keith singing in the chorus!), a funny little ditty (complete with horns and an amusing clarinet here and there) that's probably about using drugs for the first time, and the Dylanesque Who's Been Sleeping Here (with Jagger even making a concerted effort to sound like Bob, not even mentioning the lyrics), but they're all goodies. Only a couple of them really rock out at all (Connection, My Obsession, and especially Miss Amanda Jones), but whoever said that a song must necessarily a rock song to be enjoyable? Yesterday's Papers and She Smiled Sweety are lovely, lovely ballads (if you're into misogyny, of course), and All Sold Out (I LOVE that hook) and Complicated are great pop rockers - great songs can be any virtually any form, dagnabbit!
Likewise, great albums can take all sorts of forms. The album hasn't the slightest thing to do with a person's typical impression of the Stones, but that definitely doesn't take away its significance in the band's catalogue. For the first time, the Stones demonstrated that they could write songs with the best of them, with NO filler whatsoever, and as such the band needed to be taken seriously as legitimate artists for the first time. But definitely not the last time.
Matt Reyes (No1Yanks23@aol.com) (10/7/01)
Between the Buttons is so underated. I give it a perfect 10, it's better then
Beggar's Banquet, there's no doubt in my mind about it. But I guess most
would like to think of the Stones as just a roots rock type of band, while
they ignore this stuff. Oh well, and Let's Spend the Night Together is one of
the best 60s pop songs. Classic stuff.
Trfesok@aol.com (06/07/07)
Jagger thinks this one is overrated, and I agree. "Let's Spend the
Night Together"/"Ruby Tuesday" is indeed a classic single, but these
songs far surpass anything else on the album. The rest sound to me
like they were thrown together way too quickly, like they only had a
week to put it together. It seems to me that they really needed more
time to work them up properly. (Then again, they had almost a year to
put together TMSR, and that didn't necessarily help..). The most
interesting thing is, as you have astutely noted, is the Bob Dylan
influence, particularly on "She Smiled Sweetly" and "Who's Been
Sleeping Here?" (The B-side of "Have You Seen Your Mother..", "Who's
Driving Your Plane?", would have fit in really well along side of
these). And "Something Happened.." is a bit of goofy fun. Still,
while the album certainly isn't unlistenable, it just seems to be
rather minor, not an all time classic. Cool photo on the cover,
though.
Best song: A tough one. Maybe Backstreet Girl, maybe Mother's Little Helper
The sissification of the Stones continues! I mean, come on - the name of the album is FLOWERS?? What were people supposed to think when this album came out rather than that the Stones had completely lost their wits?? "Ooooh, look at Keith and Mick! They're so cyooooooooot!"
Ok, enough kidding around. Flowers, from a musical standpoint at least, hasn't the slightest connection to the normal image one gets of the Stones. This is pop music to the nth degree, with even fewer uptempo, 'rocking' songs than on Buttons. And speaking of Buttons ... Let's Spend the Night Together and Ruby Tuesday are on here too (along with Lady Jane from Aftermath) - see, the managers of the Stones decided to make an album of tracks that were only on British releases of the last couple of albums, but in order to make the album longer they decided to sort of make it into a compilation, which in turn brought on some outtakes as well as the pieces we're already acquainted with. No matter, though - while the album certainly shouldn't exist, there's just not getting around the fact that the songs on this album rule mercilessly. In fact, and I'm utterly serious about this, THIS was the album that convinced me that the Rolling Stones might be a not-so-bad band after all.
Indeed, even if we disregard the presence of the three aforementioned classics, which certainly haven't ceased to rule, not a single track on here falls short of excellent. The band's pop instincts are FIRMLY in place by this time, and the only factor which hurts them at all (though not as often as it could) is Jagger's singing. He tries very, very hard to pull off the vocal stylings of a conventional pop star, but in more than a few places, he comes close to being severely irritating. Out of Time, for instance, almost has an absolutely PERFECT pop melody marred by the strident noises oozing from the speakers when Mick sings "out of t-i-i-i-me" - fortunately, I've been able to mostly block it out, and just focus on the hooks.
There's a couple of other very sissyish numbers on here, but they're hardly as bad as many make them out to be. The Stones' cover of My Girl (yes, you read that correctly) is almost universally hated, but what the hell - at worst, it's funny, and at best, the melody rules as much as it ever did, while the backing vocals are perfectly pleasant and enjoyable. There's also Take It Or Leave It, with another insanely strong pop melody augmented by "O la la la ta ta ta ta la la la la"'s in the chorus - as you might imagine, most fans who've heard it hate it like mad, but whatever. It's a nice little ditty.
Not everything's purely sissyish, though. The managers, in their great wisdom, decided to include some bizarre hard-rocking experimentation on this album, and both tracks are delightfully enjoyable. One is the long-awaited studio version of Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow?, previously available only as a live track on Got Live. Sure enough, it's even more bizarre in the studio than had been previously hinted - within the first ten seconds, we're greeted with distorted sitars (I guess ...) and a semi-in-tune horn part before Mick starts singing a gloriously catchy vocal melody with difficult-to-understand lyrics (they're purposely obfuscated in the mix). But hey, it also has a great bass line underpinning it all, not to mention that Keith is given the chance to throw in some feedback at the end. And speaking of Keith, he gets to throw in a Bo-Diddleyesque riff (!) in Please Go Home, which might have sounded at home on the band's early albums if it weren't for the incessant experimentation (effects on Jagger's voice, weird feedback experiments, etc). Great stuff, yes it is.
The closing pair of numbers are also a great set of ditties, each with a more-or-less similar vibe and lyrical topic (how women keep hurting men). Ride on Baby does a fine job of combining harpsichord and marimbas with a beautifully efficient pop melody (GREAT chorus too!) while Mick sings brilliant lines like, "I could pick your face out in an FBI file - you may look pretty but I can't say the same for your mind." Sittin' on a Fence is slightly weaker to my ears, but that's probably only because of the less complex arrangements (just acoustic guitar this time around). The melody is another utterly brilliant tune, incredibly efficient, not to mention that it's neat to hear a line like "They just get married 'cos there's nothing else to do" accompanying such a wonderful number.
Oh, oh, but I haven't yet gone over the best parts. First of all, there's Backstreet Girl, one of the most horrifyingly misogynistic tales ever fused with an incredible pop melody. Basically, it's about a member of high-class society who likes to sleep with a peasant woman but prohibits her from sharing any part of his life otherwise (and makes sure to make it clear how far "below" him she is - what a *ahem* wonderful guy). If that weren't enough, there's a perfectly lovely accordion part as one of the main features, augmenting the pretty acoustic melody - the total effect makes the number seem rather French, for some reason, and helps to hammer in the whole nobleman vs. peasant culture (at least, it does for me).
Oooh, and there's Mother's Little Helper. Lyrically, it's Jagger's observations about women who are addicted to happy pills and tranquilizers, but that's sure as heck not the only cool feature. Aside from another great main melody (not to mention a positively genial middle eight), the arrangements may be the best of the whole album. Aside from the irresistable Watts work, Richards contributes a nice stinging guitar line (or is that Brian on sitar?) here and there, and Wyman ... man, WYMAN. If you had to choose one track, just one track, to symbolize the genius Bill brought to the Stones in the 60's, this would have to be it. The line isn't that complicated, but how can ANYBODY resist the upwards *whooooooo* that pops up every couple of beats and that would serve just fine as the primary hook of any other songs???
So yeah, in case you can't tell, this is another absolutely incredible Stones album that has no connection to the Stones as most think of them. I'd prefer it if Backstreet Girl had made it to the American Buttons (which would have given that a 15) and if Mother's Little Helper had made it onto the American Aftermath (which would have given it a 14 for sure), but ... Well, you can't always get what you want, but if you try some time, you'll find you get what you need.
John Schlegel (john_schlegel@hotmail.com) (1/22/03)
Funny how John (the popular one) mentioned how this album started him
down the road to becoming a Rolling Stones fan. This was the first
Stones album that I (the obscure John, I guess) remember hearing, along
with 'Big Hits', as my mother played these tapes in the car back when I
was in the fifth grade. And, until very recently, I considered the
mid-'60s "pop" era to be my favorite period of the Stones' career! Can
you believe that?! Well, I'm massively into the great "roots rock" era
now, and I admit that what was once my favorite Stones album, this one,
has lost some of its magic over time. But it's obvious that 'Flowers'
still had a considerable impact on me once. And I still think it hangs
today as a worthwhile summary of the band's excursions into pop and
psychedelic. Any classic rock fan should be pleased to know that the two
major hits from 'Between the Buttons' are here, once again; but you also
get the groundbreaking "Mother's Little Helper," which is one of my
all-time personal favorite Rolling Stones songs. That bass, the chorus,
that sitar -- I mean, MAN, what a great song!! Definitely my favorite
here, and one of the few of this bunch I distinctly remember hearing as a
kid. The noisily galloping "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby" is also a
minor radio hit and a highlight. The neo-'50s "Out of Time" and somber
"Backstreet Girl" are both absolutely beautiful, of course. "Lady Jane"
has sort of a medieval feel about it; I'm not as crazy about this one as
are many Stones fans, but it's still pretty good. I think the most
overlooked track is definitely the very melodic -- and deceptively simple
-- "Sittin' on a Fence." That's actually the other song on here I'm sure
I remember hearing in my youth (well, and "Ruby Tuesday," come to think
of it). In my opinion, the album has some filler -- "My Girl" and
"Please Go Home" do very little for me, for instance. But 'Flowers' has
a great overall flow about it nonetheless, and it plays very much like a
regular album, instead of the semi-compilation that it is. If you like
the Stones' pop period at all, this one is a must. 8/12.
Trfesok@aol.com (06/07/07)
Well, the purists be damned, I say! Yes, I know it's not a real
album, cobbled together by London Records for the U.S. when they were
taking too long with the next album, and it repeats tracks. This
doesn't matter, for sometimes (like with Meet the Beatles), the
result of record company meddling turned out great. I'd even say
that it's the best pre-1968 album the band has. It might be missing
"Paint it Black" and "Under My Thumb", but it doesn't have any dumb
throwaways like "Connection" or "Stupid Girl" or boring time-wasters
like "I'm Going Home." I guess a few of the songs were on the UK
versions of the previous two albums, but it's like they were saving
the best songs for this one!
I always think of the first side at the "singles side" (even though,
technically, this version of "Out of Time" wasn't a single, and "My
Girl" was never a single by the Stones, of course), because it's so
solid from beginning to end. Diverse, innovative, and catchy. Keith
actually thinks that the wrong mix of "Have You Seen Your Mother.."
was issued by mistake, but it's still great. ( I wonder if it holds
the record for the longest title of a Top 10 single). "My Girl" is
Andrew Oldham acting out his Motown/Phil Spector fantasies rather
than a real Stones track, but the vocal is great, I agree. The second
side has a couple of weaker songs -- "Take it or Leave It", and I was
never in love with "Mother's Little Helper" -- but it's almost as
solid as the first. It is very interesting how they use pretty
instrumentation - - the accordion on "Backstreet Girl", harpsichord
on "Ride On, Baby", dulcimer on "Lady Jane" -- contrasted against
some incredibly vicious, misogynistic lyrics. I think "Please Go
Home" is great, combining the Bo Diddley beat with reverbed vocals
and a theremin drifting in and out (someone was listening to "Good
Vibrations"). If the singles "Who's Driving Your Plane?", "We Love
You" and "Dandelion" were added to the collection, the album would be
even better. As it is, though, I think it's the next logical stop
after a greatest hits collection.
Best song: 2000 Light Years From Home
The Stones go psychadelic. For those fans who hate "all that Beatles garbage" and psychadelia in general, this could be nothing short of a nightmare. "The Stones have ripped off Sergeant Pepper! This is the greatest disaster ever!" is, more or less, the general consensus. But you know, quite honestly, everybody who says that is either nuts or hasn't actually listened to the album (and on a related note, in case you're one of those PMRC types, there's nothing in the least bit satanic in the actual music content, unless you think mellotrons are the devil's workshop). Aside from the funny album cover and the closing On With the Show, this album couldn't possibly be further from Pepper as far as stylistics are concerned. If anything, it's closer to MMT, as that delved deeper into psychadelia than Pepper ever did, but even then the comparisons are a stretch at best.
Indeed, if you want to make any strong comparisons for this album, it would be to 60's Pink Floyd. The beautiful irony of this, of course, is that while some of it can be attributed to Floyd's debut, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, parts of the album also seem like they themselves influenced Pink for their second album, A Saucerful of Secrets. But regardless of all this, Satanic stands in a class of its own, a delving into dark, mystical psychadelia not really matched by any other bands that year (well, The Doors, but their psychadelia was different).
The darkness manifests itself best in what I consider, naturally, the top track of the album. 2000 Light Years From Home must have been an absolute shock back in 1967, and still sounds cool today - it is one of the very first delvings into space-themed, sci-fi rock (only Astronomy Domine comes to mind as coming first), and the Stones pull it off splendidly. The crashing piano sounds do a great job of "welcoming" you into the depths of space, the dissonant mellotrons creep you out even more, and Jagger sings an interesting, economical melody that does a great of reminding you just how far you are from home.
None of the other tracks are as immediately dark and striking, of course, but most of the tracks have at least some tinge of ominous creepiness in them. Even the opening Sing This All Together, bashed by many as just a (figures) ripoff of the title track of Pepper, greets us with deep sounding pianos and off-kilter horns, and while the melody is slightly bouncy, it sure isn't exactly happy. As for the reprise, the eight-minute Sing This All Together (See What Happens), while it's certainly overlong, it's hardly a total waste of space - I for one dig the Jagger breathing and chanting in the second minute a lot, and Charlie does a great job of keeping the listener interested while more and more effects are poured on top.
There's also The Lantern, which has an incredible "arabian" feel to it . The introduction has an ominous effect in the guitar tone, and Jagger does an incredible job of intonating in such a way as to make the silly lyrics come to life at least a bit. And hey, there's some decent electric licks thrown in here and there, and they make the song that much tastier.
Hey, and speaking of electric licks, how about the awesome Citadel? Sure, it's made into a trippy psychadelic number with random high-pitched noises from a mellotron, but hell - that's gotta be the best hard-rock riff Keith had come up with in a long time. And the tone - you can REALLY tell that Keith was starting to get tired of always being quiet and subdued, and it should be no surprise that within a year's time, he was able to start having his way again ... but that's for later.
The ballads are also at an extremely high level. In Another Land features Wyman on vocals, and it's made that much neater by a "shaking" effect put on his voice. The slight "windy" noises in the background don't hurt much either, though, and the chorus (I LOVE Jagger's vocals in that chorus) is pure dynamite - in other words, Wyman's first songwriting credit turns out to be a score (and don't forget the snoring at the end! It's hilarious!). Likewise for Jagger's She's a Rainbow (with strings arranged by future Zep-ster John Paul Jones) - after we are greeted with some seemingly random noisemaking, as well as some chattering in the background, a pretty piano part pops up, and the song only gets better from there. There's some almost Lennonish backing vocals, the main melody is extraordinarily catchy and uplifting in a typical 1967 fashion, and the piano part gets to expand upon itself in the middle, becoming pretty in ways that tickle me pink each time I hear it. And don't forget the noisemaking bits near the end (another wonderful side effect of 1967).
Ok, I'd better wrap up this review soon, as I'm about to completely fall asleep - there's a nice pop ballad in 2000 Man, while Gomper and On With The Show mostly bore me throughout (the sitar part in the former only holds my attention for a little while). But those two songs are just the exceptions that prove the rule - for the most part, this album RULES, and I have no qualms about giving it such a high grade. BUT, seeing as the Summer of Love would be over in a few months, and most of the bands that had decided to dabble in psychadelia would veer violently away from it, it was apparent that The Stones would need to switch gears soon. Their pop era was utterly brilliant, one of the great 4-album stretches around, but let's face it - by this time, it had mostly served its purpose. It was now time to move onto bigger and better things...
TheRubberCow@aol.com (01/08/02)
hey, thanks for reviewing this album. I've been interested to know what
it sounds like, and now my interest is up even more. I'll have to check
it out.
Robert Grazer (xeernoflax@juno.com) (01/12/02)
Before listening to this album I thought to myself that maybe I could like this
one, and maybe it was truly underrated. I like underrated albums. Of course
upon actually hearing it any hope of that flew fright out the window, but I
won't deny that there are some fine songs on here. Of course there's the
complete bore of "Sing This All Together (See What Happens)," and some of the
other songs are far from good, but this is no worse than the albums that came
before it. On the other hand, I like "She's A Rainbow" and "2000 Light
Years From Home" quite a lot, and there are some other catchy moments
throughout. And I hate to defend the Stones, but "On With The Show" is
underrated by a lot of people. One of my absolute favorite Stones songs. So
it's a Beatles rip-off, that's probably why it's so good. It's so damn
melodic and catchy that I really don' see why practically everyone out there
hates it. All in all Satanic is still a Stones album, but I don't see what
makes it so much worse than the others.
Trfesok@aol.com (06/23/07)
Andrew Oldham didn't really want to go along on the psychedelic ride,
so the Stones got rid of him and decided to produce this thing
themselves. That's why the album didn't turn out quite as good as it
could have been. I really don't think it should get a 9. For thing,
the recording quality and mixing aren't all that great -- the Stones
weren't ready to deal with such elaborate arrangements. But, more
importantly, an outside producer would have imposed some discipline
and curtailed the excess. Of course, I'm speaking of the endless jams
that comprise "See What Happens" and the coda of "Gomper." King
Crimson, these guys ain't -- they simply did not have the musical
chops for extended, unstructured improvs. These cacaphonous noises
drag the album down more than anything else.
Otherwise, though, the songs aren't bad, really. Some of them aren't
as much a departure from the usual Stones fare as people think, when
you take a closer look. The theme of alienation is revisited again in
"2000 Man", "Citadel" and "2000 Light Years From Home", even if it's
expressed in sci-fi or fantasy lyrics. "2000 Man" and "The Lantern"
play around with country sounds as well as psychedelia. The poppy
singles "She's A Rainbow" and "In Another Land" are fun, too. "In
Another Land" sounds quite a bit like "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds"
to me, with those languid verses and the upbeat chorus. I also pick
"2000 Light Years From Home" as the best tune, though -- the
mellotronic atmosphere is perfect.
The album at the time was really bashed, you're right, as a Beatles
rip-off. If they had had a George Martin at the helm, though, I think
the album could have been one of the classic psychedelic works. As it
is, though, its failures mask its successes. Of course, within a year
this kind of music would become less fashionable, anyway.
Best song: Sympathy For The Devil
At last, the Stones reach their FULL potential. As much I've gushed about the pop era, and as much mastery I feel Jagger and Richards had in the genres they tackled over the past couple years, there's also little argument that they weren't particularly "at home" in those departments. They were showing stretches of incredible genius, but it wasn't an ingrown genius, you know what I mean? Well, maybe you don't know what I mean, but just smile and nod and I'll be able to get on with this review.
The thing is, the first few times I listened to this album, I HATED it. Seriously. I couldn't begin to figure out why this was almost unanimously considered one of the greatest albums ever, and certainly one of the Stones' peaks. Part of the reason deals with themes I discussed in the introduction, mainly a developed aversion to "commoner" music like that found in roots rock. To my ears, this was just a conventional collection of generic classic rockers and silly country-western - in other words, music for hicks, I guess.
Fortunately, as my anti-Stones bias began to crumble bit by bit and my head came out of my butt (*SHPLOOOOT*), I realized what a fool I was. I had fooled myself into considering this album a simplistic, uninventive, unmitigated bore, when nothing could be further from the truth. The songs are certainly roots rock at the core, but they are so VERY VERY VERY much more than that when you actually sit down and listen to them. See, the most important thing to keep in mind when listening to this album is that the band did NOT under any circumstances forget what it had learned the previous two years. Sure, the band made a huge stylistic right turn - the songs, at their core, are closer to what the band had done in its cover years than what it had done recently. But the positives the band had picked up since Aftermath - diverse instrumentation and instrumental techniques, stylistic mixing, inventive use of production techniques, etc. - remained, and made the band stronger than ever.
This becomes much more apparent when we break down the album song by song. First, let's examine the five more "rocking" songs of the album. All five are superb, and only one of them can be called even remotely "conventional." Not that Parachute Woman is bad in any way, shape or form, though - it may be based around a more or less standard blues pattern, but it still manages to rock like a mother for two primary reasons. First, there's the slightly coarse production (unlike anything else on the album, mind you) that makes the drums thump and pound that much more while the acoustic rhythm manages to sound simultaneously tight and loose. And second, Richard's guitar tone ... man, it's just so RAW and GRUFF, and he manages to make an almost trivial line come to life each and every time it comes up.
The other four rockers, though, are about as conventional as I am punctual with my updates. I mean, come on, can you even remotely call Sympathy For the Devil normal? It has BONGOS for crying out loud! And a piercing guitar solo, and HOO-HOO's and interesting (though probably cliched) lyrics from the perspective of the Devil ... ah, I don't need to say anything about it, you've probably heard it a zillion times. But you might not have heard Jigsaw Puzzle, which closes out side one. It's a rock song to be sure, but it also contains the most heavily Dylan-influenced lyrics to ever come from Jagger, as well as the whackiest abuse of slide guitar you'll ever hear in your life. Whether this is the product of Richards not knowing how to properly play slide or the result of Brian being stoned out of his brain has not been answered satisfactorally for me, but no matter - the part is just as entertaining either way.
And then there's Street Fighting Man, a deceptively incredible number. At first, I just regarded it as a more-or-less normal riff-rocker with standard protest lyrics, but I was an imbecile. SFM is not just a really cool hard rock number, but is also an outstanding example of sound layering in a manner that I can only refer to as acoustic overdrive. See, this song rocks with an absolute vengence, and that is made all the more incredible by the fact that, with the exception of Wyman's bass, EVERY instrument in the mix is acoustic. Richards plays his opening guitar riff into an old tape player (which gives it a nearly incomparable sound), Watts pounds on his drums, and other instruments are added layer by layer until you have an absolute sonic deluge which fades out with a beautiful rolling piano line. Now that's a rock song!
Stray Cat Blues is even better, though. This is the point where Jagger's lyrics start to become more transparent in their sexual innuendo, but I can forgive that because of the incredible arrangement. There's a freaking MELLOTRON in the chorus! It doesn't belong at all, but it's there! Of course, that's not the only positive - Keith's guitar tone rocks harder than anything else on the album, and it's only helped by the pounding piano in the chorus that makes the whole effect rock like a mutha. And the pounding drums and gruff rhythm in the verses, well, they go without saying.
The other songs on the album mostly fall into the realm of acoustic ballads (with one gospelish number), and all five are absolute winners. No Expectations especially bored me the first time I heard it, but again, I was stupid, head up butt, etc. It strikes me as very slightly bluesy, but only in lyrical feel and structure - otherwise, it's an absolutely GORGEOUS ballad that is brought to a whole new level with the incredibly rich slide guitar work of Brian. Not to mention that Jagger puts on his tenderest, lovliest vocal performance yet - no strained or forced vocals this time around.
Three of the other songs are comedic in nature, and provide the listener a great chance to relax his brain after the intensity of the rockers. Dear Doctor is a country waltz (ha!) about a man about to get married and who's nervous beyond words. Fortunately, the bride runs off with his cousin, and he's able to cry what appear to be tears of sorrow but are really "tears of relief." Later, there's Prodigal Son, which is a HILARIOUS retelling of that particular New Testament parable - the hilarity is key for me, as I don't normally care for NT tales set to music, as they usually take themselves seriously in a nauseating fashion. But anyways. Factory Girl comes near the end, a rather simplistic but still catchy and funny ditty about, er, a girl who works in a factory. Works for me.
And then there's Salt of the Earth. A populist ode parody. It pretends to be gospelish and anthemic, but Jagger and Richards can't even pretend to really care about the people they're singing about, and as first mentioned in a really really good comment on the Starostin site, that's the point. I won't go into the major details - Jeff said it better than I could. The melody is really pretty, though, making the satire that much more biting.
And THAT, my friends, is how you build a masterpiece. The ultimate roots-rock casserole - the song quality would be topped by a whee bit on the next album, but the level of diversification in arrangements and style would never again be approached by the Stones. Or, really, by anybody else.
Matt Reyes (No1Yanks23@aol.com) (10/11/01)
Beggar's is very cool, but come on a perfect 15? No way! a 9 (14) is better
for me. Are you gonna tell me factory girl is good? Worse then Between the
Buttons, but still a classic style that just got better in the coming
years....
Robert Grazer (xeernoflax@juno.com) (01/12/02)
I originally dismissed this as just another Stones album, with a couple
highlights and a bunch of crap. For some reason it's been the only one that
actually left me with a strange desire to relisten to it a few months later,
and since then I can't see this as anything other than their best album. By
far. I mean, I actually like it as an album; it's a consistent set of good
songs from The Rolling Stones, something I never thought I'd hear. I even like
the stupid silly stuff like "Dear Doctor" on here. And "Factory Girl" is an
amazing addition as well. But past that, this album ROCKS. I mean, sure
there's "Sympathy For The Devil," which I like just as much as anybody, but
songs like "Stray Cat Blues" floor me like nothing else they've done.
"Street Fighting Man" is a bit too short (a complaint I thought I'd never
have with a Stones song), but it's great all the same. My personal favorite
here, though, has got the be "Jigsaw Puzzle," another of my favorite Stones
tunes. I never understood why people complain about it being too long. It's fine the way it
is. If anything, I could take another ten minutes or so of a tune that great,
and for ones I can enjoy the lyrics too. Twenty-thousand grandmas? Cool! So in
short, this is the only Stones album I see as really worth getting, without a
single bad song here, and several that are really, really, good.
Trfesok@aol.com (06/23/07)
Actually, I'd pick this one as the best Stones album, overall. For
one thing, with the possible exception of "Dear Doctor" (which I also
like, adding a needed dose of humor to the album), none of the songs
are filler. And while everyone was getting rootsier again at this
time, you're right, they just don't strip everything away. Producer
Jimmy Miller deserves a lot of the credit, giving the Stones the
clearest sound they ever had. Jagger isn't pulling any punches,
either. He doesn't place the nasty misogyny of "Stray Cat Blues" in
any pretty pop melody like "Back Street Girl.", for instance. You
certainly picked up on the point of "Salt of the Earth", but not
everyone did. When Judy Collins covered it, for example, she left out
the third verse about choosing between cancer and polio (although she
printed all the lyrics), trying to turn the song into a tribute to
simple folk instead of the intened, very sarcastic piece. "Factory
Girl" and "Prodigal Son" are a lot of fun. "Street Fighting Man" took
a long time to grow on me, but I finally got to like it, with its
sort of rootsy/psychedelic sound. Jagger actually does seem to
actually get personal, though, on "Jigsaw Puzzle" and the gorgeous
"No Expectations." Still, I also have to go with "Sympathy for the
Devil" as the best song. More intense, and unique, than any of the
other songs. Now just add the "Jumping Jack Flash/Child of the Moon"
single (also recorded during these sessions) as bonus tracks, and you
just about have the perfect Stones album.
Best song: Gimmie Shelter, but really ...
Even better, and that says a lot right there. Not that Banquet really had any weaknesses, but Bleed still manages to top its predecessor almost start to finish. The basic ebb and flow of the album is almost identical to BB, which could be the only slightly annoying thing, but I don't really care - the pattern of songs is similar, but not a single song on here can really be called a ripoff of its predecessor, and that's a feat right there. And all this is made even more incredible when we realize that Brian Jones is a virtual non-factor on this album - he was finally on the verge of a complete mental breakdown, and he would in fact drown around the time of the album's release. And yet, despite the loss of one of the band's most powerful creative forces, Jagger and Richards (well, mostly Richards I'd bet) banded together to come up with nine of the strongest tracks ever found on a classic rock album, and one of the greatest albums of all time.
After all, it would be difficult to come up with a better album opener than Gimmie Shelter. The way Richards layers his guitar parts is absolutely frightening - a commentator on the George site once wrote, and I quote, "but were Ludwig van alive rockin' on guitar with the Stones I think his score would have looked much like this
soundscape Keith creates." and I could not POSSIBLY agree more. The intensity created by this track is virtually unparalleled in the rock world - one could make a comparsion to Yes' The Gates of Delirium, but even then I'd say Shelter wins the intensity battle, if only because it's able to do so with fewer notes and more of an "edge" (NOT THAT I'M DISSING GATES THOUGH) than Yes' masterpiece. And everything else in the song follows suit remarkably - Mick's singing and periodic harmonic bursts do an impeccable job of adding to the impression of the "storm threatening my very life today," and the vocal interlude from Mary Clayton ... wow wow wow.
All that said, though, there is an officially released version that tops the original, taken from the Bridges to Babylon tour. No, I'm not talking about the version found on the live album of that tour, I'm talking about the version on the tour video. Regardless, though, this song is an utter masterwork, and quite possibly the peak of the Stones' career.
Even then, though, it's not a runaway winner for best song on the album, nor even for creepiest song. Midnight Rambler, which kicks off the second half, actually somewhat bored me the first few times I heard it - I guess I thought it was just an average classic rock number about a burglar. Whee. But egads it's so much more, so very much more. The guitar lines are "crisp" and "jagged" (for lack of better terms) in a way they've never been before, Jagger's lyrics manage to tackle the subject in such a way as to not sound cliched, and then there's the middle and end parts. There's a GREAT slow duet between the guitar and harmonica in the middle (which is an interesting contrast to the interaction in the first chunk of the piece, not to mention the ever speeding-up transition to it, filled with "Don't you do that" cries), which in turn slowly speeds up a bit and builds in intensity as the "Midnight Rambler" breaks down doors and smashes windows before killing you. Yay!
And the other rock songs, well, those are just fine and dandy. Live with Me and especially the title track often get short shrift, but they shouldn't - these are, quite possibly, the ultimate musical expression of sleeze, and I mean that in a good way. The bassline of the first (played by Richards, no less) sucks the listener in like mad, and as layer upon layer of trashy lyrics and scummy saxaphone work and guitar licks bending up and down are added, the effect becomes only that much stronger. And the title track? Well, once again, the lyrics are absolutely slimey, as Jagger's metaphors are becoming more and more thinly veiled (though I gotta tell you, they're still quite clever), but they're not the whole of the piece. The vocal melody is bouncy, the main acoustic line is funny, and most importantly, slime drips off of every note from start to finish. Which is of course the point.
And then there's the hidden gem of the album. I know many would argue with me, but I can only make my stand here - Monkey Man is, for all intents and purposes, a PERFECT rock song. The opening quiet piano lines are positively gorgeous, and the slow buildup of Keith's guitar lines into a full-blooded riff-fest is utterly brilliant. And the main riff, well, it's Ron Wood's favorite Keith riff for a reason (it's in my top 5, no question). The lyrics, often derided by critics of the band, are just an amusing psychadelic diversion, and they in no way take away from the overall greatness of the piece. But even if they did, well, there's no way that a song with such a gorgeous mid-section, what with the piano lines merging with Keith's parts, could be considered anything less than a classic.
The rockers aren't the only great feature of this classic album, though. Love in Vain, the followup to Shelter, must surely be considered one of the most stunningly beautiful ballads in the entire Stones catalogue. Originally, it was just a standard Robert Johnson blues cover, but here it becomes even more. Jagger's vocals might, might grate slightly, but this is all made up for by the guitars. Richards' acoustic line is pretty, there are nice "weepy" electric sounds here and there, and best of all is the mandolin! Yes, by itself, this would be a nice, slightly mature blues cover, but with the mandolin it becomes something more. A great, great, highly emotional experience, that's what this is.
Its followup isn't a highly emotional experience, but dangit, and I know I'm the only one here who does, I LOVE Country Honk!!! Honky Tonk Women may be a great generic rock'n'roller, but this has a fiddle! A fiddle! The whole effect is utterly hilarious, and when I come down to it, I have to confess that I ultimately prefer this track to the "classic" version that everybody knows and loves. Now flame away.
Hey, even Keith gets to take lead vocals on this album, first time ever, and he responds with one of his two or three best "solo numbers" ever. You Got the Silver may strike one as just an average countryish ballad at first, but c'mon - it has an effortlessly flowing melody, a structure that actually makes sense, an impassioned vocal, so what else could you possibly want? Some may see it as filler, but that could only be if taken from a "philosophical" perspective, which even then would be foolhearty (Keith is always the most "impassioned" person in the band, after all).
Oooh, and then there's the grand conclusion, the lengthy, gospelish You Can't Always Get What You Want. It actually manages to preserve the BB "pattern" I mentioned before (call me crazy, but I've always thought of the introduction as more of a tacked-on thing, corresponding to Factory Girl, than an integral part of the song), but the main part of the song is even better than Salt of the Earth. The chorus is one of the most wonderfully catchy melodies I've ever come across, the verse melody is cute, the lyrics are funny ... what else can I say about it?
Indeed, what else can I say about the album as a whole? Not many of the songs (except the bookends, obviously) really scream out "LOOK AT ME! I AM SO GREAT! I AM CLASSIC!" the way, say, Brown Sugar does, but all are fabulous. And that's enough to convince me that this is the pinnacle of the Stones, and one of the greatest rock albums ever to grace our world.
Janet Schiller (tschille@earthlink.net) (10/23/01)
The most intense version of Gimme Shelter in existence, IMO, is the
version that closes the film of the same name.
"Fernando H. Canto" (sirmustapha@ig.com.br) (02/26/03)
This might shock you.
Okay, Gimme Shelter is a simply fantastic song, a well deserved masterpiece for
generations to come, if only because of that tight rhythm and the thick
guitarwork. And both Monkey Man and Midnight Rambler are excellent, too. But...
aside from that, I don't see much on this album. Love In Vain is quite
beautiful, but it's the only stand out here. I've never seen anything appealing
on both Live With Me and Let It Bleed. Nothing, really. I don't care if they're
"the ultimate musical definition of sleeze". I've seen better. And
Country Honk, while funny, doesn't amuse me anymore after 5 or so listens. You
Got The Silver is alright. But You Can't Always Get What You Want annoys the
hell out of me. The melody is fine, but that's no excuse to repeat it 30 times
in the same song, and those choirs are like a sword slowly crossing my brain
until is reaches the other side. It's long, too. Blah. Gimme Shelter, Monkey
Man, Midnight Rambler and maybe Love In Vain is all I can salvage from here. I
wouldn't give this album more than a 7 (10). If this is the best the Stones have
to offer me, I'm sorry, but I'll jump into Roger Waters's lap and ask him to be
my daddy, thank you. :-)
Trfesok@aol.com (01/19/08)
I don't quite get it. You and George both rate this one higher than
the last one, but I must disagree. Thanks to the Hot Rocks
collection, the opening and closing tracks have been established as
true Stones classics. "Shelter" upgrades "Street Fighting Man" to a
more universal, frightening message, while "You Can't Always Get What
You Want" is the best "epic" the Stones ever recorded. I love the way
it just builds and builds. Both of these rival "Sympathy for the
Devil" on the last album.
However, the "other" tracks on the album don't rival the "other"
tracks on BB. "Midnight Rambler" comes close, but as, you point out,
the live version is better. "Love is Vain" isn't as interesting a
cover as "Prodigal Son." "You Got the Silver" is pleasant enough,
but lacks the poignancy of "No Expectations". "Monkey Man" can't
decide if it wants to be threatening or funny, but in the end, it's
hilarious. So is "Live With Me" -- the narrator trots out his
most disgusting attributes in order to attract somebody? Quite
clever. However, "Country Honk" sounds pretty goofy when compared
with the "Honky Tonk Women" single. You really can't take these last
three songs seriously, which one couldn't say about most of BB.
Finally, sorry, but I really hate the title track. The punning in the
lyrics is really stupid, and the music is really monotonous. I never
play this one. I do enjoy the rest of the album a lot, but it doesn't
blow me away like the last one can.
The "Honky Tonk Women" single was indeed recorded during these
sessions and belongs here as a bonus track. There's plenty of room!
I actually work with someone who tells me that "Monkey Man" is her
favorite song. Not her favorite Stones song, but her favorite SONG,
ever! It takes all types to make our planet turn, doesn't it?
Best song: Midnight Rambler
Ah yes, Ya-Ya's. For years, this has been a critical favorite, consistently regarded as one of the two best live albums ever (Live at Leeds the other one), and while its star has dimmed slightly, for the most part people still hold it up as a great example of a classic rock live album. BUT, in the "web-reviewer" community, there's a slightly more frequent occurance of dismissing it almost outright. Mark Prindle slammed it especially, giving it a 6 and brushing it off as (I'm paraphrasing here) a bunch of half-hearted guitar jams. The thing is, while I love it to death and would happily go on forever extolling the virtues of this album, I COMPLETELY understand that initial dismissal. AT LEAST the first ten or fifteen times I listened to this album, I found this album decent, but nowhere near the classic it was made out to be. And here is why.
I honestly do not know how to completely explain it, but depending on how your brain and ears are wired, this album can seem ridiculously sluggish at first. The closest analogy I can make is to Fight Fire with Fire, off Metallica's Ride the Lightning - in that song, Hetfield sings slightly against the main beat, and as a result the actual up-tempo briskness of the piece can be misheard as a VERY plodding thud-thud-thud. Likewise with Ya-Ya's - for whatever reason, the songs sounded very slow, mechanical, rigid, and BORING to me. The vaunted guitar interplay didn't seem at all energetic, the drumming had no bounce, and the overall effect was to make my head droop like mad. Not to mention that I didn't care for the mix - I didn't think Keith was loud enough, there didn't seem to be any bass, and so forth.
Fortunately, for whatever reason, my brain was eventually able to sort out the mess and correct the problems my ears thought were there, and suddenly the album ruled. And I mean absolutely RULED, to the extent that, were it not for the annoyingly long time it took me to appreciate the album, I'd probably give it a 15 no question. Jumping Jack Flash suddenly went from lumbering to a hard-rock MONSTER, the two Chuck Berry covers (Carol, Little Queenie) all of a sudden had a brisk pace in the guitar work (punctuating an interesting reinvention of the songs), Street Fighting Man all of a sudden had Keith pounding the hell out of his guitar while Mick Taylor soloed up a storm .... man, it suddenly became a masterpiece.
Oh yes, I didn't give Mick Taylor his proper introduction yet. Mick would go on to give some great performances in the studio, but never would he quite outdo the magic he pulled out of his hat for this album. It's hard to describe what exactly he does on this album that is so great - seemingly every note is picture perfect, his tone rules and the way he plays off Keith is sheer, uttter genius. And speaking of Keith ... man, did I ever originally underestimate his performance on this album. His playing is so gruff, so aggressive, so frighteningly powerful that I'm practically at a loss of words - of course, I wish the production would have done a better job of emphasizing him in the mix, but that's what good speakers are for.
But back to the album. If you're looking for one track to completely define why this album is so great, and why the guitar interplay of this album should be worshipped, look no further than Midnight Rambler. Sure, Jagger contributes nicely too, throwing in some great harmonica parts and running the show flawlessly while strutting his bad self. But the guitars ... man, this would be impressive if one guitarist was able to pull this off, but for two guitarists to be able to play off each other so seamlessly is absolutely breathtaking. In particular, there's the middle part where they slow down to a crawl while running a call-and-response duet before Jagger returns with "Well you heard about the Boston .." *SLAM* goes Keith. And so on until the ending climax, where Taylor throws in a perfectly appropriate solo before Jagger brings the whole thing down with the ending lines.
While Rambler takes the cake as the best interplay showcase, Taylor's finest solo moments come in the tracks surrounding it, Love in Vain and Sympathy For the Devil. LIV does lose the mandolin, and as such becomes a slightly conventional blues number at heart, but Mick saves it completely with some absolutely goregeous "crying" guitar lines that for some reason make me think of weeping willows. Traditional blues, sure, but FABULOUSLY played and arranged traditional blues. As for Sympathy, well, it's transformed completely, losing the bongos in favor of a Bo Diddley acoustic rhythm, and showcases a lengthy but superbly written and played solo (though it's probable that Taylor overdubbed it in later). I still prefer the original, sure, but if could only listen to this version for the rest of my days instead of its studio counterpart, I wouldn't shed any tears about it.
Keith's showcase, then, comes from Honky Tonk Women. I honestly don't like the studio version as much as I'm supposed to, but this live version? Yee-haw! What can I say, it feels less contrived, the rhythm is more hypnotic, and Keith gets a nice solo - not stunning from a technical standpoint, but very clean and very entertaining in its simplicity. Nice work.
A couple other tracks are well-played but inferior to their studio versions (Live with Me and especially Stray Cat Blues, which has intense Keith rhythm work and an interesting feel but loses most of the original's aggression), but that's ok. The overall effect of this album is a giant wallop on the head once your brain has figured out how to listen to it. And hey, let's ignore the Live at Leeds comparisons - for all I know, those were half of what messed up my mind in the first place. Ya-ya's is a brilliant gem all its own, the best Stones live album ever, and CERTAINLY the only Stones live album to get if you're just going to buy one.
Gillman (garyg1@ca.inter.net) (1/26/04)
Hi, just a comment that I enjoyed all your Stones albums reviews, I agree
with your judgements in almost all cases, they are very well written too.
Regarding the tempo of Ya-Ya's, it actually adds a lot to the performances,
it gives them a "feel" (raunchy feel perfect to the material) that
compensates for the lack of almost any live CD to equate to the snap of the
original versions.
In fact, the Stones slowed down a fair bit later on in their career (e.g.
in my opinion Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up and It's Only Rock and Roll, the
original studio versions, are too slow, something is missing, ditto
Shattered, a great song but played a beat too slow and with too sparse a
production. I think they were trying to get the same "feel" (that raw live
feel) as on Ya-Ya's, but it is a fine line.. And when they were fast, it
lacked punch - Respectable is a good example. I enjoy much of the Stones
work after '71 but it is not as good as the great late 60's records leading
up to Sticky Fingers. I think most of the earlier studio singles were
faster, or just better songs. (e.g. Honky Tonk Woman, but memory tells me
that the 45 was faster than the album track, ditto Pinball Wizard (more on
the Who below), but I can't prove it).
Now just one quibble - the long solo on Sympathy on Ya-Ya's is almost
certainly played by Richards. There are two solos, and the second, shorter
one clearly is Taylor, it has his melodic bluesy signature. That first
solo is almost certainly Richard's, it has an odd syncopated (picking-like)
metre but really gets rolling, it is one of Keith's best performances ever.
And I have heard too that a lot of the lead work was patched in after -
again I don't know for sure, the only way would be to hear a boot of
Ya-Ya's, but none ever came my way. :)
As to Live At Leeds vs. Ya-Ya's, it is not really in my view a close call.
LAL is so good few other live albums I know can approach it. It has an
intensity and ensemble power that are beyond Ya-Ya's, both in playing
ability and "vision". Not to take away from Ya-Ya's, it is in my top live
five, but the Stones, while very valid on their own terms (more the r&b
Berry/Wolf-derived music) could not in my view reach the kind of power and
"modernity" the Who did on LAL. But you know what, the Who themselves
never again could equal LAL! I have all their stuff and while I admire
much other live work they did (e.g. Dreaming From The Waist on the 30 years
video is pretty hot, Pete is flying and on the money on every chord, ditto
on the live perforamnce of that song issued on the By Numbers reissue,
ditto on some of the Chicago '79 performances on that video) LAL was and
remains unique even within the Who universe.
I first heard LAL shortly after it was recorded and marvelled at how great
it was, I knew it was an immediate landmark. This was especially so
because Pete does not generally rate amongst the very well-regarded
guitarists (he's not considered in the leauge on the blues-influenced group
like Page, Beck, Clapton, etc.), but at Leeds in 1970 he rose to the
challenge, and if his chops (the single note leads) occasionally were a
little ordinary (e.g. that almost one note solo in Summertime Blues) he
more than made up for it in amazing dynamics.
Gary, Toronto.
Best song: Brown Sugar (Though I friggin' LOVE Dead Flowers ...)
The Stones charge into the 70's and hit the ground running. Indeed, the Stones' first studio album of the Mick Taylor era is an absolutely incredible classic, showing a tougher and grittier approach than before in the rockers and more care and diversity in the slower numbers. Add on the best guitar interplay yet found on a studio album (Brian Jones was fine and all, but he had nowhere the technical skill that Taylor brought to the fold), and you have a a perfect experience, right? Right?
Well ... yes and no.
DISCLAIMER: complaints in the next few lines are merely reasons I don't give this album a perfect score - but really, since the difference between a 15 and a 14 is so scant, does it really matter? Nah.
See, as much as I like this album and have liked it more or less since I bought it, I always have had a slightly nagging feeling whenever I listen to it. It took a while for me to figure out what it was exactly, but this is as best as I can phrase it. You see, I think that it's perfectly reasonable to look at parallels between this and The Who's Who's Next. Both came out in 1971, and both represented a fairly significant stylistic shift from their classic 60's sound. But also, there's the fact that both albums have a sort of "self-conciously great" feel about them that rubs me the wrong way ever so slightly. It's far more obvious with Who's Next, since the album was originally supposed to be the king of all conceptual albums, and the problem is to a far smaller degree on Fingers. After all, if anything, the Stones approach became less artsy and more geared towards "RAWK" here, with Keith's riffs making you bang your head madly whether you want to or not. But still, and I guess I can't explain it to those who aren't inside my head, but I always get the same vibe listening to this album that I get from listening to Next or, say, Led Zeppelin IV - that it's a classic, but that it was specifically set up to almost resemble a greatest hits album, without too much cohesion in the sound. Of course, please don't start questioning why it is that I then tolerate prog rock albums if I have such a strange bias ...
Of course, there's also the problem that a full three of the ten songs on here don't excite me that much. In fact, one of them, I Got the Blues, irritates me in a way not really found on any of the band's last few albums - the closest comparison I can give for the vocals is Robert Plant's style on Presence, but for some reason that doesn't bring me much comfort with such a dippy, overblown blues melody. And then there's Sway and You Gotta Move, neither of which I dislike, but neither of which I consider classics. Sway does have a mighty guitar solo in the end, and the rhythm work sounds good (which is of note, considering that it's not Keith playing it), but ... I dunno. I guess the slightly lazy feel of the song was intentional, and there's nothing nasty about the song at all, but I've never felt quite "complete" at the end of it. As for You Gotta Move, well, it's interesting (even great), but that's mostly because of the really really cool acoustic guitar tone. On the band's earliest albums, this would have been a definite highlight - here it just sounds ok.
Indeed, there's a reason that it just sounds ok here. The other seven tracks on here, well, to say they're incredible would be to say nothing. Sure, the lyrics have started to gravitate towards gross at times. But dang it, the music totally lives up to it, and I mean that in a good way - Keith has never rocked harder than he did on this album, Jagger's vocals are aggressive and snide enough to play up to him, Taylor's solos liven things up repeatedly, and the goodness of Wyman and Watts goes without saying.
In other words, as far as Stones' rockers go, you'd be hard-pressed to find an album with a trio that's better than Brown Sugar, Can't You Hear Me Knocking and Bitch. Of course, you've probably heard all of them on the radio a zillion times, but I contend they absolutely deserve every second of play they get. BS has one of the most classic guitar riffs of all time, and Jagger's vocals come through with a zing and energy that even he hadn't been able to create before. As for Bitch, well, the riff (played sometimes by guitars, sometimes by saxaphone and trumpet, to great effect) for this may be even better than the one to BS, and unless you're a woman, it's hard not to have a part of you that gets a kick out of singing the silly, juvenile lines that pop up in the song. Throw in the tight, tight, tight playing, and what you get is ROCK and ROLL - sure, r&r isn't everything in life, nor is it all that the Stones can do well, but e-friggin-gads they do it well.
And Can't You Hear Me Knocking, well, words can't really do justice for this one - lyrics to riff to ending jam, it's an absolute classic with few if any counterparts in the rock world.. I just gotta say, though, that I like the production of this one a lot - it's a headphone must. To have absolutely nothing in the left channel while Keith pounds the opening riff hears and feels really weird and disconcerting, and it makes your ear just crave the extra parts that come in. And the guitar interplay while Keyes does whatever during the ending "jam" (it's also cool that the band was able to so abruptly switch from rock mode to latin-jam mode so smoothly without an edit - kinda like Yes suddenly breaking into the WuRM coda in Starship Trooper) is worth the price of the album by itself.
Ah yes, but rockers aren't the only reason to buy this album - in fact, they probably aren't even the primary reason. While one of the five softer numbers sucks, as mentioned before, the other four are almost all undoubtedly among the top ten slow numbers the band ever wrote, which says a LOT. I hadn't listened to the studio version of Wild Horses in a long time, as most of my Stones listening had come from my Bridges to Babylon tour DVD, but when I came back to the studio version, I was stunned at how graceful and lovely and just gorgeous the whole thing is. It is absolutely stunning to witness how much Jagger's ballad-singing skills had improved over the years - it is nearly impossible to believe this is the same man whose strained vocals were about the only flaw on Flowers. As for the rest of the band, well, Taylor's solos are naturally subdued (while Keith merely sticks to lovely acoustic work), but that doesn't make them any less beautiful - its tone is mournful and uplifting all at once, matching the rest of the song perfectly.
Then there's the album closer, Moonlight Mile, a bombastic epic if ever there was one in the Stones' catalogue. It's a Jagger/Taylor collaboration (regardless of the Jagger/Richards credits), and while it doesn't bear any of Keith's playing, that doesn't make it any worse. The string coverings aren't at all out of place, Jagger's vocal delivery works surprisingly well, the melody is gorgeous, and there's even a really really lovely coda to close out the album! What more could you want?
Neither of the other slow songs can really be categorized as ballads, but that makes them just that much more impressive. Sister Morphine is nothing short of incredible, and not just because of the lyrics - there is an unearthly sense of disconnect from reality omnipresent during the song, and part of that comes from the fact that Jagger did not actually have experience with being a drug addict in recovery. The guitar solos (courtesy of not Taylor, but one Ry Cooder) are creepy beyond words, and the occasionally tunele
The general party line goes something like this: "During (1), the Stones were one of the greatest cover bands on earth, sprinkling their albums with hit singles from time to time. However, during (2) the band lost its vision and began dabbling in pop and psychadelia with only limited success, since their talents obviously didn't lie in those areas. The band finally returned to what it did best in (3), sticking only to the 'basics' and not mucking things up like they did in (2). Alas, from (4) onward, the band stopped following its successful formula and engaged in failed experimentation with everything from reggae to disco to punk. As a result of this, all of their albums have been practically worthless since Exile."
this is me again. i was reading you stones page for the last half an hour and i
thought that it was an excellent point that you made regarding the bands
diversity( that is, they werent simply root-rockers and embraced a variety of
styles). Yes, i totally agree with you on this issue. There is a minor nibble,
though:).. when you come to think of it, the stones, right from the days of
physchedelics through punk, disco, electronics, grunge and whatever they are
doing right now havent really spearheaded any revolutions in music.They were
always trend followers and not setters. pretty ironic eh, when are talking
about the " Greatest rock and roll band". If this seems to be a criticism then
it is an extremely minor one since all these things are of importance only from
a historical perspective. The band made some great music and we have to be
thankful for that...
Shannon Carey
England's Newest Hitmakers - 1964 Abkco
9 (12)
12*5 - 1964 Abkco
7 (10)
The Rolling Stones, Now! - 1965 Abkco
9 (13)
Out Of Our Heads - 1965 Abkco
7 (10)
December's Children And Everybody's - 1965 Abkco
7 (10)
Aftermath - 1966 Abkco
9 (13)
Got Live If You Want It - 1966 Abkco
7 (10)
Between The Buttons - 1967 Abkco
9 (14)
Flowers - 1967 Abkco
9 (14)
Their Satanic Majesties Request - 1967 Abkco
9 (13)
Beggar's Banquet - 1968 Abkco
9 (15)
*Let It Bleed - 1969 Abkco*
10 (15)
Get Your Ya-Ya's Out! - 1970 Abkco
9 (14)
Sticky Fingers - 1971 Virgin
9 (14)