What is the most underrated Stones record?

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You've never heard The Rolling Stones until you've heard those three.

I’ll have a listen then!

The version of JJF on that black box thing is fuckin evil!

[username]

20 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You've never heard The Rolling Stones until you've heard those three.

The Brussels Affair is probably one of the best records you'll ever hear. Bootleg or no bootleg. Live or studio. I absolutely love it to bits. The bootleg version and the official version. 

[Len Cnut]

Listened to Emotional Rescue again, it got better on a second listen.  I used to be quite critical of The Stones lyrics but they are really quite brilliant.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Listened to Emotional Rescue again, it got better on a second listen.  I used to be quite critical of The Stones lyrics but they are really quite brilliant.

Chuck that rubbish away and put on The Brussels Affair.

[Len Cnut]

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Chuck that rubbish away and put on The Brussels Affair.

aye aye Skip, I'll get on it next!

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

aye aye Skip, I'll get on it next!

Mincing around with bad 1980s Stones records! 

[Len Cnut]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Mincing around with bad 1980s Stones records! 

Sorry, I dunno what came over me   Something about slagged off albums gives rise to curiosity in me.  One of the first Stones albums I heard was Satanic Majesties and it was probably as much to do with everyone saying it was bollocks than like...the mystique of this album created in the throes of excess.  Beggars Banquet i think was the first one I heard start to finish that weren't a greatest hits and after that, if I'm not mistaken, it was Satanic Majesties.

[DieselDaisy]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Sorry, I dunno what came over me   Something about slagged off albums gives rise to curiosity in me.  One of the first Stones albums I heard was Satanic Majesties and it was probably as much to do with everyone saying it was bollocks than like...the mystique of this album created in the throes of excess.  Beggars Banquet i think was the first one I heard start to finish that weren't a greatest hits and after that, if I'm not mistaken, it was Satanic Majesties.

Probably the most intriguing record in their discography. People call it a ''Pepper rip'' but it doesn't sound a whole lot like Sgt Pepper, does it, outside Harrison's ''Within You Without You perhaps''? It is full of these oriental self-indulgent jams - Jones's influence. The Beatles brand of psychedelics was more precise.

[DieselDaisy]

I love Mick's ''Mickisms'' on Brussels's Affair,

''Aye-aye-aye-aye''.

''Keef's gonna sing a song called 'appy''

''Blow blow blow it too''.

''Are we gonna do Duh Duh Duh Duh Duh Keef?''

And his GCSE French.

[username]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I love Mick's ''Mickisms'' on Brussels's Affair,

''Aye-aye-aye-aye''.

''Keef's gonna sing a song called 'appy''

''Blow blow blow it too''.

''Are we gonna do Duh Duh Duh Duh Duh Keef?''

And his GCSE French.

"oh la la"

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, username said:

"oh la la"

Mick's grasp of the French toungue is only one tier above ''Del Boy'' French.

[username]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Mick's grasp of the French toungue is only one tier above ''Del Boy'' French.

Modern Mick still always bothers with some native tongue though. When I saw them in Nijmegen in 2007 they were late due to a thunder storm that nearly canceled the show and cut Van Morrison's opening act short. When the Stones went on Mick said "Beter laat dan nooit" - Dutch for "beter late than never".  

But yeah, his French has always been comical. 

[Fashionista]

On 8/2/2018 at 6:09 AM, Len Cnut said:

I think they were both great for what they did.  They were bringing different things to the band I feel.  The only thing I can say is that...Brians inventiveness, it seems, is a well that had to run dry at some point, it was just so cool, the little touches, I don't think anybody can keep comin' up with such out of the box touches for any long term thing though I do think drugs killed it long before its natural death, whereas Taylor had a grounding in a particular groove to where you feel like if he got up and joined The Stones again today he could probably do what he did back then all over again.  I love em both though, I think they were essential for their eras.  I mean, to say I don't care for Mick Taylor would mean I have a problem with all their guitar work, or most of it, during their golden period in the 70s.  And to say I didn't like Brians or didn't care for his would mean I thought the stuff that made them was lacking on some level, which it certainly wasn't, that was the shit that got me into The Stones. 

I will say this though, musically, Brian had as much blues in his bones as Keith and Mick, perhaps more, he really understood, even that early on, about 'the gaps', the air between the notes, the breathing space, all the stuff that Keith has started to speak about since the 90s onwards when discussing the blues, you can hear it more in Brians guitarwork than anybody elses, Brian was a little Cheltenham Elmore James with a funny haircut.  He was just a generally cool character, looked like a fop, talked like a grammar school boy, played like a black man from Mississippi raised in Chicago, he was kind of a one off. 

He was still throwing gems on the albums he was on, it was as much a lack of interest as it was drugs. Like, he sat on a floor reading while the band recorded You Can't Always Get What You Want cause he thought the choir shit was phony. But when it came to play it live, on guitar, he gave a bluesy undertone to it. He was actually against the whole experimentation thing; he is pinned as a psychedelia guy, but, in his words, he used whatever sound he felt a song needed.

Even at the end, that instinct for inventiveness was still there, listen to this:

At 1:48 this unearthly wail comes over the slide guitar and then does a solo, and if you listen with headphones, you can hear it droning on, hitting each melody, and it comes thoroughout the song. That's Brian on a mellotron set to a flute setting. He was using a tron to get a sound similar to Morrocan pan flutes, while using a pitch modulator to push the notes beyond their normal range, watch how it was done here:

Or doing sitar on Street Fighting Man, and then dubbing a tambura in so they play off each other.

I greatly enjoy the Taylor years but I feel like guys like Mick Taylor were a dime a dozen in the 60s and 70s. Like, look at Black & Blue, Wayne Perkins sounds so much like Taylor that most think it's him (especially on Hand of Fate).

[Fashionista]

On 8/6/2018 at 3:09 PM, DieselDaisy said:

I love Mick's ''Mickisms'' on Brussels's Affair,

''Aye-aye-aye-aye''.

''Keef's gonna sing a song called 'appy''

''Blow blow blow it too''.

''Are we gonna do Duh Duh Duh Duh Duh Keef?''

And his GCSE French.

Listen to how heavy those guitars are for '67. Go to 3:26. And Mick is doing Mickism, "I Can't me no satisfaction, ya'll"

Edited August 11, 2018 by Fashionista

[Fashionista]

On 8/4/2018 at 3:44 PM, DieselDaisy said:

Probably the most intriguing record in their discography. People call it a ''Pepper rip'' but it doesn't sound a whole lot like Sgt Pepper, does it, outside Harrison's ''Within You Without You perhaps''? It is full of these oriental self-indulgent jams - Jones's influence. The Beatles brand of psychedelics was more precise.

If you swap out "Sing This All Together" and "Sing This All Together (See What Happens) for "We Love You" and "Dandelion" (recorded during the sessions, you have an amazing album.

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Fashionista

[Fashionista]

On 8/4/2018 at 7:59 AM, Len Cnut said:

Listened to Emotional Rescue again, it got better on a second listen.  I used to be quite critical of The Stones lyrics but they are really quite brilliant.

RS meets MJ and Miami Vice for a nice bit of sleaze. 

On 8/4/2018 at 9:52 AM, DieselDaisy said:

Mincing around with bad 1980s Stones records! 

No such thing as a bad Stones record.

[Len Cnut]

On 06/08/2018 at 8:25 PM, DieselDaisy said:

Mick's grasp of the French toungue is only one tier above ''Del Boy'' French.

At least he fuckin' tries.  Britney Spears done a gig in Manchester once and went 'W'SUP LONDONNNNN?!'  

[Fashionista]

A question for Len: Do you think it is heresy to say the Stones (as a band not as individuals) were on par with The Beatles? Obviously Lennon, McCartney and Harrison did much better solo work than Jagger and Richards, but do you think as band they were of roughly equal talent? Let's say we limit the Stones catalog from England's Newest Hitmakers to Sticky Fingers to be fair, does that run compare with Please Please Me to Let It Be?

[Len Cnut]

9 hours ago, Fashionista said:

A question for Len: Do you think it is heresy to say the Stones (as a band not as individuals) were on par with The Beatles? Obviously Lennon, McCartney and Harrison did much better solo work than Jagger and Richards, but do you think as band they were of roughly equal talent? Let's say we limit the Stones catalog from England's Newest Hitmakers to Sticky Fingers to be fair, does that run compare with Please Please Me to Let It Be?

I prefer The Beatles but I’m not sure exactly how you’d go about quantifying something like that, they weren’t really doing the same things, I dunno, how do you compare talent, they’re certainly comparable.  The Beatles seemed a lot more easy-going whereas The Stones, to a point, seemed quite puritanical about their pursuit of RnB, something that people like John Lennon sort of took the piss out of, you can see him subtly doing it on The Rock n Roll Circus with all that ‘your own soul brother Keith Richards’ stuff.  

I dunno, I don’t think its a question I can give any satisfactory answer to that.  A lot is made of The Stones being the better live band, I’m not sure I even agree with that, live performance was sort of developing a lot during the 1960s, especially the large scale stuff, The Beatles broke up before it was even vaguely developed but the evidence is there with a lot of their live work as far as I’m concerned.  

They’re comparable, that much can’t be argued.  Musically I find The Beatles to be superior though but, I dunno, that run of Stones albums you pointed out to be is like one the greatest album runs I’ve ever heard so its not lacking to me on any level.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Fashionista]

12 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I prefer The Beatles but I’m not sure exactly how you’d go about quantifying something like that, they weren’t really doing the same things, I dunno, how do you compare talent, they’re certainly comparable.  The Beatles seemed a lot more easy-going whereas The Stones, to a point, seemed quite puritanical about their pursuit of RnB, something that people like John Lennon sort of took the piss out of, you can see him subtly doing it on The Rock n Roll Circus with all that ‘your own soul brother Keith Richards’ stuff.  

I dunno, I don’t think its a question I can give any satisfactory answer to that.  A lot is made of The Stones being the better live band, I’m not sure I even agree with that, live performance was sort of developing a lot during the 1960s, especially the large scale stuff, The Beatles broke up before it was even vaguely developed but the evidence is there with a lot of their live work as far as I’m concerned.  

They’re comparable, that much can’t be argued.  Musically I find The Beatles to be superior though but, I dunno, that run of Stones albums you pointed out to be is like one the greatest album runs I’ve ever heard so its not lacking to me on any level.

 

By the way, listen to this. This to me is pretty, and one of the tracks at the Circus where you can hear Brian (the way his guitar complement's Keith, especially on the intro), and so much better than the album version:

What ya think?

[DieselDaisy]

On 8/12/2018 at 4:59 AM, Fashionista said:

A question for Len: Do you think it is heresy to say the Stones (as a band not as individuals) were on par with The Beatles? Obviously Lennon, McCartney and Harrison did much better solo work than Jagger and Richards, but do you think as band they were of roughly equal talent? Let's say we limit the Stones catalog from England's Newest Hitmakers to Sticky Fingers to be fair, does that run compare with Please Please Me to Let It Be?

Why stop before Exile?

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why stop before Exile?

I couldn't be arsed counting but I presumed to keep the numbers right.  Like an even amount of albums per band.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

I couldn't be arsed counting but I presumed to keep the numbers right.  Like an even amount of albums per band.

Heck, I'd say ''why stop before Goats Head'', but I appreciate that that is a minority view.

[Len Cnut]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Heck, I'd say ''why stop before Goats Head'', but I appreciate that that is a minority view.

I suppose the idea is an even amount of albums for each side sort of em keeps em in the same weight division.

[Fashionista]

3 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I suppose the idea is an even amount of albums for each side sort of em keeps em in the same weight division.

Basically, also time wise, Let It Be was in 70 and Sticky Fingers was released in 71 but recorded mostly in 69 and 70 (pushed back a year in release due to legal issues with Andrew Loog-Oldham)* so it's the last Stones record to have an origin in a time when the Beatles as a group still existed and were still "competition." 

*Speaking of delays, Beggar's Banquet was supposed to come out in July '68 (recording finished in June), but the record label rejected the cover, and the band then shot this pic as an alternative cover idea:

 Mick didn't like how the pic came out, more fighting ensued and the record came out in December.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Fashionista