Bigger Bang doesn't get enough love. It really was a great album for a bunch of old farts.

Quote
shadooby
Bigger Bang doesn't get enough love. It really was a great album for a bunch of old farts.

Love it. I firmly believe that if ABB were recorded and released in the seventies, it would be considered a classic today!

Black and Blue for sure

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoner72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Harlem Shuffle anyone? Could have been included on ANY Stones album without making the album poorer, imo.

Well that's setting the bar pretty low, isn't it?

No

And yet it raised Dirty Work to a solid 2 star album!

Quote
FanOfGRARBITW

Quote
shadooby
Bigger Bang doesn't get enough love. It really was a great album for a bunch of old farts.

Love it. I firmly believe that if ABB were recorded and released in the seventies, it would be considered a classic today!

I agree...I think they also would have edited it to 10 or 11 songs which would have, as keith might say, "cut the crap".

That would have been an excellent album.

Are you saying they only write good songs half the time?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 02:56 by stonehearted.

Black and blue, but it is not the only one

A Bigger Bang or Goats Head Soup MEZ

Quote
stonehearted
Are you saying they only write good songs half the time?

If they only wrote good songs have the time, every one of their albums would be 5 star classics.

Batting 500 would be amazing. You're saying 'writing' half the time, not 'recording and releasing'.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
MILKYWAY
Goat's Head Soup - by a country mile.

I've seen people try to include this and expand it to 'the Big Five'...not on my watch!

C'mon, treaclefingers, you know you like it.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
FanOfGRARBITW

Quote
shadooby
Bigger Bang doesn't get enough love. It really was a great album for a bunch of old farts.

Love it. I firmly believe that if ABB were recorded and released in the seventies, it would be considered a classic today!

I agree...I think they also would have edited it to 10 or 11 songs which would have, as keith might say, "cut the crap".

That would have been an excellent album.

The only problem that I see, is that there seems to be as many choices for making those down to 10 - 11 songs edits as there are IORR'ians suggesting that view. The uncontested 10 - 11 songs an even bigger bang album does not exist. I am not saying this as A BIGGER BANG basher, I hold that album to be verging on a semi-great, although not semi-classic, album as it is in its non-edited version. However, then it can't rival UNDERCOVER as one of two candidates for this thread's theme.

Quote
MILKYWAY

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
MILKYWAY
Goat's Head Soup - by a country mile.

I've seen people try to include this and expand it to 'the Big Five'...not on my watch!

C'mon, treaclefingers, you know you like it.

I like chocolate milk, but I don't listen to it.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted
Are you saying they only write good songs half the time?

If they only wrote good songs have the time, every one of their albums would be 5 star classics.

Batting 500 would be amazing. You're saying 'writing' half the time, not 'recording and releasing'.

Okay, I'll rephrase. Are you saying they only record and release good songs half the time? Or perhaps too many songs at the same time? That's my complaint about Exile. It should have been a single album, or broken up into separate albums. Of all the albums from 1964 to 1974, that's the one I listen to the least.

I think the reason they have been releasing longer albums in the last 20 years is not so much because of the CD era, but because the occasion of their getting together in a studio just becomes increasingly rare. With ABB, they must have figured that they'd better make it an hour's worth of songs and give people their money's worth--because they knew they would be spending the next 2 years on the road and at least 3 years off after that.

If they released a new album today, I think it would be the same approach. Because it's been so long since they recorded an album and because there might not be another occasion in the future to draw them together in the studio again, they would probably go all out and cram as much material as they could onto one disc. If they were still in the habit of recording an album every other year or so like they were up until Steel Wheels, then the output would be shorter albums with higher quality and better continuity, where 10 or 11 songs would really count rather than B-side quality material getting lost in the shuffle of 16 or 17 tracks clocking in at just over 60 minutes.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted
Are you saying they only write good songs half the time?

If they only wrote good songs have the time, every one of their albums would be 5 star classics.

Batting 500 would be amazing. You're saying 'writing' half the time, not 'recording and releasing'.

Okay, I'll rephrase. Are you saying they only record and release good songs half the time? Or perhaps too many songs at the same time? That's my complaint about Exile. It should have been a single album, or broken up into separate albums. Of all the albums from 1964 to 1974, that's the one I listen to the least.

I think the reason they have been releasing longer albums in the last 20 years is not so much because of the CD era, but because the occasion of their getting together in a studio just becomes increasingly rare. With ABB, they must have figured that they'd better make it an hour's worth of songs and give people their money's worth--because they knew they would be spending the next 2 years on the road and at least 3 years off after that.

If they released a new album today, I think it would be the same approach. Because it's been so long since they recorded an album and because there might not be another occasion in the future to draw them together in the studio again, they would probably go all out and cram as much material as they could onto one disc. If they were still in the habit of recording an album every other year or so like they were up until Steel Wheels, then the output would be shorter albums with higher quality and better continuity, where 10 or 11 songs would really count rather than B-side quality material getting lost in the shuffle of 16 or 17 tracks clocking in at just over 60 minutes.

OK, everything after you said Exile needed to be a single album became incoherent to me. It may just be that I blacked out.

between the buttons

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted
Are you saying they only write good songs half the time?

If they only wrote good songs have the time, every one of their albums would be 5 star classics.

Batting 500 would be amazing. You're saying 'writing' half the time, not 'recording and releasing'.

Okay, I'll rephrase. Are you saying they only record and release good songs half the time? Or perhaps too many songs at the same time? That's my complaint about Exile. It should have been a single album, or broken up into separate albums. Of all the albums from 1964 to 1974, that's the one I listen to the least.

I think the reason they have been releasing longer albums in the last 20 years is not so much because of the CD era, but because the occasion of their getting together in a studio just becomes increasingly rare. With ABB, they must have figured that they'd better make it an hour's worth of songs and give people their money's worth--because they knew they would be spending the next 2 years on the road and at least 3 years off after that.

If they released a new album today, I think it would be the same approach. Because it's been so long since they recorded an album and because there might not be another occasion in the future to draw them together in the studio again, they would probably go all out and cram as much material as they could onto one disc. If they were still in the habit of recording an album every other year or so like they were up until Steel Wheels, then the output would be shorter albums with higher quality and better continuity, where 10 or 11 songs would really count rather than B-side quality material getting lost in the shuffle of 16 or 17 tracks clocking in at just over 60 minutes.

OK, everything after you said Exile needed to be a single album became incoherent to me. It may just be that I blacked out.

Stop breaking down.

You must have, treaclefingers, because the second paragraph of stonehearted's post before his latest catches the perspective perfectly.

And provided B-side quality on one hand is taken to be their rather high B-side quality really, and if on the other UNDERCOVER substitutes STEEL WHEELS in the text in the last paragraph, we get a mighty good glimpse there of where and why the career of the Stones arrived at crossroads.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-02 04:26 by Witness.

Quote
Witness
You must have, treaclefingers, because the second paragraph of stonehearted's post before his latest catches the perspective perfectly.

And provided B-side quality on one hand is taken to be their rather high B-side quality really, and if on the other UNDERCOVER substitutes STEEL WHEELS in the text in the last paragraph, we get a mighty good glimpse there of where and why the career of the Stones arrived at crossroads.

OK, thanks for that. I've reread it and completely disagree with him.

There's no excuse to cram that many songs onto a CD just because they can.

It worked with Exile, because they were good songs, and that should be the only reason you cram that many songs onto one disc.

If they want to record that many, that's fine, just don't release them right away.

Once they've improved with age, release them on a completely different album. You don't even need the rest of the band there...just Mick. He's done it before and he's done it recently and the results are always excellent.

There is only one other aspect that complicates your precept. Those rather high B-side quality songs have got one other characteristic. The resulting many songs are that good that fans disagree, which of them they will have, and which they would have wanted edited away. Then what?

Quote
Witness
There is only one other aspect that complicates your precept. Those rather high B-side quality songs have got one other characteristic. The resulting many songs are that good that fans disagree, which of them they will have, and which they would have wanted edited away. Then what?

Well...I'm inclined to leave the fan-choice editing out of the equation entirely. Rightly or wrongly, I'm going to throw the die and go with 'band-choice' on those edits. The problem is they've reneged on that part of their implied agreement with us.

What next...do we have to write and record their material? They're big boys...they should edit their tracks.

Quote
sonomastone
between the buttons

X2. The Rolling Stones listen to the Kinks and I like it. And "Miss Amanda Jones" is one of their most underrated rockers -- whatta riff!

However, if we still are as much, then we seem to be in the second context, presented by stonehearted. That is where they have made up for seldom releases, by giving us more material, but perhaps not perfected each song and left out the editing. The alternative to all recorded tracks might easily be none.

Well, it may be we are no longer in that second context either, and that there will not follow any more band releases of new Rolling Stones music. That the remaining possibility is solo albums.

A Bigger Bang
IORR

Their U.K. debut, The Rolling Stones doesn't receive the praise it should. I feel the same about the U.S. release, The Rolling Stones, Now! The Stones are often - and rightly, certainly - as a great singles-act when discussing Pre-Beggars Banquet releases, but some of their early albums were marvellous. Those released before, say, Aftermath, are particularly overlooked.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoner72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Harlem Shuffle anyone? Could have been included on ANY Stones album without making the album poorer, imo.

Well that's setting the bar pretty low, isn't it?

No

And yet it raised Dirty Work to a solid 2 star album!

Come on! You just love hating that album. 4 good out of 10 (a kind estimate) makes at least a solid 3...

Between the Buttons
IORR

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
sonomastone
between the buttons

X2. The Rolling Stones listen to the Kinks and I like it. And "Miss Amanda Jones" is one of their most underrated rockers -- whatta riff!

It's only straight boogie, but we like it

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoner72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Harlem Shuffle anyone? Could have been included on ANY Stones album without making the album poorer, imo.

Well that's setting the bar pretty low, isn't it?

No

And yet it raised Dirty Work to a solid 2 star album!

Come on! You just love hating that album. 4 good out of 10 (a kind estimate) makes at least a solid 3...

With every other album they've done a 6 or higher it makes it a very difficult album to go to whether you give it a 2 or 3.

To address your point, yes, I love hating that album...it humanizes them...even they can have a bad effort, and bounce back.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoner72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Harlem Shuffle anyone? Could have been included on ANY Stones album without making the album poorer, imo.

Well that's setting the bar pretty low, isn't it?

No

And yet it raised Dirty Work to a solid 2 star album!

Come on! You just love hating that album. 4 good out of 10 (a kind estimate) makes at least a solid 3...

With every other album they've done a 6 or higher it makes it a very difficult album to go to whether you give it a 2 or 3.

To address your point, yes, I love hating that album...it humanizes them...even they can have a bad effort, and bounce back.

I love it when you turn serious, if only for a minute

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoner72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Harlem Shuffle anyone? Could have been included on ANY Stones album without making the album poorer, imo.

Well that's setting the bar pretty low, isn't it?

No

And yet it raised Dirty Work to a solid 2 star album!

Come on! You just love hating that album. 4 good out of 10 (a kind estimate) makes at least a solid 3...

With every other album they've done a 6 or higher it makes it a very difficult album to go to whether you give it a 2 or 3.

To address your point, yes, I love hating that album...it humanizes them...even they can have a bad effort, and bounce back.

I love it when you turn serious, if only for a minute

Yes, it humanizes him.