This year, 2022, is the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the Rolling Stones. I find that just a little bit scary. In honor of this mildly frightening fact, I've decided to make some recommendations regarding what I consider their best – and worst – albums.
Just know going in that this reflects my personal preferences. Really, I hate lists. Every best/worst-of list I've ever read, I've had strong disagreements with; especially when it comes to music. Plus, I have to admit, the Stones are not my favorite band. They might not even be in my personal top ten.
That said, I like an awful lot of bands. Bands, solo acts, writers, composers, whatever. I really, really like music. I'm sure that if I were to sit down and come up with a particular order of all the musical performers/writers that I like, the 100th name on the list would be really good. I'd probably look at that name and think, shoot, they should be 57th, ahead of somebody else I really like.
So without further ado, and with no commitment as to who I like better, here are my suggestions for the uninitiated person seeking to know where to start. Because, let's face it, any group long held up as “The Greatest Rock & Roll Band In The World” is certainly worthy of consideration.
The 1
Okay, let's start with a premise; you don't know squat about the Rolling Stones. If you've read this far, you probably do and might even be seeking an excuse to cut me off at the knees, because I've already blasphemed them. Work with me here, wouldja? Please, for the sake of argument, accept my premise and put yourself in the shoes of someone who don't know squat about the Stones.
I,
your humble friend, a person with a little knowledge of rock music,
would like to recommend one album by which you can make an educated
judgment about this important, significant group in the history of
rock. If you get, and listen to, this album, you'll have a good idea
of who I'm talking about here.
Hot Rocks 1964-1971
In sixty (60) years, the Stones have put out 26 studio albums, 34 live albums, and 29 compilation albums. Think about that for a moment. Twenty-nine best-of collections, from twenty-six studio albums. It makes sense to start with a best-of greatest-hits type collection. Of those 29, this is the one I recommend, above and instead of all the others.
Let's us Stones fans be honest for a moment; their first 10 or 12 years were their best. Yeah, they keep recording and touring, but do you know how many of those 26 studio albums were recorded and released between 1964 and 1974? Fourteen. Over half.
They started in '62, released their first LP in '64, their most recent (Blue & Lonesome) came out in 2016, and as I write this they're prepping for yet another tour. But in the forty-eight years, the almost half a century, following the release of “It's Only Rock & Roll” in 1974, they've done 12 studio albums. And some of them contain recordings left over from those first ten years. 2.2 albums a decade, and the lions share of those in the '70's.
If you decide you like the Stones, go ahead and get those later albums. If you become a rabid fan, you'll probably like them. If you're really nuts about the Stones, you'll soon have your own ideas of where they fit in their long, long history.
Now, two of those 14 early albums are US-only releases, because albums released in the UK in the sixties had more songs on them. Like the Beatles, songs left off the US releases got patched together into separate albums. Some say that's a good thing because of the way vinyl records are made. To get more songs on a vinyl LP, you have to make the grooves closer together. To do that, you have to roll off a lot of the bass, because bass makes the grooves thicker. So, it's often argued that the US releases of the early Beatles and Stones LPs sound better than the UK versions. Science!
(The real reason the US labels did this, of course, was because more albums meant more money. This is the music business, after all. Science be damned!)
“Hot Rocks” is the sixth Stones compilation in their first nine years of existence. It's a two-album set full of their biggest hits. Not all their hits, but surely the most popular ones. And there's not a clunker on it. If you find you don't like this album, you can safely avoid the rest of their catalog. If you go to see them live, they will probably play several of these songs. If you stop the average person on the street and ask them to name a Stones tune, it's very likely they'll randomly pick something on this album; more often than not, “Satisfaction.”
Bottom line, if you don't know the Stones and you want to, get “Hot Rocks.”
Plus 4
This is the very short list for those who've listened to “Hot Rocks” and decided they like Mick & Co. These four albums should be, in my humble opinion, the cornerstones of your burgeoning collection.
Flowers 
This is yet another compilation album. Hold on now, stick with me here. Yes, it's a best-of, kinda, but NOT a greatest-hits. Only four of the twelve songs were ever put out as singles. Eight of the twelve come from the “Aftermath” and “Between the Buttons” albums, the other four are outtakes from the sessions from those and other albums.
This is like one of those US-only releases that pick up songs left off other albums, although not entirely. Bottom line on this one, it's a great collection of some of their early work. It's a good overview of their first period, and not many of these songs are on “Hot Rocks.”
They put out 9 studio albums between '64 and '67, a very busy and productive period. This album, seen at the time as a marketing ploy and a throw-away, holds up very well. Again, not a clunker in the bunch, and a very good broad-brush overview of their early style.
Their Satanic Majesties Request
What?!? If you're a long-time Rolling Stones fan, you're probably thinking; What?!? You want to offer a budding fan four albums to use as the cornerstones of their Stones collection, and one of them is this??
This album got crucified when it was released, no pun intended. It sold in the dozens. Well, okay, it went straight up the charts at first, but quickly fell back down. If they hadn't had a long-term contract and a healthy track record, this album could have ruined them. “Hot Rocks” contains songs off every album they put out up to 1971, except this one.
A quick bit of history here. The Beach Boys put out “Pet Sounds” in 1966. The Beatles heard it and said WOW and several other things. They took the inspiration and produced “Sgt. Pepper”. When that came out in 1967, the rest of the world said WOW and several other things.
At that point, everybody else in the world did their own version of Sgt. Pepper; including the Stones. For a while, I was working on a collection of everybody else's Sgt. Peppers. Some weren't bad, many of them were laughable. My personal favorite faux-Peppers are “Gift From A Flower To A Garden” by Donovan, “The Beat Goes On” by Vanilla Fudge, and “Of Cabbages And Kings” by Chad and Jeremy. And, “Satanic Majesties” by the Rolling Stones.
You could easily think it's horribly dated. Some people think that of Pepper, and some even think that of Pet Sounds. Maybe so. The fact remains that Majesties was the most creative thing the Stones had done up to that point, and may still be the most creative thing they've ever done. There's some really strong material on here, and it's well-produced. With Pepper, the Beatles had given everyone permission to follow their muse down whichever rabbit hole presented itself. The Stones went in without fear.
The fear came when the sales figures came in. It bombed, badly. I don't care. I loved it then, and I love it now. “Citadel” has some great guitar tones. Bill Wyman does a good, if subdued, lead vocal on “In Another Land.” It's the last thing Brian Jones had any real input into. The production was daring, and succeeded for the most part. It was a day at the circus on acid, quite literally, with the Stones.
It took about nine months to record, which is an eternity to a '60s pop group used to cranking out three or more albums a year. Again, this copied how the Beatles did Pepper. Part of the reason was that everybody that held a guitar or drum stick in Great Britain in 1967 was spending time in court on drug charges. I wouldn't be surprised if this album was submitted as evidence by the prosecution.
Those of you who know me know that I'm a born-again Christian, so you may be wondering why I would champion this particular album. Because I have a sense of humor, that's why. I don't honestly believe that anyone in the Stones is a satanist, and if they are, that's their problem. Really, the title's just a play on Their Britannic Majesties, after all.
What the Stones have always been great at from day-one is tweaking the straights. Their marketing strategy right along has been that there's no such thing as bad publicity. If they can make a member of the Royal Family clutch their pearls in horror, all the better. The title is a finger-to-the-nose response to churches burning Beatles records as much as the music was to Sgt. Pepper. Lock up your daughters, the Rolling Stones are in town!
This was the first serious push-back they ever got, and not because of the title. The reason was, their fans didn't like it. Back in the day there was a good-natured (for the most part) rivalry between Beatles fans and Stones fans. Majesties failed, not because it was bad, but because it was derivative. It was too much of an homage to Pepper. It was the Red Sox putting on pinstripes. But 50+ years on, those pinstripes … don't look so bad.
Sticky Fingers 
This was an easy call. If the first two are arguable, this one clearly belongs as a cornerstone of Stones appreciation. Personally, it makes my short list of their best albums, and may top that list if I'm in the mood. There isn't a weak song on it.
Granted, 50 years on they couldn't get away with releasing songs like “Brown Sugar” and “Sister Morphine,” but they're still great songs. “Sway” and “Moonlight Mile” are beautiful ballads. “Bitch” kicks ass! The whole thing is classic.
This is the first complete studio album featuring Mick Taylor on guitar. He's the guy that followed Eric Clapton and Peter Green as lead guitarist for John Mayall's Bluesbreakers. He may not be on his predecessor's level, but he's no slouch.
While not as wildly creative as the late Brian Jones, he did bring a certain stability to the Stones' sound. Where Jones would look for another instrument, another sound, another tangent to get lost with, Taylor just looks for a great lick. They did the exact same job within the band in completely different ways. Taylor's way is just as valid, and gives the Stones a more solid center.
The cover was the usual thumb-to-the-nose thing, with the life-size bulging jeans and a real zipper. Only now they had enough pull to have it done by Andy Warhol. When they learned that the zipper was damaging the stacked records at the warehouse, the solution was to have the zippers pulled down half-way so as not to damage the grooves, but the label in the center of the record.
This was the Stones returning to their roots. Not that they hadn't already done that, but this was the best and most confident version of it. The common reaction to Majesties was that they'd lost their way. This album made that assessment more difficult to argue with. It proved that, at their core, the Rolling Stones are really a rock 'n' roll band. It's where they're from. It's their home base.
Goat's Head Soup
My four cornerstones end as it begins; with an under-appreciated masterpiece. This album was a commercial success, but not so much a critical one. Stones fans tend to dismiss it. I do not.
In many ways, it's the logical follow-up to Sticky Fingers, even though there was an album in between (which I will discuss shortly). Probably not as strong on the whole as Fingers, it's still very good. It's easy to put this up alongside their classics and find it wanting. On its own, taken out of the context of its predecessors, it's pretty solid. It's an album to enjoy, not compare.
Minus 2
Here's where I get in trouble for real. These are two Stones albums I do NOT recommend.
Beggar's Banquet
Before you judge me for my low opinion of this album, give it a listen first.
The Wikipedia article on this album reads like Mick wrote it. The reviews, at the time and since, are an embarrassment of riches. It seems that everybody considers it one of the greatest albums of all time. It's widely regarded as a return to form for them after Satanic Majesties.
Listen to the album.
Beggar's Banquet is proof that the Stones … and here's where I get in big, big trouble … could, at times, be a real bunch of candy-asses. They're supposed to be rock's bad boys, right? The tongue-and-lips logo, lock up your daughters, trashing hotel rooms, drugs and more drugs, the whole perverted dog-and-pony show?
When the chips are down and the pressure's on, the Stones fold up like a cheap pup tent. How about the whole ker-fuffle over 'Let's Spend the Night Together' on the Ed Sullivan show? That was a pretty controversial thing to say in 1966 when that song came out on “Between the Buttons.” Sullivan wouldn't let them sing that on the show. He insisted that Mick sing 'let's spend some time together'. So … he did.
Who cares, right? I mean, really, it's not a big deal. The reason it matters is that it exposes them. Once they got there, it really hasn't been about the music. When they were kids listening to blues and early rock 'n' roll records, it was. But once they saw the view from the top of the mountain, the goal became to stay there. So being bad boys was a lot of fun … until Daddy pushed back. They're not satanically majestic, they're Eddie Haskell with money.
Listen to the album.
The whole reason for their 'return to form' was the fact that Majesties - Banquet's immediate predecessor – tanked. If it had been hailed as a tour de force, a brilliant creative statement – and most importantly, a huge cash cow – they'd have cheerfully cranked out a Magical Mystery Tour and Abbey Road, just like their buds from Liverpool.
But it didn't. So they had to regroup and prove to the record-buying public that Majesties was an anomaly. Sorry, we were stoned that week. Here's what we really sound like; just like you want.
Listen to the album.
It's a hot mess. The only two songs that got a serious attempt at professional-grade production were the opening songs on each side; Sympathy For the Devil and Street Fighting Man. The rest of the songs were not only sloppily played, but sloppily recorded. Play the album/tape/CD and those two songs will jump out at you.
Yes, there were some good songs, and some interesting blues covers. Salt Of The Earth, the album's closer, is a particular favorite of mine because it's a classy statement. But even that … just isn't very well done. It's like a decision was made early on that, to create the illusion of authenticity, we have to be muddy and sloppy. Like an old Robert Johnson 78.
Listen to the album. Not how you felt the first time you heard it, not what everybody and his dog says about it, not where it falls on the list of Greatest Albums Of All Time. Just listen to the music. Take away the two best-known songs, the ones that open the two sides, and don't tell anybody that it's the Rolling Stones, and you have eight songs that nobody would buy, by a group that nobody would sign.
Exile on Main Street 
All right, now imagine Beggar's Banquet stretched into a double album. Same rave reviews, or better, same high position on everybody (else's) top-albums lists, same hot mess.
The scary part is that it falls right between two of what I consider their best, named above; Fingers and Goat. They spent a year and a half working on this. In one very important way, it was a ground-breaking work. It was the introduction of their mobile studio, immortalized by Deep Purple as the Rolling Truck Stones Thing; a portable recording studio control room that could be driven up to any likely good-sounding room.
In the case of the Stones, this was a rented villa in the south of France. They were tax exiles, and wherever they took the truck became the most advanced recording studio in Europe. A true stroke of genius. More the shame, that it produced this turkey.
I'm sorry, but as they say, there's no there there. There's quite a few good songs, but they're not very well played or recorded. This is your brain on cocaine and heroin. Personally, I think the best song is “Happy,” which Keith Richards sings. He can't sing, but he manages to pull it off with grit and tenacity, and it's a great song. “Tumbling Dice” was a big hit, but I'd recommend Linda Ronstadt’s version. It's much better. As for the rest of the entire double album, there's nothing else particularly memorable. Yes, there's some pretty good songs, but they were badly abused.
Bottom line, if you're interested in learning about the Stones, save these two albums for last.
Honorable Mention
Every Album Before “Satanic Majesties”
There's a reason that the Rolling Stones are so popular and have lasted so long. Dig deep into their early catalog and you'll see why. The first album was largely covers of blues and old rock 'n' roll songs, which gave them time to polish their songwriting skills. Time well spent, I say. Lots of good stuff, and the backbone of Hot Rocks and their career to date.
Let It Bleed
From 1969, and the album between “Beggar's Banquet” and “Sticky Fingers.” Definitely transitional, and definitely good. This, not Banquet, is the one that shows them emerging from the shadow of the Beatles. A few weak spots, but Graham Parsons (of the Flying Burrito Brothers) was a big influence and exposed them to some deep Country music vibe. Another classic.
Some Girls
By 1978 the Stones were well past their peak, and yet this album holds up surprisingly well. The word most often associated with it is 'disco,' but there's quite a bit more to it than that. For that matter, the Rolling Stones couldn't sound like Chic or the Village People if their lives depended on it. They don't have the chops, but they don't really need them. There's plenty of R&B and even Country influence here.
Solid material, well done. And, according to those on the scene, practically a Mick solo album with the Stones supporting. Also the first album to really feature guitarist Ron Wood (ex-Faces), who replaced Mick Taylor. Taylor is a fine guitar player, but he played alongside the Stones, while Wood plays WITH them. He took the chair that had been occupied by Taylor and Jones and pulled it up to the table.
Steel Wheels
I put this album here for one song; Rock And a Hard Place. One of their all-time best, IMHO, and worth the price of the album. Mixed Emotions is pretty good as well, and the whole album holds up. Not a classic, but not bad; unlike several of its predecessors and successors.
The Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band In the World?
There are those of you who are probably wondering why I didn't use this for the title of this essay. Well … are they?
Personally, my favorite band is Yes. Has been for a long time. Are they a rock and roll band? Uhh, that would be a big, fat no. Rock, most definitely, but not Rock 'n' Roll. It's an important distinction.
Yes, and it's roughly 10,000 different members over the half-century-plus of their existence, have consistently been among the finest musicians of the age. From singer Jon Anderson, guitarists Steve Howe and Trevor Rabin, bassist Chris Squire, drummers Bill Bruford and Alan White, keyboardists Rick Wakeman, etc., top flight musicians. Could they play rock and roll? Of course. They could play pretty much anything. But they're not a rock and roll band. It's not their native language.
Okay then, how about the Beatles? The Stones most important contemporaries? Were they a rock and roll band? Hmm, well, yeah, in the early days you could have called them that. R&R became something the Beatles, for lack of a better term, outgrew. But watch some footage of them live from 64 through 66 and, hell yeah, they could rock and roll!
Which raises the question; how do the Stones stack up as musicians? Umm … pretty well, I guess. Charlie Watts, the drummer, definitely was the premier musician. Look up the word 'pocket' in the dictionary and you'll see his picture. His main influences were bebop jazzers. He was so good, you didn't really notice how good he was. Pay attention to the drums on any Stones recording and you'll see what I mean.
Keith Richards is highly touted for his guitar style, and not without reason. For me, his solo on 'Heart of Stone' is one of the greatest ever. And when he got replaced as lead guitarist by Mick Taylor, he showed how great a rhythm player he is, which is an under-appreciated art form. Taylor was very good as well, and Ron Wood fits together with Keef like a glove.
Bill Wyman is one of those bass players you don't really notice, which makes him a perfect rhythm section mate for Watts. Brian Jones was the one who made them stretch out and be more creative, which made a big difference in their early days. Jones was also the one that originally founded the band.
Not one of these gentlemen could cut it with a band like Yes, with the possible exception of Watts, but they each hold up their end well. The Rolling Stones with Patrick Moraz on keyboards would be somehow diminished.
Which brings us to Mick Jagger. Great singer? No, no, afraid not. Great performer? Definitely, one of the greatest ever. Even if he may very well be the whitest man to ever live. His only real competition for that title is Alex Lifeson of Rush. Watch live footage of both and you'll see what I mean. Not meant as a put-down, but they're both such geeks!
Jagger's voice could best be described as adenoidal. Nasal. Pinched. Throaty. He could also be described as passionate. Compelling. Exciting. Gripping. Love him or hate him, you can't ignore him. Not a pretty voice, but he knows where to grab you. Ah-HAN-gee! Ah-HAAAN-gee! When will those clouds all disapp-E-E-ahrrr?
So just what is rock and roll, anyway? For the answer to that question, look to the people for whom it's their native language. Buddy Holly. Chuck Berry. Jerry Lee Lewis. Little Richard. Elvis. Oh, you could start quite an argument over whether or not Elvis was really rock and roll. Maybe he was really country, or a crooner? Personally, I think he was rock and roll, even when he sang a ballad. As a musical style, it's wider than it's often given credit for.
And, it's probably also narrower. Jethro Tull, for instance, is rock, but not rock and roll. Ten Years After is rock and roll. Led Zeppelin? I would say so, yes. Guns & Roses, yep. Aerosmith, for sure. Brian Setzer? Eh, rockabilly skirts the edge, but it's arguable either way. And being able to stretch that boundary doesn't disqualify you, or at least it shouldn't.
The Stones can rock hard, but they're not Black Sabbath or Metallica. They can do a ballad, but they're not Sinatra. They did Satanic Majesties, but they're not a psychedelic band like a lot of the Moody Blues stuff could be called. They did Some Girls, but they're not KC and the Sunshine Band. They did Black And Blue, but they don't suck. Usually.
When you get right down to it, the only sub-genre within Rock Music Writ Large the Rolling Stones really fit into, consistently and naturally, is Rock 'n' Roll. But are they the greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world?
Hmm … they just might be.
No comments:
Post a Comment