The Rolling Stones Album-by-Album Thread (it's about damn time)

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by EsotericCD, Jan 20, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. EsotericCD

    EsotericCD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    [Moderator Note: For those just wading into this thread, EsotericCD has created a linked Table of Contents available here: ToC post]

    Amazingly, nobody's bothered to do one yet. I assume that's not because people around here think they suck, but rather because the split in their UK/US discography from 1963-1967 is so intimidating, and because it requires a fair amount of discographical expertise. Lucky for you all, I've got that covered. I wouldn't mind having someone take over for the later material (i.e. the Ron Wood era), because honestly I'm not nearly as excited about that. But if you want to talk about Mick, Keef, Brian, Bill, Charlie, Mick Pt. 2, and even Stu...then without further ado let's just get right down to it.

    [NOTE: The problem with the divergence between the US and UK versions of the Stones' early discography is a knotty one -- the UK one really feels more 'official,' since that was the one they had direct control over, but the US LPs contained material (mostly second-rate, to be fair) that never saw release on a UK LP or single. Watch and see the practical way I resolve this problem!]

    Let us begin...

    ==========================================================

    [​IMG]

    UK 45: "Come On" b/w "I Want To Be Loved"
    Released as Decca F.11675 -- June 7, 1963 (Mono)

    Found on CD:
    • More Hot Rocks (Big Hits & Fazed Cookies) -- Come On
    • The Singles Collection - the london years -- Come On, I Want To Be Loved
    The beginning of it all for the big bad Rolling Stones. And not most auspicious one in the world, either. What we have here is Product, designed not so much to take the charts by storm as it was to advance the Stones' commercial prospects in the London Club circuit it was currently playing in -- if you had a record out, you could raise your asking price per gig. So the Stones ran into the studio and dashed out a fairly commercial-sounding (but obscure!) Chuck Berry cover on the A-side, with Mick Jagger sounding all of 15 years old. It was obvious from the naff-yet-lovable whiteboy blues of "I Want To Be Loved" on the flipside where their hearts truly lay, however. From small things big things one day come.

    ----------------------------------

    [​IMG]

    UK 45 [cancelled]: "Poison Ivy" (single version) b/w "Fortune Teller"
    Released on UK compilation Saturday Club -- January 25, 1964 (Mono)

    Found on CD:
    • More Hot Rocks (Big Hits & Fazed Cookies)
    The Rolling Stones' second single, a followup to "Come On," was scheduled to be the Lieber/Stoller novelty item "Poison Ivy" (proposed: any song which rhymes the word "ocean" with "calamine lotion" shall be considered by definition a novelty tune). Obviously anyone familiar with the Stones' singles chronology can look at it and notice that this did not, in fact, happen. I wish I could say it was because they realized what a silly song "Poison Ivy" was, but no such luck: a remake featured on their upcoming EP (see below). No, the real reason is that in between the recording of "Poison Ivy" and its scheduled release something seminal happened: Mick Jagger and Keith Richards ran into John Lennon and Paul McCartney, who were already acquaintances, and the Fabs (then in the business of hawking their lesser songs to anyone who might wish to record a cover) pushed a new ditty that they'd recorded but not yet released on them: "I Wanna Be Your Man." The results of that encounter will be discussed below, but the upshot meant that this pair of covers went swiftly into the vaults, which frankly was no great loss.

    Both songs snuck out on a Decca "various artists" compilation in January of 1964, but "Poison Ivy" only saw widespread release when it was included on 1972's More Hot Rocks compilation (most likely accidentally -- it seems likely the compilers meant to pull the remake version from the Rolling Stones EP but got confused). "Fortune Teller" had a more amusing history, however, being used as one of the hilariously phonied-up "live" cuts on the US-only Got LIVE If You Want It! LP before being reissued in its original studio form on the 2002 ABKCO remaster of More Hot Rocks.

    ---------------------------------
    [​IMG]
    UK 45: "I Wanna Be Your Man" b/w "Stoned"
    Released as Decca F. 11764 -- November 1, 1963 (Mono)

    Found on CD:
    • The Singles Collection - the london years
    It was the Stones' acceptance of this A-side that caused "Poison Ivy" to shelved, and boy was that ever a great idea. The first evidence on record not only of The Rolling Stones' incipient greatness as a rock band, but also as interpreters of others' work, "I Wanna Be Your Man" takes a ho-hum Ringotune from (the as-yet-unreleased) With The Beatles and sandblasts its relevance away in a storm of slide and steel guitar. Jagger gets his first truly iconic vocal here, alternating snottiness with feral intensity but in truth this is really The Brian Jones show: his slide guitar, steel guitar, and backing vocals are what transform this record from just another early UK Beatles cover into one of the Stones' finest early singles. The B-side is an inoffensive instrumental nick off of "Green Onions" that tries to cannily generate offense by calling itself "Stoned." Silly fun.

    -------------------------------------------
    [​IMG]
    UK EP: The Rolling Stones EP
    Released as Decca DFE 8560 -- January 17, 1964 (Mono)

    TRACKLISTING: Bye Bye Johnny/Money (That's What I Want)/You Better Move On/Poison Ivy

    Found on CD:
    • More Hot Rocks (Big Hits & Fazed Cookies) - Bye Bye Johnny, Money
    • More Hot Rocks (Big Hits & Fazed Cookies) [2002 ABKCO remaster] - Poison Ivy
    • December's Children (and everybody's) - You Better Move On
    The Rolling Stones' debut EP is a fair summary of the strengths and weaknesses they had displayed up until this point: an ability to deeply impress on rockers (particularly Chuck Berry numbers), a tasteful touch on ballads, but a penchant cackhandedness when it came to more traditional Motown/R&B material. "Bye Bye Johnny" is an early highlight of their discography, only a few steps behind "I Wanna Be Your Man" in terms of unbridled guitar energy. "You Better Move On" was the sleeper hit on the EP, an Arthur Alexander (he of "Anna (Go To Him)," covered by the Beatles on Please Please Me) number that Jagger sings with typical 1963-era callowness but which is redeemed by a solid instrumental approach. "Money," however is a joke compared to The Beatles' industrial demolition of the song on With The Beatles, and while the remake of Poison Ivy, improves on the teen-pop goofiness of the cancelled single version, it's still...well, "Poison Ivy."

    All of these baby steps are but a prelude to what comes next (and which we'll cover tomorrow in the next installment): the Rolling Stones' long-playing debut.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 27, 2014
    drift, Bowland, Muggles and 37 others like this.
  2. old school

    old school Senior Member

    Can't wait going to be cool!!!!!!
     
    MarkO likes this.
  3. EsotericCD

    EsotericCD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Be sure to keep this thread bumped onto page one. Can't let all those Beatles/Paul McCartney threads kick the Stones onto page two now, can we? :D
     
  4. old school

    old school Senior Member

    I will do my best. I'm Just Sitting On A Fence.......
     
  5. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    "You Better Move On" if a wonderful little track from way back in Stones recorded history. I have that 1964 Decca EP, but mine is from arounds 1977, a pressing that looks like an original but you just know that it can't be.

    But so long as its on Decca and the sleeve is glossy and laminated and sound is good, then its good enough.
     
    EsotericCD likes this.
  6. EsotericCD

    EsotericCD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    It's certainly the most mature-sounding thing the Stones had done up until that point, by far. It's telling that the song was held back in the United States for nearly two years until finally being released on December's Children (a real dog's breakfast of an album, just like the U.S. Out Of Our Heads), but that it doesn't sound out of place with the more mature rock and R&B sounds of mid-to-late '65 Stones. By contrast, "Money," "Fortune Teller," "Come On," or the original "Poison Ivy" would have sounded comical surrounded by their 1965 work.
     
    mschrist likes this.
  7. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Re: "You Better Move On"
    I've wondered what it would be like if the Stones dusted off this old track off and performed it live in a current concert?
     
    Dmdstrhalo likes this.
  8. crozcat

    crozcat Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sweden
    Personally I think these threads aim for too much, I prefer separate album treads.
     
    Suncola, JoeRockhead and rockinlazys like this.
  9. Absolutely superb job kicking things off with the original post - obviously an "original Stones" obsessive with a knack for recognizing and describing the strengths and weaknesses of the material. They were just feeling their way through with these early singles and EPs (the BBC version of "Come On" is actually a lot better than the version recorded for the single), though I agree "I Wanna Be Your Man" was to some degree a dawning of the light (and indeed, mostly due to Brian's contributions).

    Looking forward to a great ride!
     
  10. Landis

    Landis Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Boston
    This will be a fun thread. The early Rolling Stones were like the early Beach Boys in they had potential but it took them time to hit their stride. I think by the time they released "Last Time" it was their time. I am not a huge fan of their version of "Money That's What I Want".
     
  11. 905

    905 Senior Member

    Location:
    Midwest USA
    I still remember the first time I heard C'mon, it was when I got the Singles Collection. It seemed like a logical first single to me and I seem to like it more than most Stones fans.
     
    Suncola and OneStepBeyond like this.
  12. ohnothimagen

    ohnothimagen "Live music is better!"

    Location:
    Canada
    My hat goes off to you, Esoteric...this will be an epic discussion.
     
  13. rob macd

    rob macd The sunshine bores the daylights out of me

    Location:
    boston ma
    Thanks for getting this rolling
    :)
     
  14. Olompali

    Olompali Forum Resident

    Much appreciation.:righton:
    The Primal Stones are in dire need for review.
    Under rated more than any other of their peerage.
     
    John Fell likes this.
  15. MHP

    MHP Lover of Rock ‘n Roll

    Location:
    DK
    I will note to you all that The Stones had directly control over their US releases also.
    They put the London Records together themselves. It was not like The Beatles who had no influence.

    This was confirmed by Andrew Oldham, in an e-mail to me:

    Hello Andrew.

    I have a question which I don't you've been given before.

    Who selected the tracks which was released on the US only albums 12X5, Now!, The US edition of Out Of Our Heads & Decembers Children?

    Was it you and the band themselves who decided it or was the US albums "constructed" like the early US Beatles albums, where tracks where selected by the Capitol staff.

    Did you have your say in the tracklistings?

    Answer:

    we went along with the american idea that US fans expected the hits in new LP's and felt cheated if they did not get them. in the UK we knew that the opposite was true and had we included hit singles then the fans in the UK would feel cheated.
    so the US and UK track listings were done buys with that agenda.
    best, o

    So the UK releases are no more "official" the US releases, and therefore should be discussed as well.
     
    GreenFuz, Suncola, Dee Zee and 11 others like this.
  16. Izozeles

    Izozeles Pushing my limits

    Colossal venture!!! I can't remember a thread as adventurous as this one.
     
    theMess likes this.
  17. lowellmorris

    lowellmorris Forum Resident

    Location:
    New England
    "You Better Move On" has always been one of my favorite early Stones tracks. Thanks for getting this thread started, it'll be a fun one!
     
    goodiesguy and monoboy like this.
  18. Olompali

    Olompali Forum Resident

    It's not really clear that Andy and The Stones actually selected the USA tracks. They went along with policy, "agenda."
     
  19. EsotericCD

    EsotericCD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ladies and gentlemen...the Stones have begun to roll.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [​IMG]
    UK 45: "Not Fade Away" b/w "Little By Little"
    Released as Decca F.11845 -- February 21, 1964

    [US 45: "Not Fade Away" b/w "I Wanna Be Your Man"
    Released as London 9657 -- March 6, 1964]

    Found on CD:
    • England's Newest Hitmakers - The Rolling Stones
    • More Hot Rocks (Big Hits & Fazed Cookies) -- Not Fade Away
    • The Singles Collection - the london years
    As far as most folks are concerned, what this is right here is The Real Beginning, with all those early singles and the EP discussed in the prior entry a footnote (if known about at all). And it's hard to blame them for this attitude, because the Rolling Stones' inspired reworking of Buddy Holly's "Not Fade Away" really IS an iconic moment of the British invasion. It's almost hard to appreciate how fresh and new this song must have sounded when it first started flooding the UK airwaves (it was their first major hit in Britain, reaching #3); "Not Fade Away" has almost sunk into the landscape of rock music, as familiar and expected as a major topographical feature, simply due to overfamiliarity. But try for a second to imagine you're a teenager hearing the snapping acoustic guitar intro, collapsing into that furiously updated Bo Diddley beat for the first time...nothing with this kind of force and attack had ever gotten so high in the mainstream singles charts (even The Beatles' more rockist moves like "Twist And Shout" or "Money" were confined to LP and remember, nobody bought LPs back then -- 45s were the primary mass consumption format). And nothing would ever be the same afterwards.

    "Not Fade Away" is strongly associated with The Rolling Stones' debut LP by US fans because it was added to the running order as the opening track by London Records when The Rolling Stones became England's Newest Hitmakers - The Rolling Stones (see below). However, it's worth remembering that in the UK "Not Fade Away," was released two months ahead of the UK LP, and was a non-album single. I think that's a fitting way to view it as well: a record that deserves to stand alone, and be taken on its own terms...

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [​IMG]
    UK LP: The Rolling Stones
    Released as Decca LK.4605 -- April 16th, 1964 (Mono)

    [US LP: England's Newest Hitmakers - The Rolling Stones (subtract "Mona (I Need You Baby)" and add "Not Fade Away")
    Released as London LL3378 -- May 30, 1964 (Mono)]

    TRACKLISTING: Route 66/I Just Want To Make Love To You/Honest I Do/Mona (I Need You Baby)/Now I've Got A Witness (Like Uncle Phil and Uncle Gene)/I'm A King Bee/Carol/Tell Me (You're Coming Back)/Can I Get A Witness?/You Can Make It If You Try/Walking The Dog

    Found on CD:
    • England's Newest Hitmakers - The Rolling Stones -- all tracks except Mona (I Need You Baby)
    • The Rolling Stones, Now! - Mona (I Need You Baby)
    ...but before we get too much further into The Rolling Stones' early discography, a word about Reg the Producer, aka Andrew Loog Oldham. ("Reg," a classic showbizzy sort of name, was one of the Stones' nicknames for Oldham.) Andrew Loog Oldham was many things to The Rolling Stones during their early years, most of them critically important and beneficial: impresario, hustler, hypemaster, guardian of their mysterious badboy public image, author of many a semi-literate liner note, and generally-speaking the man who kept a bunch of green, immature teenagers relatively on track during a period where they could have just as easily dissipated their energies for naught.

    What he wasn't, however, was a producer. Which is a shame, because that's precisely what he insisted upon being for the Stones. Oldham is the man behind the board (at least nominally) for the first four years of the Stones' career -- his last production credit is "We Love You"/"Dandelion" in mid-1967 -- and the fact of the matter is that, if empirical evidence is anything to go by, Oldham would probably have botched the production of a bowel movement, much less all those classic early Stones singles. Which means that the Stones quickly had to learn the business themselves, and were largely reliant upon their studio engineers (notably the Chess guys in Chicago and Dave Hassinger of RCA in Los Angeles) for any real production craft. In particular this means that the Stones' earliest recordings are abominably produced: The Rolling Stones was banged out in Regent Studios, a demo facility whose services could be purchased cheaply, where the hi-fi recording technique for the band involved playing to a single microphone taped to a wall in a small room lined with egg cartons to dampen the sound. Hence the permanently muddyish mono sound of this LP and several of the next few as well (the Stones would move into better studios, but Oldham would remain hapless). Since this record is largely a simple document of a live act, it thankfully isn't crippled by Andrew Loog Oldham's indifference/incompetence, but one weeps for the irremediable sonic deficiencies of the Stones' early recordings when compared with George Martin's EMI-standard work with The Beatles or even Shel Talmy's recording of The Who.

    As for this record, well here we are: the long-playing debut of one of the most important bands in the history of recorded music. What a striking cover photograph! (Note the lack of any title, an Andrew Loog Oldham idea that works brilliantly.) Look at how angelic Brian Jones looks, dressed all snappy in his sharp black vest! Look at how lovably youthful Keef seems, like he'd never end up as a depraved smack junkie! Marvel at the impressively aggressive ugliness of Bill Wyman!

    Anyway, it's hard to beat the visual appeal of the Stones' first album, but the music itself? If we're being honest here, and comparing it with the Stones' other music from this period, the album is distinctly less than great. There are many classic covers to be found here -- Chuck Berry proves once again to be incredibly fertile ground for the Stones with "Route 66" and "Carol," the remarkable hard R&B urgency of "I Just Want To Make Love To You," the Brian Jones slide guitar showcase of "I'm A King Bee" -- but there's also a fair amount of pure filler tracks and failed covers like "Now I've Got A Witness" (an 'original' that's somewhat less enervating than the Stones' attempt to handle "Can I Get A Witness?," where Jagger's vocal immaturity makes him sound like a clown next to Marvin Gaye's original), "Honest I Do," and "You Can Make It If You Try."

    Spare an ear for the album's centerpiece, however, Brian Jones' dead-on Bo Diddley guitarwork on "Mona (I Need You Baby)." One of the Stones' best early covers, it was perversely the number the US release chose to drop from the running order in favor of "Not Fade Away." (The benefit, at least, is that "Mona" went on to be an inevitable highlight of The Rolling Stones, Now!.)

    And then there's the originals. (Or, in the case of "Now I've Got A Witness," 'originals'.) There are only two real self-penned numbers on the Stones' debut, because Mick and Keith simply didn't know how write songs at this point. Legend has it that, after Oldham observed how much bank Lennon & McCartney were making by writing songs and farming them out to other artists, he locked Jagger and Richards in a kitchen with nothing but a jar of coffee and refused to let them out until they'd written a damn song. The result is "Tell Me," a ballad which has achieved a mild amount of fame but which is frankly a pretty subpar effort (the terrible production and "harmony" vocals -- note scare quotes -- do it no favors). Far better is the loping R&B number "Little By Little," originally the B-side of "Not Fade Away" but good enough to include on the LP -- and, given its Jagger/Richards authorship, financially rewarding enough as well. I trust I'm not giving secrets away when I tell you that they'd soon get much better at this sort of thing.

    What we're left with is a landmark debut LP that, while musically not quite able to live up to the subsequently-acquired reputation of the band that made it, is still a very solid start and a emphatic announcement that there was a new force in Britain, ready to challenge The Beatles' cultural hegemony not by competing directly (there was never a chance of that), but by playing dangerous while The Beatles made nice.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2014
  20. howlinrock

    howlinrock Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    This thread is a great idea and it's about time .....
     
  21. EsotericCD

    EsotericCD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Incidentally, for those who are wondering, I plan to address the next few entries (and the discographical complexities) as follows:
    • "It's All Over Now" single, the "Five By Five" EP, "Little Red Rooster," 12X5, The Rolling Stones No. 2, and a final section beginning the discussion of, erm, unofficial tracks, of which the Stones have far more than most bands and which form a significant part of their legacy for most serious fans. (This is the section to begin that discussion, due to the number of outtakes from the Chess sessions.)
    • The Rolling Stones, Now!, "The Last Time," the Got LIVE If You Want It! EP, "Satisfaction," Out Of Our Heads US.
    • Out Of Our Heads UK, "Get Off Of My Cloud," December's Children, and "19th Nervous Breakdown"/"As Tears Go By."
    • Aftermath (the US LP will be treated as a footnote to the UK discussion since it merely subtracts songs), "Paint It, Black," and the various outtakes/random compilation tracks from the Aftermath sessions.
    • "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby," "Let's Spend The Night Together," Between The Buttons, Flowers
    • "We Love You"/"Dandelion," Their Satanic Majesties Request
    • "Jumpin' Jack Flash," Beggars Banquet and various outtakes
    • "Honky Tonk Women," Let It Bleed
    • 'Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!' -- The Rolling Stones In Concert
    • Sticky Fingers
    • Hot Rocks/1964-1971 and More Hot Rocks (Big Hits & Fazed Cookies)
    • Exile On Main Street
    • etc., etc.
    Ambitious!

    Since the majority of my discussion will be centered around the UK singles and LPs, my discussion of the separate US LPs will summarize their effectiveness (or lack thereof) as LPs, plus cover any tracks that went unreleased in the UK (e.g. the single version of "Time Is On My Side," "Congratulations," "Surprise, Surprise," etc.)

    It's the best compromise I can think of to handle all the discographical weirdness, especially since the US LPs really are inferior products in terms of cohesion to the UK ones (one key exception: The Rolling Stones, Now! is the one frankenalbum that really works from beginning to end for me).
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2014
  22. inaptitude

    inaptitude Forum Resident

    I find their first album to be really solid, particuarly when compared to the first albums by other british acts such as The Kinks and the Who as well as the next few Stones albums. In comparison, there is little filler IMO. Probably the album of theirs I play the most pre-Beggars Banquet
     
    Adam9, O Don Piano, John Fell and 3 others like this.
  23. I'm lovin' this - finally someone giving the early Stones the recognition and serious treatment the music deserves, bravo!

    "Not Fade Away" has been called by Andrew "the first song Mick and Keith wrote" - meaning that their take on it was so original and different that it almost sounded like a different song. Incredible energy and drive - their first iconic single. The band thought highly enough of it that they played it on tour as late as their Summer '66 jaunt.

    Sound issues or not, I love the first LP. Sure there's filler, but I wouldn't count their faithful R&B covers of "Honest I Do" and "You Can Make it If You Try" among them - each can stand on its own merits. OTOH, the "Witness" Motown foray isn't too great (they would do much better later with "Hitch Hike"), and reviving it as a jam is definitely padding. And "Tell Me" IMHO isn't a whole lot better than the early pop junk Mick and Keith were churning out at the time for Andrew to peddle to other artists (demos of which later turned up on Metamorphosis - thank God the band wouldn't touch them...)

    Otherwise, very solid selection of blues, R&B and early R&R. But my fave is the album closer, Rufus Thomas' "Walking the Dog", which showed just how funky these white boys could get (love Brian's back-up vocals here - one of the last times he was heard vocally on an LP...).
     
  24. S. P. Honeybunch

    S. P. Honeybunch Presidente de Kokomo, Endless Mikelovemoney

    "Can I Get A Witness" is a highlight of the debut album. The background vocals are solid. The organ is priestly. The clincher is Mick's vocal, in which he simply shines like a beacon of future Stones soul and gospel numbers. Recommended.

    I recently heard "Money" for the first time. This is a highly raucous rendition that I favor over The Beatles' version. At this stage in their career, the song is a better fit with the rest of their material than it was for The Beatles. It is more in line with their other harder edged singles, whereas The Beatles did so many love songs, making it sound stranger in that context.
     
  25. EsotericCD

    EsotericCD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Incidentally, if anyone has any better suggestions for how to structure this (as opposed to my proposed schedule in #21), I'm happy to listen. I didn't include either of the Big Hits compilations in my schedule because the songs are already covered by the discussions of individual singles and the Hot Rocks sets, but I'd be willing to reconsider if there's a major outcry. Also, you'll notice I didn't include the US-only Got LIVE If You Want It! album because, c'mon now...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine