Why is Exile on Main St. held in higher regard than Sticky Fingers?

Yes to everything. Too cluttered, was and is... But seriously I mean, yes to almost everything. I mentioned Rip This Joint is okay as is though.

 

On that note "Sway" is arguably the best thing they ever recorded IMHO

 

I guess it depends what you want. Sticky Fingers has a big, bold sound and is basically wall to wall great songs, whereas, for me, Exile is more of an atmospheric record, although it has great songs too.

SF feels more "modern" if you know what I mean - like the Stones stepping confidently into the seventies, while Exile feels kind of timeless in a sense, like it could have come from any time. I guess that sounds odd, since rock and roll had been around for only about 20 years by then, but it's how it feels to me.

I prefer Exile, but obviously they're both great - the Stones could basically do no wrong at that point.

 

That's just what I was going to write. Sway is incredible.

 

Haha, how is one rock n roll album "objectively greater" than another? It's a backbeat and some pentatonic choogling, it's not rocket surgery or Mozart or something. If "greatness" in pop is all about historical context then there's really nothing interesting to discuss, and personal opinions are preferred.

 

So you are one of the ones that just don't get it. Arguing about personal preference is a total waste of time. What is there to say. If somebody wonders why the Beatles had a bigger impact or legacy then Ratt does the fact that someone likes Ratt better have anything to do with the question? NO

EOMS is a bigger deal in the history of rock then SF. If someone likes SFs better that changes nothing. Abbey Road will go down in Rock History as a greater album then Let It Be despite the fact that I like Let It Be better. Why is this so hard to grasp for so many?

 

I prefer "Exile on Main St." as a double album whole. It just rock and roll down and dirty in the basement from start to finish and sounds like a live band on fire. But "Sticky Fingers" have some of the their biggest songs with "Brown Sugar" and "Wild Horses".

 

I would say "Gimme Shelter", but "Sway" is definitely up there. Mick Taylor!

 

To paraphrase Orwell, "All albums are equal, but some albums are more equal than others."

It's not? I'd like to think ol' Wolfgang Amadeus would get a boot out of Exile On Main Street...I can hear him now: "I wish I could play piano like Nicky Hopkins!"

Welcome to the Hoffman Forums. 99.9% of the posts here are personal opinions.

 

Exile is more eclectic I think and more substantial - a double album with no filler.

Both great albums though.

 

That's true. But, of course, it is an objective fact that Exile consistently appears on lists of the best albums of all time, and from this fact one can conclude that Exile is considered greater than Sticky Fingers (which does not appear on these lists) by music critics at major publications worldwide.

 

Exile puts me right in that basement with the boys.

My only issue is the relatively low volume vocal mix. I think a few of these tunes would be more well known if there were more of a clear vocal hook. Lost without a lyric sheet.

 

Personally for me Mick straining to be heard over the instruments is part of the charm of Exile. I wouldn't change a thing. Pure magic!

 

I sort of agree. He's not straining, his fader is 3db too low. But it becomes iconic, right? I'm very accustomed to how it is now.

 

In my opinion Sticky Fingers is better and it's probably my favorite album.

I actually listened to Exile first and it's always been one of my favorites as well. It has a lot of great songs and some bummers but they all work together to create the mood, which is very cool in a way.

However, I think the conception that an album can be great for its mood is flawed. Exile had great music and the mood just elevated it.

But Sticky Fingers had better music and even if it didn't have a mood I don't think that matters because all the songs (except for maybe Sister Morphine which is still pretty good) are flawless. I think the Stones reached their peak in Sticky Fingers. Before that (Beggars Banquet and earlier) their music was very raw, primal and simple in a way. On Let It Bleed they added a larger production element mainly on Gimme Shelter and You Can't Always Get What You Want. But on Sticky Fingers there was a very large production element, but the music was produced purposefully to sound raw, primal and loose, even though it wasn't and it was no longer simple either. Then on Exile they went all wall of sound with a ton of production and the music definitely was no longer simple but it retained its messiness which was still appealing. After that they really went downhill because they used overproduction to make their music sound cleaner, which was exactly the opposite of why people love the Stones in the first place. Anyway that's why Some Girls was called a return to form because it sounded looser and simpler than anything they had done since Sticky Fingers.

Christgau wrote in some retrospective that many critics at the time thought Sticky Fingers sounded "decadent" probably because the Stones finely capitalized on everything people liked about them - which was why it was a hit. (Ironically critics would treat the polar opposite Exile with similar disdain the next year.) But Christgau said it was also the Rolling Stones strongest offering for precisely the same reason. Sticky Fingers may have gained criticism in the moment because it seemed like a more purposefully commercial effort, but just a few short years later, by the time Christgau penned his review, the critics would realize that the ten songs on Sticky Fingers were a perfect distillation of the sound we think of when we think of the Stones.

At any rate, the two albums are the greatest one-two punch in rock n' roll history, and in my opinion possibly he two greatest records of all time. Exile was a sprawling masterpiece, but Sticky Fingers was just a collection of ten great, original songs, which the very most a fan can ask for in a rock n' roll album.

 

All well expressed but Exile On Main Street is not even in the running for greatest record of all time, sorry.

 

I've always preferred Sticky Fingers. Exile is my fourth favorite Stones album, after Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed (some days that's my favorite), and Beggars Banquet.

 

Im more of a fun Stones era than stoned druggie stones era now. a lot of Exile honestly sounds like a bunch of drugged up heads mostly. Doesnt mean I dont like it, but I think its not as great as some make it to be. But its better than Sticky Fingers. Which I also like but think is overrated.

Hey, Im more a Brian era guy now than when I was younger. Like Micks voice back then better also.

 

It isn't.

 

Why has "pulling the hipster card" become so popular on this forum? As in "everyone new to vinyl are hipsters" and now "if you prefer Exile to Sticky" your are just saying so because of the hipness factor. Come on, just stop it. It's getting so damn tired and does zero for the discussion.

 

EXILE plays into all the publicity/image/decadence surrounding the Stones, as well as where it was recorded and how parts of it were recorded. I have it, but don't like at least half of it. I find STICKY FINGERS to be much more consistent song wise and it has a clearer mix. EXILE has a muddy mix, like GOATS HEAD SOUP, but has more good songs than the latter album.

 

Wow. It's like having a choice of going to bed with a Victoria Secret Model or an SI Swimsuit babe.

Both albums are as a whole, the Rolling Stone's best work. I give the slight edge to Exile because it's down n dirty Stones and has a rawness to it that I love.

 

Say whaaaat?! Them's fightin' words, buddy!

 

Exile On Main Street is my favorite album. I bought it the first day it was released & could not stop playing it. Their is something about it that I find that is totally unique. The album rocks from the Beginning to the end. I love Sticky Fingers too. They are 2 albums that I would not change at all.