Did the Stones have a say in how their pre-1967 albums were released?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by J Alesait, Jun 12, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. J Alesait

    J Alesait Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    I've always wondered whether the Stones had some imput on deciding which songs were included (and in what order) on their early albums. If not in US, at least in UK?
     
  2. willwin

    willwin Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto
    I think they did in the UK but not in the US - similar to the Beatles situation with Capitol
     
    fr in sc, Sean, owsley and 3 others like this.
  3. LandHorses

    LandHorses I contain multitudes

    Location:
    New Joisey
    That's pretty much it.

    I've read in places at least that the UK Between The Buttons was definitely how they wanted it.
     
    All Down The Line and audiomixer like this.
  4. Figure of Eight

    Figure of Eight Forum Resident

    Location:
    Durham, UK
    I know that Jagger in particular isn't convinced of the merits of Between the Buttons these days, but I think it's one of their most underrated albums. I wish they'd bothered to tune the bass properly on 'She Smiled Sweetly', though!
     
  5. willwin

    willwin Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto
    Sometimes it seems like it's their forgotten album but I've always loved it
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  6. J Alesait

    J Alesait Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    Can we say then that the UK discography is the official one?
     
  7. Figure of Eight

    Figure of Eight Forum Resident

    Location:
    Durham, UK
    Yeah, I agree that it often feels forgotten about and overlooked, possibly as a consequence of where it sits in the discography. It's not as generous a record as the UK version of Aftermath, which has the reputation of being the first Stones album that's all Jagger/Richards songs, and it doesn't have the reputation of being a curio like Their Satanic Majesties' Request does, or being part of the Jimmy Miller era like Beggars Banquet. It feels like it has fallen through the cracks somewhat, and that's unfair on the record, really, because the standard of songwriting throughout is quite good, in my opinion.
     
  8. Gregorio

    Gregorio Forum Resident

    I think it is. Keith has said a lot of times that albums like December's Children or Flowers were full of leftovers and that if they've released them in England, they wouldn't done well...
     
  9. Figure of Eight

    Figure of Eight Forum Resident

    Location:
    Durham, UK
    I really wish they'd done what The Beatles did in 1987 when their albums were released on CD, which is basically stick mostly with the UK versions (bar Magical Mystery Tour) and then compile the non-album stuff into a couple of compilations. It just makes the discography much tidier, and it's also very useful for those getting into the band for the first time as you basically know what stuff you need without having to think about it too much. Unfortunately, given who owns The Stones' '60s catalogue, it's understandable why this hasn't happened. Why tidy up the discography when you can release both the UK and US versions and completists will buy both and you can double your money?
     
  10. abzach

    abzach Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sweden
    Of course.
     
    J Alesait and willwin like this.
  11. MHP

    MHP Lover of Rock ‘n Roll

    Location:
    DK
    Discussed on this board many times.
    There is no such thing as an ‘official’ version in the UK or US.

    Andrew Oldham in a personal e-mail to yours truly, in 2012:

    "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 by us with that agenda.
    best, o"


    In other words, America demanded more product, which is why more tracks were scattered among more albums.
    There was no 'true' recorded album project by The Stones before 1966 with "Aftermath", and even then it was split up for the american market. The 1964-1965 UK and US albums are just collections of songs, recorded at transatlantic sessions and put out on different media when needed.
     
  12. Purple Jim

    Purple Jim Senior Member

    Location:
    Bretagne
    I agree with Mick.
     
  13. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Location:
    Eastern Shore
    I have always appreciated Between the Buttons, but have never deen able to disassociate it with the Gemini tragedy in January 1967, when two astronauts died after a fire had broken out in their capsule on the launching pad. Although the horror of the Challenger explosion eclipsed it, the Gemini fire occurred just when the Stones album came out and I was playing it nonstop. Very traumatic for the nation and the 17 year-old me.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  14. J Alesait

    J Alesait Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    I was gonna say just that. Wouldn't it be great to have some kind of Stones Past Masters?? That way we wouldn't be having so many repeated tracks!
     
    guppy270 likes this.
  15. Arnold Grove

    Arnold Grove Senior Member

    Location:
    NYC
    I think Keith is long past his master:

    [​IMG]

    ;)
     
  16. ShockControl

    ShockControl Bon Vivant and Raconteur!

    Location:
    Lotus Land
    It is my understanding that Oldham assembled both the US and UK albums.

    Of course, we are talking about teen pop music, so one sequence would have worked just as well as another. These are not movements of symphonies.
     
    Aftermath and KeninDC like this.
  17. beatleroadie

    beatleroadie Forum Resident

    As much as the Beatles, the Beach Boys (or at least Brian Wilson) and Bob Dylan were attempting by 1965/66 to increase the esteem and importance of the LP as an artistic statement rather than just a collection of singles and other songs, it was still a singles world for pop/rock music at the time.

    It might have bothered Mick & Keith a little bit that there were different LPs in the USA, but at the end of the day they probably didn't mind all that much because it's just how things were at the time. Singles were king, and LPs came second in line.
     
    O Don Piano and qwerty like this.
  18. Figure of Eight

    Figure of Eight Forum Resident

    Location:
    Durham, UK
    I don't think anyone is questioning the approach of the US versions of the albums vs. the UK versions of the albums, really. It's pretty understandable that if you are/were signed to one label in the UK and another label in the US, particularly at that time, then there will be/would have been differing approaches on how to promote and present the band depending on the territory and, obviously, UK labels know UK markets, and US labels know US markets etc. However, at the same time, at the time those records were issued nobody could have predicted what bands/artists would end up doing with the album format conceptually, and nobody could have anticipated a time when it was one album for all territories and next-to-no compromises. Also, nobody could have anticipated international communication on the level we have it now, and that people would be debating about US-vs-UK differences on old 60s records in 2019. Personally, I just think that it would make the discography a lot more tidier if The Beatles' approach had been adopted, and with The Stones, like The Beatles, being a British band it would make sense to stick with the UK versions, in my opinion, although I appreciate that American listeners will be used to the American configurations and have their own memories/thoughts/feelings attached to those editions.
     
  19. Mike M

    Mike M Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maplewood
    Do they have any say now? Or can ABKCO basically do whatever they want with the catalog? Does ABKCO had to adhere to the original release in content and packaging, or can add and subtract tracks, and change cover art? Do they own both UK and US releases? Just curious
     
  20. mBen989

    mBen989 Senior Member

    Location:
    Scranton, PA
    No, yes and yes.
     
    Mike M likes this.
  21. Ricky Lampoon

    Ricky Lampoon Forum Resident

    Location:
    Switzerland
    Do people generally like what ABKCO have done to the catalog?
    I’ve just bought the ABKCO CD of Aftermath.
    The remix sounds good to my ears, although I’ve never owned any previous versions.
     
  22. Duke Fame

    Duke Fame Sold out the Enormodome

    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    I think I remember Keith saying that they also had a hand in when things were released. He said them and the Beatles would often keep each other aware of where they were at recording wise so that they wouldn't be releasing things at the same time and competing with each other.
     
    J Alesait and andrewskyDE like this.
  23. MHP

    MHP Lover of Rock ‘n Roll

    Location:
    DK
    The Stones had their way in the 1970 agreement: They prevented ABKCO from changing anything. The cover, the contents and the tracklistings has to be the same as originally released. And that’s why, to this very day, that bonus tracks can’t be added to any original albums.
     
  24. andrewskyDE

    andrewskyDE Island Owner

    Location:
    Europe
    I think they had a say with Aftermath. The long track 'Going Home', y'know... Don't think Decca would've released it otherwise.
     
    J Alesait likes this.
  25. Mike M

    Mike M Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maplewood
    Yet it seems they can package and repackage the singles in any way? Where the singles box sets not under that restriction because the format did not exist? Just curious
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine