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

So Andrew Oldham, the brain and very heart behind the whole Stones marketing agenda (‘Would you let your daugther go out with a Rolling Stone’ etc, etc), is not a reliable person?
Then I guess Neil Armstrong is not reliable either: He never walked the moon...!!!

Regarding the UK / US releases, it’s stated in the ‘Rolling Stones In Mono’ essay as well, by David Fricke.

Now, you have it from 2 quite big sources:
A senior writer from Rolling Stone, who knows his rock trivia AND from the horses own mouth, Andrew Oldham!
How much more evidence do you need to be convinced???

 

The necessary presence of another Bo Diddley rocker (“Not Fade Away”) on the US debut probably sealed the fate of “Mona”, which was likely viewed as as potential single best saved for an album to come

 

Bands were often the last to know. Did Oldham not rush out (with RCA’s blessing) “Satisfaction” as a single before The Stones were even consulted?

 

More evidence. The original communication quoted earlier provided by Oldham is just a general statement saying that the US albums were built around singles...but so were everyone elses. Sure Oldham was calling the shots in the UK, but not in the US. What some of us are trying to disprove is that the US albums were somehow specially compiled for that market - besides knocking off albums tracks to add singles, that is about as far as special compilation goes...David Fricke just says that the Stones US albums were overseen by Oldham - that's it - its just a generic essay for the average joe.

 

Sure. By who? The record company. The original question is did the Stones have a say over their albums. It is far more likely the Stones had input over UK output but like the Beatles their US albums were at the whim of the record company who were cutting up the UK stuff to make as much product as possible. Oldham may have had some say over the singles, which got included on those albums but its not like he masterminded the US albums or they are somehow sacrosanct. Its like the old argument about US Beatles albums, "oh US Rubber Soul was specifically designed as a folk rock album etc etc". Nonsense.

 

No. The group decided it would be the next single (all except Keith). Also RCA was just the recording studio they used...they had no input into what Stones label London released. But I agree that bands were the last to know - especially when it came to US output which is why Jagger was quoted about say Decembers Children "not being an album but a collection of songs". In the UK they were in competition with the Beatles, and their UK output reflects that, they were trying to create more cohesive albums of their best stuff than what came out in US. Hence the UK albums are canon.

 

How were they trying to make more cohesive albums? They recorded all over the place (often in the US) whenever they felt like it (at least early on) and these sessions produced tracks that were compiled into albums for different markets. There wasn't any artistic vision, just songs.

 

I think this will be my last comment on the subject because I have been repeating myself quite a bit. Yes they recorded all over the place, but the material they were putting away was designed with the UK market in mind. 5x5, as an example, they chose the best Chess stuff for that primarily as a UK EP. The 12x5 album on the other hand, was a collection of songs constructed to coincide with US tour, lets take 5x5 and add singles - oh, do you guys have any leftovers? Right. New album. 12x5, as an example, was just a placeholder album, the Stones kept recording until they had enough good stuff for say No 2 or Out of Our Heads and you can see a progression that you can't with the US stuff - they didn't just fill in albums with live versions of Route 66 flown in from UK EP leftovers or whatever...they made sure they had the "right" versions of say Everybody Needs Somebody or Time is On My Side...both of which were released in US as inferior versions. I could go on and on, but I am getting tired. The UK singles were canon too - they primarily cared about the UK market, as did the Beatles, they lived in it and created specific singles for it. In the US they didn't have the same control over their output. There was artistic vision, of course there was, they wouldn't have kept progressing if there wasn't.

 

Re: Satisfaction
Jagger also voted against it being an A side as stated by Bill Wyman in his first book.

 

The transatlantic record company dynamic was different with the Stones than it was with the Beatles. American fans got more music, faster. Three songs that were destined for RS No. 2 were delivered to London Records several months earlier for inclusion on 12X5. RS No. 2 and RS Now! are 3/4's the same album, but America got Heart of Stone seven months before the English fans. Obviously, America was a big market; lots of kids with disposable cash. The group and Oldham were focused on it.

US 12X5 - October 17, 1964
UK Rolling Stones No. 2 - January 15, 1965
US Rolling Stones Now! - February 13, 1965

With the US Out of Our Heads and December's Children, things got messy. But 12X5 and Now! are both fantastic albums. American fans got the better deal.

 

You make some nice points though also worth considering is the 3 E.P's sold in the UK.
These sold at an affordable price point for British teens & in big numbers to actually make high positions on the singles charts.
A clear progression is shown between releases and of course 15 titles are listed.
Oh and for those worldwide that love E.P's, more power to you.

 

Maybe no artistic vision, but surely some decisions had to be made, at least concerning which songs to include and which not to include. I mean, those were not randomly assembled albums.
I think we all agree singles were the main thing back then. In Britain it was common practice not to include them on the albums. Each format had its purpose. A-side songs were released aimed at being hits. Those facts alone show US albums were kinda hybrid products which included songs from singles among other tracks. That was expected in US, it seems (oddly enough, it all changed too soon, because by 1968 the US market suddenly accepted albums as they were, regardless of hits being included or not).

 

Someday someone will put some order to those early recordings. As someone posted upthread, maybe everything before Aftermath should be re-released in new configurations. It just doesn't make sense for a catalog to have so many overlaps. A decision should be made: UK albums, US albums or neither of them.
The Beatles opted for their UK albums, and so did The Kinks, The Who, etc.
And nobody can deny the fact that, for Americans, those early Beatles Capitol albums are canonical, even though neither the Beatles nor George Martin had a say on them.

 

It's been a long time since I had an automatic changer and stacked up singles, or sat next to a record player and flipped 45's on and off. It is fun, and I certainly love collectible vinyl, especially of the 7-inch variety.

I totally agree about the progression when listening chronologically. These days, compiling CDR's or playlists with that approach is rewarding.

The economics of 1960's record-buying was very different on opposite sides of the Atlantic. The relative cost of an album [price vs. wages] was about three times as much in England as it was in the US. An EP in England probably cost as much as an LP in the USA. And that's not fully accounting for the discounting in America where a store like Korvettes sold albums for less than $2.00. Add to that, kids in America had a lot of opportunity to make money; delivering newspapers, scooping ice cream, flipping burgers, mowing lawns, raking leaves, shoveling snow, helping a neighbor paint their house... I always had $$$ coming-in when I was a kid. The "value for money" paradigm was essential for UK record buyers, but for American kids, buying an album that included a previously-purchased single was NBD. The 45 had probably already been beat to $h!t.

 

It won't happen on Abkco... I don't know the details of Public Domain in England, but maybe then.

It would be nice to see some archival releases too. This was a really great set:

 

I love the 3 UK E.Ps which were bought by my family for me in the 65/66 period as I was a big fan. Albums way too expensive at that time for us but we had a good bunch of acts on EPs. I only wish that the Stones had put out more EPs but I guess the industry moved on fairly quickly.

 

Yeah it's a pity that there weren't more. Even compilations of previously released singles or albums tracks much as the Beatles did, could've been put out. The Stones ended up only putting exclusive tracks on their EPs. I guess that made them a much more prized proposition though and they all sold reasonably well.

 

We had a few Stones singles but a hits or album related EP would have been great and of course affordable. I am surprised given the Stones were really big that there were not compilation EPs similar to those by the Kinks and Beatles.

 

Shall I assume it cost Decca (plenty) more than London to make a Stones LP into the economic buying equation?
Pressing far smaller numbers for a far smaller population and likely having better qc to boot not to mention the card stock & celloglasing has got to add up.

 

Yes it was, I assume Sister Morphine copied it from the lovely Godfather digipack?

 

Did you buy the Big Hits LP in 66' or 67' to replace your 45's?

 

We are discussing those early pre-Aftermath releases (UK/US) like it was some sort of artistic statement. It was seen by ALL record companies as disposable teen-product. The Stones recorded all over the place and couldn’t care less how their releases were cobbled together. I remember Jagger said in 1995 along the lines, that it was mostly just a question of getting product out for the tours. The first real ‘statement’, was ‘Aftermath’. And it shows. ‘No.2’ and ‘OOOH’ UK, are just as messy as any early US album. The UK debut is a different matter and it was concieved as an LP, but again it’s not an artistic statement. It was pure product. What the future made of it later on, is a different matter.

 

It had been commonplace in the US to not include singles on albums all through the 1950s. However, this was largely driven by artistic reasons. The single often would not fit the mood, style, or concept of the concurrent album.

 

We are living in the era of Spotify and playlists. Very few people will want to listen to all of those early Stones songs, including many Stones fans. And that is fine: We are, after all, talking about standalone teen pop tunes and not movements of symphonies. One sequence works as well as another.

But having access to the original albums - US and UK - provides historical context, and that is important.

It should be the listener's job to re-sequence the tunes into a satisfying order; it should not be the listener's job to recreate the original albums, IMO. So I support the fact that both the early US and UK albums are part of the catalog.

 

I see your point. But IMO, the historical perspective won't be a concern for future generations. It's not a concern for Beatles fans now, and it shouldn't be for Stones fans.
It all could be solved by settling on UK albums with those 12 'exclusive' US songs as bonus tracks.