The Official Needles and Grooves 1001 Album Generator Project (aka Preachin’ about the Preachers if today’s selection sucks)

TenderLovingKiller® said:
I love the Stones but my guess is there are probably approximately 327 Rolling Stones on this list and this would be one that they coulda replaced with something else. It’s not a bad album but not an essential album either.
Click to expand...
There are six. I’d say four of them absolutely belong here. The other early album is slightly more worthy than this one. The book pretty much lays out that the Stones were down and dirty right from the beginning.
 
Nee Lewman said:
There are six. I’d say four of them absolutely belong here. The other early album is slightly more worthy than this one. The book pretty much lays out that the Stones were down and dirty right from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Beggars, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, & Exile are the 4 locks. If I were gonna do two more I would do one early (Aftermath) and one later (Some Girls).
 
dbarila said:
Ah, ok. Apple Music has both then. I will listen to the British version to be official.
Click to expand...
I listened to both. It really doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s not like early The Beatles stuff where it is a completely different album or Rubber Soul where the character of the album is different. The two songs that are different are complimentary and the order of the rest of the songs is maintained.
 
Nee Lewman said:
I listened to both. It really doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s not like early The Beatles stuff where it is a completely different album or Rubber Soul where the character of the album is different. The two songs that are different are complimentary and the order of the rest of the songs is maintained.
Click to expand...
I don't like the Rolling Stones enough to go through an album twice. 😬
 
dbarila said:
So, what was the general reaction to this album when it first came out? It sounds very plain to me. Although you could say the first Beatles album sounds pretty plain too but it sparked a whole thing.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t alive then but it’s my impression that of the British Invasion bands following in the wake of The Beatles, The Stones were the *NSYNC to the Beatles Backstreet Boys, their most formidable rivals.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
The Stones were the “bad boys”, they didn’t just wanna hold your hand they wanted to spend the night together.
Click to expand...
I guess I kind of knew their reputation. I just didn't know if this album was an instant hit like The Beatles.

I don't know if it's Mick Jagger's voice or just their general style but there's always been something about The Rolling Stones that never pulled me in like other classic British Invasion bands like The Beatles and The Who. I've tried some of their classic album and they were just fine to me.
 
I think it’s also important to think about a couple of things here… older folks thought the Beatles were loud and obnoxious and full of innuendo. The Stones were more primal and closer in feel to the material they were covering, the innuendo was cranked up a notch and these were white guys not dressing up rock n roll at all. Which was a double edged sword of making it more respectable and more “dangerous” at the same time. While it sounds rather mundane to us now… this was not the case in 64.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top