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

dbarila said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you want to give them another try I would recommend giving their greatest hits album, Forty Licks a try. It’s the equivalent to The Beatles #1 comp. That was my starting point and then from their I moved to their core albums which is their 4 albums run from 1968s Beggars Banquet through 1972s Exile On Main St.

Strangely enough their most critically acclaimed (and IMO best) album is Exile On Main St. and it contains the fewest hit songs, I think the only track that was a nominal hit has “Tumbling Dice” but as an album it’s pretty much perfect.
 
Nee Lewman said:
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.
Click to expand...

The world was also not a connected place in the way it is today. I think we take that for granted. You hear of Jagger and Richard’s talking about getting albums mail order or through specialist dealers upwards of six months after they came out in America. An American blues or early rock artist touring Britain was rare and a big deal because it was bloody long trip. This was new and fresh and dangerous to the audience they were playing it too, they didn’t know it as covers of standards.
 
dbarila said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Stones have been a slow burn for me. Through college, I would have told you a greatest hits was all you needed. I’m still firmly in that camp for Bob Seger and the Eagles. However, I have grown to really dig The Stones. Probably no surprise to most of the folks in these here parts, Sticky Fingers had an awful lot to do with me beginning to think differently. I also think Exile is a stupendous album despite its terrible production (although to be clear, it’s not like The Stones are The Who or The Beatles and super worried about how great it was recorded for or heard by the consumer.). Those two albums were very much the Rosetta Stone for me.
 
Joe Mac said:
The world was also not a connected place in the way it is today. I think we take that for granted. You hear of Jagger and Richard’s talking about getting albums mail order or through specialist dealers upwards of six months after they came out in America. An American blues or early rock artist touring Britain was rare and a big deal because it was bloody long trip. This was new and fresh and dangerous to the audience they were playing it too, they didn’t know it as covers of standards.
Click to expand...
I know it wasn’t a stigma for The Beatles or The Stones and is a weird thing for Clapton, but was the fact that this was Black music a big deal over there? That was a central part of the concern over Rock N Roll here.
 
Nee Lewman said:
I know it wasn’t a stigma for The Beatles or The Stones and is a weird thing for Clapton, but was the fact that this was Black music a big deal over there? That was a central part of the concern over Rock N Roll here.
Click to expand...

I don’t remember ever reading that it was. My feeling even in a wider sense is that those types of conversations are relatively very recent in my lifetime, never mind 20 years prior to me being born.
 
Joe Mac said:
I don’t remember ever reading that it was. My feeling even in a wider sense is that those types of conversations are relatively very recent in my lifetime, never mind 20 years prior to me being born.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t usually overtly stated here (although there are for sure historical instances like Phillips saying he could make a fortune if he found a white guy that could sing like the African Americans) but our systemic racism as well as the ability of subpar covers by Pat Boone to do better than classic originals or Sam Cooke catering his shows to the venue. White audiences got a much milder version. I’m betting that if Prince had opened for the Stones in England there would have been a different trajectory to his career as the rejection of that crowd lead to a steadfast desire to become the biggest musician on Earth, a hunger that lead to 1999 being a masterpiece that leapt and bound from Controversy as opposed to the slower evolution prior to it.
 
Nee Lewman said:
I know it wasn’t a stigma for The Beatles or The Stones and is a weird thing for Clapton, but was the fact that this was Black music a big deal over there? That was a central part of the concern over Rock N Roll here.
Click to expand...
I always cut the Stones some slack since they were completely open about their influences. The Beatles got to black music via Elvis while The Rolling Stones got into black music via Howlin’ Wolf and Muddy Waters and they were bringing them up on stage to preform, shining a light on their music throughout their career.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
I always cut the Stones some slack since they were completely open about their influences. The Beatles got to black music via Elvis while The Rolling Stones got into black music via Howlin’ Wolf and Muddy Waters and they were bringing them up on stage to preform, shining a light on their music throughout their career.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t throwing any shade. I’m saying it was more of an issue here. I was wondering if racism played as big a role in the acceptance of music over there.
 
Nee Lewman said:
I wasn’t throwing any shade. I’m saying it was more of an issue here. I was wondering if racism played as big a role in the acceptance of music over there.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think you were. I just wanted to expound on the notion. I think it’s lazy to when people in the US claim the Stones stole their sound from black music. They often get tossed in to the same conversation as Elvis but there is a big difference between Elvis who never acknowledged he was inspired by black music and the Stones who most definitely did.
 
YoHabloEspanol said:
Add Their Satanic Majesties Request and Emotional Rescue. Ya ya's or Mocambo for the live album because they're a great live band.
Click to expand...
I am not a huge fan of Santanic. I feel like that album was them chasing a trend instead of just being themselves. It’s still interesting and has some good songs but isn’t one I would personally consider essential.

I feel like after that core run of late 60s early 70s albums their next best run of albums was Some Girls, Emotional Rescue, and Tattoo You. I personally agree that if they were gonna include any of those 3 I wouldn’t be upset but I figure at the very least they need to include one album from that era. The Stones successfully embracing disco beats is worth a listen.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
I didn’t think you were. I just wanted to expound on the notion. I think it’s lazy to when people in the US claim the Stones stole their sound from black music. They often get tossed in to the same conversation as Elvis but there is a big difference between Elvis who never acknowledged he was inspired by black music and the Stones who most definitely did.
Click to expand...
Elvis acknowledged, the real problem with Elvis is that after the Colonel took over he demanded that people sell the rights of the song to him, so people didn’t make the kind of money they would have. The Beatles also widely acknowledged their influences and sought out their heroes when possible.

I think the narrative on Elvis is a little unfair. Yeah he could have done more, yeah he should have fired the colonel, but Rock also doesn’t reach the heights it did (possibly only when it did) without him.
 
Nee Lewman said:
Elvis acknowledged, the real problem with Elvis is that after the Colonel took over he demanded that people sell the rights of the song to him, so people didn’t make the kind of money they would have. The Beatles also widely acknowledged their influences and sought out their heroes when possible.

I think the narrative on Elvis is a little unfair. Yeah he could have done more, yeah he should have fired the colonel, but Rock also doesn’t reach the heights it did (possibly only when it did) without him.
Click to expand...
That’s fair enough. Though I will say later in life Elvis could have done more but by then dude was so fucked up on drugs and ego I doubt that was coming regardless.

The Beatles did, they frequently mentioned Little Richard and Chuck Berry as influences. I think The Beatles moved away from that sound whereas the Stones would go even further towards it.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
I always cut the Stones some slack since they were completely open about their influences. The Beatles got to black music via Elvis while The Rolling Stones got into black music via Howlin’ Wolf and Muddy Waters and they were bringing them up on stage to preform, shining a light on their music throughout their career.
Click to expand...

Is that the narrative around the Beatles? Because I was always of the impression that they credited being from Liverpool, at the time a large port city with huge historic links to transatlantic trade, both the good and the bad, leading to it being a place where locals mixed with sailors from the states and that by a sort of osmosis it was probably ahead of even London in terms of exposure to your culture.
 
Nee Lewman said:
Elvis acknowledged, the real problem with Elvis is that after the Colonel took over he demanded that people sell the rights of the song to him, so people didn’t make the kind of money they would have. The Beatles also widely acknowledged their influences and sought out their heroes when possible.

I think the narrative on Elvis is a little unfair. Yeah he could have done more, yeah he should have fired the colonel, but Rock also doesn’t reach the heights it did (possibly only when it did) without him.
Click to expand...
Elvis was a hero to most, but he never meant shit to me
 
Joe Mac said:
Is that the narrative around the Beatles? Because I was always of the impression that they credited being from Liverpool, at the time a large port city with huge historic links to transatlantic trade, both the good and the bad, leading to it being a place where locals mixed with sailors from the states and that by a sort of osmosis it was probably ahead of even London in terms of exposure to your culture.
Click to expand...
I think all four have said that Elvis was a big influence. Lennon was quoted as saying “If there hadn’t been an Elvis, there wouldn’t have been a Beatles.” And Macca regarding the Elvis album Heartbreak Hotel is quoted as saying “Everything we did was based on that album.”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top