The Rolling STONES: A CASE For The BEST Rock ALBUM Ever MADE 

1000%

Not true; Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, Hip Shake, Sweet Virginia, Torn and Frayed, Tumbling Dice, Loving Cup, Turd On The Run, Just Want To See His Face, Let It Loose, so rich in diversity of style and American exploration...makes the Beatles and Bowie sound tepid.

Totally disagree.

Anita the evil Witch is just what the Cat covered up !!!

I personally prefer Goats Head Soap for the songs lyrics and ambiance but you have to admit Exile is the most legendary rock statement ever. Off course you have to factor in it is a double, so yes some lesser songs not scraps. If Let it Bleed was a double it were LIB the GOAT.

100 % ! !

No Jazz in there tbh & I think voodoo is a religion not a music genre

Which is why the Stones are better than the Beatles. "Back in the USSR?" Gimme a break.

​ Zeppelin were better than both.

@@lyndoncmp5751 Different yes...better no. One thing that can be put to Zeppelin is they had no soul....the Stones had soul in abundance Personally speaking I think Keith (in this period) was a better songwriter & Taylor a better musician. Page was a better arranger & producer Better is subjective...my opinion is the Stones with Taylor, Hopkins & top of his game Keith were better. But I defer to different that way I get to enjoy both

@@nihilistlivesmatter Zeppelin had loads of soul. Their music moves the soul in a way the Beatles or the Stones never did for me. Their music was deeper and more complex. Or did you mean literally soul, as in soul music? In that case you'd be correct, because Zeppelin had funk instead. Bonham and Jones had the funkiest rhythm section out of all the British rock bands. Cheers.

Almost agreed till Some Girls ....

@@rawgab4439 Some Girls is good, but not "Mick Taylor in the band" good.

Loved Ya-Yas, but I though Flashpoint was an underrated live album. Also liked the El Mocambo side of Love You Live, but the rest was kinda "meh."

Me too, man. Since I first heard it when I was about 16.

TRUTH.EVERY.WORD

Yeah, this album never gets old to me. I can listen to it anytime

Couldn’t agree more

You're right, except it was Keith that held them together. When they almost broke up (multiple times), it was Keith that went to Jagger and had to patch things up and say-"C'mon, Mick, this thing's bigger than the two of us." Charlie Watts once told 60 minutes in an interview that, Keith was the heart of the band, and that Mick was the greatest frontman on stage other than maybe Chuck Berry or Little Richard.

@@danbaron9094 and it was Jagger who had gone to the London School of Economics that steered them out of the financial hole that bad management had dug for them. The “exile” to the south of France was directly precipitated by their staggering tax debt that would have likely been insurmountable if they stayed in Britain. Don’t get me wrong, I love Richards. He wrote what are arguably the greatest rock songs ever made. He is a true genius. I always loved his interviews (particularly in Creem magazine) over Jaggers or many other rock stars because they were always laser focused on the music-not fashion, politics or glamour. He has always been the consummate musician. His first solo album was as good if not better than anything the Stones were producing at the time. I always thought it ironic that while Jagger seemed to be the one who had his eyes on a solo career, it was Richards who delivered the goods with an album that truly displayed how anemic and saccharine Jaggers first solo lp was. Again, I friggin love Keith Richards. I saw one of his first outings without the Stones when he and Ron Wood toured together after Woods 1st solo album in the New Barbarians (they had Stanley Clark on bass). I have a 50’s style tele with a reversed humbucker in the neck and the lower register e string removed always tuned to open g. I call it my “Keef” and it is wood grain like Malcomb rather than the more iconic Micawber. I truly am a fanboy. However, there was a time when Richards was about as deep into drug addition with heroin and cocaine as anyone could slip. Any mere mortal would be long dead and many trying to emulate Richards ended up as roadkill. I suspect Gram Parsons shared that fate. Look at his photo on the cover of Goats Head Soup-it is a photo where he clearly earns his place atop Creem’s annual poll of Rock Star most likely to die which I am not sure he ever lost during the existence of the magazine. Listen to the track “Coming Down Again” on the same album. It is as good as Reed’s Heroin at giving an aural experience of one of the phases of heroin abuse along with describing the beginning of his relationship with his then common law wife and drug buddy, Anita Pallenberg (probably one of the sexiest, most beautiful and interesting women ever created). During his debauched drug fueled days Richards was notorious for his love of firearms and he would sleep with one under his pillow while on the road. Obviously, guns, hard drugs and alcohol are not a great combination. Also, at that time, the entourage knew Richards could be a bit grouchy when they had to wake him up. Ss such, the folks charged with getting Keith out of bed decided that the safest route was to have Richard’s young son, Marlon wake dad up as they figured Keith wouldn’t kill his own kid. The story Richards himself relates about inducting Ron Wood into the Keith lifestyle by splitting 28 grams of pharmaceutical cocaine 3 ways for two gargantuan snorts a piece and the 3 days of amnesic road trip that ensued is both funny and chilling. Again, a mere mortal would be dead. Richards gave Wood the smaller lines as Keith figured Ronnie wasn’t ready yet for the Keith sized dose. Obviously, this had to end somewhere and it culminated in the Canadian bust. I suspect that at least led to the relative sobriety that Richards has maintained in the latter part of his fabled life. It is during these periods I give Jagger credit for keeping the boat afloat. At that time, I can’t imaging Richards was equipped to deal with the business and logistical ends of maintaining the juggernaut the Stones had become. Also, having a supremely talented but supremely damaged partner like Richards at this time would have had any sane person at least considering the exit sign. But you are correct-Richards has always been a Rolling Stone first. When his solo album was both a commercial and critical success, he could have given Jagger the middle finger and said “this is how you make rock and roll!”!. He didn’t. It was like he made that album just to show that he didn’t have to have the Stones but that he needed and wanted The Stones because at heart he is a musician with an incredible band. I don’t at all disagree that Richards is the heart of the Stones and a big, big heart it is-just look at the documentary of his putting together the star packed show with Chuck Berry. Richards does one of the most egoless altruistic things that one musician can do for another while often having to eat Berry’s crap as he does it. Through it all, he puts together an amazing band for Chuck with a smile because he truly loves the man, loves his music and loves this art form and understands its historical importance. I love Keith but I thank Jagger for steering them through some very rocky waters when some of those rocks were unfortunately created by Richards and his addiction. It took both men to make this band as well as Charlie Watts, Jones, Wyman, Wood and even the unsung Ian Stewart. But at heart it is the 2 boyhood chums that made one of the greatest, if not greatest, rock bands ever to grace this planet-one a born showman with great chops, true sex appeal who innately understood the role of a frontman and, fortunately, had enough business savvy to recognize financial disaster and had the wherewithal to dig out of it and the other, a born musician with as pure a rock and roll talent as was ever put on this earth who had a viking’s ferocity when it came to his band and a combination of Robert Johnson and Mozart when it came to making this new music they called Rock and Roll. God bless them both!

Thanks to keiths friendship with his self described soul brother gram parsons

As far as I’m concerned, real rock-n-roll began in New Orleans, and the Stones know this…which is what makes your statement accurate as far as I’m concerned..They finally got to play Jazz Fest in Nola, Mick did a duet w/ the Soul Queen of New Orleans Irma Thomas of ‘Time is on my side’ . It came full circle right before your eyes. What a band, what a legacy. They would rather die on stage, than anywhere else!

prefer the Tayor years no surprise then

The Taylor years were brilliant.

When they were still creative, and not merely a business. Love that lp.

​@@kenm7179? Beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, exile, goats head,black n blue and some girls wasn't creative?

I would say Undercover is the most underrated. Because it is the least commercial. Buttons is like a squeaky clean Beatlefest. While Undercover is pure Stones, rough, dirty, sexy and sleazy. All the things that BtB is not.

@@spiritualarchitect4276 A squeaky clean Beatlefest ? Anyway, if you mention The Beatles, i can tell you this : Frank Zappa considered Between the Buttons as more innovatory than Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. And Zappa did not give often compliment. After Exile on the Mainstreet i have lost slowly but surely my interest in the Rolling Stones.

Indeed

Both Underrated. Both are great in their own rite.

Charlie Watts said in an interview about 10-12 years ago that he thought that lineup was their peak, both in terms of musicianship and songwriting. Have to give that opinion ultimate respect, so I agree, but I have to throw in "Some Girls" with those albums. It felt like the Stones were reborn on that one.

It’s for the Tik Tok kids 😂

Yes Keith was band leader no Keith no recording session you would love Stanley booths book about the sixty nine tour true adventures of the rolling stones

Sorry... I correct myself: It was not 2012... Last 'EOMS' release was in 2010.

Zeppelin not even in same artistic universe as stones and they are all very uninteresting people keith intensely fascinating person

Thank for bringing up one of the great under appreciated rock albums of all time. I know Teenage Head and Sticky Fingers were released around the same time and Exile came about around a year later. I had read the Rodney Bingenheimer and Marianne Faithful stories confirming Jagger was a fan and he viewed it favorably in comparison to Sticky Fingers. As to them using it as a template for Exile, I had not heard that. I did get to listen to Don Was and Bobby Keys talk at length about the recording of the Exile album (Keys because he was there and Was because he had remastered the album resulting in him not only listening to just about every tape but also discussing the process with the band). No one mentioned the Groovies or the TH album-they did discuss Gram Parsons alleged participation (with his daughter on the panel) and both Was and Keys were adamant that while Parsons was present for the drug taking with Richards, when they moved to the basement to record, there is zero evidence of Parsons being a participant-Keys was particularly adamant that Parsons did not supply any musical support for the album. Was said he never heard anything he considered as a potential Parsons track and he had listened to everything. Whatever the active participation of Gram Parsons in the recording (and it may be more than Keys or Was are willing to give him). Parsons clearly had helped guide Richards through country music history (though I think Richards’ grandfather had been in a country band at some point). I cannot imagine 2 musicians of the stature of Richards and Parsons hanging out and not being an influence on each other. As such, I have to think that Parsons had some influence on this album even if it was not direct. As to the Groovies’ Teenage Head, I had not heard of that as a direct influence. I just never thought of TH in the context of Exile. I guess I saw them as very different albums with neither causing me to think of the other until you brought it up. However, since you brought it up, I will go back and listen with that thought in mind. Exile was made by some of the greatest rock and roll talents that ever existed at a time when heroin, tax problems, internal strife and a phenomenon that Richard Pryor discussed when he said cocaine was God’s way of saying you were making too much damn money imbued the World of the Stones at that time. If you ever get a chance to read or listen to the late Bobby Keys discuss the recording, it is both insightful and funny as hell. They were young rock musicians in one of the biggest bands on the planet-it was a time when the few lucky (or unlucky enough to be in that position) literally had the world as their private buffet but also had a giant target on their backs by the establishment. On the other hand, TH is for me a much more focused almost perfect album by a band that was still hungry and trying to grab that brass ring that had eluded them despite critical acclaim. The Stones released Exile after recording Beggars, Let it Bleed and Sticky Fingers with the Live Ya Ya’s album thrown in for good measure. I think the 2 albums came from much different places but much of that may be the baggage I bring to my experience of the 2 recordings. As you suggested, I need to investigate. With all that said, thanks for bringing up an album that doesn’t get a 1/10000000 of the acclaim it deserves and putting the album in a perspective that gives me good reason to revisit it (as if I need a reason other than it is one of the great R&R albums). Great comment-thanks

Beggars banquet

I can only listen to this album at low volume because of the horrendous mix and i'd love them to redo it ....... some people say it's part of the "charm" of that album, and I say bull****.

No exile is keiths album he came up with the ideas ran all the sessions

Hilarious bubba! I've seen rock n roll circus. On keith moons best day he wasn't half the drummer charlie was. And on that circus. Brian Jones in his drugged out state and not far from death, played better guitar than Pete ever has. I bet you think the who was something special because they beat up there instruments? Like Clapton told a reporter when ask if he could play like Pete. " You want me to beat up my guitar?"

@@briancrawford7981 STOMPED. That performance was why that movie wasn't released for so long. Because they truly crushed the Stones. Embarrassed them on their own movie.

bubba babbling on a puerile subject matter

The Who were in top form as of the filming of Rock n Roll Circus. They had been continually touring. In contrast the Stones had been off the road and were effectively a broken band given Brian Jones was totally gone as a musician. Ironically, even the Beatles were probably a better band than the Stones judging from the "Get Back" sessions that would have been happening around that time.

@@RonnieLeeDuck I will say, once i saw it, they weren't as bad as i thought tho. But no one could touch Keith on that one

Ya yas

What's your age?

Keith guitar genius band leader check his solo on sympathy from ya yas and incredible not all sloppy acoustic playing on prodigal son also gimme shelter last time cry to me solo on under the boardwalk and on and on

I think this was AI generated. The giveaway was when it said: "Mick Taylor on the [bah-ass]" pronounced like the fish.

Bollocks.

You are wrong

DSOTM is not rock&roll. It's music, but not as we knew it.

You can't compare any Stones albums with Dark Side of the Moon. Prog-Rock v Rock, Blues, Country. But I think Wish You Were Here is a better record than Dark Side of the Moon anyway.

@@roy421000 you are right of course. They are different types of music . Also my favourite album is Wish you were here although Darkside has sold more records!. Believe it or not, I am one of the few people left who danced to the Floyd at the UFO club , so I have watched the monster most of my life