The Smiley Smile Message Board

like myself :) i'm into their whole body of work and know mostly everything by them...what 3 albums do you consider underrated by them? :)"
i'd have to go with:
1. Goats Head Soup
2. Emotional Rescue
3. Their Satanic Majesties Request
These were 3 solid albums by them which the critics and fans seem to over look and barely mention for idk what reason :/m, Which album do you consider the most over-rated by the stones?

Goats Head Soup
Undercover
Black N Blue

Undercover is horrible though :/ super disappointed by it but loved the artwork lol

Not sure if you can call albums that topped the charts as under rated but I know what you mean: the ones you mentioned are not considered classics. Nor are these, generally, but they have some classic songs amongst the filler.

Between the Buttons: My Obsession ( a stoned brian wilson was a visitor at the session) She smiled sweetly (Jagger being surprisingly romantic), and Yesterday's Papers (great playing from Brian Jones)
Goats Head Soup: You're right, overlooked due to the albums that preceded it but a strong effort with heartbreaker, dancing with mr d and angie standouts for me
Black and Blue: The Ronnie Wood years are pretty under rated to a degree but they could lock into a killer groove when he joined eg Hey Negrita. Fool to Cry and Cherry oh Baby are fun too

i love that song :) i actually own a first edition vinyl of between the buttons :)
yes it's over looked as a classic but everything on it is great and the cover art is amazing
black and blue is a great album but it is completely over-looked i wonder why :/...definitely one of my favorites from the 70's i even will go far enough to say i like it more than exile on main st.

Goats Head Soup also has 100 Years Ago, Coming Down Again, Winter, Silver Train! All great stuff!

I think GHS is actually the better album song-wise over Exile!

Imo it is better musically than exile in main st. :) i love every song on it it has a nice vibe to it, Mick even said it's his favorite album they ever did.

I don't know too many of their albums but I really love Black'n'Blue.

Amen to that!

Black N Blue is awesome!

Charlie and Bill are really kickin on it especially!

For me it’s the following. Swap the top 5 out on any given day:

1.  Sticky Fingers
2.  Exile
3.  Some Girls
4.  Beggar’s Banquet
5.  Let It Bleed
6.  Aftermath
7.  Between The Buttons
8.  Get Your Ya Ya’s Out
9.  Goat’s Head
10. Black & Blue

And all those Blues-oriented Stones albums before this are fantastico, baby! 

"It's Only Rock N Roll" has some damn cracking s#*it on it too!

yes it does :) what do you think of their cover of aint too proud to beg?

I absolutely love it!

Speaking of that album: this may be sacrilege to say, but, to me, it's the first Stones album to sound abso-freaking-lutely good!!!!!

I mean they ALL sound good, but this one: the production is cracking and the bass just makes your toes curl!

Maybe it's because they were producing themselves for the first time (officially)

wow seriously? i like a few albums entirely ..goats head soup,some girls,their satanic majesties request,let it bleed...sh*t i even like all of december's child :) lol

Goats head soup... is not underrated. its rated at the rating it should have. that being said.

Black and Blue
12X5 (Time is on my side, nuff said)
It's Only Rock and Roll

it should be rated higher...
time is on my side is a great cover that's it...the album is full of covers so ...uhhh no
and i agree with you on this one :)

It gets decently rated in this day and age as opposed to years ago!

finally :) i'm glad it does.

Brian Jones and all of his work is under rated.

I've never been a big stones fan, but Star Star is pretty awsome.  ;D

why not? and yes it is and the album it's on is awesome as well.

brian jones received more praise after his death then he would if he was alive.

i've just never really liked most of their stuff, except for Star Star, Get Off My Cloud, Some Girls(the song), and Sympathy For The Devil. I will say that they were a pretty decent live band for a while. I'd say 1969-72 was their peak.

Nope

yup

wow :/ ..you checked out all their body of work though right?

No.

First Brian formed the band, directed their sound blueswise, expanded them past the blues, and when he died they lost all their individuality. I don't care if someone is dead or alive if I like their music. That makes no sense. I like Brian's music period. The 1963-68 stuff is the only stuff I would put on my all time best list. I like everything from Let It Bleed through Some Girls , but Mick and Keith found a formula in 1968 (as Brian was being eased out) and stuck to it.  Cool music without Brian yes, innovative without Brian not to me. I ignore anything past 1978 except Tatoo You which was old anyhow. It may help to know I like Rock and Roll much better than Rock. Will post more if I have to on this.

one day you should check out their work,you might like it :)

if anything they became way more innovative after he died :) their best work was after he died.

I'll try again. Here is my review of Keith's life book which is about why Brian isn't given his due.
First let me say I think Keith was a terrific artist in the sixties and seventies but I really dislike the book being a fan of Brian's. My opinion was made more strident after reading in Keno's "Rolling With The Stones" book of how Keith has not given songwriting credit to Brian, Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman. He had a chance to come clean here and didn't and I don't have a lot of respect for someone who can't admit to their own mistakes especally with hard drugs. I suppose he does reveal his role in certain issues but I still don't feel he understands that he hurt others with his actions.

I'm reading "Foundation Stone" right now writen by Grahm Ride. That Keith would even attempt to say he introduced Brian to electric blues is worse then him taking Anita away. Taking away Brian's place in history he is doing the man a much bigger diservice. Honestly to those in the know he only makes himself look bad not Brian by going out of his way to discredit all of Brian's musical innovations . Innovations that I feel are as strong or even stronger then Keith's when it comes to

1-Blending blues and rock. Keith makes a big deal about his open tuning in 1968. Ok Keith was good at it but Brian was doing it in 1961!

2-Adding new intruments to rock or at least playing them in a new way

3. Being one of the first mainstreem rock artists to bring world music to the general public.

Books like this are dangerous because they go down in history as the truth. Anyone who gives even a little bit of a damn about the Stones should not roll over on this as without Brian Jones we NEVER would have heard this wonderful music.

Let's go even deeper. Keith doesn't credit Bill or Brian for any of the riffs. He even says it was him and Mick who wanted to bring the blues to the world with Little Red Rooster. Also he claims to have taught Ike Turner open tuning. Guess he never heard his early stuff. To me Brian was the most interesting in the band and it must be said he actually did write a lot of the music. "Ruby Tuesday" was his and Keith's, he wrote parts of all the Nanker/Phelge songs, and he also wrote the music for some of the Satanic LP. He wasn't credited and that was part of the reason he LEFT the band. He was NOT fired but left after making it clear that he no longer wanted to be a part of the group by simply not showing up.

Unlike the myth that Keith tries to sell us Brian worked hard on every LP up through "Beggers". It was only the early Let It Bleed sessions that saw him not participating. Again I must say people should read Keno's "Rolling With The Stones" for the truth about what Brian did and did not do. Both of Bill Wyman's and Marriane Faithfull's first book also are much clearer on Brian's role in the band. He did sing quite a bit in 62-64 (a little bit through 66 as well) although he only did a few leads that sadly remain in the vaults. I also recomend people read "Golden Stone" by Laura Jackson and "Death Of A Rolling Stone" by Mandy Aftel both fair and solid books on Brian.

Since 1980 Keith had gotten bitchy about Mick and Brian and it's sad and old. Brian didn't do anything Keith and Mick haven't done. Hitting girls, knocking them up, getting loaded and blowing off a performance. Brian was a kid messed up in the head who had a drug problem. Yet it seems that he had a very kind side and he certainly had intelect and talent. It also seems he was trying to straighten out by 1969.

I don't excuse how Brian's faults but I also don't excuse Keith or Anita for what they did either. Brian's ego never matched Keith's growing ego of the last 32 years and Mr. Richards was also known to beat Anita. A real hypocrite! Andrew, Mick, and Keith did steer the band away from Brian but he was so popular and good at his craft that it was only after Brian died that Keith got much attention publically. That is a fact! It's also a fact that Keith gave Brian a lot of credit before the 80's and his brain became a pile of mush.

Brian never had a chance to grow up and he did some bad things, but one thing Brian didn't do was put his bandmates down in public. Brian was very well spoken and articulate. If he had a reason to bash Keith he would have not taken cheap shots and would have explained his views. If Keith died I can't picture Brian acting like Richards has. Again I ask what happened to the cool pre 1979 Keith?

Great post.  ;D I have Keith's book, and I think it's a crime that he and Mick seem to want to forget that Brian Jones was even a part of the group. I also got the impression that after all these years. Keith still doesn't seem to get why heavy drug use is a bad thing.

Keith and Mike have gone to huge lengths to cover up Brian Jones' role in the group.

Anyone here ever read "Stone Alone"?

Bill Wyman gives Brian big props in that book.

i wanna see the movie about brian's life...what was t called again? rolling stoned? or something like that

For reals?!?!?!?
So, then let's hear it, exactly WHAT did The Rolling Stones, erm, "innovate" AFTER Brian Jones died?  Hmmm?  Other than being over the hill rock n roll doofuses.  They became caricatures of themselves.

It's no coincidence that the Stones started sucking around the time of the death of Brian Jones.

wow wtf!!! what albums by the rolling stones are the most critically acclaimed?? was brian jones in the stones when let it bleed came out? no!! exile in main st? no!..sticky fingers? no!
i'll give them beggars banquet but that's it,

I gotta go with Newguy here!

They innovated by being THE STONES!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Angie, Angie, Angie, Angie....."  LOL

Right, they innovated one of the worst songs in Musical History LOL

blech

I find it funny that they were the punks of the 1960s, but by 1976 they were part of the bloated rock establishment that bands like the sex pistols and ramones didn't like.

To each his own! Angie is a killer song. Just listen to what Charlie does on the hi-hat to drop the beat right when Mick whispers "Angie"!

Yeah, and people made fun of The Stones for being sloppy and drugged out on stage while praising The Sex Pistols for the same damn thing.

I'm not mentioning the Ramones merely because they are the 2nd greatest band of all time behind The Beach Boys and could do no wrong ;)

i should've just said that :) lol short but sweetttttt!

the stones are kinda like the beach boys. everybody thinks that they lost it way before they actually did. i think the stones were good even into the 80's. Up till Dirty Work. and even that wasn't terrible. Emotional Rescue and Undercover are really underrated. i think i probably have to change my answer to those two. and Black and Blue. And i agree with newguy on the innovation thing. If nothing else they really influenced a lot of the later 70's "riff bands"

Yes, indeed, to each his own.

AND I don't mean to disrespect your taste or interest!!   8)

But for me, the Stones were a great band up till Let It Bleed, then, I've no idea what happened after that.

Still, you've not listed any real "innovations".  Like sitars, or backwards guitars, or sophistated harmonies in songs about God.  Those types of innovations!  Are there really any?  Disco?  LOL  They dabbled in country, but not very well.  They were a decent band up to a point.   :'(

it's extremely underrated...and yes they had awesome 80's work :)..do you think tattoo you is over-rated?

No disrespect either. I mean, I can certainly get why one would lose interest in the Stones after Brian went. They lost A LOT with him gone. No doubt about it. Though some of their innovations: like having the killer samba beat for Sympathy For The Devil or the pump organ, weird beat for Paint It Black, weren't Brian's doing.

As for innovation. Well, that can be an intangible thing. They innovated, I guess, well, first off, they didn't NEED to innovate. Most bands don't innovate beyond honing their sound and basically repeating it over and over with the odd quirk here and there, which is fine. But the Stones never put out an album that sounded or felt just the same as the last. They dabbled in disco and made it legit with rock. Or something like that. Keith, Brian, Mick, Ronnie certainly pioneered (or at least defined) the two guitar rock attack. Keith and Ronnie certainly nailed "weaving" and Charlie nailed FEEL where a rock drummer is concerned. And Bill certainly developed his own unique way of not just playing the root note and of almost never repeating a phrase or run in a song. All important things if not high innovations.

No way! I love it. It's as great as Sticky Fingers to me :) I do think it gets a pretty fair amount of acclaim tho. Same with Goats Head Soup. It very very good. But i think people generally think that about it.

i love sticky fingers well at least the first side of it and bitch :) and i might go over the line for saying this but i prefer listening to it more than exile lol...

Tattoo You is a killer album!

It might have been odds and ends from recent (and not so recent to 1981) years, but it seems like more care than usual was put into track sequencing and making the thing feel like a unified whole.

And, to be fair, only basic tracks in most cases were carried over from what was recorded in the disparate years. From what I can gather, nearly all of Mick's vocals are circa 1981 and the tracks Heaven and Neighbors (and I think one other) were newly conceived/recorded for the album.

:) so the songs on that album are from some girls sessions or emotional rescue sessions? from the big four (beggars banquet,let it bleed,sticky fingers,exile) which one do you think is the weakest?

Apparently that's the case and with Waiting On A Friend dating back to 1973.

I'd say Let It Bleed is the "weakest" in that there's hardly any Brian OR Mick Taylor and I really rather dislike the album version of You Can't Always Get What You Want. The choir (and the whole production) strikes me as pretentious and I don't dig Jimmy Miller's drumming at all. It's too herky jerky for my taste and I like the way they did it better live anyhow. But, as I said earlier, to each his own.

:[ omg nooooooo can't believe you said that...it's my favorite out the four..my least is exile in main street :/ my big four are (aftermath,their satanic majesties request,let it bleed,some girls)

It's OK but not a full bio sadly.

To be fair Brian is on two of Let It Bleed's best cuts. Even Keith gives him credit for that in the crappy book.

brian added some work to two of the songs on let it bleed :)

Do we really need a full rundown of all the groupies he banged?  >:D

Wait!!! It's still a killer album! That's why I put "weakest" in quotes!

oh ok :) i think their weakest effort has to be out of dirty and bridges to babylon :/

Well honestly no and Stoned has a bit too much of that. I would much rather a documentary be down. There is so much good sixties Stones footage out there.

Speaking of the The Stones:  Mick and Keith (by accounts) systematically demoralized and sidelined Brian and forced him out of the band he formed, undoubtedly contributing to his decline and death, yet we still love them but we HATE Mike Love for maybe not being into Smile 100%.

I've always found this logic odd.

No i love every song on it! And exile is hard to listen to as an album. Too long. And some filler. (I Just Want To See His Face is an enjoyable listen sometimes, but its like so unnecessary ahaha.) You know what is a perfect album? Beggars Banquet. Ah. Ah. Rock n Roll perfection.

Well that's the thing and why Keith trashing the guy since the eighties has really turned me off of him. I like sixties and seventies Keith but he looked, and sang, and wrote a lot better then.  In a 1971 interview for Rolling Stone Keith went out of his way to praise Brian, giving him as much credit as Bill Wyman has. That's what I don't get, because Mick won't say he loved working with him at the end but he will admit Brian was important when he was with the group. Until his second drug bust halfway through Beggars really sidelined him, he was there on a constant basis. The old story of them making him overdub until after the session is a provable myth in this day of bootlegs having orginal session tapes.

BTW I like Mike Love fine and Beach Boys fans who don't know the things Mick and Keith did would be shocked how much worse it was than anything Mike did. At least Love always respected Brian's music if not all of his co-writters.

Exile. Its not cohesive at all. Its good. but not an album. It plays like a greatest hits album from a band who didn't really have that many hits so therefore filled half of it with covers *cough* *cough* *cough* eh hem.. mm.. excuse me... kinda like Guns N Roses  ;D

Well said Mike!

Was is Dr. John who called The Stones a "reptilian bunch of people"?

Yep because he some of his band wasn't credit on Exile but given drug nicknames instead.

probably the best performance mick and the stones did that i've seen footage of...even though it's weird seeing mick dressed up as a girl
even if he's lip syncing lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVP9TOxnMVk

He quit heroin, that's what happened

Oh yes, being addicted to heroin makes you very cool!

I get your point, but think about it. Keith quit Heroin around 1978-1979. Mike Eder says that after 1979, Keith started becoming an asshole, becoming hypocritical. He started growing a ego (though not as bad as Mick's). He started dismissing Brian's place in history, and started to damage his reputation. Before then, like Bill Wyman he praised Brian Jones and his contributions. Now he's trying to rewrite history to make Brian look like he had a much lesser role. Which helps make it a good idea to rather read Bill Wyman's autobiography instead of Keith's. Because Bill is much more reliable, and doesn't have a ego.
To sum it up, Keith sort-of became a asshole after he quit heroin.

I understand your point -- I do know alcoholics who quit drinking (generally without any sort of program) who become insufferable ego monsters.  The same for addicts.  You could make the point that starting heroin was the problem.  My view, which is based only on reading stuff, is that Keith like many uber successful individuals is a mixed bag.  Reading about the days in the south of France recording "Exile" when he was well into his heroin addiction, he often comes across as a spoiled stoned punk, as well as a gracious host and of course tremendous musician.  Interestingly for me, Mick Jagger often seems as a more decent human being; maybe simply because he understands principles such as manners or professionalism.  Brian Jones certainly had many reports of god-awful behavior.

It's important for me to remember what  a jerk I could be in my 20s.  I wonder if I could have survived fame and fortune (a moot point!).  Might make it harder to grow up.

Mr. Diddit, these are very good points! I totally agree with the highlighted text: Mike is indeed a better person than Keith, more open-minded when it comes to their colleagues-musicians, often praises one's or other's music, freely talks about the singers & bands who influenced the RS etc. On numerous occasions, Keith hides it, it's tough for him to say a few kind words about the other performers (except some blues/R'n'B legends + Chuck Berry). He more than Mick considers their band to be the greatest of all, while trashing the accomplishments of the rest.

Regarding Brian's situation, Keith & Mick were both supportive of him, tried to give a chance but unfortunately, Brian became fragile & paranoid (not without an envy factor), finally giving up the rock scene. So one wouldn't blame either for treating Brian like that. However, it's very unfair of Keith to say nasty things about Brian even now, after so many years passed. For some strange reason, he cannot forgive him & writes off Brian's latest (1967-9) contributions. Meanwhile Mick is very positive about his former bandmate, it really shows that he respects & respected him a lot.
Another evidence - the footage of the Hyde Park concert [dedicated specifically to Brian Jones]. Backstage before the concert, someone got to Mick & started asking some questions about Brian's death & Mick seemed very nervous & devastated (as well as a bit guilty), there was this "I can't believe what just happened" expression in his face. At the end, Mick couldn't bear the conversation & decided it's time to go upstage. During his short introduction before the poem-reading, there was some hubbub in the crowd. Mick got very irritated & told people to "...be quiet, okay?" Anyway, despite its notoriety, the HP show is known as one of the best in The Stones' career now. I myself enjoyed it too. My favorite - the cover of Johnny Winter's tune.

Bottom line. To draw conclusion to the argument, I disagree with bluesno1fann & Mr. Eder because, according to the books I've read about the group (and I read enough of them), Keith developed dislike towards Brian in circa 1967, not later, in the 70s. Whether he quit heroin or not has nothing to do with this sad story at all.

Have you read Bill Wyman's "Stone Alone" or his second book "Rolling With The Stones" (I have the latter, but I really want Stone Alone)? I'd say they are the most reliable and most trustworthy and realistic books about the Stones, and Brian in particular. Keith, and even Mick has dismissed some of his important contributions, and try to put his position down. With Bill, he praises Brian even now, and only writes what really happened, on the neutral perspective.  
And Mick is worse than Keith, Mick nearly destroyed the Rolling Stones, and he has a raging ego too

To get back on topic, I love the Stones! One of my two favourite bands (We all know the other  ;))

My favourite album by the Stones would have to be Aftermath, though I also love Their Satanic Majesties Request and their Debut album.

Sticky Fingers aside, their 1968-1972 work is very overrated, especially Exile! I never understood why the bloody album was/is so popular, it isn't even close to being the best Stones album.

By far their best work was done with Brian Jones. That was when they made their most innovative work, and Newguy dismissing the Jones era makes me glad he's permanently banned.