I think it had more to do with the fact that relatively speaking, the LP was still kind of the new kid on the block. The concept of the single was as old as the first commercially recorded music. Singles were on the radio and what people cared more about. Also the artists weren't trying that hard to make cohesive albums and were promoting singles way more than albums. The real age of album oriented rock only began kicking in with the later 60's and the rise of FM rock radio.

David Kitching said:

The reason singles were so important in the sixties was that LP's were so expensive. Another reason was the already mentioed filler tracks, I'd hear people saying how they'd bought an LP and there was a load of boring crap on it. And they wouldn't buy anything else by them.

The cover of "Down the Road Apiece" is better than any other version I've ever heard.

I love the first 2 albums and have a really soft spot for them since my Mum used to dance around the house to them when I was but a small boy. When I left home I took those albums with me and the poor lady has never had them back...

Not so sure about that...I remember albums were $3, less on sale. That was about an hour's pay for your average crappy job, just like the cost of a CD or album DL is about an hour's pay for the same crappy job today. More or less. Singles were something like 60 cents. So I don't really think that was it. The filler, yeah, maybe. But I think it was a holdover from 78s, which had been the standard for decades. Plus, radio was a strong factor, they played the hits, that's what the singles were.

David Kitching said:

The reason singles were so important in the sixties was that LP's were so expensive. Another reason was the already mentioed filler tracks, I'd hear people saying how they'd bought an LP and there was a load of boring crap on it. And they wouldn't buy anything else by them.

The reason singles were so important in the sixties was that LP's were so expensive. Another reason was the already mentioed filler tracks, I'd hear people saying how they'd bought an LP and there was a load of boring crap on it. And they wouldn't buy anything else by them.

I prefer early Stones w/Brian as opposed to the classic rock era Stones, but I have a soft spot for some of the 70's albums like Goats Head Soup and Some Girls especially.

I love me some goats head soup. Heartbreaker is a killer song.

Johnny Bean said:

As a total fanatic I would say everything between the first album and Goats Head Soup is classic. My real favourites though are the first 2 albums, plus early bootlegs like the Chess Sessions and Camden 1964. If you have those recording the first Ramones album, I`m Stranded, Louie Louie and the Best of Bo Diddley you have everything you need to know about rock n roll :)

I would say that this stuff you're calling "later" is actually early. Those guys have been making albums for a long time! OK, so I guess it's 'later early.' Maybe you could say those albums were the 'Golden Age.' Their last album, A Bigger Bang, is really good, much better that what they did since the good ol' days.

I had Keith's autobiography in my hands on Friday but bought a book on the making of Night of the Living Dead instead (which I love by the way).  I do want to go back and pick up the autobio because I am sure if would spark a stones fest for me.  I love Exile, and Tumbling Dice is probably my Stones anthem.  And I still love Tatoo You.  I would say I grew up with later Stones and maybe I burned myself out on it just a little bit.  So if I catch a stones tune on the radio I am more apt to flip off newer stones but rarely leave older stones behind, except blues standards like Route 66 which bore me.  Wow, MikeL, I realize you have my head spinning with indecision.  Theres no doubt - its is all so frickin good. 

i was very disappointed in "Exile" - maybe because by the time i finally got to hear it i had been bombarded with just what a masterpiece it was!  it wasn't - at least not to me. much prefer sticky fingers... but hell i like the stones even in the 80s... that early 70s seems to resonate most with me but then again...

the early covers are the shit.  but thats also in the context of what they would go on to do later.  beggars banquet was the first album to hook me.  let it bleed is the masterpiece. 

 

 

 

Most definitely! I think that format needs to truly come back. At least in our corner of the music world it sort of has.

Catfish Jones said:

Exactly. The album rock era really reigned in an age of rock and roll bloat, I.E. Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Blah Blah Blah. It seems like once bands could slap together a full length they didn't have to do shit again for a while; where in the singles days they were constantly working in order to not be entirely forgotten. Which I happen to appreciate. 

Old School Hero said:

That's why 45rpms were a staple in the 50's up until the mid 60's I think. When the late 60's came songs got longer and there was really no better way to do it than to go with full albums.

Catfish Jones said:

Singles were the bread and butter for those 60's bands, so when they'd throw an album together a shit load of the stuff WAS actually filler. I think the earlier singles are my favorites, but of course the full lengths hit their peak in the early/mid 70's.

early 70s stones were the best.  not only the albums but the live show.  they were never a live powerhouse until this point...

Exactly. The album rock era really reigned in an age of rock and roll bloat, I.E. Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Blah Blah Blah. It seems like once bands could slap together a full length they didn't have to do shit again for a while; where in the singles days they were constantly working in order to not be entirely forgotten. Which I happen to appreciate. 

Old School Hero said:

That's why 45rpms were a staple in the 50's up until the mid 60's I think. When the late 60's came songs got longer and there was really no better way to do it than to go with full albums.

Catfish Jones said:

Singles were the bread and butter for those 60's bands, so when they'd throw an album together a shit load of the stuff WAS actually filler. I think the earlier singles are my favorites, but of course the full lengths hit their peak in the early/mid 70's.

As a total fanatic I would say everything between the first album and Goats Head Soup is classic. My real favourites though are the first 2 albums, plus early bootlegs like the Chess Sessions and Camden 1964. If you have those recording the first Ramones album, I`m Stranded, Louie Louie and the Best of Bo Diddley you have everything you need to know about rock n roll :)

Hmmmm...really not my favorite side of the Stones.

But, once again, if I find the "Satanic Majesties..." lp quite indigestible, I really enjoy "2000 light years from home" too.

Old School Hero said:

By the way, am I alone in liking their psychedelic efforts? I know it's weird for a bluesy band like them to do that kind of music but I really enjoy ''2000 Light Years From Home''.

By the way, am I alone in liking their psychedelic efforts? I know it's weird for a bluesy band like them to do that kind of music but I really enjoy ''2000 Light Years From Home''.

That's why 45rpms were a staple in the 50's up until the mid 60's I think. When the late 60's came songs got longer and there was really no better way to do it than to go with full albums.

Catfish Jones said:

Singles were the bread and butter for those 60's bands, so when they'd throw an album together a shit load of the stuff WAS actually filler. I think the earlier singles are my favorites, but of course the full lengths hit their peak in the early/mid 70's.

I'd go with the brilliant early singles too.

 

As for lps, I'd go with the outstanding "Beggars Banquet".

 

You can throw stones at me (ahah), but I've never really liked "Exile on Main St" (except maybe "Ventilator Blues")

...and I don't even mention the following rolling turds...

My favorite always has been Let it Bleed, with Exiles a close second. (If "Sweet Virginia" convinced just one person to scrape the shit off their shoes, it was worth it.)

For years I've thought their most under-rated album was Undercover, an early 80s effort. mainly because I like the title song so much,

I would have to agree that the period with Mck Taylor were the best.  however, I did dig The Bigger Bang, a lot.  It was the first record since Black and Blue that Keith and Mick wrote songs together and it tells.  Although, there are good cuts on about every album since Mick Taylor left, just not whole albums of great songwritng and playing.  They were definitely in the zone, so too speak during the Taylor years. 

Singles were the bread and butter for those 60's bands, so when they'd throw an album together a shit load of the stuff WAS actually filler. I think the earlier singles are my favorites, but of course the full lengths hit their peak in the early/mid 70's.

Totally agreed. I'd much rather listen to their singles collection than those albums one after another.

Brother Panti-Christ said:

I own everything of the Stones made from the 60's and 70's. I think the Brian Jones years were amazing for their hit singles, but the full length albums from time weren't as convincing as the late 60's and early 70's LPs. Keith and Mick really hit their stride as songwriters on Beggar's Banquet and coasted into the 70's making some my favorite LPs of all time.

I own everything of the Stones made from the 60's and 70's. I think the Brian Jones years were amazing for their hit singles, but the full length albums from time weren't as convincing as the late 60's and early 70's LPs. Keith and Mick really hit their stride as songwriters on Beggar's Banquet and coasted into the 70's making some my favorite LPs of all time.

Yeah the moments from the '80's are sometimes comical, but I still love 'em.  I remember that video with Bette Midler for BOB...funny.  Tattoo You has some good stuff.