Profile 
A.J. Howard
Website: -

Comments

 0Posted on Mar 4th, 2013 | re: The Rolling Stones Albums From Worst To Best (101 comments)

(continued, accidentally pressed submit)

the band’s artistic vision. US record executives randomly cut out songs to insert singles at the start. (This practice is what inspired the famous “Butchers” cover that the Beatles did for one of their US compilations. They also liked to cut off songs from the album so they could release it in a future compilation.) Now, it’s tricky because the singles that were inserted on those two albums are “fucking amazing,” while the non-album tracks are usually just “pretty great.” Therefore, the US versions might appear, and might even actually be better. But my advice would be to listen to those two albums as God and the Glimmer Twins intended, and get the UK versions. If you don’t have them, you can get the singles elsewhere.

Now for everything before “Aftermath,” I just got the American versions. Yeah, I know what I jsut said, but none of these albums were really “albums” albums and, the single and b-side omissions hurt, amdthe deep-cuts aren’t as interesting as they would soon be. If you have the “London Years” singles collection or a good comp, maybe you want to look into the UK versions though. It would be cheaper because they’re only three pre-Aftermath UK albums as opposed to 5 for the US.

As far as quality, I’d say “Aftermath” and “Between the Buttons” are mist-owns. (As well as “Satanic Majesties”, which is I think people defend for being interesting than good).I enjoy all the pre-”Aftermath” stuff, but to be honest they kind of blend together a bit. Each album has some highlights, some enjoyable moments, some interesting ideas, but each has some filler, with the exception of”England’s Newest Hitmakers”/Self-titled which is pretty bad ass and menacing for being the album that knocked “With the Beatles” off the top spot of the UK charts.. It’s not really a Stones album, but it’s probably the one album you need to listen to if you want to understand the Stones.

Sorry for being really, really long winded and I hope this helps.

 0Posted on Mar 4th, 2013 | re: The Rolling Stones Albums From Worst To Best (101 comments)

I kinda mentioned this above, but I’ll risk somewhat repeating myself. First, no offense intended, but hellblau doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I get what you’re saying, but to say that the Stones didn’t find their sound until ’68 is just an abortion of an opinion. “Beggars” was somewhat of a creative shift for the band, and it probably marks the beginnings of their being considered an “album band” capable of competing with the Beatles, but the Rolling Stones were already the Rolling Stones before 1968.

You only have to worry about the US/UK split for everything before “Satanic Majesties.” The reason why these splits exist is because singles were not traditionally included on a LP in the UK. The BBC wasn’t allowed to play studio recorded singles, bands would come to the radio studio and perform live sessions, this is why you see BBC sessions on a lot of bonus material. So if you wanted to hear “Satisfaction” you had to go out and buy the single. In fact, full albums were originally seen as a side course to keep fans excited about the next single. The music culture was different in the US. Singles got played on the radio which drove record sales. So to increase album sales record labels wanted the big radio hits on the album.

The conception of an album as a coherent work, rather than as a collection of non-singles didn’t really start until ’66. The two pre-Beggars LPs that can definitely be thought of as conerent wholes and definitely belong in your collection are “Aftermath” and “Between the Buttons.” The UK versions are

 +3Posted on Mar 4th, 2013 | re: The Rolling Stones Albums From Worst To Best (101 comments)

The best bits of “Goats Head Soup” and “It’s Only Rock n’ Roll” would be one hell of an album.

 0Posted on Mar 4th, 2013 | re: The Rolling Stones Albums From Worst To Best (101 comments)

If we’re talking UK versions, I agree with you 100%. The singles on the US version of Aftermath might push it ahead, but I have always owned the UK version. I’m pretty sure that the Stones, like the Beatles, were pretty upset with the American versions of their albums by this point.

Here’s my advice of putting together an early Stones collection. Get the American version of everything before Aftermath. Get the UK versions of Aftermath and Buttons. Get everything that you don’t already have from Flowers, and fill out your collectiong with The Singles Collection.

 +4Posted on Mar 1st, 2013 | re: Morrissey Responds To Kimmel Diss (83 comments)

I’ve never actively watched the show, but it’s been on around me before, and I’m pretty sure your admittedly ignorant take is also pretty inaccurate. The show follows a family who are from backwoods Louisiana who made a shit ton of money making and selling duck calls, which are decoy ducks used by duck hunters. They’re basically rubber duckies for grown ups. While the show may involve hunting, but it’s really about the supposedly hilarious hijinks that arise out of the paradox that this family of hillbilly-looking fellows have fuck-you money.

I’m not saying the show has any redeeming qualities, but it’s not “about shooting at ducks.” It’s the “Beverly Hillbillies” meets “The Osbournes.” If you’re gonna argue that it glorifies gun culture, then so does pretty much every other piece of culture out there. At least Duck Dynasty doesn’t involve shooting at humans, which I can’t say about “The Wire,” “The Sopranos,” “The Godfather,” “Pulp Fiction,” etc. etc.

 +3Posted on Feb 19th, 2013 | re: Album Of The Week: Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds Push The Sky Away (19 comments)

Pretty sure nobody has mentioned my early pick for standout track, and today’s nominee for coolest song title ever, “Higs Boson Blues.”

 +1Posted on Feb 15th, 2013 | re: The Who Albums From Worst To Best (59 comments)

My read was that Zeppelin aped followed the Who much more than vice versa. I mean, Jimmy Page’s first post-Yardbirds plan was for him and Jeff Beck to form a supergroup with. Moon and Moose. (Holy shit, would that have rocked faces off!) Anyways, here’s my version of the truth…

1. Quadrophenia
2. Who Sell Out
3. Who’s Next
4. Tommy
5. My Generation
6. A Quick One
7. By the Numbers

 -2Posted on Feb 15th, 2013 | re: The Who Albums From Worst To Best (59 comments)

Err.. Yes. Misread your post…

 0Posted on Feb 15th, 2013 | re: The Who Albums From Worst To Best (59 comments)

No.

 +2Posted on Feb 15th, 2013 | re: The Who Albums From Worst To Best (59 comments)

Best version is the one from the Stones “Rock and Roll Circus” that’s also on the “Kid’s Are Alright” soundtrack. Nearly eight minutes of capital r Rawk. Story is the Circus wasn’t released for 30 years because Jagger knew that the Who had blown the Stones off the stage. My theory that I completely made up is that it was that eight minutes that led to Brian Jones being shown the door in favor of Mick Taylor five months later.