I had no idea the band has that many compilations. Some stunning stuff too. I grew up in the 60s and one of the first lps I bought with money not easy for a poor kid to rustle up was Big Hits: High Tide and Green Grass. I loved everything about that record, and still consider it one of the best compilations ever. Certainly it’s one of my all time favorites. I’ve loved their music ever since. Wishing they could put out out one more record of original material, one last hurrah. Still, if they don’t, I’m a happy man for having them throughout my life. Great video, Alan.
Thanks so much for watching and your great comment. Love how you saved up your money to buy an album (Big Hits). I can relate. Music was so much more important back then, and saving your money to go to a record store, and search the racks to buy an album and bringing it home. I still have memories of it (and I still do it...lol). Thanks again.
As a super fan of The Rolling Stones (my # 1 band), I’m blown away by your collection of 414 Stones albums AND by your knowledge of what seems like every aspect of the band. You’ve done a great job in highlighting what’s special about each of the nearly 30 compilation albums you’ve featured in this video. As you pointed out, each of the compilation albums offers listeners something different, even if some songs appear on multiple albums. There are the alternative versions of the same song, the live versions and the duet versions that you mentioned. For those of us whose fandom runs very deep, The Stones have given us albums that focus on deep cuts, or B sides, or rarities, or demos, or kick-ass covers, or previously-unreleased songs, or recordings that represent different periods of The Rolling Stones’ history. The band (or its record labels) has made sure that its most fervent followers can get “whatever they want” from its massive oeuvre. And for more casual fans, the band has covered all the bases to provide ideal entryways to the most well-known roads leading to The Rolling Stones’ one-of-a-kind place in music history.
I recently discovered your Vlogs prior to the release of “Hackney Diamonds “ and have since subscribed to your RUclips channel. I’ve been a Rolling Stones “aficionado” since they released “Satisfaction” in Spring 1965. 💝 Thanks for sharing your collection. 🙏 I enjoyed your presentation. 👍👍👍
Through The Past Darkly along with Out Of Our Heads, Flowers, and Between The Buttons were in our house before I started to buy records. The first purchases I made was Hot Rocks and Made In The Shade a couple of months before I saw them live in '75. I've never seen or heard of The Mick Taylor Years or 1975 Onwards box sets before but I do have the Virgin remastered dics individually. Those box sets are fantastic!
Hi Alan I like your sweatshirt Alan. The Rolling Stones have been phenomenal in their output. I remember their first songs on the radio airwaves back in the 1960s. They were a part of the British pop invasion of America. I didn't buy any records of theirs except Black and Blue in 1976. I like the song Hot Stuff on it. Some Girls is a good album from 1978. It contained hit singles like Faraway Eyes and Respectable. And here they are today still performing. Incredible. They have made a huge contribution to pop/ rock music.
The first Stones comp album I bought was "Through the past darkly" in the mid-70's which was a tribute to Brian Jones who had died not long before that release. Most of the 70s comp albums I bought on vinyl back then or the early 80s exception being "Hot rocks" released by ABKO which was owned by Allen Klein and for some reason was out of print from the mid-70s onwards but reappeared on CD later.. Something fishy was going on there! Still love your selection
Thanks so much. Amazing that many of the best Stones songs were just singles like JJ Flash and Honky Tonk Women. So they put out those early comps like Through The Past Darkly so they were on an album. Were different times. Obviously a great compilation album.
This was very interesting Alan.I have almost everything you have.The Singles Collection The London Years is also one of my favorite box sets and like you have both of them lol.I have the singles in three boxes but they're only from 1963-71.I have the big Grrrr box set also no.7533.I loved the Stones since there inseption.I even broke down and got the Mono albums in colored vinyl didn't really need it but being a collector you know how that goes.I also always thought Goats Head Soup was very underrated one of my favorites for sure.Have a good night Alan
Thanks so much - I can't believe I forgot to show The Stones in Mono box and I have those three "smaller" singles boxes as well. Oh well. Obviously you're a tremendous Stones collector as well - which is awesome. That big Grrr box is so big, I never listen to it. To unwieldy....lol. Thanks so much. Have a great night and thanks for watching and commenting.
Thank you so much. Great idea. Yea I can do an official Stones Live releases video. If I get into bootlegs that's a huge rabbit hole. But the official stuff is manageable. Thanks so much.
Hi Alan, I like your collection, it’s awesome. Myself being a huge Stones fan I own a lot of stuff on my fave band such as lps, cds, concert t’s, bootleg cds & dvds. My bootleg collection is pretty interesting & big.
Hi Alan Nice & interesting video. For Stones novices I always recommend “Grrr...” (3 CD version). Not alone does it span their whole career, it also gives a nice insight in the bands musical development. On as little as 3 CD’s...impressing. For people asking for the bands absolute best stuff I recommend “Hot Rocks”/ “More Hot Rocks” covering the years when The Stones peaked creatively and as musicians. I also love “Flowers”. It’s basically bits & pieces from a period of one and a half year. But it was a time when the band progressed very fast musically, so it’s impressing what a great and fairly coherent album they got out of it. If I remember correctly “Flowers” wasn’t released in Europe until many years later because there was too many repeats from the UK releases of the bands albums. The American music industry followed the “Beatles approach” and cut some tracks out of the albums for later use...
Yes, exactly. Flowers is considered by most as a compilation, but I don't really consider it one. So many unique songs on it, that to me, it's stands as an original release. Definitely an album for Stones fans vs newbies to me anyway. Agree with you on the comps, you mentioned. I pretty much started with Hot Rocks / More Hot Rocks / Sticky Fingers / Goats Head Soup / Get Your Ya Ya's Out and I was off and running.
Hello Alan....once again, great review that I will have to comment more in depthly on in due course, as there is such a wealth of compilations to consider. I too DO NOT consider Flowers a compilation album, though technically it does qualify as one. I mean, it's basically a 'hodgepodge' of disparate tunes from a variety of sources (recent singles, UK album tracks unavailable in the US, UK singles, b-sides, et al), but it functions remarkably well as a stand alone album. In fact, it continues to be one of my favorite Stones long players, in that pretty much all of the songs are great, it plays exceptionally well top to bottom, and it captures the Stones in some of their best elements--the Elizabethan folk rock, the baroque pop, and psychedelic pop. Most people don't think the Stones were very good in those genres, but they really were--in fact, they were almost getting too flowery in their song writing, and singles in particular, during this time. I mean, there was an excessive amount of prettiness to much of this album--the title and (dated) cover art--but I think it represents That being said, could we not call "December's Children" a compilation as well? I mean, it checks all the boxes 'Flowers' does, and was released (primarily) to put recent singles "Cloud" and "Tears Go By" on a long player...you didn't do that for the UK market.
Hi Anthony - I love your indepth analysis and writing. It's fantastic and explains many of my feelings....better than I do sometimes. There's such a disparity between the US and UK releases up to Satanic Majesties, that you're so correct in that for the people calling Flowers a compilation, then December's Children could be as well. It's all a bit of a hodgepodge really. But I'm with you in that Flowers is a terrific listen - a really well put together "hodgepodge" that covers a lot of ground and in no way in my mind should be categorized as a compilation. High Tides & Green Grass, Through The Past Darkly - those are compilations (greatest hits). So much on Flowers is still unique to that album...it's an album. For the US market it's just strange because it has Ruby Tuesday and Spend the Night from the previous Between The Buttons, but so what really. I love Decembers Children as well - another hodgepodge (with the low fi live stuff in it too), but man it sure plays well. Anyway thats for your terrific input.
Thanks for the great feedback, I too love writing about and discussing the Stones, as they have been the biggest musical passion in my life. Another note of curiosity regarding "Flowers": I recall some critics trashing them for their cover of 'My Girl'--Dave Marsh, in his first edition of the 'Rolling Stone Record Guide', was particularly hard on the Stones (though he had no problem elevating lesser artists), going as far as to call their 'My Girl' "one of the most embarrassing white soul fiascoes on disc". Really? Once I bought the album and listened shortly thereafter, I didn't see what was so 'embarrassing' about it? Yes, it was a note for note cover of the Temps version, and they did nothing to make the song their own, but beyond a more original attempt, what was so bad about it, beyond it being unnecessary? And yes, the Temps version became one of the signature Motown moments of that era, one has to wonder why the Stones even attempted to cover it.... but there are far worse soul covers in their catalog, if you asked me. I could have always done without Sam Cooke's Good Times, or Can I Get a Witness on the first album--I don't know what anyone was thinking with those choices, as they seemed too poppy, same for Under the Boardwalk--all of which marred what should have been much stronger, tougher studio albums. @@TheAlanRosenbergShow
@@anthonyaswe4174 I think you cover it again so well. I will say for me that My Girl is probably amongst their least interesting covers. As you said - it's just such a straight cover. It's an amazing song of course, so virtually any cover would sound pretty good. But this one is pretty rote. I actually love their cover of Good Times...go figure. But you're right in that these comments would equally apply to their version of Under The Boardwalk. They sure would make later covers their own et al. Just My Imagination, Ain't Too Proud To Beg and more.
Hello Alan, great review on the Stones comps, as usual....it is a mammoth part of their discography, and I've always had a curious relationship with them, in part because I have, in general, found compilation albums to be pretty unsatisfying. I (like you, apparently) grew up in the 'album rock' era, and the stream of 'greatest hits', 'very best of', 'the essential', ad nauseum, seemed okay for the dabbler, but I quickly became obsessed with the Stones in my youth, and thought the best way to experience the music was on the studio albums. Of course the Stones, like many bands of their early era, came up in a market dominated by the 45 single--and you didn't get those songs on studio albums--thus the need for compilations. The thing that disappoints me is that, as big a band as the Stones are, and as essential as their canon is, the best selling title in their catalog (and maybe by far) remains Hot Rocks??? Yes, it is a great stepping stone to the Stones, yes it is an outstanding collection, and I think the best compilation of the lot, but I just think it pigeonholes the Stones into being (mainly) about that 6 year increment--and thus shutting out people to the wealth of other essential content. I discovered it when one of my older sister's friends left it at our house when I was merely 10 years old. I remember looking at the striking cover photo, seeing these dark, brooding, mysterious figures lurking around this decaying castle, they seemed foreboding and slightly dangerous. Even at that time, the songs seem to have this strange pull on me--I couldn't define it at that time, but it had an element I had not experienced in other music. Her friend left the album at our house, fortunately, but it would be a few years before I appropriated it as my own, and began wearing the grooves out, and it remains one I still find an exceptional listen. Yes, it does not include any of their psychedelic material, but that's part of the reason why I have always maintained the "More" collection as an essential set as well. I don't think people continue to buy More Hot Rocks, but they should, as that is an impeccable set, and bookends their early and middle era perfectly. I have always had a personal love affair with "Made in the Shade", and am always surprised at what little regard it gets in their canon. Even serious Stones fans toss it aside as 'unnecessary', and I'm not sure why. It was the first Stones long player I actually bought, scraping up the $5.99 to finally procure it, and there too, I wore the grooves out. Seriously, of the ten songs on that set, 7 of them are among the greatest rock songs of that era, the other 3 are pretty damn good too. I can't complain about that, and it perfectly captures the sound/feel of their early 70s albums. Seriously, I can't listen to a comp when "Tumbling Dice" is followed by "Undercover". As far as the larger, career spanning comps, I just do not consume their music that way. "40 Licks" was okay, but I didn't like the "mixtape" quality of the program, with songs being drastically out of sequence, and the fact that they used the 'single' mixes of the songs, not the proper album versions. Yes, the band needed new product to pair with the huge "Licks" tour, and it was a tasteful retrospect...it just seemed to me too much an attempt to capitalize on the format "1" established the year before (I didn't like that comp, either)--and countless other similar retros followed suit. (And how can we forget that annoying "Duets" format that the industry became obsessed with during that time?? No thanks, to every one and all of them.) I thought "Grrrrr" worked as a great compilation, but it needed to be the 4 disc version--and you only got that with the massive box set, which I did not buy because it was cost prohibitive. They could have made it a 4 disc deluxe set, without having to spend well over 3 figures for the huge box with all of that 'swag', most of which really isn't that interesting. I mean, I love those IBC demos and the early live stuff, but those should be given a special release all their own. As for the numerous single disc comps, I generally pass. 'Rewind', "Jump Back" "Honk"??? All I have to say is "Whaaaaat???" The 'Big Hits' sets were outstanding, particularly the first one, with it's beautiful photography and striking gatefold--a real coup for the Stones in early 1966, but I rarely put them on. (Interesting though, is how different the UK versions of those comps are compared to their US counterparts.) I am surprised to hear how much you like 'Metamorphosis'...maybe I need to relisten to it, but again, I always had a problem with Abkco (let alone Decca) comps, and I'm not sure what their motivation was with that release, nor the questionable cover art. As for "London Years", I was very glad that Stones got such a sprawling, premium box around the same time the industry was becoming flooded with these doorstops. I think a collection like that comes down to 'sound', and it's been a while since I listened to it. I REALLY like the Abkco box sets "The Singles", which was first issued on CD around the time 'Bigger Bang' came out, in three volumes. A 7-inch vinyl version of the same has come out recently, and I love the recreations of those great sides. But I really have a problem with Abkco, in that they, by virtue of the publishing stranglehold they continue to exert over the Stones catalog, get absolutely no reciprocation from the Stones themselves on any of these releases. And the finished products suffer because of it.
Wow. This is comprehensive..and I just got home from work. The first two Stones albums I ever heard and got courtesy of my older sister were Sticky Fingers and Hot Rocks. Goats Head Soup was the first I bought when it came out. I saw the Stones live for the first time in 1975 - when they released Made In The Shade and Abkco did Metamorphosis. At that time Hots Rocks was the epitome. I quickly bought More Hot Rocks, and as you said, it's the perfect compliment. I was always surprised, as you said that Hot Rocks continues to sell to this date in such huge quantities but More Hot Rocks, and really all the other comps do not. No doubt that Hot Rocks is the ultimate comp listen for its time period, but it is so limited. The endless variety of comps released since have never caught on to the general public as has Hot Rocks - it's a mystery to me as well, except it's still a perfect listen. Maybe that's the answer. As for me, well Made in The Shade is super special for you, because it was your first. Sure its a great listen, but even for me - I bought it when it first came out and saw the Stones live at that time, it's not an essential comp. Certainly not today with it's running time. Personally I pretty much never listen to the Stones comps. I'm an album guy. Even Hot Rocks virtually never gets played. I would be way more apt to play More Hot Rocks. And interestingly the remastered Abkco More Hot Rocks is the only Stones album to officially get bonus tracks which were nice. The only Stones comp I still put on, on occasion, is Sucking In The 70's. Like Made In The Shade, it's kind of a strange mix of songs - but goes deeper with some unreleased stuff. Hate the "single" mixes though. Rarities was an interesting one as well. I have, as you saw, the immense expensive GRRR - listened to it once. The live stuff on Honk was nice to have but really not great or essential either. So I buy them all, listen to them rarely. Nothing beats the albums for me. Thanks.
Yes, looking at it objectively, I guess there are legit reservations regarding the value of 'Made in the Shade' ...again, I just look at the songs, and a short, punchy snapshot containing that many great songs (several among the best from any artist during that era), and I still think its great. I know a lot of Beatles fans who feel the same way about the 'Hey Jude' album, which is equally unnecessary and suffers from the same short comings, in that all of the material is available in better contexts--but the songs themselves are all great. Also, I neglected to mention 'Rarities'...I love the album and it remains a great listen, though it is hardly the 'trip through the vaults' most Stones fans were hoping for which such a title. I mean, only a few titles on that set had never been released before on an album or CD, and they are all great. But for a straight 50 minute listen, one can do a lot worse. @@TheAlanRosenbergShow
@@anthonyaswe4174 yep. Agree with you totally. Another one is Time Waits For No One. Another fairly useless collection that is an excellent listen because of the songs though not a fan of the single edits.
Interesting video, hoping they were ranked or graded. 414 albums! Either lotta bootlegs, duplicate copies (vinyl/CD), other? Maybe do their DVDs if not already made.
Thanks. I haven't done a video on their DVD's / laserdiscs, VHS - nice idea - thanks. As of today, Stones albums is at exactly 440, so it's grown. Yea - every official studio, live album, most compilations (missing some of those UK Klein releases), lots of bootlegs and yes vinyl, CD, remastered CD, deluxe editions. But not multiple copies of same editions - must be different record label or brand new remaster with bonus etc.
Hi Alan, I live in the U.K, we had different track lists to the U.S counterpart’s.High Tides.. & Darkly were my first Stones purchases. Rolled Gold, and Made In The Shade, were well received.Can you confirm that the version of ‘Gimme Shelter’ from the Decca compilation of the same name (which included some Albert Hall live material on its B side) has the piano at a higher level,than the regular album version?
Hi - so I just got home from work and I've never heard that before - so for you, I just played Gimme Shelter on the Abkco CD SACD disc vs Gimme Shelter on the vinyl Gimme Shelter Decca compilation album. First of all on both versions, to me Nicky Hopkins piano is so buried in the mix, you really don't hear it at all throughout the whole song. Where's the piano - I don't really hear it...until the end. On the CD, I only really hear some slight tinkling at the end, some loose notes. I hear that on the Decca vinyl as well, but I do think their are a couple of extra tinkling piano notes on the Decca vinyl album. It's pretty minor of course, but I would say yea, the piano at the very end is slightly higher in the mix so I hear some tinkling. If there is an expert out there with better ears, let me know. Interesting though...I've never heard that brought up before.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow thanks, I haven’t heard the Decca ‘Gimme Shelter’ album for years. It’s keenly priced so I may reacquaint myself. My Uncle had it on 8 track.
@@LEEFORDJAGG Probaby not. I have a lot of SACD's and they do sound great. I especially enjoy the 5.1 surround sound SACD's. But today there is now Atmos mixes and surround sound on DVD's and Blu-ray. The SACDs are fun to have but not really necessary in today's world.
Do have several of the "best of"/compilations, but not as many as you have. Hot Rocks, a must have if you only care about the '60s Stones (with a couple of 1971 songs thrown in because of when they were actually recorded - Allen Klein, bless his litigious heart, said he owned publishing rights to those songs - being written/recorded in 1969). When I started buying their albums, I stopped buying compilations, but bought a few here and there (both vinyl and CD). I did buy the super deluxe GRRR box set (2 copies - both still unopened).
You bought two super deluxe GRRR boxes and still sealed. Probably a good investment. I never ever see them out in the wild. And although I never listen to it - so big and unwieldy - it's a pretty awesome box when I do look at it. Thanks.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow Bought off EBAY for, I guess, more than the original price. I'm happy. I bought the set because of the 1963 IBC recordings before they had a record deal with Decca.
40 Licks still works well for me. Gotta be careful which version you puck up. There was a version released later had a remix of Sympathy in place of the original, has a blue tongue.
Thanks - I didn't know that. I have that big super deluxe size boxset and the normal 2 CD version - also have a promo disc called Four New licks. I'll never want to listen to it, but i may have to pick it up for completion purposes at some point.
Hot Rocks is a perfect introduction to the early Stones 64-71. 2CD's but the whole 2cd add up to like 90 minutes. The 2 CD's of Hot Rocks is 21 songs. 40 Licks has 40 songs but CD 1 of it has 20 songs. 40 Licks has: The Last Time, Not Fade Away, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby?, She's A Rainbow, It's All Over Now - none of those are on Hot Rocks. Hot Rocks has Time Is On My Side, Heart of Stone, Play With Fire, As Tears Go By, Midnight Rambler (Live) and Wild Horses (not on 40 Licks). so to me.....drumroll......I go with Hot Rocks. Hope that helps.
@@FuturePast2019 whoops - sorry - yes Wild Horses is on Forty Licks...my bad. If memory serves, I think I remember some of the songs on Forty Licks are edits so they can fit 40 songs on 2 CD's. Hot Rocks all full length.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow No edits on CD 1, only on CD2, which is just bonus when we compare 40 Licks to Hot Rocks. 🙂 I'm a hard core fan... More Hot Rocks starts with Tell Me... Not Fade Away. Very strange. I have them both on SACD
@@FuturePast2019 Love More Hot Rocks. I actually haven't listened to Hot Rocks in over a decade - no need. I never listen to 40 Licks, Grrr or Honk either. I'm mostly an albums guy, though some of the more off the wall Stones comps I'll put on. Still love Metamorphosis, but it was one of my first Stones purchases when it first came out, so pretty special for me.
Slight edit: I mean, there was an excessive amount of prettiness to much of this album--the title and (dated) cover art most obviously--but I think it represents some of their best efforts of these styles.
Alan I don't know if you get Goldmine magazine but they have a big article in the new edition on the Stones 1967.Kansas is on the cover it's the April/May edition
Thanks for the tip. Very rarely, but Goldmine has done a great job in rebranding their magazine. I actually bought the last one with the Allman Brothers - was a great mag - took me like a week to read it was so encompassing. Thanks again for the Tip. I used to subscribe to it back in the day when it was like a huge newspaper, filled with ad. Glad it's still around and hope it will be successful in this challenging print environment.
@@thomaswery3087 Probably the same reason why I have hundreds of original Creem, Circus, Hit Parader, Crawdaddy and Classic Rock magazines....though I do still go back and read them. Those old Goldmine are really big though lol
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow i do still have some circus mag from '72.'73 and '74 like reading the reviews when they cut down an album that went to no. 1 for about 10 weeks lol
Hi Alan...based on a recent comment on some other video of yours, I was inspired to dig up Sucking in the Seventies, and have come away with a slightly different feel for the comp. First off, it still....sucks. I mean, even back then, as young as I was, I was of the impression that they wanted to release something that "sucked"--playing on the popular misconception that the Stones sucked in their second decade, hence the pandering title, cryptic cover art, curious song selection (if they really wanted to cash in on their recent popularity, how could they NOT include Miss You???). And it showed in the charting of the album, in that it became the first Stones US release to not crack the top 10. This upset me as a young man, and it shaded my opinion of the album--forever. Upon relistening to the Virgin CD pressing, I've got to say that it could have been (or still could be?) a great Stones snapshot comp, but thanks largely to the drastically shortened versions of the songs, it remains bad. Hot Stuff, Time Waits, Fool to Cry, Crazy Mama, Beast of Bourbon are all GREAT songs--that lose something when each is shortened by more than a minute to 1:40 in some cases...and I don't know why? Was this done by Bob Clearmountain, the premier mixer/engineer of the day, to allow groove space on vinyl sides?? The previously unreleased songs (Turning to Gold, If I was a Dancer, Whip Comes Down-Live) are all great, in fact were they side by side with the "full" versions of those other singles and deep cuts, I think it would be an outstanding collection, however dubious it remains. It may not sound like much on the surface, but those edits really hurt those great songs--they lose the drawn out grooves that established much of the Stones classic sound, as in the opening of Crazy Mama and the solo interludes of Hot Stuff and Beast of Bourbon, and shortened one of their greatest fadeouts, in Mick Taylor's majestic Time Waits for No One. You know, they could do a proper "deluxe" redux of this album, and I think it could be quite good. Just expand the songs to their original times, and delve deeper into the iceberg of unreleased stuff from this era, and I think you could easily come up with a treasure trove of 2 CDs worth of music that would demonstrate, quite clearly, that the Stones DID NOT suck in the 70s.
I completely agree with everything you said. My general point is that as a huge Stones fan who loves their actual studio albums, I rarely ever play the compilation / greatest hits albums. Most of the songs I know so well that they're not my go-go songs. So when it comes to playing the Stones, the only compilations I typically go for are the more "interesting" ones. Unfortunately many of the Stones compilations edit the songs to the "singles" lengths or in the case of Time Waits For No One, and others, just editing them, always for the worse. Time Waits For No One (which is also an interesting UK compilation that I also play and also edited) is my #1 Stones go-to song so yea, it's a bit heartbreaking to hear the drastic cuts on Sucking In The 70's. But with all that said, when it comes to playing Stones comps - I do play and really enjoy Sucking In The 70's, as well as the Time Waits For No One comp and somewhat the Rarities album. Metamorphosis is an all time favorite of mine, but that's it's own ball of wax. So I agree, yet disagree, in that I do really enjoy playing it. They'll never reissue it again with the full length tracks, but they should've with the expanded length of CD's there's no reason they shouldn't.
Grrr went OOP rather quick, Abkco issue perhaps? The London Singles 3 cd set is a fave of mine (I have the more compact version in the fatboy case), hard to believe that Under My Thumb and Gimme Shelter were not released as singles.
I feel like those later day greatest hits - 40 Licks, Grrr, Honk - were put out for their respective tours. I don't know if any of them are still in print. I never listen to them, but of course they suckered me into buying different versions - configurations. Thought the Honk with live tracks was at least different. Yea a lot of those classics weren't singles.... at least back in the day - Sympathy For The Devil, Can't Always Get What You Want was a B-side.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow I have the same Russian pressings rock n Rolling Stones and mile stones I got no stone unturned the only ones I don’t have are the to big box sets the Mick Taylor years and Ron Wood years
@@mikebarooshian7255 very cool. Those Russian pressings are fun. The only way to get some of those decca comps and they did do interesting bonus tracks. And the gold out booklets are very well done with label pictures etc. I do tend to stay away from the Russian pirated real Stones albums as I have them multiple times already and Abkco did such a great job on those.
I had no idea the band has that many compilations. Some stunning stuff too. I grew up in the 60s and one of the first lps I bought with money not easy for a poor kid to rustle up was Big Hits: High Tide and Green Grass. I loved everything about that record, and still consider it one of the best compilations ever. Certainly it’s one of my all time favorites. I’ve loved their music ever since. Wishing they could put out out one more record of original material, one last hurrah. Still, if they don’t, I’m a happy man for having them throughout my life. Great video, Alan.
Thanks so much for watching and your great comment. Love how you saved up your money to buy an album (Big Hits). I can relate. Music was so much more important back then, and saving your money to go to a record store, and search the racks to buy an album and bringing it home. I still have memories of it (and I still do it...lol). Thanks again.
As a super fan of The Rolling Stones (my # 1 band), I’m blown away by your collection of 414 Stones albums AND by your knowledge of what seems like every aspect of the band. You’ve done a great job in highlighting what’s special about each of the nearly 30 compilation albums you’ve featured in this video. As you pointed out, each of the compilation albums offers listeners something different, even if some songs appear on multiple albums. There are the alternative versions of the same song, the live versions and the duet versions that you mentioned. For those of us whose fandom runs very deep, The Stones have given us albums that focus on deep cuts, or B sides, or rarities, or demos, or kick-ass covers, or previously-unreleased songs, or recordings that represent different periods of The Rolling Stones’ history. The band (or its record labels) has made sure that its most fervent followers can get “whatever they want” from its massive oeuvre. And for more casual fans, the band has covered all the bases to provide ideal entryways to the most well-known roads leading to The Rolling Stones’ one-of-a-kind place in music history.
So well said. There’s definitely some overkill but in general they’ve done a really good job.
Saved to play list. It's a really useful one to know most don't cover.
Thanks so much.
I recently discovered your Vlogs prior to the release of “Hackney Diamonds “ and have since subscribed to your RUclips channel.
I’ve been a Rolling Stones “aficionado” since they released “Satisfaction” in Spring 1965. 💝
Thanks for sharing your collection. 🙏 I enjoyed your presentation. 👍👍👍
Thanks so much. Really appreciate it. Coming from a big Stones fan since 1965 that does mean alot. Thanks again
Very cool video! Liked seeing what made each of these compilations unique.
Thank you so much I really appreciate it
Through The Past Darkly along with Out Of Our Heads, Flowers, and Between The Buttons were in our house before I started to buy records. The first purchases I made was Hot Rocks and Made In The Shade a couple of months before I saw them live in '75. I've never seen or heard of The Mick Taylor Years or 1975 Onwards box sets before but I do have the Virgin remastered dics individually. Those box sets are fantastic!
Yes those boxes are beautiful but don’t fret. It’s the same virgin CDs and that’s the best part.
All I can say is WOW!!!!!
Thanks so much again.
Hi Alan I like your sweatshirt Alan. The Rolling Stones have been phenomenal in their output. I remember their first songs on the radio airwaves back in the 1960s. They were a part of the British pop invasion of America. I didn't buy any records of theirs except Black and Blue in 1976. I like the song Hot Stuff on it. Some Girls is a good album from 1978. It contained hit singles like Faraway Eyes and Respectable. And here they are today still performing. Incredible. They have made a huge contribution to pop/ rock music.
Thanks Carl. I started with Hot Rocks and Sticky Fingers. The first album I bought when it first came out was Goats Head Soup.
The first Stones comp album I bought was "Through the past darkly" in the mid-70's which was a tribute to Brian Jones who had died not long before that release. Most of the 70s comp albums I bought on vinyl back then or the early 80s exception being "Hot rocks" released by ABKO which was owned by Allen Klein and for some reason was out of print from the mid-70s onwards but reappeared on CD later.. Something fishy was going on there! Still love your selection
Thanks so much. Amazing that many of the best Stones songs were just singles like JJ Flash and Honky Tonk Women. So they put out those early comps like Through The Past Darkly so they were on an album. Were different times. Obviously a great compilation album.
Thanks@@TheAlanRosenbergShow
This was very interesting Alan.I have almost everything you have.The Singles Collection The London Years is also one of my favorite box sets and like you have both of them lol.I have the singles in three boxes but they're only from 1963-71.I have the big Grrrr box set also no.7533.I loved the Stones since there inseption.I even broke down and got the Mono albums in colored vinyl didn't really need it but being a collector you know how that goes.I also always thought Goats Head Soup was very underrated one of my favorites for sure.Have a good night Alan
Thanks so much - I can't believe I forgot to show The Stones in Mono box and I have those three "smaller" singles boxes as well. Oh well. Obviously you're a tremendous Stones collector as well - which is awesome. That big Grrr box is so big, I never listen to it. To unwieldy....lol. Thanks so much. Have a great night and thanks for watching and commenting.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow I just ordered the box set of singles thanks Alan lol
@@thomaswery3087 that’s fantastic. Didn’t know it was still available. Great purchase.
Super great video!!! I was wondering if you can do The Rolling Stone Live stuff? Your videos is like a dictionary lots of reference.
Thank you so much. Great idea. Yea I can do an official Stones Live releases video. If I get into bootlegs that's a huge rabbit hole. But the official stuff is manageable. Thanks so much.
Hi Alan, I like your collection, it’s awesome. Myself being a huge Stones fan I own a lot of stuff on my fave band such as lps, cds, concert t’s,
bootleg cds & dvds. My bootleg collection is pretty interesting & big.
That’s awesome
Hi Alan
Nice & interesting video.
For Stones novices I always recommend “Grrr...” (3 CD version). Not alone does it span their whole career, it also gives a nice insight in the bands musical development. On as little as 3 CD’s...impressing.
For people asking for the bands absolute best stuff I recommend “Hot Rocks”/ “More Hot Rocks” covering the years when The Stones peaked creatively and as musicians.
I also love “Flowers”. It’s basically bits & pieces from a period of one and a half year. But it was a time when the band progressed very fast musically, so it’s impressing what a great and fairly coherent album they got out of it.
If I remember correctly “Flowers” wasn’t released in Europe until many years later because there was too many repeats from the UK releases of the bands albums. The American music industry followed the “Beatles approach” and cut some tracks out of the albums for later use...
Yes, exactly. Flowers is considered by most as a compilation, but I don't really consider it one. So many unique songs on it, that to me, it's stands as an original release. Definitely an album for Stones fans vs newbies to me anyway. Agree with you on the comps, you mentioned. I pretty much started with Hot Rocks / More Hot Rocks / Sticky Fingers / Goats Head Soup / Get Your Ya Ya's Out and I was off and running.
This helps me find new stones
Awesome. Thanks for watching, and commenting. Really appreciate it.
Hello Alan....once again, great review that I will have to comment more in depthly on in due course, as there is such a wealth of compilations to consider. I too DO NOT consider Flowers a compilation album, though technically it does qualify as one. I mean, it's basically a 'hodgepodge' of disparate tunes from a variety of sources (recent singles, UK album tracks unavailable in the US, UK singles, b-sides, et al), but it functions remarkably well as a stand alone album. In fact, it continues to be one of my favorite Stones long players, in that pretty much all of the songs are great, it plays exceptionally well top to bottom, and it captures the Stones in some of their best elements--the Elizabethan folk rock, the baroque pop, and psychedelic pop. Most people don't think the Stones were very good in those genres, but they really were--in fact, they were almost getting too flowery in their song writing, and singles in particular, during this time. I mean, there was an excessive amount of prettiness to much of this album--the title and (dated) cover art--but I think it represents
That being said, could we not call "December's Children" a compilation as well? I mean, it checks all the boxes 'Flowers' does, and was released (primarily) to put recent singles "Cloud" and "Tears Go By" on a long player...you didn't do that for the UK market.
Hi Anthony - I love your indepth analysis and writing. It's fantastic and explains many of my feelings....better than I do sometimes. There's such a disparity between the US and UK releases up to Satanic Majesties, that you're so correct in that for the people calling Flowers a compilation, then December's Children could be as well. It's all a bit of a hodgepodge really. But I'm with you in that Flowers is a terrific listen - a really well put together "hodgepodge" that covers a lot of ground and in no way in my mind should be categorized as a compilation. High Tides & Green Grass, Through The Past Darkly - those are compilations (greatest hits). So much on Flowers is still unique to that album...it's an album. For the US market it's just strange because it has Ruby Tuesday and Spend the Night from the previous Between The Buttons, but so what really. I love Decembers Children as well - another hodgepodge (with the low fi live stuff in it too), but man it sure plays well. Anyway thats for your terrific input.
Thanks for the great feedback, I too love writing about and discussing the Stones, as they have been the biggest musical passion in my life. Another note of curiosity regarding "Flowers": I recall some critics trashing them for their cover of 'My Girl'--Dave Marsh, in his first edition of the 'Rolling Stone Record Guide', was particularly hard on the Stones (though he had no problem elevating lesser artists), going as far as to call their 'My Girl' "one of the most embarrassing white soul fiascoes on disc". Really? Once I bought the album and listened shortly thereafter, I didn't see what was so 'embarrassing' about it? Yes, it was a note for note cover of the Temps version, and they did nothing to make the song their own, but beyond a more original attempt, what was so bad about it, beyond it being unnecessary? And yes, the Temps version became one of the signature Motown moments of that era, one has to wonder why the Stones even attempted to cover it.... but there are far worse soul covers in their catalog, if you asked me. I could have always done without Sam Cooke's Good Times, or Can I Get a Witness on the first album--I don't know what anyone was thinking with those choices, as they seemed too poppy, same for Under the Boardwalk--all of which marred what should have been much stronger, tougher studio albums. @@TheAlanRosenbergShow
@@anthonyaswe4174 I think you cover it again so well. I will say for me that My Girl is probably amongst their least interesting covers. As you said - it's just such a straight cover. It's an amazing song of course, so virtually any cover would sound pretty good. But this one is pretty rote. I actually love their cover of Good Times...go figure. But you're right in that these comments would equally apply to their version of Under The Boardwalk. They sure would make later covers their own et al. Just My Imagination, Ain't Too Proud To Beg and more.
Hello Alan, great review on the Stones comps, as usual....it is a mammoth part of their discography, and I've always had a curious relationship with them, in part because I have, in general, found compilation albums to be pretty unsatisfying. I (like you, apparently) grew up in the 'album rock' era, and the stream of 'greatest hits', 'very best of', 'the essential', ad nauseum, seemed okay for the dabbler, but I quickly became obsessed with the Stones in my youth, and thought the best way to experience the music was on the studio albums. Of course the Stones, like many bands of their early era, came up in a market dominated by the 45 single--and you didn't get those songs on studio albums--thus the need for compilations. The thing that disappoints me is that, as big a band as the Stones are, and as essential as their canon is, the best selling title in their catalog (and maybe by far) remains Hot Rocks??? Yes, it is a great stepping stone to the Stones, yes it is an outstanding collection, and I think the best compilation of the lot, but I just think it pigeonholes the Stones into being (mainly) about that 6 year increment--and thus shutting out people to the wealth of other essential content.
I discovered it when one of my older sister's friends left it at our house when I was merely 10 years old. I remember looking at the striking cover photo, seeing these dark, brooding, mysterious figures lurking around this decaying castle, they seemed foreboding and slightly dangerous. Even at that time, the songs seem to have this strange pull on me--I couldn't define it at that time, but it had an element I had not experienced in other music. Her friend left the album at our house, fortunately, but it would be a few years before I appropriated it as my own, and began wearing the grooves out, and it remains one I still find an exceptional listen. Yes, it does not include any of their psychedelic material, but that's part of the reason why I have always maintained the "More" collection as an essential set as well. I don't think people continue to buy More Hot Rocks, but they should, as that is an impeccable set, and bookends their early and middle era perfectly.
I have always had a personal love affair with "Made in the Shade", and am always surprised at what little regard it gets in their canon. Even serious Stones fans toss it aside as 'unnecessary', and I'm not sure why. It was the first Stones long player I actually bought, scraping up the $5.99 to finally procure it, and there too, I wore the grooves out. Seriously, of the ten songs on that set, 7 of them are among the greatest rock songs of that era, the other 3 are pretty damn good too. I can't complain about that, and it perfectly captures the sound/feel of their early 70s albums. Seriously, I can't listen to a comp when "Tumbling Dice" is followed by "Undercover".
As far as the larger, career spanning comps, I just do not consume their music that way. "40 Licks" was okay, but I didn't like the "mixtape" quality of the program, with songs being drastically out of sequence, and the fact that they used the 'single' mixes of the songs, not the proper album versions. Yes, the band needed new product to pair with the huge "Licks" tour, and it was a tasteful retrospect...it just seemed to me too much an attempt to capitalize on the format "1" established the year before (I didn't like that comp, either)--and countless other similar retros followed suit. (And how can we forget that annoying "Duets" format that the industry became obsessed with during that time?? No thanks, to every one and all of them.) I thought "Grrrrr" worked as a great compilation, but it needed to be the 4 disc version--and you only got that with the massive box set, which I did not buy because it was cost prohibitive. They could have made it a 4 disc deluxe set, without having to spend well over 3 figures for the huge box with all of that 'swag', most of which really isn't that interesting. I mean, I love those IBC demos and the early live stuff, but those should be given a special release all their own.
As for the numerous single disc comps, I generally pass. 'Rewind', "Jump Back" "Honk"??? All I have to say is "Whaaaaat???" The 'Big Hits' sets were outstanding, particularly the first one, with it's beautiful photography and striking gatefold--a real coup for the Stones in early 1966, but I rarely put them on. (Interesting though, is how different the UK versions of those comps are compared to their US counterparts.) I am surprised to hear how much you like 'Metamorphosis'...maybe I need to relisten to it, but again, I always had a problem with Abkco (let alone Decca) comps, and I'm not sure what their motivation was with that release, nor the questionable cover art.
As for "London Years", I was very glad that Stones got such a sprawling, premium box around the same time the industry was becoming flooded with these doorstops. I think a collection like that comes down to 'sound', and it's been a while since I listened to it. I REALLY like the Abkco box sets "The Singles", which was first issued on CD around the time 'Bigger Bang' came out, in three volumes. A 7-inch vinyl version of the same has come out recently, and I love the recreations of those great sides. But I really have a problem with Abkco, in that they, by virtue of the publishing stranglehold they continue to exert over the Stones catalog, get absolutely no reciprocation from the Stones themselves on any of these releases. And the finished products suffer because of it.
Wow. This is comprehensive..and I just got home from work. The first two Stones albums I ever heard and got courtesy of my older sister were Sticky Fingers and Hot Rocks. Goats Head Soup was the first I bought when it came out. I saw the Stones live for the first time in 1975 - when they released Made In The Shade and Abkco did Metamorphosis. At that time Hots Rocks was the epitome. I quickly bought More Hot Rocks, and as you said, it's the perfect compliment. I was always surprised, as you said that Hot Rocks continues to sell to this date in such huge quantities but More Hot Rocks, and really all the other comps do not. No doubt that Hot Rocks is the ultimate comp listen for its time period, but it is so limited. The endless variety of comps released since have never caught on to the general public as has Hot Rocks - it's a mystery to me as well, except it's still a perfect listen. Maybe that's the answer. As for me, well Made in The Shade is super special for you, because it was your first. Sure its a great listen, but even for me - I bought it when it first came out and saw the Stones live at that time, it's not an essential comp. Certainly not today with it's running time. Personally I pretty much never listen to the Stones comps. I'm an album guy. Even Hot Rocks virtually never gets played. I would be way more apt to play More Hot Rocks. And interestingly the remastered Abkco More Hot Rocks is the only Stones album to officially get bonus tracks which were nice. The only Stones comp I still put on, on occasion, is Sucking In The 70's. Like Made In The Shade, it's kind of a strange mix of songs - but goes deeper with some unreleased stuff. Hate the "single" mixes though. Rarities was an interesting one as well. I have, as you saw, the immense expensive GRRR - listened to it once. The live stuff on Honk was nice to have but really not great or essential either. So I buy them all, listen to them rarely. Nothing beats the albums for me. Thanks.
Yes, looking at it objectively, I guess there are legit reservations regarding the value of 'Made in the Shade' ...again, I just look at the songs, and a short, punchy snapshot containing that many great songs (several among the best from any artist during that era), and I still think its great. I know a lot of Beatles fans who feel the same way about the 'Hey Jude' album, which is equally unnecessary and suffers from the same short comings, in that all of the material is available in better contexts--but the songs themselves are all great. Also, I neglected to mention 'Rarities'...I love the album and it remains a great listen, though it is hardly the 'trip through the vaults' most Stones fans were hoping for which such a title. I mean, only a few titles on that set had never been released before on an album or CD, and they are all great. But for a straight 50 minute listen, one can do a lot worse. @@TheAlanRosenbergShow
@@anthonyaswe4174 yep. Agree with you totally. Another one is Time Waits For No One. Another fairly useless collection that is an excellent listen because of the songs though not a fan of the single edits.
Interesting video, hoping they were ranked or graded. 414 albums! Either lotta bootlegs, duplicate copies (vinyl/CD), other? Maybe do their DVDs if not already made.
Thanks. I haven't done a video on their DVD's / laserdiscs, VHS - nice idea - thanks. As of today, Stones albums is at exactly 440, so it's grown. Yea - every official studio, live album, most compilations (missing some of those UK Klein releases), lots of bootlegs and yes vinyl, CD, remastered CD, deluxe editions. But not multiple copies of same editions - must be different record label or brand new remaster with bonus etc.
Hi Alan, I live in the U.K, we had different track lists to the U.S counterpart’s.High Tides.. & Darkly were my first Stones purchases. Rolled Gold, and Made In The Shade, were well received.Can you confirm that the version of ‘Gimme Shelter’ from the Decca compilation of the same name (which included some Albert Hall live material on its B side) has the piano at a higher level,than the regular album version?
Hi - so I just got home from work and I've never heard that before - so for you, I just played Gimme Shelter on the Abkco CD SACD disc vs Gimme Shelter on the vinyl Gimme Shelter Decca compilation album. First of all on both versions, to me Nicky Hopkins piano is so buried in the mix, you really don't hear it at all throughout the whole song. Where's the piano - I don't really hear it...until the end. On the CD, I only really hear some slight tinkling at the end, some loose notes. I hear that on the Decca vinyl as well, but I do think their are a couple of extra tinkling piano notes on the Decca vinyl album. It's pretty minor of course, but I would say yea, the piano at the very end is slightly higher in the mix so I hear some tinkling. If there is an expert out there with better ears, let me know. Interesting though...I've never heard that brought up before.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow thanks, I haven’t heard the Decca ‘Gimme Shelter’ album for years. It’s keenly priced so I may reacquaint myself. My Uncle had it on 8 track.
@@LEEFORDJAGG It's certainly not a particular "great" album, but interesting. I guess in some ways cool to have though.
Is it worth me buying a SACD player? What exactly sounds better in comparison to the regular mixes? I don’t own any other SACD by other artists.
@@LEEFORDJAGG Probaby not. I have a lot of SACD's and they do sound great. I especially enjoy the 5.1 surround sound SACD's. But today there is now Atmos mixes and surround sound on DVD's and Blu-ray. The SACDs are fun to have but not really necessary in today's world.
Do have several of the "best of"/compilations, but not as many as you have. Hot Rocks, a must have if you only care about the '60s Stones (with a couple of 1971 songs thrown in because of when they were actually recorded - Allen Klein, bless his litigious heart, said he owned publishing rights to those songs - being written/recorded in 1969). When I started buying their albums, I stopped buying compilations, but bought a few here and there (both vinyl and CD). I did buy the super deluxe GRRR box set (2 copies - both still unopened).
You bought two super deluxe GRRR boxes and still sealed. Probably a good investment. I never ever see them out in the wild. And although I never listen to it - so big and unwieldy - it's a pretty awesome box when I do look at it. Thanks.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow Bought off EBAY for, I guess, more than the original price. I'm happy. I bought the set because of the 1963 IBC recordings before they had a record deal with Decca.
@@noahbody9747 those are great recordings of course.
40 Licks still works well for me.
Gotta be careful which version you puck up.
There was a version released later had a remix of Sympathy in place of the original, has a blue tongue.
Thanks - I didn't know that. I have that big super deluxe size boxset and the normal 2 CD version - also have a promo disc called Four New licks. I'll never want to listen to it, but i may have to pick it up for completion purposes at some point.
I was listening to Roxy Music and David Bowie and then Punk Rock in the mid to late 1970s.
I’m a huge Bowie fan. Not so much Roxy though.
Which compilation is better; Hot Rocks or Forty Licks CD 1 (Brown Sugar is on CD2)? Yes, both are 2CD compilations 🙂
Hot Rocks is a perfect introduction to the early Stones 64-71. 2CD's but the whole 2cd add up to like 90 minutes. The 2 CD's of Hot Rocks is 21 songs. 40 Licks has 40 songs but CD 1 of it has 20 songs. 40 Licks has: The Last Time, Not Fade Away, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby?, She's A Rainbow, It's All Over Now - none of those are on Hot Rocks. Hot Rocks has Time Is On My Side, Heart of Stone, Play With Fire, As Tears Go By, Midnight Rambler (Live) and Wild Horses (not on 40 Licks). so to me.....drumroll......I go with Hot Rocks. Hope that helps.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow Wild Horses? CD1. The good thing / strange thing about Hot Rocks... Chronological /Starts with a "slow" cover song
@@FuturePast2019 whoops - sorry - yes Wild Horses is on Forty Licks...my bad. If memory serves, I think I remember some of the songs on Forty Licks are edits so they can fit 40 songs on 2 CD's. Hot Rocks all full length.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow No edits on CD 1, only on CD2, which is just bonus when we compare 40 Licks to Hot Rocks. 🙂
I'm a hard core fan...
More Hot Rocks starts with Tell Me... Not Fade Away. Very strange. I have them both on SACD
@@FuturePast2019 Love More Hot Rocks. I actually haven't listened to Hot Rocks in over a decade - no need. I never listen to 40 Licks, Grrr or Honk either. I'm mostly an albums guy, though some of the more off the wall Stones comps I'll put on. Still love Metamorphosis, but it was one of my first Stones purchases when it first came out, so pretty special for me.
Slight edit:
I mean, there was an excessive amount of prettiness to much of this album--the title and (dated) cover art most obviously--but I think it represents some of their best efforts of these styles.
Got it!
Alan I don't know if you get Goldmine magazine but they have a big article in the new edition on the Stones 1967.Kansas is on the cover it's the April/May edition
Thanks for the tip. Very rarely, but Goldmine has done a great job in rebranding their magazine. I actually bought the last one with the Allman Brothers - was a great mag - took me like a week to read it was so encompassing. Thanks again for the Tip. I used to subscribe to it back in the day when it was like a huge newspaper, filled with ad. Glad it's still around and hope it will be successful in this challenging print environment.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow I still have alot of those old goldmines.I don't know why I'm saving them
@@thomaswery3087 Probably the same reason why I have hundreds of original Creem, Circus, Hit Parader, Crawdaddy and Classic Rock magazines....though I do still go back and read them. Those old Goldmine are really big though lol
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow i do still have some circus mag from '72.'73 and '74 like reading the reviews when they cut down an album that went to no. 1 for about 10 weeks lol
@@thomaswery3087 Yes - fun to see those old original reviews and how opinions have changed over the decades.
Where’d you get that sweater?
lol - I actually bought that from the Stones website years ago. I don't wear it much...but I love it...lol
ps...it's a sweatshirt.
Hi Alan...based on a recent comment on some other video of yours, I was inspired to dig up Sucking in the Seventies, and have come away with a slightly different feel for the comp. First off, it still....sucks. I mean, even back then, as young as I was, I was of the impression that they wanted to release something that "sucked"--playing on the popular misconception that the Stones sucked in their second decade, hence the pandering title, cryptic cover art, curious song selection (if they really wanted to cash in on their recent popularity, how could they NOT include Miss You???). And it showed in the charting of the album, in that it became the first Stones US release to not crack the top 10. This upset me as a young man, and it shaded my opinion of the album--forever.
Upon relistening to the Virgin CD pressing, I've got to say that it could have been (or still could be?) a great Stones snapshot comp, but thanks largely to the drastically shortened versions of the songs, it remains bad. Hot Stuff, Time Waits, Fool to Cry, Crazy Mama, Beast of Bourbon are all GREAT songs--that lose something when each is shortened by more than a minute to 1:40 in some cases...and I don't know why? Was this done by Bob Clearmountain, the premier mixer/engineer of the day, to allow groove space on vinyl sides?? The previously unreleased songs (Turning to Gold, If I was a Dancer, Whip Comes Down-Live) are all great, in fact were they side by side with the "full" versions of those other singles and deep cuts, I think it would be an outstanding collection, however dubious it remains. It may not sound like much on the surface, but those edits really hurt those great songs--they lose the drawn out grooves that established much of the Stones classic sound, as in the opening of Crazy Mama and the solo interludes of Hot Stuff and Beast of Bourbon, and shortened one of their greatest fadeouts, in Mick Taylor's majestic Time Waits for No One.
You know, they could do a proper "deluxe" redux of this album, and I think it could be quite good. Just expand the songs to their original times, and delve deeper into the iceberg of unreleased stuff from this era, and I think you could easily come up with a treasure trove of 2 CDs worth of music that would demonstrate, quite clearly, that the Stones DID NOT suck in the 70s.
I completely agree with everything you said. My general point is that as a huge Stones fan who loves their actual studio albums, I rarely ever play the compilation / greatest hits albums. Most of the songs I know so well that they're not my go-go songs. So when it comes to playing the Stones, the only compilations I typically go for are the more "interesting" ones. Unfortunately many of the Stones compilations edit the songs to the "singles" lengths or in the case of Time Waits For No One, and others, just editing them, always for the worse. Time Waits For No One (which is also an interesting UK compilation that I also play and also edited) is my #1 Stones go-to song so yea, it's a bit heartbreaking to hear the drastic cuts on Sucking In The 70's. But with all that said, when it comes to playing Stones comps - I do play and really enjoy Sucking In The 70's, as well as the Time Waits For No One comp and somewhat the Rarities album. Metamorphosis is an all time favorite of mine, but that's it's own ball of wax. So I agree, yet disagree, in that I do really enjoy playing it. They'll never reissue it again with the full length tracks, but they should've with the expanded length of CD's there's no reason they shouldn't.
Grrr went OOP rather quick, Abkco issue perhaps?
The London Singles 3 cd set is a fave of mine (I have the more compact version in the fatboy case), hard to believe that Under My Thumb and Gimme Shelter were not released as singles.
I feel like those later day greatest hits - 40 Licks, Grrr, Honk - were put out for their respective tours. I don't know if any of them are still in print. I never listen to them, but of course they suckered me into buying different versions - configurations. Thought the Honk with live tracks was at least different. Yea a lot of those classics weren't singles.... at least back in the day - Sympathy For The Devil, Can't Always Get What You Want was a B-side.
I got some of those Russian pirated cds interesting bonus tracks they add on those
Yes largely why I’ve bought some of them. They do nice booklets in them too. Fold outs.
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow ha..happy... agreed man.. the booklets are cool.. right on
@@glendepietro1521 For "pirate - bootleg CD's", they did do a really nice job...lol
@@TheAlanRosenbergShow I have the same Russian pressings rock n Rolling Stones and mile stones I got no stone unturned the only ones I don’t have are the to big box sets the Mick Taylor years and Ron Wood years
@@mikebarooshian7255 very cool. Those Russian pressings are fun. The only way to get some of those decca comps and they did do interesting bonus tracks. And the gold out booklets are very well done with label pictures etc. I do tend to stay away from the Russian pirated real Stones albums as I have them multiple times already and Abkco did such a great job on those.