point me in the direction of the really good rolling stones album that's not 'exile on main street'

Jesus I suck.

The Rolling Stones, Now!
Aftermath
Beggar’s Banquet
Let it Bleed
Exile on Main Street
Some Girls

Great Albums

12 x 5
December’s Children (underrated)
Between the Buttons
Sticky Fingers

Very Good Albums

England’s Newest Hit Makers
Out of Our Heads
Flowers
Get Your Ya-Ya’s Out

Good Albums

Satanic Majesty’s Request
It’s Only Rock and Roll
Black and Blue
Tattoo You

Don’t care much for the rest…

As for other post-EOMS classics....I heard "Summer Romance" the other day on the radio and it sounded GREAT.

I don't love one decade more than another either.

also, I like the disco on Some Girls a lot.

"Even while Brooks & Dunn can prosper and gain kudos for making an album that resembles the 16th-best Rolling Stones album and that quotes platitudes from the seventh-best song on the 19th-best Rolling Stones album, and even as B&D endlessly and creatively run the riff from "Brown Sugar" (best song on the 14th-best Rolling Stones album), they simply won't let their music do what the Rolling Stones would do."

so he would say:

16th best = Exile on Main Street
19th best = (something with "Honky Tonk Women" on it, apparently)
14th best = Sticky Fingers

And in an email a couple weeks ago, I believe he said his favorite Rolling Stones album was *Get Your Ya Yas Out.* (My thoughts above about the Stones keeping up to date with dance music were probably inspired by something he wrote once, too, come to think of it.)

Step 1. Tattoo You. Most kids are going to regard the Stones as an oldies band. "Start Me Up" and "Hang Fire" demonstrate that even when they were noticeably aging (and implicitly undermine the stigma about "oldies acts," thereby clearing the rest of the catalogue, from beginning to Bridges to Babylon.)

Step 2. Beggars Banquet. Because "Sympathy for the Devil" is the signature song, like in a "Stairway to Heaven Way," that'll hook a kid forever more. Plus it's got "No Expectations" and "Street Fighting Man" on it.

Step 3. We step it up to two at a time. Aftermath & Between the Buttons. The kid is now ready to hear the mid-60s masterpieces ("Paint It Black," "Under My Thumb," "Let's Spend the Night Together.")

Step 4. Sticky Fingers & Let It Bleed. Bring on "Bitch," "Brown Sugar," "Wild Horses," "Moonlight Mile," "Gimmie Shelter, "You Can't Always Get What You Want," and "Monkey Man."

Step 5. After those intense two-fer, you hit the kid with Out of Our Heads, which features the other Stones signature single, "Satisfaction." That "The Last Time" and "Play with Fire" are on it too won't hurt.

Step 6. The kid is ready to be a man: he gets Exile finally. Fuck.

After this six step program, he's ready for everything else, from the early blues stuff to the latter-day CEO rock.

Ha ha, Tim, I'd like to see Frank's entire list, too (I seriously doubt those rankings above were hyperbole), but I have a feeling he would disagree vehemently with the statement above.

Aftermath is great, but you still get the sense that they're doing some filler tracks ("Doncha Bother Me," "High and Dry").

Not sure about the effort part, but those early LPs are as solid as the Beatles and Who ones you mention, to my ears (and as the other chuck said, with no more filler than many later, allegedly "solid" albums) (not that consistency is a great way to judge albums, anyway.)

I guess there are different philosophies of grading albums. For instance, do you grade like the SAT test and subtract for wrong answers, thereby penalizing guesses, or do you just give credit for the right answers and ignore the misfires? I tend to think that with the advent of CDs (and MP3 players) bad tracks are much less of a handicap to an album, because they're easier to skip.

There's a difference, though, between thinking that some tracks on albums are just bad and thinking that they were created when the band were still thinking that it was okay to do filler tracks. I don't think that the Beatles bought into the idea of filler tracks from the beginning, but not so sure about the Stones. Not to say that they were bad offenders at all. The Kinks were probably worse, right?

Why? Mediocre tracks are mediocre tracks; who cares how they got there?

That's why I say the Stones were originally a singles band. I don't care how great an album 12x5 or Out of Our Heads is; I just care about the fact that there are some songs on there that I might want to play.

I actually don't think those tracks are bad, I see them as filler because they feel so offhand. A country lark version of a hit and a bit of Stones schtick, respectively. They feel exactly like product to me. Superior product, maybe, but product nonetheless.

And again, what exactly does intent have to do with making an album better, and what does slapped out product have to do with making them worse? Albums are just a bunch of songs, Tim. Lots of times when bands strive consciously to make them conceptual units, that makes them *less* entertaining. To me this seems completely obvious, and not just with the Stones. Paul Revere and the Raiders made better albums than Pink Floyd or the Grateful Dead ever will, in my book.