I've never bought a Rolling Stones album in my entire life.I like possibly two or three songs of theirs.They haven't enriched my life in any shape or form.

ditto. i will say sticky fingersd though, just because andy warhol did the art (i haven't put a vote though)

fuck andy warhol. he can kiss my fucking ass.

My all time favorite of theirs is Between the Buttons because I grew up listening to my parents copy of it along with all their Stones 45s......Yesterdays Papers....oh yeah.


Even though it's not an album, The London Years is my favorite Stones cd/collection or whatever. It was the first cd I ever got in 5th or 6th grade.



Out of these I'll break the tie and vote for Beggars even though I love them all.

wow, baggars is kickin ass. I contributed to it's kickability.

I kinda like aftermath though... but only about half of it really. It has under my thumb which is fuckin a i say

i'm siding with the critics on this one.

exile, can't beat the swamped up production, my favorite country album...i can't see why people don't like it, it sounds more like what gram parsons would come up instead of the stones, i love how out of step it's from their discography.

i love exile. mick did not do a very good job mixing it, though.

part of the charm, in my opinion.

i like difficult albums i guess, albums that have some fucked there.

i like a rough mix, but it's not a very good rough mix.
beggar's banquet has some great rough mixing.

that's the point, it's not just rough, it's badly done, the levels are all wrong and some of the takes used don't have the best sounds they got to tape. but it does capture that sense of isolation and being fucked up or in the brink of crapping out, but not in the typical way, just in the mix because the songs are both ace and a departure for the band. a combination of everything seems to be what makes it special.

it's very fucking atypical.

you are just too intense.

i guess all i'm trying to say is that it's a great album with tunes you'd never think the stones would do (or take a sound as far as they did) in a very fucked up way which makes sense after listening to it.

for me at least.

don't get me wrong, it's one of my favorite albums of all time. from an exclusively technical standpoint (which i am not concerned with to be honest with you, but just for the sake of mentioning it, there you have it) it's subpar, but in the big picture, i suppose it does make it all that much better. it wouldn't be the same album if it had been mixed differently.

hey look, i guess we agree.

yeah, that's what i'm saying.

badly recorded/mixed/mastered albums can turn out to be great pieces of music.

i love badly recorded, really low-fi stuff. depending on the music it can either add to or detract from it, though.

exactly, most punk and black metal sound awesome with little fidelity or production values, but other stuff, like when there's a lot going on, it's just fucked.

Dear Doctor is an awesome song, Keith's background vocals(which are hilleriously high pitched) like on many of the stones' songs really make the song.

things like devendra banhart as well, though i don't really know what you call that.

fuck yeah, i hate when it's acoustic guitar shit and it's super produced with lots of overdubs and gating and compression, it kills the directness of it.

i mean, listen to six organs of admittance.

probably one of the reasons i got so tired of devendra's cripple crow.

i haven't got cripple crow, i only have the black babies.