I am a long time non-fan of the ealy stuff. Well, not so much a non-fan, just that i think better was to come.

To me, the Stones "truly" began with JJF. I mean, it's a no brainer. The alternate tunings. The incredible lyrics - So much more esoterical than previous offerings. The toughness.

But....

The key is Jagger. His voice is so different from prior offerings. Consider She's a rainbow (Getting MASSIVE airplay here in Oz due to a commercial, and i might say, so so so ripe for some sort of re-mix), Ruby, We love you, LSTNT, Dandelion etc.

To me, something happened to Jagger's voice in the relatively short period.

I wonder if it was Jimmy Miller?
I wonder if it was just Jagger's voice "maturing" - toughening up.
But there is no doubt - his vocal styling changed with JJF

Any thoughts?

I'd say it was a combination of his voice maturing and him developing his own style. He sounds incredibly young on those recordings from 63-67. His sound and style DID change around '68, definitely.

I can't agree with your thoughts on the Stones beginning with JJF though.

No, i dont expect anyone to do that. It's just "me". And i know i dismiss alot of important work. I dont dismiss it. I just think post 68 Stones is kind of the achetypal Stones. And JJF was the catalyst.

I have no references handy, but i wonder the time diff between recording JJF and the single prior. What are we talking about? way less than a year. Way less.

Thanks for your input.

to me JJF marked the moment when The Rolling Stones transformed from a great pop band to a great rock band, much more to my taste

" Any thoughts? "


yes ....................



*** YES !!! *****   .........


Corgi is ' The King !!!!  '  

probably the cigs and liquor that gave it that rough sound.

Word on the street that Maroon 5's lead singer is due for a similar voice change!

Very interesting.  I don't agree with your thesis at all - to me the Rolling Stones begin the first beat of "Not Fade Away", but you argue your point well.  To think that Satisfaction occurred "pre-Rolling Stones", though, might be a serious fallacy with your argument.  

 What's problematic about the linear transition from She's a Rainbow (September 67??) to JJF (May 68???) is that it's pretty obvious that there is a straight line between the run of singles starting with, say, Paint It Black up to Mother Baby that JJF is of a piece with and the We Love You/She's a Rainbow/Satanic Majesties thing (even Let's Spend the Night/Ruby Tuesday) is kind of a digression from that.

One could also argue that in addition to Jagger's voice gaining, I don't know, its true sneer, that it is the ascendency of Keith Richards as primary musical mastermind, Jones' slide into musical and band member irrelevance, and a more complete and organic synthesis of the innovations of the Beatles and Dylan into the Stones original R&B sound that finally launched the beast that was JJF.  I would argue that Jagger's voice starts to take on its mature dimension with Aftermath, which is another arguable point for when the Stones "begin".

I never play JJF as a DJ, because of all the baggage it carries as an überhit (I mostly use w/pre-JJF Stones cuts when I spin), but I played it last Saturday night, as a climax to a bunch of "garage" singles by 1968 bands.  Even following a particularly hot monster of a song, JJF annihilated it completely, in terms of sound/energy/genius.  The place went apeshit.  That was great.

I can't discount the pre- JJF years. There's some real genius, especially as you get closer to TSMR, and some on there as well.
I love the early singles, when they started writing their own songs...

speedfreakjive wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 9:43am:

to me JJF marked the moment when The Rolling Stones transformed from a great pop band to a great rock band, much more to my taste

I agree.  Great way to put it.  And I can't help to think that Jimmy Miller was important to make them a great rock band.

I see your point corgi, but I too love the pre-JJF stuff for the very reasons that Nasty attributes the ascension of the Stones (Jagger/Richards) as we know them now. Specifically, I loved the elements that Brian brought to so many of those early releases. His steller work on the marimbas on Under My Thumb, the brilliant recorder on Ruby Tuesday, his sitar work for PIB, his synth work on 10,000 Light Years. The list goes on, but I always loved the early stuff for the sheer eclectic nature of it. All in large part because of one Mr. Brian Jones.


That said I do agree that JJF really marked the moment that the direction of the band sans Brian was headed. From that moment on it was clear that Keith was fully at the helm with regards to the musical direction of the band. Jagger obviously was the other major player, but the early Brian era was audibly coming to an end and JJF signaled that change in direction more so than any other song of that time.


At least that's the way I hear it.



Riffy

i agree with corgi....
although i appreciate the early stuff in a historical sense -
the stones really kicked in around 68 when keith and mick were both developing their own styles..
jagger acquired that snarl and growl - an edgier vocal ....

but corgi, the real question is:
when did he lose that voice?
i say with she's the boss.

speedfreakjive wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 9:43am:

to me JJF marked the moment when The Rolling Stones transformed from a great pop band to a great rock band, much more to my taste

Now, for me and my taste, I just don't agree with this at all.  The early Stones records are the essence of rock 'n' roll - they create the rock 'n' roll band (much more than the Beatles did) as a concept on those first five albums and their attendant singles, they kick the living shit out of most of the songs they cover, ratcheting up the jittery white-boy quotient and adrenalizing the swing, they ramp the blues into something that Caucasians could relate to, and baby, that IS rock and roll.  They launched about a million garage bands, who were all definitely playing rock and roll music, and the Stones caused riots, not just hysterical girl riots but violent boy-type, Guns and Roses stadium destroying riots, because people were freaking out so hard at their massive awesome rock and roll.  All before they even really started writing their own songs exclusively.  Seriously, I consider Out of Our Heads and NOW! as major and important rock 'n' roll statements as I do Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers, if not Beggar's and Exile.

Nasty Habits wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 10:26pm:

speedfreakjive wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 9:43am: to me JJF marked the moment when The Rolling Stones transformed from a great pop band to a great rock band, much more to my taste Now, for me and my taste, I just don't agree with this at all.  The early Stones records are the essence of rock 'n' roll - they create the rock 'n' roll band (much more than the Beatles did) as a concept on those first five albums and their attendant singles, they kick the living shit out of most of the songs they cover, ratcheting up the jittery white-boy quotient and adrenalizing the swing, they ramp the blues into something that Caucasians could relate to, and baby, that IS rock and roll.  They launched about a million garage bands, who were all definitely playing rock and roll music, and the Stones caused riots, not just hysterical girl riots but violent boy-type, Guns and Roses stadium destroying riots, because people were freaking out so hard at their massive awesome rock and roll.  All before they even really started writing their own songs exclusively.  Seriously, I consider Out of Our Heads and NOW! as major and important rock 'n' roll statements as I do Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers, if not Beggar's and Exile.

I agree, I agree, I agree!! Beautifully stated.  :)

JJF
....the sound, Jaggers vocals, and even the video is when, in fact, The Rolling Stones became "The Stones" as we now know them.


From Jaggers dance, singing, and attitude to Charlie's drums   ....Jumpin Jack Flash is when The Stones became 100% Stones.

Before this it was a build-up. You can see them evolving and hear it in their music coming in pieces, step by step, not fully 100% until the release and video of Jumpin Jack Flash.

*"Satisfaction" was the birth of The Stones per say and Jumpin Jack Flash is when they became fully all in place as we know them now.


Ian

Pretty well put Ian. I'm also sure their "maturity" was due to the extraordinary times in which they existed in. As i've said many times when bagging the Beatles, they may have been ultra hip in 67, but the satin pirate suits looked pretty lame by 68 compared with Jimbo's leather pants and Hendrix's sexual guitar antics and the "dirty hippy" type of "every-man" that was coming from the U.S, particularly the West Coast. It's almost hard to comprehend the change in everyone, let alone the Stones, from 67 - 69 or so. And it was a natural evolution for our band, i feel. From the 70's on i feel they became more a trend band. Maybe that was Jagger trying to stay "modern", i dont know.

And as the 70's moved on, Jagger developed a whiny vocal style that i adored. Mainly on SF, Exile & GHS. After that, i think he was playing around a bit, most evident (i reckon) on SG where he's not really being himself, but acting different parts (which i guess, is what a singer should do). However, by Emotional Rescue, he was fooling even himself. He was being all things, but Jagger. Cockney rebel. Max Romeo. Trans Atlantic dude. Then, by Dirty Work - well, wtf was he on that! Growling and snarling so much it was ridiculous. Over pronouncing things. He seemed to be putting in too much effort instead of just singing. Also, by DW, i think he was trying to "toughen" up his voice to appear more aggressive, macho & "with it" against the new onslaught of heavy metal shriekers.

But yeah, JJF - cool shit.

I respectfully disagree  :Youmakeagrownmancrylikejoey


For me, the first album is the most played and the first four easily compare to the so-called "Big 4".  They never rocked any harder than they did on "Route 66".

Nasty Habits wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 10:26pm:

speedfreakjive wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 9:43am: to me JJF marked the moment when The Rolling Stones transformed from a great pop band to a great rock band, much more to my taste Now, for me and my taste, I just don't agree with this at all.  The early Stones records are the essence of rock 'n' roll - they create the rock 'n' roll band (much more than the Beatles did) as a concept on those first five albums and their attendant singles, they kick the living shit out of most of the songs they cover, ratcheting up the jittery white-boy quotient and adrenalizing the swing, they ramp the blues into something that Caucasians could relate to, and baby, that IS rock and roll.  They launched about a million garage bands, who were all definitely playing rock and roll music, and the Stones caused riots, not just hysterical girl riots but violent boy-type, Guns and Roses stadium destroying riots, because people were freaking out so hard at their massive awesome rock and roll.  All before they even really started writing their own songs exclusively.  Seriously, I consider Out of Our Heads and NOW! as major and important rock 'n' roll statements as I do Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers, if not Beggar's and Exile.

you make good points, but IMO they at least had more of a pop sensibility before JJF, hence the absence of a great album before Beggars Banquet, where there were great singles but not great albums, very good albums, but not great like Let It Bleed and Exile.
BTW I was referring to the sound of the band, which surely undeniably 'rocked up' from 1968 onwards, with more distortion on guitars, more aggressive vocals etc

you make good points, but IMO they at least had more of a pop sensibility before JJF, hence the absence of a great album before Beggars Banquet, where there were great singles but not great albums, very good albums, but not great like Let It Bleed and Exile.
BTW I was referring to the sound of the band, which surely undeniably 'rocked up' from 1968 onwards, with more distortion on guitars, more aggressive vocals etc
[/quote]


I agree. Prior to Beggars, the Stones were, IMO, a great singles band. In fact, thats what most of the better groups were - evan the Beatles. Rubber Soul is when they made the leap to producing truly great LP's.

" Word on the street that Maroon 5's lead singer is due for a similar voice change "
http://www.craftydiversions.com/uploaded_images/maggie-beer-752397.jpg