I'm not a huge fan of Exile either. It would be a lot better as a single album - and even then, they'd have better albums.

I don't see how it would be better as a single album.
Each of the 4 sides of the album have very different character and even as a double album it barely reaches over an hour in length.

To me it's 15 minutes of rock followed by 15 minutes of country followed by 15 minutes of blues followed by 20 minutes of everything mixed together.

I don't really see how it can be considered boring.

Exactly because of the reason I stated...

It's 15 minutes of half assed rock followed by 15 minutes of half assed country, etc.

Stones albums are better when they are consistent and focused.

Well, it was recorded in a kitchen and they only turned up the vocals if they thought the lyrics merited it. So would you prefer that they had Bob Rock produce it? Or would you prefer that they made Sticky Fingers pt. 2?

When you say boring, it kills the discussion. What was boring about it? In addition to what Urban said, its also got soul and gospel in there.

Can you give me a comparably boring album? Trying to figure out what aspect bores you is like pulling teeth.

I don't think I said anything about the production at all.

What exactly do you want from this? I think saying it sounds like second rate versions of the styles they are trying to pull off is fairly specific. Do you want a song by song analysis of this thing?

I think I left plenty of room for more discussion. How about you tell me why you DON'T think they are half assed versions of their influences? Did they add to them in some meaningful way? Was the nostalgia factor enough to keep you interested? Because for me they weren't. There's a topic right there. Proceed.

It is interesting that you mentioned that because I read all the time that when asked people express the notion that the White album would have been more focused and perhaps better if it had been a single album. George Martin even suggested it to them......

Exile on Main Street came out in '72 about 2 year after The Beatles threw in the towel, it was a more edgier brand of Rock - considering what The Beatles did. The Beatles played more of 60's style of Country, where when the Stones played more 70's style of Country, even though some of it was tongue in cheek. The Rolling Stones owned The Beatles when it came to the Blues. I don't know what you mean a close equal to The Beatles.

Why don't I think they were half-assed versions? Because what do the songs on Exile sound like from previous albums? Also, its absurd to ask if there was a nostalgia-factor involved since I was born well after the album came out. I assume you were as well.

To me, the music on Exile was less pop and more raw, which given the topics seemed to lend itself to the material. Songs like Sweet Virginia was the sloppy that defines the stones. The tight, polished, upbeat tempo of things like Brown Sugar or Jumping Jack Flash were gone. Off of My Cloud and Paint it Blacks pop sheen were gone. This was the stones in the grime that made them the stones.

When you hear Shine a Light, its as if the Allman Brothers had sex with Ray Charles in a bathtub full of Scotch and Sweet Tea. If I were looking for the closest sounding big track to compare it to, I guess I'd say "Can't always get what you want" but to suggest its the same thing is reaching (IMO).

Tumbling Dice I guess is comparable to maybe Honky Tonk Women or Wild Horses, but it comes with a funked out soul groove that the other two just don't have. If the Stones had previously been in Nashville or Chicago on other records, Exile is in New Orleans.

I would like to point out that a lot of the songs that were left off Exile On Main Street would have made some great options for future albums. In my opinion some of them are even better then what ended up on the album! Plundered My Soul, Good Time Woman, etc etc it's all there in glowing black and white.

:laughing: