That's why 45rpms were a staple in the 50's up until the mid 60's I think. When the late 60's came songs got longer and there was really no better way to do it than to go with full albums.

Catfish Jones said:

Singles were the bread and butter for those 60's bands, so when they'd throw an album together a shit load of the stuff WAS actually filler. I think the earlier singles are my favorites, but of course the full lengths hit their peak in the early/mid 70's.

I'd go with the brilliant early singles too.

As for lps, I'd go with the outstanding "Beggars Banquet".

You can throw stones at me (ahah), but I've never really liked "Exile on Main St" (except maybe "Ventilator Blues")

...and I don't even mention the following rolling turds...

My favorite always has been Let it Bleed, with Exiles a close second. (If "Sweet Virginia" convinced just one person to scrape the shit off their shoes, it was worth it.)

For years I've thought their most under-rated album was Undercover, an early 80s effort. mainly because I like the title song so much,

I would have to agree that the period with Mck Taylor were the best.  however, I did dig The Bigger Bang, a lot.  It was the first record since Black and Blue that Keith and Mick wrote songs together and it tells.  Although, there are good cuts on about every album since Mick Taylor left, just not whole albums of great songwritng and playing.  They were definitely in the zone, so too speak during the Taylor years. 

Singles were the bread and butter for those 60's bands, so when they'd throw an album together a shit load of the stuff WAS actually filler. I think the earlier singles are my favorites, but of course the full lengths hit their peak in the early/mid 70's.

Totally agreed. I'd much rather listen to their singles collection than those albums one after another.

Brother Panti-Christ said:

I own everything of the Stones made from the 60's and 70's. I think the Brian Jones years were amazing for their hit singles, but the full length albums from time weren't as convincing as the late 60's and early 70's LPs. Keith and Mick really hit their stride as songwriters on Beggar's Banquet and coasted into the 70's making some my favorite LPs of all time.

I own everything of the Stones made from the 60's and 70's. I think the Brian Jones years were amazing for their hit singles, but the full length albums from time weren't as convincing as the late 60's and early 70's LPs. Keith and Mick really hit their stride as songwriters on Beggar's Banquet and coasted into the 70's making some my favorite LPs of all time.

Yeah the moments from the '80's are sometimes comical, but I still love 'em.  I remember that video with Bette Midler for BOB...funny.  Tattoo You has some good stuff.

Like many have said, I too have a soft spot for the early stuff just due to how raw and bad ass it is...But I like it all really.

Definitely early Stones.  December's Children is my favorite

Monoreo ???

Max Reverb said:

2 mono's are better than one!

Lord Muck!! said:

Does mono sound better in stereo...??

2 mono's are better than one!

Lord Muck!! said:

Does mono sound better in stereo...??

MONO PLEASE most of the time for old stuff

essential for great 60s bands like the 13th floor Elevators because they didnt know much about stereo then and did horrible terrible cheap whack jobs muddying up the mix.

heres a compare of the track fire engine by the elevators

stereo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkEd9_EDy1w

mono

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EadJKDz_PIg

I put this question in the DJ group forum and this is the kind of input I was looking for, much thanks!

Phillip Jaggar said:

Mono for DJing, Stereo for home listening. Having to hear a shitty 60's stereo recording in a club sucks, especially bands like Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, and a few Beatles songs are horrid when played in a club. But I do agree stereo did do wonders for some psychedelia.

The Beatles in mono is amazing, though I have a soft spot for lots of their stereo mixes. Back in the 80's I stumbled onto a mono version of the White Album and I was pleasantly surprised how much cooler it sounded then the stereo mixes I had heard my entire life. And back in the day they would spend a whole lot more time mixing the Mono versions since that was what would be played on radio and TV.

LOL!

Lord Muck!! said:

Does mono sound better in stereo...??

Does mono sound better in stereo...??

Hi!

I´m a great fan of this fabulous radio program, by the way it has been an inspiration to my radio program...:)

http://www.upv.es/pls/oreg/rtv_web.ProgRadioFicha?p_id=1694&p_idioma=c

I can´t listen to this episode neither download it...I apreciate so much if anyone can help me, thanks a lot.

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean.  When I first heard the Sonics' version, I thought, "How menacing, they sound like they really mean business!"

Mole said:

I dig the Kingsmen version, wonderfully raw and crude. Great recorded sound, pretty gutsy on the low end for white boys in '63! Sonics cut is cool too though, especially the way they change the chords and make it kinda meaner, know what I mean?

I dig the Kingsmen version, wonderfully raw and crude. Great recorded sound, pretty gutsy on the low end for white boys in '63! Sonics cut is cool too though, especially the way they change the chords and make it kinda meaner, know what I mean?

Totally!!! THat is a BITCHIN' version!!! Truly punk rock!!

Axel Björnsson said:

swamp rats

Saw these guys for the first time last night in St Louis.  All the above comments appear to be totally accurate.  Mary may be the best rhythm guitarist you could hope for.  Strong, crisp tone, tight.  Rachael was pricklie:  "I still don't know what I think of St Louis..." and ranting about the "pretty girls in the back" not dancing enough.  "What's it going to take to get you to have fun!?!"  Another couple of songs later she got snappy with 'her band' and I was out.  Way to ingraciate yourself to an audience.  The opening bands were really good though.  Not my normal cup of joe but Girl in A Coma was very strong.  All were very good musicians.  The bass player had an Epiphone "Jack Cassidy" hollowbody and she commanded it.  The drummer was what made the band so outstanding though.  not just chops but knew how to work a song to keep it interesting.  I bet within a year they're on Austin City Limits.  It seems like they would be ideal for each other.

Thanks for the replies. I'm hard on my gear too, and although it's a real pretty guitar it's not worth enough to spend big money on. Heard someone recommend putting a drop of superglue into cracks before, not sure if it'll make things worse in the long term though.

The checking or crazing (depends on what part of the world yer from) is caused by shrinkage of the lacquer. Don't kick yerself to hard cause it happened to yer baby.

Personally never meet a collector that wanted the finish to look like that. Any that do would want them real cheap so they could get them re-finished.

Find a luthier that specializes in respraying, not the guy who works outta the back of the local guitar shop, although he might be able to point you on the right direction.

Biggest question is do you want it as a piece to hang on the wall or as an instrument to play? You might really pissed off with yerself if you re-finished it and then scratched it on its first outing.

I wouldn't bother with re-finishing it if I was playing it live, but I am really hard on my instruments.