The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Aftermath Hasn’t Aged Well, Has It?

Aftermath Hasn’t Aged Well, Has It?

by 52 Comments

I’ve been listening to early Stones and discovered that Aftermath is something of a disappointment. The UK version starts with Mother’s Little Helper, their worst single since It’s All Over Now. It’s a bit of a droning whine. The ‘nasty’ songs are simply unpleasant. There is a real menace to heart Of Stone, The Last Time, Satisfaction, Play With Fire and Get Off My Cloud, all released the year before, but Stupid Girl, Under My Thumb & Out Of Time are merely personal and abusive, lacking any kind of depth. Many of the tracks sound ill-thought out, as though they couldn’t be bothered finishing them. Going Home is remarkable only for it’s length, clocking in at over 11 minutes. Brian makes an effort to liven things up with a few fancy instruments but to little avail. In 1965, the rhythm section purred like a finely tuned Ferrari, but Aftermath,Wyman & Watts sound bored. At 50 minutes long, the whole album is a case of ‘never mind the quality, feel the width.’

The Americans had the right idea. They made it shorter, cutting out three tracks. Best of all they replaced Mother’s Little Helper with the far superior Paint It Black.

1

Comments

  1. There is much in what you say, but I would stick up for ‘Under My Thumb’. (Wordplay intentional after the fact.) I’ve always read it as one of the first of Jagger’s unreliable narrations, a portrait of a macho dickhead rather than an expression of macho dickheadedness. To me, it’s of a piece with ‘Back Street Girl’- the perfect pairing of melodic wistfulness and deliberate lyrical ugliness.

  2. Well, as it’s – along with “Between The Buttons” – one of my favorite Stones albums, I don’t agree. It’s a bold muso statement, with all those different instruments, and of course that long jam song. As for the lyrics, I frankly don’t care how they sound from today’s overblown PC perspective; they are nasty because the Stones wanted to be nasty (when they weren’t trying to be victorian and intellectual). And get yourself an old German vinyl LP and listen to that fat, melodious bass – bored? No way.

    • I think that’s where my disappointment lies. The self-penned songs released in 1965 are also ‘nasty’ but in a nuanced way. The quality of their writing that year, even for B sides, is remarkable. Jump to Between The Buttons. I love that album. It is full of musical ideas. There is an energy, a vibrancy about it, including when being non-PC. I don’t care about the PC aspect, it’s the superficiality of the lyrics and the lack of variety in the music on Aftermath that lets me down. Many of the ‘songs’ are mere two line sketches repeated over and over. As for Going Home, I’m afraid Mick’s improvisation, apart from a ‘Ma, ma, ma, ma’ sequence lacks imagination.

      Bill & Charlie did much better work on Out Of Our Heads! Mind you, I don’t have German vinyl.

  4. First things first, I would never place a U.S. pressing over a U.K. one.

    It’s because some people high up in the ‘organisation’ have done the same that we haven’t (for 25 years!!!!) had the first two U.K. LPs available on CD.

    The fact that the Stones only repeated two (that’s ‘two’) songs in the 60s on their LPs, apart from the two compilations, is to be applauded not regretted.

    I’ve also always preferred ‘Between The Buttons’ to ‘Aftermath’ but just a cursory look at the track-listing reveals ‘Lady Jane’, ‘I Am Waiting’, ‘Under My Thumb’, ‘High and Dry’ and ‘Think’.
    Pretty strong, no?
    That said, if I listen to the Stones, 99% chance it’s the first three LPs and the attendant 45s and EPs.

    I’d also argue that if something hasn’t aged well in 2015, then it must have considerable merit, because, compared to the mid-60s, the pop chart (album and single) of 2015 is laughable.

    • Lady Jane has a certain charm but it’s just silly in this context. I ask you, that posh English accent is unconvincing in someone so obviously enamoured with American blues. And, yes, I know Mick was middle class really!

      I agree with you absolutely about the first three UK albums and their 45s. They are the business! I’d much rather they repackaged those than yet another Sticky Fingers.

  5. Take no notice, folks. Tigs is just trying to shake off his Pollyanna image by being critical (but not too much). He tried it with Abbey Road recently too and I don’t believe a word. 🙂

    (P.S. another BTB lover here)

      • I’m well aware that you’re being a cheeky little clickbait monkey with this thread, but when I first heard AM I couldn’t believe that it was held for many years as being one of the breakthrough rock albums of the time along with Blonde Freak Revolver Sounds. In fact it’s the Stones worst (UK) album of the 60s by quite a long way.

        • We are in unison here. I think it’s their worst album up to and including Some Girls. It is certainly no rock masterwork. Just compare it to the first entirely self-penned Beatles album. No contest.

          • So what, you don’t rate Some Girls either?! A bone fide classic in my view to sit alongside the 4 or 5 other great albums they made. But the debate about albums is a red herring – if ever there was a classic singles band the Stones were it. Only The Beatles and The Beach Boys (and perhaps Abba) match them. Lets not allow their longevity to obscure their brilliant best

            • I meant time wise. Their worst album up to 1979.

              Some Girls is interesting. That one got a whole lot better with the additional CD recently. Then, you can ‘improve’ it yourself. Turns out, I like the raunchier, less-PC tracks.

              Miss You/Claudine/Some Girls/So Young/Respectable/No Spare Parts

              I Love You Too Much/Before They Make Me Run/When You’re Gone/Shattered/Keep Up Blues/Beast Of Burden

              OOAA ect ect

  7. All their albums were crap before Beggars Banquet, for much of the ’60s they were a singles/covers band and couldn’t muster a half decent album, let alone a good one. In 50 years I would suggest that that they have only managed 5 great albums and Aftermath ain’t one of them.

    • Depends how you look at it. I make it 4 great albums (68-72) but for a career that’s pretty good going compared to the vast majority of acts. Only managed 5 makes it sound like a failure. I take it for granted that no act will do much better than that whether they have a 5 year or 50 year career. In fact you only need 1 or 2 classic albums to be exceptional which puts them in a very special league. I know the first album is important but I prefer the songs they wrote themselves.

    • Aftermath has always been a favourite, so no arguments here are going to change my mind after nearly 50 years. Always thought it far superior to the hurried and muddled Between the Buttons. No argument with the fine run from Beggars Banquet to Exile of course.

  10. Can I just give a shout to the EPs?
    They were available on CD (probably still are) in the first of those ‘Singles’ boxes from about 10 years ago.
    The first two are as enjoyable pop music has ever been for me.
    Beautiful sleeves, fresh, supremely confident, about to break down at any time!

    I wish The Stones 60s back catalogue was in as good health as The Kinks’ one appears to be.
    Is there no one who can do something about it?
    Bill Wyman, maybe? Are you out there, Bill?

    • I know a guy who was involved in a Stones reissue program for German Decca (who had previously issued a German-only vinyl box of the complete 60s Stones catalog, incl. 4 LPs of non-album tracks) in the late 1990s – each UK album plus relevant singles and EP tracks and a few (very few) unreleased tracks. They even included “Cocksucker Blues” (which had been released in Germany as an official single). They apparently had bypassed Decca UK and made deals directly with ABKCO. They had the masters, the booklets were ready to print – then the whole project was cancelled because Mick and his crew had a word with some executives. My friend still has a complete set of test pressings…

        • For at least two decades now, The Stones’ organisation seem to have positioned themselves firmly in the post-Altamont, ‘tongue logo’, heroin chic, glam era of the band.

          Presumably this is to scoop up sales from the Nirvana, Pearl Jam, FM Radio, T-shirt & baseball cap wearing crowd.
          Who knows?

          Personally, I don’t see it as being any different from Paul, if he was so to do, aligning himself more to his Wings era than to The Beatles.

  11. I keep seeing this thread title and thinking it’s a weirdly-specific discussion about an individual track from either Tricky or Nightmares On Wax.

    Before reading this thread I honestly had no idea that there’s a Rolling Stones album called “Aftermath”.

    Not very interesting I know, but I thought articulating it might break that association in my head 🙂

Leave a Reply