Rolling Stones on track for 9th #1 album in UK:

[CRAZY-HORSE]

The Rolling Stones have taken an early lead on this week's Official Albums Chart with their new album Blue & Lonesome, OfficialCharts.com can reveal.

After its first day on sale, the iconic rock band's first studio album in over a decade is leading the way, ahead of the likes of Little Mix and Olly Murs.

The band last reached the Official Chart summit 22 years ago, with 1994's Voodoo Lounge. If they hold on to their position until Friday's Official Albums Chart reveal (December 9), it'll be their ninth chart-topping record overall. Click here to look back at The Rolling Stones' complete Official UK Chart history.

Blue & Lonesome, produced by Don Was and The Glimmer Twins, is an album of covers, tipping their hats to their early days as a blues band. Tracks by Jimmy Reed, Willie Dixon, Eddie Taylor, Little Walter and Howlin’ Wolf all feature on the album.

[bob_32_116]

They bore me, and have done so for 30 years or more. Still, your second sentence says it all; look what competition they're up against.

[Music Head]

it's all about who the competition is when it comes to these debut chart positions
more telling is week 2 when you see how far they dropped

[CRAZY-HORSE]

and also, their loyal fans will always purchase their albums the week of release albeit the Rolling Stones, Cohen, Bowie, McCartney, Elton, Rod Stewart, Dylan etc......
thus the high debut positions, then usually out of the top10/20 the following week...

bob_32.....
they bore me also,
I think they were a pretty good singles band back in the day but to me, all of their albums had plenty of filler, the exceptions for me were "tattoo you" and "emotional rescue".

I also don't think they were that great as musicians or Jagger as a vocalist neither...
they were one of those bands that relied on one sound for their whole career and must have rehashed the riff to "satisfaction" a hundred times during the last 50 years.

its also interesting to note, that while the Beatles were around they called themselves "the second best band in the world" but after the Beatle split in 1970 they started calling themselves "the greatest band in the world" and people believed it...
much like KISS at the opening of their concert before they step out on stage..."you wanted the best, you got the best, the hottest band in the world......KISS!!!!"

my dad saw Rolling Stones back in 1962 prior to them releasing a record, he said Jagger was hopeless live, saw them again in the late 1970s and still said he was useless live.

[bob_32_116]

I think the Rolling Stones went through a very short period when they were quite interesting, around 1965 to 1967. Songs like Lady Jane and Ruby Tuesday showed a side to them that they never really allowed to blossom.

They made their "psychedelic" album, Satanic Majesties, which was a bit of a failure but was at least something original, at least for them. After that, though, I think they saw where the music world was headed and what the fans wanted, established the formula and mostly stuck to it.

I agree about Tattoo You.

The comparison between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones is interesting, and stark. The Beatles' career as a band was astonishingly short, in retrospect; they dominated the music scene for about seven years, and then they burned out. The Stones ... well, you know how the Neil Young lyric goes.

[CRAZY-HORSE]

yes, it is interesting with The Beatles...
if you listen to their albums (13 wasn't it???)
with every album their songwriting and musicianship improved until Sgt Peppers...
they didn't improve after that but I feel they matured to create more of what is now refered to as "adult orientated rock" (AOR),
even so, as they matured they were still trying to push the envelope of what rock should be, at least for them anyway...
"the white album" was dark throughout, it was also as close to heavy metal/hard rock as rock became before the likes of Deep Purple, Black Sabbath etc...
"abbey road", IMO, saw them turning music into a continuous montage to create a single piece of music (side 2), again, pushing musical boundaries, but lets face it,
the tracks on that album as individual pieces really weren't a patch on their pre '67 period..
then finally we had "let it be", a fragmented collection of songs by four individuals who couldn't stand the sight of eachother....

Let It Be is my least liked album of theirs (apart from that stupid movie soundtrack Yellow Submarine),
Spector produced that one and Paul especially, hated the finished results, thus a few years ago they released "let it be - naked", which is how Paul originally intended the album
the sound like, personally im torn between the two, there are some songs I prefer over others on both albums.
that said, Let It Be did contain several "beatle classics" IMO....Across The Universe, Let It Be, The Long And Winding Road, Get Back.

back to The Rolling Stones,
their worst single in the 1960s was actually one of their psychedelic ones IMO.....
it was issued as a "double A" single in the UK "dandelion" b/w "we love you", their attempt to go all "flowers in your hair" on us.