[Spyglass]

This thread started out as an effort to obtain an answer for the confusion pertaining to the Stones catalogue and the jumbled "clusterfuck" of their pre-Majesties catalogue: both the US and UK versions. I didn't want to get through both catagories, but I've been working on ranking entire discographies by the most canon artists as well as my favorite artists, so I have some work I need to do for big acts, and Stones pose the biggest problem. When I was often given the answer to pick one or the other, it felt too simple. I was hoping for something a little more complex than that (I'm a complexity addict sometimes). Of course, I wasn't sure what it is I was directly looking for, so I just went to Google, spent a few minutes everyday looking for an answer online until I became frustrated, found a couple of lists on Rateyourmusic, and I think I have an answer. The trick is to combine both catalogues into one and see which albums carry the most new tracks (new meaning "never before released until the album's release"). A lot of studio albums will have a couple of previously released tracks, i.e. I Walk the Line by Johnny Cash, so two or three should be forgivable. In 12 x 5's case it carries a full EP. Is that forgivable? By the definition of a catalogue with the most original tracks and the least repeats between albums, the Stones catalogue would likely feature UK and US releases mixed in. The Beatles always had completely original tracks on all of the UK studio albums, and the American Beatles albums always had these accursed repeats, so I was very annoyed that the general consensus is to use the Beatles solution to solve a much worse problem.

Maybe this problem shouldn't bother me the way it does, but I didn't expect the answer to be so hard to find. But I have my solution now, or at least A solution, and I'm going to stick with it.
_________________
Do it yourself and let me play my music: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=61802

[ExTeaSea]

I wish they didn't split them up but it's ok haha. The version of Aftermath I have is not the one on the site but they wouldn't let me add that one since it's also just called Aftermath. I like my US version of Aftermath because it includes Paint It Black. I have England's Newest Hit Makers and Self Titled is the UK version that more people seem to own. I've never really seen UK versions here in Missouri US haha. So I'm just use to US versions and they are good. Finally by the time they got to Satanic Majesties they decided to just release one version thankfully.

[ExTeaSea]

I mean you could listen to all of both if you wanna get crazy haha. Weird you ask because I've been starting to listen to their discography in order starting yesterday but only one a day because there's a bunch of other stuff I want to listen to as well.

[Spyglass]

An international "version" under a different name is no different to me than a rerelease that botches the original album. It's a fine line to walk with Rolling Stones, and as far as I've been able to Google, there's no official set like the Beatles have.
_________________
Do it yourself and let me play my music: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=61802

[baystateoftheart]

I haven't heard either version of their debut yet, but otherwise I did the American albums all the way through and was satisfied. As far as I know, they're generally slightly better regarded. For studio albums, that's:

12 X 5
The Rolling Stones, Now!
Out Of Our Heads [US]
December's Children (And Everybody's)
Aftermath [US]
Between The Buttons [US]

Also, be sure to include this comp or you'll miss some great tracks:

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Flowers by The Rolling Stones
_________________
Join us in the canon game :) / Add me on RYM

[Spyglass]

Thanks, but I'm not trying to get through as many RS songs as I can. I just want to be able to say "I've heard all the Rolling Stones albums" without dealing with twisted international edits and yadda bladda. Has anyone here heard all of those albums?
_________________
Do it yourself and let me play my music: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=61802

[baystateoftheart]

[Spyglass]

Wouldn't it be messier if you count an album that takes half of its songs from another album as a separate studio album?
_________________
Do it yourself and let me play my music: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=61802

[ExTeaSea]

I've listened to every Rolling Stones album since they are my favorite band. I'm curious why do you want to say you've listened to them all?

[RoundTheBend]

The only key difference (imo) is Aftermath. I'm forgetting which, but one of them doesn't have Paint It Black and that is a massive misstep to miss out on that.

To be completely frank, most Stones albums before Between the Buttons/Aftermath... well let's just say I probably won't ever listen to them all the way through again and much prefer this comp to get through their early era... to be honest I think it represents the band better than the early albums. Some get all held up on Albums are the only way to enjoy an artist and that mentality is just dead wrong. Yes there are artists whereby not listening to the album you miss out on aspects of the artist you just won't get through a compilation. For early Stones (pre-Between the Buttons/Aftermath)

Hot Rocks 1964–1971 by The Rolling Stones

Also it's a difference of 5 albums or so... if it really matters to you to know which is best, why not listen to them all? Those early albums are pretty short... sometimes like 30 minutes.

But yeah - trust me, imo, the first few albums aren't really worth listening to... check out the comp instead (as someone who has listened to both... but hey that's just like my opinion man! 🤣 ).