Was Exile On Mainstreet Their White Album.....
 

There are always pitfalls in making a double album. One has to have enough interesting songs to make the listener want to play the entire thing. In this day and age of cherry picking your songs off I Tunes it is probably not the case, but when one use to sit down and let the needle drop on the record you were in for the long haul till the arm lifted off the record!
Similar to the Beatles White album the Rolling Stones offered a stunning amount of varied songs on their album. Rock, pop, gospel, country and so on. I do not think that there was a concerted effort to make a flow through out the album which is also similar to the Beatles just a huge collection of thought provoking tunes. The album if released with all the extra material would have been 28 tracks long just shy of two compared to the Beatle's album. Upon it's release the album was met with mixed reviews, but today it is considered a rock masterpiece.

I don't think Exile on Main St. is nearly as varied as The Beatles' white album. I think all they have in common is that they're double albums.

I think the White Album is pretty bad, so I assume the White Album is the Beatles Tattoo You.

I've actually found that many people have a divided opinion on The White Album alone. While some claim that it is a creative masterpiece, others have said that it feels like an album that was thrown together, that it was incohesive and that it captures the sound of the band coming apart.

Personnaly, I think that both albums certainly showcase the creativity of each band at the time but I'd have to say I much prefer the White Album. That said, there are quite a few songs on that album that I would usually skip (e.g. Revolution #9) when listening to it all the way through. Exile was certainly a great accomplishment for the Stones but there's just something about the White Album..

It all comes down to preferance though doesn't it?

Well to be honest there is a collection of "country, hard rock, blues, gospel and island style" music on Exile which I think is a close equal to the Beatle's country, blues and pop offerings.

I guess what I'm saying is that regardless of the genres, The Stone's album is a pretty coherent listening experience, while The Beatles' is a bit all over the place - for better or worse.

I'm not really a fan of either album. The Stones did so much better. The Beatles did so much better. Although, out of the two I like the White Album more. But I agree with Hurricane...it's an interesting listen simply because it captures them coming apart. Ultimately, I think that's the reason it was a double album...so every member could throw their songs on there.

Exile is just kind of boring to me.

I think the 2 records are as different as night & day.

The White album is The Beatles trying to be everything they're not and as a result it just sounds like 4 guys in a studio with no direction other than making some awful art school hipster turd of a record for the sake of making it.

On the other hand Exile is the Stones going back to their roots and making an album that is 100% them and and all their various influences and as a result I think the songs are better, the album is much more cohesive and it's a much tighter record because of it.

It's kind of like one band goofing around in a studio and one band playing something that they've lived with their whole lives and I think it shows.

I've only ever met 2 types of people who don't rate Exile, and that's Beatles fanboys and people who don't really have much interest in blues & early rock n roll anyway.

I completely agree with this, but honestly can't say much about the Beatles albums because I am really not a fan or interested in listening to them.

I love blues and early rock n roll, I'm not a Beatles fanboy, and I still don't think too highly of Exile.

Though you have challenged me to revisit it.