Posts: 35,316
Threads: 3,510
Joined: Jul 2010
ok, this'll probably ruffle a few feathers but really, i believe the stones are the most overrated band from the 1960s.
i mean they had probably half a dozen truly great singles:
satisfaction,start me up, emotional rescue,spend the night together,sympathy for the devil,brown sugar.
i thought tattoo you was a good album, exile on main street,sticky fingers too, so why all the fuss?
the rest of their music is/was repetative shite based on a couple of good riffs rehashed over and over again and blatant ripoffs from the blues.
"BTO....Bachman,Turner,Overweight
They were big in the 70s....for five minutes,on a Saturday,after lunch..." - Me 2014.
Posts: 2,223
Threads: 359
Joined: Oct 2009
06-08-2010, 12:41
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2010, 13:35 by gryphon.)
Can't agree with you there I'm afraid..............The Stones like The Beatles and Dylan have justly earned their place in rock history and it was not without paying their dues musically. They have had their ups and downs during their long career and like many bands their are times when they have produced a few make weights ..........however in their best period, they defined what a rock and roll band should be.............
It is possible that listening to their CDs cold in 2010 could perhaps make you feel that they might have short comings but the Stones are about a little more than a few cm of silver.................To begin with Keith Richards is the original Rock and Roll rebel and that is shown in his lyrics , guitar style, life style and when he speaks.................Watch the man carefully, he is more that a handful for anyone.............he is articulate ( Both in lyric writing , conversation , in his ability to play his instrument and in live performance) this is a man to whom even John Lennon was careful and cautious .....
Mick Jagger too can manage a little more than "Shite" as your put it............For a band front man their is no contender and to be honest he wrote the book that others follow,
Putting Mick and Keith together, they make rock ad roll look easy to those who can not look deeply into what they say or what they do....................
Mick and Keith and up to a point Charly Watts define a generation and speak for them. I can't see that that amounts to " A few good singles" when they are still fill giant stadia and wowing crowds some 40+ years after they started.
I could go on but I feel that few would agree with you and perhaps it is time that you looked a little more time to look at their vast catalogue of achievement and to read a little deeper into their history..then perhaps a more enlightened view might become apparent..........:biggrin: 
Nice to be able to go back to trust and friendship!!!!!!!!!
It's a mixed up sensation this being alive
Oh! it wears a man down into the ground
It's the strangest elation
I can't describe it
Oh it leaves a man weary
It makes a man frown..............................Chris Simpson ( "Mixed Up Sensations" 1975 Martin's Cafe )
Posts: 212
Threads: 27
Joined: Mar 2009
To the OP: I agree in a way. I can't really get into them as an albums band. But they did lots of great tunes in the sixties.
get the compilation Hot Rocks 1964-1971. Other than that don't bother.
Posts: 5,551
Threads: 146
Joined: Jan 2008
I think Griff's comments about context are important here. The impact they had on Rock & Roll in the '60s is incalculable. However, in terms of recorded output, I don't think they've produced anything of any importance for years. That being said, I still feel a bad Stones album is a fair album if it were made by anyone else.
I saw them live in '90, and have to say they were a cracking live act then. Can't really speak for their performances since.
I find it reassuring that we all have different takes on what makes music great. There'd be nothing to discuss if we all had the same opinions...
Posts: 35,316
Threads: 3,510
Joined: Jul 2010
ok, well i have seen the stones live, jagger too as a solo artist. they put on a fair show and jagger has endless energy on stage, i do however, still stand by my original opinion of the stones.
i feel as though i know a hell of a lot about rock'n'roll and the only reason i believe that they influenced so many other musos is because the sound they created on satisfaction was quite 'out there' when released, they never improved on that sound or expanded their musical horizons beyond that, i feel they found a groove and got stuck in it.
ps. i rate 'satisfaction' as the greatest rock song ever, it had 'balls'!!
"BTO....Bachman,Turner,Overweight
They were big in the 70s....for five minutes,on a Saturday,after lunch..." - Me 2014.
Posts: 201
Threads: 19
Joined: Apr 2010
I agree, I like musicians that take crazy risks. Neil Young or Elvis Costello pop into my head. I don't always like their tangents, but it is quite neat, but perhaps that is the advantage of soloists over bands.
" Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung. "
Posts: 35,316
Threads: 3,510
Joined: Jul 2010
the beatles took risks as well, sgt,peppers could have flopped,the white album too.
to be honest with you i cant listen to the sgt.peppers album all the way through, to me it sounds dated, whereas their other albums sound fresh,let it be album sounds a bit flat too.
going back to what you said pennywill, i agree wholeheartedly, id rather listen to an artist that surprises me when they release a new record, as you also said it is far easier for a solo artist to do that than a band, the stones are somewhat limited to the constraints of the band, i just thought the stones could have added different variations to their sound every once in a while, i acknoweledge that keith richards is a clever man,i just dont think he went outside the square and took risks once in a while. thats probably one of the reasons i like people like neil young,costello,weller and to a lesser extent mccartney.as an after thought dylan at times has been outside the square,not that he ventured too far out of it.
"BTO....Bachman,Turner,Overweight
They were big in the 70s....for five minutes,on a Saturday,after lunch..." - Me 2014.
Posts: 29,394
Threads: 8,612
Joined: Aug 2009
Back in to 60's I was a bigger Stones fan than Beatles fan.
I think Exile was the last great album, with pretty much a downhill slide after that. Not to say there weren't some peaks down in the valley.
I believe the Stones died a few years after the Beatles did.
Posts: 9,643
Threads: 255
Joined: Jun 2010
Jagger+Richards = mediocre
Plant+Page = brilliance
Posts: 2,223
Threads: 359
Joined: Oct 2009
Whilst Jagger and Richards had "Sympathy for the Devil"
Plant and Page actually sold heir souls to the devil !!!!!!!!!!!:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
Nice to be able to go back to trust and friendship!!!!!!!!!
It's a mixed up sensation this being alive
Oh! it wears a man down into the ground
It's the strangest elation
I can't describe it
Oh it leaves a man weary
It makes a man frown..............................Chris Simpson ( "Mixed Up Sensations" 1975 Martin's Cafe )
|
