You don't like them?
I think my dad introduced me to them ages ago, and it was so fun to watch Mike movements were hilarious to me.
Growing up I got to like them more and more, and the drummer was a beast on his own.
I love the early stuff before Brian died. But I just feel like it gets so spotty after that. I pretty much view them is an over rated bar band. The only reason they’re considered legends is because of their longevity, which I will tip my cap to.
Respect, but this isn't accurate at all. It really isn't. The Stones were peers of the fucking Beatles for gosh sakes. Lesser peers, I give you, but peers nonetheless. They were a very prominent counter to the Beatles, and had as much a presence in the London music scene from that '65 to '69-'70 era as any band. Their run from Beggar's Banquet through Exile On Main St. is as seminal to that period of rock and roll as any four albums not named "Revolver through Abbey Road".
Charlie Watts is considered one of the greatest rock drummers of all time. He gets beaten up more than Jimmy Page for being sloppy, but Keith Richards has created some of the most memorable riffs of all time; you hear "Satisfaction" or "Honky Tonk Women" and you know EXACTLY who it is, immediately. Mick Jagger is over whelmed by the cliches (the lips, whatever) but he's an ICONIC front man, and you have an almost entire genre of music inspired by him (I'm thinking of bands like The Killers, The Strokes... even Harry Styles has paid significant homage to Jagger). He's also one of the very few guy - along with, funny enough, McCartney - who has had few if any vocal problems over the years.
I'm a huge Stones fan, all eras. I think they are far more than just "longevity". I think their early years are a prime example of the incorporation of blues (including American blues) into British rock. I think the early mid-period is a prime example of the way music interfaced with culture. Altamont; the Redlands arrests, the tax exile in the early '70s. The late '70s, early '80s was a study in how to navigate roots while still maintaining relevancy. And frankly, I think the latter period is about as vital as any other act still operating into their fifth or sixth decades (I wonder if he was being honest, if Bono wouldn't be jealous of that work when compared to the last two or three U2 albums).
Too much of the Stones is caricature, IMO. Jagger, the preening, egomaniacal front man (when in reality, he is an incredibly smart, incredibly astute businessman who has shepherded the Stones since the mid-70s as manager, and according to Charlie Watts "Mick Jagger is the least egotistical person; he'll do what's right for the band." He certainly put aside any feud with Richards in order to keep the Stones as a functioning entity.
Topic: Rolling Stones discussion thread (Read 5560 times)
