Official Rolling Stones Thread

[tim_m]

There's the stones and then there's everyone else period. Nobody is as great as they've been.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Past tense. They were great. Now there is no spark, no longer a raw rock band, too polished.

[tim_m]

Past tense. They were great. Now there is no spark, no longer a raw rock band, too polished.

I agree but they are the greatest rock band ever. They aren't what they once were but that doesn't change the fact they are the greatest ever.

[AxlsMainMan]

Past tense. They were great. Now there is no spark, no longer a raw rock band, too polished.

I agree but they are the greatest rock band ever. They aren't what they once were but that doesn't change the fact they are the greatest ever.

I think fans of The Beatles would disagree.

[rebelhipi]

Easily the greatest rock n roll band of all time, 50 years? come on...There catologue, Tours and merchandise sales are just unreal

agree! gnr is my favorite but theres just one place at the top. its gonna be sad times when they stop/someone dies

[tim_m]

Past tense. They were great. Now there is no spark, no longer a raw rock band, too polished.

I agree but they are the greatest rock band ever. They aren't what they once were but that doesn't change the fact they are the greatest ever.

I think fans of The Beatles would disagree.

The beatles are great no doubt, but the stones have so many classic albums compared to the beatles.

[AxlsMainMan]

Past tense. They were great. Now there is no spark, no longer a raw rock band, too polished.

I agree but they are the greatest rock band ever. They aren't what they once were but that doesn't change the fact they are the greatest ever.

I think fans of The Beatles would disagree.

The beatles are great no doubt, but the stones have so many classic albums compared to the beatles.

and The Beatles don't have "so many classic albums"?

Rubber Soul - Rubber Soul was successful commercially and critically, and is often cited as one of the greatest albums in music history. In 2012, Rubber Soul was voted 5th on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time."

The album was commercially successful, beginning a 42-week run in the British charts on 11 December 1965. On Christmas Day it replaced Help!?The Beatles' previous album?at the top of the charts, a position Rubber Soul held for eight weeks. On 9 May 1987, Rubber Soul returned to the album charts for three weeks, and ten years later made another comeback to the charts.

Revolver - It reached number one on both the British chart and American chart and stayed at the top spot for seven weeks and six weeks, respectively. Placed at number 1 in the All-Time Top 1000 Albums and number 3 in the Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, the album is often regarded as one of the greatest achievements in music history and one of The Beatles' greatest studio achievements.

In 1997, it was named the third greatest album of all time in a Music of the Millennium poll conducted in the United Kingdom by HMV Group, Channel 4, The Guardian and Classic FM.

In 2000, Q magazine placed it at number 1 in its list of the 100 Greatest British Albums Ever. The same magazine's readers placed it at number 4 of greatest albums of all time in 2006.

In 2001, the TV network VH1 named it the number 1 greatest album of all time, a position it also achieved in the Virgin All Time Top 1,000 Albums.

In 2002, the readers of Rolling Stone ranked the album the greatest of all time.

In 2006, the album was chosen by Time magazine as one of the 100 best albums of all time.

In 2006, Guitar World readers chose it as the 10th best guitar album of all time.

In 2007, a PopMatters review described the album's content ? "the individual members of the greatest band in the history of pop music peaking at the exact same time."

In 2010, Revolver was named as the best pop album of all time by the official newspaper of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano.

In 2012, Revolver was voted 3rd on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time". It placed behind only the Beatles' own Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds.

Revolver currently holds the number 3 spot on Rate Your Music's top 1000 albums chart.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - Sgt. Pepper was a worldwide critical and commercial success, spending a total of 27 weeks at the top of the UK Album Chart and 15 weeks at number one on the US Billboard 200. A defining album in the emerging psychedelic rock style, the album was critically acclaimed upon release and won four Grammy Awards in 1968. It frequently ranks at or near the top of published lists of the greatest albums of all time. In 1994, it was ranked number one in the book All Time Top 1000 Albums. In 2003, and again in 2012, the album was placed at number one on Rolling Stone magazine's list of "The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time". Sgt. Pepper is one of the world's best selling albums; 32 million copies have been shipped.

The White Album - The album has sold over 30 million copies worldwide, and was listed at number 10 on Rolling Stone's "500 Greatest Albums of All Time" list. Previously in 1987, as part of their 20th anniversary, Rolling Stone ranked it #9 on "The 100 Best Albums of the Last Twenty Years."

Abbey Road - In 2012, Abbey Road was voted 14th on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time."

Even the cover art for these 5 albums is world recognizable and beyond question some of the best album covers in all of Rock, whereas beyond Sticky Fingers I really can't think of too many album covers by The Stones that stick out as legendary.

[tim_m]

There's no denying The Beatles have some classic albums. I just thing think the stones have more though. Beggars Banquet, Let it bleed, Sticky fingers, Exile on Main Street, Goats Head Soup, Some Girls, Its only Rock N' Roll, Black and Blue. All great albums. Can the Beatles albums that were critically and commercially successful top those? I'm not sure.

[AxlsMainMan]

There's no denying The Beatles have some classic albums. I just thing think the stones have more though. Beggars Banquet, Let it bleed, Sticky fingers, Exile on Main Street, Goats Head Soup, Some Girls, Its only Rock N' Roll, Black and Blue. All great albums. Can the Beatles albums that were critically and commercially successful top those? I'm not sure.

So after 50 years together The Stones have managed to release 8 truly classic albums? The 5 I mentioned were released over 4 year span and only include my favorites and not A Hard Day's Night, Help!, Magical Mystery Tour, or Let It Be which I'm sure have also been argued as being "classics."

[tim_m]

Find me another band that's released that many great albums. Sure the stones probably have more classic albums but they have been around a lot longer obviously. Could the beatles had more if they stayed together? Absolutely, but you can't hold their longevity against them giving them more time to produce classic albums. Just for me personally though, i think the stones are the best ever. Nothing against the beatles. They were great too. Arguing this is pretty pointless though. Someone will always think one is better then the other since its totally a subjective thing.

[Gunner80]

Stones are the greatest period. They wrote every song there is to write and better than all these young crappy rock bands of today. I like the Beatles but I'll take the Stones over them any day. And fyi Rubber Soul is a horrible album, have no idea how it's even mentioned as one of the greatest albums ever.

Any band who can cover Hank Williams that well is great to me.

[LongGoneDay]

I totally understand the Beatles importance/influence on popular music, but they are pretty far down the list when I think of rock n' roll.
When I think of rock n' roll, I think Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

When I think of pop music, I think Beatles. They are closer to the last band that comes to mind when I think of rock n' roll.

I do appreciate the fact that the Beatles success opened the door a bit as far as the US market, for the greatest rock n' roll band of all time to come crashing through..
Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones.

[tim_m]

I totally understand the Beatles importance/influence on popular music, but they are pretty far down the list when I think of rock n' roll.
When I think of rock n' roll, I think Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

When I think of pop music, I think Beatles. They are closer to the last band that comes to mind when I think of rock n' roll.

I do appreciate the fact that the Beatles success opened the door a bit as far as the US market, for the greatest rock n' roll band of all time to come crashing through..
Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones.

Exactly, you can just go on and on naming classic songs they've written.

[AxlReznor]

The whole Rolling Stones vs. Beatles thing was stupid back then, and it's even more stupid nowadays. I'm not a fan of The Beatles at all, and still think it's a stupid argument as they are both completely different bands. It's like debating between Guns N' Roses or Duran Duran.

Anyway, to the person who mocked them from releasing "8 great albums in 50 years", you've got to take into consideration that this was in a ten year period (from 1968-1978).  Releasing 8 great albums in 10 years is a huge achievement. Especially when at least four of those (each album from 'Beggars Banquet' to 'Exile On Main Street') are considered to be some of the greatest albums in the history of music (not just rock 'n' roll), and even the remaining four that aren't without fail mentioned in those conversations have their fans. And of the songs from that period, they are still able to find great unused material to be released with recent reissues (Plundered My Soul from the 2010 Exile On Main Street reissue is the sort of brilliance that most bands don't wait nearly 40 years to release).

Not to mention that there are also individual tracks from the five years previous to 1968 that are among some of the best ever recorded (either from otherwise inconsistent early albums, or non-album tracks that were released as singles), and most of their albums since 'Some Girls' having at least one track that stands out and can live up to their most memorable tracks if not actually surpass them (there have been some notable exceptions, of course - 'Voodoo Lounge' and 'Bridges To Babylon' were both absolutely awful).

Also, take into consideration that for any band, regardless of how long they've been around, having just one of your albums consistently being hailed as one of the best ever is a massive achievement. Having four is a massive deal that few other bands have achieved (I think only The Beatles and Led Zeppelin have the same sort of representation in these conversations. There may be a couple more, but the number is definitely in single figures).

It's a shame that since the 80's their quality has dropped off dramatically, but you can't deny them that inspired ten years that produced music that is pretty much the standard that all rock 'n' roll since has been judged by. And I don't think any band could last 50 years without releasing some crap... not even the beloved Beatles.

[LongGoneDay]

The whole Rolling Stones vs. Beatles thing was stupid back then, and it's even more stupid nowadays. I'm not a fan of The Beatles at all, and still think it's a stupid argument as they are both completely different bands. It's like debating between Guns N' Roses or Duran Duran.

Anyway, to the person who mocked them from releasing "8 great albums in 50 years", you've got to take into consideration that this was in a ten year period (from 1968-1978).  Releasing 8 great albums in 10 years is a huge achievement. Especially when at least four of those (each album from 'Beggars Banquet' to 'Exile On Main Street') are considered to be some of the greatest albums in the history of music (not just rock 'n' roll), and even the remaining four that aren't without fail mentioned in those conversations have their fans. And of the songs from that period, they are still able to find great unused material to be released with recent reissues (Plundered My Soul from the 2010 Exile On Main Street reissue is the sort of brilliance that most bands don't wait nearly 40 years to release).

Not to mention that there are also individual tracks from the five years previous to 1968 that are among some of the best ever recorded (either from otherwise inconsistent early albums, or non-album tracks that were released as singles), and most of their albums since 'Some Girls' having at least one track that stands out and can live up to their most memorable tracks if not actually surpass them (there have been some notable exceptions, of course - 'Voodoo Lounge' and 'Bridges To Babylon' were both absolutely awful).

Also, take into consideration that for any band, regardless of how long they've been around, having just one of your albums consistently being hailed as one of the best ever is a massive achievement. Having four is a massive deal that few other bands have achieved (I think only The Beatles and Led Zeppelin have the same sort of representation in these conversations. There may be a couple more, but the number is definitely in single figures).

It's a shame that since the 80's their quality has dropped off dramatically, but you can't deny them that inspired ten years that produced music that is pretty much the standard that all rock 'n' roll since has been judged by. And I don't think any band could last 50 years without releasing some crap... not even the beloved Beatles.

I attribute the drop off in quality to personnel more than anything. Losing Mick Taylor closed a lot of doors for them.
Granted they weren't putting out "Exile" caliber material when he left, but (who is/has?) Goats Head Soup and It's Only Rock n' Roll were still pretty great.
Jagger was still writing inspired lyrics, and musically they were expanding without pushing it too far.

I love Ronnie Wood with the Jeff Beck Group and the Faces. I think Faces is the most underrated rock n' roll band out there. They were like the Rolling Stones Jr.
Unfortunately, Wood is just Richard's yes man in the Stones. Wood is a much better guitarist than he has shown, but Taylor was the perfect fit, and wasn't willing to go through the motions as Wood has been doing since 1975. Jagger still has his voice, and the ability to write good lyrics, but doesn't have anyone to push and inspire, while also keeping him in check. Stones have been playing it safe for so long. Plundered My Soul was a return to form, and it's no coincidence that Taylor is all over it.

Match ups like Jagger/Richards/Taylor, Plant/Page, Axl/Slash/Izzy etc don't come around very often.
Can't break em up and expect to have that chemistry with replacements.

[rebelhipi]

The whole Rolling Stones vs. Beatles thing was stupid back then, and it's even more stupid nowadays.

hail to that!

[AxlsMainMan]

Anyway, to the person who mocked them from releasing "8 great albums in 50 years", you've got to take into consideration that this was in a ten year period (from 1968-1978).  Releasing 8 great albums in 10 years is a huge achievement. Especially when at least four of those (each album from 'Beggars Banquet' to 'Exile On Main Street') are considered to be some of the greatest albums in the history of music (not just rock 'n' roll), and even the remaining four that aren't without fail mentioned in those conversations have their fans. And of the songs from that period, they are still able to find great unused material to be released with recent reissues (Plundered My Soul from the 2010 Exile On Main Street reissue is the sort of brilliance that most bands don't wait nearly 40 years to release).

And during that 10 year period did they once totally reinvent their sound or release a game-changing record like Sgt. Pepper which was completely unlike anything before it altering the face of popular music? Were there any ultra experimental tracks like John's "Tomorrow Never Knows"? The most experimental thing I can recall about The Stones was a Gawd awful foray into disco.

If that 10 year period was so magical then why didn't it spark Stonesmania akin to Beatlesmania (commonly argued to be the biggest cultural phenomenon ever)? Why do some of the top academic institutions in the world offer courses on The
Beatles from both a musical and cultural theory perspective if this 10 year period was so awe-inspiring?

Why do I see people wearing Beatles shirts every single day but have maybe seen a half a dozen Stones shirts in my entire existence?

Were The Stones technologically innovative with regard to the recording process to the point of pushing the technological limitations of their time, and in doing so alter how music could be recorded?

If so talented then why are their solo albums notoriously horrid while Paul's early solo work was enormously successful and John's is routinely cited as some of the finest music ever, if not on par or exceeding that of The Beatles?

[LongGoneDay]

Anyway, to the person who mocked them from releasing "8 great albums in 50 years", you've got to take into consideration that this was in a ten year period (from 1968-1978).  Releasing 8 great albums in 10 years is a huge achievement. Especially when at least four of those (each album from 'Beggars Banquet' to 'Exile On Main Street') are considered to be some of the greatest albums in the history of music (not just rock 'n' roll), and even the remaining four that aren't without fail mentioned in those conversations have their fans. And of the songs from that period, they are still able to find great unused material to be released with recent reissues (Plundered My Soul from the 2010 Exile On Main Street reissue is the sort of brilliance that most bands don't wait nearly 40 years to release).

And during that 10 year period did they once totally reinvent their sound or release a game-changing record like Sgt. Pepper which was completely unlike anything before it altering the face of popular music? Were there any ultra experimental tracks like John's "Tomorrow Never Knows"? The most experimental thing I can recall about The Stones was a Gawd awful foray into disco.

If that 10 year period was so magical then why didn't it spark Stonesmania akin to Beatlesmania (commonly argued to be the biggest cultural phenomenon ever)? Why do some of the top academic institutions in the world offer courses on The
Beatles from both a musical and cultural theory perspective if this 10 year period was so awe-inspiring?

Why do I see people wearing Beatles shirts every single day but have maybe seen a half a dozen Stones shirts in my entire existence?

Were The Stones technologically innovative with regard to the recording process to the point of pushing the technological limitations of their time, and in doing so alter how music could be recorded?

If so talented then why are their solo albums notoriously horrid while Paul's early solo work was enormously successful and John's is routinely cited as some of the finest music ever, if not on par or exceeding that of The Beatles?

Why does a band need to reinvent it's sound?

They are a rock n' roll band. That said they were hardly one dimensional.
They touched on blues, country, gospel, soul..

You're kidding with the Stonesmania question, right?
You've only seen a half dozen Stones shirts?

Are you counting Slash, who practically made the tongue logo famous?

I've seen more Katy Perry shirts than Beatles and Stones combined, so maybe she should be in this discussion.

Look up how the Stones went about recording Exile on Main Street, then ask yourself if you think they were really interested in "pushing the technological limitations of their time".
They were interested in making rock n' roll music, and they did so better than anyone else has done before or since.

Unlike the Beatles, the Stones could take their show on the road, and have the reputation of being one of the better live bands around.

[tim_m]

No doubt the stuff with Taylor in the band was classic. Everything he's on is some of the best music ever. Pretty much anything they released from the late 60s to late 70s is classic. He also made them better live. Listen to bootlegs from when Taylor was in the band. Those shows were fantastic.

[AxlReznor]

No "experimental" tracks, which usually translates to "unlistenable noise". I'd rather hear a song than someone repeating the words "number nine" for ten minutes...

But if you think 'Some Girls' sounds anything like anything they'd done previously, I'm not sure I can do anything for you.

Seeing as you're insisting on making the stupid comparison to The Beatles, I am of the belief that the only reason The Beatles get so much credit is because people have been forced to believe that's what they're supposed to think.