Official Rolling Stones Thread

[tim_m]

I think even some of their early 60s and early 80s work is really good. Some of those songs are great. Not on par with their late 60s to late 70s work but some really great songs. I really liked the Steel Wheels album. That's the album that got me into them when i was 12 years old. One of my all time favorite songs is on 1967's Between The Buttons, Ruby Tuesday.

[AxlsMainMan]

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

I never said they did but bands that reinvent or experiment with their sound tend to be more interesting than those that don't. After all, aren't a lot of us attracted to Guns N' Roses and here because of their artistic growth and experimentation from Appetite for Destruction to Use Your Illusion to Chinese Democracy?

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

The Beatles touched on Pop, Rock, Metal, Industrial, Psychedelic, Rockabilly, Classical, etc..

You're kidding with the Stonesmania question, right?

No, so why not answer it?

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

I was primarily talking about folks from the Rock N' Roll crowd. I'm in the process of going to teachers college, and most girls I've been around seem more into fashion brands like American Eagle or Aeropostle than band/artist shirts, but if you say so.

They were interested in making rock n' roll music, and they did so better than anyone else has done before or since.

That's your opinion which you're entitled to just as I am mine. Yet on the other hand, many critics and music scholars have attested to Lennon and McCartney being the greatest composers since Schubert, so even if you're correct about The Stones being superior in the Rock department, when it comes to the larger actual task of songwriting and composing, they're really not that highly regarded.

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.

Have you ever seen a Beatles concert? It's pretty apparent why they felt they could no longer take their music on the road. They couldn't even hear themselves play, much less think. Every single show was complete and utter anarchy with fans mobbing them.

What did they do instead? They stuck to the studio and honed/mastered their craft. Would you have preferred them take a page from The Stones' book and release endless redundant greatest hits packages or $50 tongue bumper stickers while not touring?

That's cool you get so much out of their lives shows. I'd easily put Guns N' Roses, Prince, The Who, or Rush ahead of The Stones as one of the better live bands around. When I saw them it was even more farcical than Bon Jovi (do I really need to see ladies as old as my grandmother throwing their panties at the band? ).

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...

I'm not crazy about that track either. By experimental I meant tracks like "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," or, like I suggested earlier, "Tomorrow Never Knows." If you watch Mad Men you're probably familiar with the track.

[Bodhi]

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.

Ok here goes, and im fully expecting to be destroyed for this but I'll say it anyway.  The Rolling Stones are a great band, no doubt, and as far as longevity they are the greatest of all time.  But I wouldn't go as far as to say they did Rock N Roll better than anyone before or after them.  I think Elvis Presley would have something to say about that before business, and as for after I think there have been bands who at times were better than the Rolling Stones.  Right off the top of my head I think Guns N Roses, Queen and Aerosmith are better than the Stones.  I know there are a fair amount of people who also think Led Zeppelin were better.  Since 1980 the Stones have put out a lot of not so great music.  Don't get me wrong, I love the Stones, just because I happen to think a few  bands were better doesn't mean I don't love them.  Just because those bands I mentioned came after the Stones they will forever no matter what be not as good as the Stones, I get it.  I just don't agree with that.

As far as the Beatles and Stones comparison I never understood that.  Other than both being british and coming to the States in the 60's those two bands have nothing in common.  It is comparing apples and oranges. 

[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...

I'm not crazy about that track either. By experimental I meant tracks like "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," or, like I suggested earlier, "Tomorrow Never Knows." If you watch Mad Men you're probably familiar with the track.

Ah, okay... never thought of those as particularly experimental, but I guess they were at the time.

[LongGoneDay]

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

I never said they did but bands that reinvent or experiment with their sound tend to be more interesting than those that don't. After all, aren't a lot of us attracted to Guns N' Roses and here because of their artistic growth and experimentation from Appetite for Destruction to Use Your Illusion to Chinese Democracy?

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

The Beatles touched on Pop, Rock, Metal, Industrial, Psychedelic, Rockabilly, Classical, etc..

You're kidding with the Stonesmania question, right?

No, so why not answer it?

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

I was primarily talking about folks from the Rock N' Roll crowd. I'm in the process of going to teachers college, and most girls I've been around seem more into fashion brands like American Eagle or Aeropostle than band/artist shirts, but if you say so.

They were interested in making rock n' roll music, and they did so better than anyone else has done before or since.

That's your opinion which you're entitled to just as I am mine. Yet on the other hand, many critics and music scholars have attested to Lennon and McCartney being the greatest composers since Schubert, so even if you're correct about The Stones being superior in the Rock department, when it comes to the larger actual task of songwriting and composing, they're really not that highly regarded.

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.

Have you ever seen a Beatles concert? It's pretty apparent why they felt they could no longer take their music on the road. They couldn't even hear themselves play, much less think. Every single show was complete and utter anarchy with fans mobbing them.

What did they do instead? They stuck to the studio and honed/mastered their craft. Would you have preferred them take a page from The Stones' book and release endless redundant greatest hits packages or $50 tongue bumper stickers while not touring?

That's cool you get so much out of their lives shows. I'd easily put Guns N' Roses, Prince, The Who, or Rush ahead of The Stones as one of the better live bands around. When I saw them it was even more farcical than Bon Jovi (do I really need to see ladies as old as my grandmother throwing their panties at the band? ).

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...

I'm not crazy about that track either. By experimental I meant tracks like "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," or, like I suggested earlier, "Tomorrow Never Knows." If you watch Mad Men you're probably familiar with the track.

First off, I should say that I agree with AxlReznor that Stones vs Beatles is a stupid comparison.
It's subjective and we aren't going to changes each others mind.

That said, let's continue, haha.

As far as the reinventing thing goes, the Stones didn't exactly stand still.
You use GN'R as an example. There is as much change going on from Beggars Banquet to Goats Head Soup as there is from AFD to Illusions.
If we are honest with ourselves, two different bands made AFD and Chinese. They just shared the name.
Same with the Stones. They have been a different band since Taylor left, and outside of Some Girls and a handful of tracks here and there, it's not my bag.

Honestly I couldn't care less what the experts/critics have to say. I'm just sharing my opinion.
I think Lennon and McCartney are great composers, but I never found myself really relating to their lyrics, as well written as they are.

If I could see any band, any era live, it would be between the '72 Stones, and '87 GN'R.

I wasn't knocking the Beatles lack of touring, I was referring to the lackluster live reputation they had.
I'm too young to have had the privilege of seeing them myself, or the Stones in their hey day live, but from video and talking to people I know who did see them, it was no comparison.
The Stones are regarded as one of the best, whereas the Beatles "technologically innovative" studio approach didn't translate well live.
I realize this proves nothing. Just opinions.

Going back to my original post, I don't view the Beatles as a rock n' roll band.
I have no problem with the Beatles being considered among the most popular bands of all time, but they were too clean for rock n' roll.
Leave r'n'r to the Stones!

[LongGoneDay]

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.

Ok here goes, and im fully expecting to be destroyed for this but I'll say it anyway.  The Rolling Stones are a great band, no doubt, and as far as longevity they are the greatest of all time.  But I wouldn't go as far as to say they did Rock N Roll better than anyone before or after them.  I think Elvis Presley would have something to say about that before business, and as for after I think there have been bands who at times were better than the Rolling Stones.  Right off the top of my head I think Guns N Roses, Queen and Aerosmith are better than the Stones.  I know there are a fair amount of people who also think Led Zeppelin were better.  Since 1980 the Stones have put out a lot of not so great music.  Don't get me wrong, I love the Stones, just because I happen to think a few  bands were better doesn't mean I don't love them.  Just because those bands I mentioned came after the Stones they will forever no matter what be not as good as the Stones, I get it.  I just don't agree with that.

As far as the Beatles and Stones comparison I never understood that.  Other than both being british and coming to the States in the 60's those two bands have nothing in common.  It is comparing apples and oranges. 

I'm not going to fight you on Elvis!

I love all of the bands you mention, but could never put Queen or Aerosmith above the Stones.
I would love to give my fellow Bostonians the honor of greatest, but as much as I love their first 4 records, they went down hill after that and weren't nearly as prolific live.
I'd rank Queen among the greatest live acts, but their studio work is too inconsistent for me to put them in the same stratosphere as the Stones.

Had GN'R not been so short lived, I think they had the best chance. They had the total package.
Amazing lyrics, best frontman. Keith Richards Jr in Izzy, Mick Taylor/Joe Perry hybrid in Slash, and they were among the best live.
That lineup just wasn't around long enough.

I'm not as high on Zeppelin as a lot of people, though they were undeniably great.

I just think the Stones captured the spirit of rock n' roll better than anyone else.
Using Exile as example, you can clearly hear all of their influences from Elvis, Robert Johnson, Chuck, Reed etc but they obviously added to it, and that record sounds just as fresh to me today as it did the first time I heard it.

[tim_m]

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.

Ok here goes, and im fully expecting to be destroyed for this but I'll say it anyway.  The Rolling Stones are a great band, no doubt, and as far as longevity they are the greatest of all time.  But I wouldn't go as far as to say they did Rock N Roll better than anyone before or after them.  I think Elvis Presley would have something to say about that before business, and as for after I think there have been bands who at times were better than the Rolling Stones.  Right off the top of my head I think Guns N Roses, Queen and Aerosmith are better than the Stones.  I know there are a fair amount of people who also think Led Zeppelin were better.  Since 1980 the Stones have put out a lot of not so great music.  Don't get me wrong, I love the Stones, just because I happen to think a few  bands were better doesn't mean I don't love them.  Just because those bands I mentioned came after the Stones they will forever no matter what be not as good as the Stones, I get it.  I just don't agree with that.

As far as the Beatles and Stones comparison I never understood that.  Other than both being british and coming to the States in the 60's those two bands have nothing in common.  It is comparing apples and oranges. 

I'm not going to fight you on Elvis!

I love all of the bands you mention, but could never put Queen or Aerosmith above the Stones.
I would love to give my fellow Bostonians the honor of greatest, but as much as I love their first 4 records, they went down hill after that and weren't nearly as prolific live.
I'd rank Queen among the greatest live acts, but their studio work is too inconsistent for me to put them in the same stratosphere as the Stones.

Had GN'R not been so short lived, I think they had the best chance. They had the total package.
Amazing lyrics, best frontman. Keith Richards Jr in Izzy, Mick Taylor/Joe Perry hybrid in Slash, and they were among the best live.
That lineup just wasn't around long enough.

I'm not as high on Zeppelin as a lot of people, though they were undeniably great.

I just think the Stones captured the spirit of rock n' roll better than anyone else.
Using Exile as example, you can clearly hear all of their influences from Elvis, Robert Johnson, Chuck, Reed etc but they obviously added to it, and that record sounds just as fresh to me today as it did the first time I heard it.

I agree with you, those are all great bands no doubt, but none of them imo were critically acclaimed as long as the stones were. From around mid to late 60s to the late 70s nobody was better period then what the stones did and that makes them the best ever imo.

[LongGoneDay]

I think even some of their early 60s and early 80s work is really good. Some of those songs are great. Not on par with their late 60s to late 70s work but some really great songs. I really liked the Steel Wheels album. That's the album that got me into them when i was 12 years old. One of my all time favorite songs is on 1967's Between The Buttons, Ruby Tuesday.

Oh definitely.
Just using the "40 Licks" greatest hits album as an example. There are only 8 or 9 songs off of that classic stretch of albums(Beggars, Let it Bleed, Sticky, Exile) on that compilation.
They were already hugely successful before those albums were even released!

I love the early records with Jagger/Richards originals, but also their takes on the Chuck Berry, Sam Cooke etc covers.

There are three eras as far as I'm concerned. Brian Jones, Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood.
The Wood era has some great moments, but easily the least impressive for me.
Jagger actually started playing rhythm on the later records, so kind of goes to show how much pull Wood even had.
Sucks that he ended up such a pushover, because he was a fucking stud in the Faces, especially some of the live bootlegs I've got from '71-'73.

They had auditioned Rory Gallagher after Taylor left.
I imagine that could have worked out much better.
Even though Jeff Beck doesn't seem like an obvious fit, that could have been cool too, but he turned it down.

[tim_m]

I think even some of their early 60s and early 80s work is really good. Some of those songs are great. Not on par with their late 60s to late 70s work but some really great songs. I really liked the Steel Wheels album. That's the album that got me into them when i was 12 years old. One of my all time favorite songs is on 1967's Between The Buttons, Ruby Tuesday.

Oh definitely.
Just using the "40 Licks" greatest hits album as an example. There are only 8 or 9 songs off of that classic stretch of albums(Beggars, Let it Bleed, Sticky, Exile) on that compilation.
They were already hugely successful before those albums were even released!

I love the early records with Jagger/Richards originals, but also their takes on the Chuck Berry, Sam Cooke etc covers.

There are three eras as far as I'm concerned. Brian Jones, Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood.
The Wood era has some great moments, but easily the least impressive for me.
Jagger actually started playing rhythm on the later records, so kind of goes to show how much pull Wood even had.
Sucks that he ended up such a pushover, because he was a fucking stud in the Faces, especially some of the live bootlegs I've got from '71-'73.

They had auditioned Rory Gallagher after Taylor left.
I imagine that could have worked out much better.
Even though Jeff Beck doesn't seem like an obvious fit, that could have been cool too, but he turned it down.

Some of their early stuff is just as great as stuff at their peak. Another one of my favorites is a real  early song called As Tears Go By. I know they said they don't really like it but i do. I think its a pretty damn good song. Yes, 40 licks is a good measure of their greatness. I completely agree with Ronnie Wood. He's a much better player then he is with the Stones. When i saw him play at this years HOF ceremony. I was like wow! Is this the same guy in the Stones? Beck in the Stones would've been really cool, just a phenomenal guitar player.

[Malcolm]

Rolling Stones to Play Brooklyn, London in November: Source


The Rolling Stones will play four dates in November, two at London's O2 Arena and two at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, a source tells Billboard. Richard Branson and Australian promoter Paul Dainty will promote, and the source says the Stones will be paid $25 million for the four shows.

[rebelhipi]

Rolling Stones to Play Brooklyn, London in November: Source


The Rolling Stones will play four dates in November, two at London's O2 Arena and two at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, a source tells Billboard. Richard Branson and Australian promoter Paul Dainty will promote, and the source says the Stones will be paid $25 million for the four shows.

nice!

[tim_m]

Nice, would love to see one of those webcast or maybe on tv either on HBO or a ppv.

[Chief]

Stones 3 part interview, pretty cool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbnrHE9lP1g&list=PLA5CCBFBC7AEC32B2&index=1&feature=plpp_video

[Chief]

I'm surprised they're already releasing new songs

http://www.billboard.com/news#/news/rolling-stones-announce-greatest-hits-album-1007925352.story

[raindogs70]

I'm surprised they're already releasing new songs

http://www.billboard.com/news#/news/rolling-stones-announce-greatest-hits-album-1007925352.story

Can't wait to see the track listing for the 4 CD set. Needed something comprehensive.

Between the last couple of deluxe editions and the 2 new songs, we have a new Stones album. Not sure why they went with a gorilla for the cover though.

It just took them a while to get back together and rehearse before deciding what to do, the "Crossfire Hurricane" documentary should be excellent, Jagger and Richards have nothing to hide at this point.

[Gunner80]

New song is fucking tits.

[tim_m]

It looks like their December 15th show at Prudential Center will be on pay-per-view. Awesome!

[LunsJail]

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/our-country/taylor-swift-channels-60s-icon-stage-stones-154901286.html

Let the outrage begin 

[Gunner80]

Out of all the guests Taylor had the prettiest voice.  People can hate all they want. She's gorgeous, can sing, writes her own music and words, for better or worse, I'm sure as time goes on she'll mature into a really good song writer.

[LunsJail]

Out of all the guests Taylor had the prettiest voice.  People can hate all they want. She's gorgeous, can sing, writes her own music and words, for better or worse, I'm sure as time goes on she'll mature into a really good song writer.

I agree, and I loved the performance personally.