Let\'s talk about The Rolling Stones!!!

• #15 Reply
  Posted by Kaliguitar on 05 Aug, 2008 22:41
• I don\'t like anchovies
• 
  
• #16 Reply
  Posted by SkyePrizm on 05 Aug, 2008 23:55
• I am not the hugest Stones fan, but i definitely have to put them up there and give them props.   Their earlier work is truly foundation for many rock bands that followed.  I think many people tend to only think of their horrible albums of the 80s to modern day.
  
  My fav songs have always been Under my Thumb, Sympathy for the Devil, and Angie.
• 
  
• #17 Reply
  Posted by siflandollie on 06 Aug, 2008 00:58
• Quote from: kindm\'s;198286

  
  Not a huge fan but I would never use the word suck

  
  

  Quote from: FrankZappa;198326

  I could condense their entire catalog to 2 cd\'s worth of awesome music I like.
• 
  
• #18 Reply
  Posted by Yoda on 06 Aug, 2008 09:18
• I think that part of the reason that I never got into TRS is because of the following reasons
  
  - Jagger\'s voice does to my ears what a kidney stone would do...well you get my point.
  - Their greatest hits cds are way too expensive ($20+ for 21 songs / lets get real)
  - $72-$367 for a single ticket; I know a lot of bands charge hight prices now, but unless I\'m getting lower level seating, I\'m not paying $72 a ticket.  That\'s why I was forced to be sidelined for the Bruce shows at GS.  Artists are just getting greedier by the day.
  - You could put a newborn baby behind the drum kit and he would do more than Watts does.
  
  I do agree that the Stones deserve their place in R&R history.  To me, they are on the same level as Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Doors, etc....
  
  They are not on the same level as Elvis, The Beatles or Bob Dylan.
• 
  
• #19 Reply
  Posted by Dweasel Weasel on 06 Aug, 2008 10:15
• The disconnect here might be the use of the word "level."  Level of what? Level of popularity?   Level of live performance?  Level of technical skill?  Level of songwriting?     Level of influence on other bands?
  I think we might all agree that depending on what level you\'re talking about, the answer is going to change.
• 
  
• #20 Reply
  Posted by Yoda on 06 Aug, 2008 10:31
• To me, it\'s the level of the music.  But I also think that say, if you swapped Daltrey for Jagger, I might enjoy TRS more.  For the most part, it\'s not the music, it\'s his voice.
  
  But again, I think that The Beatles are on a higher level on all sides.
• 
  
• #21 Reply
  Posted by galenas on 06 Aug, 2008 10:40
• wow...
  
  off the top of my head, here\'s some tunes that you may not hear on the radio but i hope you enjoy...
  
  child of the moon
  soul survivor
  jigsaw puzzle
  stray cat blues
  i don\'t know why
  sister morphine
  monkey man
  tumbling dice
  dancing with mr. d
  slave
  memo to turner
  loving cup
  live with me
  citadel
  2000 light years from home
  she\'s like a rainbow
  
  
  i don\'t know. i just feel this band right up from my gut. i guess you either feel em or you don\'t. personally, i don\'t feel the beatles at all. can barely stand listening to them, to be honest...
• 
  
• #22 Reply
  Posted by ds673488 on 06 Aug, 2008 10:57
• i love monkey man, loving cup i got into cause of phish but the stones version is sweet
• 
  
• #23 Reply
  Posted by SlimPickens on 06 Aug, 2008 12:52
• First let me say:
  A.  To each his/her own.
  B.  You people are balls out freaking insane crazy.
  
  I\'m not even a "huge" stones fan.  But I know enough of their music to know you have to be deaf or ignorant not to understand and appreciate what a powerful and beautiful force the Stones have been on music for the last 50 freakin\' years.
  
  The period from \'68 - \'72 produced 4 of rock\'s all time top masterpieces: Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main St.
  
  Oh, and Yoda what you really should do, before taking one more step in this world is the following:
  1.  Send your wife and child away for a fun weekend with Grandma & Grandpa.
  2.  Buy Exile on Main St., a bottle of fine booze, and a sack of fungus.  
  3.  Throw that album on repeat
  4.  Eat the whole bag of fungus
  5.  Take large slugs of the fine booze as needed to help control the psychotic-mania
  
  Then you sit back and allow Mick Jagger and Charlie Watts to take you on a journey that may be the only thing to save you and the rest us from this constant flood of MORONIC **** that flows from your head, to your keyboard, and across the airwaves to this site.
• 
  
• #24 Reply
  Posted by oldnewbie on 06 Aug, 2008 12:54
• Quote from: SlimPickens;198415

  The period from \'68 - \'72 produced 4 of rock\'s all time top masterpieces: Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main St.

  
  
  
  what he said  (particularly the first two IMHO)
• 
  
• #25 Reply
  Posted by galenas on 06 Aug, 2008 12:56
• right, Slim!
• 
  
• #26 Reply
  Posted by Yoda on 06 Aug, 2008 13:00
• And in a 5 year time period listed below, The Beatles gave us some gems of their own:
  
  Help!, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album, Abbey Road and Let It Be.
  
  Again, to each is own, but in my eyes, there is no comparison to the two.
• 
  
• #27 Reply
  Posted by Kaliguitar on 06 Aug, 2008 13:08
• How about giving them credit for originality.  I know they copied the great blues artists but they took it somewhere new and original for their time creating a style that is still copied by many. Would we have the Black Crowes if the Stones never existed?
  
   Ok...maybe they\'re not the most technical band out there but since when did great art have to use great technique?  I saw Al Dimeola open for BB King at the Hollywood bowl 100 years ago...Dimeola is possibly one of the best technically gifted guitarists ever but when BB came out and played ONE...and I mean ONE NOTE...I got tears in my eyes.   A  far as a baby playing Charlie Watts....that\'s rough.  To me he played no more or no less then what was needed.  He can kick the **** out of big band music when he wants so skill isn\'t the issue.  Great players only play what\'s needed...imagine ZZtop with Jaco instead of Dusty Hill....or Van Halen with Les Claypool instead of Michael Anthony.  Neil Young used to have Nils Lofgren play piano because he knew nothing about it.  He didn\'t want flash and technique, he wanted emotion.
  
  I saw The Stones live and the show was one of the best I ever saw...Keith was sloppier then **** but that\'s what made it so great.  All attitude........NOTES are overrated.
  
  AND SLIM RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  GREAT POINTS
• 
  
• #28 Reply
  Posted by estahwhaddup on 06 Aug, 2008 13:11
• is ringo starr any better at drums than charlie watts?  think about that.
• 
  
• #29 Reply
  Posted by oldnewbie on 06 Aug, 2008 13:17
• for that matter......keiths a better guitarist than either lennon or harrison and he wasn\'t as good as brian jones or mick taylor. mcartney isn\'t any better than bill wyman and just for posterity....i\'ll say that billy preston and nicky hopkins are a wash as well. while it\'s a good point about the beatles albums during that time, noone was questioning their abilities or status in rock and roll history, just the stones. oh....and.....let it be isnt far from terrible IMHO.
•