The Rolling Stones Crap/Not Crap?
- Thread starter peppery
- Start date
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
pretty superb between 1965 and 1972 and then a slow but relentless slide into mediocrity.
In there day they managed to part terrify middle england and pretty much patented the decadent, arrogant, aloof band image that has been much copied since.
They did some fucking great songs - simple but devastating riffs and tunes with sharp, insightful and often genuninely nasty lyrics.
They adapted american electric blues to a keen pop sensibility - creating something new in the process whislt still retaining the danger and charge of the original R&B.
Jagger always was a twat (althoug very beauitful in his youth - and again setting another much copied template - the skinny hipped androgenous frontman) but Keef is still the fuckin man - maan.
They pissed on the beatles.
In there day they managed to part terrify middle england and pretty much patented the decadent, arrogant, aloof band image that has been much copied since.
They did some fucking great songs - simple but devastating riffs and tunes with sharp, insightful and often genuninely nasty lyrics.
They adapted american electric blues to a keen pop sensibility - creating something new in the process whislt still retaining the danger and charge of the original R&B.
Jagger always was a twat (althoug very beauitful in his youth - and again setting another much copied template - the skinny hipped androgenous frontman) but Keef is still the fuckin man - maan.
They pissed on the beatles.
Bomber
The Oatcake Kid !!
Surely know one really thinks The Stones are crap , do they ? I mean they've had their day n all, but then they are not alone there are they ? The cliched 'occasional return' to former glories {Tattoo You, Some Girls etc.} is wearing a bit thin now but I can confidently put anything up to and including Goats Head Soup {greatly underrated} on and be in almost instant rock heaven ! Not crap, just like The Who, Led Zepp, The Faces and Free aren't crap either ! 
LDR
kiwitanga
Hmm... I don't agree with the no need for it comment.Pigeon said:Ultimately, though, there's no need for it is there? They're not going to do anything particuarly interesting or noteworthy after all this time, are they? They just gonna sound like a Rolling Stones tribute band.
I still listen to new stuff by AC/DC for example and yes they aren't doing anything interesting or noteworthy but I still look forward to their new stuff because I know it will give me more of the same and it will rock.
I don't agree that a band needs to be constantly changing to be good. In fact, in many ways I like to know what I’m getting.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
I want to make it clear that I by no means endorse all their earlier stuff. Their output has always been of very mixed quality.LD Rudeboy said:
they're not gods of rock (as if that's even a compliment) but they're far from crap. in their discography they have enough fantastic material to put most bands to shame, unfortunately it's mixed it with some utter bilge, with a steadily worsening ratio....
they still piss ALL OVER the fucking Beatles, mind
they still piss ALL OVER the fucking Beatles, mind
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
pilchardman said:
You could say the same about Bach.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
last time i looked, Bach wasn't doing much, which is pilch's point as well you know.
(although he is - wait for it - 'decomposing'.. snigger.. etc)
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Dubversion said:
Apart from this recent thing, I thought the last album was Bridges to Babylon in1997. I'd say their ouevre is pretty much drawing to a close.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
it may indeed be drawing to a close, but it hasn't yet. so pilch's point stands
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
The stones made some great music. Are they now has-beens? If they can still draw large crowds to stadiums, and can still sell records, then the answer is no.
killer b said:
nope, officially the stones wrote it and Gram covered it, although i've always been suspicious about that one
Johnny Canuck2 said:
so your barometer for their current validity is based on sales?
how do you feel about Celine Dion or Status Quo? still pullin' em in.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
My favourite stones songs would be Midnight Rambler, Rocks Off, Sweet Black Angel, Love in Vain, Shine a Light.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Dubversion said:
Sales are an indication of popularity.
I'm unclear on how to assess their validity.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
i'm not suggesting you should be able to provide a clear metric for their validity- i think we're all expressing mere opinions - but i think simple popularity is an appalling way of assessing their validity.
not that the popular is invalid per se, it cuts both ways
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Dubversion said:
Say what?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
The Stones, or Celine for that matter, may have a message that is valid to their particular audiences.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
quite right, duly edited
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Post 52 is my response to the edited comment.
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
I'd say they are closer to crap than gods of rock so I voted that way . They did good early stuff but it still wasn't that great !
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
metalguru said:
That lazy guitar slash coming in just on time.
Some great riffs.
Looked great.
Filled his body with huge amounts of smack but still looks better than fitness freak jagger.
Survived despite etc ...
- all tick the 'rock god' assessment form IMHO
Sir Belchalot
arenicola marina
Heard one of the tracks on the radio a while back. I thought it was a Stones tribute band, seemed to be very formulaic without any soul to it. Maybe they just played a duff track and the rest is better.LD Rudeboy said:
Orangesanlemons
Inamorati Anonymous
If you've got Hot Rocks (the singles comp) and Exile On Main Street then you don't really need anything else. Great band, sometimes. Best listened to in conjunction with reading Stoned, vol 1.
Similar threads
