T Nation

The Stones Thread...

Well, since we have threads on Led Zeppelin and The Who, we must have one on The Rolling Stones. We can’t discuss rock n’ roll without them.

Here’s my favorite Stones tune…

John Lennon is in this video as well.

Dustin

Here’s another Stones tune that ranks among the top on my list

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbZcslc9M78&mode=related&search=

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGAWE7l-fgU&mode=related&search=

LOL! In every video of the Stones it appears Charlie Watts (drummer ) is about to fall asleep.

Dustin

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Well, since we have threads on Led Zeppelin and The Who, we must have one on The Rolling Stones. We can’t discuss rock n’ roll without them.

Here’s my favorite Stones tune…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgMfTbSElWk

John Lennon is in this video as well.

Dustin

[/quote]

Now THAT is rock n roll. He freaks at the end. Id have gone nuts! The stance and pout/swagger is PURE rock n roll.

I think the Stones far exceed most bands in defining that era with GREAT songs. Probably only one of several bands who can still fill out any stadium globally - again a testament to the older rock n roll tracks, as other than ‘love is strong’ there aint been much memorable about the last couple decades.

Heres a classic: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-BxLbMT2s4

I just wanna rock. Hard.

Early blues influenced class…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr82vj5dDrU

[quote]supermick wrote:

Now THAT is rock n roll. He freaks at the end. Id have gone nuts! The stance and pout/swagger is PURE rock n roll.

I think the Stones far exceed most bands in defining that era with GREAT songs. Probably only one of several bands who can still fill out any stadium globally - again a testament to the older rock n roll tracks, as other than ‘love is strong’ there aint been much memorable about the last couple decades.

Heres a classic: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-BxLbMT2s4

I just wanna rock. Hard.

[/quote]

I can’t help but smile when I see Jagger flipping out like that in the Sympathy video.

Call me crazy, but I prefer the Stones to the Beatles. I like the attitude the Stones had compared to the smiling, pop star Beatles.

Plus, I think the Beatles allowed their drug use to dictate their music, especially after “finding acid”. They went off the deep end for a while after that.

Dustin

My mom is a Beatles fan. I turned out to be a Stones fan though. I saw them in October 2005 in Chocolatetown, USA. I had to see them live before Mick or Keith died. My favorite Stones song changes like every month, but I’d have to say it’s Wild Horses.

[quote]Dustin wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGAWE7l-fgU&mode=related&search=

[/quote]

Gimme shelter is awesome.

Agreed regarding Stones Ownage of Beatles. The music is more iconic, more rock n roll, more defining, and just better imo.

He cops a lot of shit but Mick Jagger was a great frontman in the true sense of the word.

[quote]supermick wrote:

Agreed regarding Stones Ownage of Beatles. The music is more iconic, more rock n roll, more defining, and just better imo.
[/quote]

In the early '60s they kicked the Beatles ass. Then the Beatles dropped the “white” album and it was over. George Harrison could have taken the Stones with one lick on his guitar on that album than the entire discography from the Stones have done.

I’ll give you the icon status but that doesn’t make great rock-n-roll in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong they made awesome music but to compare them to the Beatles…?

Blues…the Stones? That is an insult to the blues musicians they ripped off.

Gimme Shelter is one of my all-time favorite songs ever. The ambience of that song is just amazing.

If you haven’t seen them live go check out the Bridges to Babylon tour DVD. I think it’s only 4 years ago or so and man what a great show.

I agree - the Stones were the bad boys. They defined what rock and roll would grow to be. The Beatles had great pop tunes but ther Stones were something else entirely. Mick defined what a great swaggering front man should be like and Keef was the prototype for blues based, riff driven songs that just plain rocked.

My son is 14 now and he started digging the Stones a few years ago because I always did. Now he wails away on his guitar playing the solos from Sympathy for the Devil or the riff from Brown Sugar. He doesn’t understand why his classmates aren’t all huge Stones fans like he is!

I’m glad he has an appreciation for that classic stuff.

The Stones are great for their dirty, don’t care, sex, drenched blues rock. Keith Richard’s with with his low slung guitar epitomized the gunslinger, pirate, outlaw.

The Beatles were great as well in their own way. From their I want to hold your hand days into their psychedelic excursion many great tunes.

My Stones best songs list in no particular order.

Sympathy For the Devil

Start Me Up

Emotional Rescue

Under My Thumb

Moonlight Mile

Let’s Spend the Night Together

Can you hear me Knocking

Many I am not thinking of I really dig the Stones.

D

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
supermick wrote:

Agreed regarding Stones Ownage of Beatles. The music is more iconic, more rock n roll, more defining, and just better imo.

In the early '60s they kicked the Beatles ass. Then the Beatles dropped the “white” album and it was over. George Harrison could have taken the Stones with one lick on his guitar on that album than the entire discography from the Stones have done.

I’ll give you the icon status but that doesn’t make great rock-n-roll in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong they made awesome music but to compare them to the Beatles…?
[/quote]

compare them to the Beatles? its the classic arguement and i know where i stand.
Would the beatles be thought of as highly had lennon not been shot?
Has Sir paul done ANYTHING of note since?

Stones all the way.

What about “Angie! Aaaaaaaangie. When will the clouds all disappear?”

[quote]supermick wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
supermick wrote:

Agreed regarding Stones Ownage of Beatles. The music is more iconic, more rock n roll, more defining, and just better imo.

In the early '60s they kicked the Beatles ass. Then the Beatles dropped the “white” album and it was over. George Harrison could have taken the Stones with one lick on his guitar on that album than the entire discography from the Stones have done.

I’ll give you the icon status but that doesn’t make great rock-n-roll in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong they made awesome music but to compare them to the Beatles…?

compare them to the Beatles? its the classic arguement and i know where i stand.
Would the beatles be thought of as highly had lennon not been shot?
Has Sir paul done ANYTHING of note since?

Stones all the way.
[/quote]

I think we get too caught up in the celebrity of music and it clouds our judgement of it either because we view rock stars as icons or because we look with distaste at people who view them as icons. Ether way we need to de-fog our lenses.

Longevity is the hallmark of a successful career; that being said, the ability to sell albums is not a benchmark for quality. When a band such as the Stones achieves that status they could record an album with their grandchildren on backing kazoos and it would probably be held as the breakthru album of their career. This is due to the lemming nature of pop rock.

I think jazz musicians do it right.

They record an album with other musicians they respect, maybe tour for a few months then call it quits when they’ve done all they can do…but jazz musician’s bread-and-butter comes from their ability to play live and recording an album is secondary–plus, they are free from the fetters of major labels throwing ungodly amounts of cash at them.

First off. I love the Stones. I have many compiliations and discs.

But to prove that they are still truly hardcore check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263721,00.html