why is interference never talking about the rolling stones?

[U2Man]

the beatles quit touring already back in the sixties.

but macca is still touring, so who knows?

i dont think the beatles would ever have stayed together for so long, though, even if the chemistry had still been there. as soon as they realized that they had run out of creativity, they would have split anyway. i couldnt see them stay together and release uninteresting crap album after crap album for decades, just to be able to tour.

 

[phanan]

I think they're overrated as hell and of average talent. Actually, their older stuff from the late 60s and early 70s is good enough I guess, but it just really gets me when people try to speak 'The Stones' in the same breath as 'The Beatles'. To me it's not even a discussion. I just don't think the Stones can even begin to touch the realm of the Beatles.

As for overall body of work, I will agree and say the Beatles would be higher, but to say they are "overrated as hell and of average talent" is really misguided. Just listen to Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile On Main Street and you'll get an appreciation of how eclectic their music could really be.

I think some people, not necessarily you, look at how they've had quite a few weaker efforts throughout their later history and use that against them. Sure, they haven't had an album since Tattoo You that you could call a classic, but if The Beatles had continued on as long as they have, we'd be saying the same thing about them, too.

 

[U2Man]

yeah, you gotta know when to call it a day.

 

[annie_vox]

^^ I agree with that. Stones lost all the creativity they had about two decades ago. To prove that is the fact that they start and end concerts with classic old stuff and only play three or four new songs... That's the thing I don't like about them and that's what I felt at the concert.

 

[U2Man]

you would have to be pretty daft to think that the rolling stones is anything but a big money machine nowadays - and have been so for quite some time now, but their earlier stuff, when they were GREAT, could be appreciated some more...

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

satisfaction
street fighting man
paint it black
sympathy for the devil
gimmie shelter
salt of the earth
jumpin' jack flash
19th nervous breakdown
under my thumb
mother's little helper
ruby tuesday
start me up
wild hoses
get off my cloud
honky tonk woman
brown sugar
beast of burden
angie
miss you
fool to cry
it's only rock and roll
love is strong
out of control
tumbling dice
waiting on a friend
midnight rambler
saint of me


and that's just the ones i can think of off the top of my head... 3 or 4 songs??? boring??? come on now

well.... I agree.... 10-12 songs are good ... but seriously, I've seen them on TV, Live from Buenos Aires and they were bad.... always the same rythm.... something doesn't fit with my tastes.....

 

[Screwtape2]

some might say that historically they have had a much bigger impact on popular music than u2, too.

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

History can say what it will but when generation after generation listen to the Stones they'll find them overrated and generally unimpressive. They didn't make timeless music. As for poular music impact, how many artists sound like the Stones? They didn't have any unique style so how can you inspire or have any impact at all? U2 on the other hand has had more impact on music in the last twenty years than anyone else.

If the Stones had any impact is it as inspiring artists to sell out.

 

[U2Man]

in music history you talk about a 'british invasion', right?

i dont think ive ever seen anyone talk about the 'irish invasion' spearheaded by u2.

the beatles and the rolling stones were the two most important bands in what is known as 'the british invasion' in the sixties.

of course they made timeless music, their biggest hits of the sixties are still being played today.

 

[U2girl]

Stones would be nothing today without the laurels of their past and moreso touring, which is their excuse for album making.

 

[Screwtape2]

in music history you talk about a 'british invasion', right?

i dont think ive ever seen anyone talk about the 'irish invasion' spearheaded by u2.

the beatles and the rolling stones were the two most important bands in what is known as 'the british invasion' in the sixties.

of course they made timeless music, their biggest hits of the sixties are still being played today.

The Dave Clark 5 were as important a band in the British invasion as the Stones. Most people have never heard of them so being a critical part of the British invasion doesn't mean you had an impact of popular music.
U2 had to work their way to the top because it wasn't easy for Irish groups to make it. British bands in the 60's had it is easier. The 'Irish invasion' wasn't possible. However, because of U2 we have been exposed to more Irish artists. That is more important than being part of a musical invasion.
Finally, radio play does not equal timeless music. Culture Club songs are played on radio does that make them timeless? The Stones sound dated and pretty uncreative. Many bands of the time continue to attract new fans but the Stones.

 

[U2Man]

in that case i guess i will have to ask you what your definition of 'timeless' is, since you brought it up.

are you saying that the dave clark 5 was as popular as the rolling stones?

kharma chameleon is indeed timeless

 

[Screwtape2]

in that case i guess i will have to ask you what your definition of 'timeless' is, since you brought it up.

are you saying that the dave clark 5 was as popular as the rolling stones?

kharma chameleon is indeed timeless

The Beatles, Zeppelin and Pink Floyd all pick up younger fans when they are listened to. The Stones don't pick a lot of younger fans. If you can get even more fans each generation, that's what timeless implies in this case.

Yeah, the DC5 was a lot more popular than the Stones during the British invasion.

 

[U2Man]

arent most of the people at the stones shows fairly young?

sympathy for the devil?

satisfaction?

my parents listened to these songs. my kids will know them too.

 

[joyfulgirl]

The Beatles, Zeppelin and Pink Floyd all pick up younger fans when they are listened to. The Stones don't pick a lot of younger fans. If you can get even more fans each generation, that's what timeless implies in this case.

Yeah, the DC5 was a lot more popular than the Stones during the British invasion.

In my circle of younger friends (early 20s) they're all obsessed with the Beatles right now. They come over and want to hear Sgt. Pepper, which at first baffled me and then I decided it was pretty damn cool. Not one of them has any interest in the Stones, although I will make them watch "Gimme Shelter" with me one of these days.

 

[STING2]

well, besides u2 fans, this board seems to have a lot of radiohead, beatles, r.e.m., bruce springsteen, arcade fire, wilco, etc. etc. fans.

but i hardly ever hear any praise for the rolling stones. considering that in terms of popularity and money, they are bigger than u2, this might seem a little odd. some might say that historically they have had a much bigger impact on popular music than u2, too.

do rolling stones fans exist on this board? are they scared from posting the same way that the bon jovi and the aerosmith fans are scared from posting?

Well, in terms of popularity, for the last 20 years, U2 has been a much more popular band than the Rolling Stones in terms of album sales combined with concert ticket sales. The Stones have usually been the larger concert seller during this period, but their album sales pale in comparison to U2's. Now even their status as the top touring artist has been breached by U2. Outside of the United States and Canada, U2's Vertigo Tour beat the Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang Tour in just about every market played around the world. The Stones A Bigger Bang Album only sold half a million copies in the USA, while U2's BOMB sold over 3 million copies. Worldwide, the difference in sales was 9 million copies to just under 3 million for the Stones of the their latest releases.

So that plays a factor. Another would probably be the average age of your Rolling Stone fan today. For the Stones is probably early 50s, maybe like 52, and for U2 its mid to late 30s, probably 37. Actually considering that U2 have had recent albums that were very popular and brought in significant numbers of new younger fans, U2 fans average age is probably down around 30. Your going to have a much younger group of fans on any message board or the internet period. The Stones don't have a lot of young fans, and their main fan base is in their late 40s and early 50s now.

Historically and in terms of ranking the biggest or most influential bands of all time, the Stones are still ahead in that area, but U2 is not far behind. More relevant though is the popularity of the two bands over the past 20 years, and whether they continue to reach younger people.

 

[U2Man]

you guys DO realize how old the stones are nowadays, right?

around 70? that they are even still around is quite impressive. to expect them to pick up extreme amounts of teenage-fans is quite ludicrous.

 

[cdisantis83]

Re: Re: why is interference never talking about the rolling stones?

If the Stones had any impact is it as inspiring artists to sell out.

Sorry, but this simply is not true, and the testimony of various rock legends confirms it. The Stones were an indelible influence on The Who and Led Zeppelin; both Townshend and Page have went on record as having said this. Furthermore, I seem to remember somewhere in U2 By U2 where Edge also admitted the influence of the Stones on the young band. The Stones were brazen and salacious while the Beatles were still churning out bubble-gum pop, and I suspect that the more suggestive themes of some songs on Rubber Soul and Revolver were a reponse to this element of the Stones' style. Certainly the lyrics of Jim Morrison and Robert Plant also show strong signs of Jagger's influence. Whatever you may think of their current status, the impact of the Stones on rock is undeniable.

 

[STING2]

you guys DO realize how old the stones are nowadays, right?

around 70? that they are even still around is quite impressive. to expect them to pick up extreme amounts of teenage-fans is quite ludicrous.

No, Keith Richards and Mick Jagger just turned 63!

 

[U2Man]

ok, they're heading for their 70s then

the point remains.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Many bands of the time continue to attract new fans but the Stones.

i first got into the stones when i was 17 year old... 1997... with the release of their bridges to babylon album. that's right, a NEW stones album, with some great tunes on it like saint of me and out of control. that got me hooked into their older stuff, not that i didn't know a lot of the songs already, but i've been hooked ever since.

i can only hope that u2 are putting out songs as good as streets of love and rough justice and touring with as much energy when they're 45 years in. they've got 20 more years to go...

 

[LMP]

They are just fucking badasses, and it shows in their music too.

Their singles have always been great, but their strength has always been making consistently solid albums.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

I cut my teeth on the Stones's music. I was a little kid when I first heard my Dad's records and have loved them ever since.

And LM speaks the truth. They're just fucking badass.

 

[Tiger Edge]

Stones

If I had more money and time (isn't it sad that those two never coincide?) I'd pick up more Stones stuff. Unfortunately 40 Licks is about all I can afford at the moment.

Damn, now I want to listen to them.

 

[MrPryck2U]

It's good to see the Stones get some love. They've earned it and they deserve it.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Christ, I wonder why the Stones never get any credit on a U2 board. Some of the comments are just amazing, though.

Saying the Stones are a singles band is basically saying you're woefully uninformed about classic rock. Love in Vain, Live With Me, Let It Bleed, Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man are all brilliant and they're all off of one album. Also Tattoo You has one of the coolest album covers to date.

If you slag these guys off because of their live show, you've been conditioned by click-track driven, carefully choreographed live shows of recent decades. Yeah, U2 is a good band, but watch them throw in a ten-minute bluesy jam session in the middle of a classic song? Hell no. Keith and Ronnie Wood have so much chemistry, Charlie Watts is a very underrated drummer as well.

No other lead singer could pull off the total bad-assness of Rip This Joint like Mick Jagger could. Shine a Light is one of the finest album tracks of all time. It's the original Walk On, except not shitty.

The Stones are compared to the greats because no other band exemplifies rock and roll as well as they do. Gritty, playful, mean-spirited, snarling, bluesy, honky-tonk - they cover it all. The Beatles may be the greatest band of all time, but the Stones are the greatest rock band of all time.

 

[U2Man]

 

[indra]

hmm... I guess there is plenty to talk about regarding the Rolling Stones after all.

They are just fucking badasses, and it shows in their music too.

Yep. The Rolling Stones showed the world how rock and roll is done. No matter what you think of their music they set that bar. (Canadiens1160's post a couple above me put it very well)


And when I commented I was struck with how boring and dreary it was in my first post in this thread I meant touring, not the band or their songs, especially not at that time. I remember reading someone saying that touring was 22 hours of boredom and drudgery for 2 hours of bliss. For me, Cocksucker Blues certainly showed that to be true.

 

[bayou12780]

i can only hope that u2 are putting out songs as good as streets of love and rough justice and touring with as much energy when they're 45 years in. they've got 20 more years to go...

Amen - I think Bang is one of their best albums since Steel Wheels (maybe better) and Streets of Love is an awesome song - i had to pull off the road when i first heard it - almost wrecked the car - even Bono gave it kudos...

 

[bayou12780]

Yeah, U2 is a good band, but watch them throw in a ten-minute bluesy jam session in the middle of a classic song? Hell no.

No other lead singer could pull off the total bad-assness of Rip This Joint like Mick Jagger could.

The Stones are compared to the greats because no other band exemplifies rock and roll as well as they do. ...the Stones are the greatest rock band of all time.

yep, that about covers it...alright, i won't bitch about the hat...

one more point, Mick still has the voice and I don't remember him missing too many lyrics either...but then again, he's a perfectionist and they practice before the tour...

Long live the Rolling Stones.

 

[MrBrau1]

***Warning Recycled Content***

I wound up putting together a comp, covering 1968-1974. This is where the legend of the band really comes from. In this 7 year period, they were as good as or better than anyone in the history of rock music.

It's a remarkable list of songs:

#1:
Rip This Joint
Honky Tonk Women
Tumbling Dice
Dance Little Sister
Street Fighting Man
Star Fucker
Sweet Virginia
Monkey Man
Salt Of The Earth
Can't You Hear Me Knocking
Midnight Rambler
Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker)
Sweet Black Angel
It's Only Rock 'N Roll (But I Like It)
Dead Flowers
Winter
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Moonlight Mile

#2:
Sympathy For The Devil
Sway
100 Years ago
Wild Horses
Loving Cup
No Expectations
Gimme Shelter
Silver Train
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
Angie
Live With Me
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Factory Girl
Bitch
Torn & Frayed
If You Can't Rock Me
Till The Next Goodbye
Brown Sugar
Shine A Light

The list of classic singles is astounding. Yet the real genius of this band is created through the album tracks. "Shine A Light", "Moonlight Mile", "Salt Of The Earth", "Sweet Black Angel", "Winter". The moods are very atypical Stones. Reflective and delicate are hardly common Stones traits, but they manage to pull it off in grand style.

And as far as good olde "Rock 'n Roll" is concerned, well, "Rip This Joint" pretty much IS Friday night.