why is interference never talking about the rolling stones?

[U2Man]

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?

 

[UberBeaver]

I respect the Stones, and they have some real good tunes, but overall, I don't really like them. So I don't really talk about them.

 

[MrPryck2U]

I love the Stones. I've brought them up from time to time. I saw the Stones back in 1989 on the Steel Wheels tour. They were awesome!

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

If it aint Coldplay I'm not interested...

 

[indra]

I'm not sure there's really all that much to say about them anymore really.

I did just watch the Cocksucker Blues documentary a couple of days ago though. Two things stood out for me:

-- how dreary and boring everything seemed. Glamorous bits were few and far between.

-- Keith Richards had horrible teeth. I know, I know that's really shallow, but I always notice people's teeth and his were dreadful.

 

[U2Man]

you'd think he could afford some new ones. i think its part of his image.

 

[Lancemc]

I think they're an incredibly overrated singles band with a catalogue of maybe 4 truely solid albums...none of which are really THAT impressive.

 

[indra]

you'd think he could afford some new ones. i think its part of his image.

I suspect he did since they are nowhere near as bad looking now.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Wow, the Stones unimpressive. There's a first. The Stones are one of the best Rock and Roll bands ever! Look it up.

 

[Lancemc]

Wow, the Stones unimpressive. There's a first. The Stones are one of the best Rock and Roll bands ever! Look it up.

One of the BEST ever? No. That's not a fact. Sorry to burst your bubble. BIGGEST ever? Sure. But despite how much I've listened to their stuff (whole albums that is) I simple haven't been convinced they're anywhere near as "great" as popular culture makes them out to be.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I haven't been interested in anything the Stones have done since 1972. The shows I saw in the 80s were boring and unmemorable. They were once a great band and I still love their early stuff, but they no longer do anything worth talking about, IMO.

 

[cdisantis83]

I am definitely a Stones fan. The work from Beggar's Banquet through Goat's Head Soup, a span of 5 albums, is consistently incredible. On top of those albums, Out of Our Heads, Some Girls, and Tattoo You are also uniformly excellent. It is a shame that, in the popular conception, the Stones have now become the epitome of "dinosaur" rock.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

the bigger bang tour was a vastly more impressive undertaking than the vertigo tour (and included more rareities than any u2 show, too... so much for it being a "hits parade").

bitterness? jelousy? upset that people now see u2 as "they were cool but i only really like their early stuff" and want to take it out on the stones in return? no real reason? who knows...

the stones fucking rock

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

Except 3-4 songs, they are boring as hell!!!

 

[vaz02]

there has been loads of threads about the rolling stones , there was on about them last week.

My 3rd fav band.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Lance, you didn't burst my bubble. You are entitled to your opinion. The Stones are a great band who's core members have managed to stick together for over 40 years. Not exactly an easy feat.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

the bigger bang tour was a vastly more impressive undertaking than the vertigo tour (and included more rareities than any u2 show, too... so much for it being a "hits parade").

bitterness? jelousy? upset that people now see u2 as "they were cool but i only really like their early stuff" and want to take it out on the stones in return? no real reason? who knows...

the stones fucking rock

Took the words right out of my mouth.

And how anyone can see the Stones as "boring" just escapes me.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Except 3-4 songs, they are boring as hell!!!

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

 

[joyfulgirl]

^ Those songs weren't boring when they came out. It's just that for me personally I've heard them so many millions of times that it's hard to get excited about them anymore. There's not one song on that list that I'd crank up if it came on in the car today and in fact there are a few that would make me change the channel (Satisfaction, Beast of Burden, Honky Tonk Woman, Brown Sugar, It's Only Rock & Roll). Maybe it's because I'm older and I actually bought Rolling Stones records as they were released. I played them over and over and over until I wore the damn things out. By the time I had the opportunity to see them live it was already the mid-80s and I'd lost interest but thought I could re-ignite some excitement by going to see them. I tried my best to get into it--had good seats and everything--but it just wasn't there for me. They've lost all relevance for me. There are people who think the artists I like are boring, too, and that's just fine.

I have never felt a need to compare them to U2. Which isn't to say a comparison isn't valid, it's just that such a comparison is irrelevant to me.

BUT, I will say that I love watching "Gimme Shelter." They were an amazing band and I'm glad people are still listening to them even if I'm not.

 

[IWasBored]

And how anyone can see the Stones as "boring" just escapes me.

yeah, i don't get it either.

the people who think they're boring, exactly what did you listen to?

 

[impy13]

the bigger bang tour was a vastly more impressive undertaking than the vertigo tour (and included more rareities than any u2 show, too... so much for it being a "hits parade").

bitterness? jelousy? upset that people now see u2 as "they were cool but i only really like their early stuff" and want to take it out on the stones in return? no real reason? who knows...

the stones fucking rock

Absolutely true. As far as albums go, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, and Exile on Main Street are all top notch.

I saw them here in Austin in October and they were unbelievable. The show was much more impressive than the Vertigo tour. I like U2 more and I enjoyed the U2 show I went to more, but the show itself, by which I mean everything from theatrics to stage design to setlist variety, was so much better. They filmed that show for a DVD, too (look for me during Under My Thumb, I had a camera all up in my grill).

Yeah, the Stones do fucking rock.

 

[phanan]

Absolutely true. As far as albums go, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, and Exile on Main Street are all top notch.

You forgot Sticky Fingers.

We've had quite a few threads on the Stones, so I don't know why there's this perception that we don't talk about them enough.

They have made some of the most timeless classics in rock history, and they certainly aren't boring.

 

[U2Man]

but i often hear people saying: u2 are so boring nowadays, i wanna hear radiohead!!!!

i never hear people saying: u2 are so boring nowadays, i wanna hear the stones!!!!

 

[phanan]

That's cuz the Stones newer output is not on the same level.

 

[cdisantis83]

It is also partially because the Stones were never really innovators; in many ways they really aped the Delta Blues and R&B scenes, but managed to do it in such a way that they appeared to be ingenious. I have never been one to subscribe to the opinion that music must necessarily be innovative to be great (Oasis is one of my favorite bands), but there are many who do feel this way.

 

[annie_vox]

I saw them last Summer. They didn't impress me at all, though I recognize they have some good tunes. I respect the band but I don't like them that much.

 

[namkcuR]

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.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

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

How in fuck can these be boring?

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

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.

If you've ever read any rock books focusing on the 60's you'll understand why those two bands are mentioned in the same breath. They were of completely different musical backgrounds, yet were fighting for the same audience, then later learned from one another and incorporated it into their later work.

Do you think if the Beatles had stayed together they'd be touring like the Stones are now? Just a question.

 

[namkcuR]

If you've ever read any rock books focusing on the 60's you'll understand why those two bands are mentioned in the same breath. They were of completely different musical backgrounds, yet were fighting for the same audience, then later learned from one another and incorporated it into their later work.

Do you think if the Beatles had stayed together they'd be touring like the Stones are now? Just a question.

You mean if Lennon and Harrison were still alive?

I don't know. That's a hard question actually - I mean, the Beatles didn't even tour during the second half of their career, when they were in their prime and still making all-time great records - if they didn't want to tour then, why would they tour when they were past-prime legends?