![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There was always a debate about the World’s Greatest Rock and Roll Band. Which is it? The Beatles or The Stones? Well, I think it is the Who, but that’s beside the point here.
Why does it come down to those two bands? Why are the Stones so great? Are the Rolling Stones great?
Back in the early days, they were a run of the mill British blues rock band. This was while the Beatles were recording original material - well, it wasn’t very original, but at least they wrote songs for themselves (while the Kinks were writing MOST of their own material). The Stones were always trying to catch up, in popularity, to the Beatles. Unfortunately, for this pursuit, the stones were not in the same league. They were a rock band with attitude, while the fab four was a cute pop band. The catch-up game continued after the release of Sgt. Pepper. Once the Beatles had created an instant rock classic, they were now in the same arena, competing for fans. They never quite succeeded, although by that time they were writing most of their own songs. It wasn’t until the end of the sixties that the Rolling Stones began to create a solid body of work that has stood the test of time. They had gone from a singles band with a fair number of hits, to an album rock band with consistently good records.
But why are they still in competition with the Beatles for World’s Greatest Rock and Roll Band status? Is it a debate about musical preferences, rather than about bands? Is it a leftover argument about who likes the better music? "Oh, you like THAT band!" or, "Paul may be cute, but Keith is a true musician!" Or was it about lifestyle? "Oh, you like THEM so you’re like THAT!" Maybe it just comes down to leather jacket vs. mop-top.
ARE The Rolling Stones one of the world’s greatest?
I’ll give them longevity. No question there. They are still making valid music (or were, for their last release).
Musicianship? They’re okay. World class, but no virtuosity.
Charisma? Mick? Yeugh. He was always energetic, but in the last decade or so, he has become mechanical. He’s just going through the motions. Keith, on the other hand, comes alive onstage.
Songwriting ability? Very good. Music wise, they are excellent. Their songs are always well crafted, and they’ve always been able to come up with the hooks. Lyric wise, I’d prefer a little more depth, but I won’t hold that against them.
Trendsetters? I wouldn’t put them ahead of the curve, but definitely on the leading edge. Whenever I try to guess when a particular song was released, I guess two years too late.
What do you think? What have I missed (or got wrong)?
Why does it come down to those two bands? Why are the Stones so great? Are the Rolling Stones great?
Back in the early days, they were a run of the mill British blues rock band. This was while the Beatles were recording original material - well, it wasn’t very original, but at least they wrote songs for themselves (while the Kinks were writing MOST of their own material). The Stones were always trying to catch up, in popularity, to the Beatles. Unfortunately, for this pursuit, the stones were not in the same league. They were a rock band with attitude, while the fab four was a cute pop band. The catch-up game continued after the release of Sgt. Pepper. Once the Beatles had created an instant rock classic, they were now in the same arena, competing for fans. They never quite succeeded, although by that time they were writing most of their own songs. It wasn’t until the end of the sixties that the Rolling Stones began to create a solid body of work that has stood the test of time. They had gone from a singles band with a fair number of hits, to an album rock band with consistently good records.
But why are they still in competition with the Beatles for World’s Greatest Rock and Roll Band status? Is it a debate about musical preferences, rather than about bands? Is it a leftover argument about who likes the better music? "Oh, you like THAT band!" or, "Paul may be cute, but Keith is a true musician!" Or was it about lifestyle? "Oh, you like THEM so you’re like THAT!" Maybe it just comes down to leather jacket vs. mop-top.
ARE The Rolling Stones one of the world’s greatest?
I’ll give them longevity. No question there. They are still making valid music (or were, for their last release).
Musicianship? They’re okay. World class, but no virtuosity.
Charisma? Mick? Yeugh. He was always energetic, but in the last decade or so, he has become mechanical. He’s just going through the motions. Keith, on the other hand, comes alive onstage.
Songwriting ability? Very good. Music wise, they are excellent. Their songs are always well crafted, and they’ve always been able to come up with the hooks. Lyric wise, I’d prefer a little more depth, but I won’t hold that against them.
Trendsetters? I wouldn’t put them ahead of the curve, but definitely on the leading edge. Whenever I try to guess when a particular song was released, I guess two years too late.
What do you think? What have I missed (or got wrong)?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Stones fan
Date: 2000-12-03 09:56 am (UTC)From:I have to disagree with your opinion about Mick. He is one of the most physically fit men of his age on the planet. Aside from the fact that he and I have similar ranges, so I like singing along to Stones songs, I don't think he has a very good voice. He makes up for it in attitude, though.
I still think he is mechanical, though. He always seemed just a little pretentious to me. He always does these odd movements onstage. I don't have a problem with that specifically, but over the years, those movements have gotten stiffer, and more rehearsed.
I appreciate that they've stayed (more or less) true to their roots.
I never thought they paid very skillful tribute either. Their early blues stuff was cool, but I never thought it was that good.
Now I must disclose that I have never seen them live. I have only seen them on film. I have a friend who has seen them three times. He's a big fan, and his descriptions of the shows have both confirmed and helped to shape my opinions.
Re: Stones fan
Date: 2000-12-03 11:45 am (UTC)From:dancing and prancing
Date: 2000-12-03 08:57 pm (UTC)From:The Who!
I've seen them only twice. in '98, I saw their Quadrophenia tour. Amazing. Of course I'm a huge fan of that record anyway, but their energy astounded me. I was sitting in the lawn. They had those huge TV screens showing the band, but I hardly ever looked at them - the band drew my eyes to them directly. (And Daltrey is another "old man" who is in remarkable shape.)
I couldn't say they're *better* live. I guess camparing "live" to recorded is not a fair comparison.