Are the Rolling Stones overrated?
Hard to say, they were pretty huge and influential, and not bad when they were at their best. Of course boomers gush and probably do overate them, but I don't really see following generations doing so (excepting 'wrong generashun' faggotry of course)
I do like covers of their songs much better than their original versions
Probably, since they've only made four good albums
Kind of.
I really wanted to like them but they just annoy me.
>>64047445
If anything they're underrated. See >>64047513 who probably hasn't even heard Between the Buttons
"The Stones aren't a rock-and-roll band, they're a corporation."
-- Johnny Rotten
I used to hate the stones when I was in high school. I went back and listened to them lately though and they are actually very good.
The songs and playing are never bad, and almost every album has at least 2 or 3 great ones.
I'd argue they have more than just four good albums. Four masterpieces perhaps, but they didn't have a less than good album before the 80s.
i don't think so. one of the absolute most important rock bands as well from my personal as from a historical perspective.
some of their albums may be overrated, but the number of 10/10 singles that they had throughout the 60s is simply ridiculous.
One notable thing about RS is that their country/blues formula made a lot of their songs age much better than contemporaries. For example, if you listened to Jefferson Airplane, Cream, The Who, Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, you'll notice that most of their songs are full of exercises that come off as quite amazingly dated. For example, listen to Who's Next or LZ IV and, well, they came out in 1971 and sound like it.
Though the Stones certainly weren't immune from dated period experiments, especially on the more commercial tracks like Angie, their barroom bl00z often sounds more timeless than a song like White Rabbit. BTB and TSSM are one of the few times they seriously tried fad-jumping and they've largely disowned those albums.
>>64047725
Jefferson Airplane isn't dated.
>>64047650
I hate johnny rotten but hes right about this, theyre just a fucking brand
>>64047730
costanza.jpg
>>64047730
Jefferson Airplane were dated within 5 years of their first release, and all the starships in the world couldn't catch them up again.
All the stuff up until Mick Taylor left the band is rated appropriately.
>>64047793
They literally died with the 60s. 'S the main reason Grace Slick is bitter and likes to rant about rock stars needing to retire after a certain age. Her music career amounted to jack-all after the Altamont Free Concert.
They weren't even on the same playing field of Bryan Wilson at his peak. I can tell you that. The amount of respect they get relative to the Beach Boys is comical.
>>64047756
>>64047793
>I have only heard "White Rabbit"
>>64047907
The one song of Airplane's that hasn't dated badly is the extremely commercial Somebody To Love and only because it's a simplistic pop rock tune without any topical 60s crud in it.
>>64047896
I'm a ridiculously huge Beach Boys fan, but it's not that crazy to see what has trashed the Beach Boys reputation over the years. Even in their prime, they were really just never hip in the way that the teenage fanbase for rock wants to brag to their friends about.
I personally never truly appreciated the Beach Boys until college. In high school they seemed too sissy to me.
>>64047650
-- Johnny Rotten, Butter spokesperson
everything they did up until goats head soup was great. pretty much all shit after that though.
>>64047907
I've heard every Airplane album, and more Jefferson Starship/Starship then I'd ever want too.
They are very dated. Let's just put on Triad and try to debate that with Crosby's bald ass.
>>64047941
Yeah, I understand that, but BW is so far ahead of Richards/Jagger musically I really don't care. Did the Stones bring anything new to the table? Like at all?
>>64047949
I like a few on Black and Blue. Hand of Fate is my personal favorite RS rocker. Memory Motel is nice as well.
>>64047972
I agree with you, I'm just saying in a genre that cares so much about coolness it's not surprising The Beach Boys get unfairly shafted. I'm honestly not sure if the RS brought anything new to the table that wasn't image based.
>>64047972
>Did the Stones bring anything new to the table? Like at all?
They only shaped and defined rock-and-roll for three generations.
Can we all agree that Exile is their best record, followed closely by Between the Buttons?
>>64048004
I think that's one of the reasons people get fatigued over the stones and feel they are overrated.
Their are so many crappy 'classic' rock bands that do the stones shtick but worse that it makes the stones themselves look bad.
>>64048004
In what ways were they inventive or innovative musically?
>>64048004
I couldn't give two shots about their charisma, stage presence, or "IT" factor. They were bland as fuck.
>>64048069
WOW being this <------ stupid
>>64047805
Agreed, Mick Taylor is one of my favorite guitarists. Love that period of the Stones.
>>64048081
> Merging blues with rock
> Innovative
>>64047725
Good example is Some Girls. Miss You is horribly dated and cheesy because it's exactly what Mick intended it to be, which is an ultra-commercial roller disco tune. The rest of the album sounds nothing like Miss You, it's all lowdown gritty barroom rock that also really doesn't have any noticeable period elements in it.
>>64048140
>Innovative = Good
>Good must equal Innovative
Stay golden, pleb.
To me, the Stones did:
Rock: Can't You Hear Me Knocking
Pop: Let's Spend The Night Together
Country: Dead Flowers
Blues: I Got The Blues
All of these genres really well, they have more examples of each, those songs were just the first that came to mind for each genre. Can't You Hear Me Knockin' would have been an even bigger (one of their biggest imo) rock n roll hit if Mick Taylor hadn't fucked it up with the jam at the end of the track. (I'm a huge Mick Taylor fan).
>>64048191
"The last record to feature the sublime work of lead guitarist Mick Taylor is a bit of a mixed bag. But the highs on 1974's It's Only Rock 'N Roll are unmistakably high. Their definitive take on The Temptations' "Ain't Too Proud To Beg" is one of their best soul covers, with uniformly excellent performances from all and sundry. The title track is the band's obvious entry into the Mark Bolan glam sweepstakes and works like gangbusters, with lyrics that echo Ziggy's rock and roll self-immolation: "If I could stick a knife in my heart/ Suicide right on stage/ Would it be enough for your teenage lust?/ Would it help to ease the pain? Ease your brain?" Meanwhile, "Luxury" and "Fingerprint File" are interesting (though not fully successful) explorations into reggae and disco, respectively, suggesting that while the band were hugely successful at this point, they were still creatively restless and not entirely willing to be complacent with their signature sound."
>>64048182
No, in addition to not being able to bring anything new to music in the nineteenFUCKINGsixties when rock was still burgeoning, they flat-out suck
Isn't Keith Richards an avowed metal hater? Yeah fuck that shit.
>>64048274
nice 'opinion'
now let's hear some facts
>>64048326
>hates metal
wow maybe he isn't that bad at all
>>64048274
they brought a whole new level of musical fucking competency to rock music is what they did you ignorant piece of shit
Here's some classic live Stones playing Dead Flowers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS_yyRk_dj8
>>>>MFW there are people who don't believe he was murdered
>>64047445
Their best songs never get played on the radio
>>64048525
Agreed, it's a shame.
>>64047725
>For example, listen to Who's Next or LZ IV and, well, they came out in 1971 and sound like it.
I think The Who's problem was that their entire schtick was based around 60s-70s teen angst so there's no way their songs could still be relevant today while a lot of Stones numbers like Dead Flowers and Wild Horses are still perfectly listenable..
That's kind of the problem when you're a strictly one-dimensional band like The Who. They were very good at what they did, but their only had a limited amount of tricks all of which have dated poorly.
>>64047650
"Those bands turned Rock into a march, I prefer the Roll"
-- Keith Richards
Yes. Listened to Aftermath the other day. While there were a couple good songs most were embarrassingly bad.
>>64047445
Extremely overrated. People compare them to the Beatles when they should compare them to Foghat.
>>64047649
UK version is better
>>64048582
Aftermath was early, it was still in the British Invasion days and is more of a collection of singles than a proper album. It also has a massive amount of filler.
>>64048582
What were these embarrassingly bad songs on Aftermath? I'm curious
>>64048629
Goin' Home for one
>>64048326
"There's millions who love Black Sabbath and Metallica. I say they can keep 'em."
>>64047650
ahahahahaha
they had guts those Pistols, gotta leave 'em that, to talk bullshit like that about a group that is OBVIOUSLY much more about the MUSIC than their fashion show.
>>64047445
no, but they are a Rock N Roll band, not a Rock/Heavy band, there's a huge difference. Of course people who listen to Black Sabbath and Pearl Jam will never get them, they expect something else.
>>64048677
>not a Rock/Heavy band
what is this reddit faggotry?
1965-1967 Stones are GOAT
>>64048713
learn to read
>>64048673
'Lydon claimed in his autobiography that he believed Matlock to be too white-collar and middle-class and that Matlock was "always going on about nice things like the Beatles"'
"Lydon recommended his school friend John Simon Ritchie AKA Sid Vicious. Although Ritchie was an incompetent bassist, McLaren agreed that he had the look the band wanted: pale, emaciated, spike-haired, with ripped clothes and a perpetual sneer."
Yep, pretty much. Straight off of wikipedia.
My dad said a lot of people really hated the Stones back then. It was all like "How the hell are these guys so big? They can't play for shit. They sound like a club act." Also by the mid-70s they'd become huge douchebags who charged like $150 a ticket and acted like you should be lucky you were even allowed into their shows.
So yeah, they were becoming a bloated star about to go supernova by 1975 and punk was needed to give rock a refresh.
>>64048677
>imblying I don't love Black Sabbath and Pearl Jam AND the Stones
The Stones are my all time favs
>>64048673
this t b h
Rotten also said that the ORIGINAL New York punks were fake 'cause they weren't working class. Implying working at Malcolm's boutique is an average working class experience. He just can't resist being #edgy. Still, early PIL were great (mostly because of Levene tho).
>>64048771
>It was all like "How the hell are these guys so big? They can't play for shit. They sound like a club act."
That was kind of exactly the point though, that they did sound like barroom music and that's why in many cases their songs have held up better than Sabbath or Zeppelin.
>>64048771
>punk was needed to give rock a refresh
>ignoring Canterbury and RIO
>muh three chord riffs
end yourself, peasant
>>64048842
fuck off geek. Canterbury was only good when it wasn't taking itself serious.
They were good if they'd only broke up in the 70s and not ended up being the butt of all jokes about washed up rock stars. and Keith saying "If BB King (my hero) can play until he dies, why can't we?"
>>64048771
>They sound like a club act.
that's what I love about the Stones shows during the 70s
>>64048874
In that sense, the only Stones contemporary to really remain relevant in this century is Bob Dylan who after struggling in the Reagan years, eventually found his way back as he passed 50 and has made a couple of very good records since 2000.
>>64048869
I think that was the whole point of Canterbury Scene. It was jazz fusion/proge that took elements of psychedelia and made this weird fun mix of humor and complexity.
Also RIO is way better than punk rock so he's right on that too
The Stones' live prowess at their peak is sometime exaggerated (>implying every single concert in the early 70s was good) but when they were on, they were on. Some of the live bootlegs from the 73 European tour (for example the Cologne and Munich shows) eat fire for breakfast.
>>64048869
>i appreciate muh subjective expression of teen angst and anger via 2 minute badly played songs more than actual songwriting and musicianship.
Great stance, peasant. Punk is the reason rock went to shit.
>>64048640
that's one, what are the others?
>>64048905
>>64048949
you don't get music. please leave this board.
So what was the last great Stones record? People will debate anything from Exile to Undercover.
>EOMS
Last of the Big Four albums, last time they were at the forefront of rock innovation.
>Some Girls
Last album where they really sounded edgy and intimidating.
>Tattoo You
Last album to produce a big single.
>Undercover
Last time they tried to do anything current.
>>64048905
what do you think about post-punk?
>>64049031
>you don't share my opinion so you don't like music please get out of my safe space
Ok lmao
>>64049061
sweet.
>>64047476
I'm not a fan of them, but I recognize their importance as anti-Beatles, taking blues and turning it into their rock (i forget which type of rock it should be labelled as).
Dirty Work was really the beginning of Zombie Stones just as Psycho Circus was the beginning of Zombie Kiss and Cryptic Writing was the beginning of Zombie Megadeth.
>band was broken up, wanted to kill each other, and only recorded this to fulfill a record label requirement
>none of its songs ever played live
>everything is strictly paint by numbers
>>64049031
please, explain music to me. and if you're about to make the argument that music doesn't have to be played well since VU were 'raw' yet still great, thus linking them to the vomit that is the vast majority of punk, kill yourself.
>>64049130
One thing you notice about all Zombie Stones albums is the excessive length of them, way more tracks than they needed perhaps because by the 90s, a Stones album was a rarer commodity and they thought they needed to exploit each one to the max. Or maybe it was just the event of CDs.
I mean, even A Bigger Bang could be ok if they trimmed it down a good 40% as it has a few semi-interesting songs. Not Sweet Neocon though, even Keith thought that was a mistake.
>>64048191
CYHMK is a classic and one of the reasons why Sticky Fingers was their peak as a band (never saw what was so great about Exile).
>>64049297
Mick didn't think Exile was very good either.
>>64049355
You do know he only said that because EOMS didn't produce any singles so he didn't make any money off of it.
>>64049130
>>64049219
Cryptic Writings and A Bigger Bang are both great albums, but of course some people will listen to them with a furrowed brow
>>64049219
I will admit I kinda like One Hit to the Body.
>>64049297
I like CYHMK a lot, love it. I even love the whole end breakdown second half of the song, but I think it would have been an even more powerful rocker/bigger hit if they had just gone with the original part. I love Exile, personally.
>>64049219
Two very bad things happened with the event of CD audio.
1. Albums started getting longer because of consumer demand for more songs per album
2. Brickwalling started because of consumer demand for albums being AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE
Needless to say, the consumer isn't always right and sometimes you have to give them what they need instead of what they think they need.
>>64049415
Exile does have a very raw sound without much melody or pop sensibility so I can understand why people would dislike it. Actually Some Girls is the same way but it's half the length and does have le token commercial pop track.
Mostly trash. No different from almost every other pop/rock shit.
>>64049546
dat ass
>>64049491
>consumer demand
citation needed
>>64048625
Just as I said. They hadn't quite found their groove yet at this point.
>>64049596
Right...BB is the album where they really came into their own, it's no coincidence that the vast majority of their setlists comprise songs from the 68-72 period.
>>64049546
>listened to classical once
>>64049633
>>64049596
Not sure if I agree with that because despite some filler, the Stones' sound was pretty clearly defined by Aftermath. Buttons and TSMR are two weird diversions, but for the most part they already knew who they were before the Big 4 albums.
And I do agree the early (1964-67) Stones were more based around singles than albums because the concept of AOR had not quite appeared yet, in fact albums at that time were usually just a collection of singles rather than a cohesive piece of music with a running theme. Also the US/UK albums are split due to weird differences in the music business between the two countries.
Specifically that the BBC weren't allowed to play studio singles on the air, so they had to get bands to come in and record a "live" version for them. The studio singles could only be obtained by buying the physical record. This is unlike the US where they did play studio singles on the radio.
>>64049415
>what is Tumbling Dice
>>64049670
this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OezHRns06-8
>>64049741
Well, yeah. Given the sheer huge size of the US compared to Britain, it would be pretty impractical for bands to have to travel to a radio station to play a live version.
>>64049741
Aftermath actually is the first RS record to properly constitute AOR rather than a collection of unrelated singles, but only the UK release. The US release of Aftermath tacked on additional singles that weren't on the UK version. Result? Americans got an album with a couple of god-level singles and a bunch of just okay deep cuts while the British version had singles that were a little bit weaker and don't stand out so strongly against the deep cuts. That means oftentimes Americans got a better album than we did over here.
So if you're listening to US Aftermath, it comes off as more of a singles collection while UK Aftermath feels more like an album.
Taking back sunday were better
Ok I see your point, still the Stones definitely hit their stride on Banquet, this was the era when they produced their best and most powerful songs and when they were at their greatest level of cultural relevance. While the 64-67 material is hardly bad, it was still mostly singles-oriented and they were chasing fads and trying to be naughtier Beatles instead of their own thing.
>>64049940
what is this meme aboot?
>>64049976
>chasing fads and trying to be naughtier Beatles
how great is some of that shit tho?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHOL5M0dfiw
>>64049976
You're not wrong, STILL they produced many classic songs in the British Invasion days like Satisfaction, Under My Thumb, and Paint It Black, all of which have remained live staples. They had a whole string of Top 10 US singles in 65-67. Granted they reached a whole new level starting on BB, but to say they hadn't found a winning formula in the Aftermath period is silly.
>>64048166
go ahead- bite the Big Apple...dont mind the maggots.
Goat's Head Soup is the most underrated Stones album easy.
>>64050100
Why though. No matter how many times I listen to that, I never find myself disagreeing with contemporary 70s reviewers who said it and IORR were lazy, druggy, and unsatisfying to listen to.
I never understood the fetishization of Exile either. Aftermath and the 68-71 albums are better.
Also I don't understand what's so great about Some Girls and Tattoo You. Ok they both spawned a horrible, cancerous single but other than that neither album has anything notable on it. Black & Blue though is underrated and I especially think IORR doesn't get enough love.
>>64050201
I think Tattoo You is rated too low and Aftermath too high. Also nah, GHS isn't that good. I also think TSMR is shit on undeservedly along with Emotional Rescue, but then that's just me.
EOMS is absolutely not the best Stones album and I don't get what people see in it. The songwriting is markedly below that of the three preceding albums.
Sticky Finger is the best one easily. Ten tracks and only two of them are filler. CYHMK and Dead Flowers alone kick the hiney of anything on Exile.
>>64049658
actually, more than once. Also, music degree but now do vid editing for po$t house. Wonderful. Hated music school. Ditched it to go on stage and be a real cunt. Have toured Eu and States, large venues several times. Did a lot of drugs and fucked a lot of freaks. Now I play in local shitty hard rock band. We suck, come check us out.
Circle jerking the validity and impact of the Stones is really great, really important stuff. But then opinions/assholes that whole thing, ya know?
Exile on Main St. might be the most cohesive and perfectly flowing album I've ever heard. No track really stands out because they're all so good. I think it actually hurts its reputation that it doesn't have any obvious "hits" that sound separate from the rest of the album.
>>64050476
I agree; if you asked someone to name a song from BB or Sticky Fingers, they'd say SFTD or Wild Horses or Gimme Shelter. Whereas if you asked someone to name a memorable Exile song, they'd draw a blank...but that's because the album is one big piece rather than a collection of individual songs. That's how the average person thinks; in terms of singles that have giant hooks on them and you have to be a little bit less of a plebian to appreciate pure AOR.
>>64047445
Jumping Jack Flash says no
>>64050476
It's like On Fire by Galaxie 500. Every song sounds the same but they sound good anyways so who cares.
>>64049219
Of all the zombie albums, probably Bridges to Babylon is the weakest. There's just nothing on there to talk about except the two Keith numbers You Don't Have To Mean It and How Can I Stop, although the latter feels like an outtake from Some Girls. This is probably the nearest the Stones have ever come to a completely pointless album that has no reason to exist.
Emotional Rescue is beyond a doubt absolute rock bottom for the band, especially coming off the high-flying Some Girls. The title track is particularly excruciating. "I'll be your knight in shining armour". Ewww...
>>64050412
>i hate rock
>stones suck
>i play rock
>we suck
>classical is better
wtf? pull yourself together m8.
>>64047445
They only made music for vietnam movies, and they weren't even the best at it, CCR stumped them with the classic "it Ain't me"
>>64050844
Agreed. That album was a waste of plastic. They like to say Dirty Work was the low ebb, but I feel that ER is lower than that even.
>>64050880
beat it you fuckin basement dweller
>>64050936
nice projection, faggot.
>every last Vietnam movie ever made
>It Ain't Me, Purple Haze, Sympathy For The Devil, or Gimme Shelter is used
>>64047445
They have a few good albums, but they never did anything great. So yes, they are overrated.
>>64050985
name a few great bands
>>64050142
>>64050100
I personally love side 1 of IORR. Time Waits For No One is a forgotten classic because it's never been included on a Best Of record. Winter from GHS is another forgotten gem.
>>64050978
also
>I can't get no
>paint in black
>>64051046
IORR is good on side one, side two is crud. Even so, it's better than all post-70s Stones except Tattoo You.
>>64050978
Sometimes also White Rabbit or Incense, Peppermints.
>>64050901
Dirty Work may be their worst album, but Emotional Rescue's title track is definitely their worst song. I...I just love the Barry Gibb impersonation he does on there. We really needed that. Fuck you, Mick.
>>64051186
Also Undercover for their worst album cover.
>nude chick with stickers covering her bits that you can peel off
I don't understand the hate for Undercover's cover art. It's not particularly memorable and not the best Stones album cover, but I see no reason to hate it and actually I think Dirty Work has the worst cover of their LPs, although among the non-LP stuff, Live Licks is pretty tacky.
>>64051337
Yeah usually whenever you see a list of Worst Album Covers of All Time, Dirty Work is featured on there. That shit's up there with Ken - By Request Only. I mean, I don't think anyone particularly loves Undercover's cover art, but I also don't see anyone hate on it.
>>64051337
>and actually I think Dirty Work has the worst cover of their LPs
That's not Steel Wheels and Between The Buttons.
>>64051337
Harlem Shuffle reached #5 on the US Billboard Chart while Undercover's title track only made it to #9. So I'd argue Undercover was the weaker album. One Hit To The Body at least sold some while Undercover really failed to make any presence with its singles.
>that time they did Miss You with Justin Timberlake
Dear god, how horrible.
They are now , they werent then... simple really.
>>64051572
Miss You has never really translated well into a live setting.
>>64051633
They did a good live version on Hampton Live '81.
>>64048479
Jenny?
Let's have a rundown of worst Rolling Stones fubars:
1. Keith falling out of a coconut tree
2. Their official website selling fans advance tickets at a huge cost and seating them at the back of the venue
3. The merchandising. Damn, at least Gene Simmons is honest about his desire to peddle coffee mugs.
4. The decline in Keith's playing abilities since 1999
5. The horrible duets with Justin Timberlake, Amy Winehouse, Grace Potter, Lady Gaga, and more
6. Giant breaks between albums. Ok I understand you guys are old and the ideas maybe don't come so easily as they used to, but just be honest and admit you're a Greatest Hits act now. Damn, at least Bob Dylan is still making new albums every few years.
7. Backing musicians. I understand they're needed for some live numbers, but the guys they have doing it suck especially the keyboardists who use a Casio or whatever and ruin some songs like Get Off My Cloud. Is it that hard to get a real piano? I mean, they did use one during the 81 tour.
8. Keith's "Keef" persona. Dude, you're a 70-something British guy, not a Chicago bluesman who sometimes talks in a Jamaican accent
9. Playing the same setlists every night since 1989
10. Mick and Keith not writing songs as a team since the mid-70s
11. Life. Boring read and made Keith come off as really unlikable
>>64051851
My list.
>TSSR
>Cherry Oh Baby
>the tragic end of Brian Jones
>Billy Preston
>Altamont Free Concert
>Keith getting busted in Toronto
>the giant fight the band got into that caused them to break up for most of the 80s
>Mick's decision to turn the band into entertainers rather than musicians from 89 onward
>the departure of Bill Wyman
>>64051851
>Keith falling out of a coconut tree
u kidding? that was awesome.
>>64051942
How about these?
>Mick Taylor's departure
>lack of guitar leads and decent mixing on albums after MT left
>Don Was
>Love You Live
>Infamy
>the band breaking up and not touring between 83 and 87
>live Miss You after the 81 tour
>Bill Wyman quitting
>no Mick/Keith vocal harmonizing after 81
>Keith falling out of a tree
>>64051942
What don't you like about BP anon?
>>64050978
CCR - Fortunate Son
>>64052023
Mick's solo career. Playing a concert in China despite that country's awful human rights record. The Steel Wheels cover art.
>>64051851
>11. Life. Boring read and made Keith come off as really unlikable
i thought that book was pretty good. i didn't hate him at all after it, if anything i liked him more.
he was a strung out junkie off and on for like 25 years, at least he was honest about it.
i wasn't really interested in all the post 80s stuff in the book though, like when he started getting into reggae and shit, that was all boring to me. the wacky stones tours and drug stories were fun though.
>>64051851
1. Death of Brian Jones
2. Dirty Work
3. TSSR
4. Keith drug bust
5. Let's Work
6. Streets of Love
7. Rock and a Hard Place
8. She's The Boss
9. Sweet Neocon
10. Life
Why leave off the variety of duets that Mick has sung in concert with various acts like Justin Timberlake, Sheryl Crow, Dave Matthews, Christina Aguilera or Axl Rose? Truly horrible and cringe-worthy.
>>64052764
The Axl Rose thing is fine because he's another rock guy and the Stones are his heroes. But Justin Timberlake? Oh god, fuck that shit.
Ultimate Classic Rock listed their albums from best to worst as follows. I think this is a pretty accurate list and hard to dispute:
1. EOMS
2. Let It Bleed
3. Sticky Fingers
4. Beggars Banquet
5. Some Girls
6. BTB
7. Aftermath
8. Out Of Our Heads
9. Now!
10. England's Newest Hit Makers
11. GHS
12. Tattoo You
13. 12x5
14. Emotional Rescue
15. TSSR
15. December's Children
16. Black & Blue
17. IORR
18. All post-1981 albums
>>64049039
Tattoo you
>>64052882
Of course that's complete standard opinion.
>68-72 period was the peak
>post-1981 Stones belongs in the trash
I think mostly the pre-68 stuff is the hardest to rank though much of it was classic material.
I don't understand the dislike of TSMR. It was a one-off experiment and without it, they wouldn't have backtracked and released BB.
And incidentally, Buttons is a weaker record than Satanic. It feels like a collection of singles rather than an album.
>>64053053
Agreed. It's not worse than their mid-70s stuff and definitely better than Buttons.
TSMR is a shit album that happens to have a couple decent tracks. There's a large gap between 2000 Light Years, 2000 Man, She's a Rainbow, and Citadel versus the remainder of the record. The remaining songs on TSMR feel like a bunch of teenagers trying to create mystic, sweeping settings without the talent to do it and not sound painfully cheesy and juvenile.
By Beggar's Banquet, the Stones are sounding more like adults and less like adolescents.
>>64052882
1. Goat's Head Soup
2. Exile
3. Sticky Fingers
4. Beggars Banquet
5. Let It Bleed
6. Tattoo You
7. Emotional Rescue (only bad track on here is Indian Girl)
8. Black And Blue (Memory Motel is their best ballad also Hot Stuff and Hey Negrita are GOAT)
9. Satanic Majesties (a psychedelic masterwork but maybe I'm biased because I love psychedelia)
10. Some Girls (I like it even if it's a little overrated)
And actually, I enjoy Undercover and Dirty Work, the feud between Mick and Keith fueled some really balls-out angry tunes that aren't phoned-in paint-by-numbers like everything made since Steel Wheels.
>>64047445
I could never into the Stones. Some good songs, but not very interesting ones- they never surprise me.
I'd say (discounting the zombie albums from 88 onward) that Black and Blue and Undercover are the worst. Both albums are half good songs and half filler and the filler is brought down by the dated sound. B&B has that druggy, muddy 70s sound and Undercover has that overly slick 80s wind tunnel sound.
>>64051337
The Big Four all have classic covers. The zombie albums (Steel Wheels onward) are bad. I actually don't mind the DW cover.
I also don't get Mick's face on the covers of GHS and TY but not showing the rest of the band.
Best Stones cover? Exile, which is also one of the most imitated album covers ever.
Worst cover? Bridges To Babylon. What.
>>64053507
>Worst cover? Bridges To Babylon. What.
>castrated lion
Very befitting for the quality of the music on that record, don't you think?
>>64047445
The stones are fucking amazing. I used to think they were meh but then I bought one of their greatest hits CD's and after about 20 straight songs of pure god tier, I realized they definitely rivaled the Beatles. They're at least on Led Zep's level.
>>64047896
Brian Wilson is a sad little sausage man who took one to many hits of acid and writes strange little love songs in a basement
>>64053507
Sticky Fingers is best followed by Goat's Head Soup and then Beggar's Banquet.
Excellent song writers, musicians not so much.
Their early albums are great but they die off throughout the second half of their discography.
>>64054605
They rivalled them in songwriting, but their musicianship fell short of Beatles and Led Zeppelin
Can You Hear Me Knocking is a fantastic song especially Mick Taylor and Keith's interweaved guitars.
>writes a hit song about raping brown slave women
>goes down as one of the greatest bands of all time
CAN'T DO THAT TODAY I TELL YA WHAT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59K2kF6o9Tk
>is a popular rock band from the 60's overrated
take a wild guess, retard
I do love Hot Stuff.
>>64051633
It was good when they played it on the 78 tour. After that...
>>64048326
>not realizing meal is trash
I feel sorry for you
Anyone else agree this is their best song since 'Out Of Control'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9MWTDzGUNM
>>64055972
The Midnight Rambler live version on Get Yer Ya Yas Out has my favorite Mick/Keith interplay
>>64056021
And then you actually read the thread and realized you were a retard
Not that the 64-67 stuff is bad, but they were only in their early 20s then and a lot of those songs (think Mother's Little Helper) do sound like a bunch of bratty teenagers. By the time they get over the 25 hump (so, by the Beggars Banquet/Let It Bleed era), their songwriting sounds more mature and not so juvenile as the Aftermath era.
These are the top 10 worst Stones songs
Angie
No Use In Crying
Back To Zero
Terrifying
Fool To Cry
Cool, Calm, Collected
Losing My Touch
This Place Is Empty
Brand New Car
Blue Turns to Grey
>>64057066
Cherry Oh Baby is awful as is The Biggest Mistake (how fitting), Feel On Baby, No Use In Crying, etc.
Any worst RS songs list that doesn't include Sweet Neocon is automatically invalidated.
Angie
Miss You
Rock And A Hard Place
New Faces
Sweethearts Together
Gunface
Might As Well Get Juiced
Sweet Neo Con
Streets Of Love
Following The River
I actually don't think they have any truly terrible songs up to Tattoo You. Even the filler tracks have some redeeming value. Anything after that I'd struggle to name one good song. They don't even feel like the same band anymore.
1.Start Me Up
2.Hot Stuff
3.Fingerprint File
4.Miss You
5.Anybody Seen My Baby
6.The Worst
7.You Got Me Rocking
8.Saint of Me
9.Out of Control
10.Indian Girl
>>64057214
I kind of concur. Even the weak tracks from their early career aren't "bad", just underdeveloped. If anything, Emotional Rescue seems to be an omen of what was coming, yet it's still not a terrible record. Undercover is truly the point where the Stones died as a band.
Giving It Up (Steel Wheels outtake)
It’s Not Easy (Aftermath)
Keys To Your Love (Forty Licks)
Loosing My Touch (Forty Licks)
Saint Of Me (Bridges To Babylon)
Sparks Will Fly (Voodoo Lounge)
Sweethearts Together (Voodoo Lounge)
Thief In The Night (Bridges To Babylon)
Think (Aftermath)
Where The Boys Go (Emotional Rescue)
>>64057066
You can fix the post 81 albums by shortening them into not great but alright albums
>Undercover
Undercover of the Night
She Was Hot
Feel On Baby
Wanna Hold You
Too Much Blood
>Dirty Work
One Hit (To the Body)
Harlem Shuffle
Too Rude
>Steel Wheels
Mixed Emotions
Sad Sad Sad
Can't Be Seen
Almost Hear You Sigh
Slipping Away
>Voodoo Lounge
Love Is Strong
You Got Me Rocking
The Worst
Thru and Thru
Baby Break It Down
Moon Is Up
>Bridges to Babylon
Anybody Seen My Baby?
Out of Control
Saint of Me
Thief in the Night
How Can I Stop
>A Bigger Bang
Rough Justice
Back of My Hand
Streets of Love
Look What the Cat Dragged In
Rain Fall Down
Biggest Mistake
Add Doom & Gloom, One More Shot and Plundered My Soul then you get a decent 1981-2012 compilation - erase the rest
>>64047445
Maybe. But they're still really good.
I don't give a fuck if some people like them too much.
>>64057066
1. The Biggest Mistake (appropriate title)
2. Feel on Baby
3. No Use in Crying
4. Any Way You Look at It
5. Cherry Oh Baby
6. Sweethearts Together
7. Too Rude
8. Can't Be Seen
9. Almost Hear You Sigh (I know a lot of people like this one, but it makes me sick)
10. How Can I Stop (I don't know, but please do)
The rolling stones would be considered great if mick jagger died in 1985 and kieth richards died in 1990 and they didnt spend their lives never retiring and making rock look bad by being a bunch of old skeletons who wont go away.
>>64057404
This. The whole second half of Steel Wheels is like a whirlwind tour of everything that The Stones do good. You can turn many of those albums from the '80s/'90s into great EPs by trimming the fat.
>>64057404
>Voodoo Lounge
I Go Wild is probably the lowest point of this record. Terribly lame attempt at a stadium shoutalong tune.
Also fairly accurate assessment of ABB; that album is at least 70% filler and the second half is 100% filler.
>>64057534
Or, you know, if they'd just broken up in the 80s and never gotten back together.
>>64057066
>Angie
Even Keith used to nod off when they played this one live.
>>64057703
>ABB; that album is at least 70% filler and the second half is 100% filler.
Dat Infamy tho.
I'd trade the rest of the lp just for that one .
>>64057066
Melody (god, I hate this one)
Too Much Blood
See What Happens
Feel On Baby
I'd simply include every track on Voodoo Lounge, Bridges To Babylon, and A Bigger Bang, but I'm too lazy for that.
Suck On The Jugular is awful. Also throw in You Got Me Rocking, Too Rude, Rock And A Hard Place, and Fool To Cry.
>>64057214
Like this guy said, there are no outright awful Stones songs up to 1981. So that leaves us with:
Hold Back
Rock and a Hard Place
Blinded by Love
Blinded by Rainbows
Losing My Touch
Biggest Mistake
Infamy
Sex Drive
Family is an awful song but that's why it was an outtake. Hang Fire is also kind of hilariously fucked up.
>>64058372
>Hang Fire
love that one
>>64058203
>Too Much Blood
probably the funniest (unintentional) lyrics I've ever heard
>>64058372
Xgau called 1981 "a disappointing year in rock" as punk and New Wave were starting to run out of gas and "surprisingly reactionary" as old warriors from the 60s like the Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, and J. Giles were returning to prominence.
Actually, Tattoo You and Face Dances are both interesting records because the two bands seem to be far more relaxed than they were in 1978 as punk was in full swing and the phrase "washed up" hung in the air over them. These albums are more just about having fun and getting nookie and they seem almost refreshed and looking forward to the new decade.
>>64047650
Didn't Mick Jagger pay Sid Vicious's bail after he killed Nancy?
They aren't in the aspect of their legacy and what they accomplished in the 60s/70s but they are in the aspect that they essentially get a free pass for the last 30 years of bad albums they've released. Their bad albums count too even if everybody just prefers to ignore them.
Some of the best albums ever made in the history of music:
Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main St., Some Girls
very good albums:
12 X 5, Aftermath, Between the Buttons, Goats Head Soup, Emotional Rescue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEQL6z1U0wY
>>64052203
its called it aint me bro
Why is Angie so hated?
They wrote some of the most formally excellent pop songs ever
