Jagger's attempts at staying relevant and even hip (listen to some of his solo singles, or better not!) during the 80s and 90s could spoil the overall picture. But listen to their output between 68 and 80 and you've got some of the coolest and dirtiest rock n roll ever written and performed.
Quote: Gordon Bennett @ November 24 2012, 10:45 AM GMTJagger's attempts at staying relevant and even hip (listen to some of his solo singles, or better not!) during the 80s and 90s could spoil the overall picture. But listen to their output between 68 and 80 and you've got some of the coolest and dirtiest rock n roll ever written and performed.
It's not the music, I even like some of the solo stuff, I liked that thing he did with Dave Stewart recently. It's him, he just pisses me off. he's such a control freak, gets on my tits.
Crucify me, but I prefer the early Stones output to the first four or so Beatles albums.
Apart from a few great singles (Love Me Do or A Hard Day's Night for instance) the early Beatles stuff annoys me these days. They really became big with the rubber Soul album.
Quote: Gordon Bennett @ November 24 2012, 10:49 AM GMTCrucify me, but I prefer the early Stones output to the first four or so Beatles albums.
Apart from a few great singles (Love Me Do or A Hard Day's Night for instance) the early Beatles stuff annoys me these days. They really became big with the rubber Soul album.
Oh yea agree there, the beatles start with Rubber Soul as far as I'm concerned, and Revolver remains my favourite beatles album. The stones albums begin for me with Beggers Banquet although I prefer their early stuff to the beatles, who were basically a boy band up to rubber soul
Quote: Pingl @ November 24 2012, 10:56 AM GMTOh yea agree there, the beatles start with Rubber Soul as far as I'm concerned, and Revolver remains my favourite beatles album. The stones albums begin for me with Beggers Banquet although I prefer their early stuff to the beatles, who were basically a boy band up to rubber soul
A boy band, perhaps, but one playing some ground-breaking pop. I quite agree though, they only got really interesting in 65; and for me, the most important Beatle was George Martin.
Quote: Nogget @ November 24 2012, 7:37 PM GMTA boy band, perhaps, but one playing some ground-breaking pop. I quite agree though, they only got really interesting in 65; and for me, the most important Beatle was George Martin.
Yep without george martin , his knowledge and guidance, I don't think they would have been the groundbreaking group they were.
I can only speak for me: they played the wrong music for me in the beginning, this sunny, clever but also calculated and formulaic pop. That's why I'd prefer the early works of the who (punkier) or stones (bluesier) for example. But after 65 the Beatles became amazing. Nearly every song had enough ideas for three and yet remained simple and catchy. They laid the groundwork for almost everything that followed: power pop, prog (A Day In The Life), hard rock (Helter Skelter), "music hall pop" (when I'm Sixty Four).....
Quote: Gordon Bennett @ November 24 2012, 7:47 PM GMTI can only speak for me: they played the wrong music for me in the beginning, this sunny, clever but also calculated and formulaic pop. That's why I'd prefer the early works of the who (punkier) or stones (bluesier) for example. But after 65 the Beatles became amazing. Nearly every song had enough ideas for three and yet remained simple and catchy. They laid the groundwork for almost everything that followed: power pop, prog (A Day In The Life), hard rock (Helter Skelter), "music hall pop" (when I'm Sixty Four).....
But in a way that's what makes them so amazing, to go from boy band to musical Gods. To get past the whole teenybopper thing is no easy task and then to become the greatest pop songwriters of their time, possibly all time, is a hell of an achievement
It's an evolution so unrivalled and unbelievable, Hollywood couln't have invented it more spectacular. And yet McCartney and co. remained more down to earth than some crappy American Idol winner without talent.
I've never been a fan of The Stones, it's not like I've disliked them but I've never played any of their music by choice but with all the coverage lately, I didn't realise how many songs I'm hearing were there's. They're pretty good LOL.
Quote: Lee @ November 24 2012, 10:34 PM GMTI've never been a fan of The Stones, it's not like I've disliked them but I've never played any of their music by choice but with all the coverage lately, I didn't realise how many songs I'm hearing were there's. They're pretty good LOL.
Yea to be fair they wouldn't have lasted all this time if they weren't good, although there best days were about 30 years ago
Quote: Pingl @ November 24 2012, 11:11 PM GMTYea to be fair they wouldn't have lasted all this time if they weren't good
I dunno, a lot of bands, musicians, actors and other entertainers can coast along til death.
Quote: Lee @ November 24 2012, 11:12 PM GMTI dunno, a lot of bands, musicians, actors and other entertainers can coast along til death.
Some even after death
Savile's stock certainly has gone up!
Quote: Lee @ November 24 2012, 11:13 PM GMTSavile's stock certainly has gone up!
