What? Are you implying that Mick doesn't really have any soul? No depth?
Mick has all the depth of a guy who would get married in Bali so he could later try to have the marriage annulled in order to cheat his wife out of a divorce settlement. ("What, me married? No way, that was just a thing, you know?")
I absolutely can`t agree with the above! Mick is very profound in his songs! Please, listen to A Bigger Bang album, to the song Biggest Mistake in particular. It seems as if he had experienced the situation himself and had felt the song in and out and through.
Sandra, if you want to branch out from the compilation CD (which one is it, by the way? Hot Rocks or something else?), consider these 5 albums: Beggars Banquet (Nineteen Sixty-eight), which besides Sympathy has great tracks like Stray Cat Blues, Parachute Woman, Street Fighting Man, Salt of the Earth (Keith's first vocal, I think, and he screeches out the first verse like some kind of constipated junky -- great moment); Let it Bleed (1969) -- Shelter, the title track, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Midnight Rambler, You Got the Silver, Monkey Man; Get Yer Ya-Yas Out! ('70) -- the 1969 live show from Madison Square Garden, one of the great live records in rock, and the best live Stones recording; Sticky Fingers ('71), with Brown Sugar, B*tch, Wild Horses (I like this one myself), Sister Morphine, Dead Flowers, Moonlight Mile; and the Stones' true masterpiece, Exile on Main Street ('72). A double album with not a weak moment on it.
These five consecutive LPs are the peak of the Stones' career. I don't think that even the Beatles or Led Zeppelin strung together five straight albums of such high quality.
However -- it may take more than one listening to appreciate these records' greatness. Exile on Main Street, which usually is ranked in the top 5 or 10 albums of all time (in various magazines/books/polls), was actually panned by many critics when it was released. The Stones aren't as easily accessible as the Beatles; you may listen to one of these records and think 'eh, not that impressed,' but if you put in the time, it'll be worth it. They'll grow on you.
The Rolling Stones are a truly awesome band. Ladies And Gentleman The Rolling Stones is the best concert film ever made! The Beggar's to Exile period of there music will never be equaled imo.
I don't think I could ever choose one song as my favorite because there are so many, maybe Jumping Jack Flash if I had to pick just one. I always get the chills listening to Mick sing I Got the Blues from Sticky Fingers. Great stuff.
Sandra, if you want to branch out from the compilation CD (which one is it, by the way? Hot Rocks or something else?), consider these 5 albums: Beggars Banquet (Nineteen Sixty-eight), which besides Sympathy has great tracks like Stray Cat Blues, Parachute Woman, Street Fighting Man, Salt of the Earth (Keith's first vocal, I think, and he screeches out the first verse like some kind of constipated junky -- great moment); Let it Bleed (1969) -- Shelter, the title track, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Midnight Rambler, You Got the Silver, Monkey Man; Get Yer Ya-Yas Out! ('70) -- the 1969 live show from Madison Square Garden, one of the great live records in rock, and the best live Stones recording; Sticky Fingers ('71), with Brown Sugar, B*tch, Wild Horses (I like this one myself), Sister Morphine, Dead Flowers, Moonlight Mile; and the Stones' true masterpiece, Exile on Main Street ('72). A double album with not a weak moment on it.
These five consecutive LPs are the peak of the Stones' career. I don't think that even the Beatles or Led Zeppelin strung together five straight albums of such high quality.
However -- it may take more than one listening to appreciate these records' greatness. Exile on Main Street, which usually is ranked in the top 5 or 10 albums of all time (in various magazines/books/polls), was actually panned by many critics when it was released. The Stones aren't as easily accessible as the Beatles; you may listen to one of these records and think 'eh, not that impressed,' but if you put in the time, it'll be worth it. They'll grow on you.
I think the Rolling Stones are much more accessible than the Beatles. They're way more straight forward and stick to pretty much one genre. Rarely do they branch out like the Beatles did. And branching out sometimes throws fans off. Which is why I find the Stones to be more mainstream and bland overall. Pretty much just one singer, same formula, and a lot of show. I like them a lot when I'm in the mood and have been listening to them for years and years. Used to be more obsessed with them in my teen years. I have or have had most of those songs in some form or another over the year, so it's nothing new really. So I guess if they haven't grown on me in all these years, they're probably not going to ever. I mean, again, I like them, but only when I'm in the mood. I'm tired of most of their stuff. Hear it too much. Unlike the Beatles. Never get sick of them. And I've been a fan since I was like eight. Just a matter of personal taste I guess.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
HeatherBoo
Female
Male
Logged
DM's Beatles forums › Other music forums › Various Artists, Lyrics, Discographies, URLs › The Rolling Stones