I didn't see a thread for them in this section so I thought I'd start one. We don't talk about them much here it seems. I've been listening to them a lot lately. I think they're probably the second greatest band of all time. But I'm really into them at the moment, so that opinion could change in a few months.


I found this interview with Mick Jagger. He sounds like a COMPLETELY different person. This must be his real accent. No bad grammer or slurring words here. He sounds very stuffy! But he looks GORGEOUS!! He's a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, boy.


This is how I'm used to him talking. I can maybe understand about half of what he's saying. This one's creepy though. He looks way to feminine or something. Ick.


One of the greatest songs ever:

Mick at about 1:16 gives me chills. When he goes woooo! At that point I think I would be willing to do anything he wanted. Like some mindless groupie. I'm so ashamed!  ;D

I will always remember the Stones during the late 60's/early 70's when their music was ballsy & their image was the baddest. I have been a dedicated RS fan for a long time with Get Yer Ya Yas Out being one of my all time favorite live albums.  I plan on seeing them next time live, if there is a next time, but I'm not expecting anymore tours afterward.  

Yes, The Rolling Stones are one of the greatest bands of all time, no doubt about that... their stage presence, attitude and music are great...and yes, Gimme Shelter is definitely one of their strongest songs...it's got a "hauting" vibe to it..love it...
They just rock...no wonder they still sell out shows 40 years later...

I didn't use to like them (their fans turned me off mostly) but I've really gotten into their music over the past two years. I love some of their slower songs, especially Wild Horses, but I think they are best when they are in their blues/rock mode.

And Mick is the eternal hotness <3333 i just love the way he moves on stage.

Angie rules too. God I love that song! I can't stop listening to that this month. That and Tumbling Dice and Sympathy for the Devil and Rip This Joint and Beast of Burden and You Can't Always Get What You Want and Respectable and Shattered and so on!! But I'd still chuck it all if I had to choose between their entire catalogue and the song Let It Be.

Okay. One last YouTube video. Mairi you have to look at this one and tell me what you think. I'm dying to know your opinion. It's from their 1978 Saturday Night Live performance. I've seen that episode, but amazingly enough I don't remember this moment. You'd think that this image would have been burned into my brain or something, but no. The Shattered performance where he rips up his shirt left a greater impact. Strange what sticks in your head and what doesn't.


:o

Quoted from lennon-legend

Yes, The Rolling Stones are one of the greatest bands of all time, no doubt about that... their stage presence, attitude and music are great...and yes, Gimme Shelter is definitely one of their strongest songs...it's got a "hauting" vibe to it..love it...
They just rock...no wonder they still sell out shows 40 years later...

They didn't sell out over here this year. Fans are getting tired of the announcement that it is their last tour. They have said that for at least ten years.

I wan't Stones fan for a long time, but recently I started to listen to their music more. Well, OK, my favourite songs are still Angie, Wild Horses and Out of Tears. I assume their earlier stuff is something I'd like a lot, so I'll have to find their albums. I had to write a review of the DVD in Rio and that was amazing, so now I'm going to see them in Belgrade in two weeks.

Bobber, you're lucky you can get tired of such a thing. They have never been and will never come to Bulgaria so it's a huge opportunity for many people here to go and see them in the nearby countries (Romania, Serbia). I'm glad their last show wasn't ten years ago, when I didn't like them - I would have missed the show  :-/

You're very right, nousha. In a way we are spoiled.

I think that during the Mick Taylor years their music was more vital and relevant than The Beatles (just).
I'd rather have sympathy for the devil than letting it be any day.

As much as I love Sympathy for the Devil, I think that if I listened to it a hundred times I'd be completely sick of it. With Let It Be, I KNOW I have listened to it at LEAST a hundred times and I'm nowhere near sick of it. It still gives me shivers. But only the album version. I need that distorted guitar solo and loud drums.

I'm not sure I know what you mean about their music being more relevant at that time. As in how?

Quoted from Sandra

I'm not sure I know what you mean about their music being more relevant at that time. As in how?

To me The Beatles 'sound' was beginning to sound a little out of date by 1969. Don't get me wrong, I love Let It Be, and Abbey Road, but The Stones at that time sounded just a bit more hip to me. A bit more 'current', if you see what I mean.

Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well!

Quoted from Sandra

I'm not sure I know what you mean about their music being more relevant at that time. As in how?

Late sixties had Kent State, Paris riots, anti-Vietnam protests - the summer of love was getting a bit darker, and as BM said the Stones seemed to have tuned into the mood more - they caught the feeling of the time. They had an aura of danger, risk and a hint of violence that was in the air at the time.
I think they were "a bit more hip."

I get what you mean. The Stone's music is not as original though. They're blues/rock or whatever is such a traditional form of music. They borrowed so much and it's apparent always. I think the Beatles were on a different level. I think their music was probably ahead of its time in some way. Some of it anyway. Even the late stuff. Songs like Get Back, Come Together, Something, Don't Let Me Down, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Because, Let It Be, etc. don't sound dated to me at all even in 2007.

Personally I'm not sure if I'd call Let It Be, Don't Let Me Down, Get Back or Something as cutting edge. The Beatles had big debts as well.
Agree the Stones had very deep roots - but they did it so damn well.
And The Stones in 68/69 onwards took blues rock, threw in some pop, added a dash of darkness and produced a great original sound.

Quoted from Sandra

I get what you mean. The Stone's music is not as original though. They're blues/rock or whatever is such a traditional form of music. They borrowed so much and it's apparent always. I think the Beatles were on a different level. I think their music was probably ahead of its time in some way. Some of it anyway. Even the late stuff. Songs like Get Back, Come Together, Something, Don't Let Me Down, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Because, Let It Be, etc. don't sound dated to me at all even in 2007.

They don't actually sound dated to me now either. But set against what other musicians were doing at the time, they may have back then.

Does that sound stupid? :-/

I think Abbey Road as an album was a look at the future - at least until 76 when punk blew prog rock and AOR out the window.
I think the Stones sound of the time is probably more enduring. To me modern rock albums sound more like Exile On Main street than Abbey Road.
(I might need to think about that a bit more, but it's my immediarte feeling)

Quoted from Kevin

Personally I'm not sure if I'd call Let It Be, Don't Let Me Down, Get Back or Something as cutting edge. The Beatles had big debts as well.
Agree the Stones had very deep roots - but they did it so damn well.
And The Stones in 68/69 onwards took blues rock, threw in some pop, added a dash of darkness and produced a great original sound.

I meant those songs don't sound dated to me. I don't find them to be cutting edge. They had other stuff and did other things which we all know about that was innovative and all. They did have their influences too, but they took it and did something completely original. Beatles songs don't really sound like anybody else where I think the Stone's fit more in a box. I mean, I love the Rolling Stones and they are the best at what they do. They write amazing hooks and riffs or whatever. Again, I think they are probably the second greatest band of all time. Music wise. They weren't great innovators or anything, but not every band has to be to be great.

Quoted from Kevin

I think Abbey Road as an album was a look at the future - at least until 76 when punk blew prog rock and AOR out the window.
I think the Stones sound of the time is probably more enduring. To me modern rock albums sound more like Exile On Main street than Abbey Road.
(I might need to think about that a bit more, but it's my immediarte feeling)

Yeah, for a while they were out, but nowadays bands steal from them constantly. Or borrow or are inspired by and so on. I read one article where a musician played Tomorrow Never Knows for his friends who didn't know much about the Beatles and they thought it was a new band because it sounded so original and like something bands are trying to do now. So that was pretty ahead of it's time that song. Among others. Happiness is a Warm Gun I'd say is still pretty original.

I think Jimmy Miller deserves alot of credit for the classic Stones sound.  He knew how to mike drums and he and Keith got a great guitar sound (Keith played a Gibson ES 335, Les Paul custom, and sometimes a Telecaster to get those fat choppy chords--in the open tuning he'd learned from Ry Cooder).

Every rock-and-roll band since then has been trying to reproduce that sound--that's why it sounds so "current."   Les Paul's sold alot of guitars.  

By comparison the Beatles never became locked in a sound the way the Stones did--Mick Taylor tried to broaden their musical horizons but got sick of getting stiffed on writer credits so they hired Keith imitator Ron Wood to play riffy simpler stuff.  

I think the Beatles sound lives on in a lot of bands from Oasis to Smashing Pumpkins that experimented with sounds rather than having one defining "sound."  The idea of each record sounding "different" is a legacy of the Beatles--that many serious artists are still copying.  

I think the two-guitars rock band the Stones created is deader than dead--at least in terms of creativity, there's no end to the supply of imitators.  

Yeah - I agree The Beatles circa 65-66-67 are much more influential than anything The Stones ever did at anytime.

Personally I've never seen the Stones as an influential band. Inspiring, I'm sure, but influential in the way of: Chuck Berry, Elvis, The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, Hendrix?

Quoted from BlueMeanie

Personally I've never seen the Stones as an influential band. Inspiring, I'm sure, but influential in the way of: Chuck Berry, Elvis, The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, Hendrix?

Could you trace a line from their black magic - voodoo thing to Black Sabbath/Zepplin  and on to heavy metal?

Quoted from Kevin

Could you trace a line from their black magic - voodoo thing to Black Sabbath/Zepplin  and on to heavy metal?

Apparently Ozzy was quite taken with Arthur Brown. And Zep were heavily influenced by the delta blues and all the connotations there. So I don't really think The Stones had anything to do with that.

Ozzy Osborne is also a huge Beatle fan and the record that inspired him into music was She Loves You!

Quoted from Sandra

Okay. One last YouTube video. Mairi you have to look at this one and tell me what you think. I'm dying to know your opinion. It's from their 1978 Saturday Night Live performance. I've seen that episode, but amazingly enough I don't remember this moment. You'd think that this image would have been burned into my brain or something, but no. The Shattered performance where he rips up his shirt left a greater impact. Strange what sticks in your head and what doesn't.

1978??? I can't believe they got away with that. Amazing... thanks for posting that, I'll be replaying it several times over gain, I'm sure...  ;)

One of my students is going to the Paul Green School of Rock Music and he's in a Rolling Stone's cover band. It's so funny. His band is playing the Roxy next weekend! It's so cute. He's Mick Jagger. I'm excited. I love the school's motto: Saving Rock and Roll One Kid at a Time! If I had a kid I'd so send him or her to this school!

Quoted from Mairi

1978??? I can't believe they got away with that. Amazing... thanks for posting that, I'll be replaying it several times over gain, I'm sure...  ;)

Mick's all about the tongue. I had to block out Ron Wood's face though. There's absolutely nothing appealing about that man. I didn't understand Mick's motivation. It's just so random. I think people got away with way more in the seventies because political correctness had yet to disease people's minds and hedonism was the call of the day.

Mick's great. It's funny, you know, about political correctness. People were up in arms about Britney and Madonna kissing a couple of years ago, and yet I never hear people talking about this.

And like anybody should even give Madonna and Britney two seconds of their time. They're so not worth the effort. They could full on make out and I couldn't care less. Like this thing with Paris. Anyone who watched her on Larry King the other night should just be taken out back to have some sense beaten into them. He bumped fucking Michael Moore for her!! Moore had to wait a day to talk about an actual issue that plagues this fucking country so we could get an update on fucking Paris Hilton's bullshit enlightenment. Fucking media whores. Excuse the language. I'm in a bad mood.

Anyway, back to the Stones. Here's John talking about them. Mainly Mick and what a joke he thought he was. This was during John's bitter phase. Obviously:

John gives a brilliant quote about Mick also. I forget which interview it's in, but one of those on YouTube. John's in his mid-thirties.

Anyway, John is asked how long he'll keep doing this rock 'n' roll thing, and he gives what is (to me, as an old lady ;) ) a funny answer, about how he doesn't expect to be out there singing when he's old and asthmatic and fifty!!  :o ;D And then he's asked about Mick, and John says with perfect composure and sincerity, "Oh, he'll be out there jumping around and doing the exact same thing when he's 60" and my jaw just dropped. You called it, Johnny baby! Brilliant comment, that.

LOL! Good call John! My friends and I all agree that Mick will tour forever, until he dies, which will probably be onstage in the middle of a strut.

Or with some 20 year model...

i love Gimme Shelter

I hate the Stones. Simple as that.

It wasn't until recently that I even knew that Gimme Shelter was an anti-war song. Probably because I can't understand half of what he sings, but still I feel like I should have known that. Anyway, Are there any other Stone's songs that have some sort of significance or story? I always just looked at their music as sort of meaningless rock and roll. I mean, I know the Angie/Anita thing, and the Sister Morphine thing as well as Mick getting the 'wild horsed couldn't drag me away' from Marianne Faithfull after she woke up from her overdose, but other than that is there anything else interesting going on in Stones songs? Certainly not to the level of the Beatles I would imagine, but something?

I followed Mick & company as closely as I did The Fab.

Eight GREATEST Stones songs and/or singles  ?  in order of GREATNESS (according to personal taste, that is)(lol) : 1) Satisfaction 2) Sympathy For The Devil 3) Brown Sugar 4) Honky Tonk Woman 5) Ruby Tuesday 6)Street Fighting Man 7) Jumpin' Jack Flash 8)Let It Bleed.

Fave Stones Albums : 25x5, Let It Bleed, Satanic Majestie's Request, Beggar's Banquet, Aftermath, Flowers.

fave FORGOTTEN Stones gems : Oh Carol!, Route 66 (damn, I love this one), Happy, Rip This Joint, It's Only Rock and Roll (but I like it), Star, Star.

..and Bill Wyman's "Monkey Grip Glue" album!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted from Mairi

LOL! Good call John! My friends and I all agree that Mick will tour forever, until he dies, which will probably be onstage in the middle of a strut.

and Keith comes out w/ a walker.

;D

There was a period of three albums that were just absolutely killer. Sticky Fingers, Beggars Banquet, and Exile on Main Street. One is no better then the other, they're all brilliant.

I agree, beggers banquet is actually an amazing album, has a great feel to it. Also the last stones album with BRIAN JONES in the band, and his last major contributions - which really stick out in 'no expectations', etc. Also love 'you can't always get what you want' and most stuff off 'let it bleed'. Am not too keen on their early stuff, tho' I'm sure it's amazing.

I actually heard Sticky Fingers for the first time about 6 months ago. I thought it was crap! I was really suprised because of all the plaudits over the years. I'm not a great fan, but I do like some of the 60's stuff.

I listened to Exile on Main Street about 2 or 3 years ago for the first time &
never liked it, .. & the same happend recently when i gave it another whirl &
still don't like it apart from the operning track 'Rocks Off'.
so i'm obviously not a stone's fan.I find a lot of their stuff sounding the same
after a while & it dosen't interet me.

gimme shelter and paint it black was about as much as i got into from the stones, and from what ive heard those two tracks were a bit different from the rest of there stuff

I like their run of albums from 1967 through 1972 the most, they were turning out incredible work during that period. There are some great songs and good albums from before and after that period but the '67 - '72 period is what I return to the most.

The Stones are too conventional for me. Mick as the frontman, like most bands. Unlike the Beatles, where even Ringo could rock the house down with Honey Don't or Boys.

I like the Stones.  I just finished reading Ronnie Wood's book...it was pretty good.

For me, Exile On Main Street is the great end of the sixties the-game-is-up record. You can also really crank it up and dance to it, which is always a great selling point with me. Beggar's Banquet is a great record, too, although, like Sandra, I'm completely sick of "Sympathy For The Devil." That song and "Midnight Rambler" for me epitomize the cheezy let's-shock-teacher school of rock that became unbearable- and laughable- by about 1974.

Review of Martin Scorsese's Shine A Light from this morning's The New York Times; and yes, it has a Dorian Grey reference: ;D


Only Rock ’N’ Roll, but They’re Still at It

By STEPHEN HOLDEN
Published: April 4, 2008

As you scrutinize the aging bodies of the Rolling Stones in Martin Scorsese’s rip-roaring concert documentary “Shine a Light,” there is ample evidence that rock ’n’ roll may hold the secret of eternal vitality, if not eternal beauty.

Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood, the quartet’s three skinny members, certainly look their ages. But there is nothing stodgy about them. The strenuous rock ’n’ roll life has left them sinewy and lean, like longtime marathon runners. (The staid, above-it-all drummer, Charlie Watts, is the exception.)

Mr. Jagger’s lined face, with its deflated balloon lips, suggests a double exposure of Dorian Gray and his infamous portrait, at once defiantly youthful and creepily gaunt. The simian Mr. Richards, whose upper arm flesh has shriveled, resembles an old madam chewing over her secrets. As he plays, his lips dangling a cigarette, he leans back into his snarling guitar and a joyful grin spreads across his face. He could be the world’s happiest young older man: Peter Pan as a wizened Gypsy fortuneteller.

For the Rolling Stones appear supremely alive inside their giant, self-created rock ’n’ roll machine. The sheer pleasure of making music that keens and growls like a pack of ravenous alley cats is obviously what keeps them going. Why should they ever stop? At the heart of the gizmo, Mr. Jagger whirls, leaps, struts, wiggles his tiny hips and sashays around like an androgynous tart prowling a street corner at 3 a.m.

Ultimately the movie is Mr. Jagger’s show. If his long-running circus act is ridiculous when you analyze it, conjoined to the Stones’ music, it becomes a phenomenal high-wire exhibition of agility, stamina and cheek. He was 63 when the concert was filmed over two nights at the Beacon Theater in New York in the fall of 2006. From certain angles, when the blazing lights hit his face, he suggests an agitated zombie with a full head of hair. But if you squint until your vision blurs, he is the same tireless, taunting cock of the walk that he has always been.

The film, which used 18 cameras, many operated by eminent cinematographers, is an unabashedly reverent tribute to the Stones made in the same spirit as “The Last Waltz,” Mr. Scorsese’s elegiac 1978 movie of the Band’s farewell concert, and his more recent Bob Dylan biography, “No Direction Home.” That said, it is far less ambitious, and less overtly romantic.

This is a concert film with frills that places you on the stage with the band and, with a finely trained eye, observes the musicians’ interactions with one another and with the audience. The visual rhythms and unobtrusive editing reflect the contradictory status of the Stones as a majestic rock institution and a gang of down-and-dirty bad boys thumbing their noses at propriety while scooping up all the girls.

Although there is no frantic cutting back and forth, the cameras are continually on the move. As the movie artfully shifts its gaze, it helps you see much more than you could if you actually attended the concert. The audience is largely ignored.

Mr. Scorsese is a besotted rock ’n’ roll fan who wholeheartedly embraces its mythology. Its scruffy guitar heroes and roustabout rebel-prophets are the musical equivalents of the hotheads and outlaws who populate so many of his films. Almost every shot of “Shine a Light” conveys his excitement.

Prefaced by preconcert footage and interwoven with excerpts from television interviews from the Stones’ younger days, going back to 1964, “Shine a Light” makes no attempt to explain the Stones or to tell their story. All it wants to do is to give you the best seat in the house and the best sound you could possibly hope for.

The program is a best-of selection that concentrates on Stones classics, including “Jumpin’ Jack Flash,” “Shattered,” “Some Girls,” “Tumbling Dice,” “Sympathy for the Devil,” “Start Me Up” and “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction.” The only misfire is the quaint, quasi chamber-pop ballad “As Tears Go By,” a hit for Marianne Faithfull in 1964, which sounds incongruous in Mr. Jagger’s parched delivery. Otherwise, the full-tilt rock concert roars along like a steam engine. A horn section, a keyboardist (Chuck Leavell), a bass guitarist (Darryl Jones) and three backup singers augment the band.

There are three special guests: in ascending order of interest, Jack White, who trades vocals with Mr. Jagger on “Loving Cup”; Christina Aguilera, who shares the vocals on “Live With Me” and bestows demure pecks on the cheek to the musicians as she leaves the stage; and the great blues guitarist and singer Buddy Guy performing an old Muddy Waters song, “Champagne and Reefer.” (There is also the Clinton family in the audience, on hand to celebrate Bill Clinton’s 60th birthday.)

Like Muddy Waters, whom I saw in the Beacon Theater shortly before his death in 1983 at 70, Mr. Guy, 70 when “Shine a Light” was filmed, is a mighty blues presence, one who puts the Stones in historical perspective. Muddy Waters was an ominous force of raw blues aggression. Mr. Guy, though equally imposing, is a more benign, patriarchal figure.

Beside him, Mr. Jagger and company are mischievous bohemian whippersnappers churning up variations on their elders’ musical bedrock. It is obviously a thrilling game to play into your 60s and beyond, if you’ve still got the juice. And the Stones have the juice. But it is ultimately just a game.


SHINE A LIGHT

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Martin Scorsese; director of photography, Robert Richardson; edited by David Tedeschi; music by the Rolling Stones; produced by Victoria Pearman, Michael Cohl, Zane Weiner and Steve Bing; released by Paramount Pictures. Running time: 2 hours 2 minutes.


http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/movies/04shin.html

I like the Stones but I don't much see the point of this.  I would have liked to see a reunion of the early 70s Stones (with Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor) playing tunes from that crucial era.  Just the five of them.  No guests.  

Now that would have been interesting.  

I would hesitate to call what Scorsese's doing "documentary."  It's more like pre-planned filmed event.  Even The Last Waltz (much of which, apart from Levon, was overdubbed afterward).  

What's the point of these movies?  

Quoted from adamzero

What's the point of these movies?  

I doubt there's much of a point at all, but there's probably ample reportage on how the machinery of old time rock biz continues to grind along with its gears of celebrity intact even today. Naturally it's a bit absurd, though: the sixties are as remote from us as that decade was from the era of silent film, and the sight of pensionable rock musicians singing their old songs of adolescent rebellion can't help but induce cringes. If you want to hear the Stones, give your local football stadium a pass and go listen to the old Decca catalog instead.

Quoted from adamzero

What's the point of these movies?  

?????  What's the point of most cinema but top entertain and make money? Though I'm sure Scorcesce, like Stone, believes he's tapping into the rich vein of contempory american culture yardy yardy yardy.
Personally, I think a documentary" (and come on, now one really believes what they see on the screen is real -Shea Stadium anyone? ) about the Stones 40 years on is a good a topic as any. All post modern irony and crap. And it's a neat little trick telling their story through how they appear today. More "cinemaric" than just splicing together archive footage. I think it worked for The last Waltz and will probably work again.
Though I think to make Harrison's post Beatle career interesting will stretch his storytelling skills to the max.

Quoted from Kevin

All post modern irony and crap.

Wouldn't doubt it. ;D

I have a feeling that Scorsese will turn George Harrison into the Travis Bickle of the Beatles . . . I can just see De Niro looking into a mirror in a dramatic recreation, muttering over and over, "You within me or are you without me?"

cool...i was not aware

I would have to agree with some of the others, the Stones are probably the 2nd greatest band ever.  

Gimmie Shelter
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
The Last Time
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Let's Spend The Night Together
Honky Tonk Women
Paint It Black
Ruby Tuesday
Get Off of my Cloud
Wild Horse
Sympathy for the Devil
Under My Thumb
You Can't Always Get What You Want
19th Nervous Breakdown
It's Only Rock and Roll
Angie
Beast Of Burden
Brown Sugar
Start Me Up

Just to name a few!  They really have a wide range of hits and have been around for a long. Fans young and old love them. They really are a top-notch band.

Hi. I'm gonna make a mix tape for my dad who's turning 53 very soon. And I want to include a collection of Rolling Stones ballads. I got almost every RS album here in my home, but I'm definitely not a fan (love Beatles, hate Stones  :lol: ), so I'm asking to anybody who really likes them about their best ballads...

The ones I know are:
Angie
Out of Tears
Wild Horses
As Tears Go By
Lady Jane
Streets of Love (is this a ballad...?)

And that's it.
If anyone can help me I would be really grateful.  :D

Stones ballads? I'd go with "Lady Jane" from Aftermath and "Almost Hear You Sigh" from Steel Wheels myself. "Beast Of Burden" from Some Girls is pretty good too, and if you've got the nerve, use "Dead Flowers" from Sticky Fingers instead of "Wild Horses." "Sweet Black Angel" from Exile On Main Street and "Everybody Need Somebody to Love" from The Rolling Stones No 2 aren't really ballads but they're very good and would certainly fit. Unless your dad's got a taste for soppy football stadium ballads, just pretend "Angie" and "Fool To Cry" don't exist.  ;D

I love the Stones -- in my book they're in the holy trinity of rock bands, along with the Beatles and Led Zeppelin.  While I get the Beatles vs Elvis rivalry, and the fact that generally a fan falls into either one camp or the other but not both, I don't see that with the Beatles vs Stones.  I don't relate to the idea of being a fan of one of these bands but not the other.

A previous poster mentioned "Wild Horses" and how it was about Mick's reaction to Marianne Faithfull's OD; I'd heard it was written by Keith and it was to his kids and how he felt when he left them to tour -- I'll have to look into that.

The Stones did something that in my opinion not even the Beatles topped, in that they released five consecutive albums which could be considered all-time greats: Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed, Get Your Ya-Yas Out (one of the all-time great live albums), Sticky Fingers and my favorite, Exile On Main Street.  Exile is not that easily accessible, but on repeated listens it grows on you.  Now I think there's not one weak song on the album.

Mr. Mustard, great! The Beatles and Led Zeppelin - my favourites! However, i dont like everything from Stones. Nevertheless it `s no doubt they are beyond comparison and above a lot of bands.  

Stones ballads, ah, there's a nice challenge.  

Here goes:

As Tears Go By
The Singer Not the Song
Tell Me
Back Street Girl
Lady Jane
Ruby Tuesday
She Smiled Sweetly
No Expectations
Love in Vain
You Got the Silver
Wild Horses
Moonlight Mile
Angie
Time Waits For No One
Fool to Cry
Memory Motel
Waiting on a Friend
No Use in Crying
Sleep Tonight
The Worst

I love - As Tears Go By. Where`s Satisfaction? Oh, it`s not a ballad, is it?

rock and roll circus........http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTI3NjUwMjQ=.html

my name is iva the engine driver.....

I think I prefer the Marianne Faithfull version of As Tears Go By, to be honest.

I`m gonna see the new movie with Rollings staring this Saturday. I am looking forward to it! Have you seen it, is it real good?

Quoted from Mairi

I think I prefer the Marianne Faithfull version of As Tears Go By, to be honest.

I second that. she was great, and a really nice lady!

So, i have seen the new movie with Rollings starring by Martin Scorsese! In English it is called Shine the Light (if i am not mistaken). In fact it is not so much a movie than a concert. I enjoyed it very much, watching these great rockers, and especially Mick Jagger, oh, how wonderful he is! And my favourite song: As Tears Go By! Is the film on in your parts?

Yes it came out here in the US also

I attended their show in November of '06 at the Oakland Coliseum, one week into the start of their tour, with Van Morrison opening.

Greatest show I've ever been to.

By the way, has anyone heard (or bought) their most recent album A Bigger Bang?  I listened to the whole thing shortly after it came out, and I really liked it -- the Stones rocked hard and it was probably their best album since Tattoo You, if not Steel Wheels.  But even as I was listening to it, I found it almost 'too clean' -- Jagger's vocals were very up front, not buried in the mix as in vintage Stones LPs.  I wasn't sure what to make of it -- I liked it, but it was a little foreign to me.  Any other opinions on that album, or memories of Stones shows?

You got Van Morrison!! Damn. I got Joss Stone. I feel gypped.  But the Stones' rocked. I cannot believe the energy of Mick Jagger. He didn't stop moving the entire two and half to three hours.

Mr. Mustard! I just love that album! A Bigger Bang is fantastic: Rain Fall Down, This Place Is Empty and the song Biggest Mistake is so thrilling and moving as if Mick has himself experienced the thing profoundly and is venting all his emotions and sorrows on us, feeling the deepest regret about his mistake. I am always so carried away with it...The album is very good, I think it can`t be compared to the monotonous works of some newly, or better say, recently emergent groups, such as Travis or Kean or Coldplay. By the end of their albums you find yourself sleeping soundly. Though all these bands are to my liking. But the Great Rolling Stones are way ahead, miles ahead. Mick is incredible!

I also saw the Stones play in Oakland (in the smaller indoor arena, about 18,000 seats) in '99.  But I didn't get so lucky with the opener -- Bryan Adams.

I was exhausted watching Jagger 2 years ago.  So much so, that two nights later, the Who (well, Pete and Roger) were playing the Shoreline Amphitheatre (much cheaper ticket, $40 compared to $150 for the Stones), but I was still too worn out from the Stones show to consider seeing the Who.

Quoted from Mr. Mustard

I also saw the Stones play in Oakland (in the smaller indoor arena, about 18,000 seats) in '99.  But I didn't get so lucky with the opener -- Bryan Adams.

I was exhausted watching Jagger 2 years ago.  So much so, that two nights later, the Who (well, Pete and Roger) were playing the Shoreline Amphitheatre (much cheaper ticket, $40 compared to $150 for the Stones), but I was still too worn out from the Stones show to consider seeing the Who.

What do you mean by being exhausted? Were you in the fan area, dancing, singing, shouting so that you could no longer stand it? Did Mick involve you in the show emotionally so much that you needed a break to come round? And is Bryan Adams no good on stage?

never got into them  :-/ i like paint it black and gimme shelter.

What about The Girl With Far Away Eyes? One should watch Mick on stage, he is virtuos.

Mick can certainly dance thats for sure.  I wish I had half the energy he does.

I'm not sure exactly 'how' I was exhausted from the '06 show.  I wasn't dancing in the aisles or anything, so it wasn't a physical exhaustion.  But the Stones just emotionally wrung out the audience, for lack of a better description.  Two nights later, debating whether to see the Who, all I could think about it was, Dude, I'm still not quite recovered from the Stones yet.

Bryan Adams in '99: first and foremost, I'm just not a fan of the guy.  He just doesn't do anything for me.  I don't dislike him, I'm just bored by him (which I guess means that by default, I do dislike him; not personally though).  His band was a three-piece, and everything was snow-white: the band's t-shirts and pants, the stage floor, even the drums.  I basically shrugged my way through that set.

This is so random, but Mick Jagger has a huge mouth.
hahah   ??)

His figure hasn`t changed a bit, so upright and thin, that`s why the mouth had to take the blow!  ;D

hahahahahahaahah

Bryan Adams redux:

Yesterday the local rock station was doing their typical weekend triple-shots, and during the afternoon they played 3 by Bryan Adams.

I have to admit, Run to You is a pretty damn good song, both musically and lyrically.  And Cuts Like a Knife isn't bad.

And what about - When a Man Loves a Woman, by Bryan Adams ? Incredible!!! Incomparable!!! The best of the best! So romantic and touching! Don`t you think so?

Eh, I prefer Percy Sledge's.

Yea I like Percy better.

And yes Mick has a huge mouth, also Steven Tyler from Aerosmith.  They both kinda have the same look.

Quoted from HeatherBoo

Yea I like Percy better.

also Steven Tyler from Aerosmith.  They both kinda have the same look.

Oh GOD no!!! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!



NO!

??)


BTW, how much of a rip off is this pic? They SO wanna be the American Rolling Stones. NOT QUITE. BTW, Tyler doesn't have 1/8th of the sex appeal Mick had/has.


The real thing.

Sandra, I agree with you 100% ! Mick is sooooo sexy, while Tyler is...well...not quite.

I always looked at Aerosmith -- when they were at their best, in the mid '70s, as trying to bridge the gap between the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin; the Stones in their look and attitude, and raunch, and Zeppelin in their melodies (Dream On, Joe Perry's style of play).

I don't dislike Aerosmith (I have one of their greatest hits albums, with their '70s stuff, which is enough for me), but I was a little dismayed when I saw in the Guiness record book a few years ago that the top five album-selling bands in the U.S., according to the RIAA (Recording Ind. Assn. of America), are (in order) the Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Eagles, and AEROSMITH!

I was shocked that Aerosmith has outsold the Stones (at least in terms of albums) in the U.S.  I know they had their big comeback in the '80s (actually they got way bigger than they ever were in the '70s), but still!  I was slightly less surprised by the high rankings of Floyd and the Eagles, though in their cases each band had a couple of albums that are in the top 5 or 10 biggest sellers ever.  The Stones don't have that one Godzilla-type album like The Wall, or Dark Side, or Eagles Greatest Hits -- their stuff sold steadily but in smaller numbers.  I still think of the Stones as being bigger than all other bands except for the Beatles and Zep, but maybe they're not as popular as I think.

The thing is that Stones` music is harder to absorb. I believe they are greater onstage than on CD, so to speak. Every song of theirs becomes outstanding when you watch them perform. Their music is real rock. While Aerosmith is much more pop and they have more catchy melodies. People in the majority prefer pop, or rock-pop, or the like. You are right, Stones are big and great, but less popular - cause they are not pop.

I meant in the sense that they have big mouths and also really skinny and somewhat style of clothes.  Wrong choice of words HAHA Mick is way better than Steven!  Steven is starting to look scary like he had a bunch of surgery or something  :D

Quoted from Mr. Mustard

I always looked at Aerosmith -- when they were at their best, in the mid '70s, as trying to bridge the gap between the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin; the Stones in their look and attitude, and raunch, and Zeppelin in their melodies (Dream On, Joe Perry's style of play).

I don't dislike Aerosmith (I have one of their greatest hits albums, with their '70s stuff, which is enough for me), but I was a little dismayed when I saw in the Guiness record book a few years ago that the top five album-selling bands in the U.S., according to the RIAA (Recording Ind. Assn. of America), are (in order) the Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Eagles, and AEROSMITH!

I was shocked that Aerosmith has outsold the Stones (at least in terms of albums) in the U.S.  I know they had their big comeback in the '80s (actually they got way bigger than they ever were in the '70s), but still!  I was slightly less surprised by the high rankings of Floyd and the Eagles, though in their cases each band had a couple of albums that are in the top 5 or 10 biggest sellers ever.  The Stones don't have that one Godzilla-type album like The Wall, or Dark Side, or Eagles Greatest Hits -- their stuff sold steadily but in smaller numbers.  I still think of the Stones as being bigger than all other bands except for the Beatles and Zep, but maybe they're not as popular as I think.

Dream On alone got more radio play than the best of any Stone's song. Well, besides Satisfaction. It's like a Stairway to Heaven or Another Brick in the Wall Part II. And Toys in the Attic was pretty huge. And again spawned radio staples:  Walk This Way and Sweet Emotion. Oh yeah, and then that thing they did with Run DMC and the whole eighties sell out come back. A lot of gimmicky and flash in the pan stuff that sold huge at the time.

But yeah, how they outsold the Stones is beyond me. I think the Stones probably kick anyones a** in concert ticket sales though.

Funny, I was just thinking about Pink Floyd and how they became such a monster band. I think that's so awesome that they're in that top five. But not surprised. Isn't it a right of passage for every young budding stoner to experience Dark Side in various states of...uh, what's the word?

I thought Mick Jagger had a little something, something back in his early days.
hah

Quoted from Sandra

Funny, I was just thinking about Pink Floyd and how they became such a monster band. I think that's so awesome that they're in that top five. But not surprised. Isn't it a right of passage for every young budding stoner to experience Dark Side in various states of...uh, what's the word?

I think the word you're thinking of is "consciousness."

How could the Eagles have got to the top? It`s a surprise to me. They ve got Hotel California, sure a hit, but to be number 4 is beyond me. Are they really so popular in the USA?

Supposedly, the Eagles' first greatest hits album is the #1 selling album of all time.  Or at least in the U.S.  But the Michael Jackson/Thriller camp will likely dispute that.  (I think Thriller is #1 worldwide, but Eagles Greatest Hits might be #1 in the U.S.).  And the Hotel Califonia album was a massive seller as well.  

I read somewhere about the Eagles' record sales, and someone (I wish I remember the source) derisively said that most of the Eagles' sales came from those promotions you would find in the middle of magazines, where you could buy 12 albums for a penny (plus what was in the small print).  I thought that was funny, but then I remembered that that was exactly how I bought their greatest hits CD!  (The company that ran that promotion was Columbia House.)

And I own the Hotel California LP on vinyl -- which I bought at a used record store (Rasputin's) for $1.  I still remember that day -- I picked up about 12 classic albums -- Eagles, Neil Young, Skynyrd, Allmans, Bowie, Traffic, some others, for 12 FREAKING DOLLARS!  

Quoted from Jane

How could the Eagles have got to the top? It`s a surprise to me. They ve got Hotel California, sure a hit, but to be number 4 is beyond me. Are they really so popular in the USA?

Yes. I've even heard them promoted as America's answer to the Beatles. Which is pretty lame, but I get it. There's a massive amount of talent in that band. They've got a great amount of hits. All members wrote and sang and their musicianship is excellent. When they started, it was supposed to be a situation of all members being equal. Similar to the Beatles style. All getting songs on the album, all getting the same amount of money. Then Henley and Frey's egos got in the way. As it is, Joe Walsh is just a paid employee at this point! Which is ridiculous because a good amount of their live show consists of old Jame's Gang and solo Walsh songs. Kinda sucks because I feel like stuff like this takes the soul out of a band. They all pretty much hate each other. Don Felder, who wrote most of Hotel California was fired and had to sue them, two other guys quit because of the way they were being treated and so on.

Anyway, yeah, they're pretty huge over here. No problems at all selling five or six nights worth of shows at stadiums. They did it here when they played The Staples Center which is a huge stadium. They even had to add a show.

In the movie, do you actually get to see Darryl Jones playing bass? Of all the film I have seen of them I have yet to see him, unless it's a distance shot of the whole stage.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

In the movie, do you actually get to see Darryl Jones playing bass? Of all the film I have seen of them I have yet to see him, unless it's a distance shot of the whole stage.

;D

Great point, that. Can't say I noticed a lot of shots of him either.

Quoted from Sandra

Yes. I've even heard them promoted as America's answer to the Beatles. Which is pretty lame, but I get it. There's a massive amount of talent in that band. They've got a great amount of hits. All members wrote and sang and their musicianship is excellent. When they started, it was supposed to be a situation of all members being equal. Similar to the Beatles style.  

Never had much interest in the Hotel California type of thing myself, but I like some of the earlier stuff:

Take It Easy



I think Jackson Browne had a hand in writing it, but I'm not sure.  :)

Very interesting! Could have never thought of such a high position for the Eagles!

Though the thread is dedicated to the Stones, we spoke about Brian Adams here, and I can`t help saying that driving home late at night, just 20 minutes ago i listened on the radio to Brian singing When a Man Loves a Woman and then came Eric`s You`re Wonderful Tonight. Two SUCH songs running! I go crazy listening to men singing such romantic beautiful songs. Still haven`t come round. Oh, what an emotional person!

I'm listening to Wild Horses right now, and while I LOVE Mick's style, his delivery just cracks me up sometimes. I mean, he really goes overboard with the southern accent thing. If that was in fact what he was trying to emulate. I wonder if he worked on that or if it just came naturally. Personally, I like it better when English singers sing with their English accents. Like the dudes from Pink Floyd or the Kinks. Even the Beatles really. But it did work for the Stones I guess. Part of their charm. :K)

And just because:  


He's so purty!


Evidence!  :X

Quoted from Sandra

I'm listening to Wild Horses right now, and while I LOVE Mick's style, his delivery just cracks me up sometimes. I mean, he really goes overboard with the southern accent thing. If that was in fact what he was trying to emulate.

It's not the idiom that does him in, it's his utter inability to project (or convincingly fake) the "sincerity" the song requires. He's swinging away at emotions he knows about from other songs but doesn't particularly feel himself. Callow, callow, callow.  8)

What? Are you implying that Mick doesn't really have any soul? No depth? You mean, that was all just an illusion? ??)


;)

Hey all I own from them is a best of CD. I have a sneaking suspicion that they might be slightly overrated. Although, Gimme Shelter is a masterpiece of a song.

I love Gimme Shelter

Quoted from Sandra

What? Are you implying that Mick doesn't really have any soul? No depth?

;D

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?")  ;D

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.

Agree with Mr. Mustard. Well said - "They`ll grow on you."