Seems like the World is just about a liveable place if the Stones are still playing. A connection to when times were understandable.
I don't know, but I like all of their songs, practically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEAUJgw3YP8
For people my age group, 66 I would have to say yes. Not many bands have been around as long as them and had the success they have. Being a Doors fan I wish Jim had stayed around a bit longer. At one time a couple of members of the Stones could have spent time in jail, things could have changed. But after all we have to remember. (Time Is On My Side)
They've done some really good tunes....... & have been influential, that being I can't get super-excited about most of their music tbh.....they are nowhere close to being one of my favourite bands.
At 73 he still has it, Mick Jagger can still strut his stuff.. Only one in the band that's changed is Charlie Whatt. At 69 he still had it, at 72 had his 8th child.. Aged 69 at Glastonbury https://youtu.be/GAHLhPAuG4U
It seems their musical talent is plainly obvious if you like Rock and Roll but moreover, from my understanding, the Stones initially represented somewhat of a cultural shift for Pop and Rock music. It may be difficult to understand now, given the state of current Pop music with practically all of it overflowing with deviant themes but the Rolling Stones were one of the first to embrace and mention deviant subject matters and provide a popular voice that really resonated with youthful angst. They were a part of the British Invasion, and While the Beatles were singing "I want to hold your Hand" and celebrating the idealistic ethos "All You need is Love", the Stones were singing "I can't get no Satisfaction" and "Let's Spend the Night Together". Also for many of their songs, the Stones played with a slightly less polished and loose sound than the Beatles and many of their early contemporaries, which accentuated the attitude in their music. Then as I mentioned in an earlier post, they also adapted to other music genres that came about, which aided them in longevity, yet they still maintained their core sound and didn't really completely abandon their roots like some other bands have.
Fair enough. I could say the same about some of the bands I do like. I was just never a fan of that blues based rock. But based on what you said about their ethos and attitude, I can certainly understand the attraction. :-D
I'm quite a fan of blues based rock but never loved the Rolling Stones. I love Keith Richards when he plays the blues (esp acoustic), but not really when he plays his own rock haha Attitude and music wise they got nothing on for example the Doors (also blues based rock band from same era) imho
Really? Maybe I'm missing the term "blues-based rock." Other than Road House Blues--I mean, c'mon, it's in the title--I never thought of the Doors in that term. They had a sound that was so different than a lot of their contemporaries: ethereal, spooky even. Certainly interesting and unique for that time period.
Listen to their debut and their final album (with jimbo, LA woman). All clearly full of blues based rock. Stuff like Strange days seems more the exception to me (but undeniably awesome and groovy as well)! And yeah they were quite unique, whereas there were many british blues based bands with scrawny boy vocals and a bunch of distortion to give it more (of a rockin) attitude. The doors 'oozed' attitude because of their unique sound and ah well their great frontman i was going to say.. but so was Jagger to the Stones as well of course (but to a lesser extent )
everyone has their own idea of what the best is. I think they are for sure one of the greatest bands for sure. But I also think there are many other bands that would sit right up there.
Thats a Funny Comparison Jagger and Morrison ? one died at 27 Burnt out and no longer able To perform ! The other one still going at 73 ??? Way to Go Asmo And I like the Doors !