Ace wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:The four "great" Stones albums probably represent the pinnacle of rock and roll music. If you don't think so, you're wrong.

That's quite a statement

Yeah, I finna go out on a limb on that.

Ace wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:The four "great" Stones albums probably represent the pinnacle of rock and roll music. If you don't think so, you're wrong.

That's quite a statement

See how I ignored NB altogether there? Even though he's supposedly on my side? Try it. It's quite liberating.

The Rolling Stones haven't been a very good band for quite a while.

But they were indeed the greatest rock band in the world for a period of about six years there.

If you are interested in guitars or guitar-based rock songs, you've got to recognize the greatness of Keith Richards. His playing was so inventive and energetic. Take "Midnight Rambler," for instance. Those riffs have been tailor-made for repeat listenings. Keith was great at playing de-tuned chords that sounded normal at first but revealed as many subtleties as Sonic Youth's upon further exposure.

Jagger was a beast. His range of styles was impressive, but what ultimately made him great was the amount of will-power he put into those performances. "Sway" is as overwhelming as Aretha Franklin's best moments, and "Dead Flowers," an equally great one, is its polar opposite in tone and mood. The guy was a chameleon. Always trying out different approaches until he found the ones that fit him.

Watts was a wonderfully off-kilter drummer. Taylor's lead work (especially on slide!!) was terrific. Check out Brian Jones' slide-work on "Jigsaw Puzzle."

pwalshj wrote:

Ace wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:The four "great" Stones albums probably represent the pinnacle of rock and roll music. If you don't think so, you're wrong.

That's quite a statement

See how I ignored NB altogether there? Even though he's supposedly on my side? Try it. It's quite liberating.

Hey now, I just remarked on what I perceived to be a big statement. I didn't take offense or anything - just, noted.

pwalshj wrote:I now have a new mission. A cherry-picked cd of the Stones blowing the unfortunately unenlightened minds of both you and Burun away.

Wait, leave me out of this. I said up there I was listening to the good stuff.

And I liked it.

Don't make me hurt you.

And by hurt you, I mean tie you to a chair and play you the Jandek catalogue from start to finish.

burun wrote:And by hurt you, I mean tie you to a chair and play you the Jandek catalogue from start to finish.

Don't get all kinky. We realize Keith had a different approach to the instrument than Jandek.

Keef wrote:"kerwack-a-wack-a-wack-a"

Jandek wrote:"BRRRLOOOOOIIIINNNNGGG"

Heh.

I voted CRAP.

I voted CRAP.

We heard you the first time.

I don't have a problem with the Stones as bar rock. That is unquestionably the backbone of the music they have put out since Tattoo You. Nothing special, either. But AC/DC is bar rock, and, while I haven't cared about a single AC/DC song since 1980, I think they rule, though not as much as the Stones.

Stones = N/C

I like the early originals, the hits, the psych pop shit, the gothy pop stuff like the Citadel and 2000 Light Years From Home, the dark depravity of Monkey Man, Stray Cat and Ventilator Blues, the country twang of all the Ry Cooder bullshit, and the funky, Quinn Martin Productions fap like Fingerprint File, straight through to Some Girls and Emotional Rescue. After that, who cares.

The Stones were really damned good for a long time. The scarfs, capes, capezios, pouting, strutting, primping, deep knee-bending, open G strumming, teased hair, bandana and rings and silver baubles wrapped in leather strips, knee pads, etc., means nothing to me. They have a bunch of great fucking rock/pop songs. My life would have been worse for wear without them.