Band: Rolling Stones, The
41CRAP. i don't care if the Rolling Stones were a good band for six months, two years, or whatever because they've been dreadfully lousy for an eternity.
Band: Rolling Stones, The
44steve wrote:The Rolling Stones are a terrible band. Their music is hack bar band crap. They think pouting and being jaded is cool. Fuck the Rolling Stones.
Wait, Charlie Watts is totally not crap. We like him. He is actually awesome.
But the Rolling Stones are crap.
I have never been more baffled by a band's popularity than by the Rolling Stones. The Doors: Okay they're crap, but I can at least imagine why girls or gay men would like them. And college students.
Same with the Smiths. It's crap, but I can understand the appeal to journal-writers and teenage closet cases. And the Chicano community.
But the Rolling Stones baffle me. What is there to like about this tepid, undistinguished lowbrow mediocria?
Crap crap crap.
best,
How can you say this? What about the early years up until the seventies? They put out some consistently quality music. They inspired a lot of "bar band hacks" in their wake but to label the Rolling Stones with this unfair moniker is just being provocative with no basis in fact. Musically and lyrically they were a talented band with a considerable influence ( good and bad) on stuff that would follow. I think everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon without thinking out the positive qualites.
Indulgences, excesses and corporate greed aside, The Rolling Stones are not crap.
Band: Rolling Stones, The
45TheManWhoFelltoEarth wrote:...I think everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon without thinking out the positive qualites.
Indulgences, excesses and corporate greed aside, The Rolling Stones are not crap.
Name these elusive positive qualities?
Band: Rolling Stones, The
46Gramsci wrote:TheManWhoFelltoEarth wrote:...I think everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon without thinking out the positive qualites.
Indulgences, excesses and corporate greed aside, The Rolling Stones are not crap.
Name these elusive positive qualities?
The Stones have fused their influences into a signature, guitar-based sound that established a prototype for hard rock. Second in popularity only to The Beatles, The Stones affected a rebellious, bad-boy image that helped propel their rise from an energetic modern blues outfit to one of the world's biggest and most influential bands. By the end of the '60s, The Stones had a great number of hit records. Their music never strayed far from the blues, however, and by 1968, they returned to blues-based rock, embarking the following year on the now infamous U.S. tour that saw them billed as "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World".
Would you like more?
Band: Rolling Stones, The
47TheManWhoFelltoEarth wrote:Gramsci wrote:TheManWhoFelltoEarth wrote:...I think everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon without thinking out the positive qualites.
Indulgences, excesses and corporate greed aside, The Rolling Stones are not crap.
Name these elusive positive qualities?
The Stones have fused their influences into a signature, guitar-based sound that established a prototype for hard rock. Second in popularity only to The Beatles, The Stones affected a rebellious, bad-boy image that helped propel their rise from an energetic modern blues outfit to one of the world's biggest and most influential bands. By the end of the '60s, The Stones had a great number of hit records. Their music never strayed far from the blues, however, and by 1968, they returned to blues-based rock, embarking the following year on the now infamous U.S. tour that saw them billed as "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World".
Would you like more?
Band: Rolling Stones, The
48TheManWhoFelltoEarth wrote:TheManWhoFelltoEarth wrote:Gramsci wrote:TheManWhoFelltoEarth wrote:...I think everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon without thinking out the positive qualites.
Indulgences, excesses and corporate greed aside, The Rolling Stones are not crap.
Name these elusive positive qualities?
The Stones have fused their influences into a signature, guitar-based sound that established a prototype for hard rock. Second in popularity only to The Beatles, The Stones affected a rebellious, bad-boy image that helped propel their rise from an energetic modern blues outfit to one of the world's biggest and most influential bands. By the end of the '60s, The Stones had a great number of hit records. Their music never strayed far from the blues, however, and by 1968, they returned to blues-based rock, embarking the following year on the now infamous U.S. tour that saw them billed as "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World".
Critically and commerically they were successful. A rare feat. If they weren't important to begin with they would have vanished into obscurity a long time ago.
Band: Rolling Stones, The
49Big waffle factor for me, little else. I feel about the Stones the same way I feel about Primal Scream (ha!). Both have songs that sound initially powerful to me, but subsequent listening has left me feeling hollow. Both are cabaret bands to me.
They can be fun, but they leave me cold. I couldn't figure out whether Jagger was being ironic or moronic singing the blues on "Beggars Banquet", and I disliked it so much that I never revisited it.
Allow this fool to state the obvious: critical acclaim and commercial success mean little apart from the fact itself.
They can be fun, but they leave me cold. I couldn't figure out whether Jagger was being ironic or moronic singing the blues on "Beggars Banquet", and I disliked it so much that I never revisited it.
TheManWhoFelltoEarth wrote:Critically and commerically they were successful. A rare feat. If they weren't important to begin with they would have vanished into obscurity a long time ago.
Allow this fool to state the obvious: critical acclaim and commercial success mean little apart from the fact itself.
Band: Rolling Stones, The
50TheManWhoFelltoEarth wrote:I think everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon...
sorry, but i dislike the Rolling Stones for my own reasons.