The Rolling Stones *sigh*

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Lol, we DO agree that The Stones version is the worst 

[BergenWhitesMoustache]

oh cool

Hehehe...I just don't know why they bothered. Sound half asleep.

As always it's the gap between 'public perception' and reality that rubs me up the wrong way. Stones have always had that 'wild, dangerous' thing going on, but the music just doesn't live up to it. The Who on the other hand...

[Aum Bop Diddit]

As  a plain Rnb band, the Stones suck balls. Boring rhythm section. Singer who was more interesting in appearing to be gobby and rebellious than actually BEING gobby and rebellious.

Check these two versions of Roadrunner: Firstly by a proper band. The Pretty Things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoVx7b5i-v0

And now the Stones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN5cL9rZeek

Now I'm sure SOMEONE out there will swear blind the Stones version is better, so I'm just gonna cut that dead right now. It's not, you're wrong. It sounds like the soundtrack to a bunch of septuagenarian's playing lawn bowls. They improved a bit when they figured out how to write a decent pop song, but essentially, they were pretenders, and from the sounds of it, major arseholes. They had a bit of a go at country rock in the seventies, a bit of a go at psych, but were never the real deal.

Making a case against the Stones on the basis of their cover of "Roadrunner"?  Am I getting this right?  Anyway, I don't think I'm alone in believing Wyman and Watts constituted one of the great, *creative* rhythm sections of rock music.  Their swing and space had a ton to do with the Stones success.  "Boring" is the last word I'd use here.

Hey, there's no accounting for taste!  And I'm certain some of the major Stones have been often major twats.  But a sweeping, convoluted diss needs to be countered!

[alf wiedersehen]

Just don't get how the press were like 'would you let your daughter marry a rolling stone' etc...when there were other bands 10X wilder. It's like they were the UKs sanitised version of rock and roll excitement.

It's not entirely their fault that they carried around this image. Andrew Loog Oldham, who was there manager, created this image for them. He saw them as a rougher band, and was looking to make them the "anti-Beatles" which he thought would make them big sellers. So, he crated this persona for the band and sold it to the media, which turned out to be a success.

Basically, whether or not it fit, the image was created by a publicist.

[Lonely Summer]

The Kinks and The Who seemed much more 'dangerous' to me - the sound certainly was more aggressive, and the Who had things going on like Pete smashing his guitars on stage, and Keith putting gunpowder in the bass drum. The Kinks never wasted their time with such shenanigans, they were too busy beating the piss out of each other. I mean, how much more 'dangerous' does it get than the drummer throwing a cymbal at the lead guitarist during a show? 

[Justin]

oh cool

Hehehe...I just don't know why they bothered. Sound half asleep.

As always it's the gap between 'public perception' and reality that rubs me up the wrong way. Stones have always had that 'wild, dangerous' thing going on, but the music just doesn't live up to it. The Who on the other hand...

What the hell are you talking about?

The Stones not wild...but The Who were?  Lame.  You should look a little deeper instead of just giving the "wild" vote for who played the loudest. 

You honestly don't "get" the wild dangerous thing?  A band singing about spending the night together ("Let's Spend The Night Together"), or a song from the perspective of the devil ("Sympathy For The Devil), or about having threesomes with underage girls ("Stray Cat Blues"),  or asking a "Parachute Woman" to "land on me" tonight and "blow me out." or use explicit drug references like cocaine or heroin ("Dead Flowers" "Sister Morphine"), or riots and protests ("Street Fighting Man"), or end of the world apocalypse ("Gimme Shelter") or the Boston Strangler putting a knife in your throat ("Midnight Rambler")...

....all that seems pretty tame to you, eh? 

Louder does not equate to being more dangerous. 

[Justin]

The Kinks and The Who seemed much more 'dangerous' to me - the sound certainly was more aggressive, and the Who had things going on like Pete smashing his guitars on stage, and Keith putting gunpowder in the bass drum. The Kinks never wasted their time with such shenanigans, they were too busy beating the piss out of each other. I mean, how much more 'dangerous' does it get than the drummer throwing a cymbal at the lead guitarist during a show? 

The Stones had restraint and did their thing through words and mood--not necessarily through on stage antics.  It's the application of being subtle and allowing the music speak for itself.  Another band I know did that very well...The Beach Boys. 

[Justin]

As  a plain Rnb band, the Stones suck balls. Boring rhythm section. Singer who was more interesting in appearing to be gobby and rebellious than actually BEING gobby and rebellious.

Check these two versions of Roadrunner: Firstly by a proper band. The Pretty Things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoVx7b5i-v0

And now the Stones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN5cL9rZeek

Now I'm sure SOMEONE out there will swear blind the Stones version is better, so I'm just gonna cut that dead right now. It's not, you're wrong. It sounds like the soundtrack to a bunch of septuagenarian's playing lawn bowls. They improved a bit when they figured out how to write a decent pop song, but essentially, they were pretenders, and from the sounds of it, major arseholes. They had a bit of a go at country rock in the seventies, a bit of a go at psych, but were never the real deal.

Making a case against the Stones on the basis of their cover of "Roadrunner"?  Am I getting this right?  Anyway, I don't think I'm alone in believing Wyman and Watts constituted one of the great, *creative* rhythm sections of rock music.  Their swing and space had a ton to do with the Stones success.  "Boring" is the last word I'd use here.

Hey, there's no accounting for taste!  And I'm certain some of the major Stones have been often major twats.  But a sweeping, convoluted diss needs to be countered!

Few people can appreciate the Watts/Wyman pocket when music is treated like a sport and people believe the athletics of a Moon/Entwhistle or Bonham/Jones are more superior.

[BergenWhitesMoustache]

What the hell are you talking about?

The Stones not wild...but The Who were?  Lame.  You should look a little deeper instead of just giving the "wild" vote for who played the loudest. 
 

Shut up you tired old pub bore. I've 'looked deeper' into sixties music than you could possibly imagine.

My point remains intact. The Rolling Stones gave it all the sad middle aged suburban male fantasy lyricism, but musically were 'mostly tame'

So they wrote songs about underage girls and drugs? Wow...novel territory, bro. What the hell do you think 99% of blues material is about dude?

Now, onto The Who. Not my favourite band, but they were snotty and agressive in interviews, and in terms of energy, never gave it less than 100%. f*** 'in the pocket'. Charlie and Bill looking embarrassed at the back, just being tasteful musical wallpaper while Jagger does his nauseating 'thing'.

[Justin]

Nice "response" loser.  Wouldn't have expected anything less.

Not surprisingly you miss the whole point.  Compared to The Beatles who everyone knows was their main competition: they were obviously their polar opposite...thus the dangerous title.   The label was attached to them for a reason. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. 

Only to someone as dense as you seem to be would call the Stones musically tame.  To completely dismiss them for The Who is predictable and so beyond lame, it's laughable.  The Who may have played the Stones off the stage just by volume but no way they could have matched the band's musicianship--a subject I doubt you would know anything about.  f*** the pocket?  That is so wonderfully ignorant I won't even bother correcting you, but please continue walking around and saying that.  Don't be surprised if no one takes anything you say seriously.  But I'm sure you're used to that.

[BergenWhitesMoustache]

Nice "response" loser.  Wouldn't have expected anything less.

Not surprisingly you miss the whole point.  Compared to The Beatles who everyone knows was their main competition: they were obviously their polar opposite...thus the dangerous title.   The label was attached to them for a reason. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.  

Only to someone as dense as you seem to be would call the Stones musically tame.  To completely dismiss them for The Who is predictable and so beyond lame, it's laughable.  The Who may have played the Stones off the stage just by volume but no way they could have matched the band's musicianship--a subject I doubt you would know anything about.  f*** the pocket?  That is so wonderfully ignorant I won't even bother correcting you, but please continue walking around and saying that.  Don't be surprised if no one takes anything you say seriously.  But I'm sure you're used to that.

Are you fucking shitting me you utter c***?

Re-read your response. Tell me what measured and polite reply it deserved.

[Ron]

I love the Beach Boys, love the Beatles, but IMO the Rolling Stones are very overrated. That's not to say I don't like them - especially the 60's output. Maybe it's just the image of these old wrinkled guys going on the umpteenth stadium tour and getting slavish praise from the rock press, but I do NOT consider them the world's greatest rock 'n' roll band. Mick Jagger can't hold a candle to John Lennon or Paul McCartney as a singer, and I would take Dave Davies over Keith Richards any day as a rock 'n' roll guitarist. And when was the last time they put out an album anyone cared about?

Have you ever even been to one of their shows?  I saw the Stones, as old men, and it was just as great (or better) as any rock show I've ever been to.  Everybody from 5 year olds up to 80 year olds (on stage!) having a good time.  Awesome band.  Being in an entire stadium full of people listening to "under my thumb" or "Honkey Tonk Women" is something that has to be experienced. 

[bluesno1fann]

What I never understood was why the Beatles and the Rolling Stones have been compared so much, and seen as main rivals by the public (though really they got along well) while the Beatles and Beach Boys rivalry almost never gets attention. Why is that?

[Bean Bag]

Perhaps, the Beach Boys just got the royal shaft -- all going back to their dismissal as a "cool band," in the late 60s.  And being seen as more of a 1950s oldies act?

Classic rock radio in the 80s/90s played, Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Doors, etc... but the Beach Boys were on my "oldies" station.  The stations that played "Lolly-pop, Lolly-pop" and the early Motown stuff, "My Girl" et al.   Cool stuff in my book, but not considered progressive, I suppose.  And as a result, the innovation and subsequent rivalries just "didn't happen" as far as the world remembered.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I really think The Beach Boys were the most dangerous of these bands! They contain, in a single unit,  the most substance abusing nutcases in rock history! I mean, you could even be straight as an arrow in that band and still be a fucking batshit nutcase!!!!!!!

[Bean Bag]

What does that say about us? 

[Lonely Summer]

I really think The Beach Boys were the most dangerous of these bands! They contain, in a single unit,  the most substance abusing nutcases in rock history! I mean, you could even be straight as an arrow in that band and still be a fucking batshit nutcase!!!!!!!

Now this nails the sucker on the head!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I really think The Beach Boys were the most dangerous of these bands! They contain, in a single unit,  the most substance abusing nutcases in rock history! I mean, you could even be straight as an arrow in that band and still be a fucking batshit nutcase!!!!!!!

Now this nails the sucker on the head!

I mean, think about it!!! If you were to hang out with The Stones or The Who in say, 1969, you can probably paint a pretty accurate picture in your head of what would likely go down: you'd smoke some hash, etc etc, shag some groupies and then be up all night on uppers listening to Keith R rattle on about the blues or Keith M rattle on about The Beach Boys. Then you'd wake up the next morning (or likely late afternoon) in someone's sprawling mansion or hotel suit and scrape yourself off the floor..... All in all, pretty typical rock n roll hijinks. Now, with The Beach Boys: ANYTHING  might happen!!!! You might get whisked off against your will to some meditation retreat and get physically assaulted by a famished maniac with a huge jug of apple juice, you might end up trapped on some desolate ranch with the Manson family, you might be up all night watching some crazy fat guy pawing out the same two chords on the piano over and over, you might be stuck playing checkers with an insane dwarf and a square who looks like one of the Osmond's, or you'd end up watching Carl tune his guitar all night in some boring hotel room, or you might get cornered in a hallway by a raging manic cyclops and get lectured about success!!! All in all, unpredictability and danger!!!!

[Lonely Summer]

You got it!

[beatnickle]

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

That's me back there on the right

[SMiLE Brian]

Where is OSD?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Face down on the floor just out of view.