The Smiley Smile Message Board

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?

The Rolling Stones have three (or 4, I guess) classic albums. They are Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed, and Sticky Fingers (and Exile on Mainstreet, I guess.) Their earlier albums are great too, but the four mentioned are truly their best work. However, I would steer clear of Their Satanic Majesties Request, it's an over-indulgent album that was attempting to compete with Sgt. Pepper's. Seriously, listen to "On with the Show" and tell me it's not a rip-off.
Also, their singles from the 60's are absolutely stellar.

About your last point, they released a studio album in 2005 called A Bigger Bang. It went platinum in the U.S., Canada, and Germany. It went gold in France and the U.K.. It stayed on the charts in those countries for a collective 106 weeks and scored a 73 on metacritic. Also, they recently released a new single "Doom and Gloom" which has met with great commercial and critical success. So, it seems someone cared.

Also, I would say that Mick Jagger is a pretty good singer. Songs like "Gimme Shelter" are absolutely spine-tingling, even if he is upstaged by Merry Clayton.  ;D

Overrated? Sure (only because I think The Kinks were better in nearly every way) but Mick is most likely the greatest frontman in rock history (Sorry, OSD: Mike is number 2) and the band sported one of the coolest rhythm sections of all-time (back when such a thing really really mattered).

Classic Stones albums

Out Of Our Heads
Aftermath
Between The Buttons
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed (though most of the songs were blown away by their live versions of that era)
Sticky Fingers
Exile On Main Street
Get Yer Ya Yas out! (live, sure, but a barn-burner)

Great Stones albums:

Goat's Head Soup
It's Only Rock N Roll
Some Girls
Emotional Rescue
Tattoo You
Undercover
Voodoo Lounge
Love You Live (Moccambo side especially)

Good Stones Albums:

Bridges To Babylon
A Bigger Bang
December's Children
12X5
England's Newest Hit Makers
Their Satanic Majesties Request

Not so good Stones albums:

Steel Wheels
Dirty Work
Got Live If You Want It

UNSUNG STONE COLD CLASSIC FOR THE AGES:

Black N Blue!!!!!!!!!

Not to mention a bunch of kick-ass singles!

............................................................ Not a bad track record at all...... They're kind of like AC/DC where it's easy to slag them off and say they sucked balls from this point or that point on, but then you examine it and it comes down to them really only having one or two "bad" albums out of a whole bunch of awesomeness.

Personally, I think Their Satanic Majesties Request is one of their best...

I love Aftermath, TSMR, and Beggar's the most and those are three very different sounding albums.

Personally-I love the Stones, the Beatles, the Kinks, the Who and the Beach Boys! I think anyone who doesn't all the 1963-1972 albums of these bands is absolutely missing out.  Everyone of these bands put out consistently incredible stuff during that time.  I like all the Kinks LP's up to Muswell Hillbillies, all the Stones up to Exile (also like Some Girls and Tattoo You), all the Who up to/including 1975's Who By Numbers and all the Beatles and BBs.

The 1960s were great, not so much afterwards. Though their hype machine says differently...

Depends on your taste.  I always found Beggar's and Exile to be pretty dull.  Satanic Majesties is my favorite album of theirs by far (no fan/critic thinks music is self-indulgent when it pleases them, but both qualities are not mutually exclusive), and is not nearly as much like Pepper as it's made out to be.  It sounds much more like they were listening to Piper at the Gates of Dawn, a little Kinks, and Frank Zappa.  "On With the Show" isn't a rip-off of Sgt. Pepper--it's a rip-of of Zappa's "America Drinks and Goes Home."  Both are meant to simulate performances in night clubs, something no song on Pepper does.

I also think Aftermath is a great Stones album and worth mentioning.  It has some of my favorite songs by them, such as "Lady Jane."

I absolutely agree. I would even include the 1970-1972 period in there, as well. Music on the whole took a big turn in and around 1973.

I wish Mike was here.

"America Drinks and Goes Home" is a guy at the end of a set talking to the audience and taking requests for his next show. It's very boozy and has an atmosphere of winding down. "On with the Show" is different entirely. The atmosphere is different, the attitude is different, and the setting is different. It feels so much like Sgt. Pepper. Pull up the lyrics to "On with the Show"and "Sgt. Pepper"(not the reprise) and the similarities are uncanny.


I also really hate Lady Jane. We must be on opposite ends of the spectrum.  :P

Absolutely love the Stones, apart from Steel Wheels.

I'm a Brian Jones nut so 1963-67 are the best to me. Cooler look, more of a real band. 1968-78 was still pretty damn good, just not as special to me. After 1978 AVOID except Tattoo You.

Brian Jones was a really cool guy. He's certainly someone who left us too soon. However, Mick Taylor was a pretty good choice to fill his spot.

On a related note, are there any recordings of Brian by himself? Maybe some demos or attempted solo work?

I do think they are overrated in terms of the absolute drooling they get left and right at every turn especially for their output in the '70s. But saying that, I really love pretty much all of what they released from 1964-1968.

I know it is just one person who has brought it up, but I really like Lady Jane. The harpsichord is beautiful. I'm also a fan of Their Satanic Majesties Request, I wouldn't skip it. Sure it is a rip off of Sgt. Peppers in terms of production, theme, etc, but it still stands on some of its own merit. It's much better in mono also. Citadel is a favorite of mine, but do not like the nearly 9 minute long Sing This All Together.

Their singles from It's All Over Now until Honky Tonk Women are pretty well one stellar song after another.

 The Stones were great up untill the Ron Wood period with a few exceptions..... ( Start Me Up and a few more)
 I am probably in a minority but I have always loved "Between the Buttons" A very eccentric and unique Stones album.
  Also Aftermath, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed stand out to me.
  Satanic Maj Request fascinates me because Brian Jones was so heavily involved in its instrumentation.
  Sticky Fingers was their last great album imo.
  

The worship of Brian Jones is another thing I don't get.

what do you mean? Brian was THE Stones at one stage. He founded the band, picked the members, named the band, and acted as their first unofficial manager. Also, while he wasn't the best guitarist of the band (Keith and Mick Taylor are better), he was hands-down the best musician. Just look at how many instruments he could play! The Stones just wouldn't be the same without him, Songs from 1963 to 1968 would either be completely different, or wouldn't exist, and they wouldn't be called the Rolling Stones! Shame he went downhill and was murdered  :'(

Even Bill Wyman made clear of just how significant Brian Jones was to the band

no jones, no stones?

Amen, he was the visionary. Mick and Keith wrote about what he lived.

As an outsider looking in at the monster that is the Rolling Stones, the singling out of Brian Jones seems a bit like saying "Pete Quaife was the real talent in the Kinks", or "there would be no Beach Boys without David Marks".

First they were Brian's idea and band. He booked the gigs, picked the members, the sets, everything.

Brian was the first of his generation in London to not only like Chicago styled blues, but he could play it. He was the first to play slide guitar of his generation, he would have Clapton floored when the Stones first came out. Making R&B a scene in London, Brian was a huge part of making happen. The early Stones of 1962-64 influenced so many other London area groups to form blues bands. Little Red Rooster, Can't Be Satisfied, Mona (Bo Diddley said Brian was the only one who ever got his sound perfect), I Wanna Be Your Man, these are Brian's stones. Mick wasn't sure if he would leave school Keith had no organization skills to make a band at that point, Stu joined Brian's band.

Then as the sixties wore on, Mick and Keith saw that he was insecure and pounced for the leadership. Brian had to redefine himself, he became unique in how he could pick up any instrument and do something with it. His experimentation on the sitar and mellotron went beyond the Beatles ornamentation, he made them rock. He co-wrote songs like Ruby Tuesday without credit, sang back up as well as Keith, gave them a unique image, and was again the true bad boy (the kindest and also the rottenest member). I fell the Stones became a great hard rock band in his wake, certainly the shows and image got bigger. However in terms of lighting, shade, innovation, well I wouldn't have the 750 Stones vinyl records I do, or like them more than casual, if Brian Jones was not there.  Keith's book is one big lie about Brian Jones, read any of Bill's to get the truth. Crossfire Hurricane was pretty fair with him compared to the older documentaries. Again Paint It Black, Ruby Tuesday, Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Satanic, We Love You, 2000 Light Years, Lady Jane, The Last Time. Brian dominated them all with his playing.

Like him or his music, no Jones, no Stones. Not even in the same galaxy as what Pete or David were, with no disrespect meant.

I love Satanic Majesties. I always thought Beggar's Banquet was too much of a "safe" retreat back into blues-rock after having been pretty damn adventurous on the previous couple of albums. But apparently the general public, or rather the classic rock stations that tend to inform the tastes of the general public, think otherwise.

It may have been a safe move rather than a risky one, but they weren't the only to move back to its roots. The Beatles made the same exact move with Get Back and Bob Dylan with John Wesley Harding.

Besides, the songs, I think, still stand out quality wise, whether they were pushing the boundaries or not.

When Brian no longer played a major musical role they lost much of their unpredictability. Beggars gave them a public persona they played on ever since. Sure the styles of the intervening decades was felt, but the basic persona of Mick and Keith as we know them took root. Granted Keith got a lot more freaky in his speech and looks after 1978.

Speaking of new Stones material, I like Doom and Gloom beter than anything they've done is quite a while.

And I just have to say this somewhere, and this is as good a place as any;  Eric Burdon's recent release "Til Your River Runs Dry" has a song that, to these ears, is a MUST COVER for the stones;  The title is "Old Habits Die Hard".  Try to have a listen to this CD and especially to this song.  I can just hear Mick, Keith, and Charlie all over this.

Uh, there is a Mick Jagger solo track from 2004's remake of "Alfie" by that name.  Same song perhaps?

NOT the same song.  I do thank you for pointing out the coincidence of the same titles. I was not aware of that Jagger song, at least by that title.

I looked up the lyrics for the Burdon song but for some reason they are not readily available on the web.  The Burdon song is listed as written by Burdon and a co-lyricist while the Jagger song is cowritten by Jagger and another lyricist.
I did find the lyrics to the Jagger song and they are quite different than the Burdon song.

Different song.  But I still think the stones ought to cover it.  If you get to hear the song sometime, I'm almost sure you'll agree.

Interesting coincidence eh?

I love the Stones -- any album through Exile is arguably great (OK - -Satanic I know) and there is greatness into the 80s.  Love me some Eric Burdon too and not just the Animals.  I saw both the Stones and Eric Burdon in 1975 -- The Stones in a 70,000 seat stadium and Burdon in a 700 seat club!

The Stones I like best are the 60's Stones, and based on what the scholars here are saying, that is largely due to Mr. Jones. And a lot of my resistance to the band is the image of them from the 80's on. The stadium act that refuses to die. They might still come up with a good song once in a while, but I would much rather listen to the Beatles any day.

Brian Jones is great but overrated. If you wanna prop him up, beyond his very inportant efforts in getting the band started, than you should prop up Bill, as well, for experimenting with various insturments, and Charlie for being such a creative drummer...

Like any good Brianista should admit (that is, if their own logic holds true within themselves) it's all anout the songs. And that was Mick and Keith. Period.

I simply go with what Bill said about Brian being central. The whole band was great, but Brian is (if anything) badly under rated. People who write about him often focus on the tragedy of his decline rather than the music he actually played. The Brian years (1963-67 and let's say 1968 is transitional) had a different sensibility. Mick has said Brian brought his sensitivity to his playing and that is what is missing from later Stones music. A vulnerability perhaps. There's just something different when they became more of a hard rock band. More violent and sexual. I like the whole catalog basically through 1978 a lot, but the Brian era is what made me a fan.

I dated Brian Jones. They wrote a song about me.

Well put! He most certainly did bring a vulnerability

Count me as a propper upper of Charlie and Bill!  A great rhythm section crucial to the band.

I too like and value the contributions of Brian Jones to that period from Aftermath even up through Beggars Banquet.  And he played some interesting rhythm guitar in the earlier years.  But Mick and Keith always drove the band.  They wrote the songs and chose those who played the parts.

Brian was also the biggest jerk in the band -- no small feat!

I've only recently got into the Stones -- and I've really enjoyed the journey.   :rock

I grew up with all the hits on 1980s Classic Rock radio here in the States -- which didn't do much for me, so I never felt the need to go deeper.  There was no "genius" that sucked me in like Brian Wilson's sparkling productions.  Or Pink Floyd's mesmerizing heartbeat.  Or Zeppelin's manic guitars/drums/vocals.  I got Exile On Mainstreet, after all the hype... and it didn't work much magic... so it sat shelved for years.

But just lately -- like in the last couple years -- I started getting all their albums... and I love 'em.  Some Girls is a favorite (Well, you know what kinda eyes she got!)  I like their earlier stuff a lot, too.  And Exile also really grew on me.

Bean, if you love Some Girls, you should defiantly check out the dvd/blu-ray of The Stones live in Texas from 1978 that was recently released.... They play much of the album and it's awesome :)

Like most of what you say the whole post, but want to make a small point. Despite anything he may have done Brian never got a chance to give his side. As a music fan almost purely,  Keith is the biggest jerk for trying to write him out of history. Brian ran the band fully until ALO btw, and still took a key part in their direction. Mick and Keith have a huge role, they all do, but I think they don't need to have their importance singled out. They didn't just screw Brian btw, Mick Taylor and Bill will both tell you that they and Jones didn't get credit on quite a few key things for songs. If any more proof into what Brian added in the mid sixties is needed listed on you tube to his A Degree of Murder soundtrack. He could write melodic lines very well, if not finished rock songs. I frankly would hate to be in a band with Mick or Keith (probably not Brian either to be fair). They just gave so little room for others to shine. It makes the Beach Boys treatment of Dennis look royal.

I thought I mentioned this here (but I guess it was in another thread) but I've never been able to get into them.  That isn't to say I don't like a song here or there but I just don't personally put them on the level of a lot of their sixties contemporaries.  Maybe it's because they don't have a "Pet Sounds" or a "Tommy" or even a "Born To Run" in their catalog let alone the several albums of that ilk The Beatles have in theirs.  Maybe it's because I've somewhat written them off as a band heavily influential on many of my favorite seventies rock acts but nowhere near as appealing to me as those aforementioned acts.

To bottom line it I think most of their contemporaries in the sixties were superior to them and a lot of the acts they influenced took aspects of their sound and injected elements from other sixties groups like The Beatles, The Byrds and The Beach Boys and created a more appealing (accessible?) sound. 

That's very true about Charlie and Bill not getting credit for things. Like Jumpin Jack Flash, for instance: according to Bill (and later corroborated by Keith), Mick and Keith were late for a session so Bill got on the organ and began banging out a distinctive 4 chord pattern/riff and Brian and Charlie began playing along and it was cookin'! So, Mick and Keith show up and go "Hey, what's this? Keep playing" so Keith grabs the bass (which is why he's playing bass on the single and Bill organ) and they jam the song out.... Later it becomes Jumpin Jack Flash: written by Jagger/Richards.....

Then again, Bill and Charlie, and Brian weren't the types to say much. Later on Ronnie Wood figured he'd just make noise early on about getting credit, before the track was recorded, and it worked out for him in a few cases.

My comment about Brian Jones being the biggest jerk was glib -- obviously I never knew the guy or the Stones in any regard other than as a fan reading about them.  A lot of my comment is based on his being violent towards women, as well as his messy addictions and apparent narcissism.  My comment also clearly implied he isn't the only jerk in the band!  I wouldn't want to depend on Mick or Keith for anything!  That said, I'd much rather share a cab with them than Brian Jones.

Nice, will do!  Is there a CD release or just video?

Interestingly enough, there's really only a video release. Kinda.
They didn't release the CD independently, you had to buy the DVD/Blu Ray to get it.

I think there was a box set type of release that included a CD, and I have seen a double vinyl of it.

But, Bean, you'll wanna see the video performance. It really is invaluable.

Well, music isn't made to be in competition.  Both "Pet Sounds" and "Tommy" are amazing albums but one can't ignore the fact that they are very cerebral albums.  Not exactly something you put on at a party or dance to.  Music is supposed to do many things, in many different situations and we have Brian Wilson to thank to make music more about a good beat or a simple 2 minute single. 

With that said, The Rolling Stones definitely deserve to be right up there with all their 60's peers.  It'll be difficult to reassess your position on the Stones since you've already "written them off" as you've admitted.  It seems a little unfair to do so since you're only reason is because you dislike who they've influenced in the 70's (Actually, the number of contemporary artists influenced by the Stones is a list I'm quite proud of:  Ryan Adams, Wilco, The Black Crowes, Paul Westerberg and Jesse Malin to name a few).

Instead of write off who they have influenced how about looking into the artists that influenced the Stones:  Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf, Hank Williams, Chuck Berry, Gram Parsons and James Brown? Why don't you work backwards?   There's a lot to love in the Stones if you see where they came from instead of look at the artists that came after them.  If you don't dig any of these artists---that's a bigger issue and I'm not surprised you don't care for the Stones or any band that has direct ties to the blues and country.

One of the Stones' best influences is fusing together blues and country into their music thereby creating their own sound.  The secret that made it all work was the product of the explosive magic of Keith Richards, Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman.  In most  bands the drummer locks in with the bass player and the guitar player plays to them.  In the Stones, Charlie strictly follows the groove as set by Keith and then Bill squeezes in in the middle of that sandwich.  That's what made the Stones such a danceable band.  Charlie's background in jazz differentiated him from nearly any other rock and roll band before or after them.  His application of restraint and control in his drumming allowed for him to support the band and not take attention away from the music. 

One look at their vast catalog and you'll see just how adventurous the Stones were in their choices.  It's quite amazing to think that the band who gave us "Get off my Cloud" and "(I Can't Get No) Satisfacation" also gave us the haunting "Gimme Shelter" and the country twanged "Wild Horses" or "Factory" Girl" or a Bob Dylan-esque samba like "Sympathy For The Devil" or the psychadelia of "Paint It Black" or "She's a Rainbow."  And then by the late 70's already a band ten years old by then, The Stones reshaped with the times and adapted quickly giving us disco with "Miss You" and "Emotional Rescue."  And then nearly 20 years after they first started--they hit another #1 with "Start Me Up.'  How many other bands do you know who can score a #1 single 20 years after they first started?  Hmm....I guess I can think of another....The Beach Boys with Kokomo.

The bands that came after them took from the Stones their swag, guitar riffs and overall attitude, but they could never duplicate the Stones' subtlety or musicianship.

+ 1  :) :) :)

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.

drummer's too busy in the first version. it's annoying

You seem quite sure of that, yet obviously I disagree, being a sucker for exciting drumming. Where do we go from here? Oh...

(https://sitedesq.imgstg.com/assets/console/customitem/images/main/LawnBowls.jpg)

It's just an opinion. I love exciting drumming too, but not when it basically keeps distracting one's attention from the song. Just an opinion... I find a nice groove as exciting as busier drumming. Being a drummer myself, that's probably because I know that keeping a steady beat is actually harder than doing what the Pretty Things guy is doing. My personal fave guys are masters of being exciting yet in the pocket. Guys like Keith Moon and Dino Danelli.... Just my two cents. We disagree, but you did put a statement out there for all to see.

I did... now I'm genuinely curious. Do you REALLY prefer the Stones version?

Forget the drumming. Take the singing, or the guitar playing...anything. I mean, forget the Pretty Things- here's the original

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_0cgRBib-0

even the Animals do a better job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3XvRyULbdU

The Stones version is EASILY the worst I've heard.


I kinda know what you mean about the drumming on the PT version being sloppy. They were kinda habitual fuckups, BUT I'd take any version where you weren't quite sure what was gonna happen next over the Stones bullshit 'groove' any day.

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.

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

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...

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!

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.

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?  :o

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. 

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. 

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.

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'.

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.

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. 

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?

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.

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!!!!!!!

What does that say about us?  :p

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!!!!

You got it!

(http://images2.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp83232%3Euqcshlukaxroqdfv9466%3Dot%3E2436%3D7%3B%3A%3D%3A45%3DXROQDF%3E2%3A8629%3A64%3B245ot1lsi)

That's me back there on the right :p

Where is OSD? ;D

Face down on the floor just out of view.