Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Rolling Stones

The Rolling Stones rocked at the Speedway last night how the hell do they do it? Considering their age they put some younger bands to shame.
«1345678

Comments

  • Who did they have as warm up? Usually a great band too.
  • Rascal Flatts a strange pick since they are mostly Country and Western.
  • Because they are the Rolling Stones. They will keep going till they die. I'm only 30 and from Dartford and I love the Rolling Stones. I saw them with my dad at twickenham
  • Indeed they are
    brogib said:

    Because they're better than The Beatles

  • brogib said:

    Because they're better than The Beatles

    Give me your suppliers details got to have some of what you are taking
  • Rascal Flatts a strange pick since they are mostly Country and Western.

    I'm a big fan of Rascal Flatts
  • edited July 2015
    I think Keith Richards must of pickled himself from the inside out...

    Great band possibly THE greatest ever!


  • brogib said:

    Because they're better than The Beatles

    Bollocks they are!
  • Sponsored links:


  • brogib said:

    Because they're better than The Beatles

    True, since George, Paul and John died, the Beatles have been rubbish live.
  • The greatest band ever, by a country mile, with the greatest songwriter ever on rhythm guitar.
    It cannot be argued, just look at the back catalogue.

    You might not like them but they still are.
  • they just keep rolling along .. and these stones certainly have gathered lots of moss .. a terrific band and nowadays, for people born in the late 40s to early 60s, age really IS just a figure .. you can now rock until you drop
  • IA said:

    brogib said:

    Because they're better than The Beatles

    True, since George, Paul and John died, the Beatles have been rubbish live.
    when did Paul die ? .. I missed the news on this one
  • Rascal Flatts a strange pick since they are mostly Country and Western.

    Keith in particular is a fan of country music. They used to hang out with Gram Parsons and there are a few country influenced tracks on earlier albums, so perhaps not too surprising. Still waiting for them to play in Bangkok again.
  • IA said:

    brogib said:

    Because they're better than The Beatles

    True, since George, Paul and John died, the Beatles have been rubbish live.
    when did Paul die ? .. I missed the news on this one
    Whoooooooooooshhhhhhhhh!
  • Riviera said:

    IA said:

    brogib said:

    Because they're better than The Beatles

    True, since George, Paul and John died, the Beatles have been rubbish live.
    when did Paul die ? .. I missed the news on this one
    Whoooooooooooshhhhhhhhh!
    stop farting
  • Because they are the Rolling Stones. They will keep going till they die. I'm only 30 and from Dartford and I love the Rolling Stones. I saw them with my dad at twickenham

    I was there for that too and have never seen as many Zimmer frames in one place. Seriously a lot of the fans struggled with the stairs!

    The Stones still do a great live set but to argue they are the all time greatest? Just a matter of opinion either way.
  • Because they are the Rolling Stones. They will keep going till they die. I'm only 30 and from Dartford and I love the Rolling Stones. I saw them with my dad at twickenham

    I was there for that too and have never seen as many Zimmer frames in one place. Seriously a lot of the fans struggled with the stairs!

    The Stones still do a great live set but to argue they are the all time greatest? Just a matter of opinion either way.
    And that was only on the stage :-) I was there with Charltondave and yes I struggled with the stairs but I did at Newcastle away as well, thought the audience where we were was fairly mixed age wise, great night mind you.
  • Sponsored links:


  • IAIA
    edited July 2015

    IA said:

    brogib said:

    Because they're better than The Beatles

    True, since George, Paul and John died, the Beatles have been rubbish live.
    when did Paul die ? .. I missed the news on this one
    1966 car crash
  • Because they are the Rolling Stones. They will keep going till they die. I'm only 30 and from Dartford and I love the Rolling Stones. I saw them with my dad at twickenham

    I was there for that too and have never seen as many Zimmer frames in one place. Seriously a lot of the fans struggled with the stairs!

    The Stones still do a great live set but to argue they are the all time greatest? Just a matter of opinion either way.
    But its not is it. They are the greatest band in the world, sales, fan base, gigs played, merch sold, songs written, or any other criteria.

    Its a bit like saying Man Utd aren't the biggest football club in the UK. They are, the fact that I cant stand them means nothing.

    You may not like the Stones but it does not change the fact that they are the greatest band in the world for the reasons stated above.
  • I think both the Beatles and the Stones are bands that we as a nation should be proud of, truly world class.

    For me, if you are thinking purely on a musical basis, then the Beatles probably have it. However for a genuine shit kicking rock and roll band, the Stones really do hit the spot.
  • Greenie said:

    But its not is it. They are the greatest band in the world, sales, fan base, gigs played, merch sold, songs written, or any other criteria.

    Its a bit like saying Man Utd aren't the biggest football club in the UK. They are, the fact that I cant stand them means nothing.

    You may not like the Stones but it does not change the fact that they are the greatest band in the world for the reasons stated above

    Can't say I totally agree with this Greenie. You could make the same argument for U2 and even One Direction if you talk about revenues, fan base etc. But I wouldn't put them anywhere near the Stones for other reasons. I am of an age where as kids we argued endlessly about who was better The Beatles or The Stones? I actually appreciated both for different reasons but when it comes to ground breaking musical influence then I have to give it to The Beatles, their back catalogue in terms of musical progression is IMO far more progressive. An example of this is when The Stones tried to make their version of Sergeant Pepper, Their Satanic Majesties Request, which IMO was a real dog, truly awful.

    At that point The Stones moved back to their blues/rock and roll roots and made Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street two of my all time favorite albums. At that time they played The Roundhouse and to this day I have never seen them better and remains one of the best 3-4 gigs I have ever seen. Meanwhile The Beatles had disbanded and hadn't played live for 4-5 years.

    But if you look at the influence both Bands have had again I have to give to The Beatles their musical progression was just much more inventive. Am I underplaying The Stones? No they have remained a great live act (if a little greedy with their ticket costs given how rich they are) and have one of my all time favorite guitar players i.e. Keith

    I tend to also look at ground breaking as a key criteria and I have to throw Led Zeppelin into the ring as they really broke a lot of new ground combining folk, blues and rock music into a whole new genre and gave the opportunity to bands like Deep Purple and Black Sabbath to flourish. Just my opinion and in no way underplaying The Stones but they haven't made a decent record for years and all their shows are Greatest Hits nothing new......fine by me still love them.
  • Greenie said:

    But its not is it. They are the greatest band in the world, sales, fan base, gigs played, merch sold, songs written, or any other criteria.

    Its a bit like saying Man Utd aren't the biggest football club in the UK. They are, the fact that I cant stand them means nothing.

    You may not like the Stones but it does not change the fact that they are the greatest band in the world for the reasons stated above

    Can't say I totally agree with this Greenie. You could make the same argument for U2 and even One Direction if you talk about revenues, fan base etc. But I wouldn't put them anywhere near the Stones for other reasons. I am of an age where as kids we argued endlessly about who was better The Beatles or The Stones? I actually appreciated both for different reasons but when it comes to ground breaking musical influence then I have to give it to The Beatles, their back catalogue in terms of musical progression is IMO far more progressive. An example of this is when The Stones tried to make their version of Sergeant Pepper, Their Satanic Majesties Request, which IMO was a real dog, truly awful.

    At that point The Stones moved back to their blues/rock and roll roots and made Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street two of my all time favorite albums. At that time they played The Roundhouse and to this day I have never seen them better and remains one of the best 3-4 gigs I have ever seen. Meanwhile The Beatles had disbanded and hadn't played live for 4-5 years.

    But if you look at the influence both Bands have had again I have to give to The Beatles their musical progression was just much more inventive. Am I underplaying The Stones? No they have remained a great live act (if a little greedy with their ticket costs given how rich they are) and have one of my all time favorite guitar players i.e. Keith

    I tend to also look at ground breaking as a key criteria and I have to throw Led Zeppelin into the ring as they really broke a lot of new ground combining folk, blues and rock music into a whole new genre and gave the opportunity to bands like Deep Purple and Black Sabbath to flourish. Just my opinion and in no way underplaying The Stones but they haven't made a decent record for years and all their shows are Greatest Hits nothing new......fine by me still love them.

    ....but they re still bigger than the 2 you mention, whatever the criteria. I repeat there is no other band that comes close to them when looking at the greatest band ever, if you include fan base, sales, songs written, gigs played, longevity, etc etc. Name another band and that can fulfil all the above criteria more than the Stones.
    I think the Beatles, well John Lennon actually, were a great band and excellent songwriters. Lennon was years ahead of his time, would he have written as many songs as Keef, I doubt it, but we will never know.
    You mention Satanic Majesties, agreed pony, but this was Jagger chasing the Beatles influence, as soon as they went back to being a rock/blues band, they never looked back, Exile is probably their best album, have you listened to the how they made it, bloody impressive, changing time signatures on certain numbers, country influences, rock n roll influences and blues as well, the creativity was superb.
    Also re influences, USA blues and RnB (original RnB, not the stuff that is out now), was dead until the Stones hit the States, Keef saw Muddy Waters painting the outside of Chess records office when he was there.
    As soon as the Stones started playing blues in the USA it exploded into the mainstream, influencing Clapton, Hendrix and countless other top line musicians, the Stones have influenced more musicians than any other band.
    The reason that they play Greatest Hits is because they could do 4 hour show just with their hits, they change the set every time they tour, and throw in a few new ones now and again.
    They are the biggest band in America and if they are the biggest in the States then they are the biggest in the world.

    I love the Beatles, Led Zep are Ok, but no other band comes close.

  • edited July 2015
    But no artists of such longevity still make good records; Stones, McCartney, The Who, Elton,Bowie, Rod, Fleetwood Mac or U2. However good you are, even musical geniuses like Stevie Wonder or Elton John, you only have a finite amount of artistic creativity in you.
    Be interested to know which 3-4 gigs beat The Stones in your opinion.

    IMO Start Me Up, You Better You Bet and Let's Dance were the last decent singles from The Stones, Who and Bowie respectively. All well over 30 years ago.
  • Riviera said:

    But no artists of such longevity still make good records; Stones, McCartney, The Who, Elton,Bowie, Rod, Fleetwood Mac or U2. However good you are, even musical geniuses like Stevie Wonder or Elton John, you only have a finite amount of artistic creativity in you.
    Be interested to know which 3-4 gigs beat The Stones in your opinion.

    IMO Start Me Up, You Better You Bet and Let's Dance were the last decent singles from The Stones, Who and Bowie respectively. All well over 30 years ago.

    I agree with this .. BUT .. the post was about live performance .. the Stones live repertoire consists almost entirely of 'old stuff' .. and they rock it out superbly ..
  • Riviera said:

    But no artists of such longevity still make good records; Stones, McCartney, The Who, Elton,Bowie, Rod, Fleetwood Mac or U2. However good you are, even musical geniuses like Stevie Wonder or Elton John, you only have a finite amount of artistic creativity in you.
    Be interested to know which 3-4 gigs beat The Stones in your opinion.

    IMO Start Me Up, You Better You Bet and Let's Dance were the last decent singles from The Stones, Who and Bowie respectively. All well over 30 years ago.

    I agree with this .. BUT .. the post was about live performance .. the Stones live repertoire consists almost entirely of 'old stuff' .. and they rock it out superbly ..
    I was replying to Daveaddick who said the Stones only play old hits and haven't made a decent record for years.
  • Hey Greenie I think we are agreeing?? I just see it from a slightly different angle.

    Lincs Also agree as a live act they have been brilliant for years and years.

    Riviera: I would say The Who at The Oval, Jimi Hendrix at The Isle of Wight mainly because it was iconic given his death a few weeks later but boy could he play and lastly Eric Clapton at The Albert Hall where he played his "From the Cradle" album....sensational. By the way they don't beat The Roundhouse gig having seen many live shows these are the ones that really stick in my head.

    Another question for you. When were The Stones at their best? for me it was the Mick Taylor years. Ronnie is a fine player but Mick can be sublime.
  • Hey Greenie I think we are agreeing?? I just see it from a slightly different angle.

    Lincs Also agree as a live act they have been brilliant for years and years.

    Riviera: I would say The Who at The Oval, Jimi Hendrix at The Isle of Wight mainly because it was iconic given his death a few weeks later but boy could he play and lastly Eric Clapton at The Albert Hall where he played his "From the Cradle" album....sensational. By the way they don't beat The Roundhouse gig having seen many live shows these are the ones that really stick in my head.

    Another question for you. When were The Stones at their best? for me it was the Mick Taylor years. Ronnie is a fine player but Mick can be sublime.

    Haha yes.
    If I may answer your Q re Taylor or Wood. The ironic thing about the Stones is that Taylor was the only really good guitar player, more of a purest and has got even better with age. Keef has admitted he's not a very good player, but he has adopted the open 5 string tuning, where the main Stones sound comes from. Ronnie is just average at best. Bill Wyman was OK at bass (most of the bass lines were played by Keef on the albums, Wyman was employed by Jagger and Keef), and Jagger sings flat. Charlie Watts however is a brilliant blues/jazz drummer.
    They are greater than the sum of their parts.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!