Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StcChief
They may have declined from what they were in 1970s.
It will be tough to name a band even in 20 years that has done for Rock'nRoll what the Stones have done.....
It really doesn't matter what the state of R'n'R is now IT'S ALL BEEN DONE BEFORE. Bands now are trying to carve a tich some how.
|
Led Zep has not even put out a CD of new material in well over a decade-yet outsell the Stones.
The Beatles continue to outperform them just as when they were both competitors.
Pink Floyd hasn't had their shit together since Waters left-but outsell the Stones.
The Who were more original and had far better muscianship. They were the real rebels of that era. Even with the Altamont Speedway stabbing-The Who out Rock n Rolled the Stones in anti social behavior.
The Stones basically copied every band- especially the Animals and Yardbirds. They have always been about image and been masters at manipulating the media- the London media still gets a boner over Mick.
If you look at the whole Stones collection-they are good for one, maybe two good songs per disc. Just enough to be able to tour and charge their loyal fans $375 a ticket to hear the same tired songs.
With all that being said- they do have some classics in there. They deserve their props for managing to keep the machine rolling despite, drugs, shocking deaths of band members, alcohol, old age, bad publicity (Mick and David Bowie sex scandal) , divorces, inner fighting between Keith and Mick, arrest, changing musical fades, ect, ect..... To say that they suck is just silly, they might not be everyone's cup of English tea, but they are still rolling til the bitter end and deserve to be acknowledged for being influential and for being living Rock Legends.
It's Only Rock and Roll-but I like it!