I think you cannot really appreciate the true "weight" of an artist/s unless you were there in the time they were coming to prominence.
If you don't "get" the significance of the Stones by tuning in to what would be just "oldies" to you, I fully understand. It's an issue of context.
Take it from a 62 year old who came of age with the Beatles and the Stones. Although they are two different bands they were both a major part of the times- the emergence of rock and roll beyond the Elvis, Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis years and the British Invasion.
For one my age you cannot really separate the Beatles and the Stones from each other in that they were like yin and yang on the musical landscape back in the day; the clean cut mop tops at one end of the spectrum and the dangerous raggedy crew at the other end.
Hope that helps.
I grew up with them both and the Stones seemed to be 'bad' as a marketing gimmick to contrast them to the Beatles.
I thought of the Beatles as pop and Stones as rock.
Led Zepplin is a much better rock band than the Stones.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
Bob, here's a short list of album tracks that perhaps you'll like even more than the singles/hits
-Connection
-Salt of the Earth
-Live With Me
-Dead Flowers
-Moonlight Mile
-Rocks Off
-Torn & Frayed
-Shine a Light
-Worried About You
-Thru and Thru
-How Can I Stop
For the longest time my collection ended with Undercover. I eventually did get Dirty Work and Steel Wheels but was left unimpressed enough to not bother with anything after them. Are Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon worth a listen or are there just a few decent tracks on them? I recall that A Bigger Bang got great reviews but whatever the lead single was did not leave much of an impression on me.
I don't think they are doing themselves any favours by making hour long albums at this stage in their career. It would probably be much easier for them to crank out a solid ten track/forty minute album.
I remember 'Steel Wheels.'
I actually listened to it. Glad I don't do things like that to myself anymore.
That memory is enough to keep me from revisiting any Stones albums.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
...Honestly? I've always seen what all the fuss about Elvis, was. I think all the praise heaped on him was deserved. Same thing for the Stones too really, they made some great songs.
The group I will honestly never ever understand the adulation of, is the Beatles. I swear. They have to be the most overrated artists of all-time, but for whatever reason everybody treated/treats them like they were living Gods, which is incredibly perplexing to me.
"I don't think you'd do well in captivity." - random person's comment to me the other day
...Honestly? I've always seen what all the fuss about Elvis, was. I think all the praise heaped on him was deserved. Same thing for the Stones too really, they made some great songs.
The group I will honestly never ever understand the adulation of, is the Beatles. I swear. They have to be the most overrated artists of all-time, but for whatever reason everybody treated/treats them like they were living Gods, which is incredibly perplexing to me.
When Elvis was on he was on. Unfortunately he recorded a ton of mediocre/forgettable material. The Beatles, on the other hand, maintained a fairly high standard throughout their career. If you pick a random Elvis album from the '60s chances are there might be one good song and a bunch of other very weak songs.
I can't really talk about Elvis without getting a little mad/sad. He had such a great voice and he was capable of so much more greatness but the material he was given was often very much below him. Just listen to this:
I'm not even a big fan of country music but that makes me want an Elvis Sings Hank Williams album. He was so versatile that he could have done just about anything. There was so much fantastic music in the '60s that he should have been tackling. How about Elvis Sings The British Invasion? Elvis Sings Motown? Elvis Sings Bob Dylan? Elvis Sings The Great American Song Book? Heck, just about anything would have worked!
...Honestly? I've always seen what all the fuss about Elvis, was. I think all the praise heaped on him was deserved. Same thing for the Stones too really, they made some great songs.
The group I will honestly never ever understand the adulation of, is the Beatles. I swear. They have to be the most overrated artists of all-time, but for whatever reason everybody treated/treats them like they were living Gods, which is incredibly perplexing to me.
...Honestly? I've always seen what all the fuss about Elvis, was. I think all the praise heaped on him was deserved. Same thing for the Stones too really, they made some great songs.
The group I will honestly never ever understand the adulation of, is the Beatles. I swear. They have to be the most overrated artists of all-time, but for whatever reason everybody treated/treats them like they were living Gods, which is incredibly perplexing to me.
When Elvis was on he was on. Unfortunately he recorded a ton of mediocre/forgettable material. The Beatles, on the other hand, maintained a fairly high standard throughout their career. If you pick a random Elvis album from the '60s chances are there might be one good song and a bunch of other very weak songs.
I can't really talk about Elvis without getting a little mad/sad. He had such a great voice and he was capable of so much more greatness but the material he was given was often very much below him. Just listen to this:
I'm not even a big fan of country music but that makes me want an Elvis Sings Hank Williams album. He was so versatile that he could have done just about anything. There was so much fantastic music in the '60s that he should have been tackling. How about Elvis Sings The British Invasion? Elvis Sings Motown? Elvis Sings Bob Dylan? Elvis Sings The Great American Song Book? Heck, just about anything would have worked!
All of the really legendary artists, do a dud or two. If you take some chances eventually you're going to do some stuff that doesn't work.
With the Beatles it clearly has to be a matter of perception because their entire body of work over the course of their entire career is underwhelming to me. They were doing the most basic, mediocre paint-by-numbers music that any hack who played guitar for a year could pull off, and their lyrics were usually like bad Dr Seuss or crappy teenage poetry....but everybody speaks of them with such reverence which is sooooo confusing to me.
"I don't think you'd do well in captivity." - random person's comment to me the other day
When Elvis was on he was on. Unfortunately he recorded a ton of mediocre/forgettable material. The Beatles, on the other hand, maintained a fairly high standard throughout their career. If you pick a random Elvis album from the '60s chances are there might be one good song and a bunch of other very weak songs.
I can't really talk about Elvis without getting a little mad/sad. He had such a great voice and he was capable of so much more greatness but the material he was given was often very much below him. Just listen to this:
I'm not even a big fan of country music but that makes me want an Elvis Sings Hank Williams album. He was so versatile that he could have done just about anything. There was so much fantastic music in the '60s that he should have been tackling. How about Elvis Sings The British Invasion? Elvis Sings Motown? Elvis Sings Bob Dylan? Elvis Sings The Great American Song Book? Heck, just about anything would have worked!
All of the really legendary artists, do a dud or two. If you take some chances eventually you're going to do some stuff that doesn't work.
With the Beatles it clearly has to be a matter of perception because their entire body of work over the course of their entire career is underwhelming to me. They were doing the most basic, mediocre paint-by-numbers music that any hack who played guitar for a year could pull off, and their lyrics were usually like bad Dr Seuss or crappy teenage poetry....but everybody speaks of them with such reverence which is sooooo confusing to me.
Are you familiar with the music Elvis recorded circa 1963-1967? There is much more than a dud or two in there! It's like a vast wasteland!
Do you like any '60s bands? If so I find it hard to believe that you can't credit the Beatles as being among the best of that era.
I'm sure there'll be a time when I could fully appreciate their music and see what everybody is seeing. There was a time when I said loudly that The Beatles were overrated, now I can't get enough(at least from their 66-70 era) so I'll be careful with throwing the most celebrated word in the org this time around.
That being said, I'd be surprised if nobody punched Keith Richards in the throat just yet.
I'm sure there'll be a time when I could fully appreciate their music and see what everybody is seeing. There was a time when I said loudly that The Beatles were overrated, now I can't get enough(at least from their 66-70 era) so I'll be careful with throwing the most celebrated word in the org this time around.
That being said, I'd be surprised if nobody punched Keith Richards in the throat just yet.
Nowadays? Yeah. But he was a dream in the '60s and early '70s.
I'm sure there'll be a time when I could fully appreciate their music and see what everybody is seeing. There was a time when I said loudly that The Beatles were overrated, now I can't get enough(at least from their 66-70 era) so I'll be careful with throwing the most celebrated word in the org this time around.
That being said, I'd be surprised if nobody punched Keith Richards in the throat just yet.
Nowadays? Yeah. But he was a dream in the '60s and early '70s.
You might wanna get a second opinion from Stevie Wonder before you reach that verdict though.
I'm sure there'll be a time when I could fully appreciate their music and see what everybody is seeing. There was a time when I said loudly that The Beatles were overrated, now I can't get enough(at least from their 66-70 era) so I'll be careful with throwing the most celebrated word in the org this time around.
That being said, I'd be surprised if nobody punched Keith Richards in the throat just yet.
i love that period. Revolver through Let It Be is awesome (although some of TWA is a little bloated and uneccessary)
She Believed in Fairytales and Princes, He Believed the voices coming from his stereo
If I Said You Had A Beautiful Body Would You Hold It Against Me?
I'm sure there'll be a time when I could fully appreciate their music and see what everybody is seeing. There was a time when I said loudly that The Beatles were overrated, now I can't get enough(at least from their 66-70 era) so I'll be careful with throwing the most celebrated word in the org this time around.
That being said, I'd be surprised if nobody punched Keith Richards in the throat just yet.
i love that period. Revolver through Let It Be is awesome (although some of TWA is a little bloated and uneccessary)
I don't think they are underrated at all. I don't like them though. I'm not inclined to James Brown either, but underrated he still ain't.
Would we have had Led Zeppelin, the metal bands, Nirvana ect. if not for the Rolling Stones opening up for the dirtier sounds and attitudes? Don't know, but I somehow doubt music today would have been quite the same without the Rolling Stones.
Oh yeah i have love for all of it, i just prefer the later years, Rubber Soul is still great if for You've Got To Hide You Love Away alone.
"You've Got to Hide Your Love Away" is on Help!, not Rubber Soul.
In The Anthology video George said that he viewed Rubber Soul and Revolver as vol. 1 and vol. 2 and I very much agree. Revolver is a bit more out there with "Tomorrow Never Knows" but most of the McCartney songs on Revolver would have fit perfectly on Rubber Soul. I'va always found that the two albums and contemporary singles compliment each other perfectly.
Oh yeah i have love for all of it, i just prefer the later years, Rubber Soul is still great if for You've Got To Hide You Love Away alone.
"You've Got to Hide Your Love Away" is on Help!, not Rubber Soul.
In The Anthology video George said that he viewed Rubber Soul and Revolver as vol. 1 and vol. 2 and I very much agree. Revolver is a bit more out there with "Tomorrow Never Knows" but most of the McCartney songs on Revolver would have fit perfectly on Rubber Soul. I'va always found that the two albums and contemporary singles compliment each other perfectly.
Oops! it still has Drive My Car and In My Life.
[Edited 7/4/11 6:32am]
She Believed in Fairytales and Princes, He Believed the voices coming from his stereo
If I Said You Had A Beautiful Body Would You Hold It Against Me?
"You've Got to Hide Your Love Away" is on Help!, not Rubber Soul.
In The Anthology video George said that he viewed Rubber Soul and Revolver as vol. 1 and vol. 2 and I very much agree. Revolver is a bit more out there with "Tomorrow Never Knows" but most of the McCartney songs on Revolver would have fit perfectly on Rubber Soul. I'va always found that the two albums and contemporary singles compliment each other perfectly.
When Elvis was on he was on. Unfortunately he recorded a ton of mediocre/forgettable material. The Beatles, on the other hand, maintained a fairly high standard throughout their career. If you pick a random Elvis album from the '60s chances are there might be one good song and a bunch of other very weak songs.
I can't really talk about Elvis without getting a little mad/sad. He had such a great voice and he was capable of so much more greatness but the material he was given was often very much below him. Just listen to this:
I'm not even a big fan of country music but that makes me want an Elvis Sings Hank Williams album. He was so versatile that he could have done just about anything. There was so much fantastic music in the '60s that he should have been tackling. How about Elvis Sings The British Invasion? Elvis Sings Motown? Elvis Sings Bob Dylan? Elvis Sings The Great American Song Book? Heck, just about anything would have worked!
All of the really legendary artists, do a dud or two. If you take some chances eventually you're going to do some stuff that doesn't work.
With the Beatles it clearly has to be a matter of perception because their entire body of work over the course of their entire career is underwhelming to me. They were doing the most basic, mediocre paint-by-numbers music that any hack who played guitar for a year could pull off, and their lyrics were usually like bad Dr Seuss or crappy teenage poetry....but everybody speaks of them with such reverence which is sooooo confusing to me.
Hate to continue this sideways direction of the thread, but you obviously haven't tried. Their music is some of the trickiest in pop/rock history. They made it sound effortless though, so I'd get how one might come to that conclusion...
Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss...
New topic
Printable
Report post to moderator
it still has Drive My Car and In My Life.