Please explain: Rolling Stones

[Smooth Groove]

For the third time in two years, I've been going through the Rolling Stone's discography to understand why they're so highly respected but I still don't get it.  Out of all the legendary bands, their music seems the most generic and outdated.  I could understand if their appeal is limited to the mainstream but even people who should now better consistently place them among the top five greatest artists of all time. 

Are the Stones amazing live?  What am I missing so that my response is so different from almost everybody else?

[Stoney Mason]

I love the stones. They fucking rock. Good soul-ish rock and roll when they were at their best. (which was a long time ago but that's not really important in my book). It's always impossible to explain music to people. Either you feel it or you don't. Some people think the beatles suck. Some people think bowie sucks. Some people think the stones suck.  

[Smooth Groove]

You like Hootie & the Blowfish? 

[Phoenix Dark]

You'd be hard pressed to name many bands who had a better run than the Stones during the late 60s/early 70s.

Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main St. back to back to back to back.

[Stoney Mason]

You like Hootie & the Blowfish? 

Like I said. For every big group there will always be somebody who don't get it. Outside of not getting it or it not being your thing which are both fine, there isn't really much to argue/discuss. I could list songs or albums that I find brilliant from the stones but if you disagree I mean where is it going to go from there.

Please explain doesn't work in this context.

[Great Rumbler]

[youtube=560,345]XNvl19RDqbI[/youtube]

[Phoenix Dark]

I can understand someone not liking the Stones, whereas not like the Beatles or Zeppelin is more baffling considering the differences in song writing/catchy stuff. Many people get into the Stones only being familiar with their singles. Their albums are often full of a lot of country, folk, and blues experimentation, from original material to obscure covers. So if you get Let It Bleed expecting pure Gimme Shelter type rock, you might be disappointed.

Whereas with the Beatles for instance, you get what you're looking for

[Smooth Groove]

You like Hootie & the Blowfish? 

Like I said. For every big group there will always be somebody who don't get it. Outside of not getting it or it not being your thing which are both fine, there isn't really much to argue/discuss. I could list songs or albums that I find brilliant from the stones but if you disagree I mean where is it going to go from there.

Please explain doesn't work in this context.

No trollin', mang, that was a honest question.

I think it is possible to teach people to appreciate music that they didn't before.  My dad always hated Bob Dylan because of his voice but over the years I've gotten him to the point where he can at least respect Dylan.  I think having music training for most of my youth had something to do with that.  It helps me break down musically technically and appreciate the subtler points.  It's probably why I've usually agreed with music critics, especially the old fogies but for whatever reason, I'm really off with the Stones.  

[Stoney Mason]

I know plenty of people who don't like the beatles. In fact they are the most commonly sited band as being over-rated mainly because they are the most well known band.


I know people who listen to the hendrix albums and say big deal and don't like those either. Bowie is very divisive among modern audiences. I mean most hardcore music fans love him but I've heard a lot of modern people listen to it and not get it.

The stones are important because they were for a time period the most important mainstream blues based band doing rock music. They were an alternative to the more pop and intellectual wanderings of the beatles. They weren't intellectual. They were about sex and drugs and rock and roll and their music reflected that.

I think the best of the stones holds up really well. But even still I'm not one of those people who feel all music should be timeless in the sense that it should sound like it was made right now. I love that stones sound from the 70's era. It sounds very rhythmic for rock and roll which rock music often loses. You can imagine a female dance sexily to some of the stones tracks which you could never imagine with the beatles. Which is kind of the point. They were a band about sex and the baser things.

[Phoenix Dark]

There certainly are people who don't like the Beatles, but typically their arguments are so poor it's hard to take them seriously. Whereas someone not liking Bowie or the Stones makes sense. If you don't like country or heavy folksy and blue leanings, you might not like the Stones. Bowie's experimentation (and fucking synthesizers) might turn people off. The Beatles are pretty much one of the absolute best examples of great songwriting you can find. You might not like the experimental stuff, but imo not liking their "regular" stuff is almost as baffling as someone not like Motown.

You might meet someone who hates on Motown, but you'd have to look pretty damn hard. The song writing and melodies are too strong, and the same applies to a lot of the Beatles' work

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I don't really care much for the Rolling Stones either.  I don't really like The Who, The Doors, or The Beatles either.  I just figured that I didn't care much for rock music made in the 1960s and part of the 1970s.  Just isn't my thing.  I always assumed that this was music was part of the atmosphere of the cultural zeitgeist and to judge it by itself without taking that into account, the music often times won't hold up.  I feel the same way for movies.

[Stoney Mason]

I was always the type of person who enjoyed the music from older generations rather than my own generation in a lot of cases. And I say that earnestly trying to not sound like a pretentious asshole. I was the guy who dug in my mother's crates of records and loved that stuff more than the stuff I grew up on myself. My brothers and sisters weren't that way. For whatever reason I was though. I grew up in the original rap generation but ultimately rap was more important in the sense that it introduced me to all the music that rap sampled from which broadened my taste in music especially genre wise and time wise.

I would have never loved Jazz, Blues, funk, hell led zeppelin, etc without first being introduced to it from hip hop. I always chased down samples and then grew to appreciate the music itself. 

[Himu]

Listen to love in vain over and over

[BlueTsunami]

I like a couple of standout tracks from them but it seems like I can't get into the whole discography for albums for some of the super bands from that era.

[Stoney Mason]

For what its worth there is some music that I don't get but it tends to be on the artsy side of the equation. Ornette Coleman and a lot of his free jazz stuff to pull a random example. I can intellectually understand what he is trying to do but its not pleasant for me to listen to.


[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

 

[Smooth Groove]

I was always the type of person who enjoyed the music from older generations rather than my own generation in a lot of cases.

Same here.  Both mainstream and Pitchfork are garbage, imo. 

[Phoenix Dark]

ITT Stony pretends he isn't 40 years old

My parents wouldn't let me listen to new music openly, so when I wasn't secretly listening to rap or soft rock I was listening to their old records. The Police, Miles Davis, Marvin Gaye, Curtis Mayfield, etc. My mom is a jazz and Motown/R&B person, while my dad was more into 70s/80s rock alongside Motown. Although he's the type of person who likes The Eagles, listens to Coldplay, The Fray etc today so yea...

Still, I grew up listening to a lot of old stuff. And when I'd sneak and listen to shit on the radio I gravitated towards harder stuff like Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Metallica etc. Alongside nu-metal but hey, I was a kid yo.

[Smooth Groove]

There're black people that listen to Eagles? 

What do you think was your parents' screw music?

[Phoenix Dark]

My dad listens to pure soft rock. It's odd that he's such a big fan of The Police and points out all their technical prowess while at the same time loving the most basic pop rock lol

[Stoney Mason]

There're black people that listen to Eagles? 

What do you think was your parents' screw music?

I can't tell you why could fit into the rotation on any quiet storm station in America.

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

[BlueTsunami]

I like that Eagle jam and Hotel California. I'm an awful person I actually used to fall asleep to a soft rock station when I was younger (96.1 WSRS). Its probably why I'm such a pussy.

[Himu]

There're black people that listen to Eagles? 

What do you think was your parents' screw music?

I can't tell you why could fit into the rotation on any quiet storm station in America.

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

I knew I recognized that main riff.

[youtube=560,345]SXhyyR2E9G4[/youtube]

[Himu]

Soft rock isn't bad, some of it is pretty darn good.

I love soft rock.

[Akala]

stones > beatles. it probably would have been the other way around had the beatles lasted longer, but hey.

[Smooth Groove]

I liked the methods that were used by this site in ranking the top 100 bands of all time.  Breaking it down into different categories makes sense because everyone has a different opinion of what's most important in judging a band.  Even though The Beatles ended up No. 2 overall on this list, it's still recognized that they might not be #2 for a listener who most values technical ability. 

I wish the panel was much bigger though.  No matter how knowledge the 5 judges were, it's still way too small to represent the consensus. 

http://www.avrev.com/top-100-bands-of-all-time/top-10-rock-bands/index.php

[Phoenix Dark]

According to that list, Stone Temple Pilots, The Eagles, Rush>Rolling Stones. I deem it invalid.

edit: 45 for Beatles live? They rarely toured. wtf

[Himu]

Queen at number 6

[MyNameIsMethodis]

how is grateful dead not the best rated live performance wtf

[Smooth Groove]

I'm not endorsing the list, just the procedure that was used to determine the rankings.  It's not perfect but it's sure a lot better than making a top 100 list off the top of your brain.  Their top 3 do coincide with my own, although not necessarily in that order but the rest of my top 10 would be quite different. 

[Phoenix Dark]

Zeppelin with higher technical ability than The Police, and the same technical ability as Rush? The list makes absolutely no sense. Hell, even giving Zep a 90+ in innovation is ridiculous given how much they...borrowed from other bands. And I'm a huge Zep fan.

[Raban]

I can tell by your kind use of the word "borrowed" and not the more historically accurate "straight-up jacked".

[tiesto]

I'm not really into older music apart from motown/disco/funk and early experimental electronic music, myself. Though I do like the occasional Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, etc song and some jazz (Mingus, Miles Davis). About 90% of what I listen to on a regular basis is from the last year or so. The problem with a lot of EDM is that it's just so damn disposable.

[Robo]

  Van Halen

[Stoney Mason]

I'm not endorsing the list, just the procedure that was used to determine the rankings.  It's not perfect but it's sure a lot better than making a top 100 list off the top of your brain.  Their top 3 do coincide with my own, although not necessarily in that order but the rest of my top 10 would be quite different. 

That is better imo, you're actually judging what you like best based on that, not on sales which is more about success or influence which is up for debate.

Music is so personal and individual that lists don't really mean anything other than these group of people with similar critical evaluations picked these group of bands as the best. I mean there is nothing wrong with it. I get why lists exists and that's part of the job of critics to separate the wheat from the chaff. But I think the purpose of lists is a jumping off point for discussion rather than the actual discussion. James Brown would be number one on any list for me along with Sly and the Family Stone way up there and P-Funk and the meters, and the isley brothers, etc , etc. But then that's because of my taste and biases.

But then generally speaking most critical evaluations of music in this country tend to have a rock bias and a specific era of rock music bias since the people making these lists generally come from a certain generation and cultural background. 

[Brehvolution]

I really think the Stones had more influence on rap... by taking the same 4 bars of music and repeating it through the whole song.

[Phoenix Dark]

I really think the Stones had more influence on rap... by taking the same 4 bars of music and repeating it through the whole song.

[Himu]

I really think the Stones had more influence on rap... by taking the same 4 bars of music and repeating it through the whole song.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Zero won

And on soft rock

[youtube=560,345]5sedPivIxfM[/youtube]

 :'(