For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
otonneau
Sure, it's marketing - a slogan someone came up. But that does not answer @#$%&'s question. After all, innumerable bands have been labelled "the greatest", and the label has not sticked. So it's not enough to come up with a title, and it's not enough to publish it endless times; somehow, it must meet something in the mind of the receiver.
I think the relevance of the title now is due primarily to longevity.
The Beatles stopped too early, and the reformed bands come accross as a bit of has-beens; regardless of the drop in quality, the Stones have enough continuity and consistency to go directly back to the birth of rock n'roll. That sets them beyond the bands that retired, and out of reach of the young ones, just as bluesmen who are born today will never equal the prestige of those from the forties.
Any new band will be measured against the Stones, but the very fact that the Stones are the standard means they cannot be beaten, if that makes sense.
In paris, there is the standard metre; no piece of metal in the world can be closer to a meter than the standard meter. The Stones are the standard rock band, therefore the 'best', in the sense that everybody MUST be compared to them, but they can't be compared to anyone.
Quote
doubledoor
Greatest front-man + Greatest rhythm guitar player + one of the greatest drummers (who with BW makes superb rhythm section + many of the greatest songs written in rock + amazing live performances + doing it when rock counted most (60s and 70s)= Greatest band
Quote
with sssoul
>> one of those horrible cliches I think only the Americans are able to come up with <<
... Sam Cutler is English
If we want to get really technical then, the standards exists now, sure, but the statement was made, the title was assumed at a time when the Stones had not been around near as long. Weren't the Beatles even still together ?Quote
DoxaQuote
otonneau
Sure, it's marketing - a slogan someone came up. But that does not answer @#$%&'s question. After all, innumerable bands have been labelled "the greatest", and the label has not sticked. So it's not enough to come up with a title, and it's not enough to publish it endless times; somehow, it must meet something in the mind of the receiver.
I think the relevance of the title now is due primarily to longevity.
The Beatles stopped too early, and the reformed bands come accross as a bit of has-beens; regardless of the drop in quality, the Stones have enough continuity and consistency to go directly back to the birth of rock n'roll. That sets them beyond the bands that retired, and out of reach of the young ones, just as bluesmen who are born today will never equal the prestige of those from the forties.
Any new band will be measured against the Stones, but the very fact that the Stones are the standard means they cannot be beaten, if that makes sense.
In paris, there is the standard metre; no piece of metal in the world can be closer to a meter than the standard meter. The Stones are the standard rock band, therefore the 'best', in the sense that everybody MUST be compared to them, but they can't be compared to anyone.
I think the point is nailed here: the Stones are the standard. I have always taken the label to be a sort of conservative one: it was put through at the time when the rock music was in its most progressive phase, and the Stones remained musically quite close to the simple basic chuckberry-form (compared to, say, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc.). I take the point of the song "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" also referring to this kind of non-progressive, non art-like, down-to-earth nature of rock as well. The Stones don't pretend to be anything but a pure rock&roll band.
But taken as it is, it is one of those horrible cliches I think only the Americans are able to come up with: "King of Rock", "King of Pop", etc. I dion't think the Brits or the Europeans could have have guts to call anyone as "greatest" or "king"? They sound so corny.
- Doxa
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
If we want to get really technical then, the standards exists now, sure, but the statement was made, the title was assumed at a time when the Stones had not been around near as long. Weren't the Beatles even still together ?
I think it really comes down to cockiness, and again - balls to just take on, and thereby essentially copywriting the title. The Muhammad Ali comparison makes perfect sense to me.
Quote
marcovandereijk
In "You can't always get what you want" Sam Cutler makes us believe he came up with the
"Greatest Rock 'n Roll Band in the World" line most and for all to boost the confidence
of the Stones themselves, who hadn't toured for three years. He was using reverse psychology,
trying to goad them into actually believing it.
Quote
otonneau
Well that would be direct psychology rather than reverse :-)
Quote
shortfatfanny
How many "yes" do I need to qualify being brainwashed,Barn ?
A single one,simple majority,...
Quote
otonneau
If the subject of this thread is "who is the greatest rock n' roll band in the world", i.e. "who's your favourite band" then it's not very interesting because 1) it's a matter of taste and 2) it ain't a contest really.
The topic is interesting if we toy with this label as something that had a meaning even for non-fans; something in the Stones' identity that transcends the sole fact that you like them.
Just as, for instance, you need not be a fan of Michael Jackson or Elvis to see their immense importance; so many people love them, they changed so many people's conception of music, they are so universally known, everybody has an opinion on them whether negative or positive, etc... I have no specific list of factors; I think these factors are precisely what we are looking for.
I did not say that Stones are better than Beatles because they have been around longer; I said that their longevity allowed them to gain a different iconic status.
For one thing, anyway, they are still around so one can say the Stones ARE the greatest RnR band, whereas the Beatles, at best, WERE the greatest band.
Decline only influences this so much; if Muhammad Ali made a come back, he would still BE the greatest, although a greatest past his prime. I went to hear Ornette Coleman recently, and he is way past his prime; however, he still IS one of the greatest jazzmen in history.
A bit like a former president must still be addressed as "Mr President", at least according to the French etiquette; a strange overlap of past and present. As long as you still have a foot in the present, you still enjoy the glory of your past as an actual thing, but when you retire, suddenly your glory truly becomes a thing of the past - I hope that makes sense!
Quote
with sssoul
>> I know, but the context was America ... (in fact, it would be interesting to know what exactly is the story of [Cutler's] introduction <<
... since you're interested: the story begins at the Hyde Park show - that's where Cutler first called them that.
so the context wasn't America. but i reckon you'll find a way to make your stereotyping fit anyway,
so ... have some popcorn :E