Status Quo is, and sorry, just my opinion, a horrible anglosaxon (the music not about race) straight boring band.

Stones is something different, a lifestyle, Brian Jones the first real modern rock God, Anita, The Glimmer Twins in the 70s, Keith the cool and Keith the outlaw, Mick the afro genderbending sex symbol.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-15 12:12 by Redhotcarpet.

Status Quo stinked from the beginning, so if they aged better or not is really not important. Did Prince Charles aged better than Rolling Stones?

Is Quo the second oldest band after the Stones?

Well, we don't have to attack other bands to defend The Stones.

2009. The Quo are powerful, aren't they? They can play instruments and sing at the same time, even! Trully amazing

I know, rythmn and complexity of the music is not the same, but we can see such power and feelin in the Stones in recent years. And I wish we could, but reality is reality.

how on earth could anyone compare that old fart crappy status ass wipe crap band that has no talent whatsoever and plays micky mouse music to the legendary Stones is beyond me.

Status Quo still play their tunes with conviction and give 100%, the same cant always be said from the Stones. I like both bands(their classic years), yes they're both different, but now Status Quo play at a higher level than the Stones. There's never talk of Rossi fluffing a simple chuck berry lick...............

stones fans can get so testy when someone even mentions another band in the same sentence. it's my fave aspect of this board.

I thought he meant "Has the Queen aged better than the Stones..."

Quote
seitan
how on earth could anyone compare that old fart crappy status ass wipe crap band that has no talent whatsoever and plays micky mouse music to the legendary Stones is beyond me.

Yeah nothing personal, we all have different tastes in music but I just dont see any kind of similarity or connection or relevance here. Status were and are "geeks". Just my opinion not meant as an insult and not directed at anybody here just how I feel about that band. Theyre a glass of really watery light beer. Stones is heroin with or without the actual drug.

Quo - Pictures of Matchstick Man wasn't too bad, but 99.5% of the music is disposable. There's always something of interest on even the worst Stones album, but Quo are awful.

The Latin term "status quo" is a lot more interesting with reference to politics.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
seitan
how on earth could anyone compare that old fart crappy status ass wipe crap band that has no talent whatsoever and plays micky mouse music to the legendary Stones is beyond me.

Yeah nothing personal, we all have different tastes in music but I just dont see any kind of similarity or connection or relevance here. Status were and are "geeks". Just my opinion not meant as an insult and not directed at anybody here just how I feel about that band. Theyre a glass of really watery light beer. Stones is heroin with or without the actual drug.

Both bands has been active since 1962, both play rock'n'roll and both are among the best in the business, no matter what we think of them.

You obviously haven't heard the 1968-1974 Quo.

And yet they are soooo different. It's like comparing Per Gessle to John Lennon. They both play/played the guitar and made a lot of money.

Quo! you are kidding.

Look at the crap on Aussie TV.

[youtu.be]


[youtu.be]

That would be something the Rolling Stones with tongue shaped guitars

About the Quo they are aging well I guess ...but musically speaking they play the same since there release of Down Down in '74

__________________________

Quote
Redhotcarpet
And yet they are soooo different. It's like comparing Per Gessle to John Lennon. They both play/played the guitar and made a lot of money.

You have some classic Quo-discovery to do. They weren't really that different in the late 60s:











Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-25 10:20 by DandelionPowderman.

saw one of the frantic four reunion gigs and it was brilliant. Early QUO also great.

Current line up? No interest at all.

Same here. I didn't see the reunion, though, but I got the live album from Hammersmith. Great stuff!

They are underrated as a live band . Always fun and don't take themselves too seriously.

I have stopped comparing the Stones to other bands. ......it often ends badly !

Scuk

Frantic Four is the way to g. Simply the best gig I've seen in years

Bula Quo is simply a band with too much money and not a care in the world

Comparing the Quo of now (or even since the 80s) with the original Quo (pictures of Matchstickmen) or even Quo at their peak (Piledriver) shows that they haven't aged that well compared to the Stones. The exception is the recent reunion with the original members, but then you would have to compare that against a Stones reunion gig with Mick Taylor AND Bill Wyman. IF that happens, we can then start making comparisons that mean anything.

For anyone slagging off Quo, at least listen to Piledriver first.

On The Level.

Quote
sjs12
Comparing the Quo of now (or even since the 80s) with the original Quo (pictures of Matchstickmen) or even Quo at their peak (Piledriver) shows that they haven't aged that well compared to the Stones. The exception is the recent reunion with the original members, but then you would have to compare that against a Stones reunion gig with Mick Taylor AND Bill Wyman. IF that happens, we can then start making comparisons that mean anything.

For anyone slagging off Quo, at least listen to Piledriver first.

They are still great live, even with today's line up. The albums have been rather weak, with a very few exceptions since 1978.

I would add "Ma Kelly's Greasy Spoon" and "Dog Of Two Head" to their great album list. I also love "Quo" and "Blue For You".

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
sjs12
Comparing the Quo of now (or even since the 80s) with the original Quo (pictures of Matchstickmen) or even Quo at their peak (Piledriver) shows that they haven't aged that well compared to the Stones. The exception is the recent reunion with the original members, but then you would have to compare that against a Stones reunion gig with Mick Taylor AND Bill Wyman. IF that happens, we can then start making comparisons that mean anything.

For anyone slagging off Quo, at least listen to Piledriver first.

They are still great live, even with today's line up. The albums have been rather weak, with a very few exceptions since 1978.

I would add "Ma Kelly's Greasy Spoon" and "Dog Of Two Head" to their great album list. I also love "Quo" and "Blue For You".

Yes, I'd agree with all of that. Ma Kelly and Greasy Spoon are very interesting albums since they show the cross over from phsycodelia to boogie rock.

I saw them a few years ago and they're a great band live.

But the Stones are in a differnt league.

Different league indeed.

Have the Quo aged better than the Stones?

Definately not on my terms.

I was a Quo fan in the 7Os [or at laest my mate was and I was very happy to tag along].

Live, They were a fantastic straight ahead RNR band. They played with energy, urgency and passion, fuelled by drink and cocaine . [justlike stones in that respect].

Today, the Quo still sound very good. But it's all very safe and genteel.

The stones may not be the force they were 35 & 40 years ago but, when they're "on" , they still play with real fire and attitude.

A much more important factor in my humble opinion.