What pisses me off is that the Stones are perenially underrated amongst my peers who do not recognise the contribution they have made to popular music. In Britain, at the moment (amongst my peers anyway) everyone talks about the Beatles or Queen, while the Stones go largely unnoticed. When I ask some of my friends to name a Stones song, they struggle to name more than a couple, often just replying with 'Satisfaction'.

Anyway, I've been a constant reader of this board for a couple of years now and have become angered at the antipathy and disdain directed towards the band with regards to their studio output. The band may no longer be firing on all cylinders like they were from 68-72, but they are still the most exciting rock band I have ever heard or seen in my life.

I have to admit that there are no contemporary bands that excite me (I'm sick to the back teeth of GLUM ROCK!!!! AAARRGGHHHHH!!!) so I always come back to the Stones. I'm 21 years old and have seen many bands in my short life and can honestly say that no one comes near to the Stones as a live act. Mick Jagger is the consunmate rock performer...no not just that...I would say that he is THE greatest rock performer ever (please forgive me if you think I'm getting too over enthusiastic now). The guy gives 110% on every song, he puts so many contemporary rock performers to shame!! And Keith may not be as sharp as he once was, but we should just be lucky he's alive after all that he's gone through!!

Some of my peers just don't see what it is about the Stones that I like (my girlfriend totally doesn't get it!!) but I find it hard to articulate the reasons for my love of the Stones. As well as being in awe of Jagger as the ultimate rock performer, I think I'm in awe of the diversity of their catalogue. From 'Play with Fire' to 'Miss You', 'Jumping Jack Flash' to 'Fingerprint File' '@#$%&' to 'Wild Horses' the Stones have always possessed that rare ability to create great songs that are influenced by a plethora of musical genres.

Anyway...I'm rambling now, but I just fancied a good rant.

And Mick & Keith in the (unlikely) event that you're reading this, you are the greatest songwriting partnership in ROCK history, and the Stones will forever be played in Orpington, Kent!!

If you'd said that in early 1969 I would have had to agree with you.

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

"beast of burden" - I agree with you, and I'm certainly not the only one on this board who thinks so!

beast... have a beer with us around 27th-28th of August in Dartford!
There will be a small party with some heavy Stones fans where we´re hiking around to some important places in Stones´ history; starting, naturally, in Dartford.

I agree. How often to you hear Mick and Keith mentioned as great song writers or given any phrase at all. You are more likely to hear comments about how old they look or how burnt they are. Critics and people in general have always been quick to bash anything to do. If Exile on Main St. could be bashed by critics when it came out then there is not much else they can do to receive any positive recognition. We often talk about 72 and 73 shows as being great rock n' roll. Look at Bill Wyman's book and read what the critics were saying, not too many good things.

I just look at it as their loss and if they can't appreciate good music than too bad for them.

Nice post Beast of burden. I'm just as old as you and I totally agree. Nobody will ever come close to this band in song writing, stage performance, charisma etc. Don't worry, there are some troubled individuals who get it.

ALL YOU SAY IS TRUE, BUT YOU KNOW JEALOUSY IS ONLY FOR THE GREATEST. OF COURSE, THEY'LL NEVER BE MIXED WITH VARIETY ARTISTS. IT'S NOT THE SAME JOB. BEATLES OR QUEEN COULD NEVER DISTURB SOMEONE. IT'S SO NICE. AND IT'S TRUE "EXILE" HAD SO MUCH BAD CRITICS IN 1972." SO ALL IS SAID. EXILE, BRIDGES, ALFIE, OR GODDESS ARE JUST FANTASTIC ALBUM GOING ON A WAY BEGUN IN 1962.

You are absoulutely righ Beast! I am 19 and have been in absoulute worship of the Stones for about 5 years. I'm from Virginia and none of my buddies ever understand The Stones they just laugh and say they are old. Then I come on a forum with (supposed) Stones fans and all they can do is bash the boys. A little criticism is good but holy shit the stuff the I hear from Stones fans is unbelievable. I know they wont be saying that when Mick and Keith come to their town, the lights go down, and the best Rock N @#$%& Roll show hits them in their face. Thanks again for your comments.

It's just the oldies that are like that, it seems :-)
So don't worry guys, there's a bunch of guys (and good looking girls) at our age here that loves the Stones just like you :-)

The Beatles & Queen appeal to normal people.
The Stones appeal to bohemians, rebels, gypsies, pirates & outlaws.

ROCKMAN

The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirious of everything at the same time , the ones who never yawn or say a common place thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!"

Jack Kerouac - On The Road 1957

Right on!!! We´re out here, Rockman!

Hey yeah....!! Thanks Baboon, I knew I wasn't alone!

ROCKMAN

Here's my take as a career long fan and I am impressed by the younger fans that as we say 'get it'.

Rock the way we worship it ruled up until about Exhile. Glam rock and other forms of music started taking the spotlight in the frenzy of increasing multi media....instead of being the next best thing to that other band the Stones got lost in it.

Very few actually got to see the Stones in the early days. Had I not rocked my butt off on the 72 opening night I may never have been hooked. By all acounts I get on this board, the next few years of touring were hit and miss and again they are lost in the mush.

Buy 81 the big show started and the Stones re-invented rock shows. Now if you missed all the stuff up to this point you are already a Bowie, Queen, Kiss generation member and you may not be sold on seeing that other old band. This perpetuates thru the decades.

Beast had all the correct key bits....Mick is a performer, they all are....to get it, even by the Stones admission, their albums do not capture what the true fan sees....the show. I'm kind of backwards in that I was raised around live music of all kinds and even as a kid was able to critique record production. I appreciated the Stones much more for their live performances and personaly thought they got ripped off in album production (not writing, again Beast nailed it). As Charlie said their albums never captured what we are talking about so how can the non believer be convinced, without getting them absolutly blasted and dropped in the front row (ahhhhh that brings us back to 72).

yes it is great to hear the Stones are still gaining young fans

'In America the only way you would hear them is on a oldies/classic rock station
I'm 37 and have been a fan since 78. My parents listened to oldies stations and i liked the Beatles,and had been reading about them when i came across the Stones.

As some posters have suggested even the weariest fart from these geezers is still more powerful & rock'n'roll than any sh*te artists out there... All of us that missed ´72 have loads of boots & films & albums from that time to turn to. But I can understand their born again-rock'n'roll music & attitude was like a punch in the tummy at then... the Stones will always appeal to the young - more so than to the old... Their is nothing ingratiating, nothin smooth over Keiths mastered riffs that old has-been ladies in music entertainment quiz programs can shake it around to or croon over, no Yesterday, no Imagine, no sh*t... Stones is punk, Stones is grunge, Stones is rock 'n' roll, Stones is eternal youth (maybe they´ll soon pay me to write copywrite texts on the inner sleeves (nope, sorry, there are no such things anymore; maybe texts on the official web site)...

Beast is dead on...

Jagger is simply the best rock star of all time. Who could possibly argue that if he'd gone the way of Dean, Monroe, Morrison, Hendris, and many other "icons" in say 1971 that he'd be absolutely glorified by critics and his face would be seen on the t-shirts of 13 year olds?

As songwriters, they're sheer output is by far #1 and their best is right there with Dylan and Lennon/McCartney.

As a live act...pffffft...please...no one comes close...PERIOD!!!

They're baaaaaackkkkkk!!!!!! Let's ROCK!

Beast I agree. I laugh at the ignorance of my fellow 20 year olds who think Queen or the Beatles, or Zeplinn is on par w/ keith and the boys. People tend to be stupid. Its human nature (sometimes I am one of them hahaha). Take a someone who doesn't like the stones to a stones show and you will turn them in thier tracks every time. One of my good friends who was a huge Skynyrd fan went with me to see the Stones in '99 expecting to see a good show but nothing more went out the next week and bought every Stones album he could find. In 94 a friend (who liked rap go figure) went to the Voodoo Lounge and came back professing what we all know as fact, That Keith and the boys are The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World. Think of it this way you have the rare ability in the Generation Y to Recognize and Appreciate the best music ever written. That says something very good about you. You are of an elite group of conesures (ok my spelling really sucks this week). You friends are brainwashed give them sometime and a few boots and "unwash" them
The Militant Rolling Stones Fan

I salute you Beast Of Burden, the world could do with more 21 year old's of your calibre.

I think that no other bands recieved so many critics like the Stones and Queen in Britain until 1991. The change started with the Mercury's death, now Queen is the second (and sometimes the first) most popular band in every british poll.
Thank god the Stones are sill alive and we can enjoy the present.

"the Stones are still alive..."
And isn't that really the reason why they don't receive the adulation that Beast desires for them? They have not reached the elusive mythical status of dead and gone yet. That's all. I guarantee you - if the Stones had all died in a fiery plane crash right after Dirty Work, that album would be hailed a s one of the greatest masterpieces in Rock today. There would be whole VH1 special dedicated to the making of it. Jagger and Keith would be even bigger than today.
That is the only thing missing from Stones adulation: the fact that they're not gone yet. And so they remain tangible and just a bit common still. Not quite "really really special".

Sad but true therefore i prefer them underated

Chelsea i think you nailed it
and more, not even they were so unkind to media and press (i.e. common people opinion) not to be, literally, dead and gone, but were so rude they did not put up some glasses on, change haircut, act like "mature rock intellectual prophets with an art message" (i'm thinking of lou reed right now), instead they keep on rock and rolling and, how baffling for the press and the public opinion leads, they were consistent and solid about it when it comes to live performing. Sure there have been backdrops to this longevity in terms of writing and studio recordings creativity.

But this magic effect on anyone who happen to be close to their stage cannot be denied. I witnessed my wife who, though we've been to many concerts since we met 13 years ago, 1) does not like rock particularly, 2) does not like crowded and noisy live acts but like better club or theatre "listening to the music" performing, 3) is not particularly impressed (to say the least by macho lyrics of our sir Mick...well, she was dancing and bouncing with me in Paris, Bercy 2003 (not 1972!) telling me and everyone after, how that show was so fun and how the band impressed her for "being in their music and happy to be on stage", their pleasure in playing, she says, is addictive and like a virus that takes you over and you can't--don't want to be cured of.

And you know, i don't think you can't air this on FM!

Rockman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Beatles & Queen appeal to normal people.
> The Stones appeal to bohemians, rebels, gypsies,
> pirates & outlaws.


Some of the best words that I've read on this board, Rockman. Great words, mate...




[There'll be no wedding today...]

Anytime bruno...thanks man

ROCKMAN

I add my two cents on this... Beast, I do feel the same way: here in Italy people as old as I am (I'm 27) or younger worship U2, Queen, and Led Zeppelin, but they just don't know anything about the Stones, they even haven't seen any live footage of the band! I remember many times arguing about who's a better frontman between Mick and Freddie Mercury, and they just couldn't believe that I rate Mick better, even if they've never seen Mick live! I used to be a huge Queen fan until I've seen (at the age of 15) a spanish video featuring extracts of "Let's Spend The Night Together" and of spanish Urban Jungle concerts, and then I discovered what the real thing is all about!

Anyway,the mere fact that the Stones indeed are so underrated perhaps make the fans identify even stronger with the band, isn't it?

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-06 16:17 by Wild Slivovitz.

The thread is one of the best I've seen on here in a long time. Right on!

Wow...I'm really pleased to see that my post generated such a response.

I agree with maumau that I think Chelsea nailed it when he wrote:


"the Stones are still alive..."
And isn't that really the reason why they don't receive the adulation that Beast desires for them? They have not reached the elusive mythical status of dead and gone yet. That's all. I guarantee you"



Totally agree with this...