OK, we've heard Paul McCartney and Roger Daltrey dump on the Stones recently. I love this band (don't we all), and I love going to the shows (ditto).

There has been some criticism of the virtuosity of the playing. Sure. But if you want to see virtuoso guitar playing, go see Joe Bonamassa or Tommy Emmanuel. They do good shows and play circles around Richards and Wood. But that's not the point of going to a Rolling Stones show. And they key word there is "show."

But, OK, let the critics say what they will. Here is my personal evaluation of the Stones in 2021 on a scale from 1 to 10:

Songs - 10. Every show is a passionate singalong. Say what you will about the warhorses, but every one of them is a pure rock and roll classic.
Showmanship - 10. Two words, Mick Jagger.
Virtuosity - 7. Let's be honest, you don't go a stones show and be mesmerized by pure virtuosity. Actually, the playing by Jones, Jordan, and the horns pulls this score up.
Singing - 9. Jagger burns a lot of energy running all over the place, so he can't stand still to sing with perfect pitch and precision.
Sound Quality - 10. The Stones sound is absolutely amazing. There can be challenges in playing in places with roofs, but at least at the Cotton Bowl, every voice and every instrument could be heard perfectly.
Staging/Lights - 10. They Stones always set up their staging so that everyone gets a great experience. The catwalk brings them right out into the pit and the four big screens let everyone see the band close up. And the lighting is always perfect.
The Sheer Thrill - 10. It begins with the words "Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones. Even my sister, who is far from a big fan was jumping up and down and screaming. And when they sprinkle in a gem like All Down The Line or Monkey Man, every fan's heart skips a beat.

Overall Composite Score - 9.4

For comparison, I had just seen the Eagles show. Sat in the 4th row right in front of the guitars. A perfect spot.

The songs - 9. They have a bunch of great hits, but only some of them have been as significant as the Stones' catalog.
Showmanship - 3. They just stand there and sing.
Virtuosity - 7. Though the show is highly precise, a solid cover band could easily recreate every note.
Singing - 10. They stand still and nail it. Especially Don Henley
Sound Quality - 10. Top notch crew.
Staging/Lights - 7. It's a clean, but low key show by design.
Sheer Thrill - 6. It's always great to hear your favorites, but it's not an exciting show.

Overall Composite Score - 7.4

Last but not least Paul McCartney. Saw him up close just a few years ago.

Songs - 9. The Beatles songs are a 10, but he plays a bunch of his other less iconic songs as well.
Showmanship - 5. He makes an effort, but he ain't no MJ.
Virtuosity - 7. They play clean, but again, it's kind of a Beatles cover band.
Singing - 9. It's that great Paul McCartney voice, but the years have added a rough edge or two.
Sound Quality - 10. He also has a top notch crew.
Staging/Lights - 7. Again, a relatively simple production.
The Sheer Thrill - 8. Hearing those Beatles songs is awesome. If he came out and played a whole Beatles show, it could be a 10.

Overall Composite Score - 7.9

Bottom line... The Stones will always have critics, but they still deliver one hell of a show.

You have a good point. But I would give Paul a 7 at best for his singing live. Not very good now at days.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-11-18 20:25 by More Hot Rocks.

Deleted



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-11-18 20:24 by More Hot Rocks.

really a level headed nice comparison. and I agree with it too.

Just saw this on YouTube.

[youtu.be]

It's not bad, actually it is decent performance and I like creedence Clearwater revival's songs.

But it reminds how great the Rolling stones still are.

I agree with the above.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-11-18 21:24 by jumpingjackflash5.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
You have a good point. But I would give Paul a 7 at best for his singing live. Not very good now at days.

That's quite generous. He was a 6 or 7 in 2012.

Quote
jumpingjackflash5
Just saw this on YouTube.

[youtu.be]

It's not bad, actually it is decent performance and I like creedence Clearwater revival's songs.

But it reminds how great the Rolling stones still are.

I agree with the above.

Saw Fogerty a couple of years ago. He was utterly awesome.

I'm shocked no one has come back with a snarky comment about the Beatles. Yes, the Stones were a blue cover band, at one point. Just like the Beatles were a schlock cover band, at one point with show tunes like Till There Was You.

A- for them

Quote
24FPS
I'm shocked no one has come back with a snarky comment about the Beatles. Yes, the Stones were a blue cover band, at one point. Just like the Beatles were a schlock cover band, at one point with show tunes like Till There Was You.

I like the word "schlock"! I guess its the same as schmaltz. I agree with you.

Best tour ever? Sorry, I couldn't help myself...

Dont worry the Macca/Daltrey
sledging of The Stones was good publicity .....

Stones probably ended up givin' them a donation for their services .... HHHHaaaaa



ROCKMAN

"Why Do the Rolling Stones Keep Getting Insulted by Their Peers?"

[www.insidehook.com]

It seems that McCartney's "dig" was based on their time as bands together much more than post-1969. Mick was beyond diplomatic about it. "One band is unbelievably luckily still playing in stadiums, and then the other band doesn’t exist.”

In fact, the 'other band' hasn't toured since 1966.

Daltrey, though...

"But as a band, if you were outside a pub and you heard that music coming out of a pub some night, you’d think, ‘Well, that’s a mediocre pub band!’ No disrespect.”

When one says "No disrespect" after issuing an insult, they're being manipulative. It's no worse than blithering whatever and then letting someone know you take zero responsibility for what you just prattled with adding, "Just saying".

It's a cop out.

What have The Who done since... well, their last album and single that anyone might know was in 1982. I do know what they've done since but after that point, ehhhh, it's just past nothing, really.

Jealousy is weird with these geezers acting like children. At least when Keith runs his mouth about other artists/bands we know where he's centered. He's not ever broadly insulted a band, it's always been from his perspective, with accolades to whoever, not a broad sweeping statement.

At least that's my perception. Maybe I'm forgetting some.

Of the three, I think the ones still kicking the most ass on the road are The Who. Daltrey still sings very well, and Townshend is both a capable player and still has fire in his belly.

But the thing the Stones have had over both Macca and The Who is way more principles still involved. McCartney does his bit very well, but he also has 5 hired hands and no other septuagenarians. Daltrey and Townshend have Zak, Simon, Jon, Loren, Frank, and on this most recent tour, an orchestra.

Say what you want about the larger backing band on the 89-present tours, but they've still had 4 (alas lately 3) originals turn up every night to play. Quite a feat.

I saw The Who during their last tour and Daltrey truly sucked. To the point that he had to apologize to the audience. Townshend was fine, but overall a Stones' show is FAR superior, even in 2021, so it's really surprising that the attacks would come from Daltrey.

I also saw Macca on his last tour; his voice is no longer what it used to be but the concert was very pleasant. Overall, again, not on par with a Stones, by a long shot, though the setlist was incredible with close to 40 songs.

Bottom line: the Stones still kick ass and these old geezers (who I still love) are jealous.

Daltrey can't sing since the begining of 2000's
Saw them about 5 times, it was painful even i love The Who.
Now it's just Pete, Roger is just an interpret who can't really reach the notes today.

Paul lost his voice at the begining of the 2010 but he put on some great shows.

No offence here but judging from the youtube videos I think that Paul McCartney's voice menawhile is shot to pieces and painful to listen to. It's a problem of aging so he can do nothing about it. He is a great musician, and there are recordings from the past which are truly great!

I do not take both statements seriously because I never participated in the Beatles - Stones contest. Both bands were great, and each onehad its own style. So there's nothing to complain about. If I want to listen to decent live versions I go back to the old recordings where these bands were still in their prime.

Speaking for instance of BB King I saw him in concert in 2004, and it was great. But I would not want to listen to a live recording from this show because his voice had lost the dynamics. He made it up with a crack band, a string of hits and great showmanship. But in fact I saw a legend, and the same goes for John Lee Hooker in 1990.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jumpingjackflash5
Just saw this on YouTube.

[youtu.be]

It's not bad, actually it is decent performance and I like creedence Clearwater revival's songs.

But it reminds how great the Rolling stones still are.

I agree with the above.

Saw Fogerty a couple of years ago. He was utterly awesome.

Agree. He's not only decent, just marvelous. Bless him.

Quote
tommycharles
Of the three, I think the ones still kicking the most ass on the road are The Who. Daltrey still sings very well, and Townshend is both a capable player and still has fire in his belly.

Agree for the most part, but the Stones are still doing a few good live shows. Unfortunately their stamina dimishes more quickly these days and they nearly fizzle out after a short amount of time.
As for the Who, they still thrive on stage and even recently in the studio - they released a full high quality new album a couple of years ago which can't be said for the Stones who seem to have lost the plot in that regards.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

It must piss McCartney off that no matter the band he was in, The Stones beat them for cool hands down.

The Stones have multiple albums I can listen to, start to finish and enjoy. There’s no Beatles album for me that’s killer start to finish.

Quote
Paddy
It must piss McCartney off that no matter the band he was in, The Stones beat them for cool hands down.

The Stones have multiple albums I can listen to, start to finish and enjoy. There’s no Beatles album for me that’s killer start to finish.

I would generally agree but think that Abbey Road and maybe Sgt. Pepper would be exceptions to that.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Paddy
It must piss McCartney off that no matter the band he was in, The Stones beat them for cool hands down.

The Stones have multiple albums I can listen to, start to finish and enjoy. There’s no Beatles album for me that’s killer start to finish.

I would generally agree but think that Abbey Road and maybe Sgt. Pepper would be exceptions to that.

Can’t stand the vaudeville of Sgt Peppers. Can’t stand side 2 of Abbey Road. The only Beatles records I can listen to start to finish are Let it Be and The Beatles (though on the latter, I DO have to grit my teeth to get thru Revolution #9).

Rod

Quote
Paddy
It must piss McCartney off that no matter the band he was in, The Stones beat them for cool hands down.

The Stones have multiple albums I can listen to, start to finish and enjoy. There’s no Beatles album for me that’s killer start to finish.

Okay! For a bit of fun :-

The Rolling Stones VS Please Please Me - The Rolling Stones; just.
The Rolling Stones No.2 VS With The Beatles - With The Beatles; just.
Out of Our Heads VS Rubber Soul - Rubber Soul
Aftermath VS Revolver - Revolver
Between the Buttons VS Sgt. Pepper - Between the Buttons
Their Satanic Majesty’s VS Magical Mystery Tour - Magical Mystery Tour
Beggars Banquet VS The Beatles (White Album) - Beggars Banquet
Let it Bleed VS Abbey Road - Let it Bleed

If I were going by time-frames, the albums going head-to-head would be different, I think. Anyway, tough choices! My head tells me The White Album is better than Beggars, but, you know, I think I enjoy listening to the latter a tad more. The only no-brainier for me was Aftermath VS Revolver and Out Of Our Heads VS Rubber Soul.

The Beatles are best compared with Abba or the Monkee’s, and even at that, Abba compares favorably to the Beatles.

The Stones are a genre onto themselves. No others can compare.

We shouldn't compare a band or their recordings with either of other decades. The purchasing power of the Abba generation was very different from that of the Stones or the Beatles. And even if a band sells more records than others, it says nothing about the quality of their music, only about their popularity. If you like the Beatles or the Who more than the Stones, you should enjoy their music. For me, it's just that I like every Stones album more than all the Beatles albums combined. But that's just my taste.
And to be honest, whether Mc Cartney or Daltrey say something about the Stones, interests me so much, as if a sack of rice falls over in China.

Quote
BlueTurns2Grey
We shouldn't compare a band or their recordings with either of other decades. The purchasing power of the Abba generation was very different from that of the Stones or the Beatles. And even if a band sells more records than others, it says nothing about the quality of their music, only about their popularity. If you like the Beatles or the Who more than the Stones, you should enjoy their music. For me, it's just that I like every Stones album more than all the Beatles albums combined. But that's just my taste.
And to be honest, whether Mc Cartney or Daltrey say something about the Stones, interests me so much, as if a sack of rice falls over in China.

I was not referring to popularity or records sold in my post, but rather the quality of music.

Quote
MKjan

Quote
BlueTurns2Grey
We shouldn't compare a band or their recordings with either of other decades. The purchasing power of the Abba generation was very different from that of the Stones or the Beatles. And even if a band sells more records than others, it says nothing about the quality of their music, only about their popularity. If you like the Beatles or the Who more than the Stones, you should enjoy their music. For me, it's just that I like every Stones album more than all the Beatles albums combined. But that's just my taste.
And to be honest, whether Mc Cartney or Daltrey say something about the Stones, interests me so much, as if a sack of rice falls over in China.

I was not referring to popularity or records sold in my post, but rather the quality of music.

I meant that in general, it wasn't directed against you.

Quote
BlueTurns2Grey

Quote
MKjan

Quote
BlueTurns2Grey
We shouldn't compare a band or their recordings with either of other decades. The purchasing power of the Abba generation was very different from that of the Stones or the Beatles. And even if a band sells more records than others, it says nothing about the quality of their music, only about their popularity. If you like the Beatles or the Who more than the Stones, you should enjoy their music. For me, it's just that I like every Stones album more than all the Beatles albums combined. But that's just my taste.
And to be honest, whether Mc Cartney or Daltrey say something about the Stones, interests me so much, as if a sack of rice falls over in China.

I was not referring to popularity or records sold in my post, but rather the quality of music.

I meant that in general, it wasn't directed against you.

Ok, understood. I didn't want any confusion. I share your like of every Stones album more than all the Beatles albums combined.My taste too.

Quote
dead.flowers

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jumpingjackflash5
Just saw this on YouTube.

[youtu.be]

It's not bad, actually it is decent performance and I like creedence Clearwater revival's songs.

But it reminds how great the Rolling stones still are.

I agree with the above.

Saw Fogerty a couple of years ago. He was utterly awesome.

Agree. He's not only decent, just marvelous. Bless him.

John Fogerty put on the best non-Stones concert I've ever been to - most of the big (and small) names.