The years 1968 to 1978 were the high-water mark of The Rolling Stones, and that is not nostalgia talking. It was the decade when everything aligned: hunger, danger, talent, the temper of the times, and hard-earned craft. That kind of convergence happens once, if you’re lucky.

First, they were still young but already scarred. By ’68 they had absorbed the blues to the bone, learned not from textbooks but from smoky rooms, bad decisions, and nights that ran into mornings. They didn’t play tidy; they played because they had to. Every record sounded necessary, not approved by a committee.

Second, the internal friction worked in their favor. Jagger and Richards pulled against each other. No cosy brotherhood—creative tension. Keith dragged the music into the dirt and the blues; Mick sharpened it with sex, menace, and survival instinct. That push and pull made the songs breathe. After ’78 the tension softened; later it turned comfortable. Comfort kills rock and roll.

Third, the world was on fire, and they stood in the flames. Vietnam, student revolts, the end of innocence. The Stones weren’t commentators like Dylan; they were the grime under the fingernails of the era. “Street Fighting Man” could only exist then. Later, rebellion became a role. Back then, it was a fact.

Fourth, the records. Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main St.—not a run, a chain. Raw, imperfect, and honest. Exile in ’72 was the low point and the summit at once: addiction, exile, chaos—yet musically untouchable. After that, the workmanship often improved, but the urgency faded.

Fifth, the live shows. Between ’69 and ’78 you didn’t see a legacy act. You saw danger. You never knew if it would derail—and sometimes it did. That edge disappeared once the Stones became an institution. Understandable. Inevitably duller.

After 1978 there was still quality, sometimes even greatness. But the knife was no longer at the throat. And rock music—real rock music—only comes alive when there’s something to lose.

That’s the truth of it. Plain and hard.

Quote
steffiestones
...That’s the truth of it. Plain and hard.

I would have to agree!

In terms of knife at the throat, that's a good way to put it.

In regard to their greatness and inventiveness I look at it more as a body of work than any kind of era - 1968 to 1983 is, generally, a fantastic discography with great tunes that weren't hits or singles yet were/are fantastic.

Anything after is mostly cruise control imitation Stones in comparison and anything before is finding who they were.

Actually ,I would say the best was1964-1978

Gotta extend that to 1982 Tattoo you and that tour...

68-83 it is.

1964-1982

A bit silly but I would rank the "eras" like this:

1. 1968-1972
2. 1964-1967
3. 1978-1981
4. 1973-1977
5. 1982-1983
6. 1989-1990
7. 1994-1999
8. 2002-2003
9. 2006-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-12-31 14:11 by Stoneage.

Quote
steffiestones
The years 1968 to 1978 were the high-water mark of The Rolling Stones, and that is not nostalgia talking. It was the decade when everything aligned: hunger, danger, talent, the temper of the times, and hard-earned craft. That kind of convergence happens once, if you’re lucky.

First, they were still young but already scarred. By ’68 they had absorbed the blues to the bone, learned not from textbooks but from smoky rooms, bad decisions, and nights that ran into mornings. They didn’t play tidy; they played because they had to. Every record sounded necessary, not approved by a committee.

Second, the internal friction worked in their favor. Jagger and Richards pulled against each other. No cosy brotherhood—creative tension. Keith dragged the music into the dirt and the blues; Mick sharpened it with sex, menace, and survival instinct. That push and pull made the songs breathe. After ’78 the tension softened; later it turned comfortable. Comfort kills rock and roll.

Third, the world was on fire, and they stood in the flames. Vietnam, student revolts, the end of innocence. The Stones weren’t commentators like Dylan; they were the grime under the fingernails of the era. “Street Fighting Man” could only exist then. Later, rebellion became a role. Back then, it was a fact.

Fourth, the records. Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main St.—not a run, a chain. Raw, imperfect, and honest. Exile in ’72 was the low point and the summit at once: addiction, exile, chaos—yet musically untouchable. After that, the workmanship often improved, but the urgency faded.

Fifth, the live shows. Between ’69 and ’78 you didn’t see a legacy act. You saw danger. You never knew if it would derail—and sometimes it did. That edge disappeared once the Stones became an institution. Understandable. Inevitably duller.

After 1978 there was still quality, sometimes even greatness. But the knife was no longer at the throat. And rock music—real rock music—only comes alive when there’s something to lose.

That’s the truth of it. Plain and hard.

Well stated, steffiestones. Such a beautiful perfect storm, and there will never be another like them.

Very true Steffie .
Although the early years of course deserve there place in history. You can pick and choose some great moments after your time period , though it tends to lead back to the classic period. ie Tattoo You song list for example .

Ironically some of the best stuff in recent comes from the deluxe packages, concert release's from that period or the recent remix of Black and Blue.

I for one am happy for what they continue to produce although they owe us nothing further either in concert or new recording's !

Ps can we please please get a modern remix and deluxe package of "Its only rock and roll"

The 1964-1981, seems to be the consensus.But there are a few later songs that are great.And 1989-1990 is for me a top 5 best tour.

while i agree that 68-83 were there peak live and studio wise i didn't live thru this time and don't have any particularly special attachment to it

i became a fan when i was 17 in 2008

my era has been everything after that and that's the one i have the greatest attachment to because i've lived thru it

but i like every thing before that and have no real favorite

to me there's always been something interesting and cool about them at all points of there career

Quote
Stoneage
A bit silly but I would rank the "eras" like this:

1. 1968-1972
2. 1964-1966
3. 1978-1981
4. 1973-1977
5. 1982-1983
6. 1989-1990
7. 1994-1999
8. 2002-2003
9. 2006-

I have to read your list to indicate that the release year of the albums BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST and the singles "Let's Spend the Night Together," / "Ruby Tuesday" and "We Love You" / "Dandelion" deserves no place in your quite comprehensive list of 'eras'. You are, of course, entitled to your point of view. It is quite remarkable though.

For me it's 1969 - 1978! Very powerful years!

Anyone wants to wave flags...

Beatles
Stones
Zep
Doors
Who

They all had their zenith. One can deny their opinion but one can't deny the truth: they all had a time period of greatness in regard to albums and live performances.

I left Pink Floyd out because they're not a ROCK'N'ROLL band.

There are bands and solo artists later that were as big if not bigger.

There's no trophy.

Bill's era for me with its high and low.

1964-1982



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-01-08 05:44 by babyblue.

Best is 1965 to 1983 -Aftermath to Undercover.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs
Best is 1965 to 1983 -Aftermath to Undercover.

Mathijs

Agreed!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
Best is 1965 to 1983 -Aftermath to Undercover.

Mathijs

Agreed!

Should be 1966-1983!

I agree with Honestman. The entire Bill Wyman era is mostly great. Although I still like the newer stuff too, just not as impactive.

It's quite difficult to separate eras, as we have both studio and live performances to consider. For instance: 1973 saw the release of Goats Head Soup; a definite dip in form, and yet, it was an exceptional year for live performances. Arguably, the 1963-1965 period was their finest run of singles, though, to some, the corresponding studio albums are viewed as little more than a collection of R&B and rock 'n roll covers. It's all very subjective stuff.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
Best is 1965 to 1983 -Aftermath to Undercover.

Mathijs

Agreed!

Should be 1966-1983!

The recording of Aftermath started in December 1965

68 to 81, + 89
or
• Beggars Banquet
• Let It Bleed
• Sticky Fingers
• Exile On Main Street
• Goats Head Soup
• Its Only Rock 'n Roll
• Black And Blue
• Some Girls
• Emotional Rescue
• Tattoo You
• Steel Wheels

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
A bit silly but I would rank the "eras" like this:

1. 1968-1972
2. 1964-1966
3. 1978-1981
4. 1973-1977
5. 1982-1983
6. 1989-1990
7. 1994-1999
8. 2002-2003
9. 2006-

I have to read your list to indicate that the release year of the albums BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST and the singles "Let's Spend the Night Together," / "Ruby Tuesday" and "We Love You" / "Dandelion" deserves no place in your quite comprehensive list of 'eras'. You are, of course, entitled to your point of view. It is quite remarkable though.

You are quite right, Witness. I have included 1967 now.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Big Al

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
Best is 1965 to 1983 -Aftermath to Undercover.

Mathijs

Agreed!

Should be 1966-1983!

The recording of Aftermath started in December 1965

Ah, okay! He's technically right, then!

1963-1982

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Mathijs
Best is 1965 to 1983 -Aftermath to Undercover.

Mathijs

Agreed!

Nice to see Jones,Taylor and Wood all in the same era!

Quote
umakmehrd
Gotta extend that to 1982 Tattoo you and that tour...

1964-1982

1964–1983 or 1968–1972? That is the choice between 7,000 days or 3,600 days of mastery. I did not achieve that level for a single minute between 1961 and 2026 (the years of my existence)..