the stones are the best rock and roll band in the world based on what they have done during thier whole career.

led zeppelin havent toured or done an album for 25 years, i heard.


so they cant be classed as a functional band like the stones have been for 45 years.

no comparisen between the 2.

Amen.

Ok, if you say so.

I second the notion. No one will ever come close.

wee bobby lennox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the stones are the best rock and roll band in the
> world based on what they have done during thier
> whole career.
>
> led zeppelin havent toured or done an album for
> 25 years, i heard.
>
>
> so they cant be classed as a functional band like
> the stones have been for 45 years.
>
> no comparisen between the 2.

Agree, even when LZ are one of my top 5

Agreed. I would be more excited seeing the Stones in November even though I just saw them three times, than seeing Led Zep once and I do also like Led Zep. The whole thing feels like a vanity thing for them whereas if the Stones did it I think it would genuinely be for Ahmet

wee bobby lennox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the stones are the best rock and roll band in the
> world based on what they have done during thier
> whole career.
>
> led zeppelin havent toured or done an album for
> 25 years, i heard.
>
>
> so they cant be classed as a functional band like
> the stones have been for 45 years.
>
> no comparisen between the 2.


The Stones were the best Rock and Roll band from 1972 until 1982. Before and after there were many bands clearly surpassing the Stones .

Mathijs

What's wrong with '69 Mathijs ?

__________________________

I'm split on this observation...are the Stones a damn good studio band, hell yeah! Are they one of the best to perform a live show...that's where, IMO, the debate could start.

>The Stones were the best Rock and Roll band from 1972 until 1982. Before and >after there were many bands clearly surpassing the Stones .

>Mathijs

Agree with you, mostly, Mathijs, which is rare, but I would change the dates, going back to 1968 (except that Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac, in 1968-1970 was arguably the greatest live act ever--and the Band Of Gypsies in 69-70 were right in there), and cutting it off at 1978.

Since then, just down hill...still great, mind you, but, slowing over the years. I saw about a gazillion shows on the 81 US tour, and the only really great one, was Hampton, VA, 19 December 1981...WAY better than the night before...I was at both...

JR



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-15 02:06 by stone-relics.

If you can argue with this premise, you just like to disagree.

By Far The Best Band In The World.

Cant we all have an opinion, or is it just BLIND FAITH...pun intended...

JR

While Keith's quote "On any given night, any band can be the greatest rock and roll band in the world." is certainly ringing of truth, for my money, the Stones have been that band more times than any other, be it in 1966, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, or 77, or 2002. While I do not have the depth of experience of some of y'all, I have hundreds of boots and many live shows attended. I can say that the band I saw at the Aragon in 2002 would go up against anything I ever saw in my life.

That said, of course, when a band plays as many great shows as the Stones, there will be nights where things go wrong. Part of the beauty of the Stones is where bum licks show up and they are played off and capitalized upon. I have often thought one of the greatest Jack Flash's was Oshawa 79, and while Keith bums it once in the intro, he carries the rest of the band down the road at 500 mph for the rest of the song.

I also believe that while being at a live show is incredible (there are no bad Stones' shows to attend), listening to the show afterward is where one can discern just how great a night it was.....

So, all that aside, I cannot imagine a better live rock and roll band than the Stones were from 68 through 78. After 78, there were still many moments on par with the golden era, but there were also too many shows either completely coked out or simply dialed in.

Also, to me, IMHO, it seemed that the deeper into tours the band gets, the greater chance that the show is dialed-in. I recall making a diligent effort to get most of the LICKS tour, and while the 2002 shows, by and large (particularly the first 2 months), were all loaded with effort and energy and overall good playing, the 2003 tour was spottier overall. Again, IMHO, though, the LICKS shows, as a rule, blew away the entire Babylon tour from 97-98. Going back more, Steels Wheels and Voodoo had some incredible moments, but also many where the band seemed to be on auto-pilot. Remember, auto-pilot from the Stones is still live, crunching rock and roll. We, as a fan base are spoiled by Brussels 73 and Leeds 71 and Oakland 69 and the entire Ladies & Gentlemen set.

Thus, in sum, while to me the Stones were THE premier live rock and roll band from 68 to 78 and in 2002, there were other bands who were incredible live acts like Fleetwood Mac 68-70, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and the Who, if I had one to pick to deliver the goods, it would be the Stones.

I would say, no one well known will ever....

stone-relics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >The Stones were the best Rock and Roll band from
> 1972 until 1982. Before and >after there were many
> bands clearly surpassing the Stones .
>
> >Mathijs
>
> Agree with you, mostly, Mathijs, which is rare,
> but I would change the dates, going back to 1968
> (except that Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac, in
> 1968-1970 was arguably the greatest live act
> ever--and the Band Of Gypsies in 69-70 were right
> in there), and cutting it off at 1978.
>
> Since then, just down hill...still great, mind
> you, but, slowing over the years. I saw about a
> gazillion shows on the 81 US tour, and the only
> really great one, was Hampton, VA, 19 December
> 1981...WAY better than the night before...I was at
> both...
>
> JR

It's all a bit arbitrary of course. The '69 tour was good, but there were many good bands still touring. The '70 and '71 shows are decent to me, I mainly don't like the sound too much. From '72 they were king, and in my opinion the '81 tour was the best tour ever. The Stones never were bigger than on that '81 tour, and musically they were the best band ever.

But again, it's arbitrary. We think the Stones were the biggest, but Led Zep beat the Stones with ticket and record sales by miles.

Mathijs

Obviously, it's impossible to come close to the stones, as it is impossible to come close to Led Zep, Deep Purple (made in japan is on of the best live acts), Fleetwood Mac, Hendrix, ... . They are all different in many things. For example, in terms of "risk", Page & Plant, in their 1995/96 tour gave an example of how to play music, mixing different cultures, and paying more attention to music that to movements and faces. There are many great bands and artists, and the stones are among the best ones (for me, no one wins).

Lots and lots of women have come close to Jagger.....He Da Man!

Mathijs Wrote:
> It's all a bit arbitrary of course. The '69 tour
> was good, but there were many good bands still
> touring. The '70 and '71 shows are decent to me, I
> mainly don't like the sound too much. From '72
> they were king, and in my opinion the '81 tour was
> the best tour ever. The Stones never were bigger
> than on that '81 tour, and musically they were the
> best band ever.
>
> But again, it's arbitrary. We think the Stones
> were the biggest, but Led Zep beat the Stones with
> ticket and record sales by miles.
>
> Mathijs


Charlie sounded and drummed amazing that tour (i mean, he drums well constantly - but he was awesome on this one)

I think Anita Pallenberg came close to the Rolling Stones

Mathijs.

Did you forget about the 1969 - 1971 period of the Stones. Possibly the two greatest albums in Rock N Roll history were made in this time frame.

Yeah , AMEN
I have to scream !!: Hip Hop , Pop music , and al those shittie guys go to the hell.
the stones are old and whatthe fk with it .
they kick ass of all bands, green day , simple plan , and those bands wont keep on rolling till they are 66 years old , nor playing in Olympiastadion , and many magnific stadiums , nor even filling copacabana beach , nor doing more than 30 albums through the years.

theyll never stop
dont be afraid , fellows , theyve done a magnific tour as usually , theyll always be there for you.

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

The Stones are undoubtedly the greatest rock n roll band in the world however as a live attraction Led Zep & Pink Floyd are the only bands that would rival the Stones in terms of worldwide fanbase and stadia attendances.If in fact LZ & PF reformed and went on a World Tour they would be the only groups who would come anywhere near drawing the size of audience the Stones command?

hickorywind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones are undoubtedly the greatest rock n
> roll band in the world however as a live
> attraction Led Zep & Pink Floyd are the only bands
> that would rival the Stones in terms of worldwide
> fanbase and stadia attendances.If in fact LZ & PF
> reformed and went on a World Tour they would be
> the only groups who would come anywhere near
> drawing the size of audience the Stones command?


Yeah sure...dream on. Nobody comes close. Not even Michael Jackson could come anywhere near the attendances of stones tours.

Michael Jackson is a retarded bastard , i'd say.

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

I think 20 million plus hits for the Zep O2 gig tells you something..................

hickorywind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think 20 million plus hits for the Zep O2 gig
> tells you something..................


That's of course the BEST indicator for tour attendance.

The problem with Zep and Pink Floyd etc. although they sold millions and millions of albums they are still not as famous as the Beatles or the Stones are. Sold albums are not the only criterion to measure popularity. Pink Floyd's and Zep's music is not universal enough to have such large worldwide audiences as the Stones had. Floyd is live simply too boring and melancholic and Zep too much hard rock. Stones have songs for everybody's taste.

>> If in fact LZ & PF reformed and went on a World Tour they would be the only
groups who would come anywhere near drawing the size of audience the Stones command? <<

don't matter who reforms - the attraction of a "comeback tour" after a few decades of retirement
is not comparable to the tenacious appeal of the Rolling Stones. sustained drive, baby, sustained drive

monkeyman07 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Jackson is a retarded bastard , i'd say.

Maybe, but still he is and will probably remain the biggest album seller of all times. Even the Beatles and Elvis record sales (not talking about the total record sales) pale in comparison to Jackson's success. People seem to like retarded artist a lot

"
But again, it's arbitrary. We think the Stones were the biggest, but Led Zep beat the Stones with ticket and record sales by miles.
Mathijs"

Lots of crap band / crap records / crap band consert ticket sales have beaten Stones through the years, so wouldn't say these things matters too much to me.

Depends also quite much on music style: pop versus rock, country versus rock, blues versus pop. Pop records sales will always beat blues record sales etc. Is Eagles the best band because they have the best selling record ever in US??

Another question: Is Ulysses by James Joyce worse book than Harry Pooter because of less sales??