Let's talk about the Rolling Stones.

Mark Wein

Grand Poobah
Staff member
I've been reading Keith Richards' autobiography bit by bit (I haven't had much actual spare time this month) and it's shedding some light on a band that I've always know was great but was never too far into. What can you tell me?
 
Exile on Main Street = Best Album and Must Own.

Tattoo You = The point at which it was time to just stop. (I love that album, BTW)
 
Keith Richards has been around since the early 1600's... when he was a Pirate King..... and his son Jack was...... oh wait...... :tongue:
 
Let it Bleed
Beggar's Banquet
Exile on Main St.
Sticky Fingers
Goat's Head Soup
It's Only Rock and Roll
oh..and Get Your Ya Ya's Out


These are my favorites. Also, most of these, Mick Taylor played on. I think it was the best era for the Stones.

[video=youtube_share;tCu7Qq1J-Jw]http://youtu.be/tCu7Qq1J-Jw[/video]
 
Some great Curtis Mayfield impression guitar playing in that one.

There is, but I just love the rhythmic interplay between the rhythm section and guitars too. Each bar is very elastic between beats on the verses and the driving "Am I tough enough" part creates a nice tension before it goes back to the groove.
 
With Brian Jones = Great
Right after Brian Jones, with Mick Taylor = Pretty Damn Good
After Mick Taylor = Singles band only
 
Someone posted the deconstruction of "Gimme Shelter" awhile ago. I thought it was incredibly cool.

I love the Stones. :thu:
 
Actually, didn't i see the same concert as you, Mark? The Steel Wheels tour with Living Color and Guns N Roses.
 
I agree with OGG. Their last good release was 'Tattoo You' and that was a bunch of out takes and dropped songs from a bunch of previous albums. 'Some Girls' was their last really great release. In their prime they were the rock/R&B/blues kings.

All they have been doing since is treading water, releasing mediocre albums and making a butt load of money when they tour about every 6 years or so.

I favor the Mick Taylor era of Stones also - though Brian Jones was way ahead of his time playing and tone wise. Too bad he was so self destructive.
 
I have heard in a documentary that professional drummers rate Charlie as the best drummer of the 60's as the beats and timing he could get were out of this world. But he was sort of held back by the rest of the band. In this documentary, Mick said he wished Charlie was given a bit more free play.
 
I have heard in a documentary that professional drummers rate Charlie as the best drummer of the 60's as the beats and timing he could get were out of this world. But he was sort of held back by the rest of the band. In this documentary, Mick said he wished Charlie was given a bit more free play.

IMHO, the Stones's rhythm section (Wyman is also underrated) was one of the best in rock history, along with Zep, The Who, Sabbath, etc. In their prime, anyway. No flash or virtuosity like the others but, if anything, even more rare.
 
Some songs I absolutely love. Others, well... Mick's voice can be incredibly annoying sometimes. :embarrassed:

There are many songs I'd still like if they weren't overplayed so damned much in the 70's and 80's.
 
With Brian Jones = Great
Right after Brian Jones, with Mick Taylor = Pretty Damn Good
After Mick Taylor = Singles band only

+1
Also watching "Gimmie Shelter" (Altamont concert) is a must see if you want to witness the best example of a cluster fuck.
 
1. Kinks
2. Floyd
3. Stones
4. Everyone else (including the fucking Beatles)

as far as 60s and 70s UK bands are concerned.

Of course Bowie being a solo artist is not figured into the equation.

I'm quite interested in all of you guys interpretations of the Keef book. What i got for the most part was him saying he was the binding force that kept the Stones together when Mick went all Mick, which I didn't buy.

A good friend of mine said he saw it as Keef trying to wrestle control of the beast from Mick's claws.

What do you all reckon?

Great book either way.
 
Back
Top