goes they only made 2 good albums in 'Let it Bleed' and 'Exile'. After that they revelled in a miscreant image and lifestyle which was solely based on the fact that Keith Richards was a heroin addict. Not big and not clever. Actually plain, bad luck according to Lou Reed. These days they all look like they were made in a garden shed. Enough please grandads. The only band who have incontinence pants on their rider!
2006-11-15 08:11:00 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
LOL...us granddads....or moms as the case...are not who we used to be. Your music started with ours. I have already made it clear, I do not consider the Stones the be all and end all of rock...just the ones still out there making the stage. They have had good writers, good agents, good publicists and kept in the limelight..does not mean they are the best group. To me they cannot hold a candle to the Doors or Pink (the band) who they really could be compared with. But they must have something cause someone is still buying their tickets and music. Oh heck, I would go see their concert, just to say I have.
2006-11-15 08:33:35 · answer #1 · answered by Dust in the Wind 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Millions of kids grew up with this band ,The teenagers that first saw them in the 60.s Now take their grandchildren to see them,
How many other bands have this 3 generation following.
Different generations like different music styles, The Stones have catered for changing tastes.
How else would they have managed to keep a following.
Revered, Yes Your right there.
2006-11-15 08:33:08 · answer #2 · answered by psychodad 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think of Led Zeppelin had a bigger effect, by way of fact they have been the 1st actual perplexing rock band, the Rolling Stones are not rather perplexing rock. even although the Rolling Stones have been around by way of fact the 60's and characteristic had many hits, Led Zeppelin grew to become into the biggest band of the 70s and their result on rock music is larger than the Rolling Stones.
2016-10-22 03:50:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they were better when Brian Jones was still alive and an active contributer to the music. I think they lost their blues roots when he was frozen out. They still managed to record some pretty good stuff with Mick Taylor.
Now they are probably more a live band than a recording one, but they still have one of the best rock drummers, two pretty good guitarists and a singer who can still (in his geriatric state) put on a better show than any of his rivals.
2006-11-15 11:58:35 · answer #4 · answered by Jim T 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A bit harsh, perhaps, but I agree that they need to let it go... They did some really goods songs and Mick Jagger is a terrific performer that made a lot average and good song great at times. But in the past 15-20 years it's really more of the same, repetitive, unimaginative tunes and lyrics.
2006-11-15 08:23:05 · answer #5 · answered by shamrock 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
These guys were kickin' it before you were born. Sorry you feel they only put out two good albums. As far as I'm concerned, they're one of the best bands to come out of England/Europe & have been since the'60's.
2006-11-15 08:17:37 · answer #6 · answered by preacher55 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Still the biggest selling tours in the world. Millions of music lovers can't be wrong. Stones rock!
2006-11-15 08:23:53 · answer #7 · answered by Musicol 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A bit strong mate! Hows your incontinence coming along?
2006-11-15 11:41:38 · answer #8 · answered by spiritualmikee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They might be in your opinion but it seems like all middle schoolers and young kids seem to really like them. In my opinion they are ok but i am afraid they might die when i go to their concert.
2006-11-15 08:19:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because alot of people really like their music.
2006-11-15 08:18:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋