boo boo

I don't like them that much either, Exiles On Main Street and Let It Bleed are good albums, but they are one of the most one dimensional bands I have ever heard, and it wouldn't hurt to point out that many of their songs sound exactly the same.

Really, they were more about image, and they were more influencial to the "image" of modern music than The Beatles, which apparantly makes them greater in the minds of some people, which is fine, but that would make KISS greater than The Beatles too.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

right-track

If you'd ever seen the Stones live, then you would hardly describe them as being one dimensional.
Easily the greatest live band on earth.

boo boo

Nay, that honor goes to The Who.

I have heard The Stones play live, booooooooooooring.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Urban Hat€monger ?

Nah I disagree with that. The Who 'could' be the best live band on their day but I find their performances far too bloated with too much obscure stuff and covers and overlong medleys.

I`ve got loads of live albums by both bands. The Stones are better by miles

__________________

boo boo

Difinetely not, The Who are just better, and aside from being better musicians and songwritiers, oh wait, never mind, the Stones have the blue jeans and wife beaters thing going on, they win this one.

The Stones just aren't THAT good musically, they are good, but calling them the greatest (or best) band of all time is simply pushing it, aside from being average musicians, their songs are just tidiously overlong.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Urban Hat€monger ?

Ahh thats obviously it then

__________________

DontRunMeOver

I am completely in agreement with Booboo. Calling the Stones the greatest, or even one of the greatest bands just seems bizarre to me. From what I've seen of the Stones playing live, pretty much all they give is energy. Yes, they give a lot of energy, but there's no real improvisation, no spontaneous musical moments, no virtousity, nothing that really seperates what you're seeing live from what you heard on your CD.

Or judging by this video, the difference is that it sounds much worse live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4-5rqlhePQ

Apart from Keith Richard's guitar part, there is nothing in this performance which differentiates the Rolling Stones from your extremely average amateur pub bands. By the way, I'm not being selective in my choice of video, this was the first live peformance I got when I typed 'live rolling stones' into Youtube.

__________________

Urban Hat€monger ?

I just thought i`d point out that you chose the gig they played 2 days after Brian Jones died & that it was their first gig with Mick Taylor who`d been in the band a matter of days.

__________________

boo boo

My overlong statement was intended to be ironic somewhat since it ws coming from a prog fan, but classical, jazz, prog whatever, those are completely different genres, all of which require their compositions to be long in order to work... The Rolling Stones are a rock n roll band, not a genre but an attitude, and to me, Rock N Roll songs shouldn't be any longer than 3 minutes or they will get annoying, the typical Stones song is just as repetitive as any Ramones song, so there's no reason the songs are not as short, if you're gonna make a song 4 or 5 minutes, then for gods sake throw in a damn solo or two, not just add more repeats of the verse and chorus for no paticular reason.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

DontRunMeOver

I didn't choose it, the search engine did. Woops, got to go clean a house.

__________________