The Rolling Stones

They were a legitimately great band from 1965-1972 or so.
Even their early blues covers are pretty funky for a bunch of white English kids.
I prefer the Beatles overall, but "Between The Buttons" is better than Sgt. Pepper IMO.
That and "Aftermath" are my favorite Stones albums.
"Midnight Rambler" is probably my favorite Stones song, at least for now.

>>71202788
IMO Exile on Main St. and Let it Bleed are two of the best albums of all time, but that's kind of a normie opinion I guess.

Didn't type it in post but favorite song is Start Me Up.

>>71202930
I like individual songs & singles from "Goats Head Soup" onwards, but I don't listen to the full albums as much as the earlier stuff.

>>71202653
The single most overrated band of all time. Aftermath is a pretty good album and they have some good songs scattered about but that's it. Comically unimportant to the evolution of rock or pop music, contrary to what most boomer rock fans spout, and not particularly talented musicians or songwriters to boot.

File: peepeepoopoo.png (29KB, 741x568px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 741x568px

>>71203000
>One of the biggest bands of all time
>Comically unimportant to the evolution of rock

Huh?

>>71203060
Name one thing they did to evolve rock or pop music in a similar vein other British Invasion bands (Beatles, Kinks, Who) or the Beach Boys, Byrds, Dylan (etc.) did.

I'll save you some time: you can't.

>>71203060
>>71203163
The Stones were never great innovators but they proved through their career that they could take any sound and make it their own.

>>71203163
Nigger you can't claim a band didn't evolve rock when they were one of the biggest rock bands of all time.

Doesn't it seem fucking obvious that they would have a colossal impact on rock due to their popularity?

>>71203203
Except they didn't. They tried to go baroque and psychedelic for like two albums, they were shit, then they went back to their roots (got the idea from Dylan, the Beatles, and the Band) and started making straight bluesy rock again, then hit a short stride of albums that played to their strength, then they died out in the early-mid 70s.

>>71203262
Argumentum ad populum. Just because they sold a lot of hits doesn't mean they did anything to evolve or influence rock music. They were trend followers that generated a lot of hits and the boomers love them solely for that. Nothing about that makes them even slightly important to the evolution of rock.

>>71203324
>Iggy Pop & The Stooges
>New York Dolls
>Patti Smith

Heavily influenced artists who went on to pioneer punk rock.

At the other end of the spectrum you wouldn't have buttrock bands like Aerosmith or Bon Jovi if it weren't for the Stones.

They were just as influential as they were famous.

>>71203324
No, hits do form the rock industry because they're telling of what will sell. That's how they shaped it to some extent.

Some Girls is their best album.

You can't get much of a serious discussion about them on /mu/, this board has a deep hatred for their fathers and refuse to enjoy anything that their parents might have enjoyed at their age.

Would that they had quit in 1981 or 1975 or 1973 or whenever you think they jumped the shark.

>>71203867
Yeah I have a good relationship with my father and he introduced The Stones and Beatles to me so that would be it...

>>71203904
I don't think them continuing their careers beyond their prime is bad per se. It doesn't make me think any worse of their old hits.

>>71203904
Some Girls was their last good record. From 65-75, they were as important as anyone in mainstream rock, except for maybe Zep and Floyd.

>>71204253
/mu/ opinion.

originar

I think that at their finest moment they were probably the best band, they should have stopped somewhere before the 80s but they have at least 20 grade A songs