Does /mu/ like The Rolling Stones?

Of course. They're the epitome of masculinity

https://youtu.be/tIfQipkkOqs

Yes. Only nu-males don't

File: stones-on-stage-1972.png (432KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 640x427px

They were unstoppable from 1968 till 1973-ish. Both in the studio and on the stage.

>>74299679
They sure got stopped at Altamont.

I likr their later albums (bridges to babylon, Blue and Lonesome) more than their earlier albums, and specially morr than their classic albums like Exile to Main street, which is just meh to me

Am I in the wrong?

>>74300093
I don't agree completely, but they have a lot of undderrated albums, simply because their older stuff was so massive.

I think Tattoo You is their best album for example, but people don't even seem to know it exists.

they are pretty awesome

LOVE TEHM!

Sure why not?, I dont really listen to them much. Theyre just the "yea, theyre good" band.

>>74299321
Sticky Fingers is one of the greatest rock albums ever recorded.

So I've listened to Beggars through Exile, where do I go from here?

File: christgau4.jpg (24KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x225px

>After almost two decades on top, they seemed too convoluted to come out with such direct, hard-driving music, but it's folly to underestimate their survivorship, so I'm not surprised that they did. The sure thing was that they couldn't make me care about it--that no adjustment in the music or persona could jolt what they said or how they said it past my sensorium and into my soul. And I was wrong. Dirty Work (Rolling Stones) is a bracing and even challenging record. It innovates without kowtowing to multiplatinum fashion or half-assed pretension. It's honest and makes you like it. It's only Rolling Stones, yet it breaks down their stifling insularity, as individuals and as an entity. Since the last time the Stones released a surprising record--Some Girls, eight years ago now, a third of their famous career out the window--the Stones have turned into exceptionally disgusting rock professionals. That doesn't mean it's been possible to dismiss them or their music--what's made them so disgusting is that you couldn't. Who gives a fuck if that smarmy has-been Mike Love seeds the PMRC or Ritchie Blackmore feeds his runs into an emulator? Who gives a fuck if Ozzy Osbourne gets fat on raw chicken or David Crosby gets fat on raw coke or Pete Townshend invents the rock novel? All these guys are pathetic clowns no matter how much money they make, pathetic clowns even if you have to respect them in a way, as I do Townshend and Osbourne. There's nothing pathetic about the Stones. That's what's made them worth hating in the '80s.

>>74301002
What a fag.

Yes OP they're good

>>74300124
>I think Tattoo You is their best album for example, but people don't even seem to know it exists.

My man. I really love that album, especially the dreamy side B.

>>74301002
t. everyone I don't like sucks

And no, Dirty Work was not a good album--even most of their diehard fans would prefer to pretend it doesn't exist.

>>74301054
Dirty Work is an album the Stones were mandated under contract to release and it's basically just a bunch of songs about them wanting to kill each other.

>>74301119
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/rolling-stones-dirty-work/

>>74301137
They didn't tour it and also Mick Jagger, when he toured his two solo albums, went and hid in Japan and Australia like a little bitch while Keith Richards was touring the main markets in Europe and North America.