BillsNYC Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Wrong. There are a handful of Stones tunes I like, but overall they just might be the single most overrated band on the planet. In short, they suck. They did at their peak and certainly now in their geriatric years. They embarrass themselves, IMO. Yes, I understand the following and the subjectivity. MoTown > Stones Did you really just say the Stones suck?
stinky finger Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Did you really just say the Stones suck? Hang on....let me go back and reread...... Yep. Did you read the part about subjectivity?
VABills Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 That's how you'd describe the greatest Rock n Roll band of all time? Unbelievable. The Stones tour to this day, and still draw more people than any "relevant" act you could list. Not to mention, you (and others) don't want aging rock bands, but you're fine with AC/DC. How does that figure? And as if that weren't enough, you'd be happy with a 40 year old Mo-town band? Unbelievable. The Super Bowl is the single biggest event year in and year out and in the world of music there are perhaps no 2 bigger acts than the Stones and the Boss. Old or not, either one sells out any sized arena any place they play on the planet. Maybe next year we can get Justin Timberlake and everyone can be happy. Honestly, I'm certain people here complain just for the sake of complaining because there's no way you're gonna say dump the Stones in favor of a mo-town band and actually mean it. Yes that's how I describe them and several others from that genre. I am not clammoring for AC/DC either. I think that the NFL could find some more mainstream bands that represent the region. For example, play in Minnesota, then get Prince. Play in Toronto get Rush, play in NY sure get Springsteen. As far as bigger acts, maybe,maybe not, but I have never been a fan of their music and just because someone puts on a great show doesn't make them a good musician.
Johnny Coli Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Wrong. There are a handful of Stones tunes I like, but overall they just might be the single most overrated band on the planet. In short, they suck. They did at their peak and certainly now in their geriatric years. They embarrass themselves, IMO. Yes, I understand the following and the subjectivity. MoTown > Stones Agreed. The Stones are pretty overrated in my book. Outside of the Exile on Main Street or Goatshead Soup LPs, and maybe a handfull of their earlier tunes, they bore me. The greatest Rock and Roll band of all time was the Ramones. Also agree that Motown > Stones
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Agreed. The Stones are pretty overrated in my book. Shocked, yes shocked, I am that Coli finds any mainstream rock band overrated.
Dan Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I would say this thread may have become the most laughable one I've ever seen here. The Stones have been touring for over 50 years, have multiple rock anthems, set the standard for arena rock, have sold several hundred million records, with 20ish studio albums, have played for 100's of millions if not billions of people, have influenced more performers than any of us have even listened to, and yet they're over rated. The cynicism here is one thing you can always count on. Gotta love it. I can understand someone saying they don't care for their music but to call them over rated is an entirely incorrect assessment of the band's career.
Johnny Coli Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I would say this thread may have become the most laughable one I've ever seen here. The Stones have been touring for over 50 years, have multiple rock anthems, set the standard for arena rock, have sold several hundred million records, with 20ish studio albums, have played for 100's of millions if not billions of people, have influenced more performers than any of us have even listened to, and yet they're over rated. The cynicism here is one thing you can always count on. Gotta love it. I can understand someone saying they don't care for their music but to call them over rated is an entirely incorrect assessment of the band's career. Their music catalog since Tattoo You (1981, maybe?) has been horrid. They had a good/great 20-year run of relevancy, but really they've been coasting on fumes and their previous set of tunes for almost 30 years now. Compare the Stones to a guy like Elvis Costello who continues to reinvent himself and compose challenging music. There's no contest, IMO. As for selling out arenas...so does Brittney Spears. In fact, which of these two "nostalgia" acts would generate more buzz if they both started touring on the same day...The Rolling Stones or The Spice Girls (if they did a reunion).
stuckincincy Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I don't get it. It was horrible at best. He can't sing a lick and the music was unrecognizable. I don't see how people think he was any good. It was excruciatingly painful to listen. It was Grace Slick who once said there's nothing more embarrassing than watching 50 year old men playing Rock'n'Roll. She hit the jackpot here! (and I was a big Boss fan in the 70s so no bias here) I thought Prince, a while back, had the first decent halftime show in many a year.
Dan Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Their music catalog since Tattoo You (1981, maybe?) has been horrid. They had a good/great 20-year run of relevancy, but really they've been coasting on fumes and their previous set of tunes for almost 30 years now. Compare the Stones to a guy like Elvis Costello who continues to reinvent himself and compose challenging music. There's no contest, IMO. As for selling out arenas...so does Brittney Spears. In fact, which of these two "nostalgia" acts would generate more buzz if they both started touring on the same day...The Rolling Stones or The Spice Girls (if they did a reunion). Britney Spears wishes she could fill an 80,000+ stadium. I agree, musically the last few decades haven't been stellar for them (although Steel Wheels was pretty good). However, that doesn't mean they're overrated or without talent. The comparison to the Spice Girls is a good one because that's exactly my point. You have scores upon scores of bands that come out, put out 1-3 albums, with a few "hits". But how many have the staying power of the Stones? If I'm not mistaken, they just had the highest grossing tour of all time, a year or 2 ago? The Spice Girls would generate more buzz, but only because the Stones have never left.
stinky finger Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 The Stones have been touring for over 50 years Herein lies part of the problem. Stop. Please, I'm begging.
Anzaloha Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Yes that's how I describe them and several others from that genre. I am not clammoring for AC/DC either. I think that the NFL could find some more mainstream bands that represent the region. For example, play in Minnesota, then get Prince. Play in Toronto get Rush, play in NY sure get Springsteen. As far as bigger acts, maybe,maybe not, but I have never been a fan of their music and just because someone puts on a great show doesn't make them a good musician. Great idea for when the SB is played in Toronto, NY and Minn again....lol. idiot
VABills Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Great idea for when the SB is played in Toronto, NY and Minn again....lol. idiot You're an idiot. No, really you are. How about thinking? Next year it's in Miami. How's about Gloria Estafan The following year is Dallas. How's about a big name from that area. You really cannot not translate simple concepts can you?
Wacka Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 You're an idiot. No, really you are. The following year is Dallas. How's about a big name from that area. ZZ TOP!!!!!!!!!!
Recommended Posts