Roundtable Discussion: Were the Rolling Stones Better in the '60s or the '70s?

[starless and bible black]

From Ultimate Classic Rock.com:
The Rolling Stones have gone through many phases on their way to becoming one of the biggest bands in rock history. From the start they were seen as an edgier alternative to the Beatles, focusing on American blues music. But they soon expanded their musical horizons, embracing everything from R&B to pop to psychedelia.

The band released much of its landmark work in a milestone run that spanned the late ‘60s through the mid-’70s, and which included such vaunted releases as Beggars Banquet (1968), Let It Bleed (1969), Sticky Fingers (1971) and Exile on Main St. (1972).



Read More: Were the Rolling Stones Better in the '60s or '70s? Roundtable | https://ultimateclassicrock.com/roll...edium=referral

[Zeuhlmate]

I think there is another thread on this subject allready...

Anyway - I stopped listening to them after Let It Bleed.
Before that they made many quite interesting tunes, possibly due to Brian Jones influence?

[Vic2012]

I think they were good in both decades, and the 80s.

[Rarebird]

They never were as good as The Beatles

[nycsteve]

70s for sure.

[Mythos]

60's for sure...

[Trane]

From 65 (songs like Heart Of Stone, Get Off My Cloud, Paint It Black, Mother's Little Helper, etc...) until 78 (last good album is Some Girls)

[mozo-pg]

70s for sure

[dt2]

60's for sure...

For sure. They had a great five album run starting in 1966, but got pretty spotty after Exile.

[Vic2012]

Exile[/I].

Baloney.....

[Mister Triscuits]

They had a great five album run starting in 1966, but got pretty spotty after Exile.

Only five? I make it a seven-album run from Aftermath through Exiles, and that's not counting Flowers or the live albums (one of which is fairly execrable, the other one of the greatest live albums in rock music history). But you really have to start peak Stones from 1965 and the run of killer singles starting with "Satisfaction." From '73 on it was all "It's good, but it's no Beggars Banquet."

[BravadoNJ]

...is that reference to the years or their ages?

[starless and bible black]

I say The Stones were at their best in their studio albums & hit singles from the mid '60s thru the early '70s. There would be some good LPs (Some Girls & Tattoo You) after that peak.

[Facelift]

Depends on how you look at the question. I think they were "better in the '70s" in that they made what I consider to be their best 2 albums in the '70s, but as a body of work, the 60s were better.

[dt2]

Only five? I make it a seven-album run from Aftermath through Exiles, and that's not counting Flowers or the live albums (one of which is fairly execrable, the other one of the greatest live albums in rock music history). But you really have to start peak Stones from 1965 and the run of killer singles starting with "Satisfaction." From '73 on it was all "It's good, but it's no Beggars Banquet."

Yeah, I meant 5 in the 60s. Didn't word that very well.

[JJ88]

It's not as clear cut as that. Really their first decade as recording artists- so 1963-73- was their best. I have a lot more time for Goats Head Soup than some fans (and the tour which accompanied it was perhaps their best as a live act). It's Only Rock N Roll, not so much...that was the first album where I sense they are coasting. Although I still like half of it.

[Vic2012]

I like these two very much:

Black and Blue (1976)
Dirty Work (1988). It's better than Steel Wheels.

Not being contrarian, I really like those albums.

[Facelift]

I like these two very much:

Black and Blue (1976)
Dirty Work (1988). It's better than Steel Wheels.

Not being contrarian, I really like those albums.

Dirty Work was 1985, but I agree that it's better than most think.

I also really like Bridges to Babylon - I think it's their best album of new material since Some Girls.

[Vic2012]

Dirty Work was 1985, but I agree that it's better than most think.

I also really like Bridges to Babylon - I think it's their best album of new material since Some Girls.

Wikipedia says Dirty Work is from 1986. Whatever, I agree that it's marginalized. It's just a good Rock n Roll album. It's not heavy metal, glam, or any of that. It's only rock and roll (another Stones album that isn't too shabby).

[The Dark Elf]

From Ultimate Classic Rock.com:
The Rolling Stones have gone through many phases on their way to becoming one of the biggest bands in rock history. From the start they were seen as an edgier alternative to the Beatles, focusing on American blues music. But they soon expanded their musical horizons, embracing everything from R&B to pop to psychedelia.

The band released much of its landmark work in a milestone run that spanned the late ‘60s through the mid-’70s, and which included such vaunted releases as Beggars Banquet (1968), Let It Bleed (1969), Sticky Fingers (1971) and Exile on Main St. (1972).

Actually, you pretty much summed it up in your last sentence. The five years of any consequence for The Stones was during the period Beggars Banquet (1968), Let It Bleed (1969), the superior live album Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out (1970), Sticky Fingers (1971) and Exile on Main St. (1972) were released. That's about it for me.

[Trane]

I like these two very much:

Black and Blue (1976)
Dirty Work (1988).

Dirty Work was 1985, but I agree that it's better than most think.

Wikipedia says Dirty Work is from 1986. Whatever, I agree that it's marginalized. It's just a good Rock n Roll album. It's not heavy metal, glam, or any of that. It's only rock and roll (another Stones album that isn't too shabby).

I agree that both B&B and DW (the best post SG album, IMHO) are good but totally underated Stones albums

Maybe it's the reggae thing that probably repells some of the fans

[JJ88]

^Well, not really. Both albums have one reggae track each.

Black And Blue is not bad (and on a technical level, one of their best sounding albums) but the cover of 'Cherry Oh Baby' is a dud IMHO. Not as good as the original. The rest of the album is better.

'Too Rude' is one of the best tracks on Dirty Work. But there's some really ropey tracks like 'Back To Zero' and 'Winning Ugly' on there which are more like dated Jagger solo tracks. And for too much of that album Jagger snarls rather than sings...'Fight' in particular suffers from that.

I should say that I never really thought much of their first single, the cover of Chuck Berry's 'Come On'. It's pretty tame. The BBC session version is better- it doesn't have that clunky key change and has a brief guitar solo. Maybe they were asked to make it more 'pop' for the record, I don't know.

[Vic2012]

Just played Dirty Work, the whole record. It has its 80s sound on some tracks but overall it is a good Stones album. It's just a good R&R record.

[Sean]

Some Girls thru Emotional Rescue was their peak...

[Trane]

^Well, not really. Both albums have one reggae track each.

Black And Blue is not bad (and on a technical level, one of their best sounding albums) but the cover of 'Cherry Oh Baby' is a dud IMHO. Not as good as the original. The rest of the album is better.

'Too Rude' is one of the best tracks on Dirty Work. But there's some really ropey tracks like 'Back To Zero' and 'Winning Ugly' on there which are more like dated Jagger solo tracks. And for too much of that album Jagger snarls rather than sings...'Fight' in particular suffers from that.

well I count two for those albums:
Hot Stuff & Cherry Baby on B&B
Too Rude and Back To Zero (which funk-reggae)

and Beast of Burden on Some Girls.

Funny how the memory works: I could've sworn there was a third one of DW

anyways, happy to have revisited those to albums

Some Girls thru Emotional Rescue was their peak...

you do know they're consecutive albums, do you?

TBH, I've always thought of Rescue horrendous really!! the first of a series of album which I wouldn't even bring home, even as second-hand. The only exception I made since Some Girls is Dirty Work.