Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

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

  1. #1

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

    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

  2. #2
    Member Zeuhlmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    4,747
    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?
    Last edited by Zeuhlmate; 08-21-2020 at 09:38 AM.

  3. #3
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    4,660
    I think they were good in both decades, and the 80s.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    70s for sure.

  6. #6
    Member Mythos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Wolf City
    Posts
    521
    60's for sure...

  7. #7
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    4,224
    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)
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  8. #8
    Member since March 2004 mozo-pg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    11,869
    70s for sure
    What can this strange device be? When I touch it, it brings forth a sound.

  9. #9
    Member dt2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    mentone ca
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythos View Post
    60's for sure...
    For sure. They had a great five album run starting in 1966, but got pretty spotty after Exile.

  10. #10
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    4,660
    Quote Originally Posted by dt2; but got pretty spotty after [I
    Exile[/I].
    Baloney.....

  11. #11
    Jazzbo manqué Mister Triscuits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    2,845
    Quote Originally Posted by dt2 View Post
    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."
    New album THE HIPCRIME VOCAB available now!
    https://michaelpdawson.bandcamp.com

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Parlin, New Jersey
    Posts
    1,946
    ...is that reference to the years or their ages?

  13. #13
    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.

  14. #14
    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.

  15. #15
    Member dt2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    mentone ca
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Triscuits View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,197
    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.

  17. #17
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    4,660
    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.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic2012 View Post
    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.

  19. #19
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    4,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    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).

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by starless and bible black View Post
    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.
    "And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision."

    Occasional musical musings on https://darkelffile.blogspot.com/

  21. #21
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    4,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic2012 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic2012 View Post
    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
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,197
    ^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.

  23. #23
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    4,660
    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.

  24. #24
    Moderator Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,872
    Some Girls thru Emotional Rescue was their peak...

  25. #25
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    4,224
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ88 View Post
    ^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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Trane; 4 Weeks Ago at 03:02 AM.
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •