Arrrr, mateys! Welcome to Mutiny Mondays! As we always do on Mondays, I am going to talk about a band/genre/album/something that I hate. Sometimes, the viewpoint may go against the grain, but that's where the mutiny comes into play. Any time throughout the week that you disagree with me, phrase your disagreement in a respectable manner. The best disagreements throughout the week will be featured NEXT Mutiny Monday.
Today, the topic is the Rolling Stones. I understand their legacy and their purported revolutions of rock, but the fact remains that I believe them to be the most OVERRATED band to have ever existed. I have seen them compared to the Beatles countless times, and this to me is a crime. The Beatles are considered the greatest band of all time, and I support this viewpoint. It truly insults the breadth of the Beatles' work to try and stack up a single-minded band that never really grew up against the Fab Four.
As far as instrumentation is concerned, the group obviously wields tremendous talent; however, the songs feel too rock-by-numbers, and Mick Jagger's gravelly moans and barnyard howls grate my eardrums. "Beast of Burden" feels like a 3-minute yawn, and "Satisfaction" pushes the boundaries of how long a song can boast one single riff with little to no variation.
Lastly, Mick Jagger's dirty, sloppy wail has only worsened with time. If he sounded 60 when he sang their early hits, he now sounds about 20 years dead. Here is Exhibit A:
In short, they are repetitive, they lack sonic dynamics, they are repetitive, Mick Jagger has no business near a microphone and/or a PA system, and they are overrated. So, what do you think? Is dissing the Rolling Stones heresy or well-deserved? Sound off!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems to me if you really like one of these bands you usually don't like the other. I would argue the Stones are "easier" to listen to as the vast majority of their songs are just fun songs with no hidden meanings. I won't argue that the Stones are better than the Beatles because I think they are 2 different styles of rock, the Stones having the catchier tunes that are not as deep, while the Beatles have very introspective music that is very thought out and well executed. When it boils down to it though it's hard too argue the Stones success as they still sell out arena's.
ReplyDeleteI would like to respectfully disagree. While you will get no argument from me in the Beatles vs. Stones debate (Beatles by a mile), I still have a lot of love for The Rolling Stones. In fact I remember listening to them before discovering The Beatles.
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly true, as it is with any band that is around for a long time, that they have had eras of ups and eras of downs. They haven't always been at the top of their game. And if The Beatles had lasted more than a few years, they would have had the same thing happen.
Mick Jagger, love him or hate him, is one of the most dynamic frontmen of all time. It could be argued that he paved the way for guys like David Lee Roth, Axl Rose and Steven Tyler.
As for the above video, yeah they don't sound great. But you name a band, and I'll find a video of them sounding like crap live. It proves nothing.
Oh yeah. They also get bonus points for staying together for so many years and not letting stupid egos or dumb Asian bimbos break them up at the height of their creativity.
AdamsC12, you are correct about the Rolling Stones being more of a party band that focuses on catchy tunes over topics with depth. However, I will dispute your "catchier" statement. Just think about how many Rolling Stones songs you could ask an average Joe or Joanna to sing versus Beatles songs. Not only are the Beatles' songs more ubiquitous, they are catchy, timeless, and significant. Lastly, success and quality are two vastly different subjects. I wouldn't dare question that they are one of the most successful bands COMMERCIALLY; however, for me, fame doesn't cut it. I listen to their songs, and I hear vapidly shallow subject matter sung by a drunken horse over well-played but rather similar instrumentation.
ReplyDeleteSwarny, my issues with the Stones is that even their "up" eras do nothing for me--largely because of Mick Jagger. Certainly, he is very dynamic in his on-stage antics. In the case of singing, though, Esquire Jagger's range appears very limited, and his singing always sounds sloppy. I'm sure he influenced at least one of the frontmen you mentioned (Roth, Rose, and Tyler), if not all of them. Just because Elvis influenced the Beatles doesn't make his output grade A, though. When it comes to whether you like a band, though, it's very subjective. To that end, I will not argue that posting a horrible video of a band playing live is about as easy as looking at your hand (no offense to amputees and/or the visually impaired). However, from the Rolling Stones' more recent live performances, I found 3 or 4 videos of "Paint It Black," and all of them had a especially terrible performance by Mick Jagger.
ReplyDeleteAs for the the extra points for not going out like the Beatles... It is regrettable that the Beatles' legacy was cut short. However, we have a band that only grew and became more capable tunesmiths. But that's another story.
I would have to disagree with you Chuck on people not being able to hum just as many Stones tunes as Beatles. Also you see more Stones songs used in ads (read tv commercials) than beatles songs which speaks not only to their commercial success but their recognizability to the average person. As far as commercial success and Jagger not cutting it for you, this is where any reviewer is fallible, it is your opinion. You are entitled to it just as I am to mine. The problem is it is very difficult to get someone to share your opinion when they have a starkly contrast view. As a reviewer you are obligated to state your honest feelings of a body of work but you are just as obligated, if not more so, to take into account the opinion of the masses. It is definitely a daunting task to try and prove a band such as the Stones are a waste of time when they have nearly half a century of success to back them.
ReplyDeleteSeriously? I thought this blog was about discussing and celebrating music, and you start off by ripping a hugely successful and influential band, just because you personally don't like them? If this is just going to be about who Chuck likes or doesn't like, and why your wrong if you disagree, than what's the point?
ReplyDeleteSwarny, you are entirely correct. I have already strayed from the purpose of the blog. The Mutiny Monday idea was an idea I had for a weekly thing, and I understand that it is a shitty way to have a "different" type of music blog.
ReplyDeleteAs I realized when I was typing my rebuttals, there is no point in talking crap about bands because anyone who likes them will defend them and anyone who doesn't will support their viewpoint.
I do want this blog to be about positivity and celebration. Bitching about bands has its place, but a blog that purports caring about music isn't that place.
Thank you, Swarny, for pointing out the pointlessness of arguing back and forth about bands. And thank you to AdamsC12 and Swarny for following this blog and checking these posts. I value your input, and I'm glad to see that you are passionate about music.
I'd like to take this oppurtunity to say how much I love Chuck Smith...not as a man loves a woman, but as a man loves another man...which is better I think. I respect his views on all things, including music, whether I agree with him or not.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour first post regarding a band= EPIC FAIL j/k.
ReplyDeleteAnd I love Swarny... Not as a man or a woman, but as a spirit. A beautiful, beautiful spirit.
ReplyDeleteSorry for being tardy on this subject, but i felt a 4th hat should be thrown into this ring.
ReplyDeleteSo where is the blog where I CAN argue about music? I thought that was the point on Mutiny Mondays. To have an all out brawl and bring points that no one thought of before. Its not going to be that way all week. Mutiny Mondays is for the spice, the controversy, the heated debate. I was enjoying the tit for tat on the Stones, like an epic battle of lawyers perrying and jousting in front of a jury. The jury, being the reader who may not be too familiar with a certain band and wants to hear both sides. Friends can still argue over bands and not reach a conclusion because both parties will not be swayed...and not take it personallly. If you argue why someone is wrong its just part of the debate. NO BIGGY! In the film world, I hated "Elephant" which Chuck holds as one of the greatest films ever made. "(500) Days of Summer" really spoke to my soul, whil Chuck thought it was a lame music video extended to 90 mins. We both question what motivated the other to like something so much that we despised ourselves, but its good bantar. Its good variety. Disagrreement makes me feel alive sometimes. If anyone doesn't want to participate, fine. Battles are frowned upon as friends, but whats wrong with gettin' real over a subject? Let the StereoPlasma readers see the gladiator match in the ring...for a day. A day that starts the week, and is usually frowned upon as Mundane Monday. So is this where this blog is headed?
The rest of the week is the singsong hand holding celebration of music, with positive reflections and opinions shared... Something I cherish about this blog as well...but just one day. There was a forumn for conflicting exchange...intriguing, unique blogging conflicting exchange.
I love all you guys but I gotta quote Sir Heath Ledger on this:
"A year ago, the cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you. I mean...what happened? Did your balls drop off? Hmm?"
Followed with: "Add a little anarchy." ...to this blog.
The views and opinions expressed in the commentary are solely of Branden Paris and are meant to be lighthearted in nature but also how he feels. These are not the views of StereoPlasma Blog, its parent, affiliate, or subsidiary companies.