I was having this debate with a friend of mine the other day. I was never really that big of a Stones fan, but I can appreciate they were once considered the ass-kickinest rock band in the world. To me I think there’s something kind of embarrassing and undignified about watching a bunch of 85-year-old great granddaddies out there throwing shapes and asking for 200 bucks a pop. It seems like they’re kind of ruining the legacy they built up back in the day. Tell you the truth, I’ve lost a lot of respect for the Stones. I mean, they were old when I was a kid, and that was nearly 20 years ago. Now compare them to Led Zeppelin: I’m not really a Zep fan either, but I have a ton of respect for them because they never reunited under the old name for fear of destroying the mystique. On the other hand, my buddy was saying he saw the Stones live a couple of years ago and they were terrific. His argument was that if they are still great live, they still love what they’re doing and they still bring joy to so many people around the world, they should continue on doing what they do. In my opinion, though, the negatives outweigh the positives. What do you guys think?
The Stones were never more than a glorified bar band to begin with, IMO. They have three good songs (Angie, Paint It Black, and Ruby Tuesday), and the rest has been a bunch of blues-based partymusic. When I hear the Stones, I just wanna have another beer, that's all.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha i am dying over here destroying their legacy???????? they last time they had songs that stuck in the public eardrum was from 1981's "tattoo you" album that is 20 years of nuthin' my fellow soccer lovers i recently made a comp cd of their biggest singles (i think it is much better than the "forty licks" thingy that just came out), and its 50 songs long now that is a pretty damn good compilation, but less than 20 years in the making the first hits were in '64 and by my accounting the last were in '81 so 17 years of rockin' followed by 21 years of suckin' that is what we call milkin' it for every frickin penny that exsists
Like most bands that sell millions of records, I just don't get what the big deal is with the Rolling Stones. I'm not one of these people that only listens to bands nobody has ever heard of, and I've seen some great shows in big arenas, etc., but I've just never been impressed by them. I like what some other people have done with their music, but for the most part I turn the dial (or I guess push the scan button in modern times) when they come on the radio.
I dont really blame The Stones. The fans are the ones who keep it going. If they didnt buy the $200 tickets en masse, they wouldn't be touring. I mean would YOU give up MILLIONS of dollars for 1 show? And most people want to hear them sing their old tunes anyways, no one really wants to listen to any of their new shite.
Mick Jagger was studying at the London School of Economics in the early years of the Rolling Stones. And he hasn't lost a step, as it were, with regards to his ruthless business acumen. He knows full well that his generation of fans have become the most self-important, sentimental, liquid and fat-asset-ed generation of all-time. "I just bought an ounce of Clapton's bongwater from 1979 on eBay for only $500!" And while I very, very, very much dig the Stones (just played Let It Bleed the other night, coincidentally enough) they should hang it up. I saw them on the Tatto You tour and I thought they were old then. It was a pretty good show, but all that arena crap just never really did it for me. >>>>>>> Added Bonus: Exhibit #5,354 of the Glimmer Twins Fiscal Ruthlessness: The veritable destruction of The Verve over the use of a Stones sample in Bittersweet Symphony. The Verve ended up with literally nothing from that record and disbanded shortly thereafter. Here's some juicy tidbits...... >>>>>>>>> ".......What ensued was a bitter (and not sweet) legal battle settling with The Verve turning over 100% of the royalties of their recording of the song to the Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones argued that The Verve had violated the previous licensing agreement by using too much of the sample in their song. The Verve argued that The Rolling Stones got greedy when the song became successful. Herein lies the issue of moral rights of a samplist. ..... To add even more insult to injury, when "Bittersweet Symphony" was nominated for a Grammy this past year, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were named the nominees and not The Verve." Full story at: http://www.superswell.com/samplelaw/horror.html#verve
Can't say I'm all that upset about the Verve. The only memorable part of their only memorable song was written by someone else. They should be happy that anyone knows who they are.
If it weren't for the copious amounts of drugs being consumed during their heyday and the current nostalgia people have for those past times, the stones would be long forgotten, because their music flat out sucks. "Satisfaction" and "Only Rock and Roll" sound like they were written by fourteen year olds, only they weren't. Hanson should be more proud of "MMMbop" that they should of those songs, at least Hanson's music matches their age.
I wasn't even born then. Not for another 10-15 years, but I still dig them. If you dont like the Stones, then you dont like ANY rock and roll music from that era, cause it was pretty much the same style. The Stones were the first ones to do it right and blew up, so like everything else, people are gunna playa hate.
RE: The Verve and Bittersweet Symphony... The Verve sampled an Andrew Loog Oldham "Symphonic Rolling Stones" record (that Jagger and Richards had NOTHING to do with) that is on Abko, a label now owned by Alan Klein (legendary ruthless money hungry ex-Rolling Stones manager). They then reconstructed it to where you couldn't even recognize it (which leaves us open for a debate on whether the Stones are owed anything at all from the Verve's creativity). Bassist Simon Jones let slip in an interview that they sampled it, Alan Klein read the said interview, and then decided he wanted, and got, 100% of the royalties from the song (not the album, Urban Hymns). The Verve did receive "performer's royalties" when Nike picked it up Bittersweet Symphony for a commercial, but then decided to donate that $$ to charity, as sort of an "back at you" stab to Alan Klein. Mr. Klein no longer has anything to do with the Stones other than manage the rights to their back catalog, so I am loathe to believe that Jagger and Richards really had much to do with it at all, although I'm sure they would do it if given the opportunity.
That's actually more or less accurate. I don't really own any rock music albums besides Bob Marley and Rush (yes I know Marley is reggae, but he entered a rock and roll status) until the Talking Heads. From the Rolling Stones time period I pretty much limit myself to Johnny Cash, Bill Monroe and a few others.
No offense, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Have you listened to anything else by them, or is it a case of Bittersweet Symphony being the only song by them that you've heard?? A few points... 1)The "only memorable part", as you call it, is a sample that was so rearranged that anyone claiming to be able to name it without reading what it was beforehand is lying. It's completely different. 2)The Verve have had many hit singles in Europe. So, no, that is not their "only memorable song". Just because Bittersweet Symphony was the only US hit doesn't mean it was the only big song they had. 3)The Verve are an incredibly talented and intelligent band that would, most likely, have gone on to much bigger and better things had they been able to get along with each other a little more. The first two records (A Storm In Heaven and A Northern Soul) are classics to many, many people.
Have the Stones made any videos for this album? I thought "Waitin on a Friend" was good because they were just joking around, but "Undercover of the Night"...whats up with that. Maybe taking themselves a little too seriously?
None taken. I'll have to listen to the original before commenting more thoroughly on this, but if it's "completely different", why would the Verve surrender 100 percent of the song's royalties? Are they stupid or just incredibly generous? I've been living in Europe since 1996. Not even the song they released after Bittersweet Symphony was a hit here. Maybe they're better known in England, but in the rest of Europe they are just as unknown as in the U.S. I never said they weren't talented. I said they only have one memorable song, which I stand by. More proof that they're stupid. They have a huge hit by sampling someone else's song and then they're too busy arguing to parlay that into a platform for their own music? I would like to have the opportunity they were given. Many people in England, maybe.
I'm a Belgian and i quite liked the verve, but to all of you who are saying The stones never were any good: come back when you've written at least 15-20 timeless classics, or else just shut the ************ up. I'm not a great fan of there recent work (in fact i think it's ************) but that's no reason to be disrespectfull of their place in music history... The only thing i wish is that the stones themselves had some more selfrespect and quit the constant golddigging...
Hey Belgian guy, did the Verve have more than one big hit in Europe (I'm willing to bow to Belgian guy's knowledge on this one)?
Well Bittersweet symphony was without a doubt their biggest, but they had a few smaller hits later on, like 'lucky man', 'the drugs don't work' and 'sonnet' if i remember well... But if you ask 10 people on the continent for a 'the verve' song, nine will answer Bittersweet symphony
Okay thanks. I've actually been living on the Continent since Bittersweet Symphony came out, and I don't remember any of those other ones. I do remember a Richard Ashcroft solo song, but that's about it. But whatever. It's not that important. The real point is that the Stones should retire.
Because Alan Klein is a music industry, uh, genius and knew that Virgin was banking on this song being a HUGE hit (which it was). He approached a few months before they were going to start the big campaign for the LP, and demanded a 100% of the songs royalties or promised that a big, long court case would follow. Virgin knew the song would most likely sell a large amount of CD's (which it did), so they reluctantly gave it up. Anyway, bottom line is that this is hardly the most memorable song by the Verve. They had a very large cult following in the US and abroad and had a successul career before the song came out.
In a sence I agree, but Mick and Keith were a bunch of dicks for what they did to the Verve. Not only that, Mick and Keith don't even get any money from it. All the publishing goes to ABKCO, the front company for Allen Klein, the manager that ripped them off in the '60s.
Look, Sinatra toured far longer than he should have, and a lot of people still considered him a great singer even though he sucked toward the end of his life (I should know, I saw him live once and it was awful). The Stones are going for the filthy lucre right now, and they really don't care how it harms its legacy (which, to be honest, is already set for the most part). One thing I will say is that I got a lot of respect for Bill Wyman who decided that he really didn't see himself as an old man playing the War Memorial Columsium in Rochester playing "Satisfaction" for the 134,432 time and retired. Bully for him, and still one of the coolest men ever to walk the earth.