In the recent welcome post for @pawsforthought there lurked a suggestion that few bands are as disliked on this site as The Rolling Stones. Even mentioned in the same breath as Simply Red and U2 they were (Yoda – where did that come from?). That can’t be right, I thought. I mean I know they’ve done basically **** all for the last 35/40 years worth listening to. They seem to be motivated in recent decades by the desire to wring every last cent out of their own catalogue with the least effort possible, but come on. It’s still The Stones. @tiggerlion even recently ran a very active thread on their post-1980 output.
So how much/how little love for the Stones is there on the site? I’ll kick off with five things I love about them
A proper imperial period album run from Aftermath through to Exile – taking a positive view of Satanic Majesties.. along the way.
Peerless sixties single run all the way up to Honky Tonk Woman.
Great musicians – Keith and Charlie absolutely, the sober Bryan, Bill?
A great live act from at least the mid-sixties for a decade
Those things that the Beatles didn’t set the template for the Stones did – for example the ‘band of outlaws’ image ‘would you let your daughter marry a Stone’ ‘who breaks a butterfly on a wheel’ – proper cultural significance there your honour
Over to you all. I think it’s a given that post-1980 there’s only the odd diamond in the rough. Exile to Tattoo You is perhaps the most interesting period to debate, but are there really legions of people out there ready to offer up their intense dislike of Beggars Banquet or Let It Bleed? Of Paint It, Black or Honky Tonk Woman?