Rolling Stones. Whadaya think of them?!
Question: I don't really like them at all. And my step-dad thinks they're better than Queen. I don't think so. What does everyone else think about them? just curious...
Answers: I don't really like them at all. And my step-dad thinks they're better than Queen. I don't think so. What does everyone else think about them? just curious...
I have to say I think the Stones are a bit over rated. I know I'm going to get crucified for this but to me their contribution to rock and roll is also a bit limited. Personally I don't think they did anything to stand out form the pack, let alone be considered one of the best bands ever. The Beatles I think were the cause of a major music revolution while the Stones just kind of did what was being done. Sure they did some really good stuff but nothing really...I don't know, innovative.
Let me put it this way. Ever heard of the band Silverchair Or the Stone Temple Pilots? They are a great bands in my opinion, ones that I still listen to quite often, however I would not really consider these bands amongst the best of all time. Nirvana now was the leader of that whole grunge movement (whether people liked it or not) and they are the ones credited really with that whole musical revolution, because of their distinct slant on the rock and roll style. Whether Nirvana is on the same page as the Beatles is another debate (I don't think they are).
My point being about the whole thing is while I think the Stones are pretty good I don't feel they should be regarded nearly as high as they are, because they wrote some good songs but didn't really do anything new. As a matter of fact this is the same way I feel asbout AC/DC.
Billion dollar babies must be doing something right! Get over it all.
They are better than Queen. but they are also of a totally different genre.
stones wrote more great songs than queen, but freddy mercury was a much better singer than mick
omg they are like the foundation of rock music, up there with elvis and the beatles......
They're both great bands. But you have to look at the Rolling Stones which have been touring for decades. That kind of popularity has to mean something.
Queen/ Stones: 2 TOTALLY different animals.
I like them.
I like a bunch of their 60s hits, but I prefer the 'street', grittier Stones from the late 60s/ early 70s. Much more soul to them during that period.
(though I always wanna laugh when I hear their embarrassing copycat follow up song to the Beatles' "All You Need is Love" & their pyschedelic phase. The Stones & psychedelia didn;t mesh well. They're ashamed of it & even John Lennon trashed it in a 1970 interview)
The Stones have always been the " Bad Boys " of R&R even though I'm not a big fan of them they have stuck it out together for MANY years and gone thru alot together. These guys are R & R icons. I do personally like Queen better and I'm probably as old if not older than your step dad since I can remember when Queen came out
Your step dad is right. The Stones are better than Queen
They are the original rockers.
I don't see the hype at all. Mick Jagger is a great frontman, but he's not better than Freddie Mercury. And the only good songs they have are "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and "Paint it Black".
They suck.