JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Top 5 Stones Songs

Got me thinking bout the Stones now, how Keith is alive and Charlie gone, but wonder if this thread will take off.

My top 5

1.Satisfaction (one of if not the greatest pop songs ever, argue if you wish, that song can't be denied, too many hooks, that why I call it a pop song)

2. Ruby Tuesday (forgotten classic)

3. She's So Cold ( listen to the guitar work, from opening fluttering riff...cold.... brr, to the solos, artic zone reverb...brr, to the hiss of the cymbals... iceeeee

4. Waiting on A friend, (Sonny Rollins sax solos alone) but I love the lyrics, love the melody, love the harmonies, love the guitar sounds

5. Hang Fire, (just makes me feel good)

1) Sympathy For the Devil --maybe the most literate lyric in the Jagger/Richards songbook.

2) She's A Rainbow --their attempt at "baroque pop" --and that memorable Nicky Hopkins piano.

3) Ruby Tuesday --love the production on this, almost Medieval in parts.

4) Paint It Black --that propulsive beat, and proto Goth lyrics.

5) Midnight Rambler --The live version on "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!"

5) tie... Gimme Shelter -- Mainly for the Merry Clayton solo.

They weren't good enough for top[ 5

1 Satisfaction

Angry is pretty bad....but does sound like The Stones

She's So Cold has no redeeming qualities

Nice list can't argue, I thought I saw a different song in gimme shelter skit before lol .


I put sympathy as a given...
Prolly satisfaction should be too

I encourage opinions, lol, but seriously dude... HUhhh?

They influenced any rock band you can think of, you can't come up with 5?

Whatttt?
Shew u said satisfaction

You must not be a rock n roller, I respect your opinion, but wow .....

They tapped into their 1% and went for the long ride...I'm so glad you encourage opinions...you'll get them regardless

I was playing rock and roll back in 63 and we did some Stones tunes...60 years later there have been hundreds of great R/R bands...they just weren't up near the top IMO

You're so Not rock n roll if you don't think the stones are among the elite, if not THE one elite Rock band.

Everything Rock n roll is what they are.

I'm glad I'll get your opinions anyway, tee hee

Wowwwww

They are in the top 15 bands but those above them were better lyricists, musicians, singers...the important things in music

and since you know nothing about me and how R/R I am, lets keep this to "my opinion" about the Stones....I never said they weren't R/R I just said they weren't that good particularly when it comes to music...their long suit has been their longevity

Well if you wanna say Beatles, ok, led Zeppelin, maybe , but I don't Led Zeppelin had as broad appeal, stones wrote alot of pop songs that girls could like.

You wanna say The Who, Kinks, id listen..

But I don't think there is a rock band that has infkuenced everybody after them, beyond the Beatles.

I think influence is a huge part of evaluating, cause after all it's all opinion.

But Wowwwwwwwwwwww

I'm not saying they weren't popular...they just don't come up to the level of musicianship that many bands had....they stayed in a narrow lane their entire careers and made millions doing it....Angry could have been written in 64/65...they didn't grow as musicians because they didn't need to...there were just a lot of bands better than them

Ok I think I see where your coming from, but lest we forget Rock n Roll was never meant to be about great musicianship. Yes, there are tremendous musicians in rock n roll, but it's not a pre requisite like it is in say, jazz

It's about attitude, sound, charisma, live performances , songs.

If your talking about musicianship, I agree with you. Keith, if not fir his amazing riffs, legendary riffs, would be playing in corner blues bars right now

But the fact that they had flaws and were raw, created an entirely different genre, garage rock .

I've said it before Keith Richards is not a great guitar player, but he's a great ROCK guitar player.

The genius riffs that have lasted decades.

There's only one Keith

I think the Stones figured out over 50 years ago what they were all about and hopped on board the traditional rock train and had the ride of their lives...maybe that's why they stayed together so long....they were making so much money doing what they did, they decided...why change...LOL

Could say the same for Springsteen , but if your selling out arenas and football stadiums 50 years later, I mean the beach boys ain't selling out football stadiums

In the end, the very end the stones, Bruce a few others made indelible marks in music, I would be doing the same thing.

I saw Bruce two weeks ago, he still has strangers arm to arm singing along with him..

If all the Beatles were alive, how big of a stadium would you need for only one concert? LOL

What would the ticket price be??

Well, one thing about Beatles , I don't think they were the stage performers the stones were, but aside from that,

Do you realize how big of a boast the Beatles got by being on ed Sullivan, at a time where there was nothing else to watch, of course everybody watched, there was nothing else.

If the Beatles started today, there would be so much going on online, Facebook, hundreds of channels, I'm sorry but not as many people woulda saw it .

That said, I agree the Beatles would be selling out today, but they probably were lucky they stopped when they did, it would follow suit that eventually they'd make crap records, it was coming but never really did, preserving their legacy

Moonlight Mile is THE best Stones song...by a mile.

There's a difference between influencing people because what you do is easy to imitate, (The Stones), and influencing people because you're awesome. (The Beatles)

Punk and rap have been so influential because it takes virtually no talent to do what they do.

It takes a tremendous amount of talent and ability to write and record The Band's 2nd record. The Ramones? Not so much. The Sex Pistols, either. People's reverence for them has baffled me for decades. Being offensive isn't a musical virtue. (That goes for The Stones, too)

Angry is laughably awful.

IMO there wouldn't be a stadium on earth that could hold the number of people wanting to see them...for one performance, anywhere, for a one time comeback performance, it would probably be bigger than Woodstock (500,000+).....they sold 600 million albums...twice as many as any other band....I'd spend a couple of thousand to see them because, they changed music forever...Beato just had a Youtube where he talks about how great they were...They were obscenely popular and really good musicians

Well why would you imitate then ,cause you want to suck? No talent...the stones? Huh?

But your clueless thinking it takes no talent doing what the stones do

Ramones were basically taking all the rock before them, doing their own take on it, and wrote incredibly fun two minute songs.

Yeah it's so simple, I could a done it, but I didn't.

I could a wrote satisfaction too, but I didn't, nobody did except them, it's very hard to write something simple

And whose talking about Angry?

The Stones never knocked my socks off, as one would say here in Germany. I can’t say why. I guess their songs sounded just too similar. I agree, they are big and over the years they influenced the rock music genre greatly. But, when one of their songs gets played on the radio, I tend to switch the radio station. I prefer the rock bands that showed more diversity, bands with more melodic songs, like the BEATLES, Queen, Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles, Genesis, Steve Miller Band, Journey, Tom Petty, ELO, Hall & Oates, Steely Dan, The Police, Santana, Toto, Bon Jovi, just to name a few. There are/were so many other good rock bands, I just don’t get it why so many people feel the Stones were/are the best.

Right on Bob, so it's me and Bob, verses vnorth couch and Rob b



There is little surprise that to Dylan, the Stones are “the greatest rock and roll band in the world and always will be”. The freewheelin’ troubadour has always had a soft spot for Jagger and the band, as both he and they took off on their meteoric rise around the same time, culminating in a special bond that has even seen them share a stage on occasion.

Both have enormously impacted contemporary music, and debates surrounding both have existed since the ’60s. What is interesting, though, is that although they have had a very healthy chart rivalry over the years, both juggernauts have remained complimentary of the other.

Returning to Dylan’s famous statement hailing the Stones as the best of all time, he concluded by saying that they were “the last too”. It’s a damning indictment of the music that followed, but when you break it down, few acts are as potently and devoutly rock and roll as the Stones.

So it's Dylan, Me and now Pete...

Like I said above, this article confirms it....where does Townshend talk about what great musicians they were??? He spoke about their act...ing...Pete wanted to imitate their antics not their abilities

Thanks for making my point

He's a huge fan, they were riveting,

What about Ringo as a drummer? He's not Buddy rich...

It ain't about musicianship, none of these guys would be in the conversation

The Stones deserve to be in the RRHOF....what's your point?? They're an act performed for 60+ years by average musicians/songwriters....longevity has its impact

Actually Ringo is considered to be a very good drummer, but there are many better than him

Once again you make my point....Pete is a huge fan of their stage presence, which is excellent, but mentions little about music ability

It ain't about musicianship, none of these guys would be in the conversation

Actually it's mostly about musicianship

No, it's not. The Beatles were solid musicians, the were not great musicians, they were great writers and singers

Evidence? There are hundreds if bit thousands if Beatles tribute bands who can play every nite the Beatles ever played, can't say that about a musician like Herbie Hancock, or Buddy rich.

The only reason the Beatles, and a great reason, is their songs, and their voices, ok arrangements too

Ah, yes it is about musicianship....

the Beatles became very good musicians and yes they were at the top of the class when it came to songwriting and singing, in other words, they progressed...and don't forget, they came on the scene in 64 and left in 70...6 years...the stones have been at this for 60 years and they cut a record in 2023 "Angry" that shows no indication that they are any better than they were in 65...that doesn't cut it..

Yeah and name one artist from way back who still makes good albums.

Not the stones, not the who, not Springsteen, not Dylan, not Elton john, not Neil Young, not paul simon, so its likeoy the beetles would face the same

Nobody continues making great albums they all hit a wall

Evidence? There are hundreds if bit thousands if Beatles tribute bands who can play every nite the Beatles ever played, can't say that about a musician like Herbie Hancock, or Buddy rich.





Couch made the point earlier.....you imitate people because their awesome.....are there a lot of Stones tribute bands out there??

Hancock and Rich have probably thousands who want to be just like them....but the Beatles sit at the top of the music world post February 9,1964...nothing has passed them yet

And, what great albums has Macca release in past 20 years?

But your mixing apples and oranges, first you say it's about musicianship, I say rock isn't necessarily about musicianship, then you find a way to negate Herbie Hancock probably the greatest pianist in the world.

I know...it's only rock n roll but I like it......

Fd wrote

Yeah and name one artist from way back who still makes good albums.

Tony Bennett who passed away recently

Robert Plant with Alison Krauss....I think they won a Grammy

Cher been doing it for decades

then you find a way to negate Herbie Hancock ....no I didn't

LMAO I wonder what Couch would say about this being great

FD wrote

LMAO I wonder what Couch would say about this being great




You asked a question, I gave you an answer...what's your point?

That might be what Couch would say but I'll let him speak for himself

It only took me about 3 seconds to come up with those names,,,all of whom made it very big in music

But your going by what you like, nothing else.

Paul McCartney, part of the Beatles, has not had anything better than a stones record probably since the 80' and even then, it wasn't Beatles or wings for that matter.

If the g.o.a.t hits a wall, they all d

Sorry Fdem, bad example, not true. If I look at the Billboard charts I can see that the Stones success started in 1964 and lasted some 20 years, which is pretty good. After 1989 none of their singles reached the top 50.

Elton John had his first top 10 hit (Your Song) in 1970. His last 2 no. 1 hits were 51 years later in 2021. Sorry, but the Rolling Stones can't compete.

Fd wrote

But your going by what you like, nothing else.

You have a big problem when you make statements like this one....first you have no idea what I like... secondly these names immediately popped into my mind not because I like them but because they were from the past..

This is the second time you insulted me...the first time I let it pass...stop thinking you know everything about everyone

Elton reached no. 6 again in 2022. When was the last top 10 hit from the Stones?

If one succeeds with a certain formula, it is tempting to repeat that formula, ad nauseam. And that's okay, I suppose, but that's not to be confused with making art and being an artist.

The truly creative types fight "formula" and often throw a monkey wrench into how they work. They know the value of "awkward" and being a little lost, too. If you are forced down a new road you will probably see new things.

Brian Eno is a great mentor for understanding the value of a fluid, non-formulaic work process.

There's nothing wrong with the Stones being the Stones, but I don't confuse what they do with making "art" --they are making money. Art and commerce have always made strange bedfellows.

I love eltons music, but a hit with Dua lipa, a new pop artist, and a sing with brittany spears .... dude

Number one hits are nice, but it took him how many years to do it, with help from contempt pop stars?

Sorry, horrible argument

Fdem, I don't get the point you're trying to make. Between 2010 and 2020 Elton John had 5 top 20 Billboard hits. No help. Pure Elton songs. "Cold Heart", his no. 1 hit in 2021 was without contemporary pop stars? It was a remix. When did the Stones have their last top 20 hit???? The last Stones remix was "Sympathy For The Devil" in 2003. It reached no. 97 in the charts!

Your arguments are not very convincing...

But having a hit, dies not make it great, I said albums, without Dua lipa popularity he doesn't have a hit.

Even so, where is Paul's macca latest number one hit.

or Paul Simon's, or the who, I'm not sure they ever had number one hits.

You don't read what I write, do you? "Cold Heart" was a no. 1 Billboard hit for Elton John, 50 years after his first no. hit. The other artists you mentioned did have no. 1 hits. Paul had more no. 1 hits than the Stones. What's wrong with you? You're spreading fake news here.

I just did some researching. After 2005, the Stones released just one album: Blue & Lonesome in 2016. They didn't write any of the songs on that album themselves! It was an album full of cover songs!

I don't care what anyone says, if I'm closing in on 80 and I have a number 1 hit by myself or with anyone else...I am in a class with a handful of people who have ever lived on earth...but lets get back to the fact that the Stones have always been a bit of a novelty act and they have a tremendous following because of it...not because of their musicianship IMO and they have made gobs of money doing it and kudos to them for figuring that out 60+ years ago....

So Brittany spears must be better than The Who cause they never had a number one hit.

Anyway, he didn't mention a hit from Macca, or Paul Simon or Neil Young, ....or Bruce, or any okd timer

point was none of those guys have made great albums, recently, and the stones shouldn't be picked on any more than then