It might make me unpopular, but I think… the Rolling Stones are completely, utterly overrated.
Working class heroes? Ha! More like slumming, middle-class poseurs. I’m not saying they don’t have a few good songs, but second best band of all time behind the Beatles? (A distinction that puts them ahead of the Beach Boys, Simon and Garfunkel, the Doors, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Who, the Turtles, Creedence Clearwater Revival, and a dozen others with just as many hits.) Please. Not even close.
After the jump, ten unassailable reasons why the Rolling Stones are actually pretty awful.
10. The drug stuff is sort of scary. There’s something unnatural about 70-somethings consuming unending cascades of pure, uncut cocaine. Maybe they’re back on the wagon, maybe they aren’t, but there’s a reason everyone believed it when Keith Richards said he’d snorted some of his father’s ashes: because it was believable.
9. Their daughters are REALLY weird. Seriously, look.
8. They inspired 754,967 unbelievably bad bar bands. Nothing in the world is worse than a piss-poor cover of “Gimme Shelter.” Well nothing except the sixty bazillion real bands that continue to ape the Stones’ horribly dated aesthetic. There’s a reason no one takes Elvis impersonators seriously. It’s because stuff like that looks silly!
7. They weren’t actually working class. Despite the rough-and-tumble act, Mick Jagger was at London School of Economics before the band got serious, and the rest of the crew were equally well off. Despite the accents they affected once they hit the big time, their working-class cred was and is a pure media construction.
6. Cocksucker Blues. An unreleased documentary held back after objections by the band, Cocksucker Blues offered a pure, uncensored record of the post-Altamont era. More than proving that the band’s members were macho, self-obsessed stereotypes (a virtue in some people’s minds, I suppose), it offered a clear case for the idea that they weren’t so much subversives as gigantic assholes.
5. Altamont. Whether or not they actually hired the Hell’s Angels (or just traded beer for half-assed semi-security), the Stones certainly could have done more to stop the destruction. By the time the band hit the stage at Altamont, other acts, including the Grateful Dead, had pulled out. The least they could have done was address the situation and call for calm before there was a murder in the audience. No big deal, though. All it did was kill the spirit of the ’60s.
4. They were anything but inimitable. In fact, they didn’t really invent anything. Bands like the Byrds, the Hollies, and Them debuted around the same time with dissonant hits that were every bit as inspired. All the Rolling Stones did was dress the blues up in more overt machismo.
3. They were horribly, horribly sexist. Entire dissertations have expounded on the overtly sexist, violent, and borderline psychopathic lyrics of songs like “Paint it Black,” “Mother’s Little Helper,” “Brown Sugar,” and “Sticky Fingers.” Rather than offer an inclusive revolution, the Stones set back the cause, marginalizing, objectifying, and animalizing women in more creatively sick ways than pretty much anyone else. The good news? The rock template they created is still around.
2. They rode in on the ass-end of the British Invasion. OK, sure, the Stones were seminal, but the Beatles had an album out for two years before they even entered the arena.
1. They won’t go away! It’s not always better to burn out than fade away, but these guys are getting straight-up geriatric. Keith Richards is famous for saying “If I’m singing ‘Satisfaction’ when I’m 40, I’m going to kill myself.” Maybe he actually meant 80?
Comments (14)
The only thing that sucks more than the Rolling Stones is Rolling Stone magazine, puke.
Really? This just seems like a deliberate (and kind of sad) attempt to start a flame war, Beard. Aren't there some more interesting fish to fry?
I have to agree. This is a really weak attempt to get a rise out of people. First of all, half the things you mention don't have a thing to do with the Stones music (their daughters are weird? that makes them a bad band?). Secondly, this is such a lame premise that it's difficult to even raise the energy to write an actual retort. I mean, laughter is the more natural response – at you, not with you.
Whether the Stones are the second greatest band of all-time may be arguable. But whether they are one of the best (and at least top 10), really isn't. At all.
Not to mention, they're still making good music. Have you heard A Bigger Bang? Have you seen Shine A Light? Most bands half their age have nothing on what the Stones still have. Sure, they're a shadow of what they once were, but who isn't at that age?
Now, how about finding worth our time to have an opinion about? Or at least have an opinion you really believe in, because I honestly can't believe that even you buy this nonsense.
You're 'the beard', they're The Rolling Stone. Yeah, they're the ones who suck.
Your ten reasons just make me like them more.
10. Completely ridiculous. The bands you listed in parenthesis also did plenty of drugs, as well as The Beatles.
9. Stupid. Their daughters have nothing to do with their achievement as musicians.
8. Who cares if those bands suck or not? We are talking about The Rolling Stones and their work. The Beatles inspired a bunch of really crappy bands, too. So, does that mean The Beatles are ‘awful’?
7. One, Keith Richards’s father was a factory worker, though it hardly matters. Two, your statement about Mick attending college is misleading. I’m not sure where you’re from, but if it’s the US then you should know that college tuition in England is much less than college tuition US. Also, college tuition has gone up exponentially over the years. Their image was more rebellious youth than working class.
6. I repeat, The Rolling Stones were far from the only band of that era to indulge in drugs and promiscuity. They were young guys with money and fame. If you were in their position, I’m sure you’d be indulging, too.
5. Clearly, you are ignorant on the Altamont. Do you really think that it was Mick and Keith who arranged security? Of course not. Pretty much only thing they decided was what songs they were going to play. Pulling out of the show would have been a terrible decision. The Rolling Stones care about their fans so they’d never want to let them down like that. Also, can you imagine what it would’ve been like when 300,000 drunk and high people found out that The Rolling Stones were no longer playing, the band that was the headliner of the event? I think it’s safe to say they’d be pretty angry which could easily have resulted mass amounts of violence and destruction. And finally, you really must not know anything about Altamont. Try watching Gimme Shelter. Minutes before the murder Mick stops a song and asks the audience to calm down and for everyone to stop fighting.
4. This is just an opinion on your part, so I won’t waste much time trying to change your mind. In my opinion, The Rolling Stones have such a unique sound that I have yet to see another band even come close to.
3. What do you expect a person to write songs about? If they wrote all their songs about sunshine and rainbows. Concerning, the whole ‘animalizing’ women thing, they’re men. Men think about sex often, especially young rock stars who can get it whenever they want.
2. When they became big has nothing to do with their talent. If they were ‘awful’ they wouldn’t have lasted this long or become so famous.
1. Honestly, the fact that they still record albums and tour is more of a reason why they are not awful. They don’t need the money or the fame. They continue to do it because they love it, so why should they stop?
I agree with the others. I think you only wrote this article to stir up some arguments. Fairly pathetic.
Your responding with anger to a column titled “Unpopular Opinions”, now that’s just silly.
As a Brit, the Rolling Stones don’t have “working class” accents.
The Beatles first album was released in 1/63 – the Stones was out in 4/64.
Show me an intro in the whole canon of rock and roll better than “Gimme Shelter” or “Moonlight Mile” or “Can’t you hear me knocking” (okay maybe “Kashmir” would beat “Can’t you hear me knocking.”
Watch the outtake in the Shine A Light doc where Mick & Keith get into a spontaneous jam on guitar and harp – those guys are musicians through and through … that is THEM right there.
And I put the stones #3 behind Beatles and Dylan. But we must give credit where it is due.
Just a response to number three about them singing sexist/psychotic songs: being a storyteller means that you are telling a story. It doesn’t mean that it was Mick’s story. Popular confusion.
Gay men like “The Beard” can’t really be expected to understand the appeal of the Stones. Why would someone without even a basic understanding of what makes rock music great even be writing about music? He equated the Rolling Stones to the Turtles and the Hollies?!?! Yeah man, Simon & Garfunkel are the 2nd greatest rock band ever. I’m sure Elton John, Cher, and Abba are way up over the Stones on his list, too. Get real.
The beard is a dope, they are the greatest rock and roll band of all times. I didnt know the beard was gay, but that sort of figures, Im sure he thinks Liberace was fantastic, which he was
What’s wrong with the Turtles and the Hollies? The Hollies were one of the biggest-selling bands in Britian, along with the Beatles and the Stones. They were first-rate musicians, singers, and songwriters.
“The Beard” ?? You have no idea what you are talking about – you
are an absolute moron.
Post a new comment