Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B
I've taken flak about it over the years, but I've always said pretty much the above about the Stones. In the 60's, they were something else; always trying new ideas and going so many different directions at the same time. Having to compete with the Beatles (like everybody else) likely forced them to bring their "A" game. Then, the 70's rolled around. For me, their material sounds too similar after the 1960's. Too many drugs and less creative juices/effort. But that's just my perception; it's neither right or wrong. The band is known for its age-defying longevity, but I really wonder what sort of extra reverence they may have been afforded if they had met their end after, say, Altamont and never reunited. 60's Stones were a thing of strange beauty.
|
I agree! The Rolling Stones did indeed venture in many different directions during the 1960's and stretched rock music boundaries in several.
After
Sticky Fingers of 1971 though, the Stones' sound acquired a certain characteristic sameness of sound. They have nonetheless released a lot of great tunes even in the past fifty years (too many tracks for me to bother to mention actually).
