The Rolling Stones

Yes, the oldest rock band in the world, still in business for over 50 years.

Members.

Mick Jagger (lead vocals).  The flamboyant, extroverted, sometimes androgynous lead singer, co-writer with Richards of most their material.  He’s fairly intelligent, articulate and has a good voice.  I’ve said before, the epitome of cool is not being an arrogant asshole when you have every right to be, and certainly this applies to Mick Jagger (less so to Keith, but not by much).  He knows how to laugh at himself.  Sadly, his acting career was not up to snuff: “Ned Kelly”, “Performance” and “Freejack” are worth checking out once and then never again.

Keith Richards (lead guitar, vocals).  Jack Sparrow: “Have you found the fountain of youth?” Richards, smiling and pointing to his wrinkled face: “Does it look like I’ve found the fountain of youth?”  Never particularly handsome even when young, he’s even less so now.  He’s got R&B blues guitar down solid, these days favoring Fender Telecasters artificially aged.  He used to play Gibson Firebirds, and was ahead of the curve in adopting Gibson Les Pauls, including at least one Les Paul Custom.   His sound is just a little dirty.

Charlie Watts (drums).  Solid behind the drum kit and always looking serious.  He only played Gretsch drums but refused to endorse them.  [RIP 8/24/21]

Bill Wyman (bass).   Now retired.  For awhile he seemed to point the neck up almost vertical.  Also infamous for being the most female-hungry of the band.

Brian Jones (guitar).  The original second guitarist, favoring oddball guitars like the Vox and the nonreverse Firebird.  Famously died “facedown” in the pool in July 1969; also famous for wearing the black Allgemeine SS uniform, supposedly as a joke or stunt.

Mick Taylor (guitar).   Replaced Jones in time for the Hyde Park concert in July 1969 (King Crimson opened).  His sunburst Les Paul was actually purchased from Richards a few years before he joined the band.  He gets credit for being the guitarist for the Stones’ peak years in the late 60s and early 70s.

Ron Wood (guitar).  He took over from Taylor in the mid-70s and has been with them ever since – longer than Jones and Taylor combined.  I actually met him in person back at Marymount, Paris, when his kid was attending the same school I went to – though his kid was much younger than me.  He signed my Rolling Stones lips logo patch.

Now I have all 24 of the Stones’ US studio albums.  Reviewing each one would be a nuisance.  Like the Beatles, the early albums bifurcate between US and UK versions, with Their Satanic Majesties Request being the convergence album, like Sgt. Pepper for the Beatles.

Phase I:  Brian Jones.   Starting out practically all covers, unlike the Beatles.  They do a good job of the covers, though.  None of the albums is consistently good.  See Hot Rocks.

Albums:   England’s Newest Hitmakers; 12x5; The Rolling Stones, Now!; Out of Our Heads; December’s Children (And Everybody’s); Aftermath; Between the Buttons; Their Satanic Majesties Request; Beggars Banquet

Phase II:  Mick Taylor.   You’ll notice that except for Beggars Banquet and Some Girls, this period covers the most well-known and esteemed albums.   Really this is supposed to be the Stones at their peak, but I much prefer Some Girls to Exile on Main Street. 

Albums:  Let It Bleed; Sticky Fingers; Exile on Main Street; Goats Head Soup; It’s Only Rock’n’Roll

Phase III: Ron Wood in the 70s.  Sharing esteem with the prior phase thanks to Some Girls, with Tattoo You rounding off this section (I’ll admit that cutoff is somewhat arbitrary on my part).  A huge dose of disco also gets added to the mix.  Unlike the Beatles, who were pioneers, the Stones often followed popular trends rather than establishing them.  I find this stuff fairly commercial.  Did I mention I like Some Girls?

Albums:  Black And Blue; Some Girls; Emotional Rescue; Tattoo You

Phase IV: Ron Wood to the present.   Actually this is the most solid and consistent work.  Most songs are standard rock and roll and not bad at all.  It’s like they settled into a rhythm of producing decent rock songs and not worrying about venturing outside their comfort zone.  I’ve yet to hear Stones fans talk highly of these albums (they all love Exile on Main Street) but if we classify the Stones as a rock band, these albums should get more credit than they do.  None are substandard or mediocre.  

Albums: Undercover; Dirty Work; Steel Wheels; Voodoo Lounge; Bridges to Babylon; A Bigger Bang.

Live.   By all means, get Get Your Ya-Yas Out, and I like Still Life (from the Tattoo You tour in 1981).  If there’s one area where the Stones get credit for beating the Beatles down cold, it’s as a live band.  Fortunately Mick has toned down his androgyny big time, but he’s still a swishy peacock. 

Movies.  "Gimme Shelter" features a NY show and the infamous Altamount concert (December 1969).  The Stones were not at Woodstock that summer because Mick Jagger was in Australia filming “Ned Kelly”. 
“Rolling Stones Rock’n’Roll Circus” is actually not bad.  In addition to Jethro Tull (“Song For Jeffrey”) with Tony Iommi, there’s the Who (“A Quick One”), Dirty Mac (Lennon, Clapton, Richards, Mitch Mitchell) (“Yer Blues”) and Taj Mahal.  The Stones’ set still has Brian Jones, Keith Richards plays a Les Paul Custom, and Beggars Banquet is the featured album, but the set also features “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”, and “Sympathy For The Devil.”  Worth watching, even if the circus element is immensely corny.

Hot Rocks (1964-71).  Since the Stones albums are all fairly hit or miss, this compilation does an incredible job of assembling their best hits from their peak era.  Plus it adds some songs which were singles and not on any studio album.  Really you could stick with this (and Ya-Yas) and have the essential Stones.  If you absolutely HAVE to, get Exile, and be prepared to wonder what the fuss is all about. 

Vs. the Beatles.  The two bands had a major rivalry.  My preference is, and has always been, for the Beatles.  Their material, song by song, album by album, is consistently good: there are very few awful Beatles songs and no bad albums.  They stopped doing covers very early on.  Musically and artistically they’re on a completely different level than the Stones.  As noted above, it’s only live that the Stones top the Beatles.  

One more thing.  It's tempting, especially for Stones fans who might be fed up with the incessant unfavorable comparisons to the Beatles - and for Mick, Keith, Charlie, etc. themselves - to consider the Stones the better rock band.  I might be inclined to agree if only due to the constant touring.  HOWEVER, there's an 800 lb gorilla in this argument called "Helter Skelter".  Now having heard all the Stones' studio albums from England's Newest Hitmakers to A Bigger Bang, their extra tracks, and their most famous live material (Ya-Yas and Altamont, among many others), I can say they have no song even remotely as bad-ass and heavy as "Helter Skelter".  It's off the chart.  It's downright METAL.  Thank you, Paul McCartney, for "Yesterday", "Blackbird", and "Hey Jude", but you also knocked it out of the ballpark with "Helter Skelter".  AMEN.