As far back as I can remember, The Beatles have always been my favorite band. Not only that, but I also rate them as the most influential band of all time, and anyone who says otherwise should receive history and music lessons for a full year. They are the greatest band / musical artist of all-time period. Unquestioned. Undoubted. Undeniably.
So what about the Rolling Stones? I mean after all, many fans and pundits point to the Stones as the greatest band of all time after The Beatles. As far back as I can remember, I have never really cared that much about The Rolling Stones. I do not dislike them, I actually enjoy all their songs. However to me, they have always sounded like the band that tried to be better than The Beatles, but never could. To me, if there was a textbook dictionary definition of “second fiddle”, it would be The Rolling Stones. So this past weekend I decided to listen to all their discography, song by song, to try to understand why are they rated so highly in the musical spectrum. I have been listening to them all my life. I listened to them non-stop with a now more mature ear to see if my perception of them changed, and I could appreciate their greatness as others do. In the end, my perception remained unchanged. Given the result, I decided to share my thoughts on why The Rolling Stones are rated so highly, beginning with the premise that far from being the second greatest band of all time,
The Rolling Stones might in fact be the most overrated band of all time.
#1. Marketing.
I am obviously not a baby-boomer, so I was not around at the time the Stones rose to fame. However as you should probably know, I am an avid reader and an amateur historian who enjoys time traveling to different eras and relating to how events and people influenced life.
As The Beatles took over the musical streamline, several copycats / competitors emerged. Many were frauds, many were talented -but not as talented-, but none could equal John, Paul, George and Ringo. My guess is that there was a definitive push by other records / labels / producers, to incentive some sort of competition and / or rivalry with The Beatles. The band who benefited the most from this push, are The Rolling Stones. Think about it: The Yardbirds, The Monkeys, The Kinks, The Animals… all failed. The Who and The Beach Boys just could not keep up. And then there were The Stones.
#2. Mick Jagger.
I do not know what “it” is, but Mick Jagger has it.
Every single woman I have dated -and almost every single woman I have met- has been attracted to Mick Jagger. I have always found this remarkable. The guy is skinny as fuck. He is not handsome, he is not… anything. What do women see in him beats me.
#2.1. Mick Jagger, the frontman.
Continuing the above analysis, there is something crucial that I recognize of Mick -even if his irresistible manly attributes to women escape me-: Mick created the frontman figure. Before The Stones, a band’s singer was merely, well… exactly that: the signer and no more. The Beatles did not need a frontman, because they were so frigging talented, their music functioned as a vehicle for any audible and visible vein they as artists needed to fuel audiences. However, aside from them, Eric Burdon was just The Animals’ singer, just like Jack Bruce for Cream. Jimi Hendrix was the singer for his band, but his prowess as a guitarist were the main protagonist of his performances.
Mick on the other hand, established the role of a singer who could interact with the audience, and evoke feelings from them beyond those originated from the band’s songs. His dancing, his mannerisms, his expressiveness, would elevate the band, and his particular role within the band. If you think about it, Mick does not even have a great voice. He is an average signer at best, easily surpassed by even Ringo Starr. But by incorporating a persona that magnifies the role of a singer and expands it into what is now known as a frontman, Mick was able to stand out like no one else did.
Now give the frontman a great voice, and now you have a real powerhouse on stage, which is how Robert Plant and Freddie Mercury elevated the role of a band’s frontman. Peter Gabriel also elevated it, albeit in a different way, with complex lyrics and costumes to portray characters from Genesis songs.
#3. Exploiting sensitive topics.
The band releases an album with a cover that looks awfully similar to Sergeant Pepper’s. They also write a song about the devil -which ultimately becomes one of their masterpieces-.
So why does my opinion of The Stones remain the same? Well, in short because they fail to impress me. Other than their biggest hits, most of their songs feel kind repetitive. When I was listening to Exile on main street, I had a hard time distinguishing between the tracks. At one point I thought I had been listening to a fifteen-minute piece, when in fact four songs had gone by. Mother’s little helper has always been my favorite song of them. It’s a great piece with great lyrics, but still, remove the sitar and it’s just a flat song in A-Major repeating the same musical theme for three minutes straight. Compare that to The Beatles, where you have not one, but four distinct and unique voices capable of bringing a plethora of emotions to the listener. In The Stones, you are stuck with Mick since 1963.
Then there is the band itself. If you asked me to name what I consider the second greatest band of all time, I will have to do a lot of research and homework to come up with a single choice. However, when it comes to naming options, they would be: Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple Mark II, Pink Floyd, and Genesis. Deep Purple would have probably been the second greatest, had Mark II survived longer than what it did. Pink Floyd could hold the title, but they are not quite there yet for reasons that deserve a separate entry. Genesis -Gabriel’s era- is another strong candidate, but unfortunately, they are too niche. So let’s talk about Led Zeppelin and how do they compare to the Stones as candidates for second greatest band of all time. For the sake of argument, let’s assume Zeppelin’s catalogue is original -meaning let’s not bring up the plagiarism issue-.
Mick Jagger vs. Robert Plant: this is perhaps the only aspect one could evenly weigh. Still, Plant’s voice is infinitely superior to Jagger’s.
Keith Richards vs. Jimmy Page: Richards is a great guitarist, one of the best of all time. My issue with him is that, other than a few glimpses of creativity here and there, he never truly evolved. Page on the other hand, created memorable riffs, solos, works of art that are studied to this day. Yes, Satisfaction is great, and I am quite sure it was groundbreaking when it came out, but if Satisfaction broke new ground, then How many more times broke a new core; Whole lotta love created a new planet; Immigrant song sent us into outer space; and Stairway to Heaven, well… it’s Stairway to Heaven.
Brian Jones / Other guy vs. John Paul Jones: you know you have a problem when you kind of struggle to remember the band members of what supposedly the second greatest band of all time is. I will keep this one simple. As great as Brian Jones was, he was no John Paul Jones.
Charlie Watts vs. John Bonham: this one is not even fair.
…so broken individually, The Rolling Stones cannot even compare to Led Zeppelin. You can make the case that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but going back to the original premise, that only holds true for The Beatles. The fact is that Zeppelin is by far a superior combination of individual musicianship.
What is left is then the comparison of their respective peaks: 1963-1972 for The Stones, and 1968-76 for Zeppelin. During this period, The Stones released: Rolling Stones now, Out of our heads, December’s children, Aftermath, Between the buttons, Their satanic majesties request, Beggars banquet, Let it bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St.
Zeppelin did: I, II, III, IV, Houses of Holy, and Physical Graffiti. Each one of these albums is a masterpiece. There is not a single wasted track. 64 songs, one better than the other. Some conventional, some rock, some blues, some folk, some with mythological references, some with Caribbean influences, some funk, some ballads.
Overall, both band’s catalogue is very close, but due to their variety and multiplicity of themes, I have to give the advantage to Led Zeppelin.
As I close these lines, I think of that comment I overheard from Roger Federer. “How can he be considered the greatest of all time, when thanks to Djokovic and Nadal, he’s not even the greatest of his era.” That is what The Rolling Stones are to me. They are like a spaceship that keeps taxiing waiting to take off, but never does… and never did.