Back then, you could afford to be choosy about pop music. These days, Mick would probably find those bands amongst the best compared with today's crop. We were spoiled for choice in the 70 and 80s. So many great acts that learned their craft and paid their dues in a thriving pub music scene, where they had to gig regularly and play well every time or be booed off the stage.
My late older brother spent the night together with Keith Richards at his house numerous times. On one occasion, Mr. Richards expressed the opinion that he didn't like The Grateful Dead. I told my brother that Keith should not knock The Dead. He said-'why not?' I said-'because they may come back to haunt him'.
"Hey, hey.....you, you (get off of my cloud.)" "Under my thumb, the girl who once had me down." For their music to connect, it's gotta be more than that, c'mon.
The Stones for the first 8 years or so were just playing catch up with The Beatles. They found their own sound after that but it borrowed heavily from blues and country.
I'm glad that this grouping did not include The Police. Then again, I seem to remember reading in the booklet that accompanied *Message In A Box* that Jagger reviewed the first independent Police single, "Fallout", when it was new. Meaning, he was up on them before the rest of the world caught up.
The Stones are actually pretty dire live. Saw them a couple of times back in the day.. Shambolic would sum them up. If it wasn’t for Ronnie Wood bailing them out.😂
My first concert was seeing them at the Los Angeles Forum in '75 with Wood...i always liked Mick Taylor's Les Paul sound ... instead of Ronnie's plinky Fender sound on the "Some girls" tracks...I mean it's alright but nothing like Sticky fingers or some of the stuff on Exile...to each their own
Well...I love The Stones above almost every band in the world. But Jagger isn’t always right. He’s a human being with personal tastes like any other. And if I disagree with some of his judgements it just shows that so am I. What an earth shattering discovery that is...
Despite their huge success and the respect they enjoy, one thing about the Stones that I consider to be “a bit off” is Jagger’s frequent affecting (say from the early 70s onwards) of a sort of “Southern United States drawl” in his singing - there’s no law against that - and many consider it part of Jagger’s varied way of “getting over” musical ideas/emotions - nevertheless it can only qualify as deeply inauthentic - and please don’t tell me R n B requires that sort of approach - many others from England never “tried that on” in doing R n B stuff over the years.
I saw Iggy, The Clash, The Ramones and The Stranglers in the late '70s and they wiped the floor with the Stones from the same era. The Stones played like dead men. Jagger jumped around a bit but the others were like corpses. The songs dragged as if they were playing behind the beat. The stage was enormous and they were all spread out across it, looking completely lost. It was shockingly bad. The Clash were the second best live band I ever saw. The best were The Birthday Party 1981. That was something else.
Mick Jagger couldn't stand groups that escaped his own style (Stranglers, Pistols, Clash, Stooges) when at the same times, Rolling Stones were sliding to groovy dirty funk. Also, I'm a little surprised that Jagger complained about artists always doing the same thing (Specials repeating ska and rocksteady, Clash destroying the old rocknroll sound of the 50s) because for a long, long time, the Rolling Stones were content to make blues (and their peak was the famous album Exile On Main Street, not my favorite at all, just for the same reason: heard before, but here in a dying sound).
Don't get me wrong, I love the Stones. They do what they do, very well. The thing is, they're a one trick pony. They basically play revamped blues. They took something that already existed and jazzed it up a bit... ironically, something that Jagger has slagged off other bands for. When you have to publicly slag off other bands, especially better bands in some cases, it really says more about you than it does about the other bands. He's even slagged off the Beatles! I find that nobody I know has ever been tempted to read a Mick Jagger biography. Me neither. He's just not interesting enough. But I've read everything on the Beatles I can get my hands on. The Beatles being the best and most innovative band that ever existed and who the Stones always followed for inspiration. Mick has a reputation for being a a bitchy old woman, so what he says about other bands doesn't really carry any weight. He should thank his lucky stars his band have got the mileage they have and just be happy with that. The Beatles can still have a bigger hit now, even with 2 deceased members, than the Stones could ever hope for. So put your handbag away Mick and learn to respect your betters.
They (the Stones) came along at the right time as a counterpoint to the Beatles squeaky clean moptop image and somehow from then on it was always the 'Beatles vs the Stones and no one else matters' narrative. Never understood that and anyhow the Beatles were far naughtier and more subversive than the Stones ever were.
One trick pony? Pop: Paint it, Black, Let's Spend the Night Together Rock: Jumpin' Jack Flash', Gimme Shelter, Brown Sugar Blues: Midnight Rambler Country: Dead Flowers, Torn and Frayed, Far Away Eyes Soul: Shine a Light, Lovin' Cup Jazz: Melody, Can't You Hear me Knocking Disco: Miss You, Emotional Rescue Funk: Hot Stuff Punk: Shattered, When the whip comes Down Ballad: Angie, Winter, You Can't Always Get What You Want. Psychedelic: 2000 Light Years from Home Turns out they have a lot of tricks. More than any other band in history. By a distance.
Love the Stones up to about 1971 (forget the last 53 years) but never understood this Beatles vs Stones comparison. There are plenty of bands as good as or better than the Stones including a couple here he put sh*t on (the Stranglers and the Clash). In the 60's, the Kinks could match or better the Stones, Small Faces would come close. The Doors bluesy rock and roll bettered the Stones. CCR's swamp rock bettered the Stones. Mick sounds very envious. Let's talk about his talents then. As a vocalist, he is just okay, but doesn't come within a bulls roar of Robert Plant, John Lennon, Joe Cocker, Steve Marriot, or Noddy Holder to name five fellow British vocalists.
I agree on those bands..the rolling stones were a good little rockin band..then their soul died in a pool..then they turned to pure crap..jagger's got some crust
My sister and her late husband seen the rolling stones at Stafford County showground in the 70s and Brian my sister's husband said they were the worst act he had ever seen and he had been to see led zeppelin the who the kinks tina Turner and a load of other acts he said they were off their face on something the stones are dire live my jagger lives in a parallel universe
I've seen the Strolling Bones five times in three different countries starting in the 70s. They never failed to disappoint. Jagger can't sing and his handful of "moves" are more of a parody than anything remotely entertaining. They have produced some great albums, but live they are a wash.
Mick was at the Hollywood Bowl in 68 when the Doors played, he said he found them quite boring, as the concert was filmed i would say he was dead on right. Wow, so many but t hurt snowflakes on here, Its only rock n roll.
There would be nothing remotely controversial about saying the The Doors were boring ! They were. Pound shop rip off groups like Them and The Stones themselves . Most of the West Coast LA scene was brutal crap in terms of bands (make no comment about the Beach Boys as they were in their own dorky scene . Make no comment about solo artists ) What has “snowflakes” got to do with anything ? I am confident that most people here would gladly engage in a detailed and informed discussion with you on what you said . Oh wait, your response was that of a gormless idiot who uses words that are beyond ability to comprehend. How CZcams of you. The point people, rightly are making about Mick’s comments is that in many cases , he is a total hypocrite . Stones wrote some fine songs but they weren’t that rebellious either . Being a junkie in an era when it was common is not rebellious - strangely Cliff Richard pointing out , laughably, that he was more radical because of his refusal to do drugs might be fair lol. The whole orgie scene, nothing new or original. The toffs in the upper class that Mick so desperately wanted to be part of , have been shagging anything that moves for centuries . He said that he didn’t get the Pistols or The Clash (another group, or least members of it , that like Mick, weren’t really who they claim to portray ) . Alas, those groups were a reaction and a rejection of the likes of the Stones . Mick wasn’t suppose to get it
Sir Mick, it seems turned into a bitter old queen before he hit forty. I always liked the Clash. I like Aerosmith but it's not one of my faves. As for Oasis, one of my favorite bands, Liam's style is to stand still and sing and doesn't need to prance about or as John Lennon said about Mick "....all his faggin' about....." As much as I like Mick he has always been insecure and was threatened by the newer bands in the 1970s and afterwards. Jagger dislikes many other artists and bands. Not surprised welcome to show biz.
If stories are to be believed, the last time that the Beatles did the NME Poll Concerts during the 1960s , it was in part due to a fight between Mick and John over who would headline. Now, the Beatles were still getting number 1 singles etc, Mick complained that since they knocked out 3 no 1 singles in a row , that they were the worlds best band 😂. John, already convinced that The Stones copied them and others wasn’t too impressed since without the Beatles giving Mick their first hit, The Stones might not have lasted for too long Mick sure was delusional
It's like part f me accepts that. But I've never purposely put them on. And Sweet Emotion and Dream On are like the most played out FM radio hits of all time. I can't argue with you that they're good, as their career sort of tells the bottom-line. But it's a band where you can understand the mixed opinions.
I saw Aerosmith back in the early '80's. We waited in a long line to get tickets. We were so psyched that we were finally going to get to see them perform live. We had heard that they were a great high-energy show and of course they had lots of great tunes. Imagine how horrified we were that in person, Steven Tyler couldn't even sing "Dream On" properly. It was one of their most popular songs and he just outright butchered it. It was like it wasn't even his real voice on the records. He couldn't hit the high notes worth shit. And the whole band looked bored to death. There was no energy to their performance, just basically going through the motions. It was downright awful and completely embarrassing. They were no better than a poor opening act. It was the most disappointing show I've ever seen.
@@kingbreck4648 So Steven Tyler wasn't Aerosmith? And I'm sure the same lead guitarist was still there. In any case, we got ripped off for the show I saw. And I disagree anyway. Aerosmith stopped being relevant when they QUIT doing drugs because their music got so boring. "Love In An Elevator" and "Janie's Got A Gun" were embarrassing compared to the early material. Maybe if they HAD been high that night it would have been a good show because myself and the rest of the audience certainly was.
@@wassupnomesayin Steven Tyler was insanely drugged up in the early 80’s, Joe Perry and Brad Whitford were not there. And even if you think love in an elevator and Janie’s got a gun were boring, those aren’t good representations of their 80’s catalog.. they had more serious tracks with more thought poured into them than ones mentioned. His vocals, without a doubt, improved in range and impression.
@@kjmusic99 If the human race doesnt blow itself into extinction, people may look back at this era as the Age of Absurdity. An epoch in which someone with a hopeless voice can become a multi- millionaire, and is considered a superstar, because the average punter hasn't a clue!
So like Keith mediocre Richards, he's just a malcontent? These guys need to remind themselves how musically and instrumentally average they are. It sounds like they gave up trying to improve as musicians in the 60's.
@graniterhythm53 Do you really consider them to be musical virtuoso types within their own categories? Give us a clue? Just choose any guitarist north of 1965, and that's your clue. Brian Jones was the talented one...the rest? Give me a break...
@@user-ql1pc7pi9x I would never call them virtuoso types - they had enough, as a group, for the music they wrote (like The Beatles). I don't see much evidence of Jones being the talented one - guitar, slide, piano, sitar, sax were pretty basic & he couldn't write songs (& never did sing)!
So the stones have never repeated music that happened before
Quite. And they aren’t at all repeating the past night after night, for the past fifteen centuries, are they?
Wow, the Stranglers even offended Mick??? I LOVE THEM MORE THAN EVER 🤪
I like the Stranglers
@@chrisbacos I, too! I love the Rolling Stones, but I think Mick is wrong about the Stranglers.
Keith was also scathing. Massive Stones fans, but the Stranglers go alright.
Stranglers are a KILLER band
Loved the Stones...'65 to '72 ! ❤
yeah Some girl was not working for me
69 to 81 for me
To '73 at least. Goat's Head Soup is a great album.
'63 to '24 for me.
@@olavirannisto3552and it got clobbered by the critics. I like it too
Back then, you could afford to be choosy about pop music. These days, Mick would probably find those bands amongst the best compared with today's crop. We were spoiled for choice in the 70 and 80s. So many great acts that learned their craft and paid their dues in a thriving pub music scene, where they had to gig regularly and play well every time or be booed off the stage.
My late older brother spent the night together with Keith Richards at his house numerous times. On one occasion, Mr. Richards expressed the opinion that he didn't like The Grateful Dead. I told my brother that Keith should not knock The Dead. He said-'why not?' I said-'because they may come back to haunt him'.
"Hey, hey.....you, you (get off of my cloud.)"
"Under my thumb, the girl who once had me down."
For their music to connect, it's gotta be more than that, c'mon.
The Stones for the first 8 years or so were just playing catch up with The Beatles. They found their own sound after that but it borrowed heavily from blues and country.
I'm glad that this grouping did not include The Police. Then again, I seem to remember reading in the booklet that accompanied *Message In A Box* that Jagger reviewed the first independent Police single, "Fallout", when it was new. Meaning, he was up on them before the rest of the world caught up.
The Stones are actually pretty dire live. Saw them a couple of times back in the day.. Shambolic would sum them up. If it wasn’t for Ronnie Wood bailing them out.😂
Ronnie only recently got the credit he deserves. Woodie accomplished things neither Brian Jones nor Mick Taylor could do.
I saw the Stones in 1975, 1982 and 2006 and they're still the best! Nobody else comes near! Grow up!
My first concert was seeing them at the Los Angeles Forum in '75 with Wood...i always liked Mick Taylor's Les Paul sound ... instead of Ronnie's plinky Fender sound on the "Some girls" tracks...I mean it's alright but nothing like Sticky fingers or some of the stuff on Exile...to each their own
Just read this exact story on FarOut 😮
Well...I love The Stones above almost every band in the world.
But Jagger isn’t always right. He’s a human being with personal tastes like any other.
And if I disagree with some of his judgements it just shows that so am I.
What an earth shattering discovery that is...
Despite their huge success and the respect they enjoy, one thing about the Stones that I consider to be “a bit off” is Jagger’s frequent affecting (say from the early 70s onwards) of a sort of “Southern United States drawl” in his singing - there’s no law against that - and many consider it part of Jagger’s varied way of “getting over” musical ideas/emotions - nevertheless it can only qualify as deeply inauthentic - and please don’t tell me R n B requires that sort of approach - many others from England never “tried that on” in doing R n B stuff over the years.
I saw Iggy, The Clash, The Ramones and The Stranglers in the late '70s and they wiped the floor with the Stones from the same era. The Stones played like dead men. Jagger jumped around a bit but the others were like corpses. The songs dragged as if they were playing behind the beat.
The stage was enormous and they were all spread out across it, looking completely lost. It was shockingly bad.
The Clash were the second best live band I ever saw. The best were The Birthday Party 1981. That was something else.
LOL
Hey you kids, get out of my yard! Seriously, Tattoo You was their last good record.
You know what? I agree with you, although "Steel Wheels" has its moments.
Come on, Mick, tell us how you *really* feel!
Der Mann ist ein Kunstwerk.Spiegelbild der 60 ziger .✌️🇬🇧🎸😎💋
Mick Jagger couldn't stand groups that escaped his own style (Stranglers, Pistols, Clash, Stooges) when at the same times, Rolling Stones were sliding to groovy dirty funk. Also, I'm a little surprised that Jagger complained about artists always doing the same thing (Specials repeating ska and rocksteady, Clash destroying the old rocknroll sound of the 50s) because for a long, long time, the Rolling Stones were content to make blues (and their peak was the famous album Exile On Main Street, not my favorite at all, just for the same reason: heard before, but here in a dying sound).
Don't get me wrong, I love the Stones. They do what they do, very well. The thing is, they're a one trick pony. They basically play revamped blues. They took something that already existed and jazzed it up a bit... ironically, something that Jagger has slagged off other bands for. When you have to publicly slag off other bands, especially better bands in some cases, it really says more about you than it does about the other bands. He's even slagged off the Beatles! I find that nobody I know has ever been tempted to read a Mick Jagger biography. Me neither. He's just not interesting enough. But I've read everything on the Beatles I can get my hands on. The Beatles being the best and most innovative band that ever existed and who the Stones always followed for inspiration. Mick has a reputation for being a a bitchy old woman, so what he says about other bands doesn't really carry any weight. He should thank his lucky stars his band have got the mileage they have and just be happy with that. The Beatles can still have a bigger hit now, even with 2 deceased members, than the Stones could ever hope for. So put your handbag away Mick and learn to respect your betters.
They (the Stones) came along at the right time as a counterpoint to the Beatles squeaky clean moptop image and somehow from then on it was always the 'Beatles vs the Stones and no one else matters' narrative. Never understood that and anyhow the Beatles were far naughtier and more subversive than the Stones ever were.
You are taking yourself seriously
One trick pony?
Pop: Paint it, Black, Let's Spend the Night Together
Rock: Jumpin' Jack Flash', Gimme Shelter, Brown Sugar
Blues: Midnight Rambler
Country: Dead Flowers, Torn and Frayed, Far Away Eyes
Soul: Shine a Light, Lovin' Cup
Jazz: Melody, Can't You Hear me Knocking
Disco: Miss You, Emotional Rescue
Funk: Hot Stuff
Punk: Shattered, When the whip comes Down
Ballad: Angie, Winter, You Can't Always Get What You Want.
Psychedelic: 2000 Light Years from Home
Turns out they have a lot of tricks. More than any other band in history. By a distance.
He just did NOT hear what LOZA said about the Stones !!! Ha Ha
He's right there in the mix, if anyone knows it's gotta be him.
Mick Jaggar and Steven Tyler got the biggest mouths in rock n roll . Literally 👄
Absolutely agree 100 with Mr. Jagger. Aerosmith is ratshit - only can hear Oasis when I got a wastebag... And so on and so on...
the narrator here claims to be quoting Jagger, I'd rather see and hear him saying these words himself.
Love the Stones up to about 1971 (forget the last 53 years) but never understood this Beatles vs Stones comparison. There are plenty of bands as good as or better than the Stones including a couple here he put sh*t on (the Stranglers and the Clash). In the 60's, the Kinks could match or better the Stones, Small Faces would come close. The Doors bluesy rock and roll bettered the Stones. CCR's swamp rock bettered the Stones. Mick sounds very envious. Let's talk about his talents then. As a vocalist, he is just okay, but doesn't come within a bulls roar of Robert Plant, John Lennon, Joe Cocker, Steve Marriot, or Noddy Holder to name five fellow British vocalists.
Just proves to me that Mick has good taste except for his comment on the Clash. That statement might have been the result of envy.
I agree on those bands..the rolling stones were a good little rockin band..then their soul died in a pool..then they turned to pure crap..jagger's got some crust
My sister and her late husband seen the rolling stones at Stafford County showground in the 70s and Brian my sister's husband said they were the worst act he had ever seen and he had been to see led zeppelin the who the kinks tina Turner and a load of other acts he said they were off their face on something the stones are dire live my jagger lives in a parallel universe
I've seen the Strolling Bones five times in three different countries starting in the 70s. They never failed to disappoint. Jagger can't sing and his handful of "moves" are more of a parody than anything remotely entertaining. They have produced some great albums, but live they are a wash.
But you paid to see them 5 times ?
Your tone deaf
Mick was at the Hollywood Bowl in 68 when the Doors played, he said he found them quite boring, as the concert was filmed i would say he was dead on right. Wow, so many but t hurt snowflakes on here, Its only rock n roll.
There would be nothing remotely controversial about saying the The Doors were boring ! They were. Pound shop rip off groups like Them and The Stones themselves . Most of the West Coast LA scene was brutal crap in terms of bands (make no comment about the Beach Boys as they were in their own dorky scene . Make no comment about solo artists )
What has “snowflakes” got to do with anything ? I am confident that most people here would gladly engage in a detailed and informed discussion with you on what you said .
Oh wait, your response was that of a gormless idiot who uses words that are beyond ability to comprehend. How CZcams of you.
The point people, rightly are making about Mick’s comments is that in many cases , he is a total hypocrite . Stones wrote some fine songs but they weren’t that rebellious either . Being a junkie in an era when it was common is not rebellious - strangely Cliff Richard pointing out , laughably, that he was more radical because of his refusal to do drugs might be fair lol.
The whole orgie scene, nothing new or original. The toffs in the upper class that Mick so desperately wanted to be part of , have been shagging anything that moves for centuries .
He said that he didn’t get the Pistols or The Clash (another group, or least members of it , that like Mick, weren’t really who they claim to portray ) . Alas, those groups were a reaction and a rejection of the likes of the Stones . Mick wasn’t suppose to get it
In my opinion the Stones were the most overrated band I ever saw.
I like the Stones, but I think i he s a hypocrite, when their last album, their first for years was all covers of songs from 100 years ago.
Sir Mick, it seems turned into a bitter old queen before he hit forty. I always liked the Clash. I like Aerosmith but it's not one of my faves. As for Oasis, one of my favorite bands, Liam's style is to stand still and sing and doesn't need to prance about or as John Lennon said about Mick "....all his faggin' about....." As much as I like Mick he has always been insecure and was threatened by the newer bands in the 1970s and afterwards. Jagger dislikes many other artists and bands. Not surprised welcome to show biz.
If stories are to be believed, the last time that the Beatles did the NME Poll Concerts during the 1960s , it was in part due to a fight between Mick and John over who would headline. Now, the Beatles were still getting number 1 singles etc, Mick complained that since they knocked out 3 no 1 singles in a row , that they were the worlds best band 😂.
John, already convinced that The Stones copied them and others wasn’t too impressed since without the Beatles giving Mick their first hit, The Stones might not have lasted for too long
Mick sure was delusional
@@gavintuesday4959
Which song was that (given by The Beatles to The Stones)?
Says the sellout who wrote disco music. Ask the Hell's Angels what they think of Jagger.
Sorry mic aerosmith is excellent band ❤
It's like part f me accepts that. But I've never purposely put them on. And Sweet Emotion and Dream On are like the most played out FM radio hits of all time. I can't argue with you that they're good, as their career sort of tells the bottom-line. But it's a band where you can understand the mixed opinions.
I saw Aerosmith back in the early '80's. We waited in a long line to get tickets. We were so psyched that we were finally going to get to see them perform live. We had heard that they were a great high-energy show and of course they had lots of great tunes. Imagine how horrified we were that in person, Steven Tyler couldn't even sing "Dream On" properly. It was one of their most popular songs and he just outright butchered it. It was like it wasn't even his real voice on the records. He couldn't hit the high notes worth shit. And the whole band looked bored to death. There was no energy to their performance, just basically going through the motions. It was downright awful and completely embarrassing. They were no better than a poor opening act. It was the most disappointing show I've ever seen.
@@wassupnomesayinif you saw Aerosmith in the early 80’s…. You didn’t see the true Aerosmith. 2 guitarists gone And everyone was high.
@@kingbreck4648 So Steven Tyler wasn't Aerosmith? And I'm sure the same lead guitarist was still there. In any case, we got ripped off for the show I saw. And I disagree anyway. Aerosmith stopped being relevant when they QUIT doing drugs because their music got so boring. "Love In An Elevator" and "Janie's Got A Gun" were embarrassing compared to the early material. Maybe if they HAD been high that night it would have been a good show because myself and the rest of the audience certainly was.
@@wassupnomesayin Steven Tyler was insanely drugged up in the early 80’s, Joe Perry and Brad Whitford were not there. And even if you think love in an elevator and Janie’s got a gun were boring, those aren’t good representations of their 80’s catalog.. they had more serious tracks with more thought poured into them than ones mentioned. His vocals, without a doubt, improved in range and impression.
This coming from a dude who CANNOT EVEN SING! 😮
To be honest, he just kind of talks through the songs. It works for him and the music in my opinion, so not everything’s hell in a handbasket.
@@kjmusic99 If the human race doesnt blow itself into extinction, people may look back at this era as the Age of Absurdity. An epoch in which someone with a hopeless voice can become a multi- millionaire, and is considered a superstar, because the average punter hasn't a clue!
... said the front-man of the band that has been milking the success of their first 10 or 12 years... for the last half-century.
Right said. Jagger is a twat, plain and simple.
Your tone deaf... they are the best ever
There have stood the test of time like no other band and still going strong.Speaks for itself.Best band the world has ever seen or ever will
So like Keith mediocre Richards, he's just a malcontent? These guys need to remind themselves how musically and instrumentally average they are. It sounds like they gave up trying to improve as musicians in the 60's.
Average, compared to who - Reinhardt, Menuhin, Segovia, Beethoven, Pavarotti ? Give us a clue!
@graniterhythm53 Do you really consider them to be musical virtuoso types within their own categories? Give us a clue? Just choose any guitarist north of 1965, and that's your clue. Brian Jones was the talented one...the rest? Give me a break...
@@user-ql1pc7pi9x I would never call them virtuoso types - they had enough, as a group, for the music they wrote (like The Beatles). I don't see much evidence of Jones being the talented one - guitar, slide, piano, sitar, sax were pretty basic & he couldn't write songs (& never did sing)!
Jagger cannot sing live