whenever something in life brings me down, i just put my headphones on and blast this whole album, epecially this song and Sweet Virgina :) great album, great band, all in all its just fuckin great
I saw the Stones (in Toronto) when they had just cut this album...the opening act being Stevie Wonder. My ticket cost $7.50. Have I just dated myself? Not only that I stayed at the Royal York Hotel for $30!!
what a fuckin album this was.a reference for ALL subsequent bands from that point on.hard to choose between 'exile....' and 'revolver' as the best of all time
Why does everyone argue about if the stones and beatles are better? They were both amazing groups how did amazing things for music. The Beatles were more of a vocal group, the stones more of an instrumental band. I personally like the stones a little more, but to say one is better than the other is idiotic. Its personal preference.
All I wrote was just a mere observation, topped off with a remark not particularly directed to any one person. I didn't intend it as a complaint and I still don't.
Eh, I called EVERYONE arguing a retard. I didn't specificy a particular group of people I was talking to. Also, what exactly is the contrary point of view to which I am supposedly so whiny against?
I think the luckiest are those who can crank up Exile on a Wednesday, then listen to "Rubber Soul" on a Thursday.."In through the Out Door" on Friday, and love them all, as their moods change.
I have respect for both bands. However, the Beatles were always to soft for my taste. The song writing was brilliant, but to be honest George Harrison wasn't the best guitarist. And Ringo wasn't the best drummer. It was too much bubblegum in my opinion. Nobody, and I mean nobody beats the Stones from 68-74. The Stones will always be my favorite band. Their creativity was unbelievable. Do you think the beatles ever rocked like this???? Nope!
@dermotwalker if the beated the stones is metter of opinion, but it`s a fact that they are close. "They may very well have beaten themselves off" i can't see how.
@Luxmaxnike I think it's really sweet of you to admit that in public! But next year, when you do all the scary stuff in sex ed, you'll understand? Until then, take care...
@Luxmaxnike You not only 'forgot' to press the 'y', you invented a new word 'beated' and spelt 'matter' as 'metter'. That's why you don't understand my arguments, you flute.
@008fox Nobody beat the stones from '68 to '74 for the sexiest, most grown up rock n roll the word's ever seen, is the context here buddy. Though I'm pretty sure bob marley was playing the best reggae, if that's what you're trying to say.
@008fox Fair enough, if it's just a security blanket fixation for you but the rest of us were arguing their relative merits. You make a curious boast about being 'raised on them' that in no way supports their abilities - it's like taking pride in being tall, something you can take no credit whatsoever for. And you 'can't agree' - another killer argument.
@dermotwalker Let me ask you this question, were you raised on the Stones?
It seems like you enjoy attacking people personally on YouTube to feed your ego. I chose not to make a 'killer argument' because I'm not the only one on this page "arguing" with you. In fact, we aren't even arguing, you're punching a brick wall assaulting my preference that I certainly CAN take credit for.
@008fox No, I wasn't 'raised' on the stones. Pretty sure you'd use a killer argument if you had one, though I was really mocking your pretentiousness - 'I can't agree'. I stand corrected however: you clearly CAN take credit for your pref but you really OUGHTN'T, if it's yours simply because other people 'raised' you on it. I don't see an argument as an attack or an assault btw but I'm tired of tits who can't even make a coherent argument for why one band arguably was more important than another.
@008fox No, I wasn't 'raised' on the stones. Pretty sure you'd use a killer argument if you had one, though I was really mocking your pretentiousness - 'I can't agree'. I stand corrected however: you clearly CAN take credit for your pref but you really OUGHTN'T, if it's yours simply because other people 'raised' you on it. I don't see an argument as an attack or an assault btw but I'm tired of tits who can't even make a coherent argument for why one band arguably was more important than another.
@Luxmaxnike The Beatles were far more creative, talented and influential band but here, on this page, we're talking about rock'n'roll and the stones beat the piss out of the beatles in that far more limited arena. The 'other band' weren't contenders for either crown.
Sucked dick? This is one of the best albums ever made you moron. People like you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion when all you are going to do is use your thumbless hands to type in utter garbage. Is 24 your IQ?
@JoshRobertson142 actually they were rock but mostly from68-70 and were psykadelik (how evr u spell it)rock in 66and67 and before that was mostly pop rock like many groups at the time
@shawndixon13 Nah, the beatles were in a different league, far more creative and ground breaking but they couldn't rock a cradle - the best they did in that respect, was the sort of thing yer nana would tap her foot too. And they were far too 'nice'. Whereas the stones were 'only' a rock n roll band n they excelled at it. Sang about drugs n breakdowns, pussy and whores, street violence and serial killers and pretty much defining the stereo type for a rock n roll band.
The Beatles lifted rock to higher grounds, perfecting the genre and participating in the creation of many of its most relevant subgenres -folk rock, psychedelic rock, progressive rock-, whereas the Rolling Stones had problems with art crafting albums, and they pretty much kept it simple, raw, energetic and violent, even going rootsy for a period, which was where they excelled at, but The Beatles, being greater, surpassed them in many ways, if not in staging a musical riot.
@AFOH I refer you to my earlier post which was beautifully succinct, as well as being accurate unlike your waffle. ( Though your 'even going rootsy' remark, did make me laugh out loud. )
Welcome to the world of rock criticism. As Frank Zappa once mentioned, this is all about people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, for people who can't read. Oh, and yes, my argument was pretty accurate, if not strictly academic in form -obviously-. At least you got to laugh while arguing. That's a win for a rock debate, I guess. I wouldn't complain, myself. I'm not really arguing, but just declaring some facts. Cheers.
@AFOH Dunno what that ancient and well known Zappa quote brings to the table but I refer you again to by earlier post. The Beatles were the better band, more creative and ground breaking but they COULDN'T rock a cradle. The Stones actually copied them in their very early days but the stones went on to become the best rock/rock'n'roll band around for decades. It isn't necessary to hoover up every plaudit to heap upon your favourites, they have already have the greater crown. Those are the facts.
While I mostly agree with your argument, I believe that, in declaring the original arena rock act -refer to The Beatles' concert at Shea Stadium for further historical clarification-, unable to rock a cradle, you are dismissing a very seminal portion of rock and roll's history, but I understand the point you are trying to make, by citing the Stones as the more lasting live act given their sheer violence on stage, still remarkable today, even at their age.
@AFOH I'm assuming you mean 'defining' rather than 'declaring' the original rock act? Which the Shea Stadium concert didn't do ( tho I'm sure there are hundreds of beatles fan books that says it did - that's the trouble with fan worship, it's uncritical and ultra hyperbolic. ) However, yr answr md me reflect agn on thr claim to rock. I suppose you'd have to say thy wr pioneers of rock at one stage and perhaps I've misinterpreted yr original post, in that respect.
@AFOH We could keep this up forever! I'd still say it because while they were briefly much the apex of rock, early on, looked at over the full timeline of rock history, they really don't stand up alongside the stones achievement in that more limited arena. Like I say, the beatles are by far the bigger band of course but I still think it's fair to say they don't have any real claim to be able to rock. Guess we're not ever likely to agree on this one. Take it easy.
I know what you mean, but I'm stating that declaring them unable to rock, or unable to rock a cradle is still very dismissive of their history, and this debate is pretty much needless already, since we've reached a consensus that the Stones had much more raw energy live and the Beatles were far more creative.
Their output was extremely relevant to the development of rock music, yes, but they were not precisely the most creative band in the mainstream space. For many years, in fact, they attempted to play catch up with The Beatles until they lagged far behind upon the release of Sgt. Pepper's onwards, which is when they decided to get back to their roots instead, abandoning their most innovative pursuits in exchange for a refinement of older traditions.
And I cited Zappa to help you realize how acting pretentious about argumental presentation and writing style in rock discussion won't contribute much to the debate itself, given that rock's recorded history is much too diverse in form and quality.
@AFOH Jeez, you didn't think the Zappa quote sounded pretentious?? Neither of us has posted anything here, IMOH, tht cld b dscrbd as 'rock criticism,' the maj of which neither of us seems to hv any grt rspct 4, althgh u sm to thnk wht i wrote reaches ths dizzy heights! ( Tht sd, rock hstry is not to diverse etc fr that rare thng, intelligent rock crit, to cntrbt smthng to it. )
@shawndixon13 No,sorry.I grew up in a beatlemaniac household, and the problem with the Beatles is that they're very dated,they just didn't age well.
The Stones may have been from the same period starting out,but they were in a whole different league as far as rock goes. They really became a band of the early '70's,yet they still sound just as awesome as they always have. They're no pop act, and their music has and will continue to stand the test of time, as all truly great works do.
@shawndixon13 no the beatles were not a rock band there fucking pop jesus anyone with any musical education could telly ou that. fuck the beatles if u wanna listen to them go look up the beatles this is the stones and exile on main st the greatest ablum ever made no fuck off
@awhiteman1986 well i can tell u don't know what pop music is and probably rock and roll for that matter..btw i'm not dissing The Stones they're my second favorite band of all time.but The Beatles were a ROCK band. A pop band is there to appease a general audience and is only there for enterprise not art. The Beatles were artists,they were authentic,creative, experimental,innovative, they had formal artistic qualities. Which makes them a ROCK band.
@JoshRobertson142 No,Maybe the first ones, but the last ones had more rock ballads and rocks songs like I Want You, Revolution, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Something, Get Back, Savoy Truffle and Birthday. I`m not sayin they didn`t had pop songs, but they were a rock band.
Sunshine bores me, too... I'm listening to this song because I just broke a personal record, 56 straight hours without sleeping... and my typing is impeccable
Sunshine bores me, too... I'm listening to this song because I just broke a personal record, 56 straight hours without sleeping... and my typing is impeccable
Charlie can really handle his wooden sticks
WEARETHETANGS 1 week ago
charlie watts is NASTY on the drums here. this album really showcases his drumming ability.
beantownbig3 2 weeks ago 2
whenever something in life brings me down, i just put my headphones on and blast this whole album, epecially this song and Sweet Virgina :) great album, great band, all in all its just fuckin great
MyNamesDrGreenthumb 2 weeks ago
@MyNamesDrGreenthumb Virginia *
MyNamesDrGreenthumb 2 weeks ago
On his gravestone it should read: "Here sleeps Michael Philip Jagger, getting his rocks off."
simonsaintgilles 2 weeks ago
I saw the Stones (in Toronto) when they had just cut this album...the opening act being Stevie Wonder. My ticket cost $7.50. Have I just dated myself? Not only that I stayed at the Royal York Hotel for $30!!
richbaco 3 weeks ago
amazinggg !!!! the best band off all times !
rockngrunge11 1 month ago
best song off exile!
therationsdarlington 1 month ago 5
The Stones are the best rock/blues band ever, the Beatles were the best music band ever. That´s all, stop arguing
SirBarzdevics 1 month ago
@SirBarzdevics The Beatles are nothing, bro.
Have some taste, or we lay your soul to waste ^^
PrettyBoyBlues 3 weeks ago
what a fuckin album this was.a reference for ALL subsequent bands from that point on.hard to choose between 'exile....' and 'revolver' as the best of all time
CornishCockney 1 month ago
listen to monkey man ya idiot
hagen768 1 month ago
Great horns sound. That makes it!
kentishtowncowboy 1 month ago
Why did they cut Taylor's solo at the end!!!
oclero 2 months ago
@oclero Because it's the greatest guitar fade out in the history of pop music. If not the greatest pop song ever recorded.
reptilicus 1 month ago
@reptilicus ...it kills me that you refer to this song as pop.
EvilAnticsLive 1 month ago
@EvilAnticsLive Alright- It's cock rockin' nitty gritty. Regardless, it's still a pop song.
reptilicus 1 month ago
Why does everyone argue about if the stones and beatles are better? They were both amazing groups how did amazing things for music. The Beatles were more of a vocal group, the stones more of an instrumental band. I personally like the stones a little more, but to say one is better than the other is idiotic. Its personal preference.
brandonlace 2 months ago 4
@brandonlace " The Beatles were more of a vocal group, the stones more of an instrumental band." the kind of shit that start a new argument.
Luxmaxnike 2 months ago
@Luxmaxnike I would bet that Paul McCartney would agree, certainly Keith Richards would, as he has said it multiple times.
brandonlace 2 months ago
@guitarbassplayer68 i see what your'e saying but john lennon was in a class that mick nor keith could occupy
elvispresley718 2 months ago
@elvispresley718 No he wasn't. In the end, Jagger/Richards proved to be the better song writers, as much as I love the Beatles.
reptilicus 1 month ago
its an amazing album. what a perfect opening track
Music4UandI 2 months ago
Heroine and nocturnal ejaculation make for a good rock n roll tune.
brandonlace 2 months ago
i have a school bag of this album =D
29cabels 2 months ago
OH YEAH
PhukIT1865 3 months ago
@guitarbassplayer68 what ....what is that??
oreokookie1000 3 months ago
"Plug in, flush out and fire the fuckin' feed". I love the lyrics in the song, even if it is about shooting heroin.
beantownbig3 3 months ago 13
When i die, i want this song to be playing at my funeral so the people attending know how awesome i was.
Kingsako32 3 months ago 52
@Kingsako32 Like x 10,000
jdpl56 2 months ago
@Kingsako32 good idea
elvispresley718 2 months ago
Thank you for that!
kohoio 3 months ago
soooo fucking good, rock n rolllllllllllllllllll
graceezzz 3 months ago
Ooh, pardon me for expressing an opinion!
kohoio 3 months ago
@kohoio Well your opinion sucks!
lsnysmiles24cs 3 months ago
1. Best song ever.
2. Most under rated song ever.
3. Best album ever.
4. Best drums on a song ever.
5. Best guitar on a song ever.
6. Best . . . ..
probrojeffro 3 months ago
Pussy Galore's version is infinitely better.
kohoio 3 months ago
@kohoio Shut the fuck up
IggyandtheStardust 3 months ago
like the way charlie plays drums
elvispresley718 3 months ago
Listening to that song makes me feel like i just got drunk at a party booted and rallied 3 times...
lymanraptor1 3 months ago
oh yeaaaaaah ;D
sweetmay73 4 months ago
The biggest band ever
PENTADACTYLON 4 months ago
THATS DUMB DUDE
MINDCONTROLLEDLOVE 4 months ago
not only the song itself but also the lyrics completely defines true rock n roll
theartofliving01 4 months ago
one of the best stones songs ever !!!!
techmaster85 4 months ago
Shame the comments section is ruined by a bunch of retards arguing. If music truly is a competition, i'll find another interest.
RS1Comedy1Vids 5 months ago 3
@RS1Comedy1Vids You could try to stop acting like a whinny bitch, is that considered an interest?
lta6494 4 months ago
@lta6494
Why? Is that your job?
RS1Comedy1Vids 4 months ago
@RS1Comedy1Vids Wow. guess you told me......
You are complaining about people making comments that you dont like...ON A COMMENT PAGE
lta6494 4 months ago
@lta6494
All I wrote was just a mere observation, topped off with a remark not particularly directed to any one person. I didn't intend it as a complaint and I still don't.
RS1Comedy1Vids 4 months ago
@RS1Comedy1Vids You called everyone who has a contrary point of view a retard, retard.
lta6494 4 months ago
@lta6494
Eh, I called EVERYONE arguing a retard. I didn't specificy a particular group of people I was talking to. Also, what exactly is the contrary point of view to which I am supposedly so whiny against?
RS1Comedy1Vids 4 months ago
@RS1Comedy1Vids 1. Who cares if you made it to everyone or just one person?
2. You did'nt have the contray point of view, that's what an argument is.
3. I found it ironic that you were "observing" people arguing on a comment page.
4. What was I arguing about?
5. I enjoy making numbered lists
lta6494 4 months ago
@lta6494
1) What do you mean who cares? If I made it to one person, then your comments would be valid. But that's not the case here.
2) So can you explain how I called out people with contrary point of views, despite not intially having a point of view?
3) Well, it was more of a 'scrolling down and seeing the @ sign over and over, with long messages and the odd case profanity here and there'.
4) How I was complaining, when in reality I wasn't actually complaining nor acting like a whiny bitch.
RS1Comedy1Vids 4 months ago
@RS1Comedy1Vids I am really just breaking your balls dude, I am just glad someone will just talk to me....;(
haha?
lta6494 4 months ago
@RS1Comedy1Vids 100% agreed
MultiDannyboy89 1 month ago
Think even Jesus would have some wine, and kick up his heels with Keith .
billyjo1881 5 months ago
I really should have been born in 1953 instead of 1983...
srelliott83 5 months ago
I think the luckiest are those who can crank up Exile on a Wednesday, then listen to "Rubber Soul" on a Thursday.."In through the Out Door" on Friday, and love them all, as their moods change.
flaneur75 5 months ago
I have respect for both bands. However, the Beatles were always to soft for my taste. The song writing was brilliant, but to be honest George Harrison wasn't the best guitarist. And Ringo wasn't the best drummer. It was too much bubblegum in my opinion. Nobody, and I mean nobody beats the Stones from 68-74. The Stones will always be my favorite band. Their creativity was unbelievable. Do you think the beatles ever rocked like this???? Nope!
bobmarley303 6 months ago
@bobmarley303 Nobody beat the Stones from 1968-74? I can't agree...
008fox 6 months ago
@008fox Zeppelin, and ONLY Zeppelin, beat the stones during that period
bigmarty11288 5 months ago
@bigmarty11288 They may very well have beaten themselves off but they certainly didn't beat the stones. Or even come close to it.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@dermotwalker if the beated the stones is metter of opinion, but it`s a fact that they are close. "They may very well have beaten themselves off" i can't see how.
Luxmaxnike 5 months ago
@Luxmaxnike I think it's really sweet of you to admit that in public! But next year, when you do all the scary stuff in sex ed, you'll understand? Until then, take care...
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@dermotwalker What?
Luxmaxnike 5 months ago
@Luxmaxnike You wrote 'if the beated the stones is metter of opinion' and you're asking me 'What?' Learn to speak english or fuck off.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@dermotwalker OMG, i forgot to press the "y" and now i don't know how to speak english? Btw your comments still don't make sense.
Luxmaxnike 5 months ago
@Luxmaxnike You not only 'forgot' to press the 'y', you invented a new word 'beated' and spelt 'matter' as 'metter'. That's why you don't understand my arguments, you flute.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@dermotwalker Still doesn't make sense.
Luxmaxnike 5 months ago
@Luxmaxnike Well, like I said, after puberty, a great many things will become a lot clearer. Now run outside and play.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@dermotwalker Ok
Luxmaxnike 5 months ago
@008fox Nobody beat the stones from '68 to '74 for the sexiest, most grown up rock n roll the word's ever seen, is the context here buddy. Though I'm pretty sure bob marley was playing the best reggae, if that's what you're trying to say.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@dermotwalker I can't agree. I'm too much of a Beatles fan. I was raised on them.
008fox 5 months ago
@008fox Fair enough, if it's just a security blanket fixation for you but the rest of us were arguing their relative merits. You make a curious boast about being 'raised on them' that in no way supports their abilities - it's like taking pride in being tall, something you can take no credit whatsoever for. And you 'can't agree' - another killer argument.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@dermotwalker Let me ask you this question, were you raised on the Stones?
It seems like you enjoy attacking people personally on YouTube to feed your ego. I chose not to make a 'killer argument' because I'm not the only one on this page "arguing" with you. In fact, we aren't even arguing, you're punching a brick wall assaulting my preference that I certainly CAN take credit for.
008fox 5 months ago
@008fox No, I wasn't 'raised' on the stones. Pretty sure you'd use a killer argument if you had one, though I was really mocking your pretentiousness - 'I can't agree'. I stand corrected however: you clearly CAN take credit for your pref but you really OUGHTN'T, if it's yours simply because other people 'raised' you on it. I don't see an argument as an attack or an assault btw but I'm tired of tits who can't even make a coherent argument for why one band arguably was more important than another.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@008fox No, I wasn't 'raised' on the stones. Pretty sure you'd use a killer argument if you had one, though I was really mocking your pretentiousness - 'I can't agree'. I stand corrected however: you clearly CAN take credit for your pref but you really OUGHTN'T, if it's yours simply because other people 'raised' you on it. I don't see an argument as an attack or an assault btw but I'm tired of tits who can't even make a coherent argument for why one band arguably was more important than another.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@008fox fuck the beatles
awhiteman1986 4 months ago
@dermotwalker Also, The Beatles released "Abbey Road" on '69, so there was two bands better than the stones in that period.
Luxmaxnike 5 months ago
@Luxmaxnike The Beatles were far more creative, talented and influential band but here, on this page, we're talking about rock'n'roll and the stones beat the piss out of the beatles in that far more limited arena. The 'other band' weren't contenders for either crown.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
The stones at the top of their game.
morval99 6 months ago
@felipe091295
Calm down.
He has got to be being sarcastic.
Who would actually mean that ???
FaustTheThird 6 months ago
Calm down guys,
He has to be being Sarcastic. Duh
Who would actually mean that??
FaustTheThird 6 months ago
Comment removed
FaustTheThird 6 months ago
Sucked dick? This is one of the best albums ever made you moron. People like you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion when all you are going to do is use your thumbless hands to type in utter garbage. Is 24 your IQ?
MrNrutherford 6 months ago
I thought this album sucked dick when I heard it. It is super overrated. This has nothing on todays good tunes.
MikeLamb24 6 months ago
@MikeLamb24 God, I hope you're joking.
Gilmoreothe1 6 months ago
@Gilmoreothe1 Sorry, Mike Lame, but he speaks the truth.
reptilicus 6 months ago
Exploded the speakers in my stereo with this song back in '74! No more voices on the street!
walrustusks1 6 months ago
Untouchable!!!!!!!
Carlfgauge 7 months ago
two people couldn't get therer rocks off
misfits4life1 7 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@misfits4life1 MY JAPANESE G.F GETS MY ROCKS OFF
nihonjinonnanochitsu 7 months ago
the best!
viejaslocasrnr 7 months ago
Anyone know what the background voice is saying during the interlude starting at 2:13 thru 2:35?
teddog3331 8 months ago
ok big'n the rolling stones and beatles had a friendly rivalry
jackinthebox96 8 months ago
Beatles, some fine music but overall...they were always the wussies of rock.
teddog3331 8 months ago
@teddog3331 LOL! So true!
stableshadow 7 months ago
@teddog3331
beatles were never a rock band, more pop. imo anyway they were better songwriters than richards/jagger.
JoshRobertson142 6 months ago
@JoshRobertson142 actually they were rock but mostly from68-70 and were psykadelik (how evr u spell it)rock in 66and67 and before that was mostly pop rock like many groups at the time
TheMasterofnothing13 6 months ago
@JoshRobertson142 The Beatles were the greatest ROCK band of all time and yes they were a rock band, The Stones were the second greatest rock band
shawndixon13 6 months ago
@shawndixon13
yeah i can agree with that.
JoshRobertson142 6 months ago
@shawndixon13 You're a dipshit, JoshRobertson.
reptilicus 6 months ago
@shawndixon13 Nah, the beatles were in a different league, far more creative and ground breaking but they couldn't rock a cradle - the best they did in that respect, was the sort of thing yer nana would tap her foot too. And they were far too 'nice'. Whereas the stones were 'only' a rock n roll band n they excelled at it. Sang about drugs n breakdowns, pussy and whores, street violence and serial killers and pretty much defining the stereo type for a rock n roll band.
dermotwalker 6 months ago
@dermotwalker
The Beatles lifted rock to higher grounds, perfecting the genre and participating in the creation of many of its most relevant subgenres -folk rock, psychedelic rock, progressive rock-, whereas the Rolling Stones had problems with art crafting albums, and they pretty much kept it simple, raw, energetic and violent, even going rootsy for a period, which was where they excelled at, but The Beatles, being greater, surpassed them in many ways, if not in staging a musical riot.
AFOH 6 months ago
@AFOH I refer you to my earlier post which was beautifully succinct, as well as being accurate unlike your waffle. ( Though your 'even going rootsy' remark, did make me laugh out loud. )
dermotwalker 6 months ago
@dermotwalker
Welcome to the world of rock criticism. As Frank Zappa once mentioned, this is all about people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, for people who can't read. Oh, and yes, my argument was pretty accurate, if not strictly academic in form -obviously-. At least you got to laugh while arguing. That's a win for a rock debate, I guess. I wouldn't complain, myself. I'm not really arguing, but just declaring some facts. Cheers.
AFOH 6 months ago
@AFOH Dunno what that ancient and well known Zappa quote brings to the table but I refer you again to by earlier post. The Beatles were the better band, more creative and ground breaking but they COULDN'T rock a cradle. The Stones actually copied them in their very early days but the stones went on to become the best rock/rock'n'roll band around for decades. It isn't necessary to hoover up every plaudit to heap upon your favourites, they have already have the greater crown. Those are the facts.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
Comment removed
AFOH 5 months ago
@dermotwalker
While I mostly agree with your argument, I believe that, in declaring the original arena rock act -refer to The Beatles' concert at Shea Stadium for further historical clarification-, unable to rock a cradle, you are dismissing a very seminal portion of rock and roll's history, but I understand the point you are trying to make, by citing the Stones as the more lasting live act given their sheer violence on stage, still remarkable today, even at their age.
AFOH 5 months ago
@AFOH I'm assuming you mean 'defining' rather than 'declaring' the original rock act? Which the Shea Stadium concert didn't do ( tho I'm sure there are hundreds of beatles fan books that says it did - that's the trouble with fan worship, it's uncritical and ultra hyperbolic. ) However, yr answr md me reflect agn on thr claim to rock. I suppose you'd have to say thy wr pioneers of rock at one stage and perhaps I've misinterpreted yr original post, in that respect.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@dermotwalker
Declaring them unable to rock a cradle, is what I meant. Cheers.
AFOH 5 months ago
@AFOH We could keep this up forever! I'd still say it because while they were briefly much the apex of rock, early on, looked at over the full timeline of rock history, they really don't stand up alongside the stones achievement in that more limited arena. Like I say, the beatles are by far the bigger band of course but I still think it's fair to say they don't have any real claim to be able to rock. Guess we're not ever likely to agree on this one. Take it easy.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@dermotwalker
I know what you mean, but I'm stating that declaring them unable to rock, or unable to rock a cradle is still very dismissive of their history, and this debate is pretty much needless already, since we've reached a consensus that the Stones had much more raw energy live and the Beatles were far more creative.
AFOH 5 months ago
@AFOH the Stones creative output was second to none, and longer. This song is the perfect example.
reptilicus 5 months ago
@reptilicus
Their output was extremely relevant to the development of rock music, yes, but they were not precisely the most creative band in the mainstream space. For many years, in fact, they attempted to play catch up with The Beatles until they lagged far behind upon the release of Sgt. Pepper's onwards, which is when they decided to get back to their roots instead, abandoning their most innovative pursuits in exchange for a refinement of older traditions.
AFOH 5 months ago
@dermotwalker
And I cited Zappa to help you realize how acting pretentious about argumental presentation and writing style in rock discussion won't contribute much to the debate itself, given that rock's recorded history is much too diverse in form and quality.
AFOH 5 months ago
@AFOH Jeez, you didn't think the Zappa quote sounded pretentious?? Neither of us has posted anything here, IMOH, tht cld b dscrbd as 'rock criticism,' the maj of which neither of us seems to hv any grt rspct 4, althgh u sm to thnk wht i wrote reaches ths dizzy heights! ( Tht sd, rock hstry is not to diverse etc fr that rare thng, intelligent rock crit, to cntrbt smthng to it. )
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@AFOH BTW, disputing what constitutes the facts of any matter, is arguing. And I'm not complaining either. Take care.
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@AFOH Bt whl wr at it, u r aware of the huge debt Sgt Pepper's owes to Zappa's influence?
BTW, why is it right whn the beatles experiment with subgenres bt wrong whn the stones do ( i.e. 'even going rootsy' ).
dermotwalker 5 months ago
@shawndixon13 No,sorry.I grew up in a beatlemaniac household, and the problem with the Beatles is that they're very dated,they just didn't age well.
The Stones may have been from the same period starting out,but they were in a whole different league as far as rock goes. They really became a band of the early '70's,yet they still sound just as awesome as they always have. They're no pop act, and their music has and will continue to stand the test of time, as all truly great works do.
Oldbmwr100rs 6 months ago
@Oldbmwr100rs Their last albums (The Beatles, Let it Be and Abbey Road) are the best ones. not the most innovative, but the more consistent ones.
Luxmaxnike 5 months ago
@shawndixon13 no the beatles were not a rock band there fucking pop jesus anyone with any musical education could telly ou that. fuck the beatles if u wanna listen to them go look up the beatles this is the stones and exile on main st the greatest ablum ever made no fuck off
awhiteman1986 3 months ago
@awhiteman1986 the Beatles were in ´60, like Justin Bieber today
PENTADACTYLON 2 months ago
@PENTADACTYLON please dont mix that little girly pricks name in a stones song maybe he die soon
awhiteman1986 2 months ago
@PENTADACTYLON yer going to hell for that comment
elvispresley718 2 months ago
Comment removed
shawndixon13 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@awhiteman1986 well i can tell u don't know what pop music is and probably rock and roll for that matter..btw i'm not dissing The Stones they're my second favorite band of all time.but The Beatles were a ROCK band. A pop band is there to appease a general audience and is only there for enterprise not art. The Beatles were artists,they were authentic,creative, experimental,innovative, they had formal artistic qualities. Which makes them a ROCK band.
shawndixon13 2 months ago
@JoshRobertson142 " were never a rock band, more pop" wrong.
Luxmaxnike 5 months ago
@Luxmaxnike
i'm right, the beatles album's would be considered pop.
JoshRobertson142 5 months ago
@JoshRobertson142 No,Maybe the first ones, but the last ones had more rock ballads and rocks songs like I Want You, Revolution, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Something, Get Back, Savoy Truffle and Birthday. I`m not sayin they didn`t had pop songs, but they were a rock band.
Luxmaxnike 5 months ago
i dont live on main street, but im happy to be all shamanic and say im pretty much an exile on main street
HuckleberrySlim 8 months ago
From that first guitar riff.....one of the best rocks songs of all time! So underrated!
walrustusks1 8 months ago 13
Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney dislike
bigmarty11288 8 months ago 17
@bigmarty11288 and George Harrison.
Skaternick911 5 months ago
@bigmarty11288 ahahhahahaha
PITAGORA88 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigmarty11288 THATS DUMB DUDE
MINDCONTROLLEDLOVE 4 months ago
@bigmarty11288 In fact it was me a two friends in a only-sleeping-rocks off run. Sorry.
Huisihuilke 4 months ago
i hear you talk when im on the street
MegaBeatle69 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sunshine bores me, too... I'm listening to this song because I just broke a personal record, 56 straight hours without sleeping... and my typing is impeccable
bigmarty11288 9 months ago
Sunshine bores me, too... I'm listening to this song because I just broke a personal record, 56 straight hours without sleeping... and my typing is impeccable
bigmarty11288 9 months ago
@bigmarty11288 this guy probably died listening to the rolling stones. awesome.
JERKsaboy 8 months ago
Ikr wat a tune !!!!!!!!!!
Giggles13131313 9 months ago
awsome song :)))))
Giggles13131313 9 months ago
If you listen to this when in the mountains, your mind just opens up. I love this song!
1973ziggystardust 9 months ago
Oh my god. What a TUNE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
emmarowleyowley 9 months ago
sweet beat, he's a human percussion machine. He has the oddest smile though, like the cat who just ate the canary..know what i mean jelley bean?
1959billyshears 10 months ago
LOL, I know Ramsay97's pain!!! (i.e. my speakers won't go loud enough either!!!)
GumbyTheBorg 10 months ago
my speakers wont go loud enough :/
ramsay97 10 months ago
best song
skatinganddestroying 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
best rolling stones song ever
skatinganddestroying 10 months ago
Comment removed
skatinganddestroying 10 months ago
My favorite track to dance to from this album. I loved it in 1972 when I bought the album and still love it. Exile on Main Street is timeless!!
ckc1958 10 months ago
I honestly haven't heard a sleazier song than this. New Stones favorite, fuck all the posers!
SneakyJem 10 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
MY 70'S SOUNDTRACK!
iorioriorio 10 months ago
mY 1970'S SOUNDTRACK!!
iorioriorio 10 months ago
FUCKIN A
iorioriorio 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my waterbury fanatasy
my 1970
iorioriorio 10 months ago
my waterbury fanatasy
iorioriorio 10 months ago
FUCKIN A...
iorioriorio 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I get my rocks off with the Stones!!!!
sexysixxable 10 months ago
@2:33 - @2:37 Love Keiths backing vocals.
wellergilardino9 10 months ago
Im zipping through the days at lightning speeeed
Orakwan 11 months ago
@Orakwan ... FLUSH OUT .....FIND THE FUCKIN FEED
iorioriorio 10 months ago
QUE BUEN TEMA LPM !
AGUANTEN LOS STONES
TatoRnRStone 11 months ago
What's the matter with you boy?
He don't come around nomore.
Is he checking out for sure?
Is he gonna close the door on me???
My favorite part. Can soooo relate. XD
besrarkledlimbs22 11 months ago
"Feel so hypnotized, can't describe the scene. Feel so mesmerized, all that inside me."
That's how I describe this incredible song!
TheSympathy11 11 months ago
like if you just can't get enough of the trumpets at 1:10
tayjaubes 11 months ago 5
i only get my rocks off when i am dreaming/sleeping...... i only get them off... get them off... (Great tune!)
hopalong38 11 months ago
can't seem to stay in step,
'Cause she come ev'ry time that she pirouettes over me.
Justlikanutha1 11 months ago
The sunshine bores the daylight out of me.