Yet another Rolling Stones poll

[TomAz]

In his review of a recent Rolling Stones concert movie release (Charlie is My Darling -- Ireland 1965), NY Times film critic AO Scott offered the following:

The Rolling Stones have turned 50. (As a collective entity, of course. The individual members are mostly basking in their late 60s and early 70s.) I don’t think it takes anything away from that feat of longevity — though it may annoy some fans — to suggest that the Stones were a truly great rock band for about one-fifth of that time, from “Beggars Banquet” in 1968 to “Some Girls” a decade later. Afterward, they became their own best cover act, performing their hits for arenas full of fans. Before, in the mythic ’60s, they were a polished and energetic pop group, one of many that bubbled out of England in those years.

Reactions?

[greghead]

Sorta nailed it. EXCEPT for calling them a polished and energetic pop group. They viewed themselves in the early days as a legitimate blues band ("I hope they don't think we're a rock 'n roll outfit"), though '64 & '65 certainly produced some good pop songs. But dude considers Aftermath a pop record? Interesting perspective.

And let's not forget about the ENTIRELY forgettable albums that came between Exile and Some Girls. Goat's Head Soup? Black and Blue? Yeah, pass the bong, Ronnie, let's keep jamming. This author is half-full of shit.

[Miroir Noir]

Stupid argument. It's like saying Woody Allen was only a truly great director from Annie Hall to Crimes and Misdemeanors because that was his creative peak. Ignores high and lows in quality that occurred both before and after the creative peak, as well as lows that occurred during the creative peak.

[Miroir Noir]

Dylan was only a great artist between Highway 61 and Blood on the Tracks.

[Miroir Noir]

DeLillo was only a great artist between White Noise and Underworld.

[ocbruin84]

Korn was only great from self-titled to Life is Peachy

[amyzzz]

Go on...

[buddy]

I know Tattoo You had a decent amount of material leftover from a decade before or something, but that was a great album and after Some Girls. If he wanted to say some of their best material was from Beggars Banquet to Some Girls maybe he'd have some kind of point. But, if they're still performing live and entertaining at a high level wouldn't that still make them a great rock band?

[TomAz]

Dylan was only a great artist between Freewheelin' and Blood on the Tracks.

fixed

[TomAz]

And let's not forget about the ENTIRELY forgettable albums that came between Exile and Some Girls. Goat's Head Soup? Black and Blue?

totally agree.

But I think Scott is sort of right. In my mind the Stones were at their peak after Keith discovered open G tuning.