Roger Daltrey: Rolling Stones a Mediocre Pub Band

[Manc in London]

The Incredible String Band played on the Friday.
They were British.

Never new that. They were clearly the best British act then :)

 

[yankblue]

I can't believe Keith Richards is still alive. The man is a walking opioid and has looked like a potato that got run over by a tractor since the 90s.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Never new that. They were clearly the best British act then :)

To be fair it was at some god awful time of day and hardly anyone was watching.

 

[Bill Walker]

Ironic coming from the lead singer of the typical pub band. Always disliked The Who and some of the the band members. In my opinion, the Stones were far better. It's embarrassing that The Who, Graham Nash and Joe Cocker were the only British representatives at Woodstock.

As for the 'standard blues' comments, that's a clear misrepresentation of the Stones. They only became blues-like in the 70s (songs like 'Brown Sugar'). Prior to that, they were very much pop/rock n roll who sang about non-mainstream issues (e.g. 'Mothers Little Helper', 'Paint it Black' etc..). Must admit, I much preferred the pre-70s tunes as I am not in to blues and rock opera tunes that last over 5 minutes.

As well as The Incredible String band you forgot Ten Years After and The Keef Hartley Band.

The Who were voted the 2nd best band on there though, after Hendrix.

 

[Stuuuuuu]

As much as I love The Who, I think Daltrey can be embarrassing at times. Especially considering he benefited from extreme good fortune himself. I've always wondered why The Who even went with a frontman, as Townsend could've done everything Daltrey did, and probably better. And Daltrey's creative input was pretty minimal. The guy stole a living in my opinion.

Like them or not, The Rolling Stones are one of the best bands ever to have existed. Listen to Exile On Main St and tell me that's the work of a mediocre pub band FFS.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

All fair points. I knew about them being banned here but I didn’t know they changed their style specifically as a result.

Neither did I, and they're one of my all time favourite bands.
The infusion of English whimsy into their stuff was utterly brilliant, imo, but I never knew Ray did it to stick one to the Yanks;)

 

[Saddleworth2]

Ironic coming from the lead singer of the typical pub band. Always disliked The Who and some of the the band members. In my opinion, the Stones were far better. It's embarrassing that The Who, Graham Nash and Joe Cocker were the only British representatives at Woodstock.

As for the 'standard blues' comments, that's a clear misrepresentation of the Stones. They only became blues-like in the 70s (songs like 'Brown Sugar'). Prior to that, they were very much pop/rock n roll who sang about non-mainstream issues (e.g. 'Mothers Little Helper', 'Paint it Black' etc..). Must admit, I much preferred the pre-70s tunes as I am not in to blues and rock opera tunes that last over 5 minutes.

whilst I agree completely with your opinion re Stones vs Who, the Stones performed and recorded many many blues covers throughout their career and continue to do so (if you haven't already check out their 2015 album blue and lonesome). Little Red Rooster for example was a Willie Dixon cover (they did quite a few of his) from 1964. Other covers by Howlin Wolf, Otis Redding, Wilson Pickett to name just a few.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

I thought it was odd to even here someone refer to the "Big 4" because putting them up against Led Zep, The Beatles and The Stones is absurd for someone of my generation, a bit like Putting Andy Murray next to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic

I can only imagine they were big enough at the time but I don't think their music has endured in nearly the same way.

The Kinks were better than The Who n’all. The Who are nowhere near the level of the three you mention.

It’s like talking about City, Chelsea and Paris and then comparing Spurs to those three.

The Who have less than a handful of classic tracks and used to play really loud and heavy live back when they first came on the scene which was unheard of at the time. That’s about it though, nothing special. If they’d come out in any other era they’d be just another band.

The Stones, The Beatles and Led Zep are miles ahead. I’d put The Who at the level of The Animals and The Yardbirds.

 

[Octavian]

Neither did I, and they're one of my all time favourite bands.
The infusion of English whimsy into their stuff was utterly brilliant, imo, but I never knew Ray did it to stick one to the Yanks;)

It was more a case of realising their dream of conquering America couldn’t happen now but they did have a little sulk about it and went very local with their sound. Personally I liked it as it gave them a different angle compared to other very well known groups then, who did the opposite in trying to sound American. There’s nothing worse in music than everything sounding the same, like what we get today.

 

[Octavian]

The Kinks were better than The Who n’all. The Who are nowhere near the level of the three you mention.

It’s like talking about City, Chelsea and Paris and then comparing Spurs to those three.

The Who have less than a handful of classic tracks and used to play really loud and heavy live back when they first came on the scene which was unheard of at the time. That’s about it though, nothing special. If they’d come out in any other era they’d just be another band.

The Stones, The Beatles and Led Zep are miles ahead. I’d put The Who at the level of The Animals and The Yardbirds.

A little harsh on the Who but I tend to agree about putting others ahead of them. The Kinks, the Stones and Led Zeppelin are comfortably better in my humble opinion.

(I didn’t mention the Beatles as the others don’t deserve to be compared to them :-))