|
I'm only a casual fan of the Stones -- not a huge one, but everyone I know says that their peak was the late 60s/early 70s although "Some Girls" (1978) is said to be good.
Still, a comparison with the Beatles is apt. I think part of the reasons the Beatles have worn so well is b/c they broke up before they could decline - and though they would've been better together than on their own in the mid-'70s, that slump that brought us such mid-70s garbage as "Listen to What the Man Said" and John Lennon's "Somewhere in NYC" (great political themes, crappy music) would still have occurred.
The Stones, by contrast kept going past their prime. Every talent deteriorates after awhile, and while it does come and go in cycles, there is usually a definite peak that is never again equalled. The Stones have stuck around, and I feel their music really deteriorated.
As an aside, it sort of annoys me how the Stones have had so many members -- really, what IS the Stones? To me, it just seems to be Mick and Keith at it's core -- there's not been a continuous equivalent of "John, Paul, George, Ringo" -- the lineup has changed so much.
Should the Stones have broken up sometime in the late 70's or early 80's?
|