Are the Rolling Stones Overrated?

Are the Rolling Stones Overrated?

Created by Sean on Jun 4, 2008

82 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yee

No

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Greg

Greece

#1 Jun 4, 2008
They are great, not underrated, neither overrated. Just legends.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#2 Jun 4, 2008
The Stones are not overrated, but these stupid polls are.
besides this isn't the Rolling Stones forum.
Topix has really gone down hill, but adding these stupid polls and judging buttons.
It just allows trolls to rights that they do NOT deserve.
Not calling Sean a troll or even attacking him, it's these useless tools that have no place on topix.
Greg

Greece

#3 Jun 4, 2008
Well, I told you so, from the very first time I saw them. These signs are for 6 year olds. Let's put an end to these, please. If we don't like a post, it's better to say so by posting a reply than marking these signs.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#4 Jun 4, 2008
yes you did my friend, but it seems that they refuse to listen.
as you said, it's for children.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#5 Jun 4, 2008
besides this poll is fake.
earlier it said ...
5 no
2 yes

now it says

4 no
3 yes

its not supposed to go down in numbers but up.
AndrewM

AOL

#6 Jun 5, 2008
The Stones are vastly overrated compared to the Beatles. In everthing in terms of originality, songwriting, influence, innovation and other minor things like record sales and other artist covering their songs. They have done any album worth of note since the early 70's.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#7 Jun 5, 2008
Elvis, Bob Dylan,the Doors,Bruce Springsteen,U2 in fact every artist that has ever recorded any music at all, is vastly overrated compared to the Beatles.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#8 Jun 5, 2008
The Rolling Stones have paid their dues and , Bridges to babylon, Voodoo lounge,The Bigger Bang, Steel Wheels and Tatoo You, are actually preety good albums.
The were never given a red carpet, neither the Beatles, they had to play in sweaty clubs for pennies stressed out too, but through all that, they became a great band.
Perfect?, no, but no other band in history is either, The Beatles just stopped before they could burn out.
In fact, how many other bands have had all the band members being successful solo?, none.
All 4 Beatles have had solo success.
The Rolling Stones are still a great band, not a nostalgia act.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#9 Jun 5, 2008
AndrewM wrote:
The Stones are vastly overrated compared to the Beatles. In everthing in terms of originality, songwriting, influence, innovation and other minor things like record sales and other artist covering their songs. They have done any album worth of note since the early 70's.
Andrew as I re read my posts, I want you to know that they are not attacks on yours.
I respect your opinion, even if i don't entirely agree.
Just wanted to clarify this, I don't want to come off as arrogant.
Everyone who posts on the Beatles forum deserves the right to express their opinions without being "judged" or attacked.
Sometimes , I'm not very open minded.
Wish we had more people posting on this forum, even the occassional post is welcomed.
People like RichO and Daytripper66 post ever so often, but it's great to read from these two Beatle fans.
Greg

Greece

#10 Jun 5, 2008
I have to say something about the Rolling Stones. They are great, but what annoyed me was that they were the "bad boys" which made them more acceptable to an audience that considered Beatles' music as "soft", and not let's say "masculine". Not so "Rock". They took American Blues, they evaluate it, and they had written great, great songs. But, the Beatles were something more than riffs and sexy vocals. If someone doesn't understand this, please say so and I'll respond.
tony whitton

Australia

#11 Jan 18, 2011
How many decent songs have the Stones had since ,let's say Some Girls some 32 or 33 tears ago.Two or three? Maybe even a half dozen ! Thats about one reasonable song for every seven to ten years. Yes ,i think the Stones are well and truly overated.
Mojo Mumtaz

Renton, WA

#12 Jan 18, 2011
tony whitton wrote:
How many decent songs have the Stones had since ,let's say Some Girls some 32 or 33 tears ago.Two or three? Maybe even a half dozen ! Thats about one reasonable song for every seven to ten years. Yes ,i think the Stones are well and truly overated.
The Stones still sell out when they go on tour.They have had so many good songs over the years I can't count them all.They have attitude and rock hard for their age.They are legends who have paid their dues not at all overrated.
Fischer

Medina, OH

#13 Jan 18, 2011
The Stones are classic. They have longevity. They have fans young and old. Asking if the Stones are overrated is like asking if Pink Floyd or The Who or Led Zeppelin are over rated. They have a very good enjoyable catalog of songs.

That said, most of the stuff I like from them is from the early 80's and on back.

I think the Stones and the Beatles have completely different sounds. But it is funny where I've read that at least in the 60's how the Stones patterned themselves after the Beatles. From songs to album covers.
Fitzgerald Mumtaz

Seattle, WA

#14 Jan 18, 2011
Very well said Fischer I agree with you but be careful the judger will say you are clueless and you need some peanuts and a sad frowning face.I wish they had beer icons to go with the peanuts dang it.LOL
Fischer

Medina, OH

#15 Jan 18, 2011
Oh, the hell with it, Fitz. I just judged myself and got it over with. So a big PFFFFFT to the idiot judger with one hand on the mouse and the other thumb up his arse.
Bubba

Renton, WA

#16 Jan 18, 2011
Fischer wrote:
Oh, the hell with it, Fitz. I just judged myself and got it over with. So a big PFFFFFT to the idiot judger with one hand on the mouse and the other thumb up his arse.
Good discription Fischer I wonder if that thumb is stuck?LOL
JGGott_87

São Paulo, Brazil

#17 Jan 20, 2012
Except for The Beatles, who really did what people say they did and deserve all the credit they get, every other legenday band is overrated.
Still, it's simply a fact that The Rolling Stones are the second greatest band of all time, although I don't think The Stones are that much overrated if you compare them to Led Zeppelin.
You can't get more overrated than Led Zeppelin, folks.
Johnny

São Paulo, Brazil

#18 Jan 20, 2012
No, they are not.
The problem is that the vast majority of people (especially younger crowds) don't know how to listen to the classics and end up drawing hasty and distorted conclusions about the bands.
Do some BASIC RESEARCH about the Rolling Stones. Many people simply don't uderstand the impact, importance, influence they had not only on music, but on society and culture in the 60's. Nothing sounded like them. There was nothing like those guys in the 60's, they were pioneers of Rock & Roll and that's vital to understand their music. They pretty much defined the 60's and changed the world, together with the Beatles. They LITERALLY changed the world, people.
You can't listen to music without putting it into context and understanding the period it was made and what it meant. The Rolling Stones shaped Rock & Roll from its very beginnings and it's impossible to imagine Rock music without them. They are one of the main reponsibles for making it what it is and developing it.
So, please, get smart. Don't go around talking abouth things you don't really know about and draw hasty conclusions about a whole band simply by some 5 or 6 songs that you listened on the radio. Grow up!
Rudy Rucker

Woodinville, WA

#19 Jan 20, 2012
JGGott_87 wrote:
Except for The Beatles, who really did what people say they did and deserve all the credit they get, every other legenday band is overrated.
Still, it's simply a fact that The Rolling Stones are the second greatest band of all time, although I don't think The Stones are that much overrated if you compare them to Led Zeppelin.
You can't get more overrated than Led Zeppelin, folks.
Yeah I think you can be more overrated than Led Zepplin what comes to mind is Van Halen way overrated not anywhere near as good as the Stones-Beatles-Led Zepplin or Bad Company
JohnnyBlade

New Zealand

#20 Feb 13, 2014
Neither the Stones, nor Led Zeppelin can hold a candle to the Beatles, although each band has music I certainly enjoy. A more appropriate canddiate for "overrated band" must surely be AC/DC. The correct definition of soulless bullshit cock-rock, if you ask me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The Beatles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do people hate Asparagus ? (Jan '10) 20 hr MrDinosaurGuy 24
News Paul McCarthy: Going Vegan Is The Best Way To G... Nov 7 Ken Fasano 1
News 150 Best Selling Artists in the World! (Dec '08) Oct 30 RICK 12,903
News Beatles statues are tons of fun except for one ... Oct 22 Break Farts 5
new george martin interview he apologizes to p... (Feb '08) Sep '17 macca 20
Samples Aug '17 djhope 1
News Radio Faces Big Test In Pennsylvania That Will ... Aug '17 Hair Nation 2
More from around the web