THE ROLLING STONES

 “She just can’t be chained

to a life were nothing’s gained

or nothing’s lost,

at such a cost”  

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 "A"

Main Decade: 60's, 70's 

Main Eras:

Rock & Roll II, Early Sixties (1960-1966)

Psychedelia (1966-1969)

Hard Rock (1968-???)

The Great Transition (1970-1980+)

​

Key Members:

Mick Jagger: Vocals

Keith Richards: Rhythm and Lead Guitar

Brian Jones: Rhythm and Lead Guitar, Sitar

Charlie Watts: Drums

Bill Wyman: Bass

Mick Taylor: Lead Guitar

Ronnie Wood: Rhythm and Lead Guitar​

​

Key Songs: ​​

 Jumping Jack Flash, Paint It Black, Gimme Shelter, You Can't Always Get What You Want, (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction, Sympathy For The Devil, Ruby Tuesday, Brown Sugar, Wild Horses, Let It Bleed, Angie, Let's Spend The Night Together, She's A Rainbow, Tumblin' Dice, As Tears Go By, Under My Thumb, It's Only Rock & Roll, Honky Tonk Women, Child Of The Moon, Get Off Of My Cloud, Street Fighting Man, Miss You, Sister Morphine, Midnight Rambler, Mother's Little Helper, Heart Of Stone, You Got Me Rocking, Stray Cat Blues, Start Me Up, Lady Jane, Shine A Light, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Out Of Time, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, 2000  Light Years  From Home, Love Is Strong, Happy, Rocks Off, Beast Of Burden, Hang Fire, Anybody’s Seen My Baby, Moonlight Mile, Waiting On A Friend, Fool To Cry, Saint Of Me, Monkey Man, Streets Of Love, Out Of Control, I'm Free, Doom And Gloom.

​

Link to The Cavern's Spotify list of The Rolling Stones Best Songs

 

Ladies and gentlemen: Their Satanic Majesties, The Rolling Stones!

​

​

This was the second band I discovered, immediately after the Beatles, and it seems my tastes follow a chronological pattern. The truth is, that cassette (an original this time) I bought during a summer vacation in Mexico City blew me away. It was called 16 Golden Hits, a recording released only in Mexico, and it included the hits from their years with London Records—only songs from the 60s. And all that energy and sound packed into 50 minutes had me drooling for weeks. I still have the tape today (it's demagnetized now, but in 2026 I finally have it on LP!), and although I later discovered their post-Jones years, some tremendous songs from the 70s, I still prefer the freshness, the riffs, the catchiness, and the originality of the 60s Stones.

 

I remember when I first heard "Jumping Jack Flash," I thought they must have been the most tight-knit and cohesive band on the face of the earth when they recorded it. Poor naive kid, I knew nothing about rock. Well, NO! Today, I still listen to "Jumping Jack Flash" and it still gives me goosebumps, and I still think it's the epitome of a rock band.

 

The Rolling Stones were considered the ultimate antithesis of the Beatles. I don't know if it's true that in the USA they'd ask you if you were pro-Beatle or pro-Stone and pigeonhole you based on your answer. The Stones simply drew their influences from a much blacker blues and rhythm and blues than the Beatles' rock and roll, with a sound closer to their roots. The phenomenon of good versus bad might stem from another coincidence: when the Beatles were rejected by Decca Records and within months had five songs in the top five of the Billboard charts, the label desperately searched for a band to compete with… and Jagger and company happened to be passing through the neighborhood.

 

It turns out that more than a natural rivalry, it was a marketing rivalry, accentuated by the inherently more aggressive music and (consciously or unconsciously) more provocative lyrics, and further fueled by the liner notes on their albums, written by their manager, Andrew Loog Oldham. Their music sounded very revolutionary for its time. Today we can listen to their debut album and laugh at the sound, but back then it was something no band outside of some obscure suburban bar had done. That early music has a strong seedy bar vibe, smelling of whiskey, sweat, and nicotine, and even songs like King Bee or Walking the Dog have a strong sexual connotation in both the guitar slide and the lyrics and intonation (not to mention I Just Want to Make Love To You, which with its simple title provoked censorship), something I don't think I've found on albums prior to that one.​

​

If Decca and Oldham cast them as the bad boys, they didn't seem bothered by it at all. On the contrary, they exploited it by making more noise, shouting more, growing their hair longer, creating more intricate arrangements than any other band, and, not content with that, writing lyrics that any parent would not only consider dangerous, but would practically require washing the ears of their rebellious children who dared to listen to such infernal music—something that didn't happen with the Beatles.

 

However, the Stones survived this supposed rivalry and grew far beyond it. I say supposed because it's now common knowledge that it never existed. Proof of this is that it was Harrison who recommended they go to Decca, and that the Liverpool band gave them "I Wanna Be Your Man," which the Stones took and turned into another of their dangerous and provocative songs. That "gift" from the Beatles would give the Stones their first entry into the charts, and it was their golden ticket out of the London basement where they crammed together to live and rehearse. And yes, there have recently been some back-and-forths between Paul and Mick about which band is bigger, but it's also true that in 2023 Paul contributed bass and backing vocals to "Bite My Head Off" (and there will supposedly be another collaboration on the upcoming "Foreign Tongues"), and there were already precedents at the 1968 Rock & Roll Circus, when Keith played bass on "Dirty Mac" with John during "Yer Blues," although those recordings weren't released until the 1980s. A Beatles-Stones collaboration would have been impossible without some camaraderie and friendship.

 

And like the Beatles, the Stones didn't get stuck in just two or three rhythms, but dared to explore while setting trends, encompassing an impressive number of genres and styles in both the '60s and '70s. Later they would become a dinosaur of a band, but that's another story.

 

The Rolling Stones had a couple of years to make a name for themselves with their Rhythm & Blues, undergoing an astonishing transition in a single album, Aftermath, before fully embracing psychedelic exploration during the Flowers, Buttons era and the much-maligned Satanic Majesties. From then on, they would constantly metamorphose, venturing into Hard Rock, a purer blues, Latin rhythms, country, gospel, and later even disco, etc. All this without ever abandoning (we'll continue until '75, well, maybe '78) that unmistakable essence that makes any of their songs instantly recognizable.

 

The Stones perhaps represented the most violent aspect of the 1960s musical revolution. The Animals were also wild on stage, but their lyrics never reached that level. Even in those early days, the still-famous "Satisfaction" (whose lyrical importance often goes unnoticed) was a bombshell, as it was the first song in which, embodying the spirit of an entire generation, they shouted with the deepest rage: "I'm not satisfied!" And that was a year before the Vietnam War ended. And when the Beatles were releasing things like "Sexy Sadie" or "Revolution 9," they came along, said, "Move over, here I come," and dared to sing "Sympathy for the Devil" or "Honky Tonk Woman."​

​

While Dylan, Lennon, and company seemed to be calling young people with their music to seek new horizons and propose a new order, the Stones staged their protest by directly attacking the old system, criticizing it bluntly and even spitting in its face, wanting to tear it down completely. "What a Drag it is Getting Old," they proclaimed, though they later conveniently forgot this. And it is this attitude, along with their brilliant musical pieces, Keith and Brian's harmonies and melodies, the arrangements, the riffs… all of this has led them to be considered by an overwhelming majority as the second most influential band of all time… Although I hate those labels, and thankfully they've never been able to agree on a third.

 

Another point in the Rolling Stones' favor, or rather, in their creativity, is that they didn't have a George Martin. Of course, there were arrangers, but never anyone as decisive musically as the support the Beatles had from their producer. In other words, the creative aspect rested solely with them: Jagger and Richards on songwriting and Jones on arrangements (while it lasted). That's why the idea of ​​a tight-knit band that struck me when I first heard them has a basis in reality. Jagger and Richards were (and are) a true symbiosis as songwriters, and on most of the songs, they genuinely shared the writing and authorship. To the surprise of many, Keith has an enormous library, and to an even greater surprise, he seems to have read most of its contents, so the myth that he only composed the music is just that: a myth. I think the greatest weight in songwriting falls on him, but Mick also contributes quite a bit, and much of his anger and sarcasm make its presence felt.

 

Of course, Brian Jones played the role of arranger that Sir George Martin had with the Beatles. But not only that, he formed an extraordinary partnership with Keith on guitars. Especially in their early days, the Stones featured two very powerful guitars, sometimes responding to each other, sometimes driving the rhythm, but not simply providing accompaniment like in many other groups, sometimes even swapping lead guitars within the same song. Brian had a bluesy soul and guitar solos that sounded dry and desert-like to me, but in a very good way… How to put it? Jones wasn't a virtuoso, but he gave the songs an aura that was both primitive and modern, somewhere between a New Orleans bar and the most revolutionary sound of the moment: a glamorous nakedness. It would be unfair not to mention Ian Stewart, keyboardist and unofficial sixth member of the band, and therefore, little known. But he was very important in shaping their sound.

 

Returning to Brian Jones, he was never the brains of the band; that role fell to Keith. Mick was the face, the frontman who commanded attention. Brian was the one who finalized the songs, who gave the final touch to that framework created to provide its essence. He never appeared as the author of any song; however, it cannot be denied that the Rolling Stones had three phases, and that the most brilliant was the first, with him on board. Just look for any compilation with the band's entire history and see how many songs from the 60s dominate the album.​

​

Around '66, Brian began exploring new sounds. I can't listen to the live version of "Paint It Black" from the recent tours. It's a poor imitation of the original, lacking the sitar that gives it new dimensions, that simultaneous brilliance and darkness (although on the 2016 Ole Tour they used a guitar arrangement VERY similar to the sitar and have kept it ever since). Needless to say, it's one of my favorite songs, although, like with the Beatles, to name my favorite song by the band I'd have to list at least 10. Anyway, getting back to the topic, from the psychedelic period (1967), which was the only one Brian led, the most notable tracks are the beautiful "Ruby Tuesday," the extravagant "Dendelion," "She's a Rainbow," and "Let's Spend the Night Together," which isn't psychedelic by any stretch of the imagination, but is from that era. However, the three LPs and singles from that year contain true gems that have never been appreciated as they deserve: Mother's Little Helper (the sitar returns), Child of the Moon, We Love You, etc.

 

In '68, they returned to blues and a dry, gritty rock sound. Jones, already mired in drugs and isolation, began to lose his musical edge after the brilliance he once possessed. What would have happened to the Stones if Brian hadn't died? NOTHING. Nothing that didn't happen. Brian drowned in drugs and depression, literally, in his swimming pool (Extra, Extra! They've already accepted that it was murder!), after having officially left the band for a couple of months and practically working as a studio musician for a couple of years. Brian couldn't adapt to the changes; they couldn't always play the way he wanted, as the changing music and times demanded it. True, their most brilliant period musically (in every aspect) was during the psychedelia of '67, but can you imagine if that same wave had lasted for ten years? Can you imagine the Stones without Let It Bleed? Nope. Little of the good stuff would do. And Brian died, or was murdered.

 

That's where my favorite Rolling Stones era ends. But then Mick Taylor arrives: a young lad much younger than the rest, who guided them through the incredibly difficult transition from the '60s to the '70s. Very few bands have managed to do it. And I don't think any have been so successful. Hmm… Maybe Led Zeppelin… The Who?

 

It has to be said: Neither Brian Jones nor Keith Richards were guitar virtuosos. One was a very good arranger, and the other the best riff creator of all time; that's about it. Mick Taylor was indeed a virtuoso, and he elevated the band to an impressive level, providing a solid guitar solo with the skill to extend songs live to epic proportions. He wasn't just technically gifted, but he also knew how to convey emotion with his guitar. This is why one of the best live albums of all time is Get Yer Ya Ya's Out.

 

Taylor added an artistic touch to the band's powerful rock, even more so than Brian's baroque style. And it worked, at least for a while. I don't know if the others got tired of him, or if he didn't like carrying the weight of a band where he was barely credited for a single song, and on the last album he played on, It's Only Rock & Roll, a tremendous rift was evident in the old symbiosis between him and Keith. It's now known that he was the one who quit, not because of any particular argument, but simply because he didn't feel valued. And that's why I admire him, because not just anyone has the guts to tell the Rolling Stones to go to hell.​

​

So, after seriously considering Jeff Beck, Ry Cooder, Mick Ronson, and Steve Hillage, Ron Wood was chosen (by Keith, because he was the one he got along with best) to be his partner on guitars (and drinking), and they've been touring together for over 50 years now.

​

Ron has his own unique style, but I've never been able to stop seeing him as the guitarist he once was for Rod Stewart. I mean, he was great with Rod and the Faces; but with the Stones? The classic guitar duels they used to give us gradually faded away. For a long time, I criticized him harshly, but after seeing them live in 2016, Ronnie's role finally became clear to me. He didn't join the Stones to be the creative genius that Brian was. He didn't become the virtuoso that Taylor was. He came to be Keith's sideman, to take the lead when necessary, more than fulfilling his role, and simply to provide the rhythm when it was Keith's time to shine. He has never renounced that role, unlike his predecessors. He has charisma, he's a good guitarist, and he's never tried to steal the spotlight from Keith or Mick. I respect him much more now than when I originally wrote this intro.

 

However, it must be acknowledged that, starting in 1976, a slow decline began. It's not Ronnie's fault, but rather that the foundations began to crumble.

 

1. The Stones had always been characterized by setting a style, or by enhancing one. While they were never creators, like the Beatles, they were the ones who promoted the latest trend they embraced. Starting with Black & Blue, but especially with Some Girls (which is still a very good album), the Rolling Stones abandoned all of this to follow purely commercial trends. I love "I Miss You," but for God's sake, it's still a disco song! Then came the punk wave of the late 70s, and the Rolling Stones started playing punk! That was a huge mistake. Of the four albums from the '80s, only *Tattoo You* was any good; the rest can be thrown in the trash without a second thought. From then on, *Voodoo Lounge* is more than decent, and *Bridges to Babylon* has some merit, as they seem to return to their roots with some modern touches, like alternative or even hip hop. But from *A Bigger Bang*, *Blue and Lonesome* (even though it's a covers album), and *Hackney Diamonds*, nothing is worth salvaging except the video with Sidney Sweeney.

 

2. Nope, the Rolling Stones have never been ones to follow established trends. And lyrically, they also lost a lot of their edge after '76. No, after '74, but even then there were melodies. Jagger was known for writing incisive lyrics that, upon closer inspection, were highly critical of society, the world, and culture. From '76 onwards, he lost his touch and descended into vulgarity and crudeness, losing his poetry (can you even call it that?) and resorting to easy insults. Or banal pop. Who can believe a 60-year-old man asking, "Has anyone seen my baby girl?" On local radio, they caricatured him by introducing the song as "Has anyone seen my granddaughter?"

​

3. The global environment mattered a great deal. In the mid-70s, it would have been impossible for the Stones to survive otherwise. True. Rock stopped attacking the system and became part of it. Punk was never a real threat; perhaps Grunge was, though more in a sociological than a political way. The point is that Keith, and especially Mick, got carried away with their own egos, more than was appropriate for a musical hero of the 60s, and ended up more concerned with their image than their music. They cared more about magazine covers than the quality of their music. And it showed. So much so that the old riff master, Keith Richards, only managed to create two memorable riffs from '81 onward: "Start Me Up" and "You Got Me Rockin'."

 

4. The Stones had accustomed us to unparalleled albums. Few bands, truly very few, have managed to make albums in which most of the songs are tremendous. Songs that defined an era and became immortal (which isn't the same as being commercially successful), where filler tracks were mere exceptions. In '76, the rule was reversed. The Stones became what any mediocre band is: two or three worthwhile songs and the rest filler.

 

5. Finally, and as a conclusion to this post-Taylorist diatribe: If you've been fortunate enough to see their Satanic Majesties live, did you go to hear the songs from their latest album or did you go for the classics from the '60s and early '70s? Be honest.

 

For all these reasons, I can't use the Stones' entire discography to place them at the top, just below the Beatles in the musical hierarchy of the latter half of the 20th century. If I had to, I'd have to categorize them as B or C because they have some very weak albums. And many great bands have them, and that doesn't make them any less great. However, they have a string of albums of an impressive quality that not every band can boast, and their influence is undeniable. It only remains for me to say that in their time they were undoubtedly the second greatest, if not the greatest in many respects. And certainly, the most daring.

 

Lineup:

 

Mick Jagger: Lead vocals. In the 70s, he took to the stage with a guitar, maracas, tambourine, and lyrics that were devilishly good and considered taboo for the time.

 

Keith Richards: Lead guitar, though he always alternated between lead and rhythm guitar. The best riff creator in history, and the guy who, like McCartney with Yesterday, dreamed up Satisfaction and brought it to life. I don't know if it counts to say that he inspired Johnny Depp to play Jack Sparrow. Maybe not.

 

Bill Wayman: Bass. One of my favorites. As a bassist myself, I can say that he was always understated yet precise, keeping time with that almost vertical bass that makes him unmistakable. Like Charlie, he doesn't seek to shine, but rather to give the song solidity, although he has truly brilliant moments like "I Miss You."

 

Charlie Watts: Drums and rhythm. They say he was the true leader of the band. I couldn't confirm or deny it, but like Bill, he quietly did what he had to do, and then some. His death in 2021 shocked the world (personally, it hit me hard), and numerous drummers acknowledged his contribution to the Stones' sound, never hitting the wrong stick once.

 

Brian Jones: The group's first rhythm guitarist (I've always wanted to say that!) He gave the band its initial personality and psychedelic spirit with the sitar, harpsichord, flutes, trumpets, dulcimer, Mellotron, and other exotic instruments (just name whatever comes to mind, he played it). Brian was the one who initially made the Stones a blues-based band, but he was also the one who gave them sophistication with that array of instruments in the mid-60s, turning them into an innovative band.

 

Mick Taylor: The master of the lead guitar, the only one who could direct Richards to backing up not with words, but with music. He replaced Jones's genius with virtuosity, and not only elevated the Stones to an artistic guitar level, but also helped them survive the difficult transition from the 60s to the 70s.

 

Ron Wood: Third rhythm guitarist (also) Former guitarist for Rod Stewart and Keith's partner on stage and in bars.

 

Ian Stewart: Unofficially, the soul of the Rolling Stones on keyboards.

Ladies and gentleman: Their Satanic Majesties, The Rolling Stones!

​​

By Corvan 

Sep/6/2007

Edited May/5/2026