Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

My top 10 Rolling Stones songs

24

Comments

  • 89ute89ute Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 2,477 Swaye's Wigwam
    I couldn't get my list any shorter than about 45. So here's the list of just the ones that start with the letter "S"

    Saint of Me
    Send it to me
    She's So Cold
    Shine a Light
    Silver Train
    Slave
    Slipping Away
    Soul Survivor
    Street Fighting Man
    Stupid Girl
    Sway
    Sweet Black Angel
    Sweet Virginia
    Sympathy for the Devil
  • AZDuckAZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    BearsWiin said:

    Jesus - no Sympathy for the Devil.

    WTF is wrong with this place?!?

    Please allow me to introduce myself
    I'm a man of wealth and taste
    I've been around for a long, long year
    Stole many a man's soul to waste
    And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
    Had his moment of doubt and pain
    Made damn sure that Pilate
    Washed his hands and sealed his fate
    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name
    But what's puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game

    Any group that makes Bulgakov references can't be all bad. I also like You Can't Always Get What You Want, because I used to quote it when my kids were little and complained about stupid kid stuff. But seriously, saw them in '65, didn't think they were anything special
    Jesus. How old are you?
  • dfleadflea Member Posts: 7,228

    Jesus - no Sympathy for the Devil.

    WTF is wrong with this place?!?

    Please allow me to introduce myself
    I'm a man of wealth and taste
    I've been around for a long, long year
    Stole many a man's soul to waste
    And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
    Had his moment of doubt and pain
    Made damn sure that Pilate
    Washed his hands and sealed his fate
    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name
    But what's puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game

    This.

    Holy fuck.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 104,495 Founders Club
    I don't have a single Stones song on my playlist if that helps. Or Beatles
  • BearsWiinBearsWiin Member Posts: 5,024

    Mosster47 said:

    Most overrated band of all time.

    Like DMB for Boomers.

    Great analogy. They really were shit. They had a couple of decent tracks, but when you have twenty albums you're going to have a few toe tappers by default.
    I like the stones, but I agree that they get a lot of extra credit just for being the Cal Ripkens of rock. People say " they're still going strong 50 years later."

    Well, not really. They haven't put out anything halfway decent in about 35 years (I think Some Girls was around '83). Even in their prime, their albums usually had a couple hits along but a lot of unmemorable tracks.

    They certainly had a lot of great songs, but their batting average is significantly lower than their contemporaries due to how much material they have released.
    Some Girls was '78 but you're about right on the number of years since last relevance- i.e., 1981 (Tatto You), so 36 years. I wonder how different their legacy might be if they had hung it up in the early 80's due to Mick or Keith dying or something. They has something like 19 or 20 albums between 1964 and 1981 and only about 3 to 4 of these aren't "essential".

    One thing that's always cracked my shit up about arguing music here, is how many folks there are that love, say, Led Zeppelin and The Who, but fucking hate the Stones and the Beatles. I love them ALL. I literally own fucking Zep, Stones, Beatles, Who, Bowie, Neil Young, Kinks, Dylan, Sabbath, AC DC, Creedence, Allman Brothers, Floyd, Skynyrd, Dead, Stooges, Velvet Underground, et al, album that was ever released.

    I've even given Styx a second look do to DDY getting some of those songs stuck in my head.

    Call me Classic Rock Slut.
    fixed
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 34,967 Founders Club
    BearsWiin said:

    Mosster47 said:

    Most overrated band of all time.

    Like DMB for Boomers.

    Great analogy. They really were shit. They had a couple of decent tracks, but when you have twenty albums you're going to have a few toe tappers by default.
    I like the stones, but I agree that they get a lot of extra credit just for being the Cal Ripkens of rock. People say " they're still going strong 50 years later."

    Well, not really. They haven't put out anything halfway decent in about 35 years (I think Some Girls was around '83). Even in their prime, their albums usually had a couple hits along but a lot of unmemorable tracks.

    They certainly had a lot of great songs, but their batting average is significantly lower than their contemporaries due to how much material they have released.
    Some Girls was '78 but you're about right on the number of years since last relevance- i.e., 1981 (Tatto You), so 36 years. I wonder how different their legacy might be if they had hung it up in the early 80's due to Mick or Keith dying or something. They has something like 19 or 20 albums between 1964 and 1981 and only about 3 to 4 of these aren't "essential".

    One thing that's always cracked my shit up about arguing music here, is how many folks there are that love, say, Led Zeppelin and The Who, but fucking hate the Stones and the Beatles. I love them ALL. I literally own fucking Zep, Stones, Beatles, Who, Bowie, Neil Young, Kinks, Dylan, Sabbath, AC DC, Creedence, Allman Brothers, Floyd, Skynyrd, Dead, Stooges, Velvet Underground, et al, album that was ever released.

    I've even given Styx a second look do to DDY getting some of those songs stuck in my head.

    Call me Classic Rock Slut.
    fixed
    Yes, that's much better. You've got to be a pretty shitty band of that era for me not to be a slut and have a listen.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 43,563 Standard Supporter

    BearsWiin said:

    Mosster47 said:

    Most overrated band of all time.

    Like DMB for Boomers.

    Great analogy. They really were shit. They had a couple of decent tracks, but when you have twenty albums you're going to have a few toe tappers by default.
    I like the stones, but I agree that they get a lot of extra credit just for being the Cal Ripkens of rock. People say " they're still going strong 50 years later."

    Well, not really. They haven't put out anything halfway decent in about 35 years (I think Some Girls was around '83). Even in their prime, their albums usually had a couple hits along but a lot of unmemorable tracks.

    They certainly had a lot of great songs, but their batting average is significantly lower than their contemporaries due to how much material they have released.
    Some Girls was '78 but you're about right on the number of years since last relevance- i.e., 1981 (Tatto You), so 36 years. I wonder how different their legacy might be if they had hung it up in the early 80's due to Mick or Keith dying or something. They has something like 19 or 20 albums between 1964 and 1981 and only about 3 to 4 of these aren't "essential".

    One thing that's always cracked my shit up about arguing music here, is how many folks there are that love, say, Led Zeppelin and The Who, but fucking hate the Stones and the Beatles. I love them ALL. I literally own fucking Zep, Stones, Beatles, Who, Bowie, Neil Young, Kinks, Dylan, Sabbath, AC DC, Creedence, Allman Brothers, Floyd, Skynyrd, Dead, Stooges, Velvet Underground, et al, album that was ever released.

    I've even given Styx a second look do to DDY getting some of those songs stuck in my head.

    Call me Classic Rock Slut.
    fixed
    Yes, that's much better. You've got to be a pretty shitty band of that era for me not to be a slut and have a listen.
    So you don't have Moves Like Jagger?

    Wood smash, btw. The second she turned legal age and today.

    image
  • LebamDawgLebamDawg Member Posts: 8,664 Standard Supporter
    Some Girls was '78 but you're about right on the number of years since last relevance- i.e., 1981 (Tatto You), so 36 years. I wonder how different their legacy might be if they had hung it up in the early 80's due to Mick or Keith dying or something. They has something like 19 or 20 albums between 1964 and 1981 and only about 3 to 4 of these aren't "essential".

    One thing that's always cracked my shit up about arguing music here, is how many folks there are that love, say, Led Zeppelin and The Who, but fucking hate the Stones and the Beatles. I love them ALL. I literally own fucking Zep, Stones, Beatles, Who, Bowie, Neil Young, Kinks, Dylan, Sabbath, AC DC, Creedence, Allman Brothers, Floyd, Skynyrd, Dead, Stooges, Velvet Underground, et al, album that was ever released.

    I've even given Styx a second look do to DDY getting some of those songs stuck in my head.

    Call me Classic Rock Superiority asshole guy.
    I thought Keith died along time ago - watching stones videos was got me to like zombies - Keith being the lead zombie player
  • tenndawgtenndawg Member Posts: 1,161
    edited May 2017
    CLASSIC ROCK SUPERIORITY ASSHOLE GUY...

    Nice try - but you are still "Rowing Fag"

    ÷÷÷==÷÷==

    Today my wife introduced me to a female co-worker saying "this is my husband"

    I said "Actually I'm her gay brother....I'm a Eurofag soccer player..."

    That's taking HH into the real world !!!


  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 43,563 Standard Supporter

    I don't have a single Stones song on my playlist if that helps. Or Beatles

    I concur that the Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of bands.

  • BearsWiinBearsWiin Member Posts: 5,024

    I don't have a single Stones song on my playlist if that helps. Or Beatles

    I concur that the Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of bands.

    That would be U2, but you were close

    The judges would also have accepted REM and Oasis
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 62,409 Founders Club

    I don't have a single Stones song on my playlist if that helps. Or Beatles

    I concur that the Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of bands.

    If you look at what preceded them, aside from maybe Elvis, they brought something completely new to the landscape. Right place, right time.
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 34,967 Founders Club
    edited May 2017
    tenndawg said:

    CLASSIC ROCK SUPERIORITY ASSHOLE GUY...

    Nice try - but you are still "Rowing Fag"

    ÷÷÷==÷÷==

    Today my wife introduced me to a female co-worker saying "this is my husband"

    I said "Actually I'm her gay brother....I'm a Eurofag soccer player..."

    That's taking HH into the real world !!!


    This has already been decided by a fellow rowing fag - i.e., BearsWin. Moving forward, I am to be referred to as Classic Rock Slut, in these types of discussions.
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 34,967 Founders Club
    BearsWiin said:

    I don't have a single Stones song on my playlist if that helps. Or Beatles

    I concur that the Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of bands.

    That would be U2, but you were close

    The judges would also have accepted REM and Oasis
    I once thought this article had a pretty decent list. Might not agree with all of the selections and I think it's possible to believe a band to be overrated and still like some of their songs. This is generally how I feel about the U2's, Pearl Jams, Tom Petty's, etc of the world.
    http://www.laweekly.com/music/top-20-worst-bands-of-all-time-the-complete-list-2403868
  • oregonblitzkriegoregonblitzkrieg Member Posts: 15,288

    BearsWiin said:

    Mosster47 said:

    Most overrated band of all time.

    Like DMB for Boomers.

    Great analogy. They really were shit. They had a couple of decent tracks, but when you have twenty albums you're going to have a few toe tappers by default.
    I like the stones, but I agree that they get a lot of extra credit just for being the Cal Ripkens of rock. People say " they're still going strong 50 years later."

    Well, not really. They haven't put out anything halfway decent in about 35 years (I think Some Girls was around '83). Even in their prime, their albums usually had a couple hits along but a lot of unmemorable tracks.

    They certainly had a lot of great songs, but their batting average is significantly lower than their contemporaries due to how much material they have released.
    Some Girls was '78 but you're about right on the number of years since last relevance- i.e., 1981 (Tatto You), so 36 years. I wonder how different their legacy might be if they had hung it up in the early 80's due to Mick or Keith dying or something. They has something like 19 or 20 albums between 1964 and 1981 and only about 3 to 4 of these aren't "essential".

    One thing that's always cracked my shit up about arguing music here, is how many folks there are that love, say, Led Zeppelin and The Who, but fucking hate the Stones and the Beatles. I love them ALL. I literally own fucking Zep, Stones, Beatles, Who, Bowie, Neil Young, Kinks, Dylan, Sabbath, AC DC, Creedence, Allman Brothers, Floyd, Skynyrd, Dead, Stooges, Velvet Underground, et al, album that was ever released.

    I've even given Styx a second look do to DDY getting some of those songs stuck in my head.

    Call me Classic Rock Slut.
    fixed
    Yes, that's much better. You've got to be a pretty shitty band of that era for me not to be a slut and have a listen.
    So you don't have Moves Like Jagger?

    Wood smash, btw. The second she turned legal age and today.

    image
    And the purple throbber wins another thread...
Sign In or Register to comment.