They Were Pretty Nerdy At One Time........

neardeathexperience · 08-20-2013, 08:44 AM

I was listening to the Rolling Stone's earlier song covers of like Poison Ivy and a bunch of other songs and realized there is probably a couple of generations of music lovers who did not realize how middle of the road and non-offensive this band was at one time. I think they along with their manager carved out this bad boy image that just doesn't ring true for a better part of their early career.....What does everyone else think about these early innocent Stone's songs?

neardeathexperience · 08-21-2013, 09:50 AM

Does anyone out there agree that their bad boy image was the only one that people identify with?

neardeathexperience · 10-16-2013, 07:50 AM

It would seem upon further investigation that not many people here remember the Rolling Stone's early career...........or do not want to comment about it at this time.

Taxman · 10-16-2013, 08:15 AM

I'm big Stones fan, so don't get me wrong. But The Stones' bad boy imago was just marketing. It was created by their A Oldham cos he wanted them be bad boys, as an opposite to The Beatles' nice guy imago.
in fact, Beatles were more bad boys than Stones. Stones were basically just London Boys but Beatles had played in Hamburg.

Taxman · 10-16-2013, 08:17 AM

And while talking about The Rolling Stones, I wanna point out my opinion. Their pop period with Brian (from 'Buttons' to 'Satanic' is GRUESOMELY UNDERRATED. These albums ARE JUST AS GOOD as those classic ones (from 'Banquet' to 'Exile'.

Forward To Death · 10-16-2013, 09:12 AM

Their bad boy image was the result of endless partying and banging anything that walked, not marketing. They obviously ended up cashing in on the bad boy image, but they earned the reputation and that's a fact.

What early records are we talking? Their earliest albums consisted mostly of covers.

Taxman · 10-16-2013, 02:19 PM

Well, I disagree whit that endless partying etc. It all was fake. And I was talking period from 1965-1965

Taxman · 10-16-2013, 02:22 PM

and from 1965-1967 they were not bad boys. Okay, maybe that bad boy imago is deserved when talking about post 1968 years but before that they were as innocents as lamb

Forward To Death · 10-16-2013, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taxman

Well, I disagree whit that endless partying etc. It all was fake. And I was talking period from 1965-1965

Yes, it's a conspiracy theory.

neardeathexperience · 11-12-2013, 07:03 PM

The early songs were covers which I was talking about sounded much more pop then rock so to speak. Bye Bye Johnny, Poision Ivy, Fortune Teller, Don't Lie To Me etc etc. They really were just trying to find their way amongst the rest of the British Invasion bands....

08-20-2013, 08:44 AM	#1 (permalink)
neardeathexperience Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 531	They Were Pretty Nerdy At One Time........ I was listening to the Rolling Stone's earlier song covers of like Poison Ivy and a bunch of other songs and realized there is probably a couple of generations of music lovers who did not realize how middle of the road and non-offensive this band was at one time. I think they along with their manager carved out this bad boy image that just doesn't ring true for a better part of their early career.....What does everyone else think about these early innocent Stone's songs?

08-21-2013, 09:50 AM	#2 (permalink)
neardeathexperience Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 531	Does anyone out there agree that their bad boy image was the only one that people identify with?

10-16-2013, 07:50 AM	#3 (permalink)
neardeathexperience Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 531	It would seem upon further investigation that not many people here remember the Rolling Stone's early career...........or do not want to comment about it at this time.

10-16-2013, 08:15 AM	#4 (permalink)
Taxman watching the wheels Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Finland Posts: 470	I'm big Stones fan, so don't get me wrong. But The Stones' bad boy imago was just marketing. It was created by their A Oldham cos he wanted them be bad boys, as an opposite to The Beatles' nice guy imago. in fact, Beatles were more bad boys than Stones. Stones were basically just London Boys but Beatles had played in Hamburg.

10-16-2013, 08:17 AM	#5 (permalink)
Taxman watching the wheels Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Finland Posts: 470	And while talking about The Rolling Stones, I wanna point out my opinion. Their pop period with Brian (from 'Buttons' to 'Satanic' is GRUESOMELY UNDERRATED. These albums ARE JUST AS GOOD as those classic ones (from 'Banquet' to 'Exile'.

10-16-2013, 09:12 AM	#6 (permalink)
Forward To Death Trolier Than Thou Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,336	Their bad boy image was the result of endless partying and banging anything that walked, not marketing. They obviously ended up cashing in on the bad boy image, but they earned the reputation and that's a fact. What early records are we talking? Their earliest albums consisted mostly of covers.

10-16-2013, 02:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
Taxman watching the wheels Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Finland Posts: 470	Well, I disagree whit that endless partying etc. It all was fake. And I was talking period from 1965-1965

10-16-2013, 02:22 PM	#8 (permalink)
Taxman watching the wheels Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Finland Posts: 470	and from 1965-1967 they were not bad boys. Okay, maybe that bad boy imago is deserved when talking about post 1968 years but before that they were as innocents as lamb

11-12-2013, 07:03 PM	#10 (permalink)
neardeathexperience Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 531	The early songs were covers which I was talking about sounded much more pop then rock so to speak. Bye Bye Johnny, Poision Ivy, Fortune Teller, Don't Lie To Me etc etc. They really were just trying to find their way amongst the rest of the British Invasion bands....