On the cover of the Rolling Stone (1 Viewer)

Which Rolling Stones album do you prefer?

It's a three-way-tie between Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Exile on Main Street.

And just because someone used a un-word for a book of "unpoetic poetry" doesn't make it a word, but here's a workaround: if you want it to be real word, all you have to do is give it it's own wikipedia page.
It's a tie between Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed.
(Sticky Fingers, and the live album, Get yer Ya-Ya's Out!, are great too)
Last edited by a moderator:
Though I like them all, I have to say my favorites are Sticky Fingers and Some Girls.

Lately, I've really been getting into the Stones--been wearing out Youtube watching all the videos. I like to do a before and after type of thing with Keith. If you check out Keith in 1974--he's a little scary--missing tooth and all. (see 1974 interview video). If you flash forward just four years to 1978, something happens--he's all healthy looking like he just got back from a surfing trip (i.e Miss You video). Flash forward three years from that point to 1981, (Worried About You video) and he's back to his,"Gentleman Corpse" look.

I find it interesting, but maybe I just have too much time on my hands.

This was a good cover. But since you meant cover I like That is what the song needed. IMO.
Let it Bleed... for nostalgia. First Stones album I ever heard in it's entirity. Stole it off my dad's shelf and I don't think I ever gave it back.

Out of Our Heads (UK Release) has it's charms too, for their attempt at the blues.

What did we think of Shine a Light?... saw that in theaters when it came out, thought the version of Lovin' Cup they did with Jack White III was phenominal. And as much as I hate Xtina Aguilera, I gotta say the little bitch gotta setta pipes that'd put a plumber to shame (referring to the version of Live With Me that they did with her)... Champagne & Reefer with Buddy Guy takes the cake, though.
I had this conversation once with a guy from Boston at Foxwoods Casino once... he was telling me how he saw the Stones recently (this was in 2005/6 or something around there) and he'd "never seen old guys move like that".
No offense Mick but, for god's sake, retire already!

I think they should keep going. I'm curious to see how far they'll take it. They're still rocking as hard if not harder than a lot of these new feather-weight bands of today and pulling in the audience to prove it--everyone from 16 year olds and up. That's unprecendented, at least in rock and roll where old guys up on stage usually means a bunch of fat old men in tuxedos singing doo-wop to a bunch of fat old audience members sitting around at something that resembles a dinner party.

No, Mick and the boys are doing just fine. They're laying the groundwork for other bands getting up there in age but still kicking ass and since the young bucks of today are too busy with their play stations and iphones, we might as well get used to it--it's all we've got.:cool:

Users who are viewing this thread