After all as a band matures it just sounds weird if they are singing about 16 year old girls. Even now when I hear a song on the radio and the content is about teenage lust, all I can think is "what a bunch of perverts", even if it's a song I listened to when I was a teen. It just doesn't sound right.
Though never a fan of Lou Reed, I rate him for being the first rocker I ever heard to actively trash the idea of rock being exclusively for young people.
It's eye opening, however, to remember where certain artists were at when they were young. In fact, I often
marvel at the wisdom and depth of vision that people showed when they were young. Some of the lyrics that Lennon, Dylan, Syd Barrett, Smokey Robinson, Chuck Berry, Mick Jagger, George Harrison, Pete Townsend, John Entwistle, Roger Glover, Ian Gillan, Robert Plant, Bob Marley, Gil Scott Heron, Larry Norman, David Bowie, Suzanne Vega, Melanie Safka, Paul McCartney, Sting and tons of others came up with before the age of 25 and 30 are tremendous.
Although not my favorite band, I think the Stones have a good argument for being the greatest band ever. Yes, there have been some personnel changes, but basically the core of Keith, Mick, and Charlie are still there and can still sell out a show. The hits might not be coming like they used to, but hey when you have as many songs as they do you don't need to come up with much else.
The earliest memory that I have in life is of the Stones doing "Get off of my cloud". I was 2 going on 3 at the time. I don't remember it now but there have certainly been times when I have.
Obviously there's no such thing as the greatest band ever, not even the Beatles, because zillions have been part of the important patchwork of artists that have made up the picture. But the Stones certainly made more than a minor contribution. Thing is though, all the things they became famous for, they were beaten to the punch by others.....the Animals beat them to the punch, getting blues into the charts to no.1, the Beatles beat them in terms of popularising the notion of writing one's own songs and fan mania, the Who ran neck and neck in terms of lyrical depth but so did the Kinks who also beat them out sexually and in terms of being bad boys, fighting on stage and getting banned not only from venues but countries {!!}, while the Who, Donovan and the Small Faces were in drug troubles before the Stones got busted etc, etc....
But I dearly love the Stones' 1965~'69 output, definitely the equal of the Beatles in quality if not quantity {few bands have been fortunate to boast 3 quality writers}.
I believe could have been the greatest, was Mott the Hoople. There are tons of bands out there from many different genres who reference them as a major influence. And Ian Hunter...one of the best singer-songwriters in the business.
Ah, Mott the hoople. I love "All the young dudes", great song. I have their biography and it's wonderfully in depth. In fact, it's one of the best books I've ever read. And as names go, there really aren't many better than Mott the hoople, what a fantasssssstic name. Both Ian Hunter and Mick Ralphs were top notch writers and Hunter is still so wise and articulate.
But I've just never been able to get into them as a band. I love everything about them except their music. Like Traffic, I should dig their stuff mightilly, but I just can't.
I saw a rockumentary on them earlier this year and I was so disappointed. Everyone was interviewed and appeared in it except Overend Pete Watts. His absence spoiled it for me. It's like doing a programme on Crosby, Stills and Nash but leaving out Graham Nash ! I'm sure there were reasons but that just did it for me. What made it all the funnier was that the first time I taped it, the sound never came through so I had to wait a few weeks till it was shown again !
