RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Contemporary of the Beatles, the longest still performing group of all times. Legendary on their own.

The greatest Rock and Roll band of all-time. Who has lasted longer then the Stones? Who has had the influence the Stones have had? I differ from most Stones fans because I am not a big fan of their earlier work, I like their albums from "Their Satanic Majesties Request" all the way up to "Steel Wheels". Their early stuff just sounds weak and I would give the early material two stars, but the seventies and eighties material is fantastic.

all you guys can talk about great bands and call them crud, but you never seem to mention who you like

35th on this list??? Despite the geriatric Super Bowl show a couple of years back, the Stones are arguably the best rock band of all time. Surely they deserve better than 35th behind the likes of John Mellancamp and the Who.

You can't deny their talent, even though they are compared to the Beatles quite often, and there's really no comparison. The Beatles were far above the Stones in talent, but what the Stones lacked in talent, they made up for in grit. Their pouty, smug, and thuggy sound is what made them famous, and they wrote some highly memorable songs throughout the years. You do have to give them 5 stars for longevity; they have lasted longer than any before them.

Always been one of my favorites but, I will admit that their recorded material as of late generally doesn't compare or have the impact that their earlier material did. The ridiculous ticket prices for their traveling circus road shows make me laugh. Their Super Toilet Bowl performance was extremely pedestrian, to say the least. Nevertheless, I find it amazing that people claiming to be rock fans can actually post 1 star ratings for a band that wrote "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Brown Sugar". Get real.

Here's where I part with many of my generation. Can't understand their popularity, they were the anti-thesis of the Beatles.

1963-1974 5 stars
1975-1982 3 stars
1983-present 2 stars

Mick Jagger is beyond compare as a performer but they're not my type of thing.

They are now senile. Richards recently fell out of a coconut tree. Too bad it didnot kill him!!!

One of the most influential bands ever. Brought in plenty of different diverse styles to their music. Lots of creative breakthroughs, too. Exile on Main St. still ranks as one of the greatest rock albums of all time. Maybe some people here should rank them based on their music, rather than saying something like "they're too old" and giving them 1 star for being born in the 1940's. I'll admit that their Super Bowl performance was horrible. But you can't let their current tours tarnish their legacy from decades of quality music.

They are now cripples

Shocking performance at this year's superbowl. Simply awful!!! Way past their USE BY DATE. STARTING TO SMELL.

These old dudes were awful at the SuperBowl. However, their brand of music is a lot better than today's emo crap! My soul is burning!! Stop bringing my soul down now, now NOOWWWW!!

Geriatric bozos. Very hard to take seriously.

They are very good in concert i went a few months ago at Milwaukee i had my doubts to but they were Awsome i was very amazed and happy i meen now u can walk around just saying u saw if not the best one of the best rock bands of all time they played sympathy for the devil perfectly it was amazing

A true story. At the local nursing home, Rolling Stones songs are among the most popular requested.

It's no longer fun to ridicule this band. I just feel sorry for them!!

quite possibly the most overrated band ever a few good songs but not that many

Pension time

Silly old men

they rock!!!! there still going strong after so many years

More wrinkles than wet linen...and that is just the audience. And, Keith, can we have all our drugs back now? You've been hogging the bowl for decades!

Real clowns. They were the jesters in the Beatles court.

5 Stars for everything before Harlem Shuffle- but folks, this is a money-grubbing, embarrassing, old-fart festival that isn't close to the glory days of rock-and-roll. This is like Jerry Rice trying to hang on with the Seahawks and Broncos. . .go away so we can miss you, please. Rock and Roll has truly sold its soul to the devil if tickets are 300 bucks. Sympathy for the Devil indeed. . .

Goldilocks, I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. It is not ridiculous to watch these guys rock out, despite their age. Have you seen them in concert? I saw them last weekend at Duke, and to be honest I had my doubts going in. I thought just like you do - that 60+ year-olds had no place at a rock concert. I doled out the $85 for a ticket because of who they WERE, and because I doubted they'd be around much longer. What a surprise. They ran and jumped around, belting out rips, for over 3 1/2 hours. They played all the major hits we came to see and they played them as if they hadn't already played them a million times. The red-carpet they had rolled out for them (which included a moving stage, fire-works, torches that warmed your face from over 1,000 feet away, etc.) was worth the ticket price alone. I no longer doubt that Mick Jagger (now 62 years old) and company has 5+ more years of quality touring left in them. Pretty unreal.

The stones had just enough of the dark side to make them interesting but, really, folks, not in the top layer. Maybe durability earns them a five.

In their prime, they were great. Now, not so hot. It is absolutely ridiculous watching 60+ year old men jamming with their guitars and drums, trying to jump around with bad knees, and trying to look cool.

Stones should be at number one. 1) The best touring band ever 2)Better musicians than the Beatles and they've proved this on the road and in the studio whereas the Beatles just did the latter. 3) Jagger/Richards songwriting is arguably the best. The greatest band ever!

They're very clever and much much more musically astute than you think - virtuoso rock n' blues players who are impossible to imitate. Understanding better than anyone else since Chuck Berry and the early Sun recordings the inevitable almost zen like simplicity of their idiom, the Stones, even when they're not as good as they can be, are still far and away better than every one else. They're millionaires, one is a Knight of the Realm -- and I don't give a damn. The best rock n' roll band in the world -still.

OUTSTANDING!!!!!!THE BEST IN YEARS!!!!!!THEY STILL HAVE IT!!!!!!RAP CRAP CAN'T HOLD A CANDLE TO THESE GUYS!!!!!!

Terrible singers. Just because you last a long time doesn't mean you're good. Were laughed at when they first came across the pond because they sounded so pitiful compared to the Beatles.

just loud never good

Mic Jagar will never die. Seriously, he is in his sixties and still touring. My dad just got tickets.

Favorite band of All-Time. I wish I could be transported back in time to the 60's and 70's in order to see them in their prime. I saw them in concert at The Vet back in 1997. Charlie Watts was amazing. They should retire after this tour. They are looking like The Stoning Rollers.

#2 behind The Beatles. 40 years of some of the best rock ever witten or performed.

The Rolling Stones have recorded some great songs. they are not my favorite group. but I do like their music.such as I can't get No Satisfaction. we have been thinking about getting the greatest hits album Forty Licks. has anyone out there bought this CD? and would you reccomend it?

A truly great rock group. Keith Richards is one of the reasons they prospered like they did. they seem to not care about embarassing themselves in their later years. Do I still need you now that you're 64(Or Older) ? No!!!

Skizero puts it very well. At their best, these guys were one of the best ever, and even in their long, slow decline they are pretty solid. From their beginnings until the mid-seventies, this was arguably the top rock act going, and during that time they'd be a contender for top act all-time.

so much has been made of the Stone decline over the years, as if sticking around too long takes away from your past accomplishments. Some consider Mick and the boys the best rock and roll band ever, i consider the Rolling Stones a great blues outfit who managed to give the Fab Four a run for their money when their heart was in it. This band is responsible for probably the longest stretch of the best rock albums from Beggar's Banquet to Sticky Fingers. this feat is unmatched except maybe for Led Zeppelin's run of their first 4 albums(but everyone knows Led Zeppelin 3 just isn't as up to snuff). i'm talking untouchable balls-out Rock and Roll churned out by the great lead guitars it's, the best rhythm section money can buy, and probably the most charismatic lead singer of all time. for the 1960's and early 1970's alone, the Rolling Stones are rock gods. true their turnout did weaken and thin out. that comes w/age and changing viewpoints, but from 1973 to now, the Rolling Stone have still churned out more fantastic albums than most bands ever hope to do. don't believe? just pick up Some Girls, Tattoo You, and Bridges to Babylon to see for yourself.

The planets ugliest group but still hanging in there after 85 years...got to be a 5......

They've been pretty much obsolete for the past 30 years or so, which is sad, because when they were good, they were brilliant. In their prime, there was nobody better, and they have legions of imitators to illustrate that fact. Unfortunately, their prime was a long, LONG time ago.

It's between the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin for the 2nd greatest band ever behind the Beatles.

Although their newer albums are far below par,they still get 5 stars for all those wonderful albums like Sticky Fingers,Exile on Main St.,Some Girls,and all the great,bluesy,ballsy early stuff.

Regardless of what they're like now, from 1968 to 1972 no one-NO ONE- could touch them. Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street, some of the greatest hard rockin' bluesy depravity ever recorded.

Pretty much like 99% of acts that have been going on for eons, the Stones started off well but as they got older began to lose the plot. When Brian Jones and Mick Taylor were in the band they were pretty good, churning out a string of classic singles. It all started going pear shaped when Ron Wood joined. They shouldve called it a day before they hit 40 as they've done nothing particularly memorable over the last 20 years or so. So, pre 1975 = 5 stars. post 1975 = 2 stars

Sympathy for the Devil, You Can't Always get What You want, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Wild Horses and Satisfaction are some of the better songs of all time, and they have too many other excellent songs to mention, e.g. Not Fade Away and It's Only Rock and Roll (But I Like It). Also, their version of Like a Rolling Stone was easily as good as, and debatably better than Bob Dylan's.

i can't believe the stones got such a low rating. i think they've softened up lately, but, i mean, come on, they're like, 80 years old! Back in their day they were the band. i have major respect for them for this reason. although their concert for SARS was a sucktacular event (three songs!?) you have to give them credit for everything they've done for music

Rating and commenting upon the Rolling Stones is like rating/commenting on Elvis. As one is torn between the young, hip Elvis and the Vegas, polyester Elvis, one is torn between the raw, energetic, creative Stones and the tired, commerical, and lingering Stones. The truth is that these artists chose to continue, and they are therefore responsible for their entire careers. To sum it up, the Stones were the poster children for the rock 'n roll livestyle, the self proclaimed World's Greatest Rock & Roll Band; however, the greatest musicians know that rock 'n roll is a young man's (or woman's) game, yet the Stones apparently don't. Nevertheless, the success and influence of the Stones is undeniable since, as one of the leaders of the British Invasion, the band is responsible for some of the most recognizable songs and guitar riffs in musical history (so recognizable and well known in fact that examples are unnecessary). However, the band did not age well during the disco, punk, and new wave eras, with the sole exceptions (in my opinion) being Some Girls (1978) and Tatoo You (1981). Given that the Stones were so prolific, most fans are satisfied with one or more of the compilation releases; however, before deciding on Forty Licks (2002), one may wish to compare track lists with the separate compiltations Hot Rocks, 1964-1971 (released in 1972) and Jump Back: The Best Of The Rolling Stones 1971-1993 (released in 1993).

some of their stuff rocks; some of it sucks donkey dingee

The Stones are a legend in their own right. However, some of their stuff has been played on the radio WAY TOO MUCH!!!!! I swear, I hear Gimme Shelter and Sympathy for the Devil on the radio too much.

I know Mick Jagger is notorious for being a bad boy but I always liked it when he sang the sad, romantic songs like "Angie" "Ruby Tuesday" and "As Tears Go By". There's just something so touching about this tough guy being so tender..Anyway, the Stones were a good band who reached the peak in the late 60s, but still had some good stuff in the late 70s and early 80s. But I kind of wished they had retired at their peak instead of dragging it out.

The World's Most Overrated Rock and Roll Band. These guys meant well, and I have to respect them because of their allegiance to the greatest of roots music, but this band is nothing more than a bunch of tightassed whiteboys from England doing music that amounts to cheap knockoffs of The Real Thing, namely Black American blues of the immediate Post-War years. The result is an adultered, watered-down verion of the genuine article, or merely a form of rock and roll that's well-informed by its blues precursors. Some of their classic songs are very fine, but quite a few of them are juvenile, mawkish, and didn't age very well over time. This is also another act that didn't retire gracefully, but rather continues to embarass itself by putting forth tired geriatric performances on tour, thereby fleecing concert-goers who shell out ridiculously high prices to see these fossils. No shame in the game of Mick and the boys as they laugh all the way to the bank, or the detox center, depending...

Well here they are. the Stones play immediately recognizable rock and roll, but like alot of bands it's hard for me to buy one of their records since I've already heard all their songs on the radio. They have a great deal of variety in their body of work. I just never liked Mick Jagger, I never liked their choice of sound quality, and as much as I respect this band, they are far from a favorite.

World's greatest rock band? Probably, although the Dead would come near the top too, in my book. I remember going to a Catholic girl's school hop in New Jersey in 1964 or '65 and sticking one of the Stones' first albums on the turntable and telling the nuns in charge that this was the music that rules now. I saw them live in 1969 and they still rocked then (although a bit past their early peak by that time).

I wish some of these geriatric bands would just get off the stage. They are only out to make a quick buck before they are too old to sing anymore. I am really trying hard not to be agist, but come on! It might be ok if the music didn't cause extreme boredom, and actually meant something. The Rolling Stones only played songs that were pop and bubble gum sounding, NONE of their songs ever had any real meaning to them. And they were definately never deep. And if you were to judge this band by their looks and appearance like the majority of rateitall reviewers, they would definately get a big fat one zero, lmao ! They are dog ugly.

Just a bunch of geezers that f*ck chicks young enough to be their daughters. Which is rather gross unless you have a diaper or wrinkle fetish.

I have always been a major Rolling Stones fan, actually more of a Mick Jagger fan to be precise, but a fan. BUT, i have since changed my opinion of this group. When Mick JAgger came out with "God gave me..." I loved it! Then I found out that he did not write the song, he does not play any instrument of any kind. He did nothing to contribute to the success of this hit except sing it with Lenny Kravitz, but Lenny Kravitz could have made this a hit on his own. I don't have much respect for people that ride on the coat tails of talent when they have none themselves, which I have come to beleive that the Rolling Stones have very little of. THey are a product of good management with a showboat at centre stage.

They've always been way overrated.

Wild horses is amazing especialy but they're all great

Their only really good song was "Under My Thumb."

Their Voodoo Lounge concert was outstanding.

An orginal band who has produced some great tunes,and I think " it's only Rock and Roll"is a real signature form the whole embodyment of this stlye of music.