/ The Rolling Stones vs Status Quo

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
wilkie14c - on 23 Oct 2012
Is there a 40 something bloke without any of these on their ipod?

Both much of a muchness - aging, nothing released any good for either in more than 20 years, both have plenty of newspaper inches for various things like noses falling off etc and both have a seemingly unquenchable thirst to tour until they drop dead. The Stones are doing their 50 and counting tour and the Quo are touring Russia and Germany ATM. Stones made it big across the pond, thats the key really, once you do that its a spring board for the world. Quo never made it but a still huge across Europe.
Quo knockers, yes we know it all sounds the same, thats what they do. Nothing new of note since Heavy Traffic album but spend a while on the erly stuff, seek out Quo - Live! and listen to tracks bye bye johnny or 45 hundred times and you may just get 'it'
I've seen the Quo a few times and would love to see the stones but the prices? jeez
So, anyone gonna join me for some zimmer framed headbanging?
Wonko The Sane - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:
> Is there a 40 something bloke without any of these on their ipod?
>
> Both much of a muchness - aging, nothing released any good for either in more than 20 years, both have plenty of newspaper inches for various things like noses falling off etc and both have a seemingly unquenchable thirst to tour until they drop dead. The Stones are doing their 50 and counting tour and the Quo are touring Russia and Germany ATM. Stones made it big across the pond, thats the key really, once you do that its a spring board for the world. Quo never made it but a still huge across Europe.
> Quo knockers, yes we know it all sounds the same, thats what they do. Nothing new of note since Heavy Traffic album but spend a while on the erly stuff, seek out Quo - Live! and listen to tracks bye bye johnny or 45 hundred times and you may just get 'it'
> I've seen the Quo a few times and would love to see the stones but the prices? jeez
> So, anyone gonna join me for some zimmer framed headbanging?

True Quo have done nothing new for about 30 years. And before that it was samey....... but FUN above all. Saw them twice and their energy came across.

The songs you mentioned were heavily influenced by alan Lancaster........ great stuff it is too. But that's why they kicked him out, artistic difference.
They actually started much more hippy with picturesque matchstickable messages.
toad - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c: As a 45 year old bloke, I've always thought they were both a bit before my time. I saw Quo in the '80s and thought they were just going through the motions
The Pylon King on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:
> Is there a 40 something bloke without any of these on their ipod?

Yes me.

Whats an ipod?

Wonko The Sane - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c: I saw this live about 30 years ago. Less health and safety then and the bass actually hurt your stomach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QNJXAHayTc

Chris the Tall - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:
Quite like some of the Stones stuff from the 60's - Paint it Black, Gimme Shelter, Play with Fire - but would only pay to see them if they were playing somewhere like the Leadmill for 20.

Whereas I wouldn't go and see if Quo if you paid me 20.
And don't get me started on Led Zepplin....
Hooo - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:
Stones vs Quo? Absolutely no contest. They are both past it, but the Stones were one of the greatest bands of all time. I regret not making the effort to see them when I had the chance 20 years ago. Still love the old stuff.
Quo? Saw them at a festy a few years back. Two songs, fook this is dull, went to see Hayseed Dixie instead.
Eric9Points - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:

Many years ago, the late 70's IIRC, I remember someone telling me that their little brother had mentioned that they were going to buy the new Status Quo album. He suggested to his brother that he just bought the single and played it five times in a row, it would sound just the same as the album but save him 2.00 (albums used to cost 2.50 and singles 50p in those days).

hokkyokusei - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to toad:
> (In reply to blanchie14c) As a 45 year old bloke, I've always thought they were both a bit before my time.

Same here.

Having said that there is some 60s Rolling Stones that are rightfully classics. Can't say the same about Status Quo though.
coinneach - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to hokkyokusei:

Seen The Stones and The Quo and both were great but in different ways.

My band's set list has 7 or 8 Stones choons on it but only one by the Quo....says it all really!

shantaram - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c: The Stones in their early days are undeniably classic, but Status Quo have always been fun but bland. Didn't Status Quo do an 'End of the Road Tour" in 1984 selling out countless stadiums full of tearful fans thinking this was the last time they'd see their long haired heros knocking out the same tired chords? Can't believe that they're still doing it in 2012.
Skip - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:

Stones vs Status Quo?

you're having a laugh!
John Stainforth - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:

You say that Quo never made it in the US, but you might be surprised how often they get covered there.
johnj on 23 Oct 2012 - 88-111-138-134.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com
In reply to blanchie14c: Like comparing chalk with cheese, different era's different scene, well i guess they are rock bands. I don't think either of em will ever come close to Maiden.
CarbonCopy on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c: Im a few years off 45 but a huge fan of old rock music. To compare Status Quo with the Stones is just down right rude!
Skip - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to CarbonCopy:
> (In reply to blanchie14c) Im a few years off 45 but a huge fan of old rock music. To compare Status Quo with the Stones is just down right rude!

Correct. Can't understand or believe a comparison is being made.
CarbonCopy on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c: I'd also add that, although not a patch on se of the older stuff, the new stones track is pretty damn good considering. Micks voice still sounds awesome.
johnj on 23 Oct 2012 - 88-111-138-134.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com
In reply to CarbonCopy: Its not a bad vocal track, but in my humble opinion the song writing is pretty lame, some of them rhymes sound like what a three year old would come up with, I guess that's a pensioners mind for you.
stroppygob - on 23 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c: Quo do Supermarket adverts in Aus these days; "Down down, prices are down."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdV4pr4frd4
bullybones - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:
I went through my 40's without either on my i-pod. The Stones are on now, though - what can this mean?
Enty - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:

I've got the Fatboy Slim mix of Sympathy for the Devil - it's a floor filler at parties.

Status Quo - you're having a laugh Blanchie.

E
Just a bhoy - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:
I guess the thing they have in common is that creatively they both died about 30 years ago.

Like the odd track of Queo and a bit off the Stones. Wouldn't bother going to see Quo and would be damned giving those greedy bastards The Stones any money
Lukeva - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:Ha! No contest, Stones are amazing, to this day. I have every track on my generic mpg playing device (iPod Classic 160 gb). No Quo on it, they are boring 3 chord strummers. The Rolling Stones new record is great! Im in my 30s btw Im 30 in fact
graeme jackson - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:
there seems to be a bit of bias towards the stones so I'm going to throw my considerable weight behind the Quo. As a live band they really are fantastic and put an awful lot of effort into their gigs. I can't think of any other bands I've seen regularly over the past 8 or 9 years that can keep a 'seated' audience on their feet for the whole gig. They're also one of the few rock bands that don't rely on those godawful full range PA setups for their sound but have a decent backline instead (I know the point of the PA is to render the backline obsolete for the audience but it just doesn't work for a full on rock band). Go see them at the SECC in december and you'll feel every note (and you won't be able to stop yourself dancing). The stones on the other hand I found a bit boring and looked like they were just going through the motions.
Mike Stretford - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:
> Is there a 40 something bloke without any of these on their ipod?
>
> Both much of a muchness -

Woaaa, hang on a minute. I actually think the Quo were good at what they did, but you can't compare them to the Stones. Different league.

wynaptomos - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:
> Is there a 40 something bloke without any of these on their ipod?
>

Try 60 something........

As a 48 year old now, these two were already dinosaurs when I was growing up.
subalpine - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Papillon: i wonder what effect the infamous RS drug bust had on their popularity?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323236/The-Acid-King-confesses-Rolling-Stones-drug-bust-set...
estivoautumnal - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Skip:
> (In reply to CarbonCopy)
> [...]
>
> Correct. Can't understand or believe a comparison is being made.

Stones = one of the most over rated bands ever. The male (fan) equivalent of Meatloaf. Good for middle of the road fans with no taste in music.
Lukeva - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to estivoautumnal:
> (In reply to Skip)
> [...]
>
> Stones = one of the most over rated bands ever. The male (fan) equivalent of Meatloaf. Good for middle of the road fans with no taste in music.

The stones have been and still are one of the most influential R&B bands of the C20, to say that people who like the Stones have no taste in music is to say that some of the greatest musicians of the recent times have no taste in music. Slightly of the mark in my opinion
Mike Stretford - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Lukeva: I knew it wasn't going to be post of the year when I saw the '='.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Clarence - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:

Not keen on either the Stones or Quo but if you put a gun to my head i would probably prefer to listen to Quo. Of that era (mid 60s - mid 70s) I think that these two bands represent the solid middle ground but I much prefer virtually any other band in the rock genre, especially those with a bit more of a distinctive sound - Traffic, Tull, Yes, ELP, Motorhead, AC/DC, Caravan, Blue Oyster Cult etc.
Mike Stretford - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Clarence: The two bands are different eras, and the bands you mentioned are in Quos era. I'd bet you a pint most of the bands you mentioned would cite the Stones as an influence.
Lukeva - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Clarence:
> (In reply to blanchie14c)
>
> Not keen on either the Stones or Quo but if you put a gun to my head i would probably prefer to listen to Quo. Of that era (mid 60s - mid 70s) I think that these two bands represent the solid middle ground but I much prefer virtually any other band in the rock genre, especially those with a bit more of a distinctive sound - Traffic, Tull, Yes, ELP, Motorhead, AC/DC, Caravan, Blue Oyster Cult etc.

They are strange comparisons to make... The Who, Pretty Things, Yard Birds etc are comparable to the Stones. Blue Oyster Cult, AC/DC, Motorhead are not.
Lukeva - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to Lukeva) I knew it wasn't going to be post of the year when I saw the '='.

Haha, quite
wilkie14c - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to graeme jackson:
Good insight there mr J, I like the way quo gigs make you feel like its happening in your front room, its that close and personal and you can feel the floor bouncing. Playing smaller venues certainly has its advantages. I feel I must point that I don't go to quo gigs wearing a denim waistcoat or carrying a cardboard guitar that's been covered in silver foil like some of the loons!
Lukeva - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to blanchie14c: Intimate gigs are great, but the Stones would have struggled when they played to 1.5million people in Rio without a PA
Clarence - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Lukeva:
> (In reply to Clarence)
> They are strange comparisons to make... The Who, Pretty Things, Yard Birds etc are comparable to the Stones. Blue Oyster Cult, AC/DC, Motorhead are not.

Exactly, the Stones, Quo, The Who etc. are all middle of the road/popular within the rock genre, there were much more exciting things going on in the fringes for me.
Liam M - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to hokkyokusei:
> (In reply to toad)
> [...]
>
> Having said that there is some 60s Rolling Stones that are rightfully classics. Can't say the same about Status Quo though.

Give them credit for Pictures of Matchstick Men, but otherwise I'll agree.
Mike Stretford - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Clarence: That isn't what he meant. The bands you mention are of a later era.
Clarence - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Papillon:

Well they are all mid 70s bands to me, Traffic and Tull are probably the earliest (both formed in 67) Motorhead the latest in 75.
wilkie14c - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Liam M:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live!_(Status_Quo_album)

that is as good as it got for the then hard core quo, this album defined them and it was always going to be downhill from there, they'd never had been able to top the 'live!' album. Recorded using the rolling stones moblie studio though conincidently enough.
Lukeva - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Liam M: +1 on that. Kasabian do a quality cover.
Lukeva - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Clarence:
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> Well they are all mid 70s bands to me, Traffic and Tull are probably the earliest (both formed in 67) Motorhead the latest in 75.

Sure, but the Stones formed in 62 (I think) and were at there best writing in the 60s. Exile was released 72 but has all the feel of a 60s album. Motorhead v The Stones, I like that. I suppose they both wrote about casino based games
Mike Stretford - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Clarence: Exactly, the Stones formed in 62. There's no doubt they influenced the later bands you mentioned.
Clarence - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Papillon:

And Quo in 67 I believe but depite being in my mid 40s I have neither on my iPod which was the point of the OP.
Lukeva - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Clarence: But this is an interesting red herring non-the less.
Mike Stretford - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Clarence: You've just got things a bit mixed up which is what I'm correcting. You could refer to the Quo as mid-Seventies as the sound which defined them and brought them succes was then. Paint it black and Sympathy for the Devil were 66 and 68. Your Ipod collection is heavily Stones influenced.
subalpine - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to Clarence: imagine what would have become of Budgie had they not been Welsh;(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budgie_%28band%29
wilkie14c - on 24 Oct 2012
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to Clarence) imagine what would have become of Budgie had they not been Welsh;(
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budgie_%28band%29

Quite. They pop up now and then on guitar heros on bbc 4
wilkie14c - on 10 Nov 2012
In reply to blanchie14c:
Just announced - the orignal 4 line up for the first time in 30 years!

http://www.statusquo.co.uk/
Hugh J - on 10 Nov 2012
In reply to blanchie14c: Always thought Spinal Tap's history was based on Status Quo - minus the bizarre gardening accidents and exploding drummers. Listen...... to the flower people.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.