The Stones were more dangerous than other bands of the Sixties. It looked like they had more fun than the Beatles - like they stayed up later.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
But, you know, the Stones were my opening act in the Sixties. I loved those British guys, the way they just stood there and shook their hair.
I loved the Beatles when they turned up, and the Stones when they turned up, and never really stopped liking them.
The Stones were nasty and ugly and doing songs I was familiar with.
The Beatles were no trouble... lots of girls. The Stones were black-jacketed guys, a rough crowd. A whole different scene between the Stones' black leather jackets and the Beatles' pretty-dressed girls with the ribbons in their hair, teenagers standing on the seats screaming, nothing broken.
The early Stones were adolescent rockers. They were self-conscious in an obvious and unpretentious way. And they were committed to a musical style that needed no justification because it came so naturally to them. As they grew musically the mere repetition of old rock and blues tunes became increasingly less satisfying.
The Rolling Stones seemed very loose and wild, but when you read about them, you realize that everything they did is very deliberate.
Were the Rolling Stones good looking? Well, Jagger was, but the rest of the dudes? Maybe not so much.
I'm more in the Stones camp than the Beatles camp.
I believe that the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin are two of the greatest rock bands ever!
When people talk about the '60s I never think that was me there. It was me and I was in it, but I was never enamoured with all that. It's supposed to be sex and drugs and rock and roll and I'm not really like that. I've never really seen the Rolling Stones as anything.