Top 3 Most Overrated Artists contest in R&R.

I should kick myself for even weighing in on these never to be resolved contests over who's good/who's bad. That said, to say that Keith Richards, Ron Woods, and Mick Taylor are "bad musicians" makes me wonder what standards are being applied here. These guys show up on pretty much everyone's "greatest ever" lists, Keith in particular. The thing I respect about the Stone's guitar work is that they eschew flashy "guitar god" pyrotechnics. Instead, they use two guitars to weave a bobbing and weaving rhythmic background that is musically greater than the single elements. If you can read music, check out the way their songs are put together and you'll see what I mean. You had groups like Clapton, Baker, and Bruce who were towering individual greats engaged in alpha male musical battles for dominance and many people respect that kind of group as an example of greatness. The Stones are the antithesis of that kind of musicianship imo. For them, it's a tribal musical thing, a sum greater than the parts.

Ah ... the Stones' haters. Well, It's Sunday and my birthday, no less, so let's make some noise and stir the pot up a bit. The R&R Hall of Fame matters about as much as the Grammies do. So, forgetting about this year's inductees, why would you even throw the Stones under the bus, when there are at least 4 other previous years' inductees that could be seriously questioned. For starters ... Doors, Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers, Ramones, and Rush.

Listen to 'Let it Bleed' or 'Exile', then let's chat.

Rich

This and that given, explained, presented. I agree they're cool, have few good songs, another this and that further down the road -- agree!
But I still still feel that they're overrated.

I love the Stones (up through "Sticky Fingers"--I don't get the hoopla about "Exile"). They have created some great sounds and deserve to be recognized as one of the best rock bands ever. They might be past their prime but if you look at their youthful accomplishments they are not overrated.

I'll make the argument for The Stones and acknowledge the argument against them.

FOR:
Rock music is simple, primitive, reductionist, sexualized, and aggressive right-brain music. It requires a back beat and a compelling lead guitarist who understands the anarchic role of a guitar in that formula. And it requires nothing else - indeed adding more (eg, harmony) dilutes the product.

The Stones are masters at the art. They make very simple music that many (including me) find compelling.

Note: While technical proficiency has very little to do with this, The Velvet Underground is a curious choice to hold against The Stones on this front. Keith is an outstanding rhythm player, Charlie Watts is a fine drummer and Ron Woods is a monster lead player. By comparison, The Velvet Underground is hardly head turning. Lou Reed and Mo Tucker aren't exactly virtuoso players.

AGAINST:
The argument against The Stones is the argument against pure rock n roll. It's simple, primitive, reductionist, sexualized, and aggressive right-brain music. Some people find that vulgar.

No argument from me.

BTW, I'd argue that Exile is revered because it is fantastically right-brain. It's stumbling, drunken blues run amok and IMHO might be as perfect an execution of that aesthetic as has ever been tracked.