Some irrefutable truths about rock and roll

I also found the "Rolling Stones most misunderstood" item to be an odd call.

I think they're very well understood. The Stones are a rock n roll band that made (a) few concessions to pop. Judging from this thread, I think that The Beatles are more generally misunderstood. IMO. they were a brilliant pop band working in a broad rock n roll idiom (backbeat and riff) that many have anointed the "greatest rock n roll band" ever. I disagree, but that's likely because I have a different (okay, maybe eccentric) view of rock n roll as an art form than most folks.

If the thought behind the statement was that The Beatles are overly revered and that The Stones are (as a relative matter) under appreciated, then I won't disagree. However, I don't think that's because the Stones are misunderstood. Notwithstanding the unavoidable semantic elements of the argument (where does rock n roll end and rock inflected pop begin?), I think it's because people generally prefer Beatle-esque pop/rock to Stones style rock n roll. No misunderstanding, just different value judgements.

PS - Consistent with my posts over the years, I'd tend to argue that Fleetwood Mac is the most misunderstood band in history. It's completely true that they charted tons of pop songs written and/or sung by one of the two chicks, but that's only half the story. As anyone who has ever seen them live should know, Fleetwood Mac is one bad ass rock n roll band.

The Stones are misunderstood in the sense that naysayers perceive them as nothing more than a second rate blues band that never had an original idea of their own. There is also the argument of whether Jagger can truly sing. I do know this: Jagger and Stones can truly PERFORM...and 68-72 they were arguably the most consistent band on the planet with four stellar consecutive LPS. As far as Fleetwood Mac, I prefer the Peter Green era.

Peter Green + Danny Kirwan + Jeremy Spencer = guitar heaven. Green will always rate at/near the top of my list of blues rock guitar heroes. That band was short lived. but spectacular, IMHO.

The Kirwan/Christine McVie/Bob Welch variations also produced some pretty fantastic records (most notably, to my ear, Mystery To Me). Nevertheless, I'll still take Lindsey Buckingham era Fleetwood Mac - simply because I believe that Buckingham is a God who walks among men. (And a pretty sick twist, to boot.)

BTW, if it wasn't clear from my post above re: The Stones, I pretty much agree with you. The Beatles are prized for their exquisite (at least in the context of rock and pop bands) songcraft, which simply has very little to do with what The Stones are all about.

My Buckingham fixation is primarily due to his IMO more or less unique ability to combine Beatle-esque craft with Stones-like primitivism. I find it the best of both worlds, buy - hey - that's just me.

Late to the thread here, but absolutely agree that a good song is a good song, regardless!

Also, that the hardesat thing to do is write the perfect 3-minute pop/rock tune. Anybody can do a self-indulgent Inna Gadda da Vida, but think of what makes Tapestry a great album. All the songs are 3-4 minutes and perfect - not a wasted or extra note.