Stones vs Stooges

In light of the recent reissues of two of the greatest albums of all time,i.e Raw Power and Exile on Main St,and the fact that the Stones golden period (68-73) runs pretty much parallel with the life span of the Stooges,which band would people think made the better albums or were most influential.
Personally I love both bands, my own list as far as the albums go would be,:

1.Exile/Funhouse.
2.Raw Power.
3.Beggars Banquet.
4.Sticky Fingers.
5.The Stooges.
6.Let it Bleed.

I'd say The Stones were more influencial, think of the copious bands (including The Stooges) who were influenced by them, the cultural impact too - and I'm not even an RS fan. The Stooges were far more original though in my opinion, and made far greater albums. But the latter is just personal opinion.

G, F#, E wrote:

I'd say The Stones were more influencial, think of the copious bands (including The Stooges) who were influenced by them, the cultural impact too - and I'm not even an RS fan.

I second that. The Rolling Stones completely changed the musical landscape.

I kind of look at the stones as mulitple groups. There was the Brian Jones Stones, mainly a blues/cover band, then the Jaggers/Richards model. I think the Stooges were more likely to be influenced (originally) by the Brian Jones Rolling Stones.

james matlock wrote:

I kind of look at the stones as mulitple groups. There was the Brian Jones Stones, mainly a blues/cover band, then the Jaggers/Richards model. I think the Stooges were more likely to be influenced (originally) by the Brian Jones Rolling Stones.

That makes sense - the 62-69 stones were massive in America & influenced so many different bands, plus that period is contemporary with the Stooges' own early timeline. the post Jones Stones (huh) parallel Iggy & the Stooges in roughly the same way.
The other question in the thread was which band made the best albums. Stooges innit? The Stones wrote great songs on umpteen albums for about 12-15 years & scores of great singles. I have & love several of their albums but don't feel any of them are as consistently powerful (and raw) as the Stooges albums, pound for pound of course.

There\'s elements of jazz in Fun House, so with the question like this, one could also ask \" Do you like Miles Davis or Coltrane more than the Stooges\" - Fun House was influenced by the Bitches Brew album by Miles so...? but that's another unfair question, Miles is jazz, Stooges is rock band, and Stones is almost everything you can think of. ....Stones have gone through periods of blues, country, disco, acid-rock, reggae, funk, - you name it, they try to play it - So it´s unfair question...Stooges have not covered that many styles...Along with kick ass rock n roll, Stooges have done bit of blues here and there, some psychedelia, jazz, etc...but that´s about it, and Stones have done almost everything you can ever think of. (And this is the \"Stooges forum\" - and not the "Seventies rock forum" - So everybody's gonna say: oh yeah the stooges are better.

Erm this seems a good place to mention again a query I raised elsewhere : over on The Fall forum, a guy has stated a friend of his swears blind the Stooges covered "Satisfaction" back in the day (presumably the '73-'74 tour).

Has anyone *ever* heard of that rumour, or of it being in the setlist?

i prefer the stooges... though i recongnize that the stones are far more infulencive that the stooges and their music is (how do i say it) more... universal and accesible

rabid_fish wrote:

i prefer the stooges... though i recongnize that the stones are far more infulencive that the stooges and their music is (how do i say it) more... universal and accesible

Off course you prefer the stooges, - youre on a stooges forum, - everybody´s hahahah..."stoogehead" here, but for me this is impossible question, I love both bands.

Aside from the garagy/bluesy elements, both bands are very different IMO.

Keith did a lot in the way of romanticising the lonely/drunk/black bluesman and turning it into a trashy rock n roll concept. i give 'em props for that. Wether or not it's a good thing, I'm not sure...but I don't think theres much disputing that fact that he was of key importance in helping folks like Patti Smith + Johnny Thunder's find their own musical identities (they clearly "borrowed" elements of his playing, as well as fashion...in the same way that he borrowed from Robert Johnson/etc).

sway wrote:

...but I don't think theres much disputing that fact that he was of key importance in helping folks like Patti Smith + Johnny Thunder's find their own musical identities (they clearly "borrowed" elements of his playing, as well as fashion...in the same way that he borrowed from Robert Johnson/etc).

That´s all very true.
- The Stones were the first really bad boys of rock n roll, - sure there were rebellious rockers before - like Jerry Lee Lewis or Gene Vincent, or say ..hmm Billie Holiday, - but the Stones were the first ones to use that rebellious image on their own advantage. - Jerry Lee Lewis almost destroyd his own career when he married his teenage cousin, Billie Holiday had a hard time getting gigs after she got busted for drugs...Gene Vincent tried his best to keep his pill and booze addiction as a secret...and the Stones just didnt seem to give a damn, - it was all over the media - and when the Stones got into trouble , - they just started selling even more records. So they had a huge impact on the pop-rock n roll- culture, - The first truly bad boys of rock n roll, - Keith "wrote the book" on how the future rock n roll guitar players should look like on stage and everyone from Johnny Thunders to James Williamson have "studied" that bad boy look...So the Stones influence is more than just the music. So there's that..now back to music...

Stooges: +100,000 pts for originality
Stones: +1,000,000 pts for longevity

sweet_sixteen wrote:

Stooges: +100,000 pts for originality
Stones: +1,000,000 pts for longevity

I think they are equally influential.
The Stones directly and the Stooges more indirectly, at least that's how I see it.

I've always thought Raw Power was how the Stones would have sounded in the early 1970's if they were even half as badass as their image at the time suggested.

Stones vs Stooges? Stooges win. Game over.

I'll give the same answer I gave the Ig all those years ago.

The Stones are my favorite band.

The Stooges are my best band.

i'm not sure you can compare the two. I think a better comparisson is 'are you a stones or beatles person'

The Stones had more albums that sucked in the 80's than the Stooges had in total.

Radiobirdman73 wrote:

The Stones had more albums that sucked in the 80's than the Stooges had in total.

Sorta like Iggy!

This is another apples and oranges discussion. Is there any band out there that can top Aftermath, Between the Buttons, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Exile...? Those are all VITAL, intense albums put out by an incredibly powerful band, both on the stage and in the studio. The Stones essentially invented the white-boy R&B singer in a Rock & Roll mold. Pure attitude. It also helped that the Glimmer Twins were remarkably gifted songwriters.

The Stooges put out three great albums and disintegrated. All VITAL. Iggy invented the balls-out confrontational lead singer.

Two completely different bands with completely different legacies. It's like Mike Tyson in his prime v. Milton Berle in the grave. There is no way to compare two masters of their own art.

oh yeah!!! the stooges are better.!!!

mogwee77 wrote:

oh yeah!!! the stooges are better.!!!

dude - your avatar creeps me out. Well done.

I love the Stooges. The Rolling Stones were the greatest rock and roll band ever.

Their both like the greatest bands that our this live and well
The Rolling Stones and The Stooges our really Too Tough To Die

i love both bands, so cant consider a versus thing, plus they're totally different musically, and on my personal list stones are a very slight second - the stones are the only band i can listen to all the time / any time, i cant listen to stuff all the time, my mood changes, and sometimes i wont listen to the stooges for months, same as others i like, like dylan, dolls, etc, but i can always listen to the stones, any mood, any time - i think its similar to what Natalie was saying, i love the stones and can always listen to them, but everytime i listen to the stooges, whether its two years from now, everytime they'll remind me why they're my favourite band, i feel like they're a part of me, like a limb, the music is me

but in terms of influence they're quite similar, but i've always maintained that the stooges were the last in a line of major artists to influence pretty much everyone, and actually change music, basically as i see it it goes elvis / dylan / beatles / stones / stooges (i realise there are others who influenced other areas, but these choices seemed to push the collective rather than a particular genre etc)

the stones were so incredibly influential, still even today, and will continue to be, even if people have never listened to them, or seen jagger, they're still influenced by them, and jagger especially in terms of stagecraft, they pushed the idea of a rock n roll band that is still iconic

and of course the stooges were influenced by them, but i feel that the stooges are one of the most influential bands ever in popular music, from what i can see they were the last band or influence, granted they were never known in their time or even really now, but everyone is influenced by them, every band or artist, i still maintain that there'd be no contemporary music, or at least in the form we have it - for better or worse - if it wasnt for the stooges and who they influenced, the DIY aspect to the music, the antagonistic and individualist nature of the music allowed people to do whatever they wanted, and people took that to mean punk or electronic music or metal and all the sub-genres from that

so i think in terms of influence, the stooges are more influential, they were the last major band or musical influence

I don't even get the comparison. They both use guitars bass and drums. They both have a mouthy confrontational performance front-man. One was mainstream, the other not. End of story.

Stones were R&B. They seemed to eschew any experimentalism after co-founder Brian Jones was sidelined.

Stooges were rooted in experiment and noise and became a proto punk band. No R&B anywhere, to my ears. More garage and psychedelia, I'd say.

I always thought of the RP-era Stooges as the American Stones, especially live with the piano of either Scheff or Thurston on board. While I don't hear any similarities between the Stones and the early Stooges, from '71 on I think they got quite Stones-y, and I love it.

I don't recall where the interview ran, but there's a good bit where Iggy refers to seeing the Stones on the '69 American tour and digging that Richards and Taylor were using Ampeg amps when everyone else at the time was using Marshalls. To my ears, tunes like Gimme Some Skin and Shake Appeal are basically speeded-up r and b. Or, how about Gimme Danger which, as Johnny Marr among others has noted, bears a similar chord sequence to Gimme Shelter and was written by someone who was a dead ringer for Mr. Richards at the time. But other than that I don't get the comparison.

I think the best way to compare the Stones and Stooges is to look at their output within a comparable timeframe. The first 5 years of the Stones (1964-1969) saw them record the bulk of their hits and influence countless bands, including the Stooges. The Stooges, from 1969-1974 did the same, albeit after the fact and with significantly lower sales. The main difference is the Rolling Stones stayed together and kept adding to their legacy for decades longer. You can't discount this endurance, but I think it comes down to who packed more into the time they had, and though it would be hard to argue that Stooges could have packed anymore into their original time together (some might say they did TOO much...) the Stones lived it up and still found a way to remain on the edge between excess and discipline in order to forge an unrivaled legacy.