Were the Rolling Stones influenced by the Sex Pistols in 1978?

I don't know. Miley nearly naked, fake feuds between artists, blatant and witless and relentless self-promotion, incoherent speechifying---is it really edgy and ironic anymore? It's all a hustle to sell stuff. It's really time to put the VMAs to sleep, isn't it? It's not 1989 anymore.

 

The Rolling Stones were always the most "American" of all the British bands, and Some Girls is a very American--specifically "New York" --album. Nearly every song on the album (with the notable exception of "Far Away Eyes, which stops the album dead in it's tracks, imo) contains a lyrical reference to the city, or a neighborhood, or an ethnic group associated with NYC. It was intentional.

 

Always loved Faraway eyes.

 

Good song, but it kills the flow of the album. B-side material.

 

I meant that in regards to the quality of the songs themselves and not quantity.
IMO, that era does not come close to what came before. Keep in mind I said "amazing" meaning IMO Some Girls is OK but not amazing.
There is no way as much thought went into a song like Respectable as it did for a song like Brown Sugar or Midnight Rambler or......
I never really like the Stones live and the live versions of the stuff from Some Girls is the most boring tepid performances from them IMO. Terrible.

 

Punk was influencing everything, far out of proportion to its commercial acceptance in the USA.

 

Back to Some Girls Live In Texas. The contrast between Mick's stage appearance and the audience is amazing.

 

Brown sugar is a good song that I've grown a bit weary of over the years. I think Midnight Rambler is a boring, godawful song. "Respectable" is far and away better than both of them, IMO.

 

That's because artists could clearly see the appeal of the Sex Pistols a lot better than Joe Public. Joe Public just shook their head and said "Noise...not even music". But an artist? They went "OMG...wow...wow."

 

Well, successful bands always have their eye on the up and comers, and savvy, shrewd people like Mick Jagger especially, and you're right, most of the rock music buying public in 77-78 considered Joe Jackson and The Cars "punk" rock.
But I still think that The Stones and others considered the punks a challenge. It was like, "how dare you call me out as a rich, pampered rock star. I'll show you!"

 

So they were influenced then. You say they were not in one sentence, and they they were in the next.
Any decent musician listens to a wide range of stuff, and things naturally creep in and affect their sound.
That is the very nature of Rock music. Everyone influences everyone.

 

I can't disagree with they way you put it. I guess my point was however much punk might have put a fire under their butt, they never put out a song that could be considered punk in the way that "Dead Flowers" or "Faraway Eyes" was country' ;"Miss You" or "Dance Pt.1" was disco, or Their Satanic Majesties Request was 'psychedelic.'
A song like "Lies" is certainly short and somewhat manic, but then again so were their earlier "I Wanna Be Your Man" and Exile's "Rip This Joint."

 

Punk was influenced by garage, rockabilly, and surf. As the 70's ended disco, electronica, nascent metal, even (so-called) 'arena' or anthemic rock was influencing everything and everyone, far more than punk.

 

It's been tough for the Stones because first generation fans are always comparing any new work to the big four. That's a difficult standard since those four albums are widely regarded as being among the best in the history of rock.

To me, that initial couple of years after Ronnie joined the band full time were very productive. Critically and commercially, Some Girls was very successful, as was Tattoo You. Emotional Rescue, which was released between those albums, is weak, making the band seem inconsistent, but it's really only because they chose the wrong songs to include on the album.

Views would have been different if they had included, say, "Start Me Up", "Hang Fire" and "Black Limousine", all of which were worked on during the Some Girls sessions. Instead, they ended up on Tattoo You, which as a result was then viewed as a "comeback". If you regard those three albums as a set, then include tracks like "Too Young", and the outtakes from the deluxe Some Girls reissue, I think that the late 70's Stones were tremendous by almost any standard other than the impossibly high one they set for themselves between 1968 and 1972.

 

This is true, but it goes against the "official" story. To say that Boston(for example) had as big--or greater--an impact on '80's music ( I mean what was popular in the '80's) as punk did is usually met with blank stares.
I'm speaking specifically about the US. It was different in the UK.

 

Good post. I was being sarcastic. You have summed up the clickbait philosophy perfectly.

 

I don't think "hair metal" was "influential" to anyone else but other "me too" hair metal bands without much substance - and their days were numbered from "day 1". Punk, on the other hand, influenced every single genre of music out there - and created lots of "sub genre's" too.

...and the "ripple effects" are still being felt strongly.

Hair metal? Lots of cringe-worthy, embarrassing "what was I thinking?" memories.

 

Of course I can't (and did not) say hair metal influenced any /many artists. Hair metal is not my bag so I'll defer to the experts.... But as far as 'nascent' metal in the mid to late 70's there were the Scorpions, Judas Priest and so on that could fill - accidentally, on their worst days - ten times the venues the punk bands could, and cause twenty times as many kids to pick up a guitar. Three-plus decades later you hear that hard rock / metal guitar crunching on about every other movie, cable show, and advertisement today.

I wouldn't deny the punk revival (and thats what it was really - a revival, just like electric blues rock was to blues in the early 60's) made a nice (and needed) impact to rock, but it was only one of many such 'core' influences that shaped popular music over the next couple decades.

 

Mick was always influenced by whatever was going on.

Musically, though, with Keith and Charlie? No way.