tomado del site
http://starling.rinet.ru/music/stones.htmMyth # 5: "For the last 22 years or so, they've been such a grotesque dinosaur act that it's embarrassing and I have little if any respect for them at all." This is the most unpleasant and nagging myth - the myth that revolves around the band name. Okay. The Beatles have disbanded, but did that prevent the Beatles from recording solo records? No, they went ahead and all four of them put out loads of records over the years. Some of these were great; some merely good; some of them sucked. Likewise, the Rolling Stones after 1970 put out albums that were either great (Sticky Fingers, Some Girls, Tattoo You), good (Black And Blue, Voodoo Lounge) or sucked (Dirty Work). Would it be more acceptable if they put out the records that sucked as disguised solo albums? Who really cares? Musicians are musicians; they go on working regardless of their age or the epoch they're working in. It's just that some musicians stay together and some musicians work separately.
Truly, I don't give a damn what name do they put out their music under - 'Rolling Stones' or 'Mick Jagger and friends'. Too much fluff has been thrown on onto that 'band' notion. A 'band' is a group of individual people. That's all. And actually, the fact that the Stones stayed together resulted in their putting out less crappy albums than the four ex-Beatles who went their separate ways and put out crappy albums on their own. For one crappy Stones album you get one crappy John Lennon album, one crappy McCartney album, one crappy Harrison album (and ten crappy Ringo albums, I guess!). Perhaps this statistical method will be satisfying for somebody.
Oh, and one last thing: anybody who says 'the Stones are stupid for staying together for so long' is advised to visit a Stones' live show the next time they go on tour (if they ever will). I seriously doubt that anybody who's ever left an actual Stones' concert could hold on to that statement for long.
