Rolling Stones & Status Quo

[slimjim]

It seems to me that these two bands have led pretty parallel existences; formed in the 60s, heydays within 10 years of formation, some great music in their first decade followed by years of anonymous albums, a couple of hell-raisers in each one. So why is it that one of them is one of the biggest acts on the planet (with tickets almost impossible to get hold of) and the other is the laughing stock of the british rock industry? I'm a big fan of them both so have no axe to grind but think it's bit unfair on the Quo.

[molly]

I love the Quo! I went to see them in the early 70's. Since when were they a laughing stock? I am shocked!

[treaclefight]

in my experience, no-one in showbiz thinks a midlands accent is ultra-cool, so quo were never on a winner in the first place, but i dont think they went for that image anyway, they were always much more fun than the stones and i rather see them in concert, even tho i think the stones are better.

[andy hughes]

The package you get with the Stones is far more personality-led than with Quo - each of The Stones is a true original, with a colourful history both within and without the band. Status Quo have been Rossi and Parfit for a long time now - both exceedingly clever and witty men, and far superior musicians than their image would suggest, but they have never been up for the 'personality' end of fame, and they tread a less populist furrow because of it. They may not be 'hip', but the have a massive and ever-loyal following, and frankly, they don't care if they are famous or not. Therein lies the crucial difference.

[Pinotage]

All honour to the Quo, but I think even they'll agree that the Stones have produced many more rock songs, known now world wide which are considered classics.

[DrWu]

The Quo...Midlands accent?...shurely shome mishtake?