A Quote by Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo

It's true that when I was younger and I first got interested in music, I used to read books about the Stones and the Beatles and how they listened to Muddy Waters and people like that when they were starting out, who are much less well known now than the Rolling Stones. The Stones really changed blues.
Rolling Stones came later for me. I was a Beatles guy. All of us were pretty much more along the lines of Beatles guys than we were Stones or Elvis.
Growing up, as much as country was a big influence in my life, the Rolling Stones and the Beatles and Led Zeppelin were such a close second. My first concert ever was the Rolling Stones in Denver. I snuck a camera backstage and filmed Mick Jagger during sound-check.
Everybody is always raving about the Rolling Stones, saying, 'The Stones this, and the Stones that.' I've never cared for the Stones. They never had anything to offer me musically, especially in the drumming department.
We listened to a lot of Rolling Stones and Beatles records when we were recording. They were really good at not playing loud, but generating really big sounds out of everything.
I liked the Beatles but I wasn't mad on the Stones. I always thought they were a slight rip-off of Chuck Berry and some of the old blues people, and they never seemed to change. If people compare me to Jagger and the Stones I would be the one to be put down ... I've been far more progressive than any of them.
For groups like the Rolling Stones names like Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf were exotic inspirations. For Siegel-Schwall they were the guys that played with them on 43rd Street.
The Rolling Stones... The Rolling Stones have a reflection to my music; I wouldn't deny it. I think that's honest.
When I was a kid, we didn't have any blues stations. I never heard Howlin' Wolf or Muddy Waters or any of those people until the Stones had come along, and I took it upon myself to find out who these people were that they were covering.
There was a TV show called Thank Your Lucky Stars, with the catchphrase "I'll give it five!" The Beatles and Stones were so popular when they were on it. One week The Beatles were number one and then the Stones were right on their heels.
What originally established the band was cover songs like Not Fade Away. Then, later on, we got more well-known ones like Satisfaction, which you might say echoed the thinking of, well, any generation you care to name, including the present one. But we didn't set out on bits of paper that we were going to be the voice of a generation. The original aim of the Rolling Stones was to play blues. It wasn't even to play rock music.
[joking about the length of the Rolling Stones' career] You have the sun, you have the moon, you have the air that you breathe - and you have the Rolling Stones!
They got love bigger than the Beatles, wild and free like the Rolling Stones.
If The Beatles represent the most successful version you can be of a thing, then by that definition The Rolling Stones are The Beatles of music, not counting The Beatles. John Lennon is The Beatles of The Beatles.
I think of the Avengers as The Beatles, and the Guardians are the Rolling Stones. That is really how I feel about the groups.
The Beatles were just the beginning of everything music could be, just like the Stones I was Rolling along like a ship lost out on the sea.
I used to listen a lot to Rolling Stones records and play along with them when I was first starting. It's a good way to learn, jamming around basic music.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!