MetaChat - Poll for the rock geeks among us.

The New York Dolls were BETTER than the Stones. So, I'd say them.

posted by BoringPostcards 15 June | 10:06

My personal vote is for The New York Dolls. Although I think The Black Crowes do a more straight ahead impersonation, I think it's so close that it verges into ridiculousness. On the other hand, when TNYD make great music that dips into all the Stones conceits (why should gay boys get all the conceits?) while still being fabulous in it's own right. When David Jo. gets going, sometimes he verges on Stones parody, but I think it's a knowing parody.

Aside from which, Lonely Planet Boy is one of the five best songs ever written.

posted by omiewise 15 June | 10:09

On preview: word to BP.

posted by omiewise 15 June | 10:10

I also think that Ian Sevonious of Nation of Ulysses/Cupid Car Club/MAKE UP/Weird War is one of the best Mick impersonators around.

posted by omiewise 15 June | 10:11

Aerosmith and The Black Crowes are better facsimiles of the Stones, but they're also the two worst bands on the list, IMHO.

posted by Atom Eyes 15 June | 10:11

I love me some Dolls, BoPo, but that's pushing it, and you hve to acknowledge that they wouldn't have existed without the Stones. What happened was that David Jo and Johnny Thunders wanted to be Mike and Keith but were too stoned to manage that, so a great new sound resulted.

omie: it was a knowing parody, but also a warm one, since Johnny was a definite True Believer. The Crowes make some really good records, but Chris Robinson in interviews, comes across as a doofus. The Faces instrumentally sound very close to the Stones, but Rod was a very different singer from Mick and often better, but had nowhere near Mick's charisma.

But my choice is the Dolls as well, since they got the spirit and the sound closer than anyone. (although I give Aerosmith props for 'Same Old Song & Dance" which was their best pseudo-Stones moment, IMHO).

posted by jonmc 15 June | 10:13

also, I think that the MC5 circa Back In The USA could be a nominee too, although there's a lot of Who influence there as well.

posted by jonmc 15 June | 10:17

Are you kidding? It's gotta be The Cure.

posted by Hugh Janus 15 June | 10:27

*shoots Hugh*

It's more humane this way.

posted by jonmc 15 June | 10:28

It's hard not to say the Dolls, because David J. makes no bones about aping Mick. But as far as singer/guitar/songwriter duos go, Monroe/McCoy are about as inseparable as Jagger/Richards. Hanoi seems to have captured the spirit of the Stones quite well, and have strayed little from it. And they're still going. I hope they grow old and wrinkly together.

posted by Hellbient 15 June | 10:30

I woulda said Hanoi Rocks, or chosen the off-list Black Mountain, but I knew how much jonmc loves The Cure; in reality, my answer would have to be Led Zeppelin.

posted by Hugh Janus 15 June | 10:40

The Rolling Stones are the best fake Rolling Stones, but the New York Dolls are a close second.

posted by Divine_Wino 15 June | 10:52

I'll say the Faces.

posted by getoffmylawn 15 June | 10:56

Don't forget the Pretty Things! They're a pretty good fake Rolling Stones, too.

posted by interrobang 15 June | 10:56

(good call, i-bang, especially since Dick Taylor of Things was actually a Stone until Bill Wyman came along)

posted by jonmc 15 June | 10:59

Now that I did not know.

posted by interrobang 15 June | 11:01

Trick question: the Dolls were the best direct followup to MC5.

Therefore, the Dead Boys were the best fake Stones.

posted by Smart Dalek 15 June | 11:07

of the five, the faces are my favorite, as long as that asshat rod stewart isn't involved in the equation. bleah. dude makes me physically ill.

as far as best fake stones, it's a tossup between aerosmith and the new york dolls.

posted by syntax 15 June | 11:07

the faces are my favorite, as long as that asshat rod stewart isn't involved in the equation. bleah. dude makes me physically ill.

Then they were the Small Faces, who were an entirely different proposition. And while Rod Stewart is synonymous with bloated rock star excess he did have a part in some great music over the years: Truth with the Jeff Beck Group, A Nod's As Good As a Wink.. with the Faces and Every Picture Tells A Story on his own. Give credit where credit is due.

posted by jonmc 15 June | 11:14

*slaps forehead*

Okay - Poison 13 would be my final answer, if we're going to include the bluesy-period Stones.

posted by Smart Dalek 15 June | 11:14

*slaps forehead*

"If we're talking about the bluesy..."

posted by Smart Dalek 15 June | 11:15

oh wait, I totally forgot about Blueshammer!
Can I change my answer?

posted by Hellbient 15 June | 11:18

BoPo, I'm surprised you didn't mention these guys.

This is how the Stones WISH they could sound.

posted by essexjan 15 June | 11:25

World Party had some occasionally good fake Stones moments when Karl Wallinger would just revel in his Jagger-style voice.

And they've really shifted since then, but Wilco's second album has always seemed to me to be the best non-Stones attempt to redo Exile.

posted by cobra! 15 June | 11:30

Neither my favorite nor the best, but I think that Aerosmith is the most wide-rangingly-accurate fake Stones.

posted by box 15 June | 11:34

How is the answer not The Constantines?

posted by dersins 15 June | 11:37

Here's one but only for one song: The Georgia Satellites when they did "Keep Your Hands To Yourself." Back in the '80's nightmare of synthpop, fey art-rock, and hairmetal, that song was a refreshing blast of unapologetic RAWK.

posted by jonmc 15 June | 11:41

Then they were the Small Faces, who were an entirely different proposition. And while Rod Stewart is synonymous with bloated rock star excess he did have a part in some great music over the years: Truth with the Jeff Beck Group, A Nod's As Good As a Wink.. with the Faces and Every Picture Tells A Story on his own. Give credit where credit is due.

for some reason i got the faces and the small faces mixed up. probably because i'm hungover and sleep-deprived. but you're right - the three albums you mentioned are quite good.

to be fair, his asshattishness didn't start to develop until around 1976...

posted by syntax 15 June | 11:42

Still waking up, but I'll dive in here and see what I can come up with. (Come to think of it, half-asleep might be the best way to tackle this question. I can just pretend I'm nodding.)

If you're looking at full-on career trajectory imitation, Aerosmith would be hard to beat. You got your young bluesy rockers, your sucessful drug-addled mid-period, and your milking the cash cow far beyond the time she can still lactate. Pretty much spot on.

The best two bands on the list are the Dolls and the Faces. While the Dolls sound was certainly indebted to that of the Stones, they brought enough of their own vibe to crash through the "fake Stones" label and just be their own superbad selves. The Faces, meanwhile, were simply mining the same vein as the Stones of their time were doing - English white-boy blues and R&B. Their sound was similar, but I never got the feeling that they were copping their act from Mick & Keef. (Plus you've got Ronnie Wood playing for both bands.) Also, and I expect to take some shit for this, but when Rod Stewart was on his game, he sang rings around Jagger.

Black Crowes, to my ears, always sounded more Faces influenced than Stones. To be fair, though, I've only heard maybe three songs of theirs, so I may wel be missing something.

Hanoi Rocks... I wouldn't have thought to include them on the list. I don't think I've heard them since the 80s, though. My take at the time was that they were a competent but unremarkable hard-rock band that tragically lost their (drummer? guitarist? I odn't recall now) through Vince Neil's drunken driving.

posted by bmarkey 15 June | 11:45

I briefly confused Hanoi Rocks with Saigon Kick, which had me very confused indeed.

posted by me3dia 15 June | 11:55

bmarkey: listen to "Boulevard Of Broken Dreams" by Hanoi Rocks. That's about as Stonesy as it gets. and it was the drummer, razzle, who died.

when Rod Stewart was on his game, he sang rings around Jagger.

In terms of basic vocal ability, sure. In terms of charisma, songwriting talent and consistency? Jagger clobbers him.

and like I said, mid-period Aerosmith had their moments ("Same Old Song & Dance" "Sweet Emotion" "Mama Kin") so they deserve the nomination, too, even though they've oevrstayed their welcome.

posted by jonmc 15 June | 11:58

they've overstayed their welcome.

Which is precisely why they're the most accurate fake-Stones.

posted by box 15 June | 12:02

Charisma, songwriting talent, and consistency, while essential attributes of a front-man (see Handsome Dick), do not a good singer automatically make, thus I agree wholeheartedly with bmarkey. And there's nothing basic about Rod Stewart's vocal ability; you're just being picky, jonmc.

And so am I.

*Bronx cheer*

posted by Hugh Janus 15 June | 12:12

Oh, Rod is the better singer, but Mick, because of his songwriting, charisma and most importantly consistency, is the greater artist.

posted by jonmc 15 June | 12:15

Ah, yer right, but that ain't the question, is it?

The best fake Rolling Stones ever is Mobb Deep!

posted by Hugh Janus 15 June | 12:20

For my money, The Stones haven't overstayed their welcome nearly as much as Aerosmith has. Those guys aren't even the same band anymore. At least The Stones didn't sell out musically like Aerosmith.

posted by Hellbient 15 June | 12:39

I thought Aerosmith was the best fake Led Zeppelin.

And Aerosmith has had a weird career trajectory: big in the '70s, forgotten for a while then huge in the '80s, then big in the '90s.

posted by kirkaracha 15 June | 12:53

What kind of consistency are we talking about?

The Faces were one of the world's greatest bar bands, and they never really aspired to be anything else. For the most part, they didn't see themselves as elevated being of a higher order than their fans - they just happened to be the guys on the stage when the curtain went up. (I'm exaggerating a bit, but the spirit was there.) I can't imagine the Stones ever providing their audience with cases of wine, as the Faces did. (Granted, it was Mateus Rose, but it's the thought that counts.)

Jagger has always had pretentions of one sort or another. That's not a bad thing in an artist, necessarily, but he's also always had Keith there to ground him. Were that not the case, I don't think we'd be talking about him now. Those pretentions have pushed him as a writer, and I grant that he's got it over Rod there. But as a singer, there's really no comparison.

Plus, the Faces had the good sense to knock it in the head before they started stinking. Granted, it took Rod's leaving to do it, but still. What have the Stones done since... well, let's be charitable and say Tattoo You... what have they done but water down their legacy with shitty albums and bloated nostalgia-fest tours? (One could say the same about the Who.) The Faces don't have that problem.

Rod does, certainly. Through laziness, arrogance and greed, he's managed to piss away metric tons of good will. As have the Stones.

posted by bmarkey 15 June | 12:54

What kind of consistency are we talking about?

That ultimately Jagger had a part in far more great records than Stewart did. which to a fan is really the ultimate test.

(and FWIW, I love the Faces, but the Stones are better ultimately.)

I thought Aerosmith was the best fake Led Zeppelin.

That's a whole other post. and Uriah Heep is the best fake Zep.

posted by jonmc 15 June | 12:59

What about David Coverdale's White Snake?

posted by Hugh Janus 15 June | 13:06

Count me in for those nice boys...when they're asleep. The Faces!

posted by scody 15 June | 13:09

Jagger had a part in far more great records than Stewart did. which to a fan is really the ultimate test

He's also had a part in far more crappy albums, too. Not to mention the countless "greatest hits" repackages.

I love the Stones, too. Let It Bleed is one of the greatest albums ever. But I absolutely hate what they're doing to their legacy. I know that Mick and Keith could (probably) write a hell of an album about what it's like to be an ageing bad boy, but they'll never ever do it. That would mean admitting that they're no longer what they once were. Keith would probably go along with such a project, but it would never get out of the gate with Jagger.

They need to either admit that they're ageing or hang it up entirely and staunch the hemmoraging of their credibility. They'll do neither, of course.

posted by bmarkey 15 June | 13:09

hemmoraging of their credibility.

Goes along with the hemorrhoiding of their fan-base.

posted by Hugh Janus 15 June | 13:12

What about David Coverdale's White Snake?

What about Kingdom Come?

posted by Hellbient 15 June | 13:13

WHAT ABOUT BOB?

posted by Hugh Janus 15 June | 13:17

What about me?

posted by bmarkey 15 June | 13:18

I hardly think The Stones care at this point. Why should they? Seriously, what the hell else are they going to do? It's obvious they're still enjoying themselves. It would be a cool move for them not to do a huge mega-corporate tour, but that seems pretty unlikely. And everyone always talks about legacy, but you'd have to do something really horrible to damage their legacy. It's history, nothing they do now will change it. I say fade away all you like, wrinkled boys.

posted by Hellbient 15 June | 13:30

Not Fade Away! NOT FADE AWAY!

posted by Hugh Janus 15 June | 13:34

The Rolling Stones are the best fake Rolling Stones, but the New York Dolls are a close second.
posted by Divine_Wino 15 June | 10:52

/Marks as best answer.

posted by richat 15 June | 14:33

I hear what you're saying, hellbient. Obviously the Stones don't care at all, and that's their right.

As a music fan, though, I do care. I saw them back in '79, and I thought they were past it then. And I do think that they are diluting what once was a great body of work with crap albums and preposterously over-priced tours.

It's really easy for me to sit here and say that they should walk away from what is essentially a lisence to make money, just for the sake of their legacy. I like to think that if I were in their shoes I'd be able to do it. I'll never find out, of course (more's the pity).

posted by bmarkey 15 June | 14:35

Buck Cherry.

posted by mischief 15 June | 14:47

I like Buckcherry quite a bit, but I have Real Problems with their production and mastering. Everything's so compressed and they did such a bad job recording the drums that the high-hats are falling apart into little bits of noise. It sucks, 'cuz they rock. I have the same problem with Supergrass' first album.

posted by Hugh Janus 15 June | 14:54

15 June 2007