Top 3 Most Overrated Artists contest in R&R.

I'll make the argument for The Stones and acknowledge the argument against them.

FOR:
Rock music is simple, primitive, reductionist, sexualized, and aggressive right-brain music. It requires a back beat and a compelling lead guitarist who understands the anarchic role of a guitar in that formula. And it requires nothing else - indeed adding more (eg, harmony) dilutes the product.

The Stones are masters at the art. They make very simple music that many (including me) find compelling.

Note: While technical proficiency has very little to do with this, The Velvet Underground is a curious choice to hold against The Stones on this front. Keith is an outstanding rhythm player, Charlie Watts is a fine drummer and Ron Woods is a monster lead player. By comparison, The Velvet Underground is hardly head turning. Lou Reed and Mo Tucker aren't exactly virtuoso players.

AGAINST:
The argument against The Stones is the argument against pure rock n roll. It's simple, primitive, reductionist, sexualized, and aggressive right-brain music. Some people find that vulgar.

No argument from me.

BTW, I'd argue that Exile is revered because it is fantastically right-brain. It's stumbling, drunken blues run amok and IMHO might be as perfect an execution of that aesthetic as has ever been tracked.

Sorry, that should have read: Ronnie WOOD is a monster lead player.

Chaz,

Your point re: early Ron Wood vs late Ron Wood is noted, but I disagree. I think the guy has continued to improve throughout his career and his most recent solo recording (I Feel Like Playing) is my favorite. I do acknowledge that I am in the minority on this one, so it's more "One man's meat...." than worth debating.

I won't go the overrated route for the same reason - One man's meat...

Czarivey,

For the record, I wasn't being defensive when I pointed out that Keith Richards, Charlie, Watts and Ron Wood all display far more technical skill than their counterparts in The Velvet Underground, which you cited as a more skilled group of musicians in your original post.

Of the Velvets, only John Cale can reasonably be deemed as technically proficient relative to their RS counterpart. None of Sterling Morrison, Lou Reed, and Mo Tucker ever demonstrated much technical skill, probably because it was not remotely important for them to do so, given the music that they wanted to play.

You can certainly prefer the Velvet's songwriting (if that's your cup of tea) vis a vis The Stones. For better or worse (maybe better and worse), the VU really abstracted the rock n roll rhythmic conceit into something very different and spawned a major branch of rock music that included Brian Eno, David Byrne, and many prog rock luminaries. No question that they were creative and innovative, but it would be very tough to make a case for their playing.

In the end, I think much of the response here was anything but defensive, it was simply an attempt to address the misinformation in your original post regarding the technical skills of The RS as instrumentalists.

Incidentally, none of this means that The Rolling Stones are/are not underrated. In my view, that's just a function of personal taste.

Given Loomis' observation that (to paraphrase) - in order to be overrated, you've got to be highly rated - I found this. It's just one rating of rock bands, but a fun one that someone went to a fair bit of trouble to cook up. So, for your consideration:

http://avrev.com/top-100-bands-of-all-time/top-10-rock-bands/index.php