Why Ginger Baker hated The Rolling Stones: “I won’t go within ten miles of a Rolling Stones gig”
Ever since The Rolling Stones announced Hackney Diamonds, there has been a renewed sense of curiosity regarding their status as legendary figures in rock and roll. Their teaser single, ‘Angry’, received a spectrum of reviews: some lauded it for retaining the Stones’ pioneering artistry, while others labelled it a half-baked attempt at greatness. Nonetheless, the band has been somewhat polarising since day one. For instance, the great Ginger Baker held a rather low opinion of their artistry from the very beginning.
The musicians who held a strong aversion to The Rolling Stones didn’t conceal their disdain for the band’s music, and in all honesty, neither did Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Even after more than six decades as a collective, the two lifelong members still harbour negative feelings toward some of their own music.
However, while Richards, Jagger, and the other band members had undoubtedly earned the right to evaluate their own music, other musicians, such as Baker, appeared to not only critique their artistry but also express disdain for their prominence over others. “I won’t go within ten miles of a Rolling Stones gig,” the former Cream drummer once told Rolling Stone, adding that “they’re not good musicians, that’s why. The best musician in the Stones is Charlie [Watts] by a country mile”.
In terms of lyricism, Baker didn’t so much care for the band’s contributions there, either. When asked about whether he thinks they’re great songwriters, Baker admitted: “No, not really”. It may have come across a little cynical, particularly as the drummer crossed over into many similar circles as the Stones, including his friendship with Watts, but Baker didn’t seem to regard anyone with considerable talent. “I’m not a big anybody fan,” he said when asked about his feelings towards The Who and Bob Dylan.
When it comes to The Rolling Stones, however, Baker isn’t exactly unique in his disregard for their impact. Motörhead’s Lemmy Kilmister, for example, once made his opinion crystal clear in a conversation comparing them to The Beatles. “The Beatles were hard men,” he wrote in his 2004 memoir White Line Fever. “They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia – a hard, sea-farin’ town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo’s from the Dingle, which is like the fucking Bronx.”
However, Kilmister didn’t share the same admiration for The Stones, adding: “The Rolling Stones were the mummy’s boys – they were all college students from the outskirts of London,” he said. “They went to starve in London, but it was by choice, to give themselves some sort of aura of disrespectability,” later adding that he did like the Stones, but they “were shit on stage”.
Nevertheless, it’s challenging to pinpoint criticisms of the rock band, especially when their legacy spans numerous decades, coexisting with various other profoundly influential musical figures. Perhaps Baker was alluding to the modern version of the band, or maybe he really did have little interest in other music altogether. While it’s difficult to contest The Beatles’ prominence over The Rolling Stones in the 1960s, the band’s enduring and extensive career undoubtedly qualifies them for continued discussion and recognition.
