Rolling Stones: are they really the world's greatest rock "n" roll band? The Rolling Stones - (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on MUZU.TV. And move it certainly did. From his earliest performances, Jagger could never stand still, taking on the role of shamanistic conduit for the audience to enter into the spirit of the moment. He may have learnt from the physical showmanship of James Brown, Little Richard and others, but Jagger essentially invented the role of rock frontman. As early as their first performances in 1962, the Stones represented a radical break with the superficiality of pop, introducing a new seriousness, not in the sense of lyrical complexity or humourless sobriety, but in terms of how the music itself demanded to be appreciated. They were fixated on a raw and marginalised form, the blues, which they played with a near-religious conviction - closer, in some ways, to the spirit of jazz than to the faddishness of pop, even as their youth and modernity violently transformed the blues into something shockingly new. Their presentation ended a significant divide between audience and performer: the Stones appeared on stage not in costume but dressed as themselves, long-haired hipsters incarnate. The whole thing, music and image, lent rock a sense of embodying the essence of a generation in the process of change. Scorned by the older generation, the Stones" early shows became the setting for not only female sexual hysteria but ferocious male disorder, frequently degenerating into riots. The Stones were both a part of this generational shift and above it, cast as figureheads and idols, while their hedonistic behaviour carved out the mythic territory that this kind of music would occupy, establishing rites of sex, drugs and rock "n" roll that have turned into clichés over succeeding decades. Shifting over time from lusty blues stompers to dark pop idols to rip-roaring roots groovers to the world's first stadium-scale entertainers, the Rolling Stones proved a slippery bunch. I think Philip Norman is right when he suggests, in his recent biography of Jagger, that the essence of their appeal was a kind of narcissistic self-absorption that made them much more elusive and attractive than more self-consciously purposeful bands. "The Stones were about nothing but being the Stones," claims Norman. The Stones created the template, but who are the serious challengers for the title of world's greatest? In terms of creativity, invention, art, sales and cultural impact, the Beatles trump the Stones every time, yet they were never purely and definitively a rock "n" roll band (at least not in the Brian Epstein-managed version that conquered the world). And the Beatles broke up while the Stones rolled on, remaining at the centre of things for two decades as recording artists and three more as one of the world's most popular live attractions. Longevity is surely a factor that sees off the claim of such tragically short-lived sensations as the Doors and Nirvana, groups who briefly demonstrated how deep rock could go. Global popularity is another factor that has given the Stones lasting purchase, a place in the mainstream far greater than that enjoyed by such radical and influential bands as the Velvet Underground, the Stooges, the Sex Pistols, the Clash or even cultish jammers the Grateful Dead. And there are other less tangible factors. There are American stadium bands who have maintained extraordinary popularity, but surely no one would consider such slick and superficial showbands as Aerosmith, the Red Hot Chili Peppers or Bon Jovi as representing anything other than a good night's entertainment? If we overlook the claims of Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band (on the grounds that Springsteen is essentially a solo artist), there are only four other bands who could realistically lay claim to the title of all-time greatest: the Who (at least until the death of Keith Moon in 1978), Led Zeppelin (1968-80) and U2, all of whom would have their supporters and detractors. Zeppelin in particular had an instrumental ability, creative range and sheer live force that represents some kind of rock "n" roll peak. And U2 have added a post-punk conviction and hi-tech drama that has been a huge influence on more recent stadium bands such as Coldplay and Muse. Yet the Rolling Stones are more embedded in rock than any other band: the very idea of this ensemble of reprehensible survivors resonates at an almost mythic level. The phrase "World's Greatest" has become a kind of trademark, as immediately identifiable with the Stones as their lascivious lips logo. Keith Richards has graciously suggested the title should be shared around: "That's one of the great things about rock "n" roll - every night there's a different 'world's greatest band," because one night somebody has an off gig, and some other sh-- band has a great gig." Yet it is surely telling that, on Sunday night in the O2, that band could be the Stones once again, 50 years since they first got together, conjuring up a magic that they themselves find hard to define. "Everyone talks about rock these days," Richards has famously pointed out. They forget about the roll. Maybe that is the Stones" secret.