Like what you see? Help keep it going! This ad-free site runs on the support of readers like you. Your donation helps cover costs and keeps fresh content coming your way every day. Thank you!
Rolling Stones quotes: Keith Richards on the New York Dolls copying the Stones (1974)
When Keith Richards starts talking about who sounds like The Rolling Stones, you already know it won’t turn into a polite music industry handshake moment. In classic Keith Richards style, there’s no overthinking—just a dry glance at the New York Dolls, a raised eyebrow at the Mick Jagger comparisons, and a not-so-subtle reminder that looking like rock royalty doesn’t automatically make you part of the dynasty. Somewhere between admiration and eye-roll territory, his comments on The Rolling Stones and “copycat” accusations land with that familiar mix of honesty and sarcasm fans have come to expect, especially when the topic is Keith Richards on the New York Dolls copying the Stones (1974).
“I only know that they sound like the Stones ‘cos people tell me that they do. I’ve never actually seen them working. I’ve seen the photos and it’s obvious that the guy (David Johansen) mimics Mick, and he does look incredibly like him. I mean if you think about it you have to conclude that it’d be better if they had their own thing entirely. I’m sure they’d be happier if they were making it on the strength of something a little less tenuous than having a guy in the band who happens to look like somebody that’s rather more famous.”
Keith Richards, The Rolling Stones and the copycat question
Keith Richards has never been the type to sit down and carefully manage his public image, so when asked about the New York Dolls sounding like The Rolling Stones, he didn’t exactly deliver a polished diplomatic statement. Instead, he shrugged off the idea with a mix of amusement and mild irritation, suggesting that he only hears the comparison because other people keep repeating it to him. In his view, the situation isn’t something he actively follows—he hasn’t studied their performances up close and doesn’t claim to know their work in detail. What he has seen, however, is enough photographs and visual material to notice something that keeps coming up in conversation: David Johansen’s stage presence and look, which many have pointed out as strongly reminiscent of Mick Jagger. Richards acknowledges that resemblance, but he also questions whether leaning into it is really a long-term artistic strategy or just an easy shortcut to attention.
Influence, identity and a bit of rock’n’roll reality
Rather than turning the discussion into a rivalry, Richards frames it in a more practical, slightly blunt way. For him, the issue isn’t whether the New York Dolls can echo The Rolling Stones—it’s whether they should build their identity on that echo in the first place. He suggests that any band is better off developing something unmistakably their own, rather than relying on comparisons to more established names. In his typically direct style, he implies that even success built on resemblance can feel a bit fragile, like it’s resting on borrowed attention instead of original weight. There’s even a hint of irony in his tone: if you spend too much time looking like someone else, you risk becoming known for the resemblance rather than the music itself. Richards doesn’t dismiss their talent outright, but he clearly believes that real staying power in rock comes from originality, not imitation, no matter how flattering the comparison might be.
Like what you see? Help keep it going! This site runs on the support of readers like you. Your donation helps cover costs and keeps fresh Rolling Stones content coming your way every day. Thank you!
Stones Data on Substack
