Music Banter - View Single Post

lucifer_sam · 08-18-2008, 12:59 PM

But that wasn't within the context of my comment. You might be saying that they released something you would call "good" since then, and that's fair and well, but it doesn't really address what I was saying. I meant that in comparison to both the Stones' own earlier records and the Beatles' records, the Stones haven't released anything that compares favorably since 1972. Nothing they did after that could match up to Let It Bleed, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, etc. This was to support the fact that although they've been a band six times longer than the Beatles, they haven't had a comparatively good record in thirty-six years.

i.e. their longevity shouldn't be a factor.

08-18-2008, 12:59 PM	#542 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	But that wasn't within the context of my comment. You might be saying that they released something you would call "good" since then, and that's fair and well, but it doesn't really address what I was saying. I meant that in comparison to both the Stones' own earlier records and the Beatles' records, the Stones haven't released anything that compares favorably since 1972. Nothing they did after that could match up to Let It Bleed, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, etc. This was to support the fact that although they've been a band six times longer than the Beatles, they haven't had a comparatively good record in thirty-six years. i.e. their longevity shouldn't be a factor. __________________ first.am Last edited by lucifer_sam; 08-18-2008 at 11:22 PM.