The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (blues, funk, rock, great song)

Music Man · 01-16-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I`m still trying to get my head around this 'the stones should have given up years ago' thing.

Why should they?

They still get a kick out of playing live , there are thousands of people willing to watch them play and above all they have a back catalogue that most bands would kill for.

So there current material isn`t so good , hardly a crime , they might not have made a great album since the early 70s but they`ve still written some great tunes since then.
The way I see it the stuff they wrote in the 60s & early 70s is of such good quality these songs deserve to be heard.I`ve never heard anybody say of BB King 'Oh that old bastard hasn`t recorded a decent album in decades & should give up now he`s in his eighties'.

Besides i`d rather the Stones stuck together than split up & force crap like Mull Of Kintrye & The Frog Chorus on us.

Oh, of course it's so much better that the Stones stuck together and have been forcing crap like "Miss You" down our throats for about 30 years.

Anybody with class knows when to bow out gracefully, which the Stones should've done 30 years ago.

The best description I've seen of the Rolling Stones for the last three decades:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

For me, "selling out" in its real, unadulterated sense is the practise of making a record simply to capitalize on your popularity, with no regard for the creative process or quality of the material.

Music Man · 01-16-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

If we`re talking about a bands nadir here Yellow Submarine & Octopus Garden take some beating.

Either of those songs beats the hell out of disco crap like "Miss You".

Yellow Sub was #1 in Britain for four consecutive weeks, and was the title track for their immensely popular movie of the same name.

Bottom line---the Stones sold out, the Beatles didn't.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 01-16-2007, 12:02 PM

Depends on your definition of crap.

I can think of dozens of songs they`ve written since they supposedly 'lost it' that stands up to their old material.

And I don`t think the worst Stones songs is anywhere near as bad as the worst Beatles songs in terms of crapness.

ddp · 01-17-2007, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Depends on your definition of crap.

I can think of dozens of songs they`ve written since they supposedly 'lost it' that stands up to their old material.

And I don`t think the worst Stones songs is anywhere near as bad as the worst Beatles songs in terms of crapness.

I dunno about that.
Here is a test.

Start singing something from the "steel wheels" album.
Pretty hard to remember a good one eh?

one_more_atrocity · 01-17-2007, 07:43 AM

went for stones simply because i like more of there songs, but beatles were also an awesome band.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 01-17-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddp

I dunno about that.
Here is a test.

Start singing something from the "steel wheels" album.
Pretty hard to remember a good one eh?

Mixed Emotions , Sad Sad Sad , Rock And A Hard Place ,All still live favourites.
Plus Continental Drift which has been used as their opening music for years.

Strummer521 · 01-17-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

WTF, the songs in AYE? fit together perfectly, and even if they didn't, putting a little diversity in a album never hurts anybody.

I never opposed diversity. I just happen to think that Electric Ladyland is just as diverse (soul, straight blues, rock & roll, psychadelia) while managing to pull off a tighter flow among songs.

Strummer521 · 01-17-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

If we`re talking about a bands nadir here Yellow Submarine & Octopus Garden take some beating.

They're essentially children's songs, and damn classic ones at that. Besides anything that Ringo sang (while with the Beatles) is a fun little novelty. I find his voice was pleasant at that time because it was so unassuming.

rockerchik · 01-17-2007, 03:12 PM

I would have to agree with the people whos reason were that they grew up with the music. My dad was a huge Beatles fan so growing up that's all I listened to. It just reminds me of my childhood, bunnies, and butterflies.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 01-17-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strummer521

They're essentially children's songs, and damn classic ones at that.

That excuse didn`t wash with me when McCartney released The Frog Chorus and i`m not buying it now.

View Poll Results: Stones or Beatles
Stones	1,000,000,059	99.90%
Beatles	1,000,073	0.10%
Voters: 1001000132. You may not vote on this poll

01-16-2007, 12:02 PM	#453 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	Depends on your definition of crap. I can think of dozens of songs they`ve written since they supposedly 'lost it' that stands up to their old material. And I don`t think the worst Stones songs is anywhere near as bad as the worst Beatles songs in terms of crapness. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

01-17-2007, 07:43 AM	#455 (permalink)
one_more_atrocity lolocaust Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: birmingham, uk Posts: 354	went for stones simply because i like more of there songs, but beatles were also an awesome band. __________________ .::: I'd redecorate the walls with your inner thoughts, but im afraid it's the wrong shade of red :::.

01-17-2007, 03:12 PM	#459 (permalink)
rockerchik Groupie Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18	I would have to agree with the people whos reason were that they grew up with the music. My dad was a huge Beatles fan so growing up that's all I listened to. It just reminds me of my childhood, bunnies, and butterflies. __________________