Comus

Q: Then why don't rolling stones fans dislike Led Zeppelin for taking their pedestal?

A: Becuase Rolling Stones fans aren't little jealous shits with no taste in music.

__________________
last.fm

Neapolitan

What are you an obnoxious orderly at a retirement home??????

wrong! misinformation, It start to wane right after August 29th, 1966, technically speaking, it was the last time they did thier last concert at Candlestick Park for the last time.

The Beatles were the only band that started out as a girl band that went Underground. "Waning" and other words to discribe The Beatles endeavors of pushing the envelope of crafting high quality music is putting a misleading spin on it.

wrong! misinformation, It wasn't the Rolling Stones, it was Yoko Ono; and Paul releasing his solo album, that was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

I highly respect you for your trival knowelge of obscure bands, groups, and/or artist, and you definitely deserve a for Grammy for Wyatting.
But and that is a big but, one thing I don't get his you vehement distaste for the world's most tasteful Rock n Roll band ever. How can you forget their most delicious number, Savory Truffle?

Yeah, The Rolling Stones might not be jealous of Led Zeppelin but is becuase The Stones have some firsts on Led Zep, Like The Stones was the first Blues Band coming from England, The UK and/or the British Isles. And even though Jimmy Page's Les Paul may be the most famous of all Les Pauls in the world, Keith Richards was the first guy to own one in the whole of England, The UK and/or the British Isles. And besides Zep & Stones took the blues into similar but different areas, I think the latter became more bluesier with the gutiarist by the name of Mick Taylor, lets face it LZ & RS are compatible.

But I do have to admit as a Rolling Stone fan, when I was a kid I was completely annoyed with KISS fans who touted KISS as the greatest RnR band in the world. And is because kiss couldn't play one lick to save Aunt Edna.

almauro

That statement must sums up how you feel about old-school Beatle fans, and yes, I believe it was the White Album that was the being of the "waning" period of Beatlemania. First of all, if you knew anything about the history behind that album, it was Lennons conscious decision to change direction from pysch-pop, the uniforms and the hoopla in general. They got down-right scruffy, grew long beards and radical changed their style. The record got very mixed reviews, and all those Sgt Pepper/Magical Mystery fans were deeply troubled and disappointed. Frankly, they didn't get it. Even George Martin stated the album would have been better boiled down to one LP. Your comment about concert performance is trival in comparason to the release and impact of the White Album.

__________________
rock n music blog

Comus

There are three reasons I love hating on the beatles:
1. The defensive fans:
These are the people I love the most, if I bash them, they'll start spouting varius amounts of crap. The Beatles were this and that, they were the only psychedelic band to matter etc., they were the only British band that was popular in the 60's. They started the wave of decent rock music. Whatever bull**** they can get their claws at. And what makes them so great, is the fact that they always bite always. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

2. The elitist fans:
These are the main reason I hate the Beatles. They'll claim to be on the edge, and have a massive disdain for anything pop. Unless of course it was shat out of the arses of the fab four. The type of people that hate Britney Spears or, yes, even Billy Joel for being too pop, but then go back home and put the Beatles entire discography on repeat. The type of people that claim that modern music has gone to ****, or rather, modern mainstream music has. The sad fact is I'd agree with them, if their favourite band wasn't the Beatles. They fail to notice, that the hooks and sensibilities they disdain were pretty much invented (well popularised, but beatles fans don't seem to notice the difference) by the Beatles.

3. The godawful music:
How the hell can people listen to this boring pap? I've been subjected to it far more than I'd like, I weep for all these times I could have been listening to decent music instead of having this utter rubbish shoved down my throat. It's elevator music, pure and simple. Even their last few albums, I mean come on, have the people that immortalise Sgt Peppers or the White album actually even listened to any of the other albums of their time? There was nothing cutting edge about anything they did. Or if there was they were certainly cutting the wrong fucking edge.
Yeah but no one cares about KISS now. So good music won out there.

__________________
last.fm

crash_override

[QUOTE=Comus;676148 There was nothing cutting edge about anything they did. Or if there was they were certainly cutting the wrong ****ing edge. [/QUOTE]



I understand you don't like them and all, but really?

Comus

Everything they did had been done before, and better.

__________________
last.fm

crash_override

Hmm, that's interesting you think that. I have always considered Revolver one of the most forward thining albums of the 1960's. The recording techniques alone were mind blowing to me. Although I don't consider myself an expert on music from the 60's so I guess I can;t call you a liar. I would like some names though if you care to elaborate.

Comus

As a small example. (I reallly can't be arsed getting in to a massive debate I want to play Fallout 3). Before the release of Revolver you had Pet sounds and Fifth Dimension. You also had Roger the Engineer (well in the UK anyways) A year is an awful long time when it comes to fast moving scenes like this. Naturally release dates aren't as important as the live shows and studio work that was going on at the time. Of course the Beatles had stopped touring, so their only influence then would be through the albums they made.

__________________
last.fm

annapurna

Pet Sounds was influenced by The Beatles Rubber Soul and I think those two albums are more complimentary to each other. To insinuate that the Beatles had no originality, especially on Revolver, is a farce.

1966 was a great year for music.

Urban Hat€monger ?

The Beatles didn't split up because of Yoko.
They spilt up because they knew the Stones were making Exile On Main Street and the bluesy & jazzy tinged rock on it would go on to inspire & dominate the 70s and that their sugar coated nursery rhymes were a tired & dated relic from the 60s. Plus there's no way in hell they could compete with an album that relied on roots , soul & spontaneity rather than studio trickery & trying to one up Brian Wilson.

The above statement is the type of things stones fans would come up with if they were anything like Beatles Fans.

__________________