| October 7th, 2005 02:19 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Right now my radio station is playing a slew of Beatles songs, I mean they're boring me to tears. I'm ready to put on ABB. I guess it's John's 65th birthday this weekend. Or it might be the mood I'm in, but listening to this stuff and trying to put it into perspective. Stones stuff stands the test of time much better IMO. A matter of taste...perhaps.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
| October 7th, 2005 02:20 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
It's like lullabyes versus real music. Beatles suck & suck hard. |
| October 7th, 2005 02:24 PM |
|
|
| egon |
let's talk about the cows v. the stones |
| October 7th, 2005 06:52 PM |
|
|
| IzzyStradlin |
Rolling Stones suck now - they use to be good.
Beatles suck now, then and forever.
Pop music. |
| October 8th, 2005 12:26 AM |
|
|
| Chris74 |
Thats rubbish and you know it. The Beatles have written great stuff and you can't negate that. I love the Stones also more but nevertheless the Beatles were fantastic. Btw the Stones always agreed with that. Just listened to some stuff: Strawberry Fields, Lucy in the Sky, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Across the Universe - that Lennon stuff rocks. |
| October 8th, 2005 04:21 AM |
|
|
| zenarcher |
YEAH wrote good songs but cam't sing it |
| October 8th, 2005 04:26 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Hey...I like your avatar zenarcher. |
| October 8th, 2005 04:29 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
egon wrote:
let's talk about the cows v. the stones
The Cows...never heard of them. Are you talking about the Cowsills? |
| October 8th, 2005 07:36 AM |
|
|
| exile |
The Beatles were good and nobody can deny that,
But they were more jingle writers than song writers
(If they worked in advertising they would have been huge.)
In the end the beatles left the cuddly mop top image and alienated a large percentage of their audience.
The stones were song writers. and never pretended to be anything else.
Well thats my two cents.
|
| October 8th, 2005 08:58 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Man, i'd love to know what number "Beatles vs Stones" thread this is!!
For the record - ahem - The Beatles were a pop band. The Stones are a rock band. Why not compare Abba to Led Zeppelin. I mean, Abba had 4 people. And two very feminine singers.
Like the Beatles.
hahahahahahahahahahaha.
God i hate the Beatles. Hate, hate, hate. |
| October 8th, 2005 09:12 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Man, i'd love to know what number "Beatles vs Stones" thread this is!!
At least one too many probably. In fact I seem to recall having posted some months ago or maybe a year ago, I don't know, that I wouldn't start any more Stones vs Beatles threads. I lied I guess. Just got caught up in the moment listening to that radio show with all those Beatles songs. Lost my head,...oh well..... 
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
| October 8th, 2005 10:23 AM |
|
|
| egon |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
The Cows...never heard of them. Are you talking about the Cowsills?
the black cows, yuou know; that band that's bigger than the stones |
| October 8th, 2005 11:08 AM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
Everybody knows the Crowes are the best |
| October 8th, 2005 11:11 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
I've always believed that the Beatles quit because they knew the jig was up.Technology was rapidly providing better sound for live shows and they were terrible live.They made classic songs loved by millions.But they knew compared to Stones and other real musicians they couldnt hold a candle live... |
| October 8th, 2005 11:37 AM |
|
|
| Mr.Riffhard |
The Beatles and the Stones are the two greatest bands of all time. I'm a bit dumbfounded by some of these posts on here. For one, the Beatles were not terrible live, the problem they had was they couldn't hear anything over the crowd. The Beatles were absolutely capable of ripping it up live though. Also I don't understand how you can knock the Beatles as songwriters??? Lennon and McCartney are the absolute best ever, and George was pretty damn good at it too. Another post made mention of how the "Lennon stuff was great" as if Paul McCartney was chopped liver. McCartney is absolutely brilliant as a songwritter and musician. To me it's crazy if you can't comprehend that. Well anyways, I know this is a Stones board but the Beatle-basing is a bit much. |
| October 8th, 2005 12:58 PM |
|
|
| IzzyStradlin |
quote:
Why not compare Abba to Led Zeppelin.
OK - Abba was better. |
| October 8th, 2005 02:22 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Now i'm 42, and not a long haired white boy in faded jeans and Adidas "ROME" runners - yeah, ya know, Abba WERE fucking better. Well, after Led Zep's Physical Graffiti anyway!
There is some amazing craft going on in the songs of those sultry Swedes.
To me (and really, i am probably right) the Beatles knew the jig was up. Not just the Stones taking over, but also the whole scene changing to the West Coast of U.S.
Just dig this:
Of course "PEPPER" was like a hight point. It changed alot of things. But, 12 months later, the Fag 4 were looking stupid. All satin pirate outfits, saying OOB la de, and on Magical mystery tours...
..while Jimbo is in leather pants saying how he wants to fuck his mother. Or the Airplane saying feed your head. They were the Spice Girls of 68!!
Then, ooooooooh, how naughty, they grew their hair!! Man, even the nerds were influenced. Fuck me, i am sure '68 rolled along, and Lennon said: "We better get out of the Captain Feathersword gear and be more "Street"'
How relevent? Like the Archies!
This period is where the Stones should have shined. Where they should really have taken over. But cause of weak Brian, couldnt. Imagine a tour of U.S. behind Beggars????
No, the Beatles were the old people's version of "youth music". And the geeks.
To the cool?? Hendrix, Who, Stones, Dead - these were the voices of a generation. Doors, Creedance - all superceded those Liverpool fags. Those gutless pricks. Lennon knew it too. His vitriol against the Stones from '70 onwards shows that. Not that that house husband junkie weak assed gutless bastard could comment!
I mean, come on. 1 year its OCtopusses garden and oob la de, the next its why dont we do it on the road or she came in through the bathroom window. I mean, they were trying too hard. Ohhh, lets be naughty!!!
Fuck 'em! They were/are/always will be lame. A pop band. The Spice Girls of their time. Michael Jackson times 4. Wimps and weasels. Too gutless too tour, cause they couldnt cut it. No my words. they admitted it themselves. They couldnt cut it. Didnt have the guts.
Let it be?
Nah.....
....Let it bleed!!!
P.S. Some bums for ya.
 |
| October 8th, 2005 02:33 PM |
|
|
| zenarcher |
Ten Thousand Motels thank you |
| October 8th, 2005 09:21 PM |
|
|
| Luke Skywalker 666 |
If you were to ask serious musicians like classical musicians and jazz players, most of them would pick the Beatles. This is because the Beatles wrote music that was well constructed and to some degree, sophisticated chord patterns. The melodies are more interesting too: like Norwiegion Wood, Yesterday, etc.. The Stones? Well it's just straight forward rock chords and really nothing out of the ordinary in terms of chord patterns. You'll almost never see advanced musicans(like jazz and classical musicians) play Stones tunes but they will more likley play a Beatles song.
My opinion?
The Stones are great pop tune writers and Mick really knows how to make a song catchy. I find the Stones more pop sounding than the Beatles in general. I also have more fun when listening to the Stones as opposed to the Beatles.
HOWEVER: As a guitarist, I find playing the Stones songs to be very boring and I love playing Beatles songs. Playing Beatles songs really is amazing and the energy that you fell is truly wonderful.
If you were a musician and especially have an understanding of music theory to some degree, you will most likely develop a deeper appreciation for the Beatles. The genious of Beatles songs is how they can be intrepreted by other musicians and sound fresh and cutting edge.
With the Stones, it's not like that. I just enjoy the Stones doing their stuff and almost never enjoy other players doing thier covers because it usually sounds lame. Many Beatles songs are masterpieces and are timeless and stand up on thier own. |
| October 8th, 2005 09:35 PM |
|
|
| pavlovs dog |
The difference between the Beatles and The Stones:
The Beatles:
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is
Still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be. Yeah
There will be an answer, let it be.
And when the night is cloudy,
There is still a light that shines on me,
Shine on until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be,
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
The Rolling Stones:
Well, we all need someone we can lean on
And if you want it, you can lean on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can lean on
And if you want it, you can lean on me
She said, "My breasts, they will always be open
Baby, you can rest your weary head right on me
And there will always be a space in my parking lot
When you need a little coke and sympathy"
Yeah, we all need someone we can dream on
And if you want it, baby, well you can dream on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can cream on
And if you want to, well you can cream on me
I was dreaming of a steel guitar engagement
When you drunk my health in scented jasmine tea
But you knifed me in my dirty filthy basement
With that jaded, faded, junky nurse
Oh what pleasant company
We all need someone we can feed on
And if you want it, well you can feed on me
Take my arm, take my leg, oh baby don't you take my head
Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, and if you want it, baby, well you can bleed on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, yeah, and if you want it, baby, why don'cha bleed on me
All over
Yeah..
Ahh, get it on rider, get it on rider, get it on rider
You can bleed all over me, yeah!
Get it on rider, get it on rider, yeah!
You can cream all over, you can cum all over me, oh!
Get it on rider, get it on rider, get it on rider
You can cum all over me
Yeah!
Get it on rider, baby cum all over me
Yeah, yeah
Get it on rider....
Pavlov says:
LET IT BLEED BABY! |
| October 9th, 2005 08:19 AM |
|
|
| Ern |
The main problem of the 'so called real' Rolling Stones fans about the Beatles is JEALOUSY!!!
Nothing more nothing less.
I love this one:
John Lennon 1971
Q_'What do you think of the Stones today?'
John_'I think it's a lot of hype. I like ``Honky Tonk Women,'' but I think Mick's a joke with all that fag dancing; I always did. I enjoy it; I'll probably go and see his films and all like everybody else, but really, I think it's a joke.'
Q_'Do you see him much now?'
John_'No, I never do see him. We saw a bit of each other when Allen [Klein, Beatles' late-period manager] was first coming in - I think Mick got jealous. I was always very respectful of Mick and the Stones, but he said a lot of sort of tarty things about the Beatles, which I am hurt by because, you know, I can knock the Beatles, but don't let Mick Jagger knock them. I would like to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on every fuckin' album. Every fuckin' thing we did, Mick does exactly the same - he imitates us. And I would like one of you fuckin' underground people to point it out. You know, Satanic Majesties is Pepper; ``We Love You,'' it's the most fuckin' bullshit, that's ``All You Need Is Love.'' I resent the implication that the Stones are like revolutionaries and that the Beatles weren't. If the Stones were or are, the Beatles really were, too. But they are not in the same class, musicwise or powerwise, never were. I never said anything, I always admired them, because I like their funky music, and I like their style. I like rock & roll and the direction they took after they got over trying to imitate us. He's obviously so upset by how big the Beatles are compared with him, he never got over it. Now he's in his old age, and he is beginning to knock us, you know, and he keeps knocking. I resent it, because even his second fuckin' record, we wrote it for him. Mick said, ``Peace made money.'' We didn't make any money from peace.'
By the way Happy B day Johnny!!!
I'm a big fan of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and I cringe when I see some of the things written here!!! You don't have to like The Beatles of course, but saying they were 'this or that' or no talent, is just plain stupidity.
But that's what this useless and pathetic threads generate!!!
[Edited by Ern] |
| October 9th, 2005 08:22 AM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
pfff
when is there a Wood vs. taylor thread? |
| October 9th, 2005 08:46 AM |
|
|
| blackandblue |
very feeble story |
| October 9th, 2005 09:11 AM |
|
|
| Col |
quote:
Mr.Riffhard wrote:
The Beatles and the Stones are the two greatest bands of all time. I'm a bit dumbfounded by some of these posts on here. For one, the Beatles were not terrible live, the problem they had was they couldn't hear anything over the crowd. The Beatles were absolutely capable of ripping it up live though. Also I don't understand how you can knock the Beatles as songwriters??? Lennon and McCartney are the absolute best ever, and George was pretty damn good at it too. Another post made mention of how the "Lennon stuff was great" as if Paul McCartney was chopped liver. McCartney is absolutely brilliant as a songwritter and musician. To me it's crazy if you can't comprehend that. Well anyways, I know this is a Stones board but the Beatle-basing is a bit much.
Well said.
The comments made on here are very selective. For me, the Beatles wrote rock tunes as well as pop, Stones wrote pop as well as rock. Yer Blues for example, "Feel so suicidal, I wanna die" Hardly the poppiest of lyrics! Hell, the Stones even played a jingle for a Rice Crispies advert in the early days. The point is that both bands were hugely experimental, creative and liked to explore all sorts of styles.
As individuals, the Beatles were master songwriters.(well apart from Ringo) The Stones had more of a chemistry between Mick'n'Keef which produced great songs. Both bands had great musicians. I'm even starting to suspect that I like George Harrisons solos better than Keefs and Taylors. The Jury's still out on that one though.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I love 'em both! |
| October 9th, 2005 09:15 AM |
|
|
| pavlovs dog |
quote:
Moonisup wrote:
pfff
when is there a Wood vs. taylor thread?
How about a Ian Stewart vs. Nicky Hopkins thread? |
| October 9th, 2005 09:20 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
How about the Missionary Position vs. Doggie Style? |
| October 9th, 2005 10:05 AM |
|
|
| Starbuck |
 |
| October 9th, 2005 04:13 PM |
|
|
| stonesmik |
Beatles R.I.P.
Don't you have no shame. |
| October 9th, 2005 11:06 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Obviously anyone following the board over the years knows my hatred of Macca/Beatles . Thus, I rarely even get involved anymore b/c it is redundant and offends many so-called Stones fans. Bottom line, they are mutually exclusive in my opinion and youcannot be both a Beatles/Macca fan and a die hard Stones fan-it just don't work that way and never will with the Stones's fans I know. You either dig Beatles pop, the nitty , gritty blues inspired rock the Stones took from the Delta Blues pioneers, Chuck Berry( a total douche as a person) and made their own. There is no comparison b/t the Beatles as a rock band and the Stones. Maybe , to some(actually, probably 48% here) the Beatles represent the
60's and the impact it had on their lives and society as a whole;but to others, the real die hard Stones fans, the Beatles are unjustifiably held in higher regard b/c of thier wuss, wuss, pop -friendly music.
The Big 4 Stones albums, plus GHS,IORR, B&B, Some Girls and Tatoo You, stand up to any Beatles/Macca album, and imo, are vastly superior.
|
| October 10th, 2005 02:51 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
exile wrote:
(If they worked in advertising they would have been huge.)
Um, they WERE huge.
|
|
