| November 1st, 2004 10:53 AM |
|
|
| headshrinker |
check this site out. apparently mick and keith formed the band not brian, satisfaction was released in 63 and jumping jack flash in 72.
http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/H/halloffame/decade60s_rollingstones.html |
| November 1st, 2004 11:10 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
I actually mentioned that on their message board last night..lol..twats |
| November 1st, 2004 12:20 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Wow, I hope nobody uses that as a reference site for school. |
| November 1st, 2004 08:22 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
A**holes |
| November 2nd, 2004 12:38 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
U2 and Madonna are in this thing already, but not the Stones? The mind boggles. |
| November 2nd, 2004 05:06 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
not really. There are 5 founder members. One from each decade. The Beatles, hardly surprisingly (or unreasonably), are the 'representative' from the 60's. With a system like that, youre going to get a disproportionate quota of modern day acts as opposed to those who started out in the 60's, which was rock music's most innovative decade. Hence the non inclusion as founder members of artists who would otherwise have been easy choices, such as the Stones or Dylan. |
| November 2nd, 2004 08:02 AM |
|
|
| Hannalee |
What got me was them pitting The Kinks, The Who and The Animals against each other so that only one was nominated. Wtf? And where were The Yardbirds?
The whole concept is crap er... deeply flawed. Humph.
I feel like "Indignant of Reading"...
|
| November 2nd, 2004 09:22 AM |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
I saw the first two programes, but missed the 1970's one.
Who was in that?
Heres who I think will win from each decade...
1950's Elvis
1960's Dylan (Though OBVSIOUSLY I'd vote for the Stones!)
1970's Led Zeppelin
1980's The Smiths
1990's Oasis (Don't care what anyone says about Liam and Noel, they're first two albums are fucking genius!)
Alex
|
| November 2nd, 2004 09:28 AM |
|
|
| Zeeta |
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
1950's Elvis
1960's Dylan (Though OBVSIOUSLY I'd vote for the Stones!)
1970's Led Zeppelin
1980's The Smiths
1990's Oasis (Don't care what anyone says about Liam and Noel, they're first two albums are fucking genius!)
Alex
Make that Oasis's first album and their collection of B-sides the Masterplan - What's the Story is overrated and too contrived. Apart from those two albums Oasis are pants!
The Clash were in the 70s episode BTW.
Madonna being rock and Roll cracks me up! And as for U2 - I think we've covered them here before!!
|
| November 2nd, 2004 09:40 AM |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
Hmmm... What’s The Story Morning Glory is overrated? Maybe, I have been listening to it a lot lately though. In my opinion, the first two Oasis albums are great and the same goes for all their singles.
Be Here Now, Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants and although Heathen Chemistry was a slight improvement, are pretty awful in comparison to their Brit Pop era stuff.
Anyway, enough of my ranting.
I would just like to point out the whole idea of putting the like of The Beatles, U2 and Madonna in there is stupid. They should be put to the vote like every other band/group nominated.
Alex |
| November 2nd, 2004 10:24 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
Hmmm... What’s The Story Morning Glory is overrated?
YES..by OASIS fans. Their first album is far superior, is as good a debut album as ever made by anyone - the 2nd one is pretty good, but when it came out I thought it was relatively disappointing compared to the first. theres no real comparsion in terms of sheer quality, attitude and fire. But it sold by the shitload as by then they were the "in" band and had hyped it up so much. I'd agree with Zeeta on "Masterplan". I bought all of their early singles because the b-sides were superb.
I know the 90's was hardly a vintage decade for rock music, but to call somone the best act of the decade based on two albums (at most) is stretching the bounds of credibility by any standards. No doubt they'll win it though as most people in Britain under 30 think Oasis invented guitar driven rock n roll.
Oh and for what its worth, the Stones will win the '60's category easily anyway. Dylan was better in that decade but is too much of an acquired taste for the ignorant masses. However the idea of 'confining' acts like the Stones, Dylan, Neil Young and several others to one convenient decade is nonsensical as their music has been around for several decades. Plus, several great artists may have started or ended their career in the middle of a decade (or done both) and could be argued to have split their finest work over two successive decades - namely the Stones (late 60's/early 70's), The Who (ditto) or The Clash (late 70's/early 80's).
Anyway, the whole thing is aimed at making money by people getting worked up about it and phoning in. Who bloody cares anyway? I dont need to compete with fans of Justin Timberlake or the Spice Girls to decide what great music is. WE already know. The fact that millions of others DONT is their loss - plus it makes it easier to get concert tickets knowing they dont 
[Edited by Gazza] |
| November 2nd, 2004 11:39 AM |
|
|
| headshrinker |
quote:
Zeeta wrote:
Make that Oasis's first album and their collection of B-sides the Masterplan - What's the Story is overrated and too contrived. Apart from those two albums Oasis are pants!
you're either: 1) over 40, 2)not british or both because their first 2 albums summed up that era and that generation and just because YOU cant relate to the music/lyrics doesn't mean they're overated. The 20 million people that bought morning glory thought it was amazing. album sales speak for themselves |
| November 2nd, 2004 11:43 AM |
|
|
| jb |
Another indictment of the hateful, anti-stones british press and public at large. This is outrageous and shameful...I am embarrassed for all our british posters, especially Gazza. |
| November 2nd, 2004 12:10 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
headshrinker wrote:
you're either: 1) over 40, 2)not british or both because their first 2 albums summed up that era and that generation and just because YOU cant relate to the music/lyrics doesn't mean they're overated. The 20 million people that bought morning glory thought it was amazing. album sales speak for themselves
Zeeta IS British and to the best of my knowledge, considerably UNDER 40. I'm both British and over 40 and I've said above what I thought of their debut album (in fact I actually it bought the day it came out and also saw them in concert the day it topped the charts), which proves your talking through your ass. And who are you or anyone to pigeonhole the credibility of anyone's personal musical taste based on their age and/or nationality anyway - let alone "sum up an era"? Its a matter of personal taste that one album is better or worse than another one. God help us for not acknowledging Morning Glory as their masterpiece.
As much as I like their early stuff, what does it say about the quality of music and lack of original ideas around in the last decade to say "they summed up their era". By doing what..recycling Beatles and Stones hooks and copying publicity stunts that other bands had done years earlier? Oasis were a bloody good rock n roll band IMO who kept the flame burning for a bit when pop music was in danger of disappearing up its own arse with synthesizers and all that electronic nonsense. Nothing more, nothing less. Lyrically, nothing special. Their strong point was an ear for good melodies IMO...(mind you, they got their ideas from good sources...)
"Album sales speak for themselves" ? Using that yardstick, then I take it that the greatest albums of all time are therefore "Thriller" and "The Eagles Greatest Hits"? Discuss.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| November 2nd, 2004 12:11 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
jb wrote:
Another indictment of the hateful, anti-stones british press and public at large. This is outrageous and shameful...I am embarrassed for all our british posters, especially Gazza.
LOL. Go out and fuckin' vote, Josh and we'll see in a few days whether you've any right to be ashamed or embarrassed on anyone's behalf. |
| November 3rd, 2004 12:24 PM |
|
|
| headshrinker |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Zeeta IS British and to the best of my knowledge, considerably UNDER 40. I'm both British and over 40 and I've said above what I thought of their debut album (in fact I actually it bought the day it came out and also saw them in concert the day it topped the charts), which proves your talking through your ass. And who are you or anyone to pigeonhole the credibility of anyone's personal musical taste based on their age and/or nationality anyway - let alone "sum up an era"? Its a matter of personal taste that one album is better or worse than another one. God help us for not acknowledging Morning Glory as their masterpiece.
As much as I like their early stuff, what does it say about the quality of music and lack of original ideas around in the last decade to say "they summed up their era". By doing what..recycling Beatles and Stones hooks and copying publicity stunts that other bands had done years earlier? Oasis were a bloody good rock n roll band IMO who kept the flame burning for a bit when pop music was in danger of disappearing up its own arse with synthesizers and all that electronic nonsense. Nothing more, nothing less. Lyrically, nothing special. Their strong point was an ear for good melodies IMO...(mind you, they got their ideas from good sources...)
"Album sales speak for themselves" ? Using that yardstick, then I take it that the greatest albums of all time are therefore "Thriller" and "The Eagles Greatest Hits"? Discuss.
[Edited by Gazza]
you obviously havn't got a fuckin clue what i was going on about either. to answer your first paragraph of rubish i was mainly talking about morning glory, not DM coz zeeta said he/she liked that one. and if you don't understand what i was going on about with the age and nationality thing, you've gotta be thicker than the footballer with who u share a name. and how can u not see how they summed up the era with their songs? fuck their personalities and the things they got upto, it was their music and what they sang about. and the stones were totally original wern't they, they didn't nick any melodies or riffs from muddy and chuck or anyone else that played the blues.
"lyrically - nothing special" - hahahahahahaha. those first 2 albums said everything that every 15 - 25 kid in the country was thinking. live forever and cigerettes and alcohol said more than mick jagger has ever written with the exception of satisfaction.
get your facts straight before u start lecturing me on music that i understand and relate to coz mate u obviously don't. |
| November 3rd, 2004 12:30 PM |
|
|
| jb |
wow!!! |
| November 3rd, 2004 05:22 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>headshrinker wrote:
you obviously havn't got a fuckin clue what i was going on about either. to answer your first paragraph of rubish i was mainly talking about morning glory, not DM coz zeeta said he/she liked that one.
your post referred to their first two albums. Try reading it again. Its quite easy. Its almost in English, after all.
>and if you don't understand what i was going on about with the age and nationality thing, you've gotta be thicker than the footballer with who u share a name.
I did understand it. Youre an ignorant fuckwit who chose to badmouth someone based on your perception of their age and nationality, getting it wrong on both counts. What is there to misunderstand about that? Try putting together a coherent argument.
As for being lectured on having an appropriate screenname -consider your own. Maybe you should change it to a song off Oasis' third album, "My Big Mouth".
Zeeta originally made an innocent remark expressing his own opinion which you responded to in by being personally abusive to him. Maybe you should ask yourself what kind of response you expect to get when you act like that. Seems you're incapable of having a discussion on here without being abusive to people when you dont agree with their taste in music. Try moderating it, you might get people to respect your opinion instead of thinking that all you're capable of is a one dimensional torrent of bile.
> and how can u not see how they summed up the era with their songs? fuck their personalities and the things they got upto, it was their music and what they sang about. and the stones were totally original wern't they, they didn't nick any melodies or riffs from muddy and chuck or anyone else that played the blues.
You miss the point again. They summed it up for YOU. Good for you, I can understand that. You presume it was everyone else, which is simply a load of bollocks. No band or artist can justifiably claim that.
>"lyrically - nothing special" - hahahahahahaha. those first 2 albums said everything that every 15 - 25 kid in the country was thinking. live forever and cigerettes and alcohol said more than mick jagger has ever written with the exception of satisfaction.
LOL. It doesnt say much for your concept of your 'generation' if "everything" about is summed up for "every kid" by two fucking songs. Take a look at what youve just said here...You're speaking for all of them, I presume?
>get your facts straight before u start lecturing me on music that i understand and relate to coz mate u obviously don't.
LOL. I was an Oasis fan before YOU were, you moron. From their first single. I think their debut album was as good a debut as I heard from anyone. So how does that mean that I "dont understand" it?? I probably "got it" before YOU did, fuckstick. Try basing an argument on facts before shooting your idiotic mouth off and generalising with sheer rubbish.
And come back with a valid argument about rock n roll when you've broadened your musical horizons a bit. Silly boy.
[Edited by Gazza] |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]