That the Beatle fanatics want everyone to validate them(the fanatics) with unanimous support is really a revelation of insecurity, self doubt and a fair measure of desperation. It means the unspeakable to them, that the Beatles really are overrated.

Quote
MKjan
That the Beatle fanatics want everyone to validate them(the fanatics) with unanimous support is really a revelation of insecurity, self doubt and a fair measure of desperation. It means the unspeakable to them, that the Beatles really are overrated.

BUNKUM

I am music fan first and foremost and dont realy care if you like, hate or indifferent to the Beatles HONEST. just responding to post that seem to try and convince me that UI shouldnt like them or ones that seem to think that there can only be one "BEST" band, they fact that you seem to think in terms of the music one likes as as being being some measure of oneslef is quiote tellin and revealing. No validation required here sir.

.......All You Need Is Love........

i'm feeling the urge to buy the complete boxed set.

the video game would be neat too....but anyone that's
played these knows it's difficult to watch the graphics
of the characters (Beatles in this case) when you're
actually playing the game.

i think i will restrain myself...but i am very curious to
hear the audio improvements and see the mini documentaries
on the disks etc...

on the other hand...i can't remember the last time
i actually played a Beatles cd.

all the hype (commercials & vh-1 shows etc .. etc...) is tempting me.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
glencar
I post at other boards but I never go there & say, "STONES ARE THE BEST!!!!" which is what I see on this board. Again, the beatles are a fine pop band; no more & no less. Please Please Me is probably the equivalent of Tell Me but around 1967 the Stones started soaring well above. BTW Thanks for disagreeing respectfully. Others could learn.

This is a message board that is made up, predominantly, of Rolling Stones fans (myself included), most of whom have an active passion for music generally. It's why we're here; it's why we thrive as a community; each one of us bringing something to the table so that others can share, agree, disagree, reminisce, speculate, debate or even laugh with. Much of it is about the Stones (naturally), while the remainder is made up from all manner of “Off-Topic” posts.

It is of no surprise therefore, to find that a major event, such as the long-awaited launch of the Beatles Re-Masters, becomes a topic to invoke considerable interest from those of us here who happen to have an interest in the Fab Four. Naturally, it will also attract a fair number of jokers and detractors; and there is no problem with that. If someone, such as Beelyboy for example, isn’t sufficiently moved by the Re-Masters series, then he is fully (and quite rightly) entitled to his opinion. Additionally, if someone simply does not like the Beatles, then fair enough. It’s their opinion and they should be respected for it.

The situation is different however, when other posters such as yourself, use the thread as a means of propagating their own childish, hate-fuelled agendas; put simply, it gets up other people’s noses, especially when it is pre-empted with the patronising, “Honestly, I’m not a Beatles hater, but….” type of attack.

It is these same posters who do not seem to be able to get it into their thick skulls that the very people here who are praising the Beatles efforts are Rolling Stones fans themselves, and NOT some kind of perceived enemy from within; these same idiots who are happy to proclaim the Stones as the biggest grossing live act in the world, but will race to pour scorn upon anyone else’s success, regardless of whether it is U2, Springsteen, or, heaven forbid, the Beatles. That’s when denial sets in, and the term, “overrated” conveniently comes into force as a desperate last line of defence, simply because someone has had the temerity to point out the hard FACTS about the Fab Four’s phenomenal and unmatched success.

Significantly, they are also the first to bleat and cry wolf when those of us who actually CARE about music, provide impassioned responses to their childish, bigoted perspectives.

…what else do you morons expect?

Quote
tatters
Anyone heard Revolution on Past Masters? It's MASSIVE! Who says the Beatles didn't invent heavy metal?

Helter Skelter's another good example!

Quote
Tornandfrayed

Quote
sdstonesguy
hahaha...you're an idiot. You actually believe this stuff? Too funny...dumber than a dog.

Wow... now we´ve really reached a new low.

The ignorance and plain stupidity displayed be some of the posters in this thread is quite shocking. It´s amazing how many people seem to have a problem with the fact that some of us actually manage to enjoy something else besides the Stones´ music.

Beatles rule!

The Stones often paid homage to their forefathers, like Chuck Berry and many blues artist who opened the door for them. The Beatles gave them a boost early on by giving them "I Wanna Be Your Man". Can't we give a little credit to the Beatles for widening that door just a bit?

I don't see the Beatles and the Stones as competing forces so much, as the Stones evolved into an RnR guitar driven rock band, where as the Bealtes involved into a multifaceted pop band. Both good, but different.

"all the hype (commercials & vh-1 shows etc .. etc...) is tempting me."

Resist the temptation!

Quote
sweet neo con

the video game would be neat too....but anyone that's
played these knows it's difficult to watch the graphics
of the characters (Beatles in this case) when you're
actually playing the game.

Why can't they have a game that, if you wanted to "be" Ringo, could remove all the drums, and allow YOU to actually play drums for the Beatles? Doesn't the technology exist to be able to do that? Or do they not want you messing around with their recordings and making your own Beatles records with yourself playing on them?

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Nobody is the best ever, but some come close.

Well, SOMEBODY has to be the best ever. If no one is the best ever, but some come close, what is it that the ones who come close are coming close to?

I am the best ever. End of discussion.

As Mick Jagger said already in 1964: The Beatles are better on the things they´re doing and we´re better on the things we´re doing...

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Logie: Get it straight man. I said they were overrated simply because the term "The Best Ever" screams overrating. Nobody is the best ever, but some come close. If most people say you're the best ever, that's a good indication that there's overrating going on. And tune down your tone please. It sounds as if YOU'RE the agressive one.

This is not about opinion, but about the hard evidence that points to the fact that the Beatles are the "best ever" in terms of being top of nearly every league table out there that it's possible to place them in.

Yet by your definition, anyone who is toppest of the toppermost is somehow "overrated", even if they have merited that prized position.

A PHD awaits for anyone who can explain exactly why.

Well said Barn Owl.

One of the interesting things about the Fabs was their willingness to embrace all influences, whetehr it was the RnB sound, what some bands may considered UNCOOL sound if the tarditiona "BRILL BUILDING" or even Show music right up to Avant Gard. It may not allways have worked, but the never threw the baby out with the bath water. Having two great singers and songwriters, maybe even three didnt hurt either, might even be considered rather unfair.

The word "best" should never be used in music. Art is not a competition. It shouldn't be an awards show.

Quote
glencar

Again, you fill your post with personal insults. This is a Stones board & it's a bit odd to find people claiming that the beatles are the best. They were a good pop band. End of story. I'll leave the personal insults to you.

If the undeniable facts happen to point to the Beatles being the "best ever", why should it make any difference whatsoever as to whose messageboard these findings are stated upon.

In the meantime, here's a little something I've found for you:

Quote
@#$%&
The word "best" should never be used in music. Art is not a competition. It shouldn't be an awards show.

I trust therefore, that you regard the term, "The Greatest RnR Band in The World" as mere postulating.

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
glencar

Again, you fill your post with personal insults. This is a Stones board & it's a bit odd to find people claiming that the beatles are the best. They were a good pop band. End of story. I'll leave the personal insults to you.

If the undeniable facts happen to point to the Beatles being the "best ever", why should it make any difference whatsoever as to whose messageboard these findings are stated upon.

In the meantime, here's a little something I've found for you:

Not playing the game today. Maybe tomorrow. Not today.

School's Out!

I downloaded the stereo and mono boxes yesterday and they sound absolutely fantastic. The Beatles kick major ass and so do the Rolling Stones. Simple as that.

I was just wondering why didn't Stones promote their remastered cd like The Beatles did, I mean they made it look like they recorded some new albums?

What exactly is the "greatest" anyway? Is it based on record sales? how many grammys they have? how talented they are? How big their fanbase is? It's easy to conform to the middle of the road thinking that yes, The Stones are the greatest. But why? Now we're almost getting into an existential-kind of thing. What is it specifically that makes them the greatest rock and roll band in the world? Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love them, they're in my top 10 favourite acts, but I find myself questioning a lot of things as I grow older.

I find myself questioning EVERYTHING as I get older!

Which reminds me about Noel Gallagher's response to Bono when the U2 frontman asked him how he was doing.

"One step closer to knowing", he replied.

U2 went on to record a song under that very title.

i never really understood this notion with affixing these narrow labels - the stones are rock; the beatles are pop. newsflash: rock is pop.

jeff beck invented heavy metal. just sayin...

hoo-hoo > la-la-la. just sayin

Quote
Beelyboy
jeff beck invented heavy metal. just sayin...

And some will say Steppenwolf coined the actual term Heavy Metal.
Others will say the credit should go to William S. Burroughs.

Personally I don't think either of them used the expression in relation to music.

Quote
Beelyboy
jeff beck invented heavy metal. just sayin...

It would be interesting to see just how far back we can trace the roots of what came to be known as Heavy Metal. Jeff Beck was always on the cutting edge of what was considered "heavy" at any given time. The Yardbirds Heart Full Of Soul, with Beck on lead, was heavy for its day, but Ticket To Ride, recorded even earlier, in Feb. '65, is even heavier. In everything they did, the Beatles always managed to be just ahead of the curve.

Blue Cheer

You can really only compare a record's heaviness with other records that were recorded right around the same time. In 1964, for example, probably nothing was heavier than You Really Got Me and All Day And All Of The Night .... although I Feel Fine comes close, especially when you hear it newly remastered.