Tell Me :
Talk
Exactly. Wrong place to ask.
Good call Mitch............
And I say the Beatles are Eight Days a Week.
Absolutely profound! My exact same sentiments! I know exactly of what you speak! Love them both, dearly, and equally!
um...well...don't we realize that the Hamburg Beatles, the band whose members climbed to the roof of convents just so they could piss on the heads of the nuns who passed below, were probably more punk and more rock than that middle-class bunch of soft poofsters from cushy Richmond ever were?
I mean, some of this tripe about "the Beatles were pop; the Stones were rock" is just inaccurate myth that has unfortunatley been propagated because it's an all-too-easy soundbite.
Now...I prefer how the Stones went on to emphasize the "harder" elements of popular music, and I do think that the Stones ended up being what the Beatles actually WANTED to be (and probably easily COULD'VE been had they had an Oldham instead of an Epstein) but to simply pigeon-hole the Beatles as lightweight pop timberlakes is to forget altogether that if if wasn't for the Beatles the Stones would still be wearing matching houndstooth jackets and singing Poison Ivy at county fairs on the same bill with Peter Noone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 07:14 by rocker1.
during the 60's, it seems to me that the Stones were more subversive than the Beatles.
Just remember the papers banner headlines, just remember the numerous trials of Mick and Keith and Brian
Their music was more agressive and they had longer hair. They were the bad boys.
That's why I think that is more into rock spirit and later Keith will make this his own motto : sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
NickB
()
Date: August 6, 2011 01:44
Each are valid in their own little way. The guitar solo in Something is just the most sublime piece of guitar playing ever. Period. IMHO.
NickB
You can't always get what you want.....
www.myspace.com/thesonkings
NickB
You can't always get what you want.....
www.myspace.com/thesonkings
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: August 6, 2011 01:44
So mitch, if you can no longer stir the pot politically, you choose to do it with the subject matter of this very board.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
guitarbastard
()
Date: August 6, 2011 01:45
2000 light years ahead: the stones!!!!
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Shezeboss
()
Date: August 6, 2011 01:57
the beatles for you, the Stnes for me ...
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
mitchflorida
()
Date: August 6, 2011 02:15
I wonder if John and Paul would have ever gotten together again. I am guessing they would. what an amazing album that would be .
John and Paul and Ringo and George.
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 100
John and Paul and Ringo and George.
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 100
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: August 6, 2011 02:19
What ya doin' here boy? ......
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
WMiller
()
Date: August 6, 2011 02:28
I like to say that the Rolling Stones are Saturday night and the Beatles are Sunday morning.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: August 6, 2011 02:45
Quote
Rockman
What ya doin' here boy? ......
Exactly. Wrong place to ask.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
kish_stoned
()
Date: August 6, 2011 03:11
hey the beatles always wanted to be the stones so i say stones forever
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: August 6, 2011 03:13
Quote
mitchflorida
The Stones of course.......
Good call Mitch............
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
IfYouStartMeUp
()
Date: August 6, 2011 03:54
Stones. The Beatles are good, but they're too much of a 'pop' band for my taste.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: August 6, 2011 04:38
Nice find!!!...
now that is a place I might like to see this dumb question argued
now that is a place I might like to see this dumb question argued
Quote
uhbuhgullayew
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
carlostones10
()
Date: August 6, 2011 04:43
i can´t believe. 
again?
again?Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
mitchflorida
()
Date: August 6, 2011 05:35
Quote
WMiller
I like to say that the Rolling Stones are Saturday night and the Beatles are Sunday morning.
And I say the Beatles are Eight Days a Week.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
spsimmons
()
Date: August 6, 2011 06:37
For me, the Stones picked up where the Beatles ended. Not much of a fan of the Stones' earliest stuff, so I prefer the Beatles in the 60's and the Stones in the 70's. In my opinion the Stones hit their stride as the Beatles were ending and just accelerated from there. For the record, I am much more of a Stones fan than a Beatles fan.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
jpasc95
()
Date: August 6, 2011 06:53
actually, it's difficult to compare the bands musically speaking
The Beatles are more a pop group than a rock one.
The Stones are THE rock band...satisfaction, jumping jack flash, brown sugar... also it seems to me that the Stones have shown their diverse musical tastes and abilities : blues, country, folk, reggae, disco...
not sure that the Beatles took so much "risk" even if lots of people think that the music of the Stones sounds simple and even simplistic.
The Beatles are more a pop group than a rock one.
The Stones are THE rock band...satisfaction, jumping jack flash, brown sugar... also it seems to me that the Stones have shown their diverse musical tastes and abilities : blues, country, folk, reggae, disco...
not sure that the Beatles took so much "risk" even if lots of people think that the music of the Stones sounds simple and even simplistic.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: August 6, 2011 07:02
Quote
WMiller
I like to say that the Rolling Stones are Saturday night and the Beatles are Sunday morning.
Absolutely profound! My exact same sentiments! I know exactly of what you speak! Love them both, dearly, and equally!
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
rocker1
()
Date: August 6, 2011 07:10
Quote
jpasc95
The Beatles are more a pop group than a rock one.
um...well...don't we realize that the Hamburg Beatles, the band whose members climbed to the roof of convents just so they could piss on the heads of the nuns who passed below, were probably more punk and more rock than that middle-class bunch of soft poofsters from cushy Richmond ever were?
I mean, some of this tripe about "the Beatles were pop; the Stones were rock" is just inaccurate myth that has unfortunatley been propagated because it's an all-too-easy soundbite.
Now...I prefer how the Stones went on to emphasize the "harder" elements of popular music, and I do think that the Stones ended up being what the Beatles actually WANTED to be (and probably easily COULD'VE been had they had an Oldham instead of an Epstein) but to simply pigeon-hole the Beatles as lightweight pop timberlakes is to forget altogether that if if wasn't for the Beatles the Stones would still be wearing matching houndstooth jackets and singing Poison Ivy at county fairs on the same bill with Peter Noone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 07:14 by rocker1.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
jpasc95
()
Date: August 6, 2011 07:29
Quote
rocker1Quote
jpasc95
The Beatles are more a pop group than a rock one.
um...well...don't we realize that the Hamburg Beatles, the band whose members climbed to the roof of convents just so they could piss on the heads of the nuns who passed below, were probably more punk and more rock than that middle-class bunch of soft poofsters from cushy Richmond ever were?
I mean, some of this tripe about "the Beatles were pop; the Stones were rock" is just inaccurate myth that has unfortunatley been propagated because it's an all-too-easy soundbite.
during the 60's, it seems to me that the Stones were more subversive than the Beatles.
Just remember the papers banner headlines, just remember the numerous trials of Mick and Keith and Brian
Their music was more agressive and they had longer hair. They were the bad boys.
That's why I think that is more into rock spirit and later Keith will make this his own motto : sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
agu82 , AJDuffer , Bashlets , CamRS , chrism13 , Dan , daspyknows , EddieByword , FeelslikeaGhost , Flyin5 , gastonl74 , Green Lady , HalfNanker , Icetraders , jmd , JordyLicks96 , keefgotsoul , kkhoranstoned , laurel , mariano , Martin90 , MingSubu , mistermj , More Hot Rocks , Mr. Jimi , NashvilleBlues , Olive , Papo , randallsdad , rebelhipi , rogerriffin , RollingStoner , slew , Taylor1 , TW2019 , two4fun111 , voodoodrew , waterrats
Guests:
2500
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10