Tell Me :
Talk
I already wrote that you can't always define it very clearly. You just have to assume that there is a pop stream and a rock stream that overlap for some part. And if you do that, the Stones are more on the rock side and the Beatles are more on the pop side. I don't see what the issue is.
The argument that the Stones or whatever band says they themselves were influenced by the Beatles is not very strong. You are influenced by any important contemporary band of your generation, but that does not mean that they have anything to do with your own musical roots.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-15 05:34 by lsbz.
Musical roots...well The Stones and The Beatles both worshipped Chuck Berry, loved Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Gene Vincent, and all the great American R and B...seems like they had a hell of a lot in common. Just The Stones were for sure far more into Blues than The Beatles..but The Beatles loved that about The Stones...
Not on my behalf. Part of the anger of some Beatles fans seems to be caused by them taking it as an insult to be regarded as pop, but I don't.
But it is very remarkable that anyone can "accuse" the Stones of going pop in the seventies, and nobody takes offense, but Beatles fans act like spoilt children if you do that. I think it is ridiculous, as already stated.
It'd be a bit hard for the Beatles to have developed in the 70's as they recorded their final album in the summer of 1969, but dont let that put you off your brilliantly reasoned argument...
..and if you can listen to 'A Day In The Life', the White Album etc and still think they never really evolved much beyond 50s music, then you're clearly past the point of no return.
As for the rock bands they influenced highly - try the one who are the main subject of this board for starters.
did you?
I think they set the bar for ever and ever.
I can understand someone not liking a band but saying that the Beatles are not important....Wow, I almost got my period (and I'm a guy).
The Beatles did not play "anything" in Hamburg, they played R&B. Check the setlists. Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Ray Charles, Elvis. They are as "rock" as The Rolling Stones, Hendrix, The Who, etc. There's this thing about The Beatles thinking that all they did was these little "pop ditties", when they pushed the boundaries of Rock music more than any band. What's the "rock direction"? Rock does not equal loud guitars, that's just one part of it.
I've been asked over the years what kind of guitar I play, a lead guitar or a rhythm guitar. I always respond with 'Let me know when you find either, I'd like to give 'em a try'.
You were right the first time. Thye don't/did not "rock". the first boy band were the beetels
good post. i've always maintained and continue to maintain that stones fans who dislike the beatles don't really dislike the beatles music, per se, but rather have some weird hangups about them that go well beyond musical boundaries. i think our buddy here is pretty much proving that theory with each post....
Right; the Beatles are perceived as a holy religion by their followers. Arguments don't count; you have to "get it" or you're stupid. Also reminds me of fascism somehow. Cultural fascism.
Name me at least ten Beatles songs and tell me why you don't think they're worthy of their status. Make it an argument 1sbz, not just some vague, sweeping statement.
Give me an argument based on the music, not the trappings of their persona and fame.
And StonesTodd, these are the same people who say that Aretha Franklin is overrated, or the Stones are overrated etc..
There are some who seem to thumb their noses at the idea of status quo popularity or wide-spread acclaim......."The Queen of Soul" "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World" They will find a reason to dismiss them....
There's always going to be that guy who swears that he used to hear some guy in a local bar who played better than Jimi Hendrix, but he was just didn't get a chance because people are like sheep...etc.
What can you do?
Sometimes, greatness is greatness and cannot be denied. You don't have to like it, but to deny it? That's so wrong.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-16 00:04 by stupidguy2.
You kind of overlook the fact that everyone who is defending the Beatles in this thread also happens to be a huge Stones fan (in each case, probably even more of a Stones fan). A long way from fascism or a holy religion when their 'followers' seem to be able to also 'follow' someone else.
The only thing your blind ranting and use of language seems to prove is that the only 'cultural fascist' is yourself.
In another thread I wrote that I think that the Beatles were reasonably good songwriters, so the debate is not really about that. This seems to be more about pop versus rock. But I like pop as well as rock, so the issue would seem rather futile; only the Beatles fans make it a point that they were rock.
But you still haven't given me ten songs yet...
...because only a few Stones fans seem to differentiate between the two as if one is culturally superior to the other?
If anything, to label the Stones merely as a 'rock' band does them an injustice. The same maxim applies to any artist whose work was diverse, transcendent and broke down musical boundaries.
And I mean 'reasonably good songwriters', for goodness sake. Praise indeed.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-16 00:11 by Gazza.
I don't know what the "status" of any Beatles song is. But just to give an example: in my opinion "A Hard Days Night", one of the few Beatles albums that I actually own, has two good songs. The rest of it is mostly above average but not real good.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-16 00:14 by lsbz.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
stones78
()
Date: December 15, 2010 05:04
The way the Stones & Hendrix developed into rock music is just one of the many ways Rock music went in the 60's, the Beatles developed into rock music in their own way. Where do you draw the line between what's rock and what's not?
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 15, 2010 05:25
Quote
stones78
The way the Stones & Hendrix developed into rock music is just one of the many ways Rock music went in the 60's, the Beatles developed into rock music in their own way. Where do you draw the line between what's rock and what's not?
I already wrote that you can't always define it very clearly. You just have to assume that there is a pop stream and a rock stream that overlap for some part. And if you do that, the Stones are more on the rock side and the Beatles are more on the pop side. I don't see what the issue is.
The argument that the Stones or whatever band says they themselves were influenced by the Beatles is not very strong. You are influenced by any important contemporary band of your generation, but that does not mean that they have anything to do with your own musical roots.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-15 05:34 by lsbz.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: December 15, 2010 05:43
isbz,
Again for you to say "they never delvoped into rock much in the sense that for instance hendrix and the Stones have.." is utterly ridiculous. First, Hendrix loved The Beatles and did Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band live the weekend the album debuted, and that is a rock song for sure.
So now is it a list game where someone has to list all their "rock" songs? Seriously, your arguments just are not that well thought out or explained which tends to speak more towards your lack of understanding of music in general. But again... if you need examples Gazza did a great job showing their diversity and love of rock, r and b, and soul.
But what is funny is how you say, "if you deny that, I think that there is not much point in arguing anymore..." But what you are actually saying is "I am right, you are wrong, I will never like The Beatles and never think they are rock music, no matter how well thought out your arguments may be..."
Again for you to say "they never delvoped into rock much in the sense that for instance hendrix and the Stones have.." is utterly ridiculous. First, Hendrix loved The Beatles and did Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band live the weekend the album debuted, and that is a rock song for sure.
So now is it a list game where someone has to list all their "rock" songs? Seriously, your arguments just are not that well thought out or explained which tends to speak more towards your lack of understanding of music in general. But again... if you need examples Gazza did a great job showing their diversity and love of rock, r and b, and soul.
But what is funny is how you say, "if you deny that, I think that there is not much point in arguing anymore..." But what you are actually saying is "I am right, you are wrong, I will never like The Beatles and never think they are rock music, no matter how well thought out your arguments may be..."
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: December 15, 2010 05:47
Quote
lsbzQuote
stones78
The way the Stones & Hendrix developed into rock music is just one of the many ways Rock music went in the 60's, the Beatles developed into rock music in their own way. Where do you draw the line between what's rock and what's not?
I already wrote that you can't always define it very clearly. You just have to assume that there is a pop stream and a rock stream that overlap for some part. And if you do that, the Stones are more on the rock side and the Beatles are more on the pop side. I don't see what the issue is.
The argument that the Stones or whatever band says they themselves were influenced by the Beatles is not very strong. You are influenced by any important contemporary band of your generation, but that does not mean that they have anything to do with your own musical roots.
Musical roots...well The Stones and The Beatles both worshipped Chuck Berry, loved Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Gene Vincent, and all the great American R and B...seems like they had a hell of a lot in common. Just The Stones were for sure far more into Blues than The Beatles..but The Beatles loved that about The Stones...
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 15, 2010 06:01
Just to be clear: if you call the Beatles a pop band, it seems to be perceived as something negative by some. That is not my intention; there have probably been thousands of pop songs that I like.
I doubt that people responding actually read and understood what I wrote. The Beatles probably played *anything* as an entertaining band in Hamburg and fifties rock does not count for much in the sixties and seventies anymore if a band does not develop in the rock direction much.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-15 06:05 by lsbz.
Quote
whitem8
Musical roots...well The Stones and The Beatles both worshipped Chuck Berry, loved Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Gene Vincent, and all the great American R and B...seems like they had a hell of a lot in common.
I doubt that people responding actually read and understood what I wrote. The Beatles probably played *anything* as an entertaining band in Hamburg and fifties rock does not count for much in the sixties and seventies anymore if a band does not develop in the rock direction much.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-15 06:05 by lsbz.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: December 15, 2010 06:15
Isb,
Well now we have something we can agree on when you say: "I doubt that people responding actually read and understood what I wrote..." That is funny!
Well now we have something we can agree on when you say: "I doubt that people responding actually read and understood what I wrote..." That is funny!
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: December 15, 2010 10:43
Never mind the alleged "Stones Beatles Fan Rivalry". What clearly does exist here is a "Rock Pop Rivalry" and a lot of snobbery about what's Rock and what's not (frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn about that).
Both of them were Pop Groups - that's what the phenomenon was called in those days - and both of them played plenty of MUSIC that didn't fit either of those neat little boxes - which hadn't been defined then. In their day both of them were about ignoring the lines between genres, so starting new genre wars in their names is ironic.
Both of them were Pop Groups - that's what the phenomenon was called in those days - and both of them played plenty of MUSIC that didn't fit either of those neat little boxes - which hadn't been defined then. In their day both of them were about ignoring the lines between genres, so starting new genre wars in their names is ironic.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: December 15, 2010 10:46
I bought 3 or four Beatles singles 1963-64 and thought it was fantastic music, and when I for the first time heard The Rolling Stones autumn 1964 I thought that was even more fantastic, but the Prize goes to Bob Dylan when I heard his 'Like a Rolling Stone' in 1965, so the most important album for the development for Rock'n'Roll music was 'Highway 61 Revisited'...
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 15, 2010 10:53
Quote
Green Lady
Never mind the alleged "Stones Beatles Fan Rivalry". What clearly does exist here is a "Rock Pop Rivalry" ...
Not on my behalf. Part of the anger of some Beatles fans seems to be caused by them taking it as an insult to be regarded as pop, but I don't.
But it is very remarkable that anyone can "accuse" the Stones of going pop in the seventies, and nobody takes offense, but Beatles fans act like spoilt children if you do that. I think it is ridiculous, as already stated.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: December 15, 2010 10:59
There is no problem using pop and rock inter-changeably. The only time it becomes problem is when folks use the labels exclusively to describe a band like The Stones or Beatles. Because, as was stated before both groups have so many different styles it is constraining to think of them as only a pop group. When clearly they weren't. Some pop songs yes, because they were popular. But not exclusively.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 15, 2010 15:21
rock is pop by the very definition of the term "pop."
now please stop this nonsense and put on "we can work it out" and chill.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-15 15:22 by StonesTod.
now please stop this nonsense and put on "we can work it out" and chill.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-15 15:22 by StonesTod.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 15, 2010 15:34
Quote
lsbz
Just to be clear: if you call the Beatles a pop band, it seems to be perceived as something negative by some. That is not my intention; there have probably been thousands of pop songs that I like.Quote
whitem8
Musical roots...well The Stones and The Beatles both worshipped Chuck Berry, loved Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Gene Vincent, and all the great American R and B...seems like they had a hell of a lot in common.
I doubt that people responding actually read and understood what I wrote. The Beatles probably played *anything* as an entertaining band in Hamburg and fifties rock does not count for much in the sixties and seventies anymore if a band does not develop in the rock direction much.
It'd be a bit hard for the Beatles to have developed in the 70's as they recorded their final album in the summer of 1969, but dont let that put you off your brilliantly reasoned argument...
..and if you can listen to 'A Day In The Life', the White Album etc and still think they never really evolved much beyond 50s music, then you're clearly past the point of no return.
As for the rock bands they influenced highly - try the one who are the main subject of this board for starters.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 15, 2010 15:40
Quote
lsbz
I doubt that people actually read and understood what I wrote.
did you?
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
leteyer
()
Date: December 15, 2010 15:43
Quote
whitem8
I always chuckle when folks fall into the lame stereotyping of bands. Like The Beatles don't rock...that is just utterly ridiculous. They both are incredible bands that set the bar for the rest of the 60's. The rivalry between the two was a big myth perpetuated to sell more albums...as can be seen in countless examples they were good friends. I often feel sorry for folks who can't get into both bands, as they are missing out on great music from both groups.
I think they set the bar for ever and ever.
I can understand someone not liking a band but saying that the Beatles are not important....Wow, I almost got my period (and I'm a guy).
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
stones78
()
Date: December 15, 2010 16:57
Quote
lsbz
Just to be clear: if you call the Beatles a pop band, it seems to be perceived as something negative by some. That is not my intention; there have probably been thousands of pop songs that I like.Quote
whitem8
Musical roots...well The Stones and The Beatles both worshipped Chuck Berry, loved Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Gene Vincent, and all the great American R and B...seems like they had a hell of a lot in common.
I doubt that people responding actually read and understood what I wrote. The Beatles probably played *anything* as an entertaining band in Hamburg and fifties rock does not count for much in the sixties and seventies anymore if a band does not develop in the rock direction much.
The Beatles did not play "anything" in Hamburg, they played R&B. Check the setlists. Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Ray Charles, Elvis. They are as "rock" as The Rolling Stones, Hendrix, The Who, etc. There's this thing about The Beatles thinking that all they did was these little "pop ditties", when they pushed the boundaries of Rock music more than any band. What's the "rock direction"? Rock does not equal loud guitars, that's just one part of it.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 15, 2010 17:08
If rock is a variant of pop music (as it is), then the 'king of pop' has a bigger realm as the 'king of rock' has. So Michael Jackson is bigger than Elvis... hmm...
- Doxa
- Doxa
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: December 15, 2010 17:10
..and who is the biggest Holly or Berry? Lennon or Dylan?
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: December 15, 2010 17:27
Quote
Gazza
When you go into a music store to buy an electric guitar, do you ask for a 'rock' one instead of a 'pop' one?
I've been asked over the years what kind of guitar I play, a lead guitar or a rhythm guitar. I always respond with 'Let me know when you find either, I'd like to give 'em a try'.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
mickscarey
()
Date: December 15, 2010 19:21
Quote
MKjanQuote
GazzaQuote
whitem8
I always chuckle when folks fall into the lame stereotyping of bands. Like The Beatles don't rock...that is just utterly ridiculous. They both are incredible bands that set the bar for the rest of the 60's. The rivalry between the two was a big myth perpetuated to sell more albums...as can be seen in countless examples they were good friends. I often feel sorry for folks who can't get into both bands, as they are missing out on great music from both groups.
Yep. Its amazing isnt it. Hundreds of shows in clubs in Hamburg and The Cavern before they ever got near a recording studio, and yet theyre a 'pop' band who never 'got' rock n roll.
Hilarious revisionist know-nothing bollocks.
getting worked up about a 'rivalry' is like something a 10 year old girl may have cared about in 1964. Anyone who still feels threatened or uptight about it in 2010 needs their head examined.
If this is about my post, please acknowledge I said not a whole lot of rockin' and I like/prefer the ballads, but had they continued along the lines of their Hamburg/Cavern days, a performing band with that sound...I would be a bigger fan.
Absolutely no rivalry between them in my mind any more, it is a waste of energy.
You were right the first time. Thye don't/did not "rock". the first boy band were the beetels
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: December 15, 2010 22:46
Excellent posts, Gazza, Whitem and Green Lady...
This snobbery is not only reserved for the hipsters of 1965, but now.
My 17-year old neice told me recently, 'I hate it when people say the Beatles were overrated! How can you argue against that?'
I told her, you can't, its ignorance.arrogance plain and simple.
Pop? Because they wove variations of minor, minor 7 and major chords so seamlessly....? Because they wrote melodies? Macca's all-over-the-place bass work gave their sound a flourish that so much more sophisticated than anything in mainstream music, but it was so good, they were popular because it sounded amazing. They shattered the three-chord progression status and made it explode to where it became the norm, so maybe that's why they seem "overrated" to some..
I loved the early Beatles before I knew what a Mick Jagger was - growing up listening to my older cousins Meet the Beatles, Beatles 65 and A Hard Days Night....it wasn't until after I discovered the Stones that I was blown away by their latter-day work.
As for not rocking: I have always believed the pre-Invasion Beatles rocked harder than the early Stones...they were tighter, and those guitars had a much fuller sound, and a more balanced rhythmic dynamic.
The Stones became my obsession and my band....but the Beatles just are. You cannot compare them to anything, they exist on a different plane. If you don't get it, that's a loss. When I list my favorite bands, its the Stones first, and its an 'any given day' type of thing...It's like the Bible - you have your favorite book, but then there's the Bible, or Koran or whatver - it just is.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-15 22:57 by stupidguy2.
This snobbery is not only reserved for the hipsters of 1965, but now.
My 17-year old neice told me recently, 'I hate it when people say the Beatles were overrated! How can you argue against that?'
I told her, you can't, its ignorance.arrogance plain and simple.
Pop? Because they wove variations of minor, minor 7 and major chords so seamlessly....? Because they wrote melodies? Macca's all-over-the-place bass work gave their sound a flourish that so much more sophisticated than anything in mainstream music, but it was so good, they were popular because it sounded amazing. They shattered the three-chord progression status and made it explode to where it became the norm, so maybe that's why they seem "overrated" to some..
I loved the early Beatles before I knew what a Mick Jagger was - growing up listening to my older cousins Meet the Beatles, Beatles 65 and A Hard Days Night....it wasn't until after I discovered the Stones that I was blown away by their latter-day work.
As for not rocking: I have always believed the pre-Invasion Beatles rocked harder than the early Stones...they were tighter, and those guitars had a much fuller sound, and a more balanced rhythmic dynamic.
The Stones became my obsession and my band....but the Beatles just are. You cannot compare them to anything, they exist on a different plane. If you don't get it, that's a loss. When I list my favorite bands, its the Stones first, and its an 'any given day' type of thing...It's like the Bible - you have your favorite book, but then there's the Bible, or Koran or whatver - it just is.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-15 22:57 by stupidguy2.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: December 15, 2010 22:53
It started with a cricket match, bud
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 15, 2010 23:38
Quote
stupidguy2
Excellent posts, Gazza, Whitem and Green Lady...
This snobbery is not only reserved for the hipsters of 1965, but now.
My 17-year old neice told me recently, 'I hate it when people say the Beatles were overrated! How can you argue against that?'
I told her, you can't, its ignorance.arrogance plain and simple.
Pop? Because they wove variations of minor, minor 7 and major chords so seamlessly....? Because they wrote melodies? Macca's all-over-the-place bass work gave their sound a flourish that so much more sophisticated than anything in mainstream music, but it was so good, they were popular because it sounded amazing. They shattered the three-chord progression status and made it explode to where it became the norm, so maybe that's why they seem "overrated" to some..
I loved the early Beatles before I knew what a Mick Jagger was - growing up listening to my older cousins Meet the Beatles, Beatles 65 and A Hard Days Night....it wasn't until after I discovered the Stones that I was blown away by their latter-day work.
As for not rocking: I have always believed the pre-Invasion Beatles rocked harder than the early Stones...they were tighter, and those guitars had a much fuller sound, and a more balanced rhythmic dynamic.
The Stones became my obsession and my band....but the Beatles just are. You cannot compare them to anything, they exist on a different plane. If you don't get it, that's a loss. When I list my favorite bands, its the Stones first, and its an 'any given day' type of thing...It's like the Bible - you have your favorite book, but then there's the Bible, or Koran or whatver - it just is.
good post. i've always maintained and continue to maintain that stones fans who dislike the beatles don't really dislike the beatles music, per se, but rather have some weird hangups about them that go well beyond musical boundaries. i think our buddy here is pretty much proving that theory with each post....
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 15, 2010 23:39
Quote
stupidguy2
You cannot compare them to anything, they exist on a different plane. If you don't get it, that's a loss. When I list my favorite bands, its the Stones first, and its an 'any given day' type of thing...It's like the Bible - you have your favorite book, but then there's the Bible, or Koran or whatver - it just is.
Right; the Beatles are perceived as a holy religion by their followers. Arguments don't count; you have to "get it" or you're stupid. Also reminds me of fascism somehow. Cultural fascism.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: December 15, 2010 23:48
Quote
lsbz
Right; the Beatles are perceived as a holy religion by their followers. Arguments don't count; you have to "get it" or you're stupid. Also reminds me of fascism somehow. Cultural fascism.
Name me at least ten Beatles songs and tell me why you don't think they're worthy of their status. Make it an argument 1sbz, not just some vague, sweeping statement.
Give me an argument based on the music, not the trappings of their persona and fame.
And StonesTodd, these are the same people who say that Aretha Franklin is overrated, or the Stones are overrated etc..
There are some who seem to thumb their noses at the idea of status quo popularity or wide-spread acclaim......."The Queen of Soul" "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World" They will find a reason to dismiss them....
There's always going to be that guy who swears that he used to hear some guy in a local bar who played better than Jimi Hendrix, but he was just didn't get a chance because people are like sheep...etc.
What can you do?
Sometimes, greatness is greatness and cannot be denied. You don't have to like it, but to deny it? That's so wrong.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-16 00:04 by stupidguy2.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 15, 2010 23:57
Quote
lsbzQuote
stupidguy2
You cannot compare them to anything, they exist on a different plane. If you don't get it, that's a loss. When I list my favorite bands, its the Stones first, and its an 'any given day' type of thing...It's like the Bible - you have your favorite book, but then there's the Bible, or Koran or whatver - it just is.
Right; the Beatles are perceived as a holy religion by their followers. Arguments don't count; you have to "get it" or you're stupid. Also reminds me of fascism somehow. Cultural fascism.
You kind of overlook the fact that everyone who is defending the Beatles in this thread also happens to be a huge Stones fan (in each case, probably even more of a Stones fan). A long way from fascism or a holy religion when their 'followers' seem to be able to also 'follow' someone else.
The only thing your blind ranting and use of language seems to prove is that the only 'cultural fascist' is yourself.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 16, 2010 00:02
Quote
stupidguy2
Name me at least ten Beatles songs and tell me why you don't think they're worthy of their status.
In another thread I wrote that I think that the Beatles were reasonably good songwriters, so the debate is not really about that. This seems to be more about pop versus rock. But I like pop as well as rock, so the issue would seem rather futile; only the Beatles fans make it a point that they were rock.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: December 16, 2010 00:07
Quote
lsbzQuote
stupidguy2
Name me at least ten Beatles songs and tell me why you don't think they're worthy of their status.
In another thread I wrote that I think that the Beatles were reasonably good songwriters, so the debate is not really about that. This seems to be more about pop versus rock. But I like pop as well as rock, so the issue would seem rather futile; only the Beatles fans make it a point that they were rock.
But you still haven't given me ten songs yet...
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 16, 2010 00:10
Quote
lsbz
In another thread I wrote that I think that the Beatles were reasonably good songwriters, so the debate is not really about that. This seems to be more about pop versus rock. But I like pop as well as rock, so the issue would seem rather futile; only the Beatles fans make it a point that they were rock.
...because only a few Stones fans seem to differentiate between the two as if one is culturally superior to the other?
If anything, to label the Stones merely as a 'rock' band does them an injustice. The same maxim applies to any artist whose work was diverse, transcendent and broke down musical boundaries.
And I mean 'reasonably good songwriters', for goodness sake. Praise indeed.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-16 00:11 by Gazza.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 16, 2010 00:14
Quote
stupidguy2
But you still haven't given me ten songs yet...
I don't know what the "status" of any Beatles song is. But just to give an example: in my opinion "A Hard Days Night", one of the few Beatles albums that I actually own, has two good songs. The rest of it is mostly above average but not real good.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-16 00:14 by lsbz.
Re: Does A Stones Beatles Fan's Rivalry Really Exist?
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: December 16, 2010 00:18
Quote
lsbzQuote
stupidguy2
But you still haven't given me ten songs yet...
..'one of the few Beatles albums that I actually own, quote]
Then there you go. I know people who only know the Stones' Satisfaction and Honky Tonk Woman......and they just don't get it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-16 00:19 by stupidguy2.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
ChrisMahavishnu , cyclist , NedKellyBandit , ohmercy61 , PaintMonkeyManBlack , teleblaster , TumblinDice76 , TURB0
Guests:
1454
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10