For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
jpasc95Quote
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.
Quote
jpasc95Quote
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.
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
jpasc95Quote
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.
I agree, the Stones overall were a tougher (less thin skinned) band then the Beatles. The Beatles retreated to the studio and really no longer wanted to perform live to any great degree towards the end. Does anyone seriously think the Beatles would have taken the stage at Altamont that chilly December evening in 1969 considering their state of mind at that time. It is more likely they would have been a "no show" like the meek Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead were that evening. As much as I love the Beatles they just didn't have the mental toughness to survive like the Stones have for all these decades. So yes, the Stones really embody the spirit of rock 'n roll far more than the Beatles ever did, despite the Beatles unbelievable output during the sixties. To me, at the end of the day, (all things considered) it's an absolute dead heat between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Like someone once said, the Beatles are Sunday morning, and the Stones are Saturday night. Truer words have never been spoken.
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
jpasc95Quote
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.
I agree, the Stones overall were a tougher (less thin skinned) band then the Beatles. The Beatles retreated to the studio and really no longer wanted to perform live to any great degree towards the end. Does anyone seriously think the Beatles would have taken the stage at Altamont that chilly December evening in 1969 considering their state of mind at that time. It is more likely they would have been a "no show" like the meek Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead were that evening. As much as I love the Beatles they just didn't have the mental toughness to survive like the Stones have for all these decades. So yes, the Stones really embody the spirit of rock 'n roll far more than the Beatles ever did, despite the Beatles unbelievable output during the sixties. To me, at the end of the day, (all things considered) it's an absolute dead heat between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Like someone once said, the Beatles are Sunday morning, and the Stones are Saturday night. Truer words have never been spoken.
Quote
rocker1Quote
thewatchmanQuote
jpasc95Quote
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.
I agree, the Stones overall were a tougher (less thin skinned) band then the Beatles. The Beatles retreated to the studio and really no longer wanted to perform live to any great degree towards the end. Does anyone seriously think the Beatles would have taken the stage at Altamont that chilly December evening in 1969 considering their state of mind at that time. It is more likely they would have been a "no show" like the meek Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead were that evening. As much as I love the Beatles they just didn't have the mental toughness to survive like the Stones have for all these decades. So yes, the Stones really embody the spirit of rock 'n roll far more than the Beatles ever did, despite the Beatles unbelievable output during the sixties. To me, at the end of the day, (all things considered) it's an absolute dead heat between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Like someone once said, the Beatles are Sunday morning, and the Stones are Saturday night. Truer words have never been spoken.
Good lord, there is nothing more meek or less manly than wathcing Mick Jagger literally shit his pants on stage at Altamont and start blubbering that hippie-dippie crap about "whosa a fightin anna what for?" and "Why are we fighting; why are we fighting????"
The ONLY guy who showed balls at Altamont, for a few seconds anyway, was Keith Richards, who pointed directly at a guy and said that "that guy there!..etc."
The truth is, we'll never know how the Beatles would've handled such an event at that time. But what we do know, without doubt, is that MJ was essentially a milksop at Altamont. He may as well have been Davy Jones on that stage.
Altamont does nothing but show that the Stones, outside of KR, are nothing but wimps. Keith Richards, however, for about 30 seconds, showed that at one time he could can truly embody a rock n' roll badass spirit. But since about 1982 it's been all about embroidering the myth, "showing the blade" and posturing in a way that Guns and Roses never even dreamed of doing.
If the Beatles were on that same stage, it's entirely likely that John Lennon would've literally pissed all over those Hells Angels. Of course, he may have been beaten to death for being a faggy Englishman too who let Epstein suck his cock in Spain in 1966, etc., but at least he would've had SOMETHING to say about this, during the event, that was light years beyond Jagger's incredibly weak response.
Quote
thewatchman
[As far as Jagger at Altamont goes I thought he handled the situation beautifully. Just ask Sam Cutler if he thinks Mick lacked courage that evening. Be honest, if you were put in Mick's shoes that evening what would you have done?
Quote
uhbuhgullayew
><><><><Quote
WMiller
I like to say that the Rolling Stones are Saturday night and the Beatles are Sunday morning.
Quote
IfYouStartMeUp
Stones. The Beatles are good, but they're too much of a 'pop' band for my taste.
Quote
rocker1
If the Beatles were on that same stage, it's entirely likely that John Lennon would've literally pissed all over those Hells Angels. Of course, he may have been beaten to death for being a faggy Englishman too who let Epstein suck his cock in Spain in 1966, etc., but at least he would've had SOMETHING to say about this, during the event, that was light years beyond Jagger's incredibly weak response.
Quote
whitem8
stones vs. Beatles????
both
Quote
Amsterdamned
Didn't NASA launch a rocket into space way back in the 6-tees with some Beatle tracks included, on a golden disc? Just in case the shuttle encounters extraterrestrial creeps....
Quote
WMiller
I like to say that the Rolling Stones are Saturday night and the Beatles are Sunday morning.
Quote
steffiestones
Beatles sings "i wanna hold your hand"
Stones sings "let's spend the night together"
Can you see the difference?
Quote
Sleepy CityQuote
Amsterdamned
Didn't NASA launch a rocket into space way back in the 6-tees with some Beatle tracks included, on a golden disc? Just in case the shuttle encounters extraterrestrial creeps....
They also sent 'Johnny B. Goode' by Chuck Berry...in 1977, long after he was a current chart favourite.
Let's face it, The Beatles were relative flash-in-the-pans compared to many who came before or after them. I truly believe they owe much of their legendary status to the fact that they did split up in 1969/1970, instead of going on to release 'Ebony & Ivory' & 'Borrowed Time' as 80s Beatles singles. Just try to imagine if The Rolling Stones had split up after Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers & never reformed?
That says it all IMHO. The gentle vs the raw.Quote
Sleepy City
All You Need Is Love v We Love You
Come on. Give Yoko some love here.Quote
Sleepy City
Gotta say, apart from George with Patti, The Stones certainly had better taste in women.
Quote
tonterapiThat says it all IMHO. The gentle vs the raw.Quote
Sleepy City
All You Need Is Love v We Love You
I love both bands but the Stones have an edge I prefer.