Tell Me :
Talk
If the Stones had broken up in 1970 you could easily say the same of them..........personally though I don't agree with your statement at all anyway as there's only 3 Stones songs I don't like....so for me their whole carreer has be pretty much excellent listening...so better than "uniformly good"...The beatles ?....just can't be bothered to even put a CD on nowadays.......just boring...
The Stones Decca career was much more consistent than that of The Beatles. Sure, there were a handful of weak tracks, but nothing to compare with 'Blue Jay Way', 'All Together Now', 'Wild Honey Pie', 'Piggies', 'Goodnight', 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer', 'Octupus's Garden' & several others (almost all from the post-Pepper years).
Mixed emotions...some breaks Ringo plays remind me of LQ-(gyyo!).
I guess there's no forum for these questions in any Beatles fan hood. Don't think there's any excisting fan forums for the Beatles!
So just by being jealous on Stones fans that have a forum to discuss their band
this person had to ask.
That's it!
Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!
I once had a quick one to 'Why Don't We Do It In The Road'.
good call, agreed.
Blue Jay Way still fascinates me. I used to live in Los Angeles, and Blue Jay Way is a narrow, winding road on the very crest of a canyon that overlooks the entire city of Los Angeles and Hollywood. Ringo does his thing in a way more graceful than Charlie Watt's does on Dandelion.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 18:11 by mitchflorida.
Melody stolen from Ravi Shankar. That George was a crafty one, he was!
This wipes the floor with any cover version, as well as the 1956 studio original (he loses some of the lyrics but check out that lengthy 96-bar guitar solo)...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 18:57 by Sleepy City.
There is a radio station up here in Seattle that has a program called 'Breakfast With The Beatles' that airs every Sunday morning from 8:00 AM to 10:00AM that I never miss. It's the only time I listen to Beatles tunes anymore. They fit Sunday morning perfectly. In fact, Sunday is the only day of the week I do not listen to or watch the Stones. The same radio station also has a program from noon to two on Sundays that is called 'Lunch With Zep' that I also listen to. On Sunday afternoon I switch the dial and listen to two hours of Frank Sinatra from 4:00PM to 6:00 PM, and then from six to midnight on another channel it's all blues!
I am afraid 'The Sonics' version blows all three of these away!
There seems to be a consensus building on this thread that the Beatles are good for Sunday mornings..interesting......I might try that tomorrow.........Rolling Stone by Humble Pie blamming and bluesing at the moment...........
Maybe, but I like to listen to Queen on sunday afternoons...
The Doors and Hendrix work best right before dawn!
lol.......certainly been there with the Doors............
Forgot to mention that the Stones 'Goin Home' also works well in the wee wee hours of the morning.
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:
ChefGuevara
()
Date: August 6, 2011 14:47
I like New York better than Florida.
Actually, I Love NY.
Actually, I Love NY.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: August 6, 2011 15:01
ChefGuevara..When it comes to having more of a connection with the people of New York City..would it be a Beatles stronghold?Quote
ChefGuevara
I like New York better than Florida.
Actually, I Love NY.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: August 6, 2011 15:07
Quote
mitchflorida
The Beatles liked to smile
The Stones liked to smirk
Smile vs. Smirk
Beatles vs. Stones.
The other difference between the two groups, I think the Beatles put out uniformly good material out during their career, while the Stones put out some excellent work but also some rather mediocre work.
If the Stones had broken up in 1970 you could easily say the same of them..........personally though I don't agree with your statement at all anyway as there's only 3 Stones songs I don't like....so for me their whole carreer has be pretty much excellent listening...so better than "uniformly good"...The beatles ?....just can't be bothered to even put a CD on nowadays.......just boring...
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: August 6, 2011 15:10
Quote
EddieBywordQuote
mitchflorida
The Beatles liked to smile
The Stones liked to smirk
Smile vs. Smirk
Beatles vs. Stones.
The other difference between the two groups, I think the Beatles put out uniformly good material out during their career, while the Stones put out some excellent work but also some rather mediocre work.
If the Stones had broken up in 1970 you could easily say the same of them..........personally though I don't agree with your statement at all anyway as there's only 3 Stones songs I don't like....so for me their whole carreer has be pretty much excellent listening...so better than "uniformly good"...The beatles ?....just can't be bothered to even put a CD on nowadays.......just boring...
The Stones Decca career was much more consistent than that of The Beatles. Sure, there were a handful of weak tracks, but nothing to compare with 'Blue Jay Way', 'All Together Now', 'Wild Honey Pie', 'Piggies', 'Goodnight', 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer', 'Octupus's Garden' & several others (almost all from the post-Pepper years).
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: August 6, 2011 15:16
Bitch ---- Girl
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
keefbajaga
()
Date: August 6, 2011 15:20
Who or what are The Beatles? I am not really into sports..
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: August 6, 2011 15:31
The Beatles vs The Stones is a bit like the old.."Which came first, the chicken or the egg" argument?
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: August 6, 2011 15:33
Let's hear the riff master himself.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: August 6, 2011 15:35
There's only one way to settle this:
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: August 6, 2011 15:50
Quote
Sleepy City
There's only one way to settle this:
Mixed emotions...some breaks Ringo plays remind me of LQ-(gyyo!).
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Fan Since 1964
()
Date: August 6, 2011 17:35
Quote
Silver DaggerQuote
Rockman
What ya doin' here boy? ......
Exactly. Wrong place to ask.
I guess there's no forum for these questions in any Beatles fan hood. Don't think there's any excisting fan forums for the Beatles!
So just by being jealous on Stones fans that have a forum to discuss their band
this person had to ask.
That's it!
Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Shott
()
Date: August 6, 2011 17:40
Reasons Stones are better:
1) Better on their instruments (by 100 miles)
2) Better Live (by 1000 miles)
3) Better looking and cooler women (and don't get p&*%$ssy whipped hello linda and yoko)
4.) Their music is sexy--anyone ever put on a Beatles record to boff?
1) Better on their instruments (by 100 miles)
2) Better Live (by 1000 miles)
3) Better looking and cooler women (and don't get p&*%$ssy whipped hello linda and yoko)
4.) Their music is sexy--anyone ever put on a Beatles record to boff?
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: August 6, 2011 17:55
Quote
Shott
4.) Their music is sexy--anyone ever put on a Beatles record to boff?
I once had a quick one to 'Why Don't We Do It In The Road'.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: August 6, 2011 17:57
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.
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.
good call, agreed.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 6, 2011 18:00
what an inane topic.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
mitchflorida
()
Date: August 6, 2011 18:09
Quote
Sleepy CityQuote
EddieBywordQuote
mitchflorida
The Beatles liked to smile
The Stones liked to smirk
Smile vs. Smirk
Beatles vs. Stones.
The other difference between the two groups, I think the Beatles put out uniformly good material out during their career, while the Stones put out some excellent work but also some rather mediocre work.
If the Stones had broken up in 1970 you could easily say the same of them..........personally though I don't agree with your statement at all anyway as there's only 3 Stones songs I don't like....so for me their whole carreer has be pretty much excellent listening...so better than "uniformly good"...The beatles ?....just can't be bothered to even put a CD on nowadays.......just boring...
The Stones Decca career was much more consistent than that of The Beatles. Sure, there were a handful of weak tracks, but nothing to compare with 'Blue Jay Way', 'All Together Now', 'Wild Honey Pie', 'Piggies', 'Goodnight', 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer', 'Octupus's Garden' & several others (almost all from the post-Pepper years).
Blue Jay Way still fascinates me. I used to live in Los Angeles, and Blue Jay Way is a narrow, winding road on the very crest of a canyon that overlooks the entire city of Los Angeles and Hollywood. Ringo does his thing in a way more graceful than Charlie Watt's does on Dandelion.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 18:11 by mitchflorida.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
DragonSky
()
Date: August 6, 2011 18:15
How posh of you Mitch. "Ringo does his thing in a way more graceful than Charlie Watt's does on Dandelion." And Charlie doesn't have one song that sounds like I Am The Walrus.
The Beatles never did anything like Midnight Rambler, Under My Thumb, Gimme Shelter, Street Fighting Man or Jumpin' Jack Flash. The Stones never did anything like Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields and so on.
So so what.
Both bands were awesome. If anything The Stones have detracted from their legacy by continuing onward with the devolution of the songwriting over the years, especially starting with Dirty Work onward.
The Beatles never did anything like Midnight Rambler, Under My Thumb, Gimme Shelter, Street Fighting Man or Jumpin' Jack Flash. The Stones never did anything like Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields and so on.
So so what.
Both bands were awesome. If anything The Stones have detracted from their legacy by continuing onward with the devolution of the songwriting over the years, especially starting with Dirty Work onward.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: August 6, 2011 18:29
Quote
mitchfloridaQuote
Sleepy CityQuote
EddieBywordQuote
mitchflorida
The Beatles liked to smile
The Stones liked to smirk
Smile vs. Smirk
Beatles vs. Stones.
The other difference between the two groups, I think the Beatles put out uniformly good material out during their career, while the Stones put out some excellent work but also some rather mediocre work.
If the Stones had broken up in 1970 you could easily say the same of them..........personally though I don't agree with your statement at all anyway as there's only 3 Stones songs I don't like....so for me their whole carreer has be pretty much excellent listening...so better than "uniformly good"...The beatles ?....just can't be bothered to even put a CD on nowadays.......just boring...
The Stones Decca career was much more consistent than that of The Beatles. Sure, there were a handful of weak tracks, but nothing to compare with 'Blue Jay Way', 'All Together Now', 'Wild Honey Pie', 'Piggies', 'Goodnight', 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer', 'Octupus's Garden' & several others (almost all from the post-Pepper years).
Blue Jay Way still fascinates me. I used to live in Los Angeles, and Blue Jay Way is a narrow, winding road on the very crest of a canyon that overlooks the entire city of Los Angeles and Hollywood. Ringo does his thing in a way more graceful than Charlie Watt's does on Dandelion.
Melody stolen from Ravi Shankar. That George was a crafty one, he was!
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
mitchflorida
()
Date: August 6, 2011 18:31
Sorry guys, the Beatles OWN this song.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 18:37 by mitchflorida.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 18:37 by mitchflorida.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: August 6, 2011 18:54
Quote
mitchflorida
Sorry guys, the Beatles OWN this song.
This wipes the floor with any cover version, as well as the 1956 studio original (he loses some of the lyrics but check out that lengthy 96-bar guitar solo)...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 18:57 by Sleepy City.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: August 6, 2011 20:13
Quote
EddieBywordQuote
mitchflorida
The Beatles liked to smile
The Stones liked to smirk
Smile vs. Smirk
Beatles vs. Stones.
The other difference between the two groups, I think the Beatles put out uniformly good material out during their career, while the Stones put out some excellent work but also some rather mediocre work.
If the Stones had broken up in 1970 you could easily say the same of them..........personally though I don't agree with your statement at all anyway as there's only 3 Stones songs I don't like....so for me their whole carreer has be pretty much excellent listening...so better than "uniformly good"...The beatles ?....just can't be bothered to even put a CD on nowadays.......just boring...
There is a radio station up here in Seattle that has a program called 'Breakfast With The Beatles' that airs every Sunday morning from 8:00 AM to 10:00AM that I never miss. It's the only time I listen to Beatles tunes anymore. They fit Sunday morning perfectly. In fact, Sunday is the only day of the week I do not listen to or watch the Stones. The same radio station also has a program from noon to two on Sundays that is called 'Lunch With Zep' that I also listen to. On Sunday afternoon I switch the dial and listen to two hours of Frank Sinatra from 4:00PM to 6:00 PM, and then from six to midnight on another channel it's all blues!
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: August 6, 2011 20:23
Quote
Sleepy CityQuote
mitchflorida
Sorry guys, the Beatles OWN this song.
This wipes the floor with any cover version, as well as the 1956 studio original (he loses some of the lyrics but check out that lengthy 96-bar guitar solo)...
I am afraid 'The Sonics' version blows all three of these away!
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
dandelion1967
()
Date: August 6, 2011 20:36
The Who
--------------------------------------------
"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"
--------------------------------------------
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: August 6, 2011 21:04
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
EddieBywordQuote
mitchflorida
The Beatles liked to smile
The Stones liked to smirk
Smile vs. Smirk
Beatles vs. Stones.
The other difference between the two groups, I think the Beatles put out uniformly good material out during their career, while the Stones put out some excellent work but also some rather mediocre work.
If the Stones had broken up in 1970 you could easily say the same of them..........personally though I don't agree with your statement at all anyway as there's only 3 Stones songs I don't like....so for me their whole carreer has be pretty much excellent listening...so better than "uniformly good"...The beatles ?....just can't be bothered to even put a CD on nowadays.......just boring...
There is a radio station up here in Seattle that has a program called 'Breakfast With The Beatles' that airs every Sunday morning from 8:00 AM to 10:00AM that I never miss. It's the only time I listen to Beatles tunes anymore. They fit Sunday morning perfectly. In fact, Sunday is the only day of the week I do not listen to or watch the Stones. The same radio station also has a program from noon to two on Sundays that is called 'Lunch With Zep' that I also listen to. On Sunday afternoon I switch the dial and listen to two hours of Frank Sinatra from 4:00PM to 6:00 PM, and then from six to midnight on another channel it's all blues!
There seems to be a consensus building on this thread that the Beatles are good for Sunday mornings..interesting......I might try that tomorrow.........Rolling Stone by Humble Pie blamming and bluesing at the moment...........
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: August 6, 2011 21:10
Quote
EddieByword
There seems to be a consensus building on this thread that the Beatles are good for Sunday mornings..interesting......I might try that tomorrow........
Maybe, but I like to listen to Queen on sunday afternoons...
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: August 6, 2011 21:14
Quote
EddieBywordQuote
thewatchmanQuote
EddieBywordQuote
mitchflorida
The Beatles liked to smile
The Stones liked to smirk
Smile vs. Smirk
Beatles vs. Stones.
The other difference between the two groups, I think the Beatles put out uniformly good material out during their career, while the Stones put out some excellent work but also some rather mediocre work.
If the Stones had broken up in 1970 you could easily say the same of them..........personally though I don't agree with your statement at all anyway as there's only 3 Stones songs I don't like....so for me their whole carreer has be pretty much excellent listening...so better than "uniformly good"...The beatles ?....just can't be bothered to even put a CD on nowadays.......just boring...
There is a radio station up here in Seattle that has a program called 'Breakfast With The Beatles' that airs every Sunday morning from 8:00 AM to 10:00AM that I never miss. It's the only time I listen to Beatles tunes anymore. They fit Sunday morning perfectly. In fact, Sunday is the only day of the week I do not listen to or watch the Stones. The same radio station also has a program from noon to two on Sundays that is called 'Lunch With Zep' that I also listen to. On Sunday afternoon I switch the dial and listen to two hours of Frank Sinatra from 4:00PM to 6:00 PM, and then from six to midnight on another channel it's all blues!
There seems to be a consensus building on this thread that the Beatles are good for Sunday mornings..interesting......I might try that tomorrow.........Rolling Stone by Humble Pie blamming and bluesing at the moment...........
The Doors and Hendrix work best right before dawn!
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: August 6, 2011 21:19
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
EddieBywordQuote
thewatchmanQuote
EddieBywordQuote
mitchflorida
The Beatles liked to smile
The Stones liked to smirk
Smile vs. Smirk
Beatles vs. Stones.
The other difference between the two groups, I think the Beatles put out uniformly good material out during their career, while the Stones put out some excellent work but also some rather mediocre work.
If the Stones had broken up in 1970 you could easily say the same of them..........personally though I don't agree with your statement at all anyway as there's only 3 Stones songs I don't like....so for me their whole carreer has be pretty much excellent listening...so better than "uniformly good"...The beatles ?....just can't be bothered to even put a CD on nowadays.......just boring...
There is a radio station up here in Seattle that has a program called 'Breakfast With The Beatles' that airs every Sunday morning from 8:00 AM to 10:00AM that I never miss. It's the only time I listen to Beatles tunes anymore. They fit Sunday morning perfectly. In fact, Sunday is the only day of the week I do not listen to or watch the Stones. The same radio station also has a program from noon to two on Sundays that is called 'Lunch With Zep' that I also listen to. On Sunday afternoon I switch the dial and listen to two hours of Frank Sinatra from 4:00PM to 6:00 PM, and then from six to midnight on another channel it's all blues!
There seems to be a consensus building on this thread that the Beatles are good for Sunday mornings..interesting......I might try that tomorrow.........Rolling Stone by Humble Pie blamming and bluesing at the moment...........
The Doors and Hendrix work best right before dawn!
lol.......certainly been there with the Doors............
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: August 6, 2011 21:23
I like to say the Stones are like Dom Pérignon and the Beatles are more like grape Kool-Aid.
Re: The Beatles or The Stones?
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: August 6, 2011 21:29
Quote
EddieBywordQuote
thewatchmanQuote
EddieBywordQuote
thewatchmanQuote
EddieBywordQuote
mitchflorida
The Beatles liked to smile
The Stones liked to smirk
Smile vs. Smirk
Beatles vs. Stones.
The other difference between the two groups, I think the Beatles put out uniformly good material out during their career, while the Stones put out some excellent work but also some rather mediocre work.
If the Stones had broken up in 1970 you could easily say the same of them..........personally though I don't agree with your statement at all anyway as there's only 3 Stones songs I don't like....so for me their whole carreer has be pretty much excellent listening...so better than "uniformly good"...The beatles ?....just can't be bothered to even put a CD on nowadays.......just boring...
There is a radio station up here in Seattle that has a program called 'Breakfast With The Beatles' that airs every Sunday morning from 8:00 AM to 10:00AM that I never miss. It's the only time I listen to Beatles tunes anymore. They fit Sunday morning perfectly. In fact, Sunday is the only day of the week I do not listen to or watch the Stones. The same radio station also has a program from noon to two on Sundays that is called 'Lunch With Zep' that I also listen to. On Sunday afternoon I switch the dial and listen to two hours of Frank Sinatra from 4:00PM to 6:00 PM, and then from six to midnight on another channel it's all blues!
There seems to be a consensus building on this thread that the Beatles are good for Sunday mornings..interesting......I might try that tomorrow.........Rolling Stone by Humble Pie blamming and bluesing at the moment...........
The Doors and Hendrix work best right before dawn!
lol.......certainly been there with the Doors............
Forgot to mention that the Stones 'Goin Home' also works well in the wee wee hours of the morning.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BitchKeepsBitchin , ChrisL , DGA35 , DiegoGlimmerStones , dirkmcq , DrPete , frankotero , georgelicks , glimmerleo , hockenheim95 , HonkyTonkJan , jjazznola69 , jp.M , keefriffhards , mariano , MartinB , matthijst , midimannz , MisterDDDD , petewasbristol , Quique-stone , rastakeith , rockdriguez67 , shawnriffhard1 , snarf2014 , tiffanyblu
Guests:
2242
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10