Quote
mickscarey
Most overrated drivel ever

drivel? certainly some songs are drivel, but then some Stones songs are drivel as well.

You can't mean you feel the Beatles entire catalogue is drivel?

ignore mickscarey. he says nonsense like that to get a rise out of people.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.

Tainted by years of decay?

Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.

I thought they were still at the top of their game when they did Bridges. To me Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, and Thief, are as good or better than anything they have ever done and Flip the Switch is a damn fine song. I love Don't Stop that came even later on the 40 Licks album. Some people really like ABB. I honestly think if they decide to do another album we are going to be surprised and could just get another classic? Let's wait and see.

Glad you think so, but in 50 years people (outside of this forum, that is) will still be discussing Sticky Fingers, Exile, etc. while Bridges will be forgotten...in fact it already has been forgotten.

Who are these "people" anyway? The mainstream media or rock historians? Maybe we should all become rock historians so we can challenge this notion that the Stones peaked artistically 40 years ago? It really bugs me that even many Stones fans have bought into this ridiculous notion.

The Beatles are brilliant not least because they give the likes of Mickscarey a point to their somewhat futile lives.

Quote
mickscarey
Most overrated drivel ever

Come on now, you don't really believe that, do you? Really?

Nevertheless I think The Stones are better than The Beatles, I still like them. They made some pretty good albums.

No I like some Beatle stuff mainly Lennon.
Good song writers ,love some of their stuff done by other artists.

I need to admit that even though I recognize the brilliance, significance, uniqueness and greatness of the Beatles, and I knew each of their songs, can even sing-along most of them and all that, for some reason I personally can not get excited of them at all. It must be just me and my idiosyncratic taste, but they just don't move me, and I never feel like listening to them at home. Can't really explain why I get so bored while listening to them. "Theoretically" I should like them, like I suppose everyone should.

But I like Lennon's solo work instead. That works for me.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
I need to admit that even though I recognize the brilliance, significance, uniqueness and greatness of the Beatles, and I knew each of their songs, can even sing-along most of them and all that, for some reason I personally can not get excited of them at all. It must be just me and my idiosyncratic taste, but they just don't move me, and I never feel like listening to them at home. Can't really explain why I get so bored while listening to them. "Theoretically" I should like them, like I suppose everyone should.

But I like Lennon's solo work instead. That works for me.

- Doxa

This pretty much sums it up for me too. Certainly Lennon's 'Plastic Ono Band' & 'Imagine' are preferable to any Beatles album.

Quote
Doxa
I need to admit that even though I recognize the brilliance, significance, uniqueness and greatness of the Beatles, and I knew each of their songs, can even sing-along most of them and all that, for some reason I personally can not get excited of them at all. It must be just me and my idiosyncratic taste, but they just don't move me, and I never feel like listening to them at home. Can't really explain why I get so bored while listening to them. "Theoretically" I should like them, like I suppose everyone should.

But I like Lennon's solo work instead. That works for me.

- Doxa

Have you checked out Ringo's latest album? I thought it was superb and so did my brother who once played in a Beatles tribute band.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.

Tainted by years of decay?

Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.

I thought they were still at the top of their game when they did Bridges. To me Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, and Thief, are as good or better than anything they have ever done and Flip the Switch is a damn fine song. I love Don't Stop that came even later on the 40 Licks album. Some people really like ABB. I honestly think if they decide to do another album we are going to be surprised and could just get another classic? Let's wait and see.

Glad you think so, but in 50 years people (outside of this forum, that is) will still be discussing Sticky Fingers, Exile, etc. while Bridges will be forgotten...in fact it already has been forgotten.

Who are these "people" anyway? The mainstream media or rock historians? Maybe we should all become rock historians so we can challenge this notion that the Stones peaked artistically 40 years ago? It really bugs me that even many Stones fans have bought into this ridiculous notion.

It's not ridiculous by any means. It isn't an elite I am talking about, it's how the different songs impact culture, etc. If you really think "Saint Of Me" is of the same quality as "Gimme Shelter", great, but I'm not buying.

Well, as a rolling fan since 47 years, i say i liked the beatles."Rubber soul"--"Revolver" "Pepper" and " Abbey road" were great. but I like "harrisons" - " All things must past"-Ringo°s "beaucoups of blues" -"Lennons" "Walls and bridges" and pauls "Ram" and red rose speedway",too.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.

Tainted by years of decay?

Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.

I thought they were still at the top of their game when they did Bridges. To me Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, and Thief, are as good or better than anything they have ever done and Flip the Switch is a damn fine song. I love Don't Stop that came even later on the 40 Licks album. Some people really like ABB. I honestly think if they decide to do another album we are going to be surprised and could just get another classic? Let's wait and see.

Glad you think so, but in 50 years people (outside of this forum, that is) will still be discussing Sticky Fingers, Exile, etc. while Bridges will be forgotten...in fact it already has been forgotten.

Who are these "people" anyway? The mainstream media or rock historians? Maybe we should all become rock historians so we can challenge this notion that the Stones peaked artistically 40 years ago? It really bugs me that even many Stones fans have bought into this ridiculous notion.

Of course they peaked 40 years ago...what is the big deal about that? Stop living in denial!

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.

Tainted by years of decay?

Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.

I thought they were still at the top of their game when they did Bridges. To me Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, and Thief, are as good or better than anything they have ever done and Flip the Switch is a damn fine song. I love Don't Stop that came even later on the 40 Licks album. Some people really like ABB. I honestly think if they decide to do another album we are going to be surprised and could just get another classic? Let's wait and see.

Glad you think so, but in 50 years people (outside of this forum, that is) will still be discussing Sticky Fingers, Exile, etc. while Bridges will be forgotten...in fact it already has been forgotten.

Who are these "people" anyway? The mainstream media or rock historians? Maybe we should all become rock historians so we can challenge this notion that the Stones peaked artistically 40 years ago? It really bugs me that even many Stones fans have bought into this ridiculous notion.

It's not ridiculous by any means. It isn't an elite I am talking about, it's how the different songs impact culture, etc. If you really think "Saint Of Me" is of the same quality as "Gimme Shelter", great, but I'm not buying.

Along with Street Fighting Man Gimme Shelter might be one of the two greatest Stones songs ever. In my opinion both Saint Of Me and Out Of Control are better than Satisfaction, Brown Sugar, and Honkey Tonk Woman if that tells you anything. The sixties and early seventies were turbulent times so the songs that spoke of those times carry a certain punch, however, I think a song should be judged on it's own not just because it reflected what was going on in society at the time.

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Doxa
I need to admit that even though I recognize the brilliance, significance, uniqueness and greatness of the Beatles, and I knew each of their songs, can even sing-along most of them and all that, for some reason I personally can not get excited of them at all. It must be just me and my idiosyncratic taste, but they just don't move me, and I never feel like listening to them at home. Can't really explain why I get so bored while listening to them. "Theoretically" I should like them, like I suppose everyone should.

But I like Lennon's solo work instead. That works for me.

- Doxa

This pretty much sums it up for me too. Certainly Lennon's 'Plastic Ono Band' & 'Imagine' are preferable to any Beatles album.

Yeah, Things like "Give Peace A Chance", "Instant Charma", "Mother", "Working Class Hero", "Imagine", "Woman", "Jealous Guy", etc. touch some chord in me that almost none Beatle song does. I figure that it must be something like naturally talented Lennon getting "free of" the Beatle context, got involved to more 'artistically' freer ones, very much to do with his muse Yoko, he got some edge and 'realness' he couldn't realize within the boundaries of The Beatles. I suppose for Lennon to accomplish his all potentia, meeting Yoko, and leaving The Beatles, was something crucial artisticwise.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-29 22:57 by Doxa.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.

Tainted by years of decay?

Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.

I thought they were still at the top of their game when they did Bridges. To me Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, and Thief, are as good or better than anything they have ever done and Flip the Switch is a damn fine song. I love Don't Stop that came even later on the 40 Licks album. Some people really like ABB. I honestly think if they decide to do another album we are going to be surprised and could just get another classic? Let's wait and see.

Glad you think so, but in 50 years people (outside of this forum, that is) will still be discussing Sticky Fingers, Exile, etc. while Bridges will be forgotten...in fact it already has been forgotten.

Who are these "people" anyway? The mainstream media or rock historians? Maybe we should all become rock historians so we can challenge this notion that the Stones peaked artistically 40 years ago? It really bugs me that even many Stones fans have bought into this ridiculous notion.

Of course they peaked 40 years ago...what is the big deal about that? Stop living in denial!

They have had many peaks and valleys in their career. Bridges was a peak in my opinion, not sure that ABB was a total stumble off the mountain either. Let's just wait and see what the next album brings and let their careers play out before we say that they can no longer rise to the occasion. If you want to believe what you have been told to believe by others (whoever the hell they are) who claim they are the authorities on these matters then go right ahead. I will continue to think for myself and nobody is going to convince me that Brown Sugar or Honkey Tonk Woman (never did like either one of those songs) are better songs than Out Of Control or Saint Of Me just because they were produced during their so called peak era and have been played a billion times over the years. And let's not forget the Stones as a live act were at least as good as they have ever been live for the Licks tour which was only about eight years ago. I am not eve so sure there was much of a drop off with the ABB tour.

Welcome to The Watchman Forum!

Quote
stonesrule
Welcome to The Watchman Forum!

If it isn't ol green eyes again.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Doxa
I need to admit that even though I recognize the brilliance, significance, uniqueness and greatness of the Beatles, and I knew each of their songs, can even sing-along most of them and all that, for some reason I personally can not get excited of them at all. It must be just me and my idiosyncratic taste, but they just don't move me, and I never feel like listening to them at home. Can't really explain why I get so bored while listening to them. "Theoretically" I should like them, like I suppose everyone should.

But I like Lennon's solo work instead. That works for me.

- Doxa

This pretty much sums it up for me too. Certainly Lennon's 'Plastic Ono Band' & 'Imagine' are preferable to any Beatles album.

Yeah, Things like "Give Peace A Chance", "Instant Charma", "Mother", "Working Class Hero", "Imagine", "Woman", "Jealous Guy", etc. touch some chord in me that almost none Beatle song does. I figure that it must be something like naturally talented Lennon getting "free of" the Beatle context, got involved to more 'artistically' freer ones, very much to do with his muse Yoko, he got some edge and 'realness' he couldn't realize within the boundaries of The Beatles. I suppose for Lennon to accomplish his all potentia, meeting Yoko, and leaving The Beatles, was something crucial artisticwise.

- Doxa

Lennon didn't left the Beatles, it was Paul who left and the rest decided to split as band.

When did they split up?
They split when Paul McCartney said he was leaving the band in April 1970 and on 31 December 1970, the band officially split. (BBC)

he couldn't realize within the boundaries of The Beatles.
As for the Lennon I think he was free to write anything he liked with the Beatles and he did, I don't hear anything different in his greatness of writing song before or after the split

__________________________

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.

Tainted by years of decay?

Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.

I thought they were still at the top of their game when they did Bridges. To me Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, and Thief, are as good or better than anything they have ever done and Flip the Switch is a damn fine song. I love Don't Stop that came even later on the 40 Licks album. Some people really like ABB. I honestly think if they decide to do another album we are going to be surprised and could just get another classic? Let's wait and see.

Glad you think so, but in 50 years people (outside of this forum, that is) will still be discussing Sticky Fingers, Exile, etc. while Bridges will be forgotten...in fact it already has been forgotten.

Who are these "people" anyway? The mainstream media or rock historians? Maybe we should all become rock historians so we can challenge this notion that the Stones peaked artistically 40 years ago? It really bugs me that even many Stones fans have bought into this ridiculous notion.

Of course they peaked 40 years ago...what is the big deal about that? Stop living in denial!

They have had many peaks and valleys in their career. Bridges was a peak in my opinion, not sure that ABB was a total stumble off the mountain either. Let's just wait and see what the next album brings and let their careers play out before we say that they can no longer rise to the occasion. If you want to believe what you have been told to believe by others (whoever the hell they are) who claim they are the authorities on these matters then go right ahead. I will continue to think for myself and nobody is going to convince me that Brown Sugar or Honkey Tonk Woman (never did like either one of those songs) are better songs than Out Of Control or Saint Of Me just because they were produced during their so called peak era and have been played a billion times over the years. And let's not forget the Stones as a live act were at least as good as they have ever been live for the Licks tour which was only about eight years ago. I am not eve so sure there was much of a drop off with the ABB tour.

I think most people have an ability to think for themselves, and for the most part, should be encouraged to.

I'm not so sure in your case you would find much value in doing that.

Most people probably think the late 60's or early 70's is where the stones peaked artistically, if not in the performance sense. That is just what most people think, and doesn't have to be what you think.

People can come to the same conclusion independently...just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean anything other than they probably have better taste than you.

But again, that is my subjective opinion...there is no right or wrong.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
mickscarey
Most overrated drivel ever

drivel? certainly some songs are drivel, but then some Stones songs are drivel as well.

You can't mean you feel the Beatles entire catalogue is drivel?

Yes. Boy band pop

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
mickscarey
Most overrated drivel ever

Come on now, you don't really believe that, do you? Really?

u have all been hoodwinked. they were nonsense

I love the Stones. Hate the Beatles.

What got hate to do with not liking their music............is it something personal

__________________________

Quote
allaboutyou
I love the Stones. Hate the Beatles.

Me too

it's so cute when mickscarey finds someone to play with.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.

Tainted by years of decay?

Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.

I thought they were still at the top of their game when they did Bridges. To me Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, and Thief, are as good or better than anything they have ever done and Flip the Switch is a damn fine song. I love Don't Stop that came even later on the 40 Licks album. Some people really like ABB. I honestly think if they decide to do another album we are going to be surprised and could just get another classic? Let's wait and see.

Glad you think so, but in 50 years people (outside of this forum, that is) will still be discussing Sticky Fingers, Exile, etc. while Bridges will be forgotten...in fact it already has been forgotten.

Who are these "people" anyway? The mainstream media or rock historians? Maybe we should all become rock historians so we can challenge this notion that the Stones peaked artistically 40 years ago? It really bugs me that even many Stones fans have bought into this ridiculous notion.

It's not ridiculous by any means. It isn't an elite I am talking about, it's how the different songs impact culture, etc. If you really think "Saint Of Me" is of the same quality as "Gimme Shelter", great, but I'm not buying.

Along with Street Fighting Man Gimme Shelter might be one of the two greatest Stones songs ever. In my opinion both Saint Of Me and Out Of Control are better than Satisfaction, Brown Sugar, and Honkey Tonk Woman if that tells you anything. The sixties and early seventies were turbulent times so the songs that spoke of those times carry a certain punch, however, I think a song should be judged on it's own not just because it reflected what was going on in society at the time.

What it tells me is that you have a very unusual opinion, nothing more.

Quote
NICOS

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Doxa
I need to admit that even though I recognize the brilliance, significance, uniqueness and greatness of the Beatles, and I knew each of their songs, can even sing-along most of them and all that, for some reason I personally can not get excited of them at all. It must be just me and my idiosyncratic taste, but they just don't move me, and I never feel like listening to them at home. Can't really explain why I get so bored while listening to them. "Theoretically" I should like them, like I suppose everyone should.

But I like Lennon's solo work instead. That works for me.

- Doxa

This pretty much sums it up for me too. Certainly Lennon's 'Plastic Ono Band' & 'Imagine' are preferable to any Beatles album.

Yeah, Things like "Give Peace A Chance", "Instant Charma", "Mother", "Working Class Hero", "Imagine", "Woman", "Jealous Guy", etc. touch some chord in me that almost none Beatle song does. I figure that it must be something like naturally talented Lennon getting "free of" the Beatle context, got involved to more 'artistically' freer ones, very much to do with his muse Yoko, he got some edge and 'realness' he couldn't realize within the boundaries of The Beatles. I suppose for Lennon to accomplish his all potentia, meeting Yoko, and leaving The Beatles, was something crucial artisticwise.

- Doxa

Lennon didn't left the Beatles, it was Paul who left and the rest decided to split as band.

When did they split up?
They split when Paul McCartney said he was leaving the band in April 1970 and on 31 December 1970, the band officially split. (BBC)

he couldn't realize within the boundaries of The Beatles.
As for the Lennon I think he was free to write anything he liked with the Beatles and he did, I don't hear anything different in his greatness of writing song before or after the split

Lennon actually did leave first, but McCartney turned his leaving into a promotional stunt to sell his first solo record.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.

Tainted by years of decay?

Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.

I thought they were still at the top of their game when they did Bridges. To me Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, and Thief, are as good or better than anything they have ever done and Flip the Switch is a damn fine song. I love Don't Stop that came even later on the 40 Licks album. Some people really like ABB. I honestly think if they decide to do another album we are going to be surprised and could just get another classic? Let's wait and see.

Glad you think so, but in 50 years people (outside of this forum, that is) will still be discussing Sticky Fingers, Exile, etc. while Bridges will be forgotten...in fact it already has been forgotten.

Who are these "people" anyway? The mainstream media or rock historians? Maybe we should all become rock historians so we can challenge this notion that the Stones peaked artistically 40 years ago? It really bugs me that even many Stones fans have bought into this ridiculous notion.

Of course they peaked 40 years ago...what is the big deal about that? Stop living in denial!

They have had many peaks and valleys in their career. Bridges was a peak in my opinion, not sure that ABB was a total stumble off the mountain either. Let's just wait and see what the next album brings and let their careers play out before we say that they can no longer rise to the occasion. If you want to believe what you have been told to believe by others (whoever the hell they are) who claim they are the authorities on these matters then go right ahead. I will continue to think for myself and nobody is going to convince me that Brown Sugar or Honkey Tonk Woman (never did like either one of those songs) are better songs than Out Of Control or Saint Of Me just because they were produced during their so called peak era and have been played a billion times over the years. And let's not forget the Stones as a live act were at least as good as they have ever been live for the Licks tour which was only about eight years ago. I am not eve so sure there was much of a drop off with the ABB tour.

I think most people have an ability to think for themselves, and for the most part, should be encouraged to.

I'm not so sure in your case you would find much value in doing that.

Most people probably think the late 60's or early 70's is where the stones peaked artistically, if not in the performance sense. That is just what most people think, and doesn't have to be what you think.

People can come to the same conclusion independently...just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean anything other than they probably have better taste than you.

But again, that is my subjective opinion...there is no right or wrong.

It's a sad fact of life that some people allow themselves to be influenced by the opinions of others without really doing much thinking or research on their own. They listen to some so called expert and accept what he/she has said as the gospel. It is easier that way, saves them the trouble of doing the work required to form a true honest opinion of their own - much easier to just repeat what they have heard. I agree with you that music is highly subjective as are other things in life - one man's treasure is another man's garbage.

Quote
mickscarey

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
mickscarey
Most overrated drivel ever

Come on now, you don't really believe that, do you? Really?

u have all been hoodwinked. they were nonsense

Please elaborate.