Tell Me :
Talk
Oh, wait. He did. Never mind then.
Not sure what your point is, really, but it has nothing to do with the one I made.
Let It Be, Naked was a variation of Let It Be, and certainly no closer to the original "Get Back" album than the Phil Spector officially-released LIB LP, but the Beatles had the class to go out on top, before the songwriting deteriorated, unlike certain other bands.
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.
Are you saying that you wish the Stones had quit in 1973? That you wish that they had never recorded another album? That they never toured again? Is that what you are saying?
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.
What I wish is not terribly relevant. But yes, I wish they had not issued records like Voodoo Lounge and Bridges To Babylon, which in my opinion don't add anything to their legacy, and in fact take something away from it. I think I have made my views on another tour clear enough in numerous other posts.
I mean, I don't like Let It Be, I don't think it's a good album, but if attempting to rewrite history (poorly) doesn't taint one's body of work then I don't know what does.
On a side note, if Abbey Road is to be considered The Beatles' swan song, then Let It Be must be their encore - and it's not a very good one at that. Much has been said about Phil Spector's approach to the album, but I think he actually improved on it. And as a matter of fact, John Lennon agreed...
Let It Be, Naked is a mere curiosity - nothing more. I agree it was dishonest. I also think Let It Be is a relatively weak album, but that's by Beatle standards, which means it is less great than the others. But even LIB gave us some great tracks and the rooftop concert.
edit: oops. bob already expressed that point to which i agree.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-29 19:14 by ineedadrink.
But we have a string of second or third tier solo albums by all 4 Beatles.
That much is certainly true, but they are not in any way "Beatle" albums. The very first wave of solo Beatle albums (Lennon's "Plastic Ono Band", Harrison's "All Things Must Pass", McCartney's "McCartney" and even a couple of great singles by Ringo) attest to the fact that they had at least one or two more good albums in them.
I hear ya, but I didn't mean to imply that the Beatles couldn't "rock out" just that overall their music works and fits better on Sunday mornings for me personally. I rarely listen to the Stones on CD. I prefer their live performances as captured on DVD. I never watch or listen to the Stones in the morning hours, most always after sunset. Even the songs you listed by the Stones I would prefer to listen to in the evening hours. Just a personal preference I guess.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
MadMax
()
Date: August 29, 2011 01:00
Bob R you forgot Ain't no use in crying!!!!
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
witterings
()
Date: August 29, 2011 01:10
Who are the Beatles?
It`s nice to be here, .....
It`s nice to be here, .....
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
LillithFlair
()
Date: August 29, 2011 01:13
I love both bands because my mom did and introduced me the their music at an early age. And as I've grown up I still love each band's music.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
DragonSky
()
Date: August 29, 2011 01:40
The Beatles are fantastic. No reason not to love what they did. They were excellent and awesome, inventive and created things that artists around the world aspired to emulate as well as do. How that can be a strike against the Stones I'll never understand. Just shitty kid shit to say other wise; "The Beatles never did, didn't do" etc.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
Sipuncula
()
Date: August 29, 2011 01:51
The Beatles were my #1 when I was young and musically naive, but as I started listening to the Stones more and more my tastes changed. Still like the Beatles, but today, for instance, on a drive I decided put on the White Album. I planned to listen to the whole thing start-to-finish and found myself skipping about half the songs. I used to love that album, but that was before the Stones kind of ruined the Beatles magic for me.
I guess you could say, and this might go for many of us that weren't even born yet when the Beatles called it quits, that that the Beatles were the gateway band to the harder stuff. Course if it weren't for the poor artistic quality of the vast majority late '80s-early '90s popular music, I never would have discovered the treasure trove of what came before in the first place.
I guess you could say, and this might go for many of us that weren't even born yet when the Beatles called it quits, that that the Beatles were the gateway band to the harder stuff. Course if it weren't for the poor artistic quality of the vast majority late '80s-early '90s popular music, I never would have discovered the treasure trove of what came before in the first place.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
FreeBird
()
Date: August 29, 2011 02:19
Which is why Paul McCartney never released Let It Be... Naked.Quote
71Tele
At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Oh, wait. He did. Never mind then.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 29, 2011 03:30
Quote
FreeBirdWhich is why Paul McCartney never released Let It Be... Naked.Quote
71Tele
At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Oh, wait. He did. Never mind then.
Not sure what your point is, really, but it has nothing to do with the one I made.
Let It Be, Naked was a variation of Let It Be, and certainly no closer to the original "Get Back" album than the Phil Spector officially-released LIB LP, but the Beatles had the class to go out on top, before the songwriting deteriorated, unlike certain other bands.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 29, 2011 03:33
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
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.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: August 29, 2011 03:51
Quote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
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.
Are you saying that you wish the Stones had quit in 1973? That you wish that they had never recorded another album? That they never toured again? Is that what you are saying?
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
guitarbastard
()
Date: August 29, 2011 03:57
the beatles shurely had outstanding songwriting skills ans they were very important if not the most important band for pop music.
but what can i do: the stone sare just 1000000 times more rock n roll!
i accept the beatles, but i LOVE the stones!
but what can i do: the stone sare just 1000000 times more rock n roll!
i accept the beatles, but i LOVE the stones!
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: August 29, 2011 04:08
Love both bands
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
Edith Grove
()
Date: August 29, 2011 04:09
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: August 29, 2011 04:43
Quote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
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.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
Wry Cooter
()
Date: August 29, 2011 05:04
Love good music, can't help it....
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 29, 2011 06:54
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
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.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 29, 2011 06:57
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
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.
Are you saying that you wish the Stones had quit in 1973? That you wish that they had never recorded another album? That they never toured again? Is that what you are saying?
What I wish is not terribly relevant. But yes, I wish they had not issued records like Voodoo Lounge and Bridges To Babylon, which in my opinion don't add anything to their legacy, and in fact take something away from it. I think I have made my views on another tour clear enough in numerous other posts.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: August 29, 2011 08:22
Since we heard Beatles before Stones we were Beatles-fans till that day Brian slide us threw 'Little Red Rooster'...
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
FreeBird
()
Date: August 29, 2011 16:15
My point was that Let It Be... Naked was artistically dishonest because it claimed to be true to the stripped down approach of the original sessions, but in fact it employed lots of trickery, including the worst of them all, Auto-Tune - and that Paul McCartney didn't even have the guts to admit that he did that.Quote
71Tele
Not sure what your point is, really, but it has nothing to do with the one I made.
Let It Be, Naked was a variation of Let It Be, and certainly no closer to the original "Get Back" album than the Phil Spector officially-released LIB LP, but the Beatles had the class to go out on top, before the songwriting deteriorated, unlike certain other bands.
I mean, I don't like Let It Be, I don't think it's a good album, but if attempting to rewrite history (poorly) doesn't taint one's body of work then I don't know what does.
On a side note, if Abbey Road is to be considered The Beatles' swan song, then Let It Be must be their encore - and it's not a very good one at that. Much has been said about Phil Spector's approach to the album, but I think he actually improved on it. And as a matter of fact, John Lennon agreed...
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
2000man
()
Date: August 29, 2011 17:15
I don't want to offend but...
If you don't like the Beatles why are you here?
Why are you discussing music on a site like this, when on the most basic level - you just don't get it.
If you don't like the Beatles why are you here?
Why are you discussing music on a site like this, when on the most basic level - you just don't get it.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 29, 2011 17:23
Quote
FreeBirdMy point was that Let It Be... Naked was artistically dishonest because it claimed to be true to the stripped down approach of the original sessions, but in fact it employed lots of trickery, including the worst of them all, Auto-Tune - and that Paul McCartney didn't even have the guts to admit that he did that.Quote
71Tele
Not sure what your point is, really, but it has nothing to do with the one I made.
Let It Be, Naked was a variation of Let It Be, and certainly no closer to the original "Get Back" album than the Phil Spector officially-released LIB LP, but the Beatles had the class to go out on top, before the songwriting deteriorated, unlike certain other bands.
I mean, I don't like Let It Be, I don't think it's a good album, but if attempting to rewrite history (poorly) doesn't taint one's body of work then I don't know what does.
On a side note, if Abbey Road is to be considered The Beatles' swan song, then Let It Be must be their encore - and it's not a very good one at that. Much has been said about Phil Spector's approach to the album, but I think he actually improved on it. And as a matter of fact, John Lennon agreed...
Let It Be, Naked is a mere curiosity - nothing more. I agree it was dishonest. I also think Let It Be is a relatively weak album, but that's by Beatle standards, which means it is less great than the others. But even LIB gave us some great tracks and the rooftop concert.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
Blueranger
()
Date: August 29, 2011 17:48
McCartney didn't release Let It Be... Naked by himself. It was a joint release blessed by all three surviving Beatles and Yoko. Harrison gave his blessing for the project (and 2006's LOVE) before he passed away in 2001. It was the media who pushed the story that it was McCartney's idea alone, because he was dissatisfied with the original. Don't trust everything you read.
And where the hell did people got the impression they're using Auto-Tune??? They do NOT! They used pro-tools to edit the performances and to correct bum-notes - especialy Lennon's abysmal bass parts on The Long And Winding Road.
And where the hell did people got the impression they're using Auto-Tune??? They do NOT! They used pro-tools to edit the performances and to correct bum-notes - especialy Lennon's abysmal bass parts on The Long And Winding Road.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
FreeBird
()
Date: August 29, 2011 18:13
George Harrison passed away before the album was finished, so he couldn't possibly have heard the final result. Yoko Ono doesn't count. So that only leaves Ringo Starr as the one that gave his blessing (which isn't the same thing as being actively involved).Quote
Blueranger
McCartney didn't release Let It Be... Naked by himself. It was a joint release blessed by all three surviving Beatles and Yoko. Harrison gave his blessing for the project (and 2006's LOVE) before he passed away in 2001.
It's quite common (though apparently not ubiquitous) knowledge that Auto-Tune was used on Dig a Pony. It may also have been used on other songs, that's debatable, but Dig a Pony is the only example I need.Quote
Blueranger
And where the hell did people got the impression they're using Auto-Tune??? They do NOT! They used pro-tools to edit the performances and to correct bum-notes - especialy Lennon's abysmal bass parts on The Long And Winding Road.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: August 29, 2011 18:22
I'm not : I think the Beatles suck badly. Ray Davis is imo a far better craftsman of pop jewels than the two idiots from Liverpool.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: August 29, 2011 19:02
thats a rather harsh viewpoint, and one not connected to the importance of Lennon/McCartney...they are two great songwriters, that cant be denied
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
ineedadrink
()
Date: August 29, 2011 19:12
that's nonsense. the beatles have plenty of rockin' friday night songs and the stones have plenty of "sunday morning" songs.Quote
thewatchman
Somebody around here recently said, "the Stones are Saturday night, the Beatles, Sunday morning"! My exact same sentiments.
edit: oops. bob already expressed that point to which i agree.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-29 19:14 by ineedadrink.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
stones78
()
Date: August 29, 2011 19:20
Quote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
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.
But we have a string of second or third tier solo albums by all 4 Beatles.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 29, 2011 20:36
Quote
stones78Quote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
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.
But we have a string of second or third tier solo albums by all 4 Beatles.
That much is certainly true, but they are not in any way "Beatle" albums. The very first wave of solo Beatle albums (Lennon's "Plastic Ono Band", Harrison's "All Things Must Pass", McCartney's "McCartney" and even a couple of great singles by Ringo) attest to the fact that they had at least one or two more good albums in them.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: August 29, 2011 20:47
Quote
bob r
Love the Beatles...love the Stones... and they were fans of each other and friends..
But I disagree totally on the Stones Sat night / Beatles Sunday Morning thing...
Beatles Sat night: Yer Blues, Back in the USSR, Guitar Gently Weeps, Me & My Monkey, Sanoy Truffle, I want You ( Shes so Heavy ), You Cant Do That, I'm Down, Long Tall Sally, She Said She Said, Get Back, Dont Let Me Down, Its All Too Much, Why Dont We Do It In The Road, Helter Skelter,Revolution, I Wanna Be Your Man, Everybody's Tryin To Be My Baby, Mr Moonlight, Kansas City
Stones Sunday Morning: Back Street Girl, Angie, Winter, Moonlight Mile, Sleep Tonight, All About You, Time Waits For No One, As Tears Go By, The Worst, Losing My Touch, Fool To Cry, Memory Motel, Sweet Black Angel, Wating on a Friend
See, it works both ways. Two great bands for each and every Saturday / Sunday
Something for every taste
I hear ya, but I didn't mean to imply that the Beatles couldn't "rock out" just that overall their music works and fits better on Sunday mornings for me personally. I rarely listen to the Stones on CD. I prefer their live performances as captured on DVD. I never watch or listen to the Stones in the morning hours, most always after sunset. Even the songs you listed by the Stones I would prefer to listen to in the evening hours. Just a personal preference I guess.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 29, 2011 20:48
The Beatles are the biggest band in history and they are excellent.
But I much prefer the Stones.
But I much prefer the Stones.
Re: Are Most Fans Of The Stones Fans Of The Beatles?
Posted by:
mickscarey
()
Date: August 29, 2011 20:49
Most overrated drivel ever
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , AJDuffer , CaptainAcid , ChrisL , DandelionPowderman , daspyknows , drwatts , EddieByword , franzk , hot stuff , HouseBoyKnows , Kevinstones78 , Kuntaman , mariano , micha063 , Nellcote1971 , peoplewitheyes , RaahenTiikeri , retired_dog , riccardo99 , silver , Stoneswolf , TumblinDice76 , TW2019 , willprefecture , wiredallnight
Guests:
2111
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10