Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
thewatchman
If the Rolling Stones can somehow dig down deep and produce one last great album, achieve 50 years, and go out with at least one last great live performance, (maybe even a tour) the media and rock historians will have no alternative but to declare the Stones the greatest of all time.

It seems as though you don't really have much faith in your beloved Stones. If they were the greatest then why would they need to "dig down deep"? Wouldn't producing something great one last time be easy for them?

Also, just because the Stones have been around for 50 years and The Beatles haven't doesn't make them better or make them "surge past The Beatles". Quality over quantity. The Stones certainly have done a lot of crap over the years. I think their legacy would have been stronger if they closed up shop decades ago.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
thewatchman
If the Rolling Stones can somehow dig down deep and produce one last great album, achieve 50 years, and go out with at least one last great live performance, (maybe even a tour) the media and rock historians will have no alternative but to declare the Stones the greatest of all time.

It seems as though you don't really have much faith in your beloved Stones. If they were the greatest then why would they need to "dig down deep"? Wouldn't producing something great one last time be easy for them?

Also, just because the Stones have been around for 50 years and The Beatles haven't doesn't make them better or make them "surge past The Beatles". Quality over quantity. The Stones certainly have done a lot of crap over the years. I think their legacy would have been stronger if they closed up shop decades ago.

Did you ever respond to that one?

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I just looked through this whole thing and no where did you respond to it! Come on man, I got my popcorn!

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
mickscarey

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
mickscarey, why do you always spell The Beatles wrong?

Huh? Does it even matter?

i just want to understand you a little better.

Quote
treaclefingers
Not that it matters in the slightest, however, we're comparing apples to oranges.

The Beatles are the better pop band.

The Rolling Stones are the better rock band...and better Country, Blues, Disco, Punk and LIVE band.

but who the hell cares.

Quote
Happy24
The first post clearly suggests that there is a "battle" (I can not emphasize enough how pathetic I find that). So far The Beatles have been "winning." But the Stones will finally "win" in 2012.

Why? Because they managed to last that long? Because they will surely record an album that will be so much better than anything that they and The Beatles have done...? Exile, Fingers, Let It Bleed clearly have not been enough according to the original poster...

I don't think I need to write more. Why do I write it anyway?

Quote
mickscarey
What battle. There is no battle. NO CONTEST. The Stones were/are always superior.

Quote
filstan
This is just silly nonsense. The respective musicians are older middle age/ sort of senior citizens. They don't care. Why should we? The past is history. Let it rest, and just enjoy the music for what it is worth.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
thewatchman
If the Rolling Stones can somehow dig down deep and produce one last great album, achieve 50 years, and go out with at least one last great live performance, (maybe even a tour) the media and rock historians will have no alternative but to declare the Stones the greatest of all time.

It seems as though you don't really have much faith in your beloved Stones. If they were the greatest then why would they need to "dig down deep"? Wouldn't producing something great one last time be easy for them?

Also, just because the Stones have been around for 50 years and The Beatles haven't doesn't make them better or make them "surge past The Beatles". Quality over quantity. The Stones certainly have done a lot of crap over the years. I think their legacy would have been stronger if they closed up shop decades ago.

I have all the faith in the world in my beloved Stones. Ever hear of a fella by the name of Muhammad Ali? Had to dig down deep quite often during the second part of his career to pull out victories. It was those victories, (where he was truly tested) that showed his true greatness. Yes, as you get older things quite often don't come as easy for you as they once did. You may not be as good as you once were, but sometimes, you can be as good once as you ever were. Or something like that.

This idea that the Stones have produced a lot of crap over the years is bullshit. Whatever they have done in the way of albums ranges anywhere from good to great. And their live performances range anywhere from excellent to fantastic, to incredible. Not saying they didn't have an off night here and there over a half century but for the vast majority of times they have always delivered spectacular live performances. Also, not saying they haven't had a few "dud songs" over 50 years, but to say they have produced a lot of crap is ridiculous. As much as I love the Beatles I would take the Stones top 100 songs over the Beatles top 100 any day of the week. They are just way more powerful, in my opinion.

The Stones legacy must include their incredible live performances captured on DVD. We just received another "classic" performance within the last month. There will be many more to come. As much as I love the Beatles the Stones are right there with them. It's like any close football game that is settled in the final minute or overtime. Somebody makes one last great play to win the game. When you consider the Stones high level of performance and for how long they have maintained that high level of performance you have to at some point give them the nod especially over a band that went dead in the water over 40 years ago. The Stones are not finished yet. One last great album and great live performance along with achieving 50 years gives gives them the nod over the Beatles in my opinion. Of course it isn't meant to be taken too seriously, after all, it's only rock 'n roll.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
thewatchman
If the Rolling Stones can somehow dig down deep and produce one last great album, achieve 50 years, and go out with at least one last great live performance, (maybe even a tour) the media and rock historians will have no alternative but to declare the Stones the greatest of all time.

It seems as though you don't really have much faith in your beloved Stones. If they were the greatest then why would they need to "dig down deep"? Wouldn't producing something great one last time be easy for them?

Also, just because the Stones have been around for 50 years and The Beatles haven't doesn't make them better or make them "surge past The Beatles". Quality over quantity. The Stones certainly have done a lot of crap over the years. I think their legacy would have been stronger if they closed up shop decades ago.

I have all the faith in the world in my beloved Stones. Ever hear of a fella by the name of Muhammad Ali? Had to dig down deep quite often during the second part of his career to pull out victories. It was those victories, (where he was truly tested) that showed his true greatness. Yes, as you get older things quite often don't come as easy for you as they once did. You may not be as good as you once were, but sometimes, you can be as good once as you ever were. Or something like that.

This idea that the Stones have produced a lot of crap over the years is bullshit. Whatever they have done in the way of albums ranges anywhere from good to great. And their live performances range anywhere from excellent to fantastic, to incredible. Not saying they didn't have an off night here and there over a half century but for the vast majority of times they have always delivered spectacular live performances. Also, not saying they haven't had a few "dud songs" over 50 years, but to say they have produced a lot of crap is ridiculous. As much as I love the Beatles I would take the Stones top 100 songs over the Beatles top 100 any day of the week. They are just way more powerful, in my opinion.

The Stones legacy must include their incredible live performances captured on DVD. We just received another "classic" performance within the last month. There will be many more to come. As much as I love the Beatles the Stones are right there with them. It's like any close football game that is settled in the final minute or overtime. Somebody makes one last great play to win the game. When you consider the Stones high level of performance and for how long they have maintained that high level of performance you have to at some point give them the nod especially over a band that went dead in the water over 40 years ago. The Stones are not finished yet. One last great album and great live performance along with achieving 50 years gives gives them the nod over the Beatles in my opinion. Of course it isn't meant to be taken too seriously, after all, it's only rock 'n roll.

This pretty much sums it up.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
mickscarey
What battle. There is no battle. NO CONTEST. The Stones were/are always superior.

You are wrong Mickscarey! There is indeed a battle! It's a battle for the hearts and minds of music fans all over the world.

Quote
mickscarey

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
mickscarey
What battle. There is no battle. NO CONTEST. The Stones were/are always superior.

You are wrong Mickscarey! There is indeed a battle! It's a battle for the hearts and minds of music fans all over the world.

yOU ARE INCORRECT.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
thewatchman
If the Rolling Stones can somehow dig down deep and produce one last great album, achieve 50 years, and go out with at least one last great live performance, (maybe even a tour) the media and rock historians will have no alternative but to declare the Stones the greatest of all time.

It seems as though you don't really have much faith in your beloved Stones. If they were the greatest then why would they need to "dig down deep"? Wouldn't producing something great one last time be easy for them?

Also, just because the Stones have been around for 50 years and The Beatles haven't doesn't make them better or make them "surge past The Beatles". Quality over quantity. The Stones certainly have done a lot of crap over the years. I think their legacy would have been stronger if they closed up shop decades ago.

I have all the faith in the world in my beloved Stones. Ever hear of a fella by the name of Muhammad Ali? Had to dig down deep quite often during the second part of his career to pull out victories. It was those victories, (where he was truly tested) that showed his true greatness. Yes, as you get older things quite often don't come as easy for you as they once did. You may not be as good as you once were, but sometimes, you can be as good once as you ever were. Or something like that.

This idea that the Stones have produced a lot of crap over the years is bullshit. Whatever they have done in the way of albums ranges anywhere from good to great. And their live performances range anywhere from excellent to fantastic, to incredible. Not saying they didn't have an off night here and there over a half century but for the vast majority of times they have always delivered spectacular live performances. Also, not saying they haven't had a few "dud songs" over 50 years, but to say they have produced a lot of crap is ridiculous. As much as I love the Beatles I would take the Stones top 100 songs over the Beatles top 100 any day of the week. They are just way more powerful, in my opinion.

The Stones legacy must include their incredible live performances captured on DVD. We just received another "classic" performance within the last month. There will be many more to come. As much as I love the Beatles the Stones are right there with them. It's like any close football game that is settled in the final minute or overtime. Somebody makes one last great play to win the game. When you consider the Stones high level of performance and for how long they have maintained that high level of performance you have to at some point give them the nod especially over a band that went dead in the water over 40 years ago. The Stones are not finished yet. One last great album and great live performance along with achieving 50 years gives gives them the nod over the Beatles in my opinion. Of course it isn't meant to be taken too seriously, after all, it's only rock 'n roll.

This pretty much sums it up.

Actually, this pretty much sums it up....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
thewatchman
If the Rolling Stones can somehow dig down deep and produce one last great album, achieve 50 years, and go out with at least one last great live performance, (maybe even a tour) the media and rock historians will have no alternative but to declare the Stones the greatest of all time.

It seems as though you don't really have much faith in your beloved Stones. If they were the greatest then why would they need to "dig down deep"? Wouldn't producing something great one last time be easy for them?

Also, just because the Stones have been around for 50 years and The Beatles haven't doesn't make them better or make them "surge past The Beatles". Quality over quantity. The Stones certainly have done a lot of crap over the years. I think their legacy would have been stronger if they closed up shop decades ago.

I have all the faith in the world in my beloved Stones. Ever hear of a fella by the name of Muhammad Ali? Had to dig down deep quite often during the second part of his career to pull out victories. It was those victories, (where he was truly tested) that showed his true greatness. Yes, as you get older things quite often don't come as easy for you as they once did. You may not be as good as you once were, but sometimes, you can be as good once as you ever were. Or something like that.

This idea that the Stones have produced a lot of crap over the years is bullshit. Whatever they have done in the way of albums ranges anywhere from good to great. And their live performances range anywhere from excellent to fantastic, to incredible. Not saying they didn't have an off night here and there over a half century but for the vast majority of times they have always delivered spectacular live performances. Also, not saying they haven't had a few "dud songs" over 50 years, but to say they have produced a lot of crap is ridiculous. As much as I love the Beatles I would take the Stones top 100 songs over the Beatles top 100 any day of the week. They are just way more powerful, in my opinion.

The Stones legacy must include their incredible live performances captured on DVD. We just received another "classic" performance within the last month. There will be many more to come. As much as I love the Beatles the Stones are right there with them. It's like any close football game that is settled in the final minute or overtime. Somebody makes one last great play to win the game. When you consider the Stones high level of performance and for how long they have maintained that high level of performance you have to at some point give them the nod especially over a band that went dead in the water over 40 years ago. The Stones are not finished yet. One last great album and great live performance along with achieving 50 years gives gives them the nod over the Beatles in my opinion. Of course it isn't meant to be taken too seriously, after all, it's only rock 'n roll.

This pretty much sums it up.

Actually, this pretty much sums it up....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What? An epic battle for greatest rock 'n roll band of all time doesn't get the blood pumping? Especially when your favorite band is in the running? Come on, man, are you kidding me?

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
thewatchman
If the Rolling Stones can somehow dig down deep and produce one last great album, achieve 50 years, and go out with at least one last great live performance, (maybe even a tour) the media and rock historians will have no alternative but to declare the Stones the greatest of all time.

It seems as though you don't really have much faith in your beloved Stones. If they were the greatest then why would they need to "dig down deep"? Wouldn't producing something great one last time be easy for them?

Also, just because the Stones have been around for 50 years and The Beatles haven't doesn't make them better or make them "surge past The Beatles". Quality over quantity. The Stones certainly have done a lot of crap over the years. I think their legacy would have been stronger if they closed up shop decades ago.

I have all the faith in the world in my beloved Stones. Ever hear of a fella by the name of Muhammad Ali? Had to dig down deep quite often during the second part of his career to pull out victories. It was those victories, (where he was truly tested) that showed his true greatness. Yes, as you get older things quite often don't come as easy for you as they once did. You may not be as good as you once were, but sometimes, you can be as good once as you ever were. Or something like that.

This idea that the Stones have produced a lot of crap over the years is bullshit. Whatever they have done in the way of albums ranges anywhere from good to great. And their live performances range anywhere from excellent to fantastic, to incredible. Not saying they didn't have an off night here and there over a half century but for the vast majority of times they have always delivered spectacular live performances. Also, not saying they haven't had a few "dud songs" over 50 years, but to say they have produced a lot of crap is ridiculous. As much as I love the Beatles I would take the Stones top 100 songs over the Beatles top 100 any day of the week. They are just way more powerful, in my opinion.

The Stones legacy must include their incredible live performances captured on DVD. We just received another "classic" performance within the last month. There will be many more to come. As much as I love the Beatles the Stones are right there with them. It's like any close football game that is settled in the final minute or overtime. Somebody makes one last great play to win the game. When you consider the Stones high level of performance and for how long they have maintained that high level of performance you have to at some point give them the nod especially over a band that went dead in the water over 40 years ago. The Stones are not finished yet. One last great album and great live performance along with achieving 50 years gives gives them the nod over the Beatles in my opinion. Of course it isn't meant to be taken too seriously, after all, it's only rock 'n roll.

Quote
RSbestbandever

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
thewatchman
If the Rolling Stones can somehow dig down deep and produce one last great album, achieve 50 years, and go out with at least one last great live performance, (maybe even a tour) the media and rock historians will have no alternative but to declare the Stones the greatest of all time.

It seems as though you don't really have much faith in your beloved Stones. If they were the greatest then why would they need to "dig down deep"? Wouldn't producing something great one last time be easy for them?

Also, just because the Stones have been around for 50 years and The Beatles haven't doesn't make them better or make them "surge past The Beatles". Quality over quantity. The Stones certainly have done a lot of crap over the years. I think their legacy would have been stronger if they closed up shop decades ago.

I have all the faith in the world in my beloved Stones. Ever hear of a fella by the name of Muhammad Ali? Had to dig down deep quite often during the second part of his career to pull out victories. It was those victories, (where he was truly tested) that showed his true greatness. Yes, as you get older things quite often don't come as easy for you as they once did. You may not be as good as you once were, but sometimes, you can be as good once as you ever were. Or something like that.

This idea that the Stones have produced a lot of crap over the years is bullshit. Whatever they have done in the way of albums ranges anywhere from good to great. And their live performances range anywhere from excellent to fantastic, to incredible. Not saying they didn't have an off night here and there over a half century but for the vast majority of times they have always delivered spectacular live performances. Also, not saying they haven't had a few "dud songs" over 50 years, but to say they have produced a lot of crap is ridiculous. As much as I love the Beatles I would take the Stones top 100 songs over the Beatles top 100 any day of the week. They are just way more powerful, in my opinion.

The Stones legacy must include their incredible live performances captured on DVD. We just received another "classic" performance within the last month. There will be many more to come. As much as I love the Beatles the Stones are right there with them. It's like any close football game that is settled in the final minute or overtime. Somebody makes one last great play to win the game. When you consider the Stones high level of performance and for how long they have maintained that high level of performance you have to at some point give them the nod especially over a band that went dead in the water over 40 years ago. The Stones are not finished yet. One last great album and great live performance along with achieving 50 years gives gives them the nod over the Beatles in my opinion. Of course it isn't meant to be taken too seriously, after all, it's only rock 'n roll.

Well written and well said.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
mickscarey
What battle. There is no battle. NO CONTEST. The Stones were/are always superior.

You are wrong Mickscarey! There is indeed a battle! It's a battle for the hearts and minds of music fans all over the world.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
thewatchman
If the Rolling Stones can somehow dig down deep and produce one last great album, achieve 50 years, and go out with at least one last great live performance, (maybe even a tour) the media and rock historians will have no alternative but to declare the Stones the greatest of all time.

It seems as though you don't really have much faith in your beloved Stones. If they were the greatest then why would they need to "dig down deep"? Wouldn't producing something great one last time be easy for them?

Also, just because the Stones have been around for 50 years and The Beatles haven't doesn't make them better or make them "surge past The Beatles". Quality over quantity. The Stones certainly have done a lot of crap over the years. I think their legacy would have been stronger if they closed up shop decades ago.

I have all the faith in the world in my beloved Stones. Ever hear of a fella by the name of Muhammad Ali? Had to dig down deep quite often during the second part of his career to pull out victories. It was those victories, (where he was truly tested) that showed his true greatness. Yes, as you get older things quite often don't come as easy for you as they once did. You may not be as good as you once were, but sometimes, you can be as good once as you ever were. Or something like that.

This idea that the Stones have produced a lot of crap over the years is bullshit. Whatever they have done in the way of albums ranges anywhere from good to great. And their live performances range anywhere from excellent to fantastic, to incredible. Not saying they didn't have an off night here and there over a half century but for the vast majority of times they have always delivered spectacular live performances. Also, not saying they haven't had a few "dud songs" over 50 years, but to say they have produced a lot of crap is ridiculous. As much as I love the Beatles I would take the Stones top 100 songs over the Beatles top 100 any day of the week. They are just way more powerful, in my opinion.

The Stones legacy must include their incredible live performances captured on DVD. We just received another "classic" performance within the last month. There will be many more to come. As much as I love the Beatles the Stones are right there with them. It's like any close football game that is settled in the final minute or overtime. Somebody makes one last great play to win the game. When you consider the Stones high level of performance and for how long they have maintained that high level of performance you have to at some point give them the nod especially over a band that went dead in the water over 40 years ago. The Stones are not finished yet. One last great album and great live performance along with achieving 50 years gives gives them the nod over the Beatles in my opinion. Of course it isn't meant to be taken too seriously, after all, it's only rock 'n roll.

This pretty much sums it up.

Actually, this pretty much sums it up....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What? An epic battle for greatest rock 'n roll band of all time doesn't get the blood pumping? Especially when your favorite band is in the running? Come on, man, are you kidding me?

Quote
MileHigh
Is there a Beatles pinball machine? Huh?? lol

Quote
thewatchman
If you think there isn't a battle for the title (albeit mythical) of greatest rock 'n roll band of all time then you are living in some idealistic dreamland. If you think there is no competition between fans of the Beatles and Stones for that title then you probably believe that males will stop warring against one another and there will be peace on earth someday. Never happen!

I am not a Beatles basher. In fact, I love the Beatles and considered them my favorite band for decades. About nine years ago I witnessed the Rolling Stones on HBO and decided that they had had least drawn even with the Beatles for the mythical title of greatest rock 'n roll band of all time.

It is time for rock historians and the media to acknowledge the overall achievements (body of work) by the Rolling Stones. Fortunately, that is beginning to happen. The media has been "all over" the historic 50th anniversary next summer. Even the Stones themselves have acknowledged how important next year is.

If the Rolling Stones can somehow dig down deep and produce one last great album, achieve 50 years, and go out with at least one last great live performance, (maybe even a tour) the media and rock historians will have no alternative but to declare the Stones the greatest of all time. I mean, the Beatles went dead in the water over 40 years ago! Time to give the Stones their due!

Quote
treaclefingers
Not that it matters in the slightest, however, we're comparing apples to oranges.

The Beatles are the better pop band.

The Rolling Stones are the better rock band...and better Country, Blues, Disco, Punk and LIVE band.

but who the hell cares.