Tell Me :
Talk
Ok fair point on the king - pills and peanut butter ....but jelly ?...
"elvis said to the guy...ill never forget it....quit getting me jelly and ill bust you up..."
hahaha, amazing.
Wow! Wow! First let me say, I love both the Beatles and the Stones.
But this hits home because when the above mentioned song was played on the radio, I use to make comments like "the Stones thank god don't have any songs this boring" I use to call it the long and winding song, it was the one Beatle song I could never listen to because, for me, it just didn't go any where and I couldn't make it to the end.
It wasn't until I got older, losing my hair, many years from then, when I started appreciating TLAWR.
Absolutely!
Some other bands claim to be as well:
HMN
And here; all the Norwegians trying to make a dig at me due to the temperature up here
Funny!
You shouldn't take it so personally. You just happened to be here, that's all
Yeah, keep on weeping to My Girl or As Tears Go By instead, Carlos. What terrible ballads Rolling Stones did in the 60s, before Love In Vain, Did the band have no selfrespect?
True, Justin
And anybody taking this thread too serious is obviously in lack of some humour-genes
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 13:37 by Erik_Snow.
Not to mention Tell Me or Lady Jane. Terrible stuff.
not getting enough attention in your life?
The Stones have lots of amazing ballads.... Wild Horses, Angie, Fool to Cry, Memory Motel, All About You, etc etc... what is a big crap is the beatles music, sorry...it is music for kids. I am sorry, but the beatles were a crap. And the stones aren´t a ballad band. The beatles never wrote rock and roll like JJF, BS, IORR, SFM, SFTD, GS, and etc etc etc. the beatles wrote just a couple of crap of love songs.
But, one more time...it is impossible lost time with this kind of discussion. we are in 2012, man.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 17:19 by carlostones10.
Better at writing songs, you mean? I can agree with that.
However, the Stones's rock and blues-songs are far superior, imo, and the rawness and dangerous vibe that the Stones create is at least 2000 Light Years above the Beatles's efforts.
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
But I do. So this thread is a wonder....
Nailed what? You haven't even been here
Sun is up 20 hours a day here. Way brighter days than what you suckers down south has the cope with. So much for your nailings
Keep on raising toasts to yourself, Per Arne and "walking the dog"s great heads. You got yourself nailed for sure - nailed in your private parts
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 15:55 by Erik_Snow.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
DoughboyUK
()
Date: August 25, 2012 02:53
Quote
Rockman
they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s
..And
...Hank with a lil booze and pain-killers
...Elvis pills ... peanut butter and jelly
....Zimmerman ..Woody...Charlie Chaplin and alotta smoke
.....Beach Boys sand.. substances.. Duece coupes and Spector
.......Beatles musta copped a ton of LSD confidence for the Sgt
Ok fair point on the king - pills and peanut butter ....but jelly ?...
"elvis said to the guy...ill never forget it....quit getting me jelly and ill bust you up..."
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
carlostones10
()
Date: August 25, 2012 02:56
Quote
JJackFl
hahaha, amazing.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: August 25, 2012 03:01
The title says it all in this Montreal Gazette article, scroll down for highlighted section on Beatles vs. Stones.
Rolling Stones 101: random thoughts and suggested readings for the golden anniversary
Pussy Riot’s imprisonment for being critical of their country’s leader has thrown pretty much the whole history of rock’n’roll “rebellion” into a new light. Suddenly all the supposedly citadel-storming activities of earlier generations look like small potatoes indeed, and their punishments, when they’ve existed at all, amount to precious little in comparison. Radio station bans? Slaps on the wrist for drug offenses? A night or two in jail here and there? Big deal. Pussy Riot are going to a prison camp for two years.
These thoughts are occasioned partly by the knowledge that summer 2012 marks the 50th anniversary of the Rolling Stones as a working band.* No one has accrued more credibility through a putative rebel stance than have the Stones, and even if that reputation has been little more than cosmetic for decades now, and was likely more than a little bogus in the first place, its aura persists. In the flattened time-line world engendered by modern technology, the early Stones feel oddly contemporary and are often held up as the acme of oppositional cool by artists whose parents weren’t even born yet in 1962. While it would be nice to see the Stones express a little more generosity toward their progeny–Keith Richards is famously crotchety on the subject of new music generally, and unless I’ve missed it the Stones are not among the artists to have spoken up in Pussy Riot’s defense–there is simply no gainsaying the 1962-1972 Rolling Stones. I’ve got a special fondness for the Brian Jones-era lineup: the clothes and general visual aesthetic are firmly back in fashion**; the low-fi approach to recording, in fact a happy accident forced by period limitations and by Andrew Loog Oldham’s general cluelessness in the studio, is now a fetishised ideal, with bands like The Black Keys making pilgrimages to studios like Muscle Shoals in hopes of tapping into some of that old magic; Jones’ knack for elevating a song with an exotic and counterintuitive addition to the arrangement–the marimba on “Under My Thumb”, the harpsichord on “Lady Jane” and “I Am Waiting”, the recorder on “Ruby Tuesday”, the sitar on “Paint It Black” and “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”–was uncanny.***
In David Remnick’s stellar piece on Bruce Springsteen in the July 30 edition of the New Yorker, the writer stresses the ongoing vitality of Springsteen’s career by contrasting it with that of the Stones, who “have not written a great song since the disco era and come together only to pad their fortunes as their own cover band.” “Ouch,” I thought, “that’s a bit harsh.” Then I thought some more and was forced to concede that not only could I not name a great Stones song less than thirty years old, I could name only one or two songs, period, from any album newer (newer!) than Tattoo You.**** So I can’t really dispute Remnick’s claim. But I still don’t like the practice of bolstering one artist’s stature by tearing down another’s. I think we can all agree that both the Rolling Stones and Bruce Springsteen have, on aggregate, added to the sum of human happiness. Certainly at various times in my life they have both meant a lot to me, though now, it must be admitted, the (early) Stones far outstrip Bruce on my iTunes play count. But then, Kraftwerk far outstrip the Stones. And Kurt Vile and Burial far outstrip Kraftwerk. It’s a funny old world.*****
So, then, without further ado, this being ostensibly a books-related blog after all, it’s time for a personally slanted and by no means complete recommendation of some Stones-related reading. I’ll refrain from re-singing the praises of Keith Richards’ Life (a mini-backlash against which seems to be forming, but is easily ignored). You all know that one anyway. For my money the best Stones book–maybe the best rock book, period–is Stanley Booth’s newly reissued The True Adventures of The Rolling Stones, an inside view of the 1969 American tour that culminated in the disastrous (though arguably beneficial for the band’s long-term mystique) free concert at Altamont. That the book wasn’t published until 1984 tells its own tale: Booth got sucked into the maw of the Stones lifestyle and, without the support system enjoyed by the band, took a long time to recover. As he has proven several times since (see his brilliant Rythm Oil: A Journey Through the Music of the American South) Booth is a real writer, and he approaches his Stones assignment with just the right mix of fandom and take-it-or-leave-it cool. It probably helped that, as an American southerner, he embodied the culture that the band were obsessed with at the time; they granted him the kind of access that would be unimaginable in an equivalent case today. The ideal visual complement to Booth’s book is Ethan A. Russell’s Let It Bleed: The Rolling Stones, Altamont and The End of The Sixties. Along with Booth, Russell was one of the party of sixteen–sixteen wouldn’t even cover Lady Gaga’s wardrobe needs today–who accompanied the band everywhere on that tour. If you ever needed further proof, here is an iron-clad case that the peak-period Stones were the most photogenic band ever, and without really trying–or rather, probably because they weren’t trying. As for all the pompous talk of Altamont representing The End of The Sixties, Mick Taylor gets the last word: “Well, it was the end of the sixties. It was December 1969.”
Finally, three fantastically absorbing titles that aren’t aren’t strictly Stones tomes but wouldn’t exist without the connection are Andrew Loog Oldham’s two-part memoir, Stoned and 2Stoned, and Marianne Faithfull’s Faithfull: An Autobiography. Both are by people crucial to the Stones narrative: Oldham was the manager/producer/svengali who arguably created the band’s bad boy image and goaded Mick and Keith into becoming songwriters at a time when they were content to do blues covers, while Faithfull was Jagger’s muse at a pivotal point in his artistic development and a vital conduit between the band and the upper classes. In a pattern that repeats itself throughout the Stones’ early years, both came away from their time with the band bearing serious addictions, but happily both ultimately came through, and are great raconteurs to boot.
*It also marks the golden anniversary of Ringo Starr’s joining the Beatles. We can be sure that in the coming years the golden birthdays of each group’s signature records will be marked too, one by one, as they come up. So if you’re not into such things, you might want to consider a personal media boycott from now until, say, 2021. And it won’t only be the Beatles and the Stones. Personally I’ll be raising a glass on the day in 2014 when the Zombies’ “She’s Not There” turns fifty.
**A discreet veil is best drawn over many of the band’s sartorial decisions in subsequent decades: Mick Jagger’s Jerry Lewis/golfer look of the late ‘70s, Keith’s Halloween pirate getup of recent years, and probably most painful of all, the early-80s wearing of football pants and other workout-related gear, in bright primary colours sometimes accessorized by kneepads and shoulder pads. What were they thinking?
***A good juncture, perhaps, to vent on the old Beatles vs Stones shibboleth, that tired old claim that you have to choose one or the other. In short, I call b.s. on that school of thought. It’s ridiculous, it’s reductive, it’s anti-life. It’s like saying you can’t like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. And it ignores something that seems self-evident in retrospect, which is that the two greatest bands ever were at their best when they were most like each other, when the Stones were edging toward the Beatles’ pop song-craft and studio experimentation (with a strong element of The Kinks thrown in on the cruelly underrated Between The Buttons and Pink Floyd on Their Satanic Majesties Request), and the Beatles, on songs like “Get Back”, “Come Together”, “Don’t Let Me Down”, and “Old Brown Shoe”, were finding country-funk grooves every bit as slinky and deep as what the Stones were mining on Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed.
****And I bought those albums when they were new, and listened to them at least…oh, two or three times each.
*****All too often, I’ve been finding, my thoughts on the Rolling Stones take the form of a list of “lasts”: last great album (Exile on Main Street), last very good album (Tattoo You), last canon-worthy song (“One Hit (To The Body)”, from the otherwise negligible Dirty Work), last great song still awaiting wider discovery (“Winter” from Goats Head Soup), etc.
Rolling Stones 101: random thoughts and suggested readings for the golden anniversary
Pussy Riot’s imprisonment for being critical of their country’s leader has thrown pretty much the whole history of rock’n’roll “rebellion” into a new light. Suddenly all the supposedly citadel-storming activities of earlier generations look like small potatoes indeed, and their punishments, when they’ve existed at all, amount to precious little in comparison. Radio station bans? Slaps on the wrist for drug offenses? A night or two in jail here and there? Big deal. Pussy Riot are going to a prison camp for two years.
These thoughts are occasioned partly by the knowledge that summer 2012 marks the 50th anniversary of the Rolling Stones as a working band.* No one has accrued more credibility through a putative rebel stance than have the Stones, and even if that reputation has been little more than cosmetic for decades now, and was likely more than a little bogus in the first place, its aura persists. In the flattened time-line world engendered by modern technology, the early Stones feel oddly contemporary and are often held up as the acme of oppositional cool by artists whose parents weren’t even born yet in 1962. While it would be nice to see the Stones express a little more generosity toward their progeny–Keith Richards is famously crotchety on the subject of new music generally, and unless I’ve missed it the Stones are not among the artists to have spoken up in Pussy Riot’s defense–there is simply no gainsaying the 1962-1972 Rolling Stones. I’ve got a special fondness for the Brian Jones-era lineup: the clothes and general visual aesthetic are firmly back in fashion**; the low-fi approach to recording, in fact a happy accident forced by period limitations and by Andrew Loog Oldham’s general cluelessness in the studio, is now a fetishised ideal, with bands like The Black Keys making pilgrimages to studios like Muscle Shoals in hopes of tapping into some of that old magic; Jones’ knack for elevating a song with an exotic and counterintuitive addition to the arrangement–the marimba on “Under My Thumb”, the harpsichord on “Lady Jane” and “I Am Waiting”, the recorder on “Ruby Tuesday”, the sitar on “Paint It Black” and “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”–was uncanny.***
In David Remnick’s stellar piece on Bruce Springsteen in the July 30 edition of the New Yorker, the writer stresses the ongoing vitality of Springsteen’s career by contrasting it with that of the Stones, who “have not written a great song since the disco era and come together only to pad their fortunes as their own cover band.” “Ouch,” I thought, “that’s a bit harsh.” Then I thought some more and was forced to concede that not only could I not name a great Stones song less than thirty years old, I could name only one or two songs, period, from any album newer (newer!) than Tattoo You.**** So I can’t really dispute Remnick’s claim. But I still don’t like the practice of bolstering one artist’s stature by tearing down another’s. I think we can all agree that both the Rolling Stones and Bruce Springsteen have, on aggregate, added to the sum of human happiness. Certainly at various times in my life they have both meant a lot to me, though now, it must be admitted, the (early) Stones far outstrip Bruce on my iTunes play count. But then, Kraftwerk far outstrip the Stones. And Kurt Vile and Burial far outstrip Kraftwerk. It’s a funny old world.*****
So, then, without further ado, this being ostensibly a books-related blog after all, it’s time for a personally slanted and by no means complete recommendation of some Stones-related reading. I’ll refrain from re-singing the praises of Keith Richards’ Life (a mini-backlash against which seems to be forming, but is easily ignored). You all know that one anyway. For my money the best Stones book–maybe the best rock book, period–is Stanley Booth’s newly reissued The True Adventures of The Rolling Stones, an inside view of the 1969 American tour that culminated in the disastrous (though arguably beneficial for the band’s long-term mystique) free concert at Altamont. That the book wasn’t published until 1984 tells its own tale: Booth got sucked into the maw of the Stones lifestyle and, without the support system enjoyed by the band, took a long time to recover. As he has proven several times since (see his brilliant Rythm Oil: A Journey Through the Music of the American South) Booth is a real writer, and he approaches his Stones assignment with just the right mix of fandom and take-it-or-leave-it cool. It probably helped that, as an American southerner, he embodied the culture that the band were obsessed with at the time; they granted him the kind of access that would be unimaginable in an equivalent case today. The ideal visual complement to Booth’s book is Ethan A. Russell’s Let It Bleed: The Rolling Stones, Altamont and The End of The Sixties. Along with Booth, Russell was one of the party of sixteen–sixteen wouldn’t even cover Lady Gaga’s wardrobe needs today–who accompanied the band everywhere on that tour. If you ever needed further proof, here is an iron-clad case that the peak-period Stones were the most photogenic band ever, and without really trying–or rather, probably because they weren’t trying. As for all the pompous talk of Altamont representing The End of The Sixties, Mick Taylor gets the last word: “Well, it was the end of the sixties. It was December 1969.”
Finally, three fantastically absorbing titles that aren’t aren’t strictly Stones tomes but wouldn’t exist without the connection are Andrew Loog Oldham’s two-part memoir, Stoned and 2Stoned, and Marianne Faithfull’s Faithfull: An Autobiography. Both are by people crucial to the Stones narrative: Oldham was the manager/producer/svengali who arguably created the band’s bad boy image and goaded Mick and Keith into becoming songwriters at a time when they were content to do blues covers, while Faithfull was Jagger’s muse at a pivotal point in his artistic development and a vital conduit between the band and the upper classes. In a pattern that repeats itself throughout the Stones’ early years, both came away from their time with the band bearing serious addictions, but happily both ultimately came through, and are great raconteurs to boot.
*It also marks the golden anniversary of Ringo Starr’s joining the Beatles. We can be sure that in the coming years the golden birthdays of each group’s signature records will be marked too, one by one, as they come up. So if you’re not into such things, you might want to consider a personal media boycott from now until, say, 2021. And it won’t only be the Beatles and the Stones. Personally I’ll be raising a glass on the day in 2014 when the Zombies’ “She’s Not There” turns fifty.
**A discreet veil is best drawn over many of the band’s sartorial decisions in subsequent decades: Mick Jagger’s Jerry Lewis/golfer look of the late ‘70s, Keith’s Halloween pirate getup of recent years, and probably most painful of all, the early-80s wearing of football pants and other workout-related gear, in bright primary colours sometimes accessorized by kneepads and shoulder pads. What were they thinking?
***A good juncture, perhaps, to vent on the old Beatles vs Stones shibboleth, that tired old claim that you have to choose one or the other. In short, I call b.s. on that school of thought. It’s ridiculous, it’s reductive, it’s anti-life. It’s like saying you can’t like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. And it ignores something that seems self-evident in retrospect, which is that the two greatest bands ever were at their best when they were most like each other, when the Stones were edging toward the Beatles’ pop song-craft and studio experimentation (with a strong element of The Kinks thrown in on the cruelly underrated Between The Buttons and Pink Floyd on Their Satanic Majesties Request), and the Beatles, on songs like “Get Back”, “Come Together”, “Don’t Let Me Down”, and “Old Brown Shoe”, were finding country-funk grooves every bit as slinky and deep as what the Stones were mining on Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed.
****And I bought those albums when they were new, and listened to them at least…oh, two or three times each.
*****All too often, I’ve been finding, my thoughts on the Rolling Stones take the form of a list of “lasts”: last great album (Exile on Main Street), last very good album (Tattoo You), last canon-worthy song (“One Hit (To The Body)”, from the otherwise negligible Dirty Work), last great song still awaiting wider discovery (“Winter” from Goats Head Soup), etc.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: August 25, 2012 03:10
--
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 03:12 by ryanpow.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 03:12 by ryanpow.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 25, 2012 04:32
I think 1969 Stones measure up pretty darn well to 1969 Beatles...2005 Stones on the other hand, not so much.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: August 25, 2012 05:04
the kinks, stones and the who are better than the beatles
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: August 25, 2012 05:17
The Beatles were a pop band for the masses...Stones never aspired to that in those early years. Guess they'd never heard of "stadiums" then.
"Long and Winding Road"...you're so right Erik
Rockman, you are on a roll! Keith and Yoko...that is a really scary thought!
"Long and Winding Road"...you're so right Erik
Rockman, you are on a roll! Keith and Yoko...that is a really scary thought!
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: August 25, 2012 05:46
Quote
Erik_Snow
could RS write something like The Long And Winding Road? Nope!
Wow! Wow! First let me say, I love both the Beatles and the Stones.
But this hits home because when the above mentioned song was played on the radio, I use to make comments like "the Stones thank god don't have any songs this boring" I use to call it the long and winding song, it was the one Beatle song I could never listen to because, for me, it just didn't go any where and I couldn't make it to the end.
It wasn't until I got older, losing my hair, many years from then, when I started appreciating TLAWR.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: August 25, 2012 06:30
The Beatles were The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, well, after all these years and releases, some how they are still The Rolling Stones. Who's better? I guess it just depends on a point of view. Or many of them.
In the end, neither matter in terms of "who's best".
In the end, neither matter in terms of "who's best".
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 25, 2012 07:50
Quote
MunichhiltonQuote
Come On
Yes, isn't this news, but who's better than The Doors...???
Virtually everything....my elbow...that rock...those leaves.
Gosh its endless...they were truly that bad
Yardbirds were OK once that Relf fellow left
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: August 25, 2012 08:19
Erik! Bored with your Bowie party? Stoking the fires to get a fire storm going here?
Well I love them both! Why does one have to be better than the other? They are both great with what they did. The Beatles were innovators in so many ways, and they inspired bands like The Stones to get up and get on with it. Someone posted earlier about The Beatles not being a great live band. That is ridiculous and an urban myth perpetuated by the maniacal audiences of Beatlemania. But if you sift through what's out there you get a portrait of an incredible live band. First and foremost The Beatles at the BEEB. Any of you who are fans I suggest you search on the torrent sites for the 14 CD set of their complete BEEB performances. Amazing stuff! INCREDIBLE. Then watch Anthology and check out some of the great live videos, such as them doing Long Tall Sally in Holland, You Can't Do That (AMAZING and raw version), and then there are the Hamburg days. Where they cut their teeth on raw, mouth foaming, speeded up live shows running 12 hours on some nights. They were slogging in the seedy ruins of the Red Light District before The Stones even were a thought in Brian's mind. Then there is the wonderful time capsule of the Roof Top concert where you get a glimpse what could have been if Paul's dream came to fruition and they toured clubs in 69.
The Stones and The Beatles are soul brothers who inspired each other, competed, and lived a life that very few could understand. They respected each other and were friends. And they are both incredible bands in so many ways. Why choose one over the other? Just revel in what they both offer and enjoy the hell out of it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 08:20 by whitem8.
Well I love them both! Why does one have to be better than the other? They are both great with what they did. The Beatles were innovators in so many ways, and they inspired bands like The Stones to get up and get on with it. Someone posted earlier about The Beatles not being a great live band. That is ridiculous and an urban myth perpetuated by the maniacal audiences of Beatlemania. But if you sift through what's out there you get a portrait of an incredible live band. First and foremost The Beatles at the BEEB. Any of you who are fans I suggest you search on the torrent sites for the 14 CD set of their complete BEEB performances. Amazing stuff! INCREDIBLE. Then watch Anthology and check out some of the great live videos, such as them doing Long Tall Sally in Holland, You Can't Do That (AMAZING and raw version), and then there are the Hamburg days. Where they cut their teeth on raw, mouth foaming, speeded up live shows running 12 hours on some nights. They were slogging in the seedy ruins of the Red Light District before The Stones even were a thought in Brian's mind. Then there is the wonderful time capsule of the Roof Top concert where you get a glimpse what could have been if Paul's dream came to fruition and they toured clubs in 69.
The Stones and The Beatles are soul brothers who inspired each other, competed, and lived a life that very few could understand. They respected each other and were friends. And they are both incredible bands in so many ways. Why choose one over the other? Just revel in what they both offer and enjoy the hell out of it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 08:20 by whitem8.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
No Expectations
()
Date: August 25, 2012 08:56
Quote
keefriffhard4life
the kinks, stones and the who are better than the beatles
Absolutely!
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: August 25, 2012 09:19
Quote
No ExpectationsQuote
keefriffhard4life
the kinks, stones and the who are better than the beatles
Absolutely!
Some other bands claim to be as well:
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
jpasc95
()
Date: August 25, 2012 09:31
I remember Bill Wyman saying in an interview on a French channel that he considered that the Beatles were better than the Rolling Stones in studio but on stage the Stones were better than the Beatles.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: August 25, 2012 09:37
Are oranges better than pears?
Very silly argument.
Very silly argument.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: August 25, 2012 09:43
The Beatles were better than the Rolling Stones at being The Beatles.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: August 25, 2012 09:43
HMN
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: August 25, 2012 13:12
Quote
Per-Arne
Starting to get cold up in the north, Erik?
And here; all the Norwegians trying to make a dig at me due to the temperature up here
Funny!
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: August 25, 2012 13:13
Quote
njlstones815
Piss off @#$%&!!
You shouldn't take it so personally. You just happened to be here, that's all
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: August 25, 2012 13:16
Quote
carlostones10Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
texas fan
I haven't posted here in months, but this one got me, mate.
I assume you mean studio records, and I might give you that, but only through '67. The live stuff, we shouldn't even discuss.
Also, I'm going to report you to Tod. As you know, he has strict rules about what's an opinion and what's a fact.
I'll be sending you new music soon. Check your e-mail from time to time.
Hi mate, yes of course I mean the studio releases. Beatles was a lousy live band.
BUT; could RS write something like The Long And Winding Road? Nope!
I am very happy the Stones didn´t write a crap like this song. I am really happy!
Yeah, keep on weeping to My Girl or As Tears Go By instead, Carlos. What terrible ballads Rolling Stones did in the 60s, before Love In Vain, Did the band have no selfrespect?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: August 25, 2012 13:21
Quote
Justin
The Beatles were better than the Rolling Stones at being The Beatles.
True, Justin
And anybody taking this thread too serious is obviously in lack of some humour-genes
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 13:37 by Erik_Snow.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: August 25, 2012 13:36
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
carlostones10Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
texas fan
I haven't posted here in months, but this one got me, mate.
I assume you mean studio records, and I might give you that, but only through '67. The live stuff, we shouldn't even discuss.
Also, I'm going to report you to Tod. As you know, he has strict rules about what's an opinion and what's a fact.
I'll be sending you new music soon. Check your e-mail from time to time.
Hi mate, yes of course I mean the studio releases. Beatles was a lousy live band.
BUT; could RS write something like The Long And Winding Road? Nope!
I am very happy the Stones didn´t write a crap like this song. I am really happy!
Yeah, keep on weeping to My Girl or As Tears Go By instead, Carlos. What terrible ballads Rolling Stones did in the 60s, before Love In Vain, Did the band have no selfrespect?
Not to mention Tell Me or Lady Jane. Terrible stuff.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: August 25, 2012 13:50
You nailed it ...Quote
walkingthedogQuote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s
It's getting dark in northern Norway these days and depression is already setting in.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Ket
()
Date: August 25, 2012 13:57
Quote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s
not getting enough attention in your life?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
kish_stoned
()
Date: August 25, 2012 14:30
elvis has left the building,beatles have fade away and the GREATEST ROCK-ROLL BAND ARE STILL GOING STRONG,LONG LIVE THE STONES,THEY ARE WAY OF LIFE.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
carlostones10
()
Date: August 25, 2012 14:46
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
carlostones10Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
texas fan
I haven't posted here in months, but this one got me, mate.
I assume you mean studio records, and I might give you that, but only through '67. The live stuff, we shouldn't even discuss.
Also, I'm going to report you to Tod. As you know, he has strict rules about what's an opinion and what's a fact.
I'll be sending you new music soon. Check your e-mail from time to time.
Hi mate, yes of course I mean the studio releases. Beatles was a lousy live band.
BUT; could RS write something like The Long And Winding Road? Nope!
I am very happy the Stones didn´t write a crap like this song. I am really happy!
Yeah, keep on weeping to My Girl or As Tears Go By instead, Carlos. What terrible ballads Rolling Stones did in the 60s, before Love In Vain, Did the band have no selfrespect?
Not to mention Tell Me or Lady Jane. Terrible stuff.
The Stones have lots of amazing ballads.... Wild Horses, Angie, Fool to Cry, Memory Motel, All About You, etc etc... what is a big crap is the beatles music, sorry...it is music for kids. I am sorry, but the beatles were a crap. And the stones aren´t a ballad band. The beatles never wrote rock and roll like JJF, BS, IORR, SFM, SFTD, GS, and etc etc etc. the beatles wrote just a couple of crap of love songs.
But, one more time...it is impossible lost time with this kind of discussion. we are in 2012, man.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 17:19 by carlostones10.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 25, 2012 14:49
Quote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s
Better at writing songs, you mean? I can agree with that.
However, the Stones's rock and blues-songs are far superior, imo, and the rawness and dangerous vibe that the Stones create is at least 2000 Light Years above the Beatles's efforts.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Deltics
()
Date: August 25, 2012 14:49
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: August 25, 2012 14:51
Quote
KetQuote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s
not getting enough attention in your life?
But I do. So this thread is a wonder....
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: August 25, 2012 15:31
Quote
mtaylorYou nailed it ...Quote
walkingthedogQuote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s
It's getting dark in northern Norway these days and depression is already setting in.
Nailed what? You haven't even been here
Sun is up 20 hours a day here. Way brighter days than what you suckers down south has the cope with. So much for your nailings
Keep on raising toasts to yourself, Per Arne and "walking the dog"s great heads. You got yourself nailed for sure - nailed in your private parts
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 15:55 by Erik_Snow.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1724
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10