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:
Come On
()
Date: September 4, 2012 07:49
Quote
His MajestyQuote
slew
I can live with Beatles as best recoording band ever. Live is another story.
Yeah, King Crimson were the best live band ever.
I vote for The Hives
2 1 2 0
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
tomk
()
Date: September 4, 2012 08:21
Quote
JJackFl
"What amp did you use on the White Album?"
"If you promise to go veggie, I'll tell you."
Sorry, but that picture is ripe for "Caption this..."
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: September 4, 2012 12:03
vs. 
1 - 0 to Stones
2 1 2 0
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: September 4, 2012 14:48
Quote
Come On
1 - 0 to Stones
That's a nice Beatles sleeve. Was that a first press sleeve? What country?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: September 29, 2012 14:37
In one of the recurring "Worst" threads, page 3 of that thread
[www.iorr.org]
I received the following interesting answers in THIS context, when I was referring to posts in THIS thread
Followed by
Maybe that which is neither irony or serious posts, could be playfulness? It might be to ignite tension and opposition?
But sooner or later, in case, playfulness might be put to the test. Are we to take it that your posts in this Beatles thread are neither serious or ironic, but possibly playful? To some extent or completely to the last extreme? However, exaggerated formulated views might all the same have a core of substance.
I am too much passionately preoccupied with what are serious ideas and tastes concerning the Stones,sincerely meant ideas and tastes are much more interesting to me than the art of playfulness (or what it was), to keep from asking.
[www.iorr.org]
I received the following interesting answers in THIS context, when I was referring to posts in THIS thread
Quote
WitnessQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
WitnessQuote
Erik_Snow
Tops is terrific as well. Witness, you're fired
You seem primarily to be a Beatles fan. Your verdict will backfire then!
Don't believe everything you read
I see. Not even your own words.
All your posts on
[www.iorr.org]
were not to be taken literally then. It seems that I need to learn the codes of irony
Followed by
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
Witness
It seems that I need to learn the codes of irony.
The REAL difficult thing to seperate out here on IORR are the posts that are neither irony nor serious, but something there is no word in the dictionary for yet. Like that Beatles thread. I still haven't learned those codes, but I'm trying
Maybe that which is neither irony or serious posts, could be playfulness? It might be to ignite tension and opposition?
But sooner or later, in case, playfulness might be put to the test. Are we to take it that your posts in this Beatles thread are neither serious or ironic, but possibly playful? To some extent or completely to the last extreme? However, exaggerated formulated views might all the same have a core of substance.
I am too much passionately preoccupied with what are serious ideas and tastes concerning the Stones,sincerely meant ideas and tastes are much more interesting to me than the art of playfulness (or what it was), to keep from asking.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: September 29, 2012 14:57
Well, Witness, I thought it was very obvious that a "Stones vs Beatles" thread couldn't be really taken serious by anybody, especially when the conclusion is that "one of the band being BETTER than the other".
I mean....why compare the two...and how to compare the two? Yet, these Beatles vs Stones threads pop up once a year or so. So I thought it was my turn, this time.
Sorry if you got confused. I just thought it was a funny thread, and knew the thread would get hi-jacked and stuff, which can lead to some interesting reading.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-29 14:59 by Erik_Snow.
I mean....why compare the two...and how to compare the two? Yet, these Beatles vs Stones threads pop up once a year or so. So I thought it was my turn, this time.
Sorry if you got confused. I just thought it was a funny thread, and knew the thread would get hi-jacked and stuff, which can lead to some interesting reading.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-29 14:59 by Erik_Snow.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: September 29, 2012 15:05
Then again, it's not a complete joke either. I mean that Beatles wrote some songs which melody-wise is.....how to put it...."better" than Rolling Stones songs; that they were better songwriters, if one were to judge it objective. But it's when Rolling Stones actually play their own songs that their magic touch really comes through; it has something to do with mood and attitude.
And no; I'm not much of a Beatles fan, but I dig their last 3 albums, 1968-1970
And no; I'm not much of a Beatles fan, but I dig their last 3 albums, 1968-1970
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: September 29, 2012 16:20
Highly interesting, I think!
It seems that I was not the only one, far from it, in fact, to take your supposed views on face value so to speak. My impression is that even esteemed posters did (or, maybe, they let you perform your part of a role play).
At the end of it all, I end up perhaps being one that likes them even more than you say that you do.
I have experienced a time when the Beatles did not exist. Then they arrived at the scene. And after that the Stones. In the beginning I liked the Beatles best. The Rolling Stones were at first too much for me to able to take immediately. However, it was of the Stones I was gradually to become fan, as the process over time worked on me. As to the Beatles, I «broke with them» with the release of "Yesterday". I was so much anti Paul McCartney as a musician and a song writer for such a long time that I was not able to understand how great REVOLVER was, due to John Lennon's groundbreaking psychedelic songs and George Harison's contributions, that it was first with «SERGEANT PEPPER'S» and some singles that I was able to acknowledge them again. Even then REVOLVER was an album that was rather late for me to appreciate. In later years it has for me been their greatest. However, I do like both earlier and later Beatles releases a lot.
Earlier in the thread I entered two posts, saying in one of them among other things:
All the same, I rather take my passions seriously than as fun: Rolling Stones are a passion, what the Beatles never have been. Beatles are one of life's great joys and a taste of rock and pop as arts. I started out liking the Beatles more in the past, but changed preferences. It was first after that I really became a fan of one band, something new to me,
Which is the better, I won't and cannot judge, but what is important to me is which band is most relevant on a personal level? There have been times when Joy Division / New Order have been more relevant to me as a person than the Beatles ever were, even if the Beatles are "greater" than JD/NO.
Besides, taken from that same post, I never got a response from your seeming ally during that debate on my proposal to his challenge:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-29 16:24 by Witness.
It seems that I was not the only one, far from it, in fact, to take your supposed views on face value so to speak. My impression is that even esteemed posters did (or, maybe, they let you perform your part of a role play).
At the end of it all, I end up perhaps being one that likes them even more than you say that you do.
I have experienced a time when the Beatles did not exist. Then they arrived at the scene. And after that the Stones. In the beginning I liked the Beatles best. The Rolling Stones were at first too much for me to able to take immediately. However, it was of the Stones I was gradually to become fan, as the process over time worked on me. As to the Beatles, I «broke with them» with the release of "Yesterday". I was so much anti Paul McCartney as a musician and a song writer for such a long time that I was not able to understand how great REVOLVER was, due to John Lennon's groundbreaking psychedelic songs and George Harison's contributions, that it was first with «SERGEANT PEPPER'S» and some singles that I was able to acknowledge them again. Even then REVOLVER was an album that was rather late for me to appreciate. In later years it has for me been their greatest. However, I do like both earlier and later Beatles releases a lot.
Earlier in the thread I entered two posts, saying in one of them among other things:
All the same, I rather take my passions seriously than as fun: Rolling Stones are a passion, what the Beatles never have been. Beatles are one of life's great joys and a taste of rock and pop as arts. I started out liking the Beatles more in the past, but changed preferences. It was first after that I really became a fan of one band, something new to me,
Which is the better, I won't and cannot judge, but what is important to me is which band is most relevant on a personal level? There have been times when Joy Division / New Order have been more relevant to me as a person than the Beatles ever were, even if the Beatles are "greater" than JD/NO.
Besides, taken from that same post, I never got a response from your seeming ally during that debate on my proposal to his challenge:
Quote
WitnessQuote
Come On
I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...
And if you insist, I began this post to give an answer to the question quoted, here is one candidate (not meaning to say anything other that I like and largely love the Beatles and that I like John Lennon's solo work, because I do) : One candidate though to the challenge as of 1974, judge it.
Tangerine Dream: Phaedra
[en.wikipedia.org])
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-29 16:24 by Witness.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: September 29, 2012 17:42
Quote
Witness
Earlier in the thread I entered two posts, saying in one of them among other things:
All the same, I rather take my passions seriously than as fun: Rolling Stones are a passion, what the Beatles never have been. Beatles are one of life's great joys and a taste of rock and pop as arts. I started out liking the Beatles more in the past, but changed preferences. It was first after that I really became a fan of one band, something new to me,
Which is the better, I won't and cannot judge, but what is important to me is which band is most relevant on a personal level? There have been times when Joy Division / New Order have been more relevant to me as a person than the Beatles ever were, even if the Beatles are "greater" than JD/NO.
Besides, taken from that same post, I never got a response from your seeming ally during that debate on my proposal to his challenge:
Even though I started the thread, it's not really "my thread"; everybody is free to make response, and I don't feel the need to comment on everything being written there.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-01 20:25 by Erik_Snow.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: September 29, 2012 17:52
Quote
Witness
It seems that I was not the only one, far from it, in fact, to take your supposed views on face value so to speak. My impression is that even esteemed posters did (or, maybe, they let you perform your part of a role play).
Well, yes. But I think most posters here know that I wouldn't have made 20.000. posts on IORR if it wasn't for the fact that I'm really into Rolling Stones. I like Beatles too; of course, but my interest in the Beatles is something that "comes and goes"
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 29, 2012 18:25
"The Beatles were better than Paul McCartney".
I was going to start a new thread, but thought this might fit here as well.
I was going to start a new thread, but thought this might fit here as well.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
frtg55
()
Date: September 29, 2012 19:11
Everything that was good from the Beatles is compiled on the RED and the BLUE album-Sets. Real great stuff!
But they did so much rubbish, too!
95 % of the rest were "FILLERS" on the albums and really really boring stuff!
A little bit of chasons, classic, folk, jazzy, this and that - put it all on one album - and voila - that's all you need to be loved by the critics!
Too much overrated!
But they did so much rubbish, too!
95 % of the rest were "FILLERS" on the albums and really really boring stuff!
A little bit of chasons, classic, folk, jazzy, this and that - put it all on one album - and voila - that's all you need to be loved by the critics!
Too much overrated!
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: September 29, 2012 19:13
Quote
frtg55
Too much overrated!
By who? How do you know your rating is the right one?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
frtg55
()
Date: September 29, 2012 19:34
My is not the right one.
Mine is the subjective right one!
This whole forum is about sujective things.
Beatles-fans think different.
Mine is the subjective right one!
This whole forum is about sujective things.
Beatles-fans think different.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 29, 2012 19:48
Erik_Snow, what frtg55 thinks is moot - they think Streets Of Love is better than Anybody Seen My Baby. That says a lot.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
kish_stoned
()
Date: September 29, 2012 19:55
beatles no1 & beatles for sale only got got few good tracks and yellow submarine is
joke fans are blind to beatles music they did make good music but also crap music like any other band.STONES have stood test of time and proved they are the greatest
rock-roll band no one will close to them. everyone have their views but STONES are the greatest band to me,no bands are perfect.
LONG LIVE STONES.
STONES ARE WAY OF LIFE.
joke fans are blind to beatles music they did make good music but also crap music like any other band.STONES have stood test of time and proved they are the greatest
rock-roll band no one will close to them. everyone have their views but STONES are the greatest band to me,no bands are perfect.
LONG LIVE STONES.
STONES ARE WAY OF LIFE.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
vermontoffender
()
Date: September 29, 2012 19:56
I would not pretend to know any truth other than my own.
I really enjoy the Beatles, and went through an "obsessed" period when I was 11 or 12. It all changed for me when I first really listened to Midnight Rambler on Let it Bleed. That was it. I didn't listen to any other band for months.
I really enjoy the Beatles, and went through an "obsessed" period when I was 11 or 12. It all changed for me when I first really listened to Midnight Rambler on Let it Bleed. That was it. I didn't listen to any other band for months.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: September 29, 2012 20:05
Quote
kish_stoned
STONES ARE WAY OF LIFE.
Please explain.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-29 20:08 by Erik_Snow.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
belld
()
Date: September 29, 2012 20:11
Bay City Rollers were better than the Beatles ( mastered follow the bouncing ball to greater effect) ERGO Rollers surpassed the other group.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
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: September 29, 2012 20:44
Quote
belldBay City Rollers were better than the Beatles ( mastered follow the bouncing ball to greater effect) ERGO Rollers surpassed the other group.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
Are you working with dynamite or something belld?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
belld
()
Date: September 29, 2012 20:49
Correct you know my wife.Quote
Come OnQuote
belldBay City Rollers were better than the Beatles ( mastered follow the bouncing ball to greater effect) ERGO Rollers surpassed the other group.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
Are you working with dynamite or something belld?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: September 29, 2012 20:59
Quote
belldCorrect you know my wife.Quote
Come OnQuote
belldBay City Rollers were better than the Beatles ( mastered follow the bouncing ball to greater effect) ERGO Rollers surpassed the other group.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
Are you working with dynamite or something belld?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
kish_stoned
()
Date: September 30, 2012 04:53
STONES ARE WAY OF LIFE since 1st stones lp that is what was said by andrew way back in 1964/1965 i don't if you born erik_snow.
no band will come as close as the stones,even george harrison said to c.watts in 1195 at the stones brixton concert wish he had band like the stones
beatles did make good music but also crap music like whats new mary jane,no9 and lot of tracks on beatles for sale were crap songs and badly recored and what about yellow.sub sound track crap,hey bulldog was only good song on it.
no band will come as close as the stones,even george harrison said to c.watts in 1195 at the stones brixton concert wish he had band like the stones
beatles did make good music but also crap music like whats new mary jane,no9 and lot of tracks on beatles for sale were crap songs and badly recored and what about yellow.sub sound track crap,hey bulldog was only good song on it.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
BJPortugal
()
Date: September 30, 2012 06:05
I like that...
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: September 30, 2012 17:30
Ranked as solo-artists:
1/ John Lennon 10
2/ Ronnie Wood 9
3/ Paul McCartney 8
4/ George Harrison 7
5/ Mick Jagger 6
6/ Ringo Starr 5
7/ Keith Richards 4
8/ Bill Wyman 3
9/ Charlie Watts 2
10/ Brian Jones 1
The Beatles 30 points
The Rolling Stones 25 points
The Beatles is the better of the 2 bands....
2 1 2 0
1/ John Lennon 10
2/ Ronnie Wood 9
3/ Paul McCartney 8
4/ George Harrison 7
5/ Mick Jagger 6
6/ Ringo Starr 5
7/ Keith Richards 4
8/ Bill Wyman 3
9/ Charlie Watts 2
10/ Brian Jones 1
The Beatles 30 points
The Rolling Stones 25 points
The Beatles is the better of the 2 bands....
2 1 2 0
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: September 30, 2012 17:40
Quote
Come On
Ranked as solo-artists:
1/ John Lennon 10
2/ Ronnie Wood 9
3/ Paul McCartney 8
4/ George Harrison 7
5/ Mick Jagger 6
6/ Ringo Starr 5
7/ Keith Richards 4
8/ Bill Wyman 3
9/ Charlie Watts 2
10/ Brian Jones 1
The Beatles 30 points
The Rolling Stones 25 points
The Beatles is the better of the 2 bands....
What list is this? Ronnie on 2
__________________________
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 30, 2012 17:45
Quote
Come On
Ranked as solo-artists:
1/ John Lennon 10
2/ Ronnie Wood 9
3/ Paul McCartney 8
4/ George Harrison 7
5/ Mick Jagger 6
6/ Ringo Starr 5
7/ Keith Richards 4
8/ Bill Wyman 3
9/ Charlie Watts 2
10/ Brian Jones 1
The Beatles 30 points
The Rolling Stones 25 points
The Beatles is the better of the 2 bands....
Seems as though the stones just needed 2 or 3 additional members and they coulda been better! Oh so close!
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: September 30, 2012 18:23
Quote
frtg55
Everything that was good from the Beatles is compiled on the RED and the BLUE album-Sets. Real great stuff!
But they did so much rubbish, too!
95 % of the rest were "FILLERS" on the albums and really really boring stuff!
A little bit of chasons, classic, folk, jazzy, this and that - put it all on one album - and voila - that's all you need to be loved by the critics!
Too much overrated!
One of their main goals (which they succeed at) was for each track to be about as good as the next, as compared to pre 1963 albums. And most artists that followed tried to do the same!
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: September 30, 2012 18:47
Quote
Come On
..................................
The Beatles is the better of the 2 bands....
Having a boring Sunday in Stockholm?
Or have you slightly changed your views and preferences of taste?
Evidence:
In a thread with, would you guess, the title, «Who is the better, The Stones or the Beatles??»
Quote
Come On, Jan 12th, 2007
I bought Beatles-singles back there in 1964, but when I heard 'Little Red Rooster' with Stones that stopped.
Quote
Come On, Jan 12th,2007
Beatles was very tight...I think they were the better musicians and songwriters...but Stones had a style that was cooler...
Impressingly then, in the thread «Is the magic still there?»
Quote
Come On, nov 6th 2006
Stones is getting better all the time...the only thing thats worries me is how long Keith is gonne be with us...
Added: You might of course answer that your position has not changed, holding the Beatles to be the better band, but the Stones to have (or have had) the "cooler" style. Only that you now playfully contented yourself to render the first part, without the second.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-30 19:18 by Witness.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 30, 2012 23:14
Quote
WitnessQuote
Come On
..................................
The Beatles is the better of the 2 bands....
Having a boring Sunday in Stockholm?
Or have you slightly changed your views and preferences of taste?
Evidence:
In a thread with, would you guess, the title, «Who is the better, The Stones or the Beatles??»Quote
Come On, Jan 12th, 2007
I bought Beatles-singles back there in 1964, but when I heard 'Little Red Rooster' with Stones that stopped.Quote
Come On, Jan 12th,2007
Beatles was very tight...I think they were the better musicians and songwriters...but Stones had a style that was cooler...
Impressingly then, in the thread «Is the magic still there?»Quote
Come On, nov 6th 2006
Stones is getting better all the time...the only thing thats worries me is how long Keith is gonne be with us...
Added: You might of course answer that your position has not changed, holding the Beatles to be the better band, but the Stones to have (or have had) the "cooler" style. Only that you now playfully contented yourself to render the first part, without the second.
cool! can you stalk me next?!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
987
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10