fans always complain stones made bad lps or cds,what about the beatles?
NO1)1ST LP OF THE BEATLES ONLY HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS
NO2) BEATLES FOR SALE ONLY HAD 5 GOOD TRACKS
NO3) YELLOW SUB WAS CRAP
NO4) LET it BE HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS.
AS the story goes beatles were so big the fans always thought all the beatles music so great,even the double lp had lot of duff tracks,hey don't jump the gun beatles were good but lot of bad music too oh no no9

Quote
kish_stoned
fans always complain stones made bad lps or cds,what about the beatles?
NO1)1ST LP OF THE BEATLES ONLY HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS
NO2) BEATLES FOR SALE ONLY HAD 5 GOOD TRACKS
NO3) YELLOW SUB WAS CRAP
NO4) LET it BE HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS.
AS the story goes beatles were so big the fans always thought all the beatles music so great,even the double lp had lot of duff tracks,hey don't jump the gun beatles were good but lot of bad music too oh no no9

The Beatles have lots of crap in their catalog,a few good songs, and some just ok
tunes.

Why is the concept of taste so difficult for some to grasp? So many threads around here the OP takes their opinion and acts as if it is scientific fact. Not to mention the utterly insane unoriginality (it's getting to the point where I think some people around here have serious head injuries) of YET ANOTHER Beatles vs. Stones thread.

By the way... I love Let It Be, probably in my top 4 Beatles albums. And I love many Stones albums, who said they made bad LP's in the first place?

The Long And Winding Bore is abhorrent.
It's the Streets Of Love of 1970.

Cracks me up how some Stones fans here ( emphasis on "some" ) are so insecure that they can't get through the day without randomly dredging up another Beatles v. Stones discussion.

Guess they feel they have to continually defend their "boys" against those evil, no-talented mop-tops.

Quote
Jah Paul
Cracks me up how some Stones fans here ( emphasis on "some" ) are so insecure that they can't get through the day without randomly dredging up another Beatles v. Stones discussion.

Guess they feel they have to continually defend their "boys" against those evil, no-talented mop-tops.

I've never seen a message board where so many fans had such a huge inferiority complex toward another band. As a Pearl Jam fan, we often live in the shadow of Nirvana. But people over on their board don't discuss Nirvana vs Pearl Jam every day. In fact I'm not sure I've ever seen it discussed. Most people enjoy both, appreciate the historical significance and talent of the other (some don't, but don't cry about it), realize that it's apples and oranges, so it's not even a thing. The media tried to start a similar rivalry between PJ and Nirvana, as they have with so many other acts, but nobody has bitten as hard and as mindlessly as some Stones fans have. Some people around here act like their happiness is at stake if the world does not eventually join hands and admit the Stones are better than The Beatles.

Quote
kish_stoned
fans always complain stones made bad lps or cds,what about the beatles?
NO1)1ST LP OF THE BEATLES ONLY HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS
NO2) BEATLES FOR SALE ONLY HAD 5 GOOD TRACKS
NO3) YELLOW SUB WAS CRAP
NO4) LET it BE HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS.
AS the story goes beatles were so big the fans always thought all the beatles music so great,even the double lp had lot of duff tracks,hey don't jump the gun beatles were good but lot of bad music too oh no no9

What I want to know is why is IT spelled it in NO4)

Other then that, thanks for setting the record straight about those Beatles

File this under "W" for "We are Stones fans, so therefore must bash or diminish The Beatles."

Tiresome rubbish.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
Jah Paul
Cracks me up how some Stones fans here ( emphasis on "some" ) are so insecure that they can't get through the day without randomly dredging up another Beatles v. Stones discussion.

Guess they feel they have to continually defend their "boys" against those evil, no-talented mop-tops.

I've never seen a message board where so many fans had such a huge inferiority complex toward another band. As a Pearl Jam fan, we often live in the shadow of Nirvana. But people over on their board don't discuss Nirvana vs Pearl Jam every day. In fact I'm not sure I've ever seen it discussed. Most people enjoy both, appreciate the historical significance and talent of the other (some don't, but don't cry about it), realize that it's apples and oranges, so it's not even a thing. The media tried to start a similar rivalry between PJ and Nirvana, as they have with so many other acts, but nobody has bitten as hard and as mindlessly as some Stones fans have. Some people around here act like their happiness is at stake if the world does not eventually join hands and admit the Stones are better than The Beatles.

It's that old adolescent business of "my T-shirt is better than your T-shirt". Some take it to the extreme and opine that if you sign in to a Rolling Stones fan club you're not allowed to like other bands or even discuss other music/bands--especially the Beatles. It would be a sign of disloyalty somehow. Some fans find it romantic to cling to the adolescent fantasy of rivalry. These tend to be the same folks who might think that athletes on opposing teams actually hate each other, and that they would never be friendly off the field. Rivalry is important to such fans, who mentally and intellectually operate from the more animalistic and territorial sphere of human nature.

Quote
kish_stoned
fans always complain stones made bad lps or cds,what about the beatles?
NO1)1ST LP OF THE BEATLES ONLY HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS
NO2) BEATLES FOR SALE ONLY HAD 5 GOOD TRACKS
NO3) YELLOW SUB WAS CRAP
NO4) LET it BE HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS.
AS the story goes beatles were so big the fans always thought all the beatles music so great,even the double lp had lot of duff tracks,hey don't jump the gun beatles were good but lot of bad music too oh no no9

What ripped you off the golf course?

2 1 2 0

Quote
kish_stoned
fans always complain stones made bad lps or cds,what about the beatles?
NO1)1ST LP OF THE BEATLES ONLY HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS
NO2) BEATLES FOR SALE ONLY HAD 5 GOOD TRACKS
NO3) YELLOW SUB WAS CRAP
NO4) LET it BE HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS.
AS the story goes beatles were so big the fans always thought all the beatles music so great,even the double lp had lot of duff tracks,hey don't jump the gun beatles were good but lot of bad music too oh no no9

Are you actually arguing with someone Kish?

Kish has got it all wrong. The first four Beatles albums are great - unpretentious rock and roll played with enthusiasm and sung by two of the best vocalists in pop music history. Their later albums stand at the very top of 60's era pop, and deserve recognition as such, but they just don't rock at all. There are no bad tracks on Magical Mystery Tour, but there's nothing even resembling rock and roll among its 11 tracks.

Quote
drbryant
Kish has got it all wrong. The first four Beatles albums are great - unpretentious rock and roll played with enthusiasm and sung by two of the best vocalists in pop music history. Their later albums stand at the very top of 60's era pop, and deserve recognition as such, but they just don't rock at all. There are no bad tracks on Magical Mystery Tour, but there's nothing even resembling rock and roll among its 11 tracks.

Actually the title track rocks pretty good...Paul opened with it in Vancouver, no complaints.

Ah - why bother 'comparing' ... in truth, both have produced epics, and epic fails!

That The Stones are STILL 'going' only means they have MORE opportunity to produce both the epic and the epic fail!

Have The Stones ever created something as good as While My guitar Gently Weeps, or Come Together or Revolution? Of course! JJF, Satisfaction and (to me) Doom and Gloom come straight to mind - I LOVE I am hearing the latter one on the radio every day!

Have The Stones ever released anything as naff as Octopus's Garden or Yellow Submarine? Streets of Love and Something Happened to me Yesterday anyone?

They BOTH have (had) their strengths and their weaknesses. Recognise THAT, and enjoy all that they bring to the table. Really, our musical lives have been enriched by having them both in our lives haven't they?

Pity the poor buggers now who "grow up" liking Justin Beiber, Lady Gaga and Britney Speers! How much of THEIR catalogs will ANYONE be talking about in 20-30-40-50 years time.

Rgds
Rod
Perth

Quote
kish_stoned
NO1)1ST LP OF THE BEATLES ONLY HAD FEW GOOD TRACKS

Yeah, 7 good ones, 4 great ones and 3 brilliant ones.

All made in 13 hours.

<rolly eye thingy>

I love the Beatles records! I have equal respect for both stones as beatles music.
Sgt Peppers, white album, revolver, rubber soul are pearls!

I'm glad I don't have to choose. I enjoy both bands.

Quote
NoCode0680
Why is the concept of taste so difficult for some to grasp? So many threads around here the OP takes their opinion and acts as if it is scientific fact. Not to mention the utterly insane unoriginality (it's getting to the point where I think some people around here have serious head injuries) of YET ANOTHER Beatles vs. Stones thread.

By the way... I love Let It Be, probably in my top 4 Beatles albums. And I love many Stones albums, who said they made bad LP's in the first place?

I agree with you about personal taste. What one doesn't like someone else may think is great. However, in all my years of being a Stones fan people have always said the difference between the two is that the Stones made great singles but the Beatles made great singles and albums. I have heard that many times from many people. The Stones didn't make good studio albums and that's where the Beatles pull ahead. Total nonsense.

Rob

Quote
stones1962

Quote
NoCode0680
Why is the concept of taste so difficult for some to grasp? So many threads around here the OP takes their opinion and acts as if it is scientific fact. Not to mention the utterly insane unoriginality (it's getting to the point where I think some people around here have serious head injuries) of YET ANOTHER Beatles vs. Stones thread.

By the way... I love Let It Be, probably in my top 4 Beatles albums. And I love many Stones albums, who said they made bad LP's in the first place?

I agree with you about personal taste. What one doesn't like someone else may think is great. However, in all my years of being a Stones fan people have always said the difference between the two is that the Stones made great singles but the Beatles made great singles and albums. I have heard that many times from many people. The Stones didn't make good studio albums and that's where the Beatles pull ahead. Total nonsense.

Rob

I've never in my life had anyone say that to me.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stones1962

Quote
NoCode0680
Why is the concept of taste so difficult for some to grasp? So many threads around here the OP takes their opinion and acts as if it is scientific fact. Not to mention the utterly insane unoriginality (it's getting to the point where I think some people around here have serious head injuries) of YET ANOTHER Beatles vs. Stones thread.

By the way... I love Let It Be, probably in my top 4 Beatles albums. And I love many Stones albums, who said they made bad LP's in the first place?

I agree with you about personal taste. What one doesn't like someone else may think is great. However, in all my years of being a Stones fan people have always said the difference between the two is that the Stones made great singles but the Beatles made great singles and albums. I have heard that many times from many people. The Stones didn't make good studio albums and that's where the Beatles pull ahead. Total nonsense.

Rob

I've never in my life had anyone say that to me.

in my life, i've loved them all

Depends what mood you're in with all this. If you have a big music collection, you'll want to listen to the Stones one day, Beatles another, then another artist/band the next day. It's impossible to compare them - They were both influential & continually put out good records in a time when it wasn't 'one album every 3-5 years'. But I always find it difficult to compare two very good bands from the same time - Especially when they may have had different plans at the time (eg 1968 - Stones wanted to tour again while the Beatles were a studio band)

Quote
T&A

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stones1962

Quote
NoCode0680
Why is the concept of taste so difficult for some to grasp? So many threads around here the OP takes their opinion and acts as if it is scientific fact. Not to mention the utterly insane unoriginality (it's getting to the point where I think some people around here have serious head injuries) of YET ANOTHER Beatles vs. Stones thread.

By the way... I love Let It Be, probably in my top 4 Beatles albums. And I love many Stones albums, who said they made bad LP's in the first place?

I agree with you about personal taste. What one doesn't like someone else may think is great. However, in all my years of being a Stones fan people have always said the difference between the two is that the Stones made great singles but the Beatles made great singles and albums. I have heard that many times from many people. The Stones didn't make good studio albums and that's where the Beatles pull ahead. Total nonsense.

Rob

I've never in my life had anyone say that to me.

in my life, i've loved them all

Talk is, you're a bit of a music whore though...it's not me, just what's being said in the dark IORR alleyways.

Stones the greatest.

beetels bleh

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
T&A

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stones1962

Quote
NoCode0680
Why is the concept of taste so difficult for some to grasp? So many threads around here the OP takes their opinion and acts as if it is scientific fact. Not to mention the utterly insane unoriginality (it's getting to the point where I think some people around here have serious head injuries) of YET ANOTHER Beatles vs. Stones thread.

By the way... I love Let It Be, probably in my top 4 Beatles albums. And I love many Stones albums, who said they made bad LP's in the first place?

I agree with you about personal taste. What one doesn't like someone else may think is great. However, in all my years of being a Stones fan people have always said the difference between the two is that the Stones made great singles but the Beatles made great singles and albums. I have heard that many times from many people. The Stones didn't make good studio albums and that's where the Beatles pull ahead. Total nonsense.

Rob

I've never in my life had anyone say that to me.

in my life, i've loved them all

Talk is, you're a bit of a music whore though...it's not me, just what's being said in the dark IORR alleyways.

i believe them

Quote
T&A

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
T&A

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stones1962

Quote
NoCode0680
Why is the concept of taste so difficult for some to grasp? So many threads around here the OP takes their opinion and acts as if it is scientific fact. Not to mention the utterly insane unoriginality (it's getting to the point where I think some people around here have serious head injuries) of YET ANOTHER Beatles vs. Stones thread.

By the way... I love Let It Be, probably in my top 4 Beatles albums. And I love many Stones albums, who said they made bad LP's in the first place?

I agree with you about personal taste. What one doesn't like someone else may think is great. However, in all my years of being a Stones fan people have always said the difference between the two is that the Stones made great singles but the Beatles made great singles and albums. I have heard that many times from many people. The Stones didn't make good studio albums and that's where the Beatles pull ahead. Total nonsense.

Rob

I've never in my life had anyone say that to me.

in my life, i've loved them all

Talk is, you're a bit of a music whore though...it's not me, just what's being said in the dark IORR alleyways.

i believe them

OK so, if I'm being honest, the talk is far worse than that...I've edited for the youngsters here.

Can you believe there are people in their 30's on this board? Why they're not on the Counting Crows or Spin Doctors fan board is beyond me.

life is too short so let's just enjoy the music,both the bands are great one is live & recoding band and the other one are not with us any longer

Quote
kish_stoned
life is too short so let's just enjoy the music,both the bands are great one is live & recoding band and the other one are not with us any longer

you started the thread?!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
kish_stoned
life is too short so let's just enjoy the music,both the bands are great one is live & recoding band and the other one are not with us any longer

you started the thread?!

it's part of the hero syndrome...you solve a problem that you created...people only generally remember the hero who solved the problem.

Quote
folke
I'm glad I don't have to choose. I enjoy both bands.

It's like comparing apples and oranges

Quote
reg thorpe

Quote
folke
I'm glad I don't have to choose. I enjoy both bands.

It's like comparing apples and oranges

apples were better in the studio...oranges better live...