Nuts

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
What was it Gazza said a long time ago about this Stones vs Beatles nonsense? I kind of forget now exactly what he said, but he was correct.

Something like: It's a load of shite and should not be part of an adult conversation regarding music?

And while we're at it, they are not Mick and "the boys". Dudes are old.

Here's the link for the COMPLETE Glastonbury proshot:

[www.dimeadozen.org]

the stones soared past the beatles years ago.

Quote
Mr.D
Here's the link for the COMPLETE Glastonbury proshot:

[www.dimeadozen.org]

It's not complete.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Thrylan
The Beatles have been over for over 40 years......perspective.

and despite that have outsold the stones (and every other rock and roll band) over the past 20 years.

Bestselling recording artists, 1991-2011

1. Garth Brooks (68,561,000)
2. The Beatles (63,299,000
3. Mariah Carey (53,612,000)
4. Metallica (53,170,000)
5. Celine Dion (51,492,000)
6. George Strait (43,310,000)
7. Eminem (41,166,000)
8. Tim McGraw (40,169,000)
9. Alan Jackson (38,860,000)
10. Pink Floyd (37,228,000)

Selling pop songs is way easier than rock & blues.
Pop songs is no challenge - just easy going sing along songs without any certain relevance for a big crowd that just want to be happy / smiling silly, that's what Beatles and other boys / girls bands are all about.

Quote
treaclefingers
Beatles were too big to do Glastonbury...it would have been beneath them.

Are you saying the Beatles were snobs? How dare you!

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Thrylan
The Beatles have been over for over 40 years......perspective.

and despite that have outsold the stones (and every other rock and roll band) over the past 20 years.

Bestselling recording artists, 1991-2011

1. Garth Brooks (68,561,000)
2. The Beatles (63,299,000
3. Mariah Carey (53,612,000)
4. Metallica (53,170,000)
5. Celine Dion (51,492,000)
6. George Strait (43,310,000)
7. Eminem (41,166,000)
8. Tim McGraw (40,169,000)
9. Alan Jackson (38,860,000)
10. Pink Floyd (37,228,000)

What's the comparison between the Beatles and the Stones for live gate receipts during this period of time? From 1970 forward?

Quote
buttons67
the stones soared past the beatles years ago.

We know that, but it's more fun letting them think they are still in the race.

Soar past The Beatles? Thought that happened around 1968.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Thrylan
The Beatles have been over for over 40 years......perspective.

and despite that have outsold the stones (and every other rock and roll band) over the past 20 years.

Bestselling recording artists, 1991-2011

1. Garth Brooks (68,561,000)
2. The Beatles (63,299,000
3. Mariah Carey (53,612,000)
4. Metallica (53,170,000)
5. Celine Dion (51,492,000)
6. George Strait (43,310,000)
7. Eminem (41,166,000)
8. Tim McGraw (40,169,000)
9. Alan Jackson (38,860,000)
10. Pink Floyd (37,228,000)

And I'm sure Bon Jovi has sold more records than Bob Dylan but there isn't a sane person on the planet that would think they are better.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Thrylan
The Beatles have been over for over 40 years......perspective.

and despite that have outsold the stones (and every other rock and roll band) over the past 20 years.

Bestselling recording artists, 1991-2011

1. Garth Brooks (68,561,000)
2. The Beatles (63,299,000
3. Mariah Carey (53,612,000)
4. Metallica (53,170,000)
5. Celine Dion (51,492,000)
6. George Strait (43,310,000)
7. Eminem (41,166,000)
8. Tim McGraw (40,169,000)
9. Alan Jackson (38,860,000)
10. Pink Floyd (37,228,000)

Unfortunately, those stats don't really help the argument do they? If number of albums shifted is the measure of musical/cultural importance are you saying Garth Brooks is a more significant artist than the Beatles? Acts 1 - 9 (2 of whom I actually had to google to find out who they are, are 'better' than Pink Floyd. The Stones don't even compete as recording artists and haven't really tried to for decades - they are pre-eminent live, performing artists. You pays your money and takes your choice.

of course i'm not saying any of those things.

i was pointing out to a poster who said "The Beatles have been over for over 40 years......perspective." that the Beatles still remained extremely popular despite not recording for 44 years.

......and Paint It Black is the most popular Stones single on iTunes.....again, perspective.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Gazza

Quote
StonedInTokyo
Who's better, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? It's an endless argument that has been going on for 50 years and may never be settled. ..

Only for people with a mental age of about 12 who still think its 1964.

Meanwhile, the rest of the planet have managed to get a life.

And WhackODong is about 12 years old in his little short bus head. It will never be settled because there's nothing to settle. It's music. It's art. What it isn't is who's won x-amount of championships, MVPs and scoring titles and set records for blah blah blah to be settled on as being The Best Ever. That kind of stuff belongs in sports only, not art.

Regardless of how corporate The Rolling Stones have made the art of playing live and selling whatever.

Music isn't a sport but to suggest that there isn't competition in the music business between artists is beyond naive. Ever watch American Idol? It's a competition. I suggest you google: Beatles vs Rolling Stones. I also suggest you read a recently released book by Jim Derogatis and Greg Kot called: The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions On The Great Rock 'N' Roll Rivalry.

Just about anything males get involved with turns into a competition. This is especially so in rock 'n roll. Have you ever been to a "Battle of the Bands" competition? Get your head out of the sand, man!

There is competition in just about everything. People are always ranking the best songs, bands, movies, tv shows etc.. Nothing wrong with it as long as you don't lose sleep over it. When your favorite sports team loses it can be a bummer but it's different with music. If The Beatles are ranked ahead of The Stones on a list it shouldn't matter all that much.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
FrankM
There is competition in just about everything. People are always ranking the best songs, bands, movies, tv shows etc.. Nothing wrong with it as long as you don't lose sleep over it. When your favorite sports team loses it can be a bummer but it's different with music. If The Beatles are ranked ahead of The Stones on a list it shouldn't matter all that much.

Frank, you are exactly right. And, yes, it's all in good fun, not to be taken too seriously. I don't even mind when my home teams lose anymore. When I was young man those kind of things mattered.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
What was it Gazza said a long time ago about this Stones vs Beatles nonsense? I kind of forget now exactly what he said, but he was correct.

I said it about four or five posts above yours...lol

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Gazza

Quote
StonedInTokyo
Who's better, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? It's an endless argument that has been going on for 50 years and may never be settled. ..

Only for people with a mental age of about 12 who still think its 1964.

Meanwhile, the rest of the planet have managed to get a life.

And WhackODong is about 12 years old in his little short bus head. It will never be settled because there's nothing to settle. It's music. It's art. What it isn't is who's won x-amount of championships, MVPs and scoring titles and set records for blah blah blah to be settled on as being The Best Ever. That kind of stuff belongs in sports only, not art.

Regardless of how corporate The Rolling Stones have made the art of playing live and selling whatever.

Music isn't a sport but to suggest that there isn't competition in the music business between artists is beyond naive. Ever watch American Idol? It's a competition. I suggest you google: Beatles vs Rolling Stones. I also suggest you read a recently released book by Jim Derogatis and Greg Kot called: The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions On The Great Rock 'N' Roll Rivalry.

Just about anything males get involved with turns into a competition. This is especially so in rock 'n roll. Have you ever been to a "Battle of the Bands" competition? Get your head out of the sand, man!

You said 'artists' and then ruined your argument in the next sentence by the words 'American idol'

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
What was it Gazza said a long time ago about this Stones vs Beatles nonsense? I kind of forget now exactly what he said, but he was correct.

I said it about four or five posts above yours...lol

Ah, yes you did and you are correct again.

My bad for skipping through the other drivel posts too quickly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-30 21:47 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Gazza

Quote
StonedInTokyo
Who's better, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? It's an endless argument that has been going on for 50 years and may never be settled. ..

Only for people with a mental age of about 12 who still think its 1964.

Meanwhile, the rest of the planet have managed to get a life.

And WhackODong is about 12 years old in his little short bus head. It will never be settled because there's nothing to settle. It's music. It's art. What it isn't is who's won x-amount of championships, MVPs and scoring titles and set records for blah blah blah to be settled on as being The Best Ever. That kind of stuff belongs in sports only, not art.

Regardless of how corporate The Rolling Stones have made the art of playing live and selling whatever.

Music isn't a sport but to suggest that there isn't competition in the music business between artists is beyond naive. Ever watch American Idol? It's a competition. I suggest you google: Beatles vs Rolling Stones. I also suggest you read a recently released book by Jim Derogatis and Greg Kot called: The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions On The Great Rock 'N' Roll Rivalry.

Just about anything males get involved with turns into a competition. This is especially so in rock 'n roll. Have you ever been to a "Battle of the Bands" competition? Get your head out of the sand, man!

You said 'artists' and then ruined your argument in the next sentence by the words 'American idol'

I am assuming you are just taking a humorous little poke at the extremely talented artists that have come forth from AI.

I can think of two groups of people that don't give a crap about "The Beatles vs. The Stones"....

and they are The Beatles and The Stones.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I can think of two groups of people that don't give a crap about "The Beatles vs. The Stones"....

and they are The Beatles and The Stones.

I think you are giving Jagger too much credit. He is the best frontman of all time imo but he also has a very big ego.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I can think of two groups of people that don't give a crap about "The Beatles vs. The Stones"....

and they are The Beatles and The Stones.

They are Englishmen. Do you honestly expect them to come out and say they care about being recognized as the greatest rock 'n roll band of all time? Of course any rock 'n roll band would want that title. Don't be naive. But, at the same time don't take it so seriously. It's only rock 'n roll. Sometimes you are as stiff as a board. Lighten up and enjoy the ride.

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I can think of two groups of people that don't give a crap about "The Beatles vs. The Stones"....

and they are The Beatles and The Stones.

They are Englishmen. Do you honestly expect them to come out and say they care about being recognized as the greatest rock 'n roll band of all time? Of course any rock 'n roll band would want that title. Don't be naive. But, at the same time don't take it so seriously. It's only rock 'n roll. Sometimes you are as stiff as a board. Lighten up and enjoy the ride.

Thanks, JumpinJackOLantern!

Quote
FrankM

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I can think of two groups of people that don't give a crap about "The Beatles vs. The Stones"....

and they are The Beatles and The Stones.

I think you are giving Jagger too much credit. He is the best frontman of all time imo but he also has a very big ego.

Exactly! You don't strut around like a rooster on a stage in front of millions over the years and not have one. It's ludicrous to think that any band wouldn't at least be very pleased with owning the title of Greatest Rock 'N Roll Band Of All Time.

They even hinted that on the PPV in December.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I can think of two groups of people that don't give a crap about "The Beatles vs. The Stones"....

and they are The Beatles and The Stones.

They are Englishmen. Do you honestly expect them to come out and say they care about being recognized as the greatest rock 'n roll band of all time? Of course any rock 'n roll band would want that title. Don't be naive. But, at the same time don't take it so seriously. It's only rock 'n roll. Sometimes you are as stiff as a board. Lighten up and enjoy the ride.

Thanks, JumpinJackOLantern!

Apparently you didn't get the memo. He's on vacation for the summer and will speak to all of us again on October 18 - the night of the full moon.

Quote
FrankM

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Thrylan
The Beatles have been over for over 40 years......perspective.

and despite that have outsold the stones (and every other rock and roll band) over the past 20 years.

Bestselling recording artists, 1991-2011

1. Garth Brooks (68,561,000)
2. The Beatles (63,299,000
3. Mariah Carey (53,612,000)
4. Metallica (53,170,000)
5. Celine Dion (51,492,000)
6. George Strait (43,310,000)
7. Eminem (41,166,000)
8. Tim McGraw (40,169,000)
9. Alan Jackson (38,860,000)
10. Pink Floyd (37,228,000)

And I'm sure Bon Jovi has sold more records than Bob Dylan but there isn't a sane person on the planet that would think they are better.

naturally sales have nothing to do with who is better. (same with concert receipts, although there are some on here who obsess over the stones' ticket receipts)

my only point was to dispute the claim that the beatles relevance or influence was "over 40 years ago".

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Thrylan
The Beatles have been over for over 40 years......perspective.

and despite that have outsold the stones (and every other rock and roll band) over the past 20 years.

Bestselling recording artists, 1991-2011

1. Garth Brooks (68,561,000)
2. The Beatles (63,299,000
3. Mariah Carey (53,612,000)
4. Metallica (53,170,000)
5. Celine Dion (51,492,000)
6. George Strait (43,310,000)
7. Eminem (41,166,000)
8. Tim McGraw (40,169,000)
9. Alan Jackson (38,860,000)
10. Pink Floyd (37,228,000)

Unfortunately, those stats don't really help the argument do they? If number of albums shifted is the measure of musical/cultural importance are you saying Garth Brooks is a more significant artist than the Beatles? Acts 1 - 9 (2 of whom I actually had to google to find out who they are, are 'better' than Pink Floyd. The Stones don't even compete as recording artists and haven't really tried to for decades - they are pre-eminent live, performing artists. You pays your money and takes your choice.

of course i'm not saying any of those things.

i was pointing out to a poster who said "The Beatles have been over for over 40 years......perspective." that the Beatles still remained extremely popular despite not recording for 44 years.

......and Paint It Black is the most popular Stones single on iTunes.....again, perspective.

i'm not sure what you think you're achieving by adding the word "perspective" to the end of your posts.

if you think the beatles' were "over 40 years ago" in anything other than the fact that the band disbanded 43 years ago, i disagree with you.

Quote
2000man
Move over, Rolling Stones – here come the Bootleg Beatles [The Guardian]

That "George" in the Bootleg Beatles is a dead ringer for John.

Considering they call themselves the Bootleg Beatles, perhaps it would be more apt if they played only outtakes and false starts.

V

There really is no contest.

Quote
mtaylor
Selling pop songs is way easier than rock & blues.
Pop songs is no challenge - just easy going sing along songs without any certain relevance for a big crowd that just want to be happy / smiling silly, that's what Beatles and other boys / girls bands are all about.

Pop songs aren't a challenge, eh?
So let's hear some of your successful pop stuff.

And I suppose that you're also saying that The Rolling Stones do not use formula with their stuff.

You are hilarious!

[thepowergoats.com]