Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
Thrylan
As a band, they have been defunct. The fact that the Stones have stayed together, with relatively few personnel changes is no small feet in itself. The Beatles never carried the burden of expectation really; When the game got serious, they were done. Had they continued through the drugged out 70's(and beyond), they would have had some clunkers for albums. If you really want to get into it, throw out everything up until @65'or 66', when both groups started to gain artistic control, and the Stones start gaining momentum. The White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be are great albums.....but I'll take BB,LIB,SF over them, and oh yeah, GYYYO, an all timer live album, that I have no evidence in believing the Beatles had in them. When the game got "real", they broke up. Hell, The Who released Live at Leeds and Who's Next.....everyone upped their game, except the Beatles.

To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of the "wind up" mop top early years, when they clearly had an edge, but they were a pop outfit, eager to please. As someone mentioned earlier, the Stones charted with a pure blues....remarkable.

It's just really, all a matter of perspective, hence, "perspective."

Hate to break it to you, but The Beatles pretty much invented "the game"...and nothing could have been more "serious" or "real" than their time together. They "upped their game" at every turn.

So they enjoyed and agreed with the way Brian Epstein dressed them up? No. How long did the Stones wear the Houndstooth jackets......not long. The Beatles gained a lot of support from NOT being the Stones. The Stones were a lot scarier. I don't discount their legacy, they are 1 or 2, depending on who you are. The difference is simple, the Beatles wanted to "Hold Your Hand", the Stones "Wanted to Make Love to You", big difference.

This will get me killed, however, in my opinion, Paul has never and will never write with any adult depth.....Silly Love Songs. I'm a John guy, "How did he Sleep?" I don't know. Paul is likely the best pop song writer ever, but there's not much below the surface. Lennon's heart bled out of his mouth, with his emotionally exhausting personal songs.....Paul cashed checks. John could have been a Stone, Paul could not.

Also, top to bottom, the Stones were overall better musicians. George and Brian tie, Paul edges Bill, Stones sweep the rest.

Back to the main thrust, the Beatles wrote non offensive pop songs, built to sell. The Stones stayed truer to their roots, so going by sales alone is misleading.

This will also get me "killed" but the fact of the matter is, Paul's son James writes with more depth than his father. If you think I am kidding just check out his new album.

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
Thrylan
The Kinks are very, VERY, distinctly British. Its amazing that they are as popular as they are in America, all things considered.

yes songs like "waterloo sunset" and "days" are anthems in britain but to most rock fans in the USA are unknown songs

Absolutely. BTB is the Stones "Kinks" album to me, very derivative.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
Thrylan
As a band, they have been defunct. The fact that the Stones have stayed together, with relatively few personnel changes is no small feet in itself. The Beatles never carried the burden of expectation really; When the game got serious, they were done. Had they continued through the drugged out 70's(and beyond), they would have had some clunkers for albums. If you really want to get into it, throw out everything up until @65'or 66', when both groups started to gain artistic control, and the Stones start gaining momentum. The White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be are great albums.....but I'll take BB,LIB,SF over them, and oh yeah, GYYYO, an all timer live album, that I have no evidence in believing the Beatles had in them. When the game got "real", they broke up. Hell, The Who released Live at Leeds and Who's Next.....everyone upped their game, except the Beatles.

To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of the "wind up" mop top early years, when they clearly had an edge, but they were a pop outfit, eager to please. As someone mentioned earlier, the Stones charted with a pure blues....remarkable.

It's just really, all a matter of perspective, hence, "perspective."

Hate to break it to you, but The Beatles pretty much invented "the game"...and nothing could have been more "serious" or "real" than their time together. They "upped their game" at every turn.

So they enjoyed and agreed with the way Brian Epstein dressed them up? No. How long did the Stones wear the Houndstooth jackets......not long. The Beatles gained a lot of support from NOT being the Stones. The Stones were a lot scarier. I don't discount their legacy, they are 1 or 2, depending on who you are. The difference is simple, the Beatles wanted to "Hold Your Hand", the Stones "Wanted to Make Love to You", big difference.

This will get me killed, however, in my opinion, Paul has never and will never write with any adult depth.....Silly Love Songs. I'm a John guy, "How did he Sleep?" I don't know. Paul is likely the best pop song writer ever, but there's not much below the surface. Lennon's heart bled out of his mouth, with his emotionally exhausting personal songs.....Paul cashed checks. John could have been a Stone, Paul could not.

Also, top to bottom, the Stones were overall better musicians. George and Brian tie, Paul edges Bill, Stones sweep the rest.

Back to the main thrust, the Beatles wrote non offensive pop songs, built to sell. The Stones stayed truer to their roots, so going by sales alone is misleading.

This will also get me "killed" but the fact of the matter is, Paul's son James writes with more depth than his father. If you think I am kidding just check out his new album.

You should talk to a poster who recently went to summer camp and won't be back until October. He is the only other person who thinks that about James' album. Hard to believe two people in the world would think that. I'd almost think that you were him posting under a different screen name, but I know he would *never* do something like that.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain
This will also get me "killed" but the fact of the matter is, Paul's son James writes with more depth than his father. If you think I am kidding just check out his new album.

You should talk to a poster who recently went to summer camp and won't be back until October. He is the only other person who thinks that about James' album. Hard to believe two people in the world would think that. I'd almost think that you were him posting under a different screen name, but I know he would *never* do something like that.

Creepy...

Quote
drbryant

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain
This will also get me "killed" but the fact of the matter is, Paul's son James writes with more depth than his father. If you think I am kidding just check out his new album.

You should talk to a poster who recently went to summer camp and won't be back until October. He is the only other person who thinks that about James' album. Hard to believe two people in the world would think that. I'd almost think that you were him posting under a different screen name, but I know he would *never* do something like that.

Creepy...

Let's not use the word "creepy" to refer to someone who might have disassociative identity disorder (also referred to as multiple personality disorder). It is an illness, and should elicit sympathy, not ridicule. Victims often suffer from confusion over sexual identity (thus some of his identities are male, others are female), poor self-image, lack of normal social interaction and/or impotence. Let's HELP him - as Dionne Warwick once said, that's what friends are for!

Quote
GRC
After Philly #2 and watching this....The Stones have cemented their place as the Worlds Greatest Rock and Roll Band. Unreal...there's no one close.....

Quote
ROPENI
JumpinJackOLantern.
Could you please share with us mere mortals, the drugs that u r taking.......

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
Koen

Quote
StonedInTokyo
It's an endless argument that has been going on for 50 years and may never be settled.

It's a pointless, childish and non-existing argument. Apples, oranges, tomato, tomahto.

A voice of reason in the wilderness.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

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.

And I'm assuming you're being sarcastic.

No doubt some of them have talent, but there's more 'artistry' in an orangutan's arsehole than there is in anything associated with Simon Cowell.

Quote
No Expectations

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Jeez. I would like to see the chart that saw them soaring past The Beatles. You're sir, are an idiot. If all Beatles members had been alive, who do you think the Glasto crowd would've wanted tonight? Take a wild @#$%& guess.

But wasn't it the greatest show ever...wasn't it the greatest Rambler ever...you mean some posters here are getting slightly carried away with themselves? How can that be?

Quote
Stoneage
Haven't we had enough of these Beatles versus Rolling Stones threads, Mr Again? They don't seem to lead anywhere and they aren't particulary funny...

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Stoneage
Haven't we had enough of these Beatles versus Rolling Stones threads, Mr Again? They don't seem to lead anywhere and they aren't particulary funny...

Of course it's silly. But it's a topic every fan of Rock n roll enjoys and is a testament to the power of both bands.

There is a great song written about it in fact - gimme sympathy by metric:
video: [m.youtube.com]

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
Thrylan
As a band, they have been defunct. The fact that the Stones have stayed together, with relatively few personnel changes is no small feet in itself. The Beatles never carried the burden of expectation really; When the game got serious, they were done. Had they continued through the drugged out 70's(and beyond), they would have had some clunkers for albums. If you really want to get into it, throw out everything up until @65'or 66', when both groups started to gain artistic control, and the Stones start gaining momentum. The White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be are great albums.....but I'll take BB,LIB,SF over them, and oh yeah, GYYYO, an all timer live album, that I have no evidence in believing the Beatles had in them. When the game got "real", they broke up. Hell, The Who released Live at Leeds and Who's Next.....everyone upped their game, except the Beatles.

To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of the "wind up" mop top early years, when they clearly had an edge, but they were a pop outfit, eager to please. As someone mentioned earlier, the Stones charted with a pure blues....remarkable.

It's just really, all a matter of perspective, hence, "perspective."

Hate to break it to you, but The Beatles pretty much invented "the game"...and nothing could have been more "serious" or "real" than their time together. They "upped their game" at every turn.

So they enjoyed and agreed with the way Brian Epstein dressed them up? No. How long did the Stones wear the Houndstooth jackets......not long. The Beatles gained a lot of support from NOT being the Stones. The Stones were a lot scarier. I don't discount their legacy, they are 1 or 2, depending on who you are. The difference is simple, the Beatles wanted to "Hold Your Hand", the Stones "Wanted to Make Love to You", big difference.

This will get me killed, however, in my opinion, Paul has never and will never write with any adult depth.....Silly Love Songs. I'm a John guy, "How did he Sleep?" I don't know. Paul is likely the best pop song writer ever, but there's not much below the surface. Lennon's heart bled out of his mouth, with his emotionally exhausting personal songs.....Paul cashed checks. John could have been a Stone, Paul could not.

Also, top to bottom, the Stones were overall better musicians. George and Brian tie, Paul edges Bill, Stones sweep the rest.

Back to the main thrust, the Beatles wrote non offensive pop songs, built to sell. The Stones stayed truer to their roots, so going by sales alone is misleading.

This will also get me "killed" but the fact of the matter is, Paul's son James writes with more depth than his father. If you think I am kidding just check out his new album.

You should talk to a poster who recently went to summer camp and won't be back until October. He is the only other person who thinks that about James' album. Hard to believe two people in the world would think that. I'd almost think that you were him posting under a different screen name, but I know he would *never* do something like that.

Quote
lem motlow
wow,this is huge-you mean to tell me that the stones have finally surpassed a band that didnt have a live act and broke up over 40 years ago.

dont let paul hear about this,he'll break out another smokin version of helter skelter on us..."yeah,look out.. helter skelter.." its too funny.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
Thrylan
As a band, they have been defunct. The fact that the Stones have stayed together, with relatively few personnel changes is no small feet in itself. The Beatles never carried the burden of expectation really; When the game got serious, they were done. Had they continued through the drugged out 70's(and beyond), they would have had some clunkers for albums. If you really want to get into it, throw out everything up until @65'or 66', when both groups started to gain artistic control, and the Stones start gaining momentum. The White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be are great albums.....but I'll take BB,LIB,SF over them, and oh yeah, GYYYO, an all timer live album, that I have no evidence in believing the Beatles had in them. When the game got "real", they broke up. Hell, The Who released Live at Leeds and Who's Next.....everyone upped their game, except the Beatles.

To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of the "wind up" mop top early years, when they clearly had an edge, but they were a pop outfit, eager to please. As someone mentioned earlier, the Stones charted with a pure blues....remarkable.

It's just really, all a matter of perspective, hence, "perspective."

Hate to break it to you, but The Beatles pretty much invented "the game"...and nothing could have been more "serious" or "real" than their time together. They "upped their game" at every turn.

So they enjoyed and agreed with the way Brian Epstein dressed them up? No. How long did the Stones wear the Houndstooth jackets......not long. The Beatles gained a lot of support from NOT being the Stones. The Stones were a lot scarier. I don't discount their legacy, they are 1 or 2, depending on who you are. The difference is simple, the Beatles wanted to "Hold Your Hand", the Stones "Wanted to Make Love to You", big difference.

This will get me killed, however, in my opinion, Paul has never and will never write with any adult depth.....Silly Love Songs. I'm a John guy, "How did he Sleep?" I don't know. Paul is likely the best pop song writer ever, but there's not much below the surface. Lennon's heart bled out of his mouth, with his emotionally exhausting personal songs.....Paul cashed checks. John could have been a Stone, Paul could not.

Also, top to bottom, the Stones were overall better musicians. George and Brian tie, Paul edges Bill, Stones sweep the rest.

Back to the main thrust, the Beatles wrote non offensive pop songs, built to sell. The Stones stayed truer to their roots, so going by sales alone is misleading.

This will also get me "killed" but the fact of the matter is, Paul's son James writes with more depth than his father. If you think I am kidding just check out his new album.

You should talk to a poster who recently went to summer camp and won't be back until October. He is the only other person who thinks that about James' album. Hard to believe two people in the world would think that. I'd almost think that you were him posting under a different screen name, but I know he would *never* do something like that.

Creepy...

Quote
drbryant

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain
This will also get me "killed" but the fact of the matter is, Paul's son James writes with more depth than his father. If you think I am kidding just check out his new album.

You should talk to a poster who recently went to summer camp and won't be back until October. He is the only other person who thinks that about James' album. Hard to believe two people in the world would think that. I'd almost think that you were him posting under a different screen name, but I know he would *never* do something like that.

Creepy...

Let's not use the word "creepy" to refer to someone who might have disassociative identity disorder (also referred to as multiple personality disorder). It is an illness, and should elicit sympathy, not ridicule. Victims often suffer from confusion over sexual identity (thus some of his identities are male, others are female), poor self-image, lack of normal social interaction and/or impotence. Let's HELP him - as Dionne Warwick once said, that's what friends are for!

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
drbryant

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain
This will also get me "killed" but the fact of the matter is, Paul's son James writes with more depth than his father. If you think I am kidding just check out his new album.

You should talk to a poster who recently went to summer camp and won't be back until October. He is the only other person who thinks that about James' album. Hard to believe two people in the world would think that. I'd almost think that you were him posting under a different screen name, but I know he would *never* do something like that.

Creepy...

Let's not use the word "creepy" to refer to someone who might have disassociative identity disorder (also referred to as multiple personality disorder). It is an illness, and should elicit sympathy, not ridicule. Victims often suffer from confusion over sexual identity (thus some of his identities are male, others are female), poor self-image, lack of normal social interaction and/or impotence. Let's HELP him - as Dionne Warwick once said, that's what friends are for!

interesting. i always diagnosed it as extreme boredom. i defer to you, dr.

Quote
Stoneage
What's wrong with a little trolling?

Quote
Thrylan
But it isn't even October.

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
Stoneage
What's wrong with a little trolling?

What is trolling?[/quote

Please define a troll? I would like to discuss this with you.

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
Thrylan
But it isn't even October.

Yes, but the autumn winds will soon to be upon us, and ALL EYES will once again be focused on the month of October! Just like last year!

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
Thrylan
But it isn't even October.

Yes, but the autumn winds will soon to be upon us, and ALL EYES will once again be focused on the month of October! Just like last year!

We'll keep a pumpkin burning on the railing, Jack!

We all await the return of JumpinJackOLantern in October--for the night he comes home....