Tell Me :
Talk
Overrated? Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, White Album were only for 'grandma, granddaughter'??
It's not anti-Beatle, it is pro-Stones
That makes sense............on this board
__________________________
But Stones fans should be able to discuss the Beatles with other Stones fans. If you don't want to read such discussions do something radical. Just don't open the thread.
Peace and love, peace and love!
I think they were brilliant songwriters too. But music is an art, not a science that deals in quantifiable facts. You can talk about widely held opinions, you can even talk about a consensus, but that still doesn't constitute an empirical fact.
So the point is that you can deny it, because it isn't in fact, a fact!
Another little known fact is that she hates when you call her, 'My old lady'.
That's a fact.
This is absolutely true. The Beatles were superior in virtually every aspect except one. The only thing the Stones did better than the Beatles was and remains rock and roll. But they did it much, much better than the Beatles or anyone else. And that will be their legacy.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-27 06:06 by drbryant.
I think the stones also did country better, blues, r&b, maybe soul, certainly disco (ok, ok, I know).
Beatles get the edge on slow ballads but here the Stones are very strong contenders. Psychedelic, again Beatles but Stones have some very strong material.
Radio friendly pop Beatles for sure, but Stones also have some great contributions here.
Beatles are more popular by a wide margin, but popularity is not by itself a measure of the quality of the music.
I agree and would add it's like choosing between the best chocolate and the best fried chicken
There will be those that beg to differ...
Darn you are off, way off
Unbelievably overrated, like his band
For some, the Beatles are an acquired taste. Luckily, I have a taste for both the Beatles and the Stones, and (along with Dylan) are equally great.
The Beatles rocked in the early days (that we can see via the old films) and the Hamburg tapes from the 1962-3 era. They rocked in front of the Queen (Twist and Shout) and Ed Sullivan (I Saw Her Standing There). They rocked on the Apple rooftop (January, 1969).
And they rocked on great recordings (see Past Masters Vol. 1 & 2) and selected tracks from ALL of their albums. They rock on the classic Chuck Berry cover 'Rock and Roll Music.'
Don't know what else to say about em,' beyond that the Beatles are rockers.
He is absolutely amazing in ever respect...it is impossible to underrate him though.
He is so built up, there is no way anyone could live up to that ideal, so yes in that respect he has to be overrated. There is no other alternative.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
BlackHat
()
Date: March 26, 2014 21:53
It is possible to love both. I do (but I do love the Beatles a little bit more). This whole anti-Beatles thing just makes people look silly. And even on a Stones forum it is interesting to talk about music other than the Stones. Not to do so would be very boring.
Peace and love, peace and love.
Peace and love, peace and love.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: March 26, 2014 22:16
Quote
michaelsavage
correct. Plus beatles were so overrated and only so popular because they were loved by the masses (grandma, granddaughter) what with their safer, pop music
Overrated? Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, White Album were only for 'grandma, granddaughter'??
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Deltics
()
Date: March 26, 2014 22:28
My Grandma liked the Stones, she reckoned they had "a good beat and the singer moves very well". She died in 1972 aged 84.
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: March 26, 2014 23:10
Quote
BlackHat
It is possible to love both. I do (but I do love the Beatles a little bit more). This whole anti-Beatles thing just makes people look silly. And even on a Stones forum it is interesting to talk about music other than the Stones. Not to do so would be very boring.
Peace and love, peace and love.
It's not anti-Beatle, it is pro-Stones
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
schwonek
()
Date: March 26, 2014 23:14
I really love The White Album. But then I prefer Let It Bleed. And many more.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: March 26, 2014 23:19
The White Album to me is Beggar's Banquet!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: March 26, 2014 23:19
Quote
michaelsavageQuote
BlackHat
It is possible to love both. I do (but I do love the Beatles a little bit more). This whole anti-Beatles thing just makes people look silly. And even on a Stones forum it is interesting to talk about music other than the Stones. Not to do so would be very boring.
Peace and love, peace and love.
It's not anti-Beatle, it is pro-Stones
That makes sense............on this board
__________________________
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
BlackHat
()
Date: March 26, 2014 23:41
Quote
michaelsavageQuote
BlackHat
It is possible to love both. I do (but I do love the Beatles a little bit more). This whole anti-Beatles thing just makes people look silly. And even on a Stones forum it is interesting to talk about music other than the Stones. Not to do so would be very boring.
Peace and love, peace and love.
It's not anti-Beatle, it is pro-Stones
But Stones fans should be able to discuss the Beatles with other Stones fans. If you don't want to read such discussions do something radical. Just don't open the thread.
Peace and love, peace and love!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
dmay
()
Date: March 26, 2014 23:54
Love the Stones, but heresy of heresies, the Beatles music overall was, is and will be much more lasting than what the Stones music is. Outside of Bob Dylan, whose songwriting changed the whole concept of what a pop or rock song could be, Lennon and McCartney, as part of The Beatles, were the best rock/pop songwriters that came along over the past 50 years. You can't change or deny this fact. The melodicism of their songs, the quality inherent in them and availability to riff off of their medlodies, also can't be denied. The fact that their music is played by artists in different musical genres also points to the quality of the songs and the Beatles impact on all popular music. You can not in all honesty say the same for the Stones.
You can give Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie, et al, credit for their longevity as a band, their impact upon what's called the rock'n'roll lifestyle, some incredible rock songs, but when you come down to it, the Stones these days are what they started out as - a covers band. They are covering their own material as one of, if not the world's most expensive oldie's band. One look at the Stones set lists over the past years well confirms this view. Perhaps, if The Beatles were still intact, it would be the same for them. But, right now, you can only go with what's in front of you.
You can give Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie, et al, credit for their longevity as a band, their impact upon what's called the rock'n'roll lifestyle, some incredible rock songs, but when you come down to it, the Stones these days are what they started out as - a covers band. They are covering their own material as one of, if not the world's most expensive oldie's band. One look at the Stones set lists over the past years well confirms this view. Perhaps, if The Beatles were still intact, it would be the same for them. But, right now, you can only go with what's in front of you.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: March 27, 2014 01:34
Quote
dmay
You can't change or deny this fact.
I think they were brilliant songwriters too. But music is an art, not a science that deals in quantifiable facts. You can talk about widely held opinions, you can even talk about a consensus, but that still doesn't constitute an empirical fact.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 27, 2014 01:56
Quote
AquamarineQuote
dmay
You can't change or deny this fact.
I think they were brilliant songwriters too. But music is an art, not a science that deals in quantifiable facts. You can talk about widely held opinions, you can even talk about a consensus, but that still doesn't constitute an empirical fact.
So the point is that you can deny it, because it isn't in fact, a fact!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: March 27, 2014 02:04
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
AquamarineQuote
dmay
You can't change or deny this fact.
I think they were brilliant songwriters too. But music is an art, not a science that deals in quantifiable facts. You can talk about widely held opinions, you can even talk about a consensus, but that still doesn't constitute an empirical fact.
So the point is that you can deny it, because it isn't in fact, a fact!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
dmay
()
Date: March 27, 2014 02:10
And, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
Right now, Hugo Montenegro's take on the theme from "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly" just came up on my music mix. My old lady hates this movie (runs from the house when I put it on the player) and any version of the song. And, that's a fact, Jack!!!!
Right now, Hugo Montenegro's take on the theme from "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly" just came up on my music mix. My old lady hates this movie (runs from the house when I put it on the player) and any version of the song. And, that's a fact, Jack!!!!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 27, 2014 02:13
Quote
dmay
And, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
Right now, Hugo Montenegro's take on the theme from "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly" just came up on my music mix. My old lady hates this movie (runs from the house when I put it on the player) and any version of the song. And, that's a fact, Jack!!!!
Another little known fact is that she hates when you call her, 'My old lady'.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: March 27, 2014 02:52
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
AquamarineQuote
dmay
You can't change or deny this fact.
I think they were brilliant songwriters too. But music is an art, not a science that deals in quantifiable facts. You can talk about widely held opinions, you can even talk about a consensus, but that still doesn't constitute an empirical fact.
So the point is that you can deny it, because it isn't in fact, a fact!
That's a fact.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: March 27, 2014 06:05
Quote
dmay
Love the Stones, but heresy of heresies, the Beatles music overall was, is and will be much more lasting than what the Stones music is. Outside of Bob Dylan, whose songwriting changed the whole concept of what a pop or rock song could be, Lennon and McCartney, as part of The Beatles, were the best rock/pop songwriters that came along over the past 50 years. You can't change or deny this fact. The melodicism of their songs, the quality inherent in them and availability to riff off of their medlodies, also can't be denied. The fact that their music is played by artists in different musical genres also points to the quality of the songs and the Beatles impact on all popular music. You can not in all honesty say the same for the Stones.
This is absolutely true. The Beatles were superior in virtually every aspect except one. The only thing the Stones did better than the Beatles was and remains rock and roll. But they did it much, much better than the Beatles or anyone else. And that will be their legacy.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-27 06:06 by drbryant.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
dmay
()
Date: March 27, 2014 08:04
Ummm...the Stones legacy, IMHO, will be how long they remained together as a band. I will willingly grant that as a "rock'n'roll" band the Stones were better than The Beatles. Their music styles were and are much different and the Stones went for a harder edge. I will also note that in the early days of the so called 1960s "English Invasion" of American radio air waves, Eric Burdon and The Animals were much better than the Stones at covering American blues and r&b. But, this is another thread to be explored - which English band best exemplified American blues and r&b in the 1960s.
And, another thought just popped up - what would the Stones have sounded like if they had had a producer like George Martin? I ask, because I just read volume 1 of Mark Lewisohn's book on how the Beatles came about. It's a great history of post World War II England, English culture, Liverpool, the music scene in England that led to folks such as the Beatles and Stones and the influence of record producers on what passed for teen music in England in the 1950s and early 1960s. Brian Jones even gets a quote or two in the book regarding what he thought of "rock'n'roll" music as opposed to American blues music.
As for the comment regarding "my old lady" up above, well, the post where I mention the term is the only time I have used that term out loud and was said mockingly, though, the misses does hate that movie. For you youngsters out there, the phrases "my old lady", "my old man", were used by us old counterculture types back in the day to refer to our significant others. Joni Mitchell even uses the term in one of her songs.
And, another thought just popped up - what would the Stones have sounded like if they had had a producer like George Martin? I ask, because I just read volume 1 of Mark Lewisohn's book on how the Beatles came about. It's a great history of post World War II England, English culture, Liverpool, the music scene in England that led to folks such as the Beatles and Stones and the influence of record producers on what passed for teen music in England in the 1950s and early 1960s. Brian Jones even gets a quote or two in the book regarding what he thought of "rock'n'roll" music as opposed to American blues music.
As for the comment regarding "my old lady" up above, well, the post where I mention the term is the only time I have used that term out loud and was said mockingly, though, the misses does hate that movie. For you youngsters out there, the phrases "my old lady", "my old man", were used by us old counterculture types back in the day to refer to our significant others. Joni Mitchell even uses the term in one of her songs.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 27, 2014 14:11
Quote
drbryantQuote
dmay
Love the Stones, but heresy of heresies, the Beatles music overall was, is and will be much more lasting than what the Stones music is. Outside of Bob Dylan, whose songwriting changed the whole concept of what a pop or rock song could be, Lennon and McCartney, as part of The Beatles, were the best rock/pop songwriters that came along over the past 50 years. You can't change or deny this fact. The melodicism of their songs, the quality inherent in them and availability to riff off of their medlodies, also can't be denied. The fact that their music is played by artists in different musical genres also points to the quality of the songs and the Beatles impact on all popular music. You can not in all honesty say the same for the Stones.
This is absolutely true. The Beatles were superior in virtually every aspect except one. The only thing the Stones did better than the Beatles was and remains rock and roll. But they did it much, much better than the Beatles or anyone else. And that will be their legacy.
I think the stones also did country better, blues, r&b, maybe soul, certainly disco (ok, ok, I know).
Beatles get the edge on slow ballads but here the Stones are very strong contenders. Psychedelic, again Beatles but Stones have some very strong material.
Radio friendly pop Beatles for sure, but Stones also have some great contributions here.
Beatles are more popular by a wide margin, but popularity is not by itself a measure of the quality of the music.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
andrewt
()
Date: March 27, 2014 14:54
It's like choosing between chocolate and fried chicken.
Sure you can, but why?
Sure you can, but why?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Ket
()
Date: March 27, 2014 15:04
Quote
andrewt
It's like choosing between chocolate and fried chicken.
Sure you can, but why?
I agree and would add it's like choosing between the best chocolate and the best fried chicken
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: March 27, 2014 15:10
My simple formula:
I acknowledge that the Rolling Stones to a greater extent than the Beatles are an acquired taste. (You can compare that point of view to drinking of some types of alcohol. Your preferences develop with the experience.) I have got that special acquired taste. Else, the evaluation might have been the other way round.
Then it is easy for me: The Beatles are mighty good. But the Rolling Stones are better and the best!
Besides, have you noticed how many repetitions that the music from the Stones can stand. Had I exposed the Beatles to as many repetitions, I don't think I would have found them quite as good as I now really do.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-27 15:13 by Witness.
I acknowledge that the Rolling Stones to a greater extent than the Beatles are an acquired taste. (You can compare that point of view to drinking of some types of alcohol. Your preferences develop with the experience.) I have got that special acquired taste. Else, the evaluation might have been the other way round.
Then it is easy for me: The Beatles are mighty good. But the Rolling Stones are better and the best!
Besides, have you noticed how many repetitions that the music from the Stones can stand. Had I exposed the Beatles to as many repetitions, I don't think I would have found them quite as good as I now really do.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-27 15:13 by Witness.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: March 27, 2014 15:44
No-one is Greater than John Lennon. He even wrote the song 'I'm The Greatest'...
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 27, 2014 15:50
Quote
Come On
No-one is Greater than John Lennon. He even wrote the song 'I'm The Greatest'...
There will be those that beg to differ...
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: March 27, 2014 16:13
Quote
dmay
Ummm...the Stones legacy, IMHO, will be how long they remained together as a band. I will willingly grant that as a "rock'n'roll" band the Stones were better than The Beatles. Their music styles were and are much different and the Stones went for a harder edge. I will also note that in the early days of the so called 1960s "English Invasion" of American radio air waves, Eric Burdon and The Animals were much better than the Stones at covering American blues and r&b. But, this is another thread to be explored - which English band best exemplified American blues and r&b in the 1960s.
And, another thought just popped up - what would the Stones have sounded like if they had had a producer like George Martin? I ask, because I just read volume 1 of Mark Lewisohn's book on how the Beatles came about. It's a great history of post World War II England, English culture, Liverpool, the music scene in England that led to folks such as the Beatles and Stones and the influence of record producers on what passed for teen music in England in the 1950s and early 1960s. Brian Jones even gets a quote or two in the book regarding what he thought of "rock'n'roll" music as opposed to American blues music.
As for the comment regarding "my old lady" up above, well, the post where I mention the term is the only time I have used that term out loud and was said mockingly, though, the misses does hate that movie. For you youngsters out there, the phrases "my old lady", "my old man", were used by us old counterculture types back in the day to refer to our significant others. Joni Mitchell even uses the term in one of her songs.
Darn you are off, way off
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: March 27, 2014 16:14
Quote
Come On
No-one is Greater than John Lennon. He even wrote the song 'I'm The Greatest'...
Unbelievably overrated, like his band
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: March 27, 2014 16:27
Quote
Witness
My simple formula:
I acknowledge that the Rolling Stones to a greater extent than the Beatles are an acquired taste. (You can compare that point of view to drinking of some types of alcohol. Your preferences develop with the experience.) I have got that special acquired taste. Else, the evaluation might have been the other way round.
Then it is easy for me: The Beatles are mighty good. But the Rolling Stones are better and the best!
Besides, have you noticed how many repetitions that the music from the Stones can stand. Had I exposed the Beatles to as many repetitions, I don't think I would have found them quite as good as I now really do.
For some, the Beatles are an acquired taste. Luckily, I have a taste for both the Beatles and the Stones, and (along with Dylan) are equally great.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: March 27, 2014 17:20
Stones, The Who, The Clash, Zep - those are the real rockers
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: March 27, 2014 17:30
Quote
michaelsavage
Stones, The Who, The Clash, Zep - those are the real rockers
The Beatles rocked in the early days (that we can see via the old films) and the Hamburg tapes from the 1962-3 era. They rocked in front of the Queen (Twist and Shout) and Ed Sullivan (I Saw Her Standing There). They rocked on the Apple rooftop (January, 1969).
And they rocked on great recordings (see Past Masters Vol. 1 & 2) and selected tracks from ALL of their albums. They rock on the classic Chuck Berry cover 'Rock and Roll Music.'
Don't know what else to say about em,' beyond that the Beatles are rockers.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 27, 2014 17:37
Quote
michaelsavageQuote
Come On
No-one is Greater than John Lennon. He even wrote the song 'I'm The Greatest'...
Unbelievably overrated, like his band
He is absolutely amazing in ever respect...it is impossible to underrate him though.
He is so built up, there is no way anyone could live up to that ideal, so yes in that respect he has to be overrated. There is no other alternative.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1153
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10