Quote
Big Al
The Beatles were light years ahead of the Stones. Compare Revolver to Aftermath. I genuinely believe the Lennon-McCartney partnership was a phenomenon, never to be repeated or bettered.

Why would you compare those two? The Beatles were the best popsong writers ever. Yes. Revolver contains a few brilliant pop songs (Here There Everywhere especially) and one brilliant song that goes beyond (Tomorrow Never Knows). Even so, I never understood how come the Beatles, even on their best albums, always insisted on including 1 or 2 rubbish songs too (Yellow Submarine on Revolver, for one). Why?

Anyway, Aftermath was the first (and best) try of the Stones to get some British pop sound. It's not bad. I prefer it because there is still a clear feel of the "blues" on it, a definite early Stones feel. I never listen to Between the Buttons because I think it's awul and I only listen to half of Their Satanic. The Stones will never be the "best popsong writers". Then again, I cannot think of any single other rock n roll band that actually swings, grooves, and funks, the way the Stones do. Which makes them special in their own way.

And yes, the Lennon-McCartney partnership was special, but the genius was Paul. John was very lucky to get to know Paul as later he was very lucky to get to know Yoko. I don't think either Mick or Keith is "genius", and they clearly both needed each other but talking about Mick and Keith would take pages and has already been done extensively on this forum.

Quote
Big Al
The Beatles were light years ahead of the Stones. Compare Revolver to Aftermath. I genuinely believe the Lennon-McCartney partnership was a phenomenon, never to be repeated or bettered.

That, Big Al, is what they want you to believe. it's all very different, though!
Once upon a time there were three cousins, all very talented musically. They used to hang around in the park, one collecting insects, the second one collecting pebbles, and the third one would warn the others if girls would pass by. They used the insects and pebbles to scare or tease the girls.
After a while the insect fan developed a particular like for "beetles" and the pebbles fan got bored and started to focus on "stones". The third one merely stayed alive to tell the story in future days. And that's how it all started.
Aftermath or Revolver .... it's all a matter of taste.
Well, from now on you can't say that you didn't read this amazing story. Just remember it.

Quote
Big Al
The Beatles were light years ahead of the Stones. Compare Revolver to Aftermath. I genuinely believe the Lennon-McCartney partnership was a phenomenon, never to be repeated or bettered.

Though the Stones have written some great songs (obviously), overall I'd have to agree. The Beatles' recorded legacy will continue on forever whereas the Stones and all other rock bands of the era will eventually become a footnote. The Stones' legacy will mostly be based on their longevity and touring, though there might be slight mention of their recorded music c. 63-'81.

Pete Townshend is another great songwriter, and while the Who might not be up there with the Beatles, they certainly are in the same league as the Stones - some would say a notch above.
While the Stones are mostly great at simple rock and roll (and a bit of diversity), the Beatles and The Who have a catalogue filled with uniqueness and superior creativity that took it all to another level.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Pete Townshend is another great songwriter, and while the Who might not be up there with the Beatles, they certainly are in the same league as the Stones - some would say a notch above.

Would you say the Who is a notch above? Or are you just trolling?

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Hairball

Pete Townshend is another great songwriter, and while the Who might not be up there with the Beatles, they certainly are in the same league as the Stones - some would say a notch above.

Would you say the Who is a notch above? Or are you just trolling?

No trolling from me, just some food for thought. Having been on some Who forums the last year or so, many think they are the greatest - even above the Beatles.
Personally I wouldn't say they're above the Stones overall, but if I were to look at certain songs and/or certain albums individually and make comparisons, Pete Townshend definitely ranks up there as an equal if not better.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-08 18:56 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Hairball

Pete Townshend is another great songwriter, and while the Who might not be up there with the Beatles, they certainly are in the same league as the Stones - some would say a notch above.

Would you say the Who is a notch above? Or are you just trolling?

No trolling from me, just some food for thought. Having been on some Who forums the last year or so, many think they are the greatest - even above the Beatles.
Personally I wouldn't say they're above the Stones overall, but if I were to look at certain songs and/or certain albums individually and make comparisons, Pete Townshend definitely ranks up there as an equal if not better.

The Stones seemed to think the same thing, at least regarding their respective performances in Rock And Roll Circus. "A Quick One" is a brilliant song, brilliantly performed. That said, I think the Stones were too hard on themselves. The Who though...

My thread got sucked into the vortex!! Aaaaaaghhhh!!!

Quote
MileHigh
My thread got sucked into the vortex!! Aaaaaaghhhh!!!

Told ya!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
Big Al
The Beatles were light years ahead of the Stones. Compare Revolver to Aftermath. I genuinely believe the Lennon-McCartney partnership was a phenomenon, never to be repeated or bettered.

Aftermath is more uneven than Revolver. But there is nothing on Revolver that moves me like Under My Thumb or Out Of Time.

Quote
bleedingman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Hairball

Pete Townshend is another great songwriter, and while the Who might not be up there with the Beatles, they certainly are in the same league as the Stones - some would say a notch above.

Would you say the Who is a notch above? Or are you just trolling?

No trolling from me, just some food for thought. Having been on some Who forums the last year or so, many think they are the greatest - even above the Beatles.
Personally I wouldn't say they're above the Stones overall, but if I were to look at certain songs and/or certain albums individually and make comparisons, Pete Townshend definitely ranks up there as an equal if not better.

The Stones seemed to think the same thing, at least regarding their respective performances in Rock And Roll Circus. "A Quick One" is a brilliant song, brilliantly performed. That said, I think the Stones were too hard on themselves. The Who though...

If .... there would not have been the Rolling Stones ... I would very likely have become a fan of the Who. I have most of their music and they are truly a great band. However, since the Rolling Stones were there (ans still are, lucky me) the Who eventually became second, but well behind the Stones being a unique bunch.

By the way, there is nothing wrong about Who fans thinking their band are the best, so do Beatles fans, U2 fans, Queen fans and so on. Problem for all of them of course is that the Rolling Stones are the greatest of all ...
Don't shoot me ...

Hey yeah each to their own …..
Heck I know heaps of people who wouldn't be alive with out the Band Aid



ROCKMAN

Not sure if the link is working for all of you............................

[www.facebook.com]

__________________________

Quote
NICOS
Not sure if the link is working for all of you............................

[www.facebook.com]

That didn't work for me because I BLOCK Facebook (see later), but I unblocked it and it was very interesting indeed.

Here's a Zukerberg free link

[www.youtube.com]

"Numbers are worldwide and adjusted to twelve months trailing average.". Interesting that Elvis consistently outsold The Beatles, and I must have blinked and missed the Stones.

Some years back, I started to block Facebook (where I do not have an account) when it started to appear in a list of sites my browser (and my OS!) were connecting to on a regular basis. Presumably from things going on on the Web - and I block adverts as well!

Edited to source the data from the ORIGINAL not some third hand plagiarist taking credit.
Edited to correct my erroneous assumption that it was USA only. It's worldwide.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-11-10 02:49 by CaptainCorella.

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
NICOS
Not sure if the link is working for all of you............................

[www.facebook.com]

That didn't work for me because I BLOCK Facebook (see later), but I unblocked it and it was very interesting indeed.

Here's a Zukerberg free link

[www.youtube.com]

"Numbers are worldwide and adjusted to twelve months trailing average.". Interesting that Elvis consistently outsold The Beatles, and I must have blinked and missed the Stones.

Some years back, I started to block Facebook (where I do not have an account) when it started to appear in a list of sites my browser (and my OS!) were connecting to on a regular basis. Presumably from things going on on the Web - and I block adverts as well!

Edited to source the data from the ORIGINAL not some third hand plagiarist taking credit.
Edited to correct my erroneous assumption that it was USA only. It's worldwide.

Thanks Captain .....as I saw Garth Brooks enter the stage I thought it was more a USA thing............

__________________________

The death has been reported of Robert Freeman, who photographed The Beatles for the famous black and white cover of 'With The Beatles'

[www.theage.com.au]

I met him once. It was at an exhibition in London in late 1988 - where Yoko had some stuff including John's Sgt. Pepper outfit (a very strange and startling thing to come across unexpectedly). Bob Freeman was there selling signed archival prints of that album cover. I bought one and made a point of shaking his hand. The print is framed on the wall right near where I'm typing this.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
georgie48

Quote
bleedingman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Hairball

Pete Townshend is another great songwriter, and while the Who might not be up there with the Beatles, they certainly are in the same league as the Stones - some would say a notch above.

Would you say the Who is a notch above? Or are you just trolling?

No trolling from me, just some food for thought. Having been on some Who forums the last year or so, many think they are the greatest - even above the Beatles.
Personally I wouldn't say they're above the Stones overall, but if I were to look at certain songs and/or certain albums individually and make comparisons, Pete Townshend definitely ranks up there as an equal if not better.

The Stones seemed to think the same thing, at least regarding their respective performances in Rock And Roll Circus. "A Quick One" is a brilliant song, brilliantly performed. That said, I think the Stones were too hard on themselves. The Who though...

If .... there would not have been the Rolling Stones ... I would very likely have become a fan of the Who. I have most of their music and they are truly a great band. However, since the Rolling Stones were there (ans still are, lucky me) the Who eventually became second, but well behind the Stones being a unique bunch.

By the way, there is nothing wrong about Who fans thinking their band are the best, so do Beatles fans, U2 fans, Queen fans and so on. Problem for all of them of course is that the Rolling Stones are the greatest of all ...
Don't shoot me ...

I seem to remember my thinking during a certain period in the '60s when I was gradually arriving at fanship with the Rolling Stones that if there was a rival group to the Stones, it was not the Beatles and none of the other mentionned groups or bands and neither the Kinks, but rather the Animals in case. ( And I was one who earlier on started out, still some time yet without my own recordplayer, liking the Beatles better than the Stones, despite certain Stones songs, without yet having become fan of any.)

Charlie and Ringo about the Beatles and the Stones

Charlie and Ringo.

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Hairball

Pete Townshend is another great songwriter, and while the Who might not be up there with the Beatles, they certainly are in the same league as the Stones - some would say a notch above.

Would you say the Who is a notch above? Or are you just trolling?

Excepting Who's Next, Who albums are like Prince albums - 1 or 2 classics and a lot of crap.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Excepting Who's Next, Who albums are like Prince albums - 1 or 2 classics and a lot of crap.

The sheer unadulterated wrong-headedness of this take is positively intoxicating! It's difficult for me to say whether Mr Lewis is more in error with the discography of The Who or with the works of Prince.

But variety is the spice of life - to each his/her own!

Also excepting Purple Rain.

BTW, I have been listening to the Who a lot lately. I love this band - one of the best live acts I've ever seen.

That said, I stand by my opinion on both artists (and was sure I'd get some disagreement).

Cheers, Lazarus!

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Rockman
.... Yeah I'd take Aftermath ......

Ah, there’s that famous Aussie humour!

If you had to battle with someone with a revolver, i'd hate to see the aftermath.

…. Naaarr Just pop a cap in her arse and run ….



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
…. Naaarr Just pop a cap in her arse and run ….

I'd rather not get a visual of a "Rockman Date Night".

eeeeerrrr well many love the Moroccan for size
but the taste & texture of the sun dried Californian date usually wins …….



ROCKMAN

Quote
Big Al
The Beatles were light years ahead of the Stones. Compare Revolver to Aftermath. I genuinely believe the Lennon-McCartney partnership was a phenomenon, never to be repeated or bettered.

For most of my adult life i would have disagreed vehemently with this assertion. But for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me I have taken a deep dive into the three recent Beatles 50th anniversary sets and I must say that I am overwhelmed by the sheer musical talent on display therein.

These guys could play and sing and write and develop music at a level that people will still be talking about eons from now. For all of their many achievements and cultural importance, The Stones simply did not operate on an equivalent musical level.

Quote
LazarusSmith

Quote
Big Al
The Beatles were light years ahead of the Stones. Compare Revolver to Aftermath. I genuinely believe the Lennon-McCartney partnership was a phenomenon, never to be repeated or bettered.

For most of my adult life i would have disagreed vehemently with this assertion. But for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me I have taken a deep dive into the three recent Beatles 50th anniversary sets and I must say that I am overwhelmed by the sheer musical talent on display therein.

These guys could play and sing and write and develop music at a level that people will still be talking about eons from now. For all of their many achievements and cultural importance, The Stones simply did not operate on an equivalent musical level.

Bravely written!

I'll agree, and add that the SOCIAL influence of The Beatles was, and is, greater than any other pop group ever.

And none of that lessens my longstanding dedication to The Rolling Stones.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

What the Captain said!

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
LazarusSmith

Quote
Big Al
The Beatles were light years ahead of the Stones. Compare Revolver to Aftermath. I genuinely believe the Lennon-McCartney partnership was a phenomenon, never to be repeated or bettered.

For most of my adult life i would have disagreed vehemently with this assertion. But for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me I have taken a deep dive into the three recent Beatles 50th anniversary sets and I must say that I am overwhelmed by the sheer musical talent on display therein.

These guys could play and sing and write and develop music at a level that people will still be talking about eons from now. For all of their many achievements and cultural importance, The Stones simply did not operate on an equivalent musical level.

Bravely written!

I'll agree, and add that the SOCIAL influence of The Beatles was, and is, greater than any other pop group ever.

And none of that lessens my longstanding dedication to The Rolling Stones.

Come on, really? Where IS the social influence of the Beatles? I hear nobody talking about them, I don't hear their music on the radio anymore, I don't see them on TV - and that even with the new releases that were welcome (by the die-hard fans). Btw - where is the social influence of the Stones? It's not 1970 anymore and you can find the guys with social influence on Twitter.

I'll never understand this mechanism, which drives older men to transform their personal taste into a supposedly scientific ground. "people will still be talking about eons from now" about WHAT Big Al? About the drum-solo on "Love Me Do" or the only existing REAL HARD ROCK song "Back In The USSR"? Eons from now they all will be interesting footnotes of history, like Elvis is already for the biggest part of the human race. Same with the Beatles. Who gives a damn? And yes, they Stones will end up there as well.

I don't disagree with you that the Beatles are overrated. Or seem overrated. There's no other band where every song is dissected so much and pointed out as brilliant. Its kind of insane. Like, is Doctor Robert really ANYTHING special? Not really, but its a Beatles song so you can have a college course about it.

Having said that, as often as I feel THAT way, its also truly incredible what they were able to accomplish. I really do think you're selling them TOO short, and I know thats kind of intentional, but they absolutely were just more inventive than almost any band out there. And I think the key is consistency. They were inventive for so long with outstanding results. Did any band change so much in as short a time as them? Its crazy when you look back on it. It seems cliched now, and overdone, but they were pushing boundaries no one else were, and I would argue did, and thats not a knock to any other group. I personally like full Stones records better than any Beatles album. To me, the Beatles never made anything as good as Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers. But I also don't think the Stones were nearly as inventive or creative as the Beatles. They had their periods where they did what they were doing extremely well, better than anyone, but I wouldn't say they started trends or created things like the Beatles did. And thats simultaneously not a big deal but also something the Beatles do need to be constantly praised for.

Its mind blowing listening to Sgt. Pepper's, the White Album and Abbey Road and not marvel at these guys. I think its cliched at this point to praise them, but sometimes when you're listening to their stuff you hear something that makes you go "right, THATS why its cliched now." Because it really is all true.