Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: 1234567891011...LastNext
Current Page: 1 of 109
Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: ozziestone ()
Date: September 25, 2013 14:51

Now there is a whole book about it

[www.salon.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-02 15:09 by bv.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Godxofxrock9 ()
Date: September 25, 2013 14:56

Why do we fight about this we all know who is better

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Come On ()
Date: September 25, 2013 15:00

Finally! Bloody 'bout time also...

BTW great pictures on Keith and John in the article....thumbs up


..she wouldn't say
I said something wrong
Now I long..

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: September 25, 2013 16:50

From the description of the book, doesn't seem a 'verses' type book as in comparing the quality of the bands, more about their lives.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Date: September 25, 2013 16:51

Quote
Godxofxrock9
Why do we fight about this we all know who is better

We fight because we care. smiling smiley

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: michaelsavage ()
Date: September 25, 2013 18:10

So silly. Stones were ROCK, Beatles were pop/boy band types

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: September 25, 2013 18:26

Quote
michaelsavage
So silly. Stones were ROCK, Beatles were pop/boy band types

I think you're being silly now...both bands played incredibly successfully with all sorts of styles of music.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: GumbootCloggeroo ()
Date: September 25, 2013 18:36

For being a supposed boy band, The Beatles certainly didn't dance at all. nor did they refrain from playing their instruments to concentrate solely on their vocals and dance moves.

How are they a boy band again?

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: michaelsavage ()
Date: September 25, 2013 18:39

Soft pop

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: September 25, 2013 18:44

Quote
michaelsavage
Soft pop

you mean Let's Spend the Night Together, Angie, or Mixed Emotions?

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: michaelsavage ()
Date: September 25, 2013 18:48

no, I mean Beatles song. Majority

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Witness ()
Date: September 25, 2013 18:50

Quote
michaelsavage
Soft pop




Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: September 25, 2013 19:18

Quote
Witness
Quote
michaelsavage
Soft pop



Do the stones have a song as heavy as Helter Skelter?

I mean this really isn't a pissing match, but I don't think you can slag off either band for doing different styles.

I think you might argue the Beatles did soft pop better than the Stones, Let It Be, Yesterday, Something...but that doesn't mean that's all they were about.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: BJPortugal ()
Date: September 25, 2013 19:23

They are both great smileys with beer

No reason for rivalry or non-sense comparisons. thumbs up

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Marhsall ()
Date: September 25, 2013 19:25

The Beatles weren't a boy band and didn't dance??

Have you never seen those nifty moves they were busting out coming down the staircase in M.M.T. To Your mother should know, lol

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: sf37 ()
Date: September 25, 2013 19:25

For those not in the know, a Beatles vs Stones book was also put out a few years back.....

[www.amazon.ca]

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: michaelsavage ()
Date: September 25, 2013 19:39

I dunno, just find them soft and pop, which is why I think they are kind of blah and very overrated

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Witness ()
Date: September 25, 2013 19:59

Quote
michaelsavage
I dunno, just find them soft and pop, which is why I think they are kind of blah and very overrated

If you prefer to stay blind and deprive yourself of experiencing their kind of greatness, that is your choice and, of course, your privilege.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: GumbootCloggeroo ()
Date: September 25, 2013 20:02

Funny, for a band being "soft and pop" they certainly had a drummer that played heavier and louder than The Stones have.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: BluzDude ()
Date: September 25, 2013 20:07

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Funny, for a band being "soft and pop" they certainly had a drummer that played heavier and louder than The Stones have.

Agree, McCartney did play drums a little louder and heavier than Charlie.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: BluzDude ()
Date: September 25, 2013 20:12

the whole thing with band rivalries is pretty much fan based.

Hendrix and Clapton were dear friends and had nothing but respect for each other, but their fans would go to war with each other....except for the few like me who admired them both.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: September 25, 2013 20:15

Quote
BluzDude
the whole thing with band rivalries is pretty much fan based.

Hendrix and Clapton were dear friends and had nothing but respect for each other...

You ought to read 1968 Rolling Stone interview with Clapton.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: September 25, 2013 21:07

Beatles versus Stones? You've got to admit that Andrew Loog Oldham had a shrewd marketing plan.

And it worked. People are still fighting over the imaginary battle lines drawn by ALO to this day.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: mtaylor ()
Date: September 25, 2013 21:08

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
For being a supposed boy band, The Beatles certainly didn't dance at all. nor did they refrain from playing their instruments to concentrate solely on their vocals and dance moves.

How are they a boy band again?

Having the typically stupid / goofy smile - doesn't take more.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Date: September 26, 2013 03:46

It's time to put this Stones vs Beatles thing to bed! The Stones surged ahead at Glastonbury, never to look back!

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: jazzbass ()
Date: September 26, 2013 04:48

No. 1 and 1a.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: September 26, 2013 04:52

How about the Beatles and the Stones vs. Ditka?

Re: Beatles v Stones
Date: September 26, 2013 05:03

Quote
ryanpow
How about the Beatles and the Stones vs. Ditka?

About all Ditka can do anymore is growl! Mick would dance circles around him!

Re: Beatles v Stones
Date: September 26, 2013 05:18

Quote
stonehearted
Beatles versus Stones? You've got to admit that Andrew Loog Oldham had a shrewd marketing plan.

And it worked. People are still fighting over the imaginary battle lines drawn by ALO to this day.

True, but there is an actual marketing war going on between Beatles Inc. and Stones Inc. today. It's the "silent war" that neither party will admit to.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Blueranger ()
Date: September 26, 2013 12:23

Godxofxrock9 / Michaelsavage
= Mickscary???

Goto Page: 1234567891011...LastNext
Current Page: 1 of 109


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 421
Record Number of Users: 161 on September 12, 2017 22:55
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home