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: Previous1234567891011...LastNext
Current Page: 2 of 196
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Wild Slivovitz ()
Date: September 26, 2013 13:05

Mmmh... I'll go for the Stones....

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: xke38 ()
Date: September 26, 2013 13:56

I'd say this quote from Greg Kot/BBC Culture sums it up nicely:

"Were the Stones as revolutionary as the Beatles? No, but their reign of good-to-great albums was nearly twice as long, and their best music from this era – 1963 through 1981 – has a consistency, durability and variety that few bands from any era could match. Not even The Beatles, it turns out."

Were the Stones underrated?

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Come On ()
Date: September 26, 2013 14:18

Quote
xke38
I'd say this quote from Greg Kot/BBC Culture sums it up nicely:

"Were the Stones as revolutionary as the Beatles? No, but their reign of good-to-great albums was nearly twice as long, and their best music from this era – 1963 through 1981 – has a consistency, durability and variety that few bands from any era could match. Not even The Beatles, it turns out."

Were the Stones underrated?

We can always speculate that if The Beatles had continued to make albums between 1971 and 1981, they had been worse than those Stones have done ...grinning smiley

2 1 2 0

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: September 26, 2013 14:26

Quote
xke38
I'd say this quote from Greg Kot/BBC Culture sums it up nicely:

"Were the Stones as revolutionary as the Beatles? No, but their reign of good-to-great albums was nearly twice as long, and their best music from this era – 1963 through 1981 – has a consistency, durability and variety that few bands from any era could match. Not even The Beatles, it turns out."

Nonesense.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: September 26, 2013 14:33

Quote
mtaylor
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.

How old are you? 5?

Re: The Department of Historical Accuracy
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: September 26, 2013 14:42

Quote
Come On
BTW great pictures of Keith and John in the article

Well, with the article that full of factual errors who needs a whole book?
eye rolling smiley
That shot of Keith is by Gijsbert Hanekroot - I've always loved the series he shot on that fine 1976 day

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: ash ()
Date: September 26, 2013 14:56

It's time to stop this now. So...

5 Stones - Mick,Keith,Brian,Charlie,Bill

4 Beatles - John,Paul,George,Ringo.

Let's add George Martin as he's probably got more right to be called the 5th Beatle than most other contenders.

It's a fist fight (no knives Keith ! )

Who wins ?

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Come On ()
Date: September 26, 2013 15:01

Quote
ash
It's time to stop this now. So...

5 Stones - Mick,Keith,Brian,Charlie,Bill

4 Beatles - John,Paul,George,Ringo.

Let's add George Martin as he's probably got more right to be called the 5th Beatle than most other contenders.

It's a fist fight (no knives Keith ! )

Who wins ?

That said, just to take the bull by the horns ... which band is the best? The Beatles or The Rolling Stones ...I'm a Stones fan but even Lennon-fan so I reply flatly ...smoking smiley

2 1 2 0

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: ash ()
Date: September 26, 2013 15:15

I prefer The Beatles but the Stones are f****** brilliant too.
In a fist fight i think Mick would say "Beatles, why are we fighting ?" then they'd all sit round and get wasted while George Martin and Bill Wyman discussed national service.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: September 26, 2013 15:32

Why does this kind of certain troll subject keep raising its retarded head?

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: kish_stoned ()
Date: September 26, 2013 16:01

stones are here and still rocking,beatles sang all you need is love ,but hated each other. stones are way of life

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: michaelsavage ()
Date: September 26, 2013 17:13

Stones are ROCK; beatles are puff

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: September 26, 2013 18:36

Quote
michaelsavage
Stones are ROCK; beatles are puff

We know you hate the Beatles since you were mickscarey (or whatever it was) and posted it about a million times. You have not added anything useful to the discussion then, or now.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Green Lady ()
Date: September 26, 2013 18:48

Quote
71Tele
Quote
michaelsavage
Stones are ROCK; beatles are puff

We know you hate the Beatles since you were mickscarey (or whatever it was) and posted it about a million times. You have not added anything useful to the discussion then, or now.

He can't be mickscarey - he can spell Beatles...

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: michaelsavage ()
Date: September 26, 2013 18:55

I never said I HATE them. I said they were overrated (grossly) and they are good for elevator or department store background music. Safe, puffery, that's all.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Max'sKansasCity ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:03

If adding only new things useful to the discussion becomes a requirement on IORR it may severely limit what gets posted here, since so many conversations (esp about the Beatles/Stone threads) are basically people repeating what has been said many many many times.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:04

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
If adding only new things useful to the discussion becomes a requirement on IORR it may severely limit what gets posted here, since so many conversations (esp about the Beatles/Stone threads) are basically people repeating what has been said many many many times.

Well, I don't think you're wrong...How many "Beatles vs. Stones" threads do we need?

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Max'sKansasCity ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:05

So I vote for let people post what they want.... even if said before.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:05

Quote
michaelsavage
I never said I HATE them. I said they were overrated (grossly) and they are good for elevator or department store background music. Safe, puffery, that's all.

Same thing. You've said it a million times, under two different names, and have added nothing to the discussion except your boring opinion, unsupported by anything beyond that.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Max'sKansasCity ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:06

Quote
71Tele
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
If adding only new things useful to the discussion becomes a requirement on IORR it may severely limit what gets posted here, since so many conversations (esp about the Beatles/Stone threads) are basically people repeating what has been said many many many times.

Well, I don't think you're wrong...How many "Beatles vs. Stones" threads do we need?

Based on the endless stream of them, the answer seems to be A LOT MORE! winking smiley

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: michaelsavage ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:08

Quote
71Tele
Quote
michaelsavage
I never said I HATE them. I said they were overrated (grossly) and they are good for elevator or department store background music. Safe, puffery, that's all.

Same thing. You've said it a million times, under two different names, and have added nothing to the discussion except your boring opinion, unsupported by anything beyond that.

What other name?!

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Max'sKansasCity ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:10

Quote
71Tele
Quote
michaelsavage
I never said I HATE them. I said they were overrated (grossly) and they are good for elevator or department store background music. Safe, puffery, that's all.

Same thing. You've said it a million times, under two different names, and have added nothing to the discussion except your boring opinion, unsupported by anything beyond that.

and then you said... what you said... each time... and the beat goes on.

I guess it is like the circle of life... or something.


Isnt it about time to talk about Mick Taylor again, or is it time to start another thread about war horses... or setlists... or maybe a Kieth bashing thread... or maybe how they havent made a good song since 1972.... oh oh oh I know... how about a nice round of Chuck Leavell comments?

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Max'sKansasCity ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:13

grinning smiley

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: ash ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:15

Quote
michaelsavage
I never said I HATE them. I said they were overrated (grossly) and they are good for elevator or department store background music. Safe, puffery, that's all.
Wish they played Tomorrow Never Knows in my local elevator. They do play Wild Horses there after all.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: ash ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:18

and You Can't Always Get What You Want in the supermarket which was ironic as they'd run out of Rice Krispies which i went out to buy after listening to the Stones commercial.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: BluzDude ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:18

Beatles vs Stones
Hendrix vs Clapton
Zeppelin vs Who
Animals vs Them
Waters vs Wolf
Soundgarden Vs Pearl Jam
Kansas vs Styx
Frazier vs Ali

...so many choices!!!!!!

we should just have a generic VS threadgrinning smiley

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: ash ()
Date: September 26, 2013 19:28

Quote
BluzDude
Beatles vs Stones
Hendrix vs Clapton
Zeppelin vs Who
Animals vs Them
Waters vs Wolf
Soundgarden Vs Pearl Jam
Kansas vs Styx
Frazier vs Ali

...so many choices!!!!!!

we should just have a generic VS threadgrinning smiley
Hendrix vs Clapton is a no contest. Eric's just not up to it. Peter Green whipped his ass too. He's completely replaceable - witness the Yardbirds and the Bluesbreakers. The rest are pretty much down to personal preference.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Deluxtone ()
Date: September 26, 2013 21:09

Beatles were trend-setters and musical innovators.

Stones were trend-followers and (Jagger mainly) creative plagiarists.

B Jones in Stones and then Taylor added to the more experimental and melodic side of Stones.

But obviously the emphasis of each band was different - Stones' prioritising keeping it live. Recording yes, but the live act was and still is the ultimate expression.

With the Beatles the studio recordings were the ultimate development of their consummate art.

Even with Lennon - his post Beatles recordinded work was more important than live.

In contrast, especially these days (I'd say) that MacCartney's main and real post-bBeatles' strength has been his live work. Band On The Run his one outstanding studio work.

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Big Al ()
Date: September 26, 2013 21:24

Here's a good one!

Lennon v.s. Keith Richards in a fist-fight - who'd win? >grinning smiley<

Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by: Deluxtone ()
Date: September 26, 2013 21:32

Well that's not really a fair fight.

Lennon died in 1980.

Would Julian do instead?

Goto Page: Previous1234567891011...LastNext
Current Page: 2 of 196


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 390
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home