Tell Me :
Talk
And outside this forum and other spheres of die-hard Rolling Stones fans, The Beatles would be preferred regardless the country....
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-14 14:45 by Doxa.
My sentiments exactly
Probably Spice Girls as well....
Of course that's true on this Forum. Stones fans are in that group of people worldwide that like blues-based rock groups - the biggest are the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC. However, the rest of the "general public" worldwide would probably prefer more pop-oriented acts like the Beatles, Abba and Madonna. My wife and her friends probably can't name more than one or two Zep or Stones tracks (and probably can't name one AC/DC song), but they know most of the Beatles and Abba's hits.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-14 18:38 by drbryant.
Still both bands will stand the test of time.
Indeed, take any hot acts of the last 20 years who have sold more albums than those two bands and ask if they are remembered and comparable to the hot acts of the day in 30 to fifty years time like those two bands still do today.
Besides, the fundamental question - The Beatles or the Stones? - is one of those idioms that is stick to the cultural consciousness which is much more important and telling than whatever is any personal answer to it. As long as people are asking that question - after 45 years of its actual relevance - tells how huge and important those two bands were and how huge impact they once made to the whole pop world. Like with any good questions - this is a philosopher speaking in me
- there is more involved in the very act of asking the very question, than in the accidental and contingent answers to it. The question itself says more than what our answers do.
The fact that popularwise and impactwise The Beatles always have been so much bigger than the Stones, and still The Stones are compared to them 'equally', tells that the 'fundamental question' flatters the Stones (or, if you like, shows how 'big' The Stones also are being the only relevant act to be compared to those big cultural icons who seem to nowadays symbolize anything associated to the mind-blowing decade of musical and youth revolution, the 60's). Even Mick Jagger recognized this once, and said something to the effect that no one can understand what it was trying to compete with the Beatles at the time - they were just so damn big. But the Stones did a damn fine job in that! The only act in the world.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-14 19:24 by Doxa.
I totally agree Doxa, and besides you voice the dominating mood of the sixties quite well! It was all Beatles and Stones, they were usually both mentioned in one sentence. The two of them were simply hors catégorie. Far behind them there were 'the other bands'.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-14 20:12 by kleermaker.
I love the Beatles!
I love the Stones...more!
I'm not totally agree with Doxa..........................
Indeed, take any hot acts of the last 20 years who have sold more albums than those two bands and ask if they are remembered and comparable to the hot acts of the day in 30 to fifty years time like those two bands still do today
Don't think you can compare record sales the last 20 years compare to the 60's and 70's
__________________________
I guess I formulated my sentence a bit ackwardly... I meant that the acts who have been hot shots during the last two decades and outsold The Beatles or The Stones during that time frame. Will they do in future so well as those two bands still do (after 40/50 years after their prime)?
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-15 00:52 by Doxa.
Wasn't that punctual actually - just the brief idea of 'current' artists... Michael Jackson belongs to the likes of Elvis and The Beatles in the history of pop music and will be there for good... (and Prince probably is and would be like The Stones is to the Beatles...)
But c'mon, how many of recent pop artists would you seriously think actually to be remembered in 2058 as The Beatles and The Stones are now. Do the acts of the day will be written to culture's DNA as those two acts like are now? We could add to the list Dylan and basically the whole generation of theirs. It is very hard for me to think there would be such lasting phenomenons to born or to last, since music is not any longer such a big thing for youth's self-description, and most probably they will not 'grow up' with the music to their senior years with the music they listened as teenagers...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-15 10:07 by Doxa.
Surely rap culture has shown its lasting power, but I am skeptical that people will talk in 2058 of Kanye West as you and I and do here about the Stones (and taken that we haven't even born yet when the band was the most current thing in the world and made its biggest impact on culture... and we are not even any excentric nerds looking for historical curiosities but following one of the most popular bands still in the world).
- Doxa
If they still are popular and perform in 45 years, they'll probably still be big acts. I dunno..
Don't see Kanye or Jay Z in same league as the Stones or Beatles anyplace....
Neither do I
If you were 12 in 1967 that's impossible.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-15 13:44 by His Majesty.
When the Beatles are involved one doesn't nitpick. Besides I was a teenager before the age of ten. It's a mental thing, you know.
Again your intellect fails. But I'll explain it, especially for you. Every human being has an absolute age as well as a relative age. Relative age is how old you are, it changes every year. But mentally you have an absolute age, 'cause you always feel like 12 or 18 or 88 or whatever, regardless your actual, relative age. This is quite a good observation done by the famous Dutch writer Harry Mulisch.
It's not a failing of intellect, just an appropriate reaction to your nonsense.
If they are, I will be 93 years old, a monkey's uncle, and we'll all be watching pigs fly round a cold day in hell!
I'll be too old to be carrying a ghetto blaster on my shoulder though.
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:
Doxa
()
Date: November 14, 2013 14:44
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stoned5000
from my experience talking about this topic americans percentage wise prefer the stones and europeans (w/o uk) the beatles as their favorite. maybe i just asked too few people. please let me know your continent with your decisions.
it might have been the pop influence, that degraded brains in europe
i'm european, but i definitely prefer the stones and i am only able to list to a very few beatles songs.
I'm pretty sure most of the posters here put the Stones a bit above the Beatles, regardless of country
And outside this forum and other spheres of die-hard Rolling Stones fans, The Beatles would be preferred regardless the country....
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-14 14:45 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 14, 2013 14:45
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stoned5000
from my experience talking about this topic americans percentage wise prefer the stones and europeans (w/o uk) the beatles as their favorite. maybe i just asked too few people. please let me know your continent with your decisions.
it might have been the pop influence, that degraded brains in europe
i'm european, but i definitely prefer the stones and i am only able to list to a very few beatles songs.
I'm pretty sure most of the posters here put the Stones a bit above the Beatles, regardless of country
And outside this forum and other spheres of die-hard Rolling Stones, The Beatles would be preferred regardless the country....
- Doxa
My sentiments exactly
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: November 14, 2013 16:10
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stoned5000
from my experience talking about this topic americans percentage wise prefer the stones and europeans (w/o uk) the beatles as their favorite. maybe i just asked too few people. please let me know your continent with your decisions.
it might have been the pop influence, that degraded brains in europe
i'm european, but i definitely prefer the stones and i am only able to list to a very few beatles songs.
I'm pretty sure most of the posters here put the Stones a bit above the Beatles, regardless of country
And outside this forum and other spheres of die-hard Rolling Stones, The Beatles would be preferred regardless the country....
- Doxa
My sentiments exactly
Probably Spice Girls as well....
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: November 14, 2013 18:37
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stoned5000
from my experience talking about this topic americans percentage wise prefer the stones and europeans (w/o uk) the beatles as their favorite. maybe i just asked too few people. please let me know your continent with your decisions.
it might have been the pop influence, that degraded brains in europe
i'm european, but i definitely prefer the stones and i am only able to list to a very few beatles songs.
I'm pretty sure most of the posters here put the Stones a bit above the Beatles, regardless of country
Of course that's true on this Forum. Stones fans are in that group of people worldwide that like blues-based rock groups - the biggest are the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC. However, the rest of the "general public" worldwide would probably prefer more pop-oriented acts like the Beatles, Abba and Madonna. My wife and her friends probably can't name more than one or two Zep or Stones tracks (and probably can't name one AC/DC song), but they know most of the Beatles and Abba's hits.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-14 18:38 by drbryant.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: November 14, 2013 18:38
Quote
drbryantQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stoned5000
from my experience talking about this topic americans percentage wise prefer the stones and europeans (w/o uk) the beatles as their favorite. maybe i just asked too few people. please let me know your continent with your decisions.
it might have been the pop influence, that degraded brains in europe
i'm european, but i definitely prefer the stones and i am only able to list to a very few beatles songs.
I'm pretty sure most of the posters here put the Stones a bit above the Beatles, regardless of country
Of course that's true on this Forum. Stones fans are in that group of people worldwide that like blues-based rock groups - the biggest are the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC. However, the rest of the "general public" worldwide would probably prefer more pop-oriented acts like the Beatles, Abba and Madonna. My wife and her friends probably can't name more than one or two Zep or Stones tracks, but they know most of the Beatles and Abba's hits.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 14, 2013 18:38
Quote
mtaylorQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stoned5000
from my experience talking about this topic americans percentage wise prefer the stones and europeans (w/o uk) the beatles as their favorite. maybe i just asked too few people. please let me know your continent with your decisions.
it might have been the pop influence, that degraded brains in europe
i'm european, but i definitely prefer the stones and i am only able to list to a very few beatles songs.
I'm pretty sure most of the posters here put the Stones a bit above the Beatles, regardless of country
And outside this forum and other spheres of die-hard Rolling Stones, The Beatles would be preferred regardless the country....
- Doxa
My sentiments exactly
Probably Spice Girls as well....
Still both bands will stand the test of time.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 14, 2013 19:13
Quote
kleermakerQuote
mtaylorQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stoned5000
from my experience talking about this topic americans percentage wise prefer the stones and europeans (w/o uk) the beatles as their favorite. maybe i just asked too few people. please let me know your continent with your decisions.
it might have been the pop influence, that degraded brains in europe
i'm european, but i definitely prefer the stones and i am only able to list to a very few beatles songs.
I'm pretty sure most of the posters here put the Stones a bit above the Beatles, regardless of country
And outside this forum and other spheres of die-hard Rolling Stones, The Beatles would be preferred regardless the country....
- Doxa
My sentiments exactly
Probably Spice Girls as well....
Still both bands will stand the test of time.
Indeed, take any hot acts of the last 20 years who have sold more albums than those two bands and ask if they are remembered and comparable to the hot acts of the day in 30 to fifty years time like those two bands still do today.
Besides, the fundamental question - The Beatles or the Stones? - is one of those idioms that is stick to the cultural consciousness which is much more important and telling than whatever is any personal answer to it. As long as people are asking that question - after 45 years of its actual relevance - tells how huge and important those two bands were and how huge impact they once made to the whole pop world. Like with any good questions - this is a philosopher speaking in me
- there is more involved in the very act of asking the very question, than in the accidental and contingent answers to it. The question itself says more than what our answers do.The fact that popularwise and impactwise The Beatles always have been so much bigger than the Stones, and still The Stones are compared to them 'equally', tells that the 'fundamental question' flatters the Stones (or, if you like, shows how 'big' The Stones also are being the only relevant act to be compared to those big cultural icons who seem to nowadays symbolize anything associated to the mind-blowing decade of musical and youth revolution, the 60's). Even Mick Jagger recognized this once, and said something to the effect that no one can understand what it was trying to compete with the Beatles at the time - they were just so damn big. But the Stones did a damn fine job in that! The only act in the world.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-14 19:24 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 14, 2013 19:26
Quote
DoxaQuote
kleermakerQuote
mtaylorQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stoned5000
from my experience talking about this topic americans percentage wise prefer the stones and europeans (w/o uk) the beatles as their favorite. maybe i just asked too few people. please let me know your continent with your decisions.
it might have been the pop influence, that degraded brains in europe
i'm european, but i definitely prefer the stones and i am only able to list to a very few beatles songs.
I'm pretty sure most of the posters here put the Stones a bit above the Beatles, regardless of country
And outside this forum and other spheres of die-hard Rolling Stones, The Beatles would be preferred regardless the country....
- Doxa
My sentiments exactly
Probably Spice Girls as well....
Still both bands will stand the test of time.
Indeed, take any hot acts of the last 20 years who have sold more albums than those two bands and ask if they are remembered and comparable to the hot acts of the day in 30 to fifty years time like those two bands still do today.
Besides, the fundamental question - The Beatles or the Stones? - is one of those idioms that is stick to the cultural consciousness which is much more important and telling than whatever is any personal answer to it. As long as people are asking that question - after 45 years of its actual relevance - tells how huge and important those two bands were and how huge impact they once made to the whole pop world. Like with any good questions - this is a philosopher speaking in me - there is more involved in the very act of asking the very question, than in the accidental and contingent answers to it. The question itself says more than what our answers do.
The fact that popularwise and impactwise The Beatles always have been so much bigger than the Stones, and still The Stones are compared to them 'equally', tells that the 'fundamental question' flatters the Stones (or, if you like, shows how 'big' The Stones also are being the only relevant act to be compared to those big cultural icons who seem to nowadays symbolize anything associated to the mind-blowing decade of musical and youth revolution, the 60's). Even Mick Jagger recognized this once, and said something to the effect that no one can understand what it was trying to compete with the Beatles at the time - they were just so damn big. But the Stones did a damn fine job in that! The only act in the world.
- Doxa
I totally agree Doxa, and besides you voice the dominating mood of the sixties quite well! It was all Beatles and Stones, they were usually both mentioned in one sentence. The two of them were simply hors catégorie. Far behind them there were 'the other bands'.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-14 20:12 by kleermaker.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 14, 2013 22:13
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DoxaQuote
kleermakerQuote
mtaylorQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stoned5000
from my experience talking about this topic americans percentage wise prefer the stones and europeans (w/o uk) the beatles as their favorite. maybe i just asked too few people. please let me know your continent with your decisions.
it might have been the pop influence, that degraded brains in europe
i'm european, but i definitely prefer the stones and i am only able to list to a very few beatles songs.
I'm pretty sure most of the posters here put the Stones a bit above the Beatles, regardless of country
And outside this forum and other spheres of die-hard Rolling Stones, The Beatles would be preferred regardless the country....
- Doxa
My sentiments exactly
Probably Spice Girls as well....
Still both bands will stand the test of time.
Indeed, take any hot acts of the last 20 years who have sold more albums than those two bands and ask if they are remembered and comparable to the hot acts of the day in 30 to fifty years time like those two bands still do today.
Besides, the fundamental question - The Beatles or the Stones? - is one of those idioms that is stick to the cultural consciousness which is much more important and telling than whatever is any personal answer to it. As long as people are asking that question - after 45 years of its actual relevance - tells how huge and important those two bands were and how huge impact they once made to the whole pop world. Like with any good questions - this is a philosopher speaking in me - there is more involved in the very act of asking the very question, than in the accidental and contingent answers to it. The question itself says more than what our answers do.
The fact that popularwise and impactwise The Beatles always have been so much bigger than the Stones, and still The Stones are compared to them 'equally', tells that the 'fundamental question' flatters the Stones (or, if you like, shows how 'big' The Stones also are being the only relevant act to be compared to those big cultural icons who seem to nowadays symbolize anything associated to the mind-blowing decade of musical and youth revolution, the 60's). Even Mick Jagger recognized this once, and said something to the effect that no one can understand what it was trying to compete with the Beatles at the time - they were just so damn big. But the Stones did a damn fine job in that! The only act in the world.
- Doxa
I totally agree Doxa, and besides you voice the dominating mood of the sixties quite well! It was all Beatles and Stones, they were usually both mentioned in one sentence. The two of them were simply hors catégorie. Far behind them there were 'the other bands'.
I love the Beatles!
I love the Stones...more!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 14, 2013 22:33
Just pulled out the book from my Beatles vinyl boxset. Damn it's gorgeous.
252 pages album by album...What they should have done with the Stones vinyl boxsets or better still, with GRRR!
252 pages album by album...What they should have done with the Stones vinyl boxsets or better still, with GRRR!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: November 14, 2013 22:35
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
kleermakerQuote
DoxaQuote
kleermakerQuote
mtaylorQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stoned5000
from my experience talking about this topic americans percentage wise prefer the stones and europeans (w/o uk) the beatles as their favorite. maybe i just asked too few people. please let me know your continent with your decisions.
it might have been the pop influence, that degraded brains in europe
i'm european, but i definitely prefer the stones and i am only able to list to a very few beatles songs.
I'm pretty sure most of the posters here put the Stones a bit above the Beatles, regardless of country
And outside this forum and other spheres of die-hard Rolling Stones, The Beatles would be preferred regardless the country....
- Doxa
My sentiments exactly
Probably Spice Girls as well....
Still both bands will stand the test of time.
Indeed, take any hot acts of the last 20 years who have sold more albums than those two bands and ask if they are remembered and comparable to the hot acts of the day in 30 to fifty years time like those two bands still do today.
Besides, the fundamental question - The Beatles or the Stones? - is one of those idioms that is stick to the cultural consciousness which is much more important and telling than whatever is any personal answer to it. As long as people are asking that question - after 45 years of its actual relevance - tells how huge and important those two bands were and how huge impact they once made to the whole pop world. Like with any good questions - this is a philosopher speaking in me - there is more involved in the very act of asking the very question, than in the accidental and contingent answers to it. The question itself says more than what our answers do.
The fact that popularwise and impactwise The Beatles always have been so much bigger than the Stones, and still The Stones are compared to them 'equally', tells that the 'fundamental question' flatters the Stones (or, if you like, shows how 'big' The Stones also are being the only relevant act to be compared to those big cultural icons who seem to nowadays symbolize anything associated to the mind-blowing decade of musical and youth revolution, the 60's). Even Mick Jagger recognized this once, and said something to the effect that no one can understand what it was trying to compete with the Beatles at the time - they were just so damn big. But the Stones did a damn fine job in that! The only act in the world.
- Doxa
I totally agree Doxa, and besides you voice the dominating mood of the sixties quite well! It was all Beatles and Stones, they were usually both mentioned in one sentence. The two of them were simply hors catégorie. Far behind them there were 'the other bands'.
I love the Beatles!
I love the Stones...more!
I'm not totally agree with Doxa..........................
Indeed, take any hot acts of the last 20 years who have sold more albums than those two bands and ask if they are remembered and comparable to the hot acts of the day in 30 to fifty years time like those two bands still do today
Don't think you can compare record sales the last 20 years compare to the 60's and 70's
__________________________
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 15, 2013 00:51
Quote
NICOS
Indeed, take any hot acts of the last 20 years who have sold more albums than those two bands and ask if they are remembered and comparable to the hot acts of the day in 30 to fifty years time like those two bands still do today
Don't think you can compare record sales the last 20 years compare to the 60's and 70's
I guess I formulated my sentence a bit ackwardly... I meant that the acts who have been hot shots during the last two decades and outsold The Beatles or The Stones during that time frame. Will they do in future so well as those two bands still do (after 40/50 years after their prime)?
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-15 00:52 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 15, 2013 09:36
You mean new acts of the last 20 years, Doxa?
Or are guys like Prince and Michael Jackson still in?
The two latter will probably keep on selling and be right near the top of people's stream of consciousness, imo.
Or are guys like Prince and Michael Jackson still in?
The two latter will probably keep on selling and be right near the top of people's stream of consciousness, imo.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 15, 2013 09:56
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You mean new acts of the last 20 years, Doxa?
Or are guys like Prince and Michael Jackson still in?
The two latter will probably keep on selling and be right near the top of people's stream of consciousness, imo.
Wasn't that punctual actually - just the brief idea of 'current' artists... Michael Jackson belongs to the likes of Elvis and The Beatles in the history of pop music and will be there for good... (and Prince probably is and would be like The Stones is to the Beatles...)
But c'mon, how many of recent pop artists would you seriously think actually to be remembered in 2058 as The Beatles and The Stones are now. Do the acts of the day will be written to culture's DNA as those two acts like are now? We could add to the list Dylan and basically the whole generation of theirs. It is very hard for me to think there would be such lasting phenomenons to born or to last, since music is not any longer such a big thing for youth's self-description, and most probably they will not 'grow up' with the music to their senior years with the music they listened as teenagers...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-15 10:07 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 15, 2013 10:05
It's hard to tell how artists like Jay Z or Kanye West will be remembered.
Personally, I think you're spot on, but this rap thing seemingly goes through thick and thin and stays
Personally, I think you're spot on, but this rap thing seemingly goes through thick and thin and stays
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 15, 2013 10:16
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to tell how artists like Jay Z or Kanye West will be remembered.
Personally, I think you're spot on, but this rap thing seemingly goes through thick and thin and stays
Surely rap culture has shown its lasting power, but I am skeptical that people will talk in 2058 of Kanye West as you and I and do here about the Stones (and taken that we haven't even born yet when the band was the most current thing in the world and made its biggest impact on culture... and we are not even any excentric nerds looking for historical curiosities but following one of the most popular bands still in the world).
- Doxa
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 15, 2013 10:20
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to tell how artists like Jay Z or Kanye West will be remembered.
Personally, I think you're spot on, but this rap thing seemingly goes through thick and thin and stays
Surely rap culture has shown its lasting power, but I am skeptical that people will talk in 2058 of Kanye West as you and I and do here about the Stones (and taken that we haven't even born yet when the band was the most current thing in the world and made its biggest impact on culture... and we are not even any excentric nerds looking for historical curiosities but following one of the most popular bands still in the world).
- Doxa
If they still are popular and perform in 45 years, they'll probably still be big acts. I dunno..
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
owlbynite
()
Date: November 15, 2013 10:29
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to tell how artists like Jay Z or Kanye West will be remembered.
Personally, I think you're spot on, but this rap thing seemingly goes through thick and thin and stays
Surely rap culture has shown its lasting power, but I am skeptical that people will talk in 2058 of Kanye West as you and I and do here about the Stones (and taken that we haven't even born yet when the band was the most current thing in the world and made its biggest impact on culture... and we are not even any excentric nerds looking for historical curiosities but following one of the most popular bands still in the world).
- Doxa
If they still are popular and perform in 45 years, they'll probably still be big acts. I dunno..
Don't see Kanye or Jay Z in same league as the Stones or Beatles anyplace....
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 15, 2013 10:30
Quote
owlbyniteQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to tell how artists like Jay Z or Kanye West will be remembered.
Personally, I think you're spot on, but this rap thing seemingly goes through thick and thin and stays
Surely rap culture has shown its lasting power, but I am skeptical that people will talk in 2058 of Kanye West as you and I and do here about the Stones (and taken that we haven't even born yet when the band was the most current thing in the world and made its biggest impact on culture... and we are not even any excentric nerds looking for historical curiosities but following one of the most popular bands still in the world).
- Doxa
If they still are popular and perform in 45 years, they'll probably still be big acts. I dunno..
Don't see Kanye or Jay Z in same league as the Stones or Beatles anyplace....
Neither do I
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 15, 2013 13:40
Quote
kleermaker
I remember all the Beatles hitsingles. They were all released when I was a teenager.
If you were 12 in 1967 that's impossible.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-15 13:44 by His Majesty.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 15, 2013 15:28
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
I remember all the Beatles hitsingles. They were all released when I was a teenager.
If you were 12 in 1967 that's impossible.
When the Beatles are involved one doesn't nitpick. Besides I was a teenager before the age of ten. It's a mental thing, you know.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 15, 2013 15:48
Quote
kleermaker
When the Beatles are involved one doesn't nitpick. Besides I was a teenager before the age of ten. It's a mental thing, you know.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 15, 2013 16:52
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
When the Beatles are involved one doesn't nitpick. Besides I was a teenager before the age of ten. It's a mental thing, you know.
Again your intellect fails.
But I'll explain it, especially for you. Every human being has an absolute age as well as a relative age. Relative age is how old you are, it changes every year. But mentally you have an absolute age, 'cause you always feel like 12 or 18 or 88 or whatever, regardless your actual, relative age. This is quite a good observation done by the famous Dutch writer Harry Mulisch.Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 15, 2013 17:22
Quote
kleermaker
Again your intellect fails.
It's not a failing of intellect, just an appropriate reaction to your nonsense.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 15, 2013 18:07
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to tell how artists like Jay Z or Kanye West will be remembered.
Personally, I think you're spot on, but this rap thing seemingly goes through thick and thin and stays
Surely rap culture has shown its lasting power, but I am skeptical that people will talk in 2058 of Kanye West as you and I and do here about the Stones (and taken that we haven't even born yet when the band was the most current thing in the world and made its biggest impact on culture... and we are not even any excentric nerds looking for historical curiosities but following one of the most popular bands still in the world).
- Doxa
If they still are popular and perform in 45 years, they'll probably still be big acts. I dunno..
If they are, I will be 93 years old, a monkey's uncle, and we'll all be watching pigs fly round a cold day in hell!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 15, 2013 18:12
While rapping to a mix tape...
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 15, 2013 18:15
Quote
DandelionPowderman
While rapping to a mix tape...
I'll be too old to be carrying a ghetto blaster on my shoulder though.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
owlbynite
()
Date: November 16, 2013 06:31
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
owlbyniteQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
It's hard to tell how artists like Jay Z or Kanye West will be remembered.
Personally, I think you're spot on, but this rap thing seemingly goes through thick and thin and stays
Surely rap culture has shown its lasting power, but I am skeptical that people will talk in 2058 of Kanye West as you and I and do here about the Stones (and taken that we haven't even born yet when the band was the most current thing in the world and made its biggest impact on culture... and we are not even any excentric nerds looking for historical curiosities but following one of the most popular bands still in the world).
- Doxa
If they still are popular and perform in 45 years, they'll probably still be big acts. I dunno..
Don't see Kanye or Jay Z in same league as the Stones or Beatles anyplace....
Neither do I
7 Major Misconceptions About the Beatles-Stones Rivalry
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: November 22, 2013 18:05
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bashlets , Britney , einte , flairville , frankotero , gastonl74 , georgelicks , HotStuff92 , josepi , keefmick , mmarloe , soundboard , StonyRoad , Tonstone , TW2019
Guests:
2042
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10