Can't say for sure who is "the greatest". If the Beatles never existed the Stones probably wouldn't have become the "self proclaimed" greatest.

I can say this without fear of opposition though.

Pizza is better than spaghetti. Everyone knows this is truly the case.

Quote
reg thorpe

Quote
michaelsavage
They still bore the hell out of me...

Lol

Yeah, really LoL.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I agree. To hold the #1 position for 51 years (before being overtaken by The Stones at Glastonbury) is truly amazing. They will always have my love and respect. They are truly the 2nd greatest rock 'n roll band of all time!

I'm just curious. How is it that the Stones' appearance at a festival that didn't even exist during The Beatles' time was the catalyst for them overtaking The Beatles? Is it because of their age? If that's the case, why didn't they overtake them during this last tour? Or the previous tour? Or the tour before that? Or the one before that? How come their appearance at the Isle of Wight Festival in 2007 didn't push them past The Beatles?

This has all been explained over and over and over and over and over and over......

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I agree. To hold the #1 position for 51 years (before being overtaken by The Stones at Glastonbury) is truly amazing. They will always have my love and respect. They are truly the 2nd greatest rock 'n roll band of all time!

I'm just curious. How is it that the Stones' appearance at a festival that didn't even exist during The Beatles' time was the catalyst for them overtaking The Beatles? Is it because of their age? If that's the case, why didn't they overtake them during this last tour? Or the previous tour? Or the tour before that? Or the one before that? How come their appearance at the Isle of Wight Festival in 2007 didn't push them past The Beatles?

This has all been explained over and over and over and over and over and over......

No, it hasn't. I don't recall you ever mentioning the Isle of Wight Festival. That's why I asked. How come their appearance at that festival, a festival that many of their contemporaries have performed at, wasn't the one that pushed them past The Beatles? Unlike Glastonbury, this festival actually dates back to the late 60s. But it wasn't until 2007 that The Stones performed there. Wasn't that a historic gig? If it was, why wasn't it so historic that it pushed them past The Beatles? I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on that.

Or did you have to wait until Mick turned 70 before you could declare them the greatest? Why that number? Why not 60? or 50?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 18:52 by GumbootCloggeroo.

WHen it boils right down to it, the Stones, Kinks, Who, Floyd and the rest are good, but only two acts from the 60s are great: The Beatles and Dylan. Between the two of them the 60s music scene was shaped.

You need to stop taking the bad acid

The Beach Boys were great 1966 to 67. Smile leaves the Beatles and Stones in the dust. Good job the Stones didn't get influenced by Brian Wilson or Beggars Banquet would've been a psychedelic wall of sound bossa nova doo wop album. Hey i'd like to hear that.

Quote
StonesCat

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I agree. To hold the #1 position for 51 years (before being overtaken by The Stones at Glastonbury) is truly amazing. They will always have my love and respect. They are truly the 2nd greatest rock 'n roll band of all time!

I'm just curious. How is it that the Stones' appearance at a festival that didn't even exist during The Beatles' time was the catalyst for them overtaking The Beatles? Is it because of their age? If that's the case, why didn't they overtake them during this last tour? Or the previous tour? Or the tour before that? Or the one before that? How come their appearance at the Isle of Wight Festival in 2007 didn't push them past The Beatles?

He's just trolling for responses. Don't take the bait.

Nonsense, rookie!

The Beatle still amaze me and what's left of The Rolling Stones still occasionally surprise me.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I wonder, if The Stones continue touring into their 80s, will JumpinJackOLantern declare that they are officially greater than sex?

For us old farts 70 and upwards they are definitely greater than sex! But not quite as good as a good bowel movement!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 23:24 by JumpinJackOLantern.

The Beatles have transcended all boundaries. It is not a debate about who is/was the greatest. They are above that.

Not

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I agree. To hold the #1 position for 51 years (before being overtaken by The Stones at Glastonbury) is truly amazing. They will always have my love and respect. They are truly the 2nd greatest rock 'n roll band of all time!

I'm just curious. How is it that the Stones' appearance at a festival that didn't even exist during The Beatles' time was the catalyst for them overtaking The Beatles? Is it because of their age? If that's the case, why didn't they overtake them during this last tour? Or the previous tour? Or the tour before that? Or the one before that? How come their appearance at the Isle of Wight Festival in 2007 didn't push them past The Beatles?

This has all been explained over and over and over and over and over and over......

No, it hasn't. I don't recall you ever mentioning the Isle of Wight Festival. That's why I asked. How come their appearance at that festival, a festival that many of their contemporaries have performed at, wasn't the one that pushed them past The Beatles? Unlike Glastonbury, this festival actually dates back to the late 60s. But it wasn't until 2007 that The Stones performed there. Wasn't that a historic gig? If it was, why wasn't it so historic that it pushed them past The Beatles? I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on that.

Or did you have to wait until Mick turned 70 before you could declare them the greatest? Why that number? Why not 60? or 50?

Based on everything I have written on this subject what is your best guess as to why you think I didn't "crown" them (in my own mind) six years ago in 2007? If your guess is incorrect then I will provide you with the correct one.

When I think of the Beatles, I think of something so great, so influential, it borders on mythical. To watch a performance like the rooftop concert is to bear witness to greatness. A band so legendary and a moment so iconic, and fleeting, it's almost "Jesus-like". They were so huge that they transcended music and pop culture to mainstream, global, household name popularity.

It might have been all so different if the Stones had had George Martin and the Beatles Andrew Loog Oldham.

In a Martin verses Oldham battle there would only be one 'winner'

Production-wise Stones albums start to be good with TSMR, even before the Miller Years.

She's a Rainbow.
2000 Light Years

........ and even Gomper!

Great Stones fan...........but The Beatles can beat but can't be beat...........

__________________________

Wrong. Stoneq are the greatest Rock n Roll Band of all time - and for everlasting

Quote
michaelsavage
Wrong. Stoneq are the greatest Rock n Roll Band of all time - and for everlasting

Stoneq? Tell. me about them.

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
michaelsavage
Wrong. Stoneq are the greatest Rock n Roll Band of all time - and for everlasting

Stoneq? Tell. me about them.

They're really good...the Rolling Stoneq are even better though.

Both in their own right (or write, as Lennon said.)

Quote
jazzbass
When I think of the Beatles, I think of something so great, so influential, it borders on mythical. To watch a performance like the rooftop concert is to bear witness to greatness. A band so legendary and a moment so iconic, and fleeting, it's almost "Jesus-like". They were so huge that they transcended music and pop culture to mainstream, global, household name popularity.

They most definitely cast a giant shadow. The Stones were in that shadow for some time, worked their way out of it and then gradually pulled shoulder to shoulder with them. Finally, after 51 years the Stones did the seemingly impossible and surged ahead of them with their historic '50 and Counting tour (the pinnacle and defining moment of that tour taking place at Glastonbury this past summer). Of course it won't become "official" for at least another ten years.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-28 02:58 by JumpinJackOLantern.

The Stones are my favourite group I suppose, but the Beatles were the leaders; the pioneers. They left practically everyone - Stones included - trailing in their wake with their innovation and sheer brilliance.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
They most definitely cast a giant shadow. The Stones were in that shadow for some time, worked their way out of it and then gradually pulled shoulder to shoulder with them. Finally, after 51 years the Stones did the seemingly impossible and surged ahead of them with their historic '50 and Counting tour (the pinnacle and defining moment of that tour taking place at Glastonbury this past summer). Of course it won't become "official" for at least another ten years.

How can there be a horse race when only one horse is running it?

It seems the finish line was crossed in 1970.

Not that there ever was a race, or even a contest.

We're talking about art here, not sports.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
They most definitely cast a giant shadow. The Stones were in that shadow for some time, worked their way out of it and then gradually pulled shoulder to shoulder with them. Finally, after 51 years the Stones did the seemingly impossible and surged ahead of them with their historic '50 and Counting tour (the pinnacle and defining moment of that tour taking place at Glastonbury this past summer). Of course it won't become "official" for at least another ten years.

How can there be a horse race when only one horse is running it?

It seems the finish line was crossed in 1970.

Not that there ever was a race, or even a contest.

We're talking about art here, not sports.

Only the Beatles could pull of such a feat! Went dead in the water over 40 years ago yet (judging by all the publications I saw this past year on magazine racks) live on! I guess that's why they are considered to be so amazing?

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

They most definitely cast a giant shadow. The Stones were in that shadow for some time, worked their way out of it and then gradually pulled shoulder to shoulder with them. Finally, after 51 years the Stones did the seemingly impossible and surged ahead of them with their historic '50 and Counting tour (the pinnacle and defining moment of that tour taking place at Glastonbury this past summer). Of course it won't become "official" for at least another ten years.

Surged ahead of the Beatles? Err, no. The Glastonbury performance is already forgotten by everyone except die-hard bleeding-heart obsessives and those who happened to catch them at the festival. The Beatles will continue to be the most important and most influential pop phenomenon of our lifetime and beyond.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

They most definitely cast a giant shadow. The Stones were in that shadow for some time, worked their way out of it and then gradually pulled shoulder to shoulder with them. Finally, after 51 years the Stones did the seemingly impossible and surged ahead of them with their historic '50 and Counting tour (the pinnacle and defining moment of that tour taking place at Glastonbury this past summer). Of course it won't become "official" for at least another ten years.

Surged ahead of the Beatles? Err, no. The Glastonbury performance is already forgotten by everyone except die-hard bleeding-heart obsessives and those who happened to catch them at the festival. The Beatles will continue to be the most important and most influential pop phenomenon of our lifetime and beyond.

The legend of the '50 and Counting tour (the pinnacle and defining moment being Glastonbury) is still in it's infancy and will continue to grow as the years roll by, especially after the Stones are finally done. In about ten years or so a panel of rock historians and experts will be assembled to determine who actually was the greatest rock 'n roll band of all time. It is my belief that the Stones will emerge victorious. Granted, if you assembled that panel today the Beatles would probably come out on top, but once the Stones have finished, and with a significant passage of time, the Stones achievements will be viewed in their proper light. The Stones achieving 50 years was crucial and to perform at such a high level at 70 years of age was absolutely remarkable. It may appear that the Beatles have the edge, but that is just an illusion. Time will take care of that, of that I am certain.

JumpinJackOLantern, can you name one person that you would like to see on the panel of rock historians?

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Big Al

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

They most definitely cast a giant shadow. The Stones were in that shadow for some time, worked their way out of it and then gradually pulled shoulder to shoulder with them. Finally, after 51 years the Stones did the seemingly impossible and surged ahead of them with their historic '50 and Counting tour (the pinnacle and defining moment of that tour taking place at Glastonbury this past summer). Of course it won't become "official" for at least another ten years.

Surged ahead of the Beatles? Err, no. The Glastonbury performance is already forgotten by everyone except die-hard bleeding-heart obsessives and those who happened to catch them at the festival. The Beatles will continue to be the most important and most influential pop phenomenon of our lifetime and beyond.

The legend of the '50 and Counting tour (the pinnacle and defining moment being Glastonbury) is still in it's infancy and will continue to grow as the years roll by, especially after the Stones are finally done. In about ten years or so a panel of rock historians and experts will be assembled to determine who actually was the greatest rock 'n roll band of all time. It is my belief that the Stones will emerge victorious. Granted, if you assembled that panel today the Beatles would probably come out on top, but once the Stones have finished, and with a significant passage of time, the Stones achievements will be viewed in their proper light. The Stones achieving 50 years was crucial and to perform at such a high level at 70 years of age was absolutely remarkable. It may appear that the Beatles have the edge, but that is just an illusion. Time will take care of that, of that I am certain.

you take best drugs on anyone on the forum

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Big Al

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

They most definitely cast a giant shadow. The Stones were in that shadow for some time, worked their way out of it and then gradually pulled shoulder to shoulder with them. Finally, after 51 years the Stones did the seemingly impossible and surged ahead of them with their historic '50 and Counting tour (the pinnacle and defining moment of that tour taking place at Glastonbury this past summer). Of course it won't become "official" for at least another ten years.

Surged ahead of the Beatles? Err, no. The Glastonbury performance is already forgotten by everyone except die-hard bleeding-heart obsessives and those who happened to catch them at the festival. The Beatles will continue to be the most important and most influential pop phenomenon of our lifetime and beyond.

The legend of the '50 and Counting tour (the pinnacle and defining moment being Glastonbury) is still in it's infancy and will continue to grow as the years roll by, especially after the Stones are finally done. In about ten years or so a panel of rock historians and experts will be assembled to determine who actually was the greatest rock 'n roll band of all time. It is my belief that the Stones will emerge victorious. Granted, if you assembled that panel today the Beatles would probably come out on top, but once the Stones have finished, and with a significant passage of time, the Stones achievements will be viewed in their proper light. The Stones achieving 50 years was crucial and to perform at such a high level at 70 years of age was absolutely remarkable. It may appear that the Beatles have the edge, but that is just an illusion. Time will take care of that, of that I am certain.

PS: Does this answer your question, gumboot?

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
JumpinJackOLantern, can you name one person that you would like to see on the panel of rock historians?

I can give you two for starters: Jim Derogatis and Greg Kot.