Tell Me :
Talk
MightyTrollin50...
In what WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?
I agree Soulsurvivor.
Calling the Stones trend followers is a little overdone. And you are right, the Stones played a huge role in bringing obscure American Blues and R & B music that was only known by a cult-ish few, and brought this music more to the masses and opened the door for other bands who were playing the same kind of music the Stones were. Even the original artists like Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf have credited the Stones for this as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-30 05:40 by originalstones.
To some extent, the Beatles did so.
However, I think it is more correct to state that the conditions for development of a youth culture had come about, independent of the Beatles. In that light, the Beatles became rather this development's prime expression, its important surface, as to supplying music that really so many identified with, than that the Beatles were the in depth originators of the development of a youth culture.
Not favourites of mine, for instance, the Beach Boys did not need the Beatles to come into being, but possibly, or even probably, for its musical development.
One might suggest that this would be a question for socalled counterfactual thinking: If the Beatles had not existed, would there not at all have been a youth culture? Possibly, music might have been a less important feature of it. More a minority phenomenon.
What I said was that they changed the way youth culture developed, not that they invented it! And they did change its development, totally, beginning in the UK. Music is always a central element of such a culture, just as modern jazz had been to the beatniks of the previous generation.
Not sure it's polite to remind a lady of her age, my young friend.
Of course, things might have been very different in the US, for all I know--I was just talking about the UK. But I think their whole influence radiated out from there.
I know, I was just teasing.
You forgot the Kinks as they were right there with the Stones and Beatles...everybody forgets about the Kinks......
Unfortunately the "unthinkable" happened 44 years ago. I love them both, but one is a living breathing band, while the other has been dead since 1970.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
BlackHat, you're dead right.
...and I think the 'unthinkable' actually happened 34 years ago.
Hot damn that was good. I think REM has to be my favourite post 1980 band.
Good memories listening to that!
What I meant was that not having the Beatles music in my life would be unthinkable. Yes, they haven't been a functioning band for 44 years. But I am still touched by the music. If you are honest the Stones have not been a fullty functioning band for the last 30 years or so. They come together record and tour and then stop functioning until the next time. Remember the Beatles worked solidly between 62-70. Even Charlie said "5 years working 20 years hanging around". What did the Stones do between 2007 and 2012 - that's five years as a non functioning band. Only three years short of the beatles entire recording career.
Peace and love, peace and love!
I am almost certain that the Beatles would have eventually gotten back together in the latter stages of their lives and would still be recording music today if fate hadn't gotten in the way. The Stones have been extremely lucky besides being very good. We are blessed to have at least one of them still around. They are without a shadow of a doubt the two greatest bands in the history of rock 'n roll, head and shoulders above the rest.
They left a huge void in the music world when they called it quits 44 years ago. Just think how great it would be if they were around today still performing like the Stones.
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:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: March 29, 2014 23:30
Quote
BlackHat
Is Thicker Than Thieves actually The Watchman? All this talk of the Stones overtaking the Beatles? Can only be a matter of time before he brings up the Sons of The Beatles.
MightyTrollin50...
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: March 30, 2014 01:03
Stones are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY better
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: March 30, 2014 01:09
Quote
michaelsavage
Stones are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY better
In what WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: March 30, 2014 01:12
DOH! Every way. Songwriting. Performing live ( this is triple DOH!!!). Rock vs elevator music. and on and on and on and>>>
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
soulsurvivor1
()
Date: March 30, 2014 05:14
Stones Trend Followers?
The Rolling Stones and groups like The Animals and The Yardbirds introduced an entire generation of kids to American Blues music. Songd like Little Red Rooster, I can't be satisfied, Confessing the Blues, Good Times, Bad Times, Heart of Stone, Look What You've Done, to name a few. Think of all the bands including, Cream, Paul Butterfield, Ten Years After, Led Zeppelin, The Faces, Free, Fleetwood Mac, ZZ Top Johnny Winter, The Allman Brothers, to name a few, were all bands that took the Stones basic idea of rocking up old blues tunes and blending it into their own new tough, raw, sound. In my opinion, sounds like a whole group of bands in the mid and later 60s followed The Stones. I don't think anyone could say that the Beatles contribution to music was more important to Rock N Roll than The Stones. Every band that I mentioned was a major force during the 60s and 70s. All took the Stones approach to ceating music..Not The Beatles.
As a matter of fact...after 1968 even the Beatles dropped the orchestras and heavy production in the studio and stripped down the band back to it's original form. But they did not return to their original sound. They ventured into a more harder edge sound that featured dirty guitars and a blues rock sound. They even hired Billy Preston to play on their records to give it a more authentic blues rock sound. Songs like Don't Let Me Down, Get Back, Back In The USSR,Yer Blues, Revolution, to name a few. Ironically, this was a sound that the Rolling Stones had since 1963.
So Now who are the trend setters and followers?
SOULSURVIVOR
The Rolling Stones and groups like The Animals and The Yardbirds introduced an entire generation of kids to American Blues music. Songd like Little Red Rooster, I can't be satisfied, Confessing the Blues, Good Times, Bad Times, Heart of Stone, Look What You've Done, to name a few. Think of all the bands including, Cream, Paul Butterfield, Ten Years After, Led Zeppelin, The Faces, Free, Fleetwood Mac, ZZ Top Johnny Winter, The Allman Brothers, to name a few, were all bands that took the Stones basic idea of rocking up old blues tunes and blending it into their own new tough, raw, sound. In my opinion, sounds like a whole group of bands in the mid and later 60s followed The Stones. I don't think anyone could say that the Beatles contribution to music was more important to Rock N Roll than The Stones. Every band that I mentioned was a major force during the 60s and 70s. All took the Stones approach to ceating music..Not The Beatles.
As a matter of fact...after 1968 even the Beatles dropped the orchestras and heavy production in the studio and stripped down the band back to it's original form. But they did not return to their original sound. They ventured into a more harder edge sound that featured dirty guitars and a blues rock sound. They even hired Billy Preston to play on their records to give it a more authentic blues rock sound. Songs like Don't Let Me Down, Get Back, Back In The USSR,Yer Blues, Revolution, to name a few. Ironically, this was a sound that the Rolling Stones had since 1963.
So Now who are the trend setters and followers?
SOULSURVIVOR
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
originalstones
()
Date: March 30, 2014 05:25
Quote
soulsurvivor1
Stones Trend Followers?
The Rolling Stones and groups like The Animals and The Yardbirds introduced an entire generation of kids to American Blues music. Songd like Little Red Rooster, I can't be satisfied, Confessing the Blues, Good Times, Bad Times, Heart of Stone, Look What You've Done, to name a few. Think of all the bands including, Cream, Paul Butterfield, Ten Years After, Led Zeppelin, The Faces, Free, Fleetwood Mac, ZZ Top Johnny Winter, The Allman Brothers, to name a few, were all bands that took the Stones basic idea of rocking up old blues tunes and blending it into their own new tough, raw, sound. In my opinion, sounds like a whole group of bands in the mid and later 60s followed The Stones. I don't think anyone could say that the Beatles contribution to music was more important to Rock N Roll than The Stones. Every band that I mentioned was a major force during the 60s and 70s. All took the Stones approach to ceating music..Not The Beatles.
As a matter of fact...after 1968 even the Beatles dropped the orchestras and heavy production in the studio and stripped down the band back to it's original form. But they did not return to their original sound. They ventured into a more harder edge sound that featured dirty guitars and a blues rock sound. They even hired Billy Preston to play on their records to give it a more authentic blues rock sound. Songs like Don't Let Me Down, Get Back, Back In The USSR,Yer Blues, Revolution, to name a few. Ironically, this was a sound that the Rolling Stones had since 1963.
So Now who are the trend setters and followers?
SOULSURVIVOR
I agree Soulsurvivor.
Calling the Stones trend followers is a little overdone. And you are right, the Stones played a huge role in bringing obscure American Blues and R & B music that was only known by a cult-ish few, and brought this music more to the masses and opened the door for other bands who were playing the same kind of music the Stones were. Even the original artists like Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf have credited the Stones for this as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-30 05:40 by originalstones.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: March 30, 2014 10:45
I don't agree, even though the Stones are my favorite band.
Yes, the Stones were largely responsible for the popularizing of blues music. But the Beatles revolutionized the development not just of popular music, but of youth culture in general. Maybe you had to be there, but the Beatles changed everything.
Yes, the Stones were largely responsible for the popularizing of blues music. But the Beatles revolutionized the development not just of popular music, but of youth culture in general. Maybe you had to be there, but the Beatles changed everything.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
BlackHat
()
Date: March 30, 2014 11:35
I think the anti Beatles thing shows a chronic insecurity on the part of Stones fans. It's just pointless.
I can't live without either. A world without either would be unthinkable.
I can't live without either. A world without either would be unthinkable.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: March 30, 2014 13:40
Quote
Aquamarine
I don't agree, even though the Stones are my favorite band.
Yes, the Stones were largely responsible for the popularizing of blues music. But the Beatles revolutionized the development not just of popular music, but of youth culture in general. Maybe you had to be there, but the Beatles changed everything.
To some extent, the Beatles did so.
However, I think it is more correct to state that the conditions for development of a youth culture had come about, independent of the Beatles. In that light, the Beatles became rather this development's prime expression, its important surface, as to supplying music that really so many identified with, than that the Beatles were the in depth originators of the development of a youth culture.
Not favourites of mine, for instance, the Beach Boys did not need the Beatles to come into being, but possibly, or even probably, for its musical development.
One might suggest that this would be a question for socalled counterfactual thinking: If the Beatles had not existed, would there not at all have been a youth culture? Possibly, music might have been a less important feature of it. More a minority phenomenon.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: March 30, 2014 17:55
The youth culture movement would have happened but the music made the period that much more fascinating and the Beatles and Stones and Dylan were the main trendsetters. the Beatles was a breath of fresh air coming to the US in the wake of the JFK assassination and lifted a generation up out of despair not just here but around the world. JFK was an inspirational figure anyway you want to look at it. The Beatles influence can not be discounted by anyone they kicked down barriers because they were so popular and their music evolved immensely from She Loves You through Abbey Road. They set trend or perfected trends that others including our heroes followed. The twelve string, psychedelic, the album concept the list is endless. The Stones were different they played r&b and blues and were very versatile they turned America on to music that had been here for decades but they clearly followed the Beatles lead at least in 1966-67. It was not until 1968 that The Stones really broke free from the Beatles spell. That spell incidentally produced some of the Stones best music. Of course Dylan influenced everyone with his song writing and his never following trends and doing what he wanted to do which I think spawned the Neil Young's and Bruce Springsteen's of the world. To say one is way better than the other is stupid. For the most part their music is vastly different. I've always preferred the rawness, versatility and grit of the Rolling Stones over the sheer perfection of Beatle music but the Beatles are also amongst my favorite musicians. Help, Rubber Soul and Revolver are my favorite Beatle music and anyone who says this is boyband pop is just being ridiculous. The break from the Mersey sound on those records is astounding. These songs were really different at the time of their release and proved to all that experimentation in music could be done.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: March 31, 2014 00:28
Quote
WitnessQuote
Aquamarine
I don't agree, even though the Stones are my favorite band.
Yes, the Stones were largely responsible for the popularizing of blues music. But the Beatles revolutionized the development not just of popular music, but of youth culture in general. Maybe you had to be there, but the Beatles changed everything.
To some extent, the Beatles did so.
However, I think it is more correct to state that the conditions for development of a youth culture had come about, independent of the Beatles. In that light, the Beatles became rather this development's prime expression, its important surface, as to supplying music that really so many identified with, than that the Beatles were the in depth originators of the development of a youth culture.
Not favourites of mine, for instance, the Beach Boys did not need the Beatles to come into being, but possibly, or even probably, for its musical development.
One might suggest that this would be a question for socalled counterfactual thinking: If the Beatles had not existed, would there not at all have been a youth culture? Possibly, music might have been a less important feature of it. More a minority phenomenon.
What I said was that they changed the way youth culture developed, not that they invented it! And they did change its development, totally, beginning in the UK. Music is always a central element of such a culture, just as modern jazz had been to the beatniks of the previous generation.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 31, 2014 00:33
Any news about The Sons Of The Beatles? MSSR50 talked about a possible tour with maybe even the sons of the Stones involved.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
oldschool
()
Date: March 31, 2014 01:32
comparing Apples and Oranges. I am on a Zep jag right now revisiting all my bootlegs and they were an epic band but that does not make them better than thee Stones just different and depends on my mood which band I listen to.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-31 01:32 by oldschool.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-31 01:32 by oldschool.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: March 31, 2014 02:26
I'm not sure if the Beatles had any real impact on the development of the youth culture per se. There was already the beatnik culture carrying over from the fifties, as well as the folk protest movement, and the Monterey Pop Festival happened without the Beatles' involvement. The nouveau hairstyle was already in fashion in parts of Europe when their German art friends managed to talk them into adopting it--though both Lennon and McCartney initially made fun of that fashion at first, being die-hard ducktail fifties-style rockers.
In the UK there was already the Mod movement, which had nothing to do with the music of the Beatles as it revolved instead around soul and Tamla Motown R&B.
The Beatles' main influence was to change how pop music was written (by the artist rather than for the artist) and how pop albums were recorded (greater emphasis on artistic control for musicians) as well as ushering in the era of album rock--Sgt. Pepper and the White Album were among the first albums to become #1 million sellers without the aid of a hit single.
To the point above about the Stones being the driving force behind introducing a new generation to the blues--indeed they were among the first. The Animals were all set to make the move down to London in 1962, but one of the band members had to finish school, so this delayed their ascendance by a couple of years, but they still topped the U.S. charts ahead of the Stones. R&B/blues was just something that generation of British musicians picked up--it's like the question of which guitarist did the distorted power chord first? Some people like to say it was this guitarist, others that guitarist, but the truth is there were a number of them picking up on things at the same time.
In the UK there was already the Mod movement, which had nothing to do with the music of the Beatles as it revolved instead around soul and Tamla Motown R&B.
The Beatles' main influence was to change how pop music was written (by the artist rather than for the artist) and how pop albums were recorded (greater emphasis on artistic control for musicians) as well as ushering in the era of album rock--Sgt. Pepper and the White Album were among the first albums to become #1 million sellers without the aid of a hit single.
To the point above about the Stones being the driving force behind introducing a new generation to the blues--indeed they were among the first. The Animals were all set to make the move down to London in 1962, but one of the band members had to finish school, so this delayed their ascendance by a couple of years, but they still topped the U.S. charts ahead of the Stones. R&B/blues was just something that generation of British musicians picked up--it's like the question of which guitarist did the distorted power chord first? Some people like to say it was this guitarist, others that guitarist, but the truth is there were a number of them picking up on things at the same time.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: March 31, 2014 02:46
I agree with a lot of what you say, stonehearted, BUT
yes there was a Beatnik culture, which was very much a minority movement, and not solely youth-oriented by any means, and the same applies to the folk protest movement, but then--and I'm talking about the UK--the Beatles almost singlehandedly made youth culture the dominant culture. (Even Allen Ginsberg said that Liverpool [=the Beatles] had become the center of human consciousness. That's why I decided to go to uni there!) The Beatles also preceded the mod movement (and there were Motown songs on their second album). But most importantly, the chronology is less relevant than the fact that the planets just aligned and the Beatles just hit that sweet spot where they captured the public's imagination, taking off like a rocket--they were new (doesn't matter that other people had had that haircut if we hadn't seen them), they were fresh, they were young, they weren't imported (=American), they weren't imposed-taste via Tin Pan Alley, they were blue-collar, they were OURS. The world shifted on its axis and nothing was ever the same.
This was in 1963. Monterey Pop happened without their direct influence in 1967, after the whole music scene had changed, initially thanks to them. It's almost impossible to overstate the pervasiveness of their influence.
Quote
stonehearted
I'm not sure if the Beatles had any real impact on the development of the youth culture per se. There was already the beatnik culture carrying over from the fifties, as well as the folk protest movement, and the Monterey Pop Festival happened without the Beatles' involvement. The nouveau hairstyle was already in fashion in parts of Europe when their German art friends managed to talk them into adopting it--though both Lennon and McCartney initially made fun of that fashion at first, being die-hard ducktail fifties-style rockers.
yes there was a Beatnik culture, which was very much a minority movement, and not solely youth-oriented by any means, and the same applies to the folk protest movement, but then--and I'm talking about the UK--the Beatles almost singlehandedly made youth culture the dominant culture. (Even Allen Ginsberg said that Liverpool [=the Beatles] had become the center of human consciousness. That's why I decided to go to uni there!) The Beatles also preceded the mod movement (and there were Motown songs on their second album). But most importantly, the chronology is less relevant than the fact that the planets just aligned and the Beatles just hit that sweet spot where they captured the public's imagination, taking off like a rocket--they were new (doesn't matter that other people had had that haircut if we hadn't seen them), they were fresh, they were young, they weren't imported (=American), they weren't imposed-taste via Tin Pan Alley, they were blue-collar, they were OURS. The world shifted on its axis and nothing was ever the same.
This was in 1963. Monterey Pop happened without their direct influence in 1967, after the whole music scene had changed, initially thanks to them. It's almost impossible to overstate the pervasiveness of their influence.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: March 31, 2014 03:07
Very well, Aqua, I'll take your word for it--since you were there and I was merely born there (in '66, that is).
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: March 31, 2014 03:37
Quote
stonehearted
Very well, Aqua, I'll take your word for it--since you were there and I was merely born there (in '66, that is).
Not sure it's polite to remind a lady of her age, my young friend.
Of course, things might have been very different in the US, for all I know--I was just talking about the UK. But I think their whole influence radiated out from there.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: March 31, 2014 04:04
That certainly wasn't my intent--I was merely deferring to your first-hand experience.
Here in the U.S. there is the often-cited timing of their arrival on the Ed Sullivan show, just weeks after the JFK assassination, which is said to have lifted the culture up out of the doldrums. Also, there is the fact of no crime being in reported in the entire city of New York for the duration of their Sullivan show appearance--even criminals were taking a break from crime to see what the fuss was about.
Interesting, though, that the Beatles didn't exactly catch on in the U.S. at first. Whereas right from the start, with Love Me Do in 1962, their songs had no trouble finding an interested audience in the UK upon release, the first three U.S. Beatles singles flopped. From Me To You was the only one of that initial three that charted, bubbling under at #116 on Billboard with a mere 3 weeks on the chart. In September 1963, despite a positive write-up in Billboard for She Loves You, this, too, flopped--on New York radio, the song made only a third place showing in a listener contest but failed to go anywhere. Likewise with a low listener rating on American Bandstand's Rate a Record segment. She Loves You sold only 1,000 copies.
So what was it that made the Beatles a hit in the U.S.? Initially, it didn't seem to be the music. Perhaps people needed to see them, to become acquainted with the novelty of them. The Beatles seem to have literally charmed their way into the hearts of U.S. music lovers. What else can explain their poor performance with their initial run of singles before people got the chance to see them and become acquainted with the refreshing uniqueness of their personas?
Here in the U.S. there is the often-cited timing of their arrival on the Ed Sullivan show, just weeks after the JFK assassination, which is said to have lifted the culture up out of the doldrums. Also, there is the fact of no crime being in reported in the entire city of New York for the duration of their Sullivan show appearance--even criminals were taking a break from crime to see what the fuss was about.
Interesting, though, that the Beatles didn't exactly catch on in the U.S. at first. Whereas right from the start, with Love Me Do in 1962, their songs had no trouble finding an interested audience in the UK upon release, the first three U.S. Beatles singles flopped. From Me To You was the only one of that initial three that charted, bubbling under at #116 on Billboard with a mere 3 weeks on the chart. In September 1963, despite a positive write-up in Billboard for She Loves You, this, too, flopped--on New York radio, the song made only a third place showing in a listener contest but failed to go anywhere. Likewise with a low listener rating on American Bandstand's Rate a Record segment. She Loves You sold only 1,000 copies.
So what was it that made the Beatles a hit in the U.S.? Initially, it didn't seem to be the music. Perhaps people needed to see them, to become acquainted with the novelty of them. The Beatles seem to have literally charmed their way into the hearts of U.S. music lovers. What else can explain their poor performance with their initial run of singles before people got the chance to see them and become acquainted with the refreshing uniqueness of their personas?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: March 31, 2014 04:48
Quote
stonehearted
That certainly wasn't my intent--I was merely deferring to your first-hand experience.
I know, I was just teasing.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: March 31, 2014 09:29
If you are a music interested man and can't hear any good music from a band like The Beatles, then it is better to take the consequences and start playing golf instead!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
oldschool
()
Date: March 31, 2014 16:32
Quote
soulsurvivor1
Stones Trend Followers?
The Rolling Stones and groups like The Animals and The Yardbirds introduced an entire generation of kids to American Blues music. Songd like Little Red Rooster, I can't be satisfied, Confessing the Blues, Good Times, Bad Times, Heart of Stone, Look What You've Done, to name a few. Think of all the bands including, Cream, Paul Butterfield, Ten Years After, Led Zeppelin, The Faces, Free, Fleetwood Mac, ZZ Top Johnny Winter, The Allman Brothers, to name a few, were all bands that took the Stones basic idea of rocking up old blues tunes and blending it into their own new tough, raw, sound. In my opinion, sounds like a whole group of bands in the mid and later 60s followed The Stones. I don't think anyone could say that the Beatles contribution to music was more important to Rock N Roll than The Stones. Every band that I mentioned was a major force during the 60s and 70s. All took the Stones approach to ceating music..Not The Beatles.
As a matter of fact...after 1968 even the Beatles dropped the orchestras and heavy production in the studio and stripped down the band back to it's original form. But they did not return to their original sound. They ventured into a more harder edge sound that featured dirty guitars and a blues rock sound. They even hired Billy Preston to play on their records to give it a more authentic blues rock sound. Songs like Don't Let Me Down, Get Back, Back In The USSR,Yer Blues, Revolution, to name a few. Ironically, this was a sound that the Rolling Stones had since 1963.
So Now who are the trend setters and followers?
SOULSURVIVOR
You forgot the Kinks as they were right there with the Stones and Beatles...everybody forgets about the Kinks......
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
ThickerThanThieves
()
Date: March 31, 2014 16:36
Quote
BlackHat
I think the anti Beatles thing shows a chronic insecurity on the part of Stones fans. It's just pointless.
I can't live without either. A world without either would be unthinkable.
Unfortunately the "unthinkable" happened 44 years ago. I love them both, but one is a living breathing band, while the other has been dead since 1970.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 31, 2014 16:39
Quote
Come On
If you are a music interested man and can't hear any good music from a band like The Beatles, then it is better to take the consequences and start playing golf instead!
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 31, 2014 16:40
Quote
ThickerThanThievesQuote
BlackHat
I think the anti Beatles thing shows a chronic insecurity on the part of Stones fans. It's just pointless.
I can't live without either. A world without either would be unthinkable.
Unfortunately the "unthinkable" happened 44 years ago. I love them both, but one is a living breathing band, while the other has been dead since 1970.
BlackHat, you're dead right.
...and I think the 'unthinkable' actually happened 34 years ago.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: March 31, 2014 17:47
The Beatles are overrated. REM's national television debut - David Letterman Show October 1983. I remember watching this and just being floored. Jangling Rickenbackers.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-31 17:48 by drbryant.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-31 17:48 by drbryant.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 31, 2014 17:57
Quote
drbryant
The Beatles are overrated. REM's national television debut - David Letterman Show October 1983. I remember watching this and just being floored. Jangling Rickenbackers.
Hot damn that was good. I think REM has to be my favourite post 1980 band.
Good memories listening to that!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
BlackHat
()
Date: March 31, 2014 18:49
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
ThickerThanThievesQuote
BlackHat
I think the anti Beatles thing shows a chronic insecurity on the part of Stones fans. It's just pointless.
I can't live without either. A world without either would be unthinkable.
Unfortunately the "unthinkable" happened 44 years ago. I love them both, but one is a living breathing band, while the other has been dead since 1970.
BlackHat, you're dead right.
...and I think the 'unthinkable' actually happened 34 years ago.
What I meant was that not having the Beatles music in my life would be unthinkable. Yes, they haven't been a functioning band for 44 years. But I am still touched by the music. If you are honest the Stones have not been a fullty functioning band for the last 30 years or so. They come together record and tour and then stop functioning until the next time. Remember the Beatles worked solidly between 62-70. Even Charlie said "5 years working 20 years hanging around". What did the Stones do between 2007 and 2012 - that's five years as a non functioning band. Only three years short of the beatles entire recording career.
Peace and love, peace and love!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: March 31, 2014 19:04
I have always fared quite well without them ...and continue to!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
ThickerThanThieves
()
Date: March 31, 2014 22:28
Quote
BlackHatQuote
treaclefingersQuote
ThickerThanThievesQuote
BlackHat
I think the anti Beatles thing shows a chronic insecurity on the part of Stones fans. It's just pointless.
I can't live without either. A world without either would be unthinkable.
Unfortunately the "unthinkable" happened 44 years ago. I love them both, but one is a living breathing band, while the other has been dead since 1970.
BlackHat, you're dead right.
...and I think the 'unthinkable' actually happened 34 years ago.
What I meant was that not having the Beatles music in my life would be unthinkable. Yes, they haven't been a functioning band for 44 years. But I am still touched by the music. If you are honest the Stones have not been a fullty functioning band for the last 30 years or so. They come together record and tour and then stop functioning until the next time. Remember the Beatles worked solidly between 62-70. Even Charlie said "5 years working 20 years hanging around". What did the Stones do between 2007 and 2012 - that's five years as a non functioning band. Only three years short of the beatles entire recording career.
Peace and love, peace and love!
I am almost certain that the Beatles would have eventually gotten back together in the latter stages of their lives and would still be recording music today if fate hadn't gotten in the way. The Stones have been extremely lucky besides being very good. We are blessed to have at least one of them still around. They are without a shadow of a doubt the two greatest bands in the history of rock 'n roll, head and shoulders above the rest.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
ThickerThanThieves
()
Date: March 31, 2014 22:48
Quote
michaelsavage
I have always fared quite well without them ...and continue to!
They left a huge void in the music world when they called it quits 44 years ago. Just think how great it would be if they were around today still performing like the Stones.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Dan , DelcoProud , hot stuff , Irix , keefriffhards , Mabru , Martin90 , midimannz , More Hot Rocks , peoplewitheyes , Purplevienna1 , rcfoxy , snarf2014 , sonnystitt , spidey39 , spunky , Stilllife09 , TumblinDice76 , werner67976
Guests:
1176
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10