For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
michaelsavage
So silly. Stones were ROCK, Beatles were pop/boy band types
The Beatles could rock when they wanted to. Throughout their entire career they wrote some killer rock numbers. And The Stones wrote some lovely pop songs. But for some strange ideological reason, mickscarey thinks that because The Beatles didn't write or play rock 100% of the time that they should be dismissed as boy band/soft pop and therefore crap.Quote
FrankM
The Beatles didn't play silly bubble gum pop but there's no denying they were more pop oriented and The Stones were more rock oriented.
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Funny how there's this idea that The Beatles were the soft, safe group and The Stones were the hardcore bad ass rebels. The Beatles came from Liverpool. They were tough f-uckers (bv, seriously, you need to remove this censorship, this is the internet not church!). In the early days they'd be popping pills, playing for hours, getting into fights, wearing leather jacket and pants. THAT is rock and roll! The Stones were from lovely ol' London, a world apart from dirty Liverpool. The Beatles grew up faster than The Stones. When The Stones were playing rock and roll The Beatles were "been there, done that". They were miles ahead of The Stones. It's called progression. The worst thing an artist can do is get stuck doing the same thing over and over again.
This whole Beatles were soft, Stones were hard, thing is such nonsense.
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Funny how there's this idea that The Beatles were the soft, safe group and The Stones were the hardcore bad ass rebels. The Beatles came from Liverpool. They were tough f-uckers (bv, seriously, you need to remove this censorship, this is the internet not church!). In the early days they'd be popping pills, playing for hours, getting into fights, wearing leather jacket and pants. THAT is rock and roll! The Stones were from lovely ol' London, a world apart from dirty Liverpool. The Beatles grew up faster than The Stones. When The Stones were playing rock and roll The Beatles were "been there, done that". They were miles ahead of The Stones. It's called progression. The worst thing an artist can do is get stuck doing the same thing over and over again.
This whole Beatles were soft, Stones were hard, thing is such nonsense.
Quote
whitem8
All this Beatles talk is all good and fine, but what the hell is growing on Lemmy's cheek?
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I suggest you begin watching episodes of the 50's television series the Lone Ranger. I am recommending the box set with all 221 episodes. It might teach you a thing or two about respecting those that are much older and wiser than you.
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
Seriously, if the Stones don't remove that overdub to the intro to SMU at Hyde Park (on the soon to be released DVD) I will be moving on. I have let them know how I feel about it, so lets hope they "do the right thing" and restore the original.
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Funny how there's this idea that The Beatles were the soft, safe group and The Stones were the hardcore bad ass rebels. The Beatles came from Liverpool. They were tough f-uckers (bv, seriously, you need to remove this censorship, this is the internet not church!). In the early days they'd be popping pills, playing for hours, getting into fights, wearing leather jacket and pants. THAT is rock and roll! The Stones were from lovely ol' London, a world apart from dirty Liverpool. The Beatles grew up faster than The Stones. When The Stones were playing rock and roll The Beatles were "been there, done that". They were miles ahead of The Stones. It's called progression. The worst thing an artist can do is get stuck doing the same thing over and over again.
This whole Beatles were soft, Stones were hard, thing is such nonsense.
Quote
GumbootCloggerooThe Beatles could rock when they wanted to. Throughout their entire career they wrote some killer rock numbers. And The Stones wrote some lovely pop songs. But for some strange ideological reason, mickscarey thinks that because The Beatles didn't write or play rock 100% of the time that they should be dismissed as boy band/soft pop and therefore crap.Quote
FrankM
The Beatles didn't play silly bubble gum pop but there's no denying they were more pop oriented and The Stones were more rock oriented.
Quote
stanloveQuote
GumbootCloggerooThe Beatles could rock when they wanted to. Throughout their entire career they wrote some killer rock numbers. And The Stones wrote some lovely pop songs. But for some strange ideological reason, mickscarey thinks that because The Beatles didn't write or play rock 100% of the time that they should be dismissed as boy band/soft pop and therefore crap.Quote
FrankM
The Beatles didn't play silly bubble gum pop but there's no denying they were more pop oriented and The Stones were more rock oriented.
Not sure why anyone complains when the Beatles are often refereed to as a pop band. Its really pretty simple. Most of their songs were not rock songs, and most were considered pop songs. So they should be considered a pop band.
Why is this hard to grasp.
Quote
whitem8Quote
stanloveQuote
GumbootCloggerooThe Beatles could rock when they wanted to. Throughout their entire career they wrote some killer rock numbers. And The Stones wrote some lovely pop songs. But for some strange ideological reason, mickscarey thinks that because The Beatles didn't write or play rock 100% of the time that they should be dismissed as boy band/soft pop and therefore crap.Quote
FrankM
The Beatles didn't play silly bubble gum pop but there's no denying they were more pop oriented and The Stones were more rock oriented.
Not sure why anyone complains when the Beatles are often refereed to as a pop band. Its really pretty simple. Most of their songs were not rock songs, and most were considered pop songs. So they should be considered a pop band.
Why is this hard to grasp.
hummm, well even Mick Jagger referred to the Stones in the 60's as a pop band. That was the word used for bands who were "popular". Most of The Beatles songs were not rock songs?? Well that is just silly, and inane.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLantern
Seriously, if the Stones don't remove that overdub to the intro to SMU at Hyde Park (on the soon to be released DVD) I will be moving on. I have let them know how I feel about it, so lets hope they "do the right thing" and restore the original.
Seriously, no one believes you. Regardless of that, as it has been explained elsewhere SEVERAL times, it's most likely NOT an overdub, just a copy and paste.
So get over yerself. They've done what they've always done - fixed a live release.
And... they don't care how you feel about it.
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I googled "Were The Beatles a rock band?" and, other than the video game The Beatles: Rock Band (not pop but rock), nothing else seemed to show up as a result. It appears as though it's not really a hot topic amongst journalists or bloggers or proprietors of websites. Could it be that we're the only ones discussing this asinine topic? Maybe nothing is coming up because it's such a stupid question? It's like googling "is the colour blue blue?".
Get over it. The Beatles were rock (or rock and roll or whatever you want to call it). They were pop. They were lots of things. Much like The Stones were. When you think of the classic Stones rock songs most of them are from an era that is after The Beatles broke up, correct? So, it's not really fair to compare two different bands from two different eras. The Beatles did things first and The Stones followed. Hell, wasn't Lennon even doing heroin before Keith? I'm sure someone here can fact check that for me.
The Beatles were a rock and roll band from the beginning of their career to the end. Their songs rocked harder than The Stones. Their arrangements were more interesting. Their musicianship was more complex. Their palate was much larger than what The Stones had. The Beatles were colour, Stones were black and white. That's how I see it.
Now, if you want to say The Stones were more blues and The Beatles weren't, then that's a fair assessment to make.
Quote
GumbootCloggerooI googled "Were The Beatles a rock band?" and, other than the video game The Beatles: Rock Band (not pop but rock), nothing else seemed to show up as a result. It appears as though it's not really a hot topic amongst journalists or bloggers or proprietors of websites. Could it be that we're the only ones discussing this asinine topic? Maybe nothing is coming up because it's such a stupid question? It's like googling "is the colour blue blue?".edit: by wording the question different, discussions on the topic do appear in google. Thank god.
Get over it. The Beatles were rock (or rock and roll or whatever you want to call it). They were pop. They were lots of things. Much like The Stones were. When you think of the classic Stones rock songs most of them are from an era that is after The Beatles broke up, correct? So, it's not really fair to compare two different bands from two different eras. The Beatles did things first and The Stones followed. Hell, wasn't Lennon even doing heroin before Keith? I'm sure someone here can fact check that for me.
The Beatles were a rock and roll band from the beginning of their career to the end. Their songs rocked harder than The Stones. Their arrangements were more interesting. Their musicianship was more complex. Their palate was much larger than what The Stones had. The Beatles were colour, Stones were black and white. That's how I see it.
Now, if you want to say The Stones were more blues and The Beatles weren't, then that's a fair assessment to make.
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
michaelsavage, how exactly were The Beatles "safer"? can you give me some examples? You've used the word "safe" many times now to describe The Beatles. Care to go a bit deeper than that?
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
michaelsavage, how exactly were The Beatles "safer"? can you give me some examples? You've used the word "safe" many times now to describe The Beatles. Care to go a bit deeper than that? I'm not sure what "safer" even means.
Quote
michaelsavageQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
michaelsavage, how exactly were The Beatles "safer"? can you give me some examples? You've used the word "safe" many times now to describe The Beatles. Care to go a bit deeper than that? I'm not sure what "safer" even means.
Softer kind of music. " I wanna hold your hand" or "Stupid Girl"/"Under my Thumb? That's why parents were told to lock up their girls when the Stones came to town.