Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

I'm not starting anything. I was pointing out how many negative Beatle comments there tend to be here. As for what Jagger said, actions speak louder than (belated) words.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

I'm not starting anything. I was pointing out how many negative Beatle comments there tend to be here. As for what Jagger said, actions speak louder than (belated) words.

So you are starting it again..

Its just really important to you that Jagger likes the Beatles music.

When I see people like you I always think how people like Jagger feel. He has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music but some guy on the internet knows better..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-03 08:24 by stanlove.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

I'm not starting anything. I was pointing out how many negative Beatle comments there tend to be here. As for what Jagger said, actions speak louder than (belated) words.

So you are starting it again..

Its just really important to you that Jagger likes the Beatles music.

When I see people like you I always think how people like Jagger feel. He has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music but some guy on the internet knows better..

And you are a genius who knows what Jagger likes and what he doesn't, where one comment he made cancels out history. I was merely pointing out what is in the historical record, not claiming I know Jagger's mind, which is in fact what you seem to be doing. What's "important" to me is that The Beatles and Stones admired each other's music, attended each other's sessions, and even sang on each other's records, and that a few people here think that liking the Stones means hating The Beatles. Maybe you're one of them. How old are you, anyway?

This is quite difficult: okay, least favourite studio albums :-

Dirty Work
Emotional Rescue
Black And Blue
Their Satanic Majesty's Request
It's Only Rock N' Roll

How old are you, anyway?


Now that for most of us ....is a difficult question ..............



ROCKMAN

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

I'm not starting anything. I was pointing out how many negative Beatle comments there tend to be here. As for what Jagger said, actions speak louder than (belated) words.

So you are starting it again..

Its just really important to you that Jagger likes the Beatles music.

When I see people like you I always think how people like Jagger feel. He has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music but some guy on the internet knows better..

And you are a genius who knows what Jagger likes and what he doesn't, where one comment he made cancels out history. I was merely pointing out what is in the historical record, not claiming I know Jagger's mind, which is in fact what you seem to be doing. What's "important" to me is that The Beatles and Stones admired each other's music, attended each other's sessions, and even sang on each other's records, and that a few people here think that liking the Stones means hating The Beatles. Maybe you're one of them. How old are you, anyway?

I am genius enough to go with what jagger himself said about how he feels about the Beatles music. I am a stickler for accuracy and you are not being accurate.

Jagger said he didn't really admire the Beatles music, I believe Watts said the same thing. the others I believe we're fans of the Beatles music. So saying the Stones admired the Beatles music is not exactly correct.

So if you are asked to sing on a friends song you say no unless you are a big fan of of thier music..You are joking right.

If some here hate the Beatles music that's fine. Not sure why you would think everyone has to like the Beatles music. I have been on a Beatles site and YouTube videos where beatles fans are ripping the Stones music. Who cares..why are you so concerned that not everyone likes all music.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

I'm not starting anything. I was pointing out how many negative Beatle comments there tend to be here. As for what Jagger said, actions speak louder than (belated) words.

So you are starting it again..

Its just really important to you that Jagger likes the Beatles music.

When I see people like you I always think how people like Jagger feel. He has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music but some guy on the internet knows better..

And you are a genius who knows what Jagger likes and what he doesn't, where one comment he made cancels out history. I was merely pointing out what is in the historical record, not claiming I know Jagger's mind, which is in fact what you seem to be doing. What's "important" to me is that The Beatles and Stones admired each other's music, attended each other's sessions, and even sang on each other's records, and that a few people here think that liking the Stones means hating The Beatles. Maybe you're one of them. How old are you, anyway?

In passing, I for one am younger than yesterday. I don't think that I am the only one round here to pretend to be so.

For the Rolling Stones during one important phase of their career to enter a rivalry with the Beatles, the Stones were not necessarily following in their footsteps. That would rather have been not to try to rival them. What was needed, was one common ground, where to achieve it. Experimental pop developed as that common ground. Probably also in itself emerged as the motive to take part in the rivalry by bands that at the outset were quite different. And those two bands were not the only bands developing experimental pop in between them. Crossing impulses most certainly went acoss many of those bands.

This post is not intended by me to slight the Beatles. I am not a fan of the Beatles, but I do like and sometimes love them.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

I'm not starting anything. I was pointing out how many negative Beatle comments there tend to be here. As for what Jagger said, actions speak louder than (belated) words.

So you are starting it again..

Its just really important to you that Jagger likes the Beatles music.

When I see people like you I always think how people like Jagger feel. He has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music but some guy on the internet knows better..

And you are a genius who knows what Jagger likes and what he doesn't, where one comment he made cancels out history. I was merely pointing out what is in the historical record, not claiming I know Jagger's mind, which is in fact what you seem to be doing. What's "important" to me is that The Beatles and Stones admired each other's music, attended each other's sessions, and even sang on each other's records, and that a few people here think that liking the Stones means hating The Beatles. Maybe you're one of them. How old are you, anyway?

I am genius enough to go with what jagger himself said about how he feels about the Beatles music. I am a stickler for accuracy and you are not being accurate.

Jagger said he didn't really admire the Beatles music, I believe Watts said the same thing. the others I believe we're fans of the Beatles music. So saying the Stones admired the Beatles music is not exactly correct.

So if you are asked to sing on a friends song you say no unless you are a big fan of of thier music..You are joking right.

If some here hate the Beatles music that's fine. Not sure why you would think everyone has to like the Beatles music. I have been on a Beatles site and YouTube videos where beatles fans are ripping the Stones music. Who cares..why are you so concerned that not everyone likes all music.

The funny thing is the fight you picked with me about this has nothing to do with anything I actually said or believe. But I'll leave you to it. It is a waste of time to argue with you.

Quote
mickschix
DIRTY WORK, UNDERCOVER, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, SOME GIRLS & METAMORPHOSIS.

Perfect

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Stoneage
Should Dirty Work even be considered a Stones album? As I understand it it's Keith, Ronnie ans some session musicians with overlayd Jagger vocals on it.

By that measure I don't consider any album after Steel Wheels a true Stones album.

Same with Exile, GHS, Black And Blue etc. Lots of session musicians, and many band members are not playing their instruments on quite a few vital songs...

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

I'm not starting anything. I was pointing out how many negative Beatle comments there tend to be here. As for what Jagger said, actions speak louder than (belated) words.

So you are starting it again..

Its just really important to you that Jagger likes the Beatles music.

When I see people like you I always think how people like Jagger feel. He has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music but some guy on the internet knows better..

And you are a genius who knows what Jagger likes and what he doesn't, where one comment he made cancels out history. I was merely pointing out what is in the historical record, not claiming I know Jagger's mind, which is in fact what you seem to be doing. What's "important" to me is that The Beatles and Stones admired each other's music, attended each other's sessions, and even sang on each other's records, and that a few people here think that liking the Stones means hating The Beatles. Maybe you're one of them. How old are you, anyway?

I am genius enough to go with what jagger himself said about how he feels about the Beatles music. I am a stickler for accuracy and you are not being accurate.

Jagger said he didn't really admire the Beatles music, I believe Watts said the same thing. the others I believe we're fans of the Beatles music. So saying the Stones admired the Beatles music is not exactly correct.

So if you are asked to sing on a friends song you say no unless you are a big fan of of thier music..You are joking right.

If some here hate the Beatles music that's fine. Not sure why you would think everyone has to like the Beatles music. I have been on a Beatles site and YouTube videos where beatles fans are ripping the Stones music. Who cares..why are you so concerned that not everyone likes all music.

The funny thing is the fight you picked with me about this has nothing to do with anything I actually said or believe. But I'll leave you to it. It is a waste of time to argue with you.

I didn't pick a fight with anyone. You just one more time tried to say that Jagger was a fan of the Beatles music..

Bridges to Babylon
Voodoo lounge
Their Satanic ...
Between the Buttons
Flashpoint (this stands in place for most of the live stuff after 1990, that sounded quiet the same and was not always really useful)

Glad to see Goat's Head make some lists here. Most overrated album in the bunch, and gets overly praised simply because of the line-up and its association with the 73 tour. I think it's a horrible album.

In no particular order:

Goats Head Soup
Dirty Work
Steel Wheels
Satanic Majesties
England's Newest Hitmakers

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

I'm not starting anything. I was pointing out how many negative Beatle comments there tend to be here. As for what Jagger said, actions speak louder than (belated) words.

So you are starting it again..

Its just really important to you that Jagger likes the Beatles music.

When I see people like you I always think how people like Jagger feel. He has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music but some guy on the internet knows better..

And you are a genius who knows what Jagger likes and what he doesn't, where one comment he made cancels out history. I was merely pointing out what is in the historical record, not claiming I know Jagger's mind, which is in fact what you seem to be doing. What's "important" to me is that The Beatles and Stones admired each other's music, attended each other's sessions, and even sang on each other's records, and that a few people here think that liking the Stones means hating The Beatles. Maybe you're one of them. How old are you, anyway?

I am genius enough to go with what jagger himself said about how he feels about the Beatles music. I am a stickler for accuracy and you are not being accurate.

Jagger said he didn't really admire the Beatles music, I believe Watts said the same thing. the others I believe we're fans of the Beatles music. So saying the Stones admired the Beatles music is not exactly correct.

So if you are asked to sing on a friends song you say no unless you are a big fan of of thier music..You are joking right.

If some here hate the Beatles music that's fine. Not sure why you would think everyone has to like the Beatles music. I have been on a Beatles site and YouTube videos where beatles fans are ripping the Stones music. Who cares..why are you so concerned that not everyone likes all music.

The funny thing is the fight you picked with me about this has nothing to do with anything I actually said or believe. But I'll leave you to it. It is a waste of time to argue with you.

I didn't pick a fight with anyone. You just one more time tried to say that Jagger was a fan of the Beatles music..

I tried to say that some people here think it's necessary to bash the Beatles. The rest is you. I do happen to think Jagger WAS a fan of the Beatles until he felt that wasn't cool anymore, so he changed his tune, but that had nothing to do with my original point. And if I want to say that, so what? Just drop it.

What did we say about these pyramidical posts?

Quote
Stoneage
What did we say about these pyramidical posts?

At least there is a + on top of the pyramid. That ought to mean something?

Bridges to Babylon
Steel Wheels
Satanic Majesties
Flowers
Voodoo Lounge

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

I always find it strangely funny that people on here who take part in new threads about "The Worst" then refuse to discuss the song of the same name in said threads.

I believe the song is overrated on this message board because it just gets too many threads ;-)

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Stoneage
Should Dirty Work even be considered a Stones album? As I understand it it's Keith, Ronnie ans some session musicians with overlayd Jagger vocals on it.

By that measure I don't consider any album after Steel Wheels a true Stones album.

Same with Exile, GHS, Black And Blue etc. Lots of session musicians, and many band members are not playing their instruments on quite a few vital songs...

I know. What BULLSHIT man! "The Rolling Stones" my ass! They even named an album after a song that Keith had ZERO to do with, while on the following album not one Rolling Stone plays any of the guitar on a track... just... a sham!

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Stoneage
Should Dirty Work even be considered a Stones album? As I understand it it's Keith, Ronnie ans some session musicians with overlayd Jagger vocals on it.

By that measure I don't consider any album after Steel Wheels a true Stones album.

Same with Exile, GHS, Black And Blue etc. Lots of session musicians, and many band members are not playing their instruments on quite a few vital songs...

I know. What BULLSHIT man! "The Rolling Stones" my ass! They even named an album after a song that Keith had ZERO to do with, while on the following album not one Rolling Stone plays any of the guitar on a track... just... a sham!

Hey! This was in the beginning of the disco era... In fairness, they both played keyboards on that tune

Quote
Blueranger
The title says it all.

5. December's Children (not the songs at such, but as an album it doesn't work)
4. Bridges To Babylon (quite simply, too long. Too many by-numbers rockers)
3. Steel Wheels (badly 80's production, uninspired songwriting)
2. Emotional Rescue (lazy songwriting)
1. Dirty Work (bottom of it all. Horrible)

Honorable mentions: A Bigger Bang (again too long), It's Only Rock 'N' Roll (the first time they did an album that didn't sound nescessary).

Wanna count up the votes, Blueranger? I won't recommend that job, but...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Stoneage
Should Dirty Work even be considered a Stones album? As I understand it it's Keith, Ronnie ans some session musicians with overlayd Jagger vocals on it.

By that measure I don't consider any album after Steel Wheels a true Stones album.

Same with Exile, GHS, Black And Blue etc. Lots of session musicians, and many band members are not playing their instruments on quite a few vital songs...

I know. What BULLSHIT man! "The Rolling Stones" my ass! They even named an album after a song that Keith had ZERO to do with, while on the following album not one Rolling Stone plays any of the guitar on a track... just... a sham!

Hey! This was in the beginning of the disco era... In fairness, they both played keyboards on that tune

But... The Rolling Stones are a GUITAR band, man! Playing keyboards is for knob turners!

"Give me a beat, Ms. Smith, er I mean Mick"...

Quote
24FPS
Undercover
Undercover
Undercover
Undercover
Undercover

Yes yes and yes....the absolutely WORST Stone's LP in creation....it will gag you...

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

I'm not starting anything. I was pointing out how many negative Beatle comments there tend to be here. As for what Jagger said, actions speak louder than (belated) words.

This IS a Stones site

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
mickschix
DIRTY WORK, UNDERCOVER, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, SOME GIRLS & METAMORPHOSIS.

Perfect

Some Girls, eh. Some "taste" you got

Would everyone just leave Undercover alone already?!

Quote
alhavu1

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stanlove

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
a lot of non stones fans dont seem to realize this.

and a lotta hard-core Stones fans don't seem ta realize this either ....

+1

a lot of other fans feel like they need to disparage The Beatles all the time when they talk about the Stones. If The Beatles were so bad, why were the Stones always trying to follow in their footsteps, and why do we see an adoring Mick Jagger in so many photos of Beatle sessions?

Actually Jagger has made it clear that he is not really a fan of the Beatles music. he was frinds with the Beatles though so why would he not hang out with them..

You are not going to start this again?

I'm not starting anything. I was pointing out how many negative Beatle comments there tend to be here. As for what Jagger said, actions speak louder than (belated) words.

This IS a Stones site

Thank you for pointing that out to me because I was very confused. Apparently discussing the Beatles in context of the Stones and the many interactions the two groups had in the 1960s is beyond the pale on a Stones site according to your extremely interesting interpretation. I hope you are here to advise me in the future about what is or is not appropriate to discuss on a Stones site. I would be lost without your wise counsel.

Considering the, let's say, lower amount of albums in the 1980s (which is really 4 if you consider that TATTOO YOU didn't have a specific session with the band for recording it) I think DIRTY WORK should be counted as two for worst seeing that the pre-DW and post-DW LPs directly are way more listenable.