Quote
Rockman
Which one ya choose ...Parachute Woman or Pictures Of Lily ?

dunno...tho' my heavy throbber's itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down.

Funny, I remember Keith saying something like "I'm done with the rock, give me the roll!" some time around Bridges to Babylon.
And Daltrey goes "We don't do the roll, we did the rock".
So they're in perfect agreement.

Quote
stone66

This aside, what will be written and/or thought about the Stones and Who in times to come will pale in comparison to the Beatles -- the act that popular consciousness has already nominated as the ultimate time capsule of their era to be remembered to infinity. Pop bands or rock bands or rock and roll bands aside, the Beatles have something neither the Who nor the Stones ever had -- lasting popularity that transcends demographics, a Yellow Submarine to captivate and appeal to children from their earliest years. The Stones and Who, on the other hand, represent a bygone cultural epoch, the "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" type lifestyle that is only the stuff of memory to old people, those in their fifties and older who no longer imbibe anyway. Even their toastmaster general Keef has toned it down to nothing special in later years.

The biggest selling album in the 21st century is a Beatles hits compilation. What more need be said?

Its all relative. IF you can say the Beatles have it over the Stones because of the reasons you list then one can also say the Stones have it over the Who for the same reasons. Either you can compare or you can not compare. Reminds me of a song writing thread I was on once. The type of people who love to say apples and oranges to everything were saying you can't say Bob Dylan was a greater song writer then John Lennon because song writing is an art that can't be compared. I spent 5 minutes writing a song and said there I am just as great a song writer as John Lennon. Of course they disagreed which killed their whole argument. Either you can say what artist is greater then another or you can not. I personally like the Stones much more then the Beatles and its not close at all. But I think its silly to go around claiming the Stones are greater then the Beatles. The Beatles are the most popular,influential,famous, and legendary band ever. I don't argue with Beatles fans who claim the Beatles are greater. But I much prefer the Stones.

Personal opinions or preferences are a waste of time on music forums. Sure we can find people who like Ratt better then the Beatles and Stones combined but so what thats personal preference but if they go around claiming as a fact that Ratt is greater then both then there is something to argue about. I can never understand why people on music forums can't grasp this.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-11-03 19:16 by stanlove.

Quote
stanlove
I personally like the Stones much more then the Beatles and its not close at all. But I think its silly to go around claiming the Stones are greater then the Beatles. The Beatles are the most popular,influential,famous, and legendary band ever.

i just don't understand this thinking at all,because more people think this that makes it true?
we have a big election coming up on tuesday,if i followed your reasoning if one side wins the other side should just all of a sudden agree with the winner?
"hey,millions of people voted ,way more than your side so now everything we think is now fact and the absolute truth"-does that make sense?

the beatles were never a great rock and roll band,they are a great pop group.
to compare them to the stones or any of the great rock and roll bands is like comparing maroon 5 to the black crowes.
when they played roots rock in the early days it was massively cheesy,the woo hoo hoo and the heads shaking back and forth-laughable.

like adam levin they have great voices but couldn't play their instruments.when you think of the great drummers-ginger baker,keith moon,charlie watts,john bonham....ringo?
jimmy page,jeff beck,keith richards,eric clapton,mick taylor...john and george ?
john paul johns,jack bruce,bill wyman,john entwhistle..little paulie macca? you see how comical that is? it's a joke,they can't hang with any of the greats -they are POP.
the reason the beatles are so huge is because the average person has no clue what actual rock and roll music is and alot of what they turned out is just mainstream or acid tinged garbage-oh blah dee,lovely rita,yellow submarine,octopuss'a garden,that song where they said "number 9" over and over,the list goes on..it's horrible.

i'd consider them at their most tripped out and creative to be equal to the beach boys but mostly they are comparable to michael jackson,the bee gee's and the monkees.i'm not sure why they are even considered a rock band.maybe because they came to america first in their matching suits and mangled some 50's era rock and roll..i'm not sure.by using the good rock songs they did i would put them somewhere in the bottom of the top 15 all time bands-around 12 or 13.

please excuse the typo mr baldwin-of course, the great john paul jones.

Quote
stanlove
Personal opinions or preferences are a waste of time on music forums.

Funny...did I miss some scientific proof or do you just share your personal opinion?

I enjoy personal opinions and preferences on music forums...that's the sense of it.
Fact sheets can be found anywhere else.

Quote
lem motlow
when you think of the great drummers-ginger baker,keith moon,charlie watts,john bonham....ringo?

On Ringo's drumming...

Kenny Aronoff -- "I consider him one of the greatest innovators of rock drumming and believe that he has been one of the greatest influences on rock drumming today... Ringo has influenced drummers more than they will ever realize or admit. Ringo laid down the fundamental rock beat that drummers are playing today and they probably don't even realize it. (Modern Drummer,Oct. 1987) . . Ringo always approached the song more like a songwriter than a drummer. He always served the music." (Modern Drummer, Dec. 1987)

Editor of Modern Drummer magazine, presenting the Editor's Achievement Award to Ringo -- "What is beyond question is Ringo's impact on an entire generation of drummers who first became drummers as a direct result of seeing and hearing him play in the early days of The Beatles. Literally hundreds of thousands of players -- including some of the greatest drummers playing today -- cite Ringo as their first motivating influence."

Max Weinberg -- "D. J. Fontana had introduced me to the power of the big beat. Ringo convinced me just how powerful that rhythm could be. Ringo's beat was heard around the world and he drew the spotlight toward rock and roll drummer. From ;his matched grip style to his pioneering use of staggered tom tom fills, his influence in rock drumming was as important and wide spread as Gene Krupa's had been in jazz." (The Big Beat, 1984)

Jim Keltner -- "I will always be there to support him. He's more than a dear friend. He's like an idol. He's everything to me. I still think of him musically every time I sit down and play drums. He's a very important guy to me. (Discoveries magazine, April 1993)

Phil Collins, drummer for Genesis -- "I think he's vastly underrated. The drum fills on A Day In The Life are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' They wouldn't know what to do." (interview for The Making of Sgt. Pepper, 1992)

Alex Van Halen -- " One of the most interesting things about Ringo is how he manage to maintain a level of self-esteem -- in addition to being a great player, of course. But he wasn't overshadowed as a human being by McCartney, Lennon or Harrison. I think he did a wonderful thing for drums because drummers would see him and think, "Hey, he's part of it, too." (Modern Drummer magazine, July 1993)

Andy Sturmer, drummer for Jellyfish -- "Ringo is a great guy and really amazing drummer. He has that feel that's between a shuffle and straight eights -- Ringo territory that nobody else can do. He played some amazing stuff on that (Time Takes Time) album." ( Modern Drummer, Aug. 1993)

Rory Storm -- "During the four or five years Ringo was with us, he really played the drums. He drove them. He sweated and swung and sung. Ringo sang about five numbers a night. He even had his own spot. It was called 'Ringo Starrtime.' " (Beatles Companion by Ted Greenwald)

D. J. Fontana -- "I was playing maracas or something behind him, just listening to him. I swear he never varied the tempo. He played that back beat and never got off it. Man, you couldn't have moved him with a crane. It was amazing. He played a hell of a back beat, Man, and that's where it's at." (interview for The Big Beat by Max Weinberg)

Don Was -- "As a drummer, he influenced three generations of rock drummers. It's not very flashy playing, but it's very musical. Instead of just counting the bars, he's playing the song, and he puts fills in unusual places that are directed by the vocal." (The St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1992)

George Martin -- "Ringo always got and still gets a unique sound out of his drums, as sound as distinctive as his voice. ... Ringo gets a looser deeper sound out of his drums that is unique. ...This detailed attention to the tone of his drums is one of the reasons for Ringo's brilliance. Another is that although Ringo does not keep time with a metronome accuracy, he has unrivaled feel for a song. If his timing fluctuates, it invariably does so in the right place at the right time, keep the right atmosphere going on the track and give it a rock solid foundation. This held true for every single Beatles number Richie played ... Ringo also was a great tom tom player." ( Summer of Love, 1994)

Mike Finkelstein -- "If you have ever been in a band where you had to recreate Beatle songs, you would have realized that Ringo Starr was no slouch. Those drum parts were very tricky and subtle. He did have a special ability to create interesting rhythmic structures within the music. This gave the Beatles a unique sound without loosing that distinctive drive in rock and roll. ... Ringo moved smoothly from verse to chorus without loosing the groove by subtly changing a texture in the rhythm. Ringo is an important drummer to study well." (Teach Yourself Rock Drumming, 1979)

Bob Cianci -- "He must have done something right. People today still look for people who play like Ringo. If you don't believe me, just check the musical ads. On top of all this, he certainly inspired countless millions of teenagers worldwide to learn drums. There's no doubt it, Ringo's a very important rock drummer. ... What Ringo does on the most basic of terms is make the music feel good. He refers to his playing as being fraught with silly fills due to his self-admitted lack of technique, but he says it proudly. ... Sometimes chops do not a real drummer make." (Great Rock Drummers of the 60s, 1989)

Peter Blake -- "Ringo is one of the most important drummers of the 20th century. While he hasn't got any technique to speak of, he realizes how important It is for a song to feel good. His feel is absolutely tremendous. He got some great sounds on the Beatles records. It wasn't all production and microphones, a lot of it was down to the way he tuned them. ... He has tremendous basic ability. Obviously there were people playing in a straight-forward manner before him, but he had a definite feel and he changed pop drumming around. He changed the sound from hat of the high-pitched jazz drummers. I think he's tremendous." (Speaking Words of Wisdom)

Mark Lewisohn -- "It is true that on only a handful of occasions during all of the several hundred session tapes and thousands of recording hours can Ringo be heard to have made a mistake or wavered in his beat. His work was remarkably consistent and excellent, from 1962 right through 1970." ( The Beatles Recording Sessions, 1988)

George Martin -- "Ringo has a tremendous feel for a song and he always helped us hit the right tempo the first time. He was rock solid. This made the recording of all the Beatle songs so much easier." (interviewed in 1988 for The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn)

Tim Riley -- "Ringo wanted to serve the songs rather than show off. As a song writer's drummer, Ringo was the type of musician who could follow instructions as he completed the overall sound. His commitment to the music was bigger than his ego." ( Tell Me Why, 1988)

Kenny Aronoff -- "He consistently came up with new ideas that always seemed perfect for the song, but it wasn't just a matter of him picking a basic beat for a song, because lots of drummers could do that. Ringo definitely had the right kind of personality and creative ideas for The Beatles music. You will rarely find a Beatles song without something noticeable that Ringo played or didn't play." (Modern Drummer magazine, Oct. 1987)

Al Kooper -- "Sgt. Pepper was the album that changed drumming more than anything else. Before that album, drum fills in rock and roll were pretty rudimentary, all much the same, and this record had what I call space fills where they would leave a tremendous amount of air. It was most appealing to me musically and the sound of the drums got much better. What I had to figure out now was what am I going to do to get drums to sound like that." (Summer of Love by George Martin, 1994)

Martin Torgoff -- "If I could think of a single passage in which Ringo's quintessential style as a drummer is most identifiable, it could well be something as, say, the drumming behind George's guitar solo in Paul's "Let It Be" after the organ trails off. There, in simple 4-4 time, Ringo comes in with a trademark thump of his base drum, clear tattering snare, and his insistent smashing of the high hat, unvarying, unyielding, yet distinctively Ringo, and you can't help but smile not for its banality but because it is so perfectly adequate and because one can readily envision Ringo behind his kit as he plays, his beringed fingers clutching his sticks, swaying beatifically from side to side as he gets on with his work, blinking those astonishingly saturnine blue eyes." (The Compleat Beatles, 1985)

Dino Danelli, drummer for The Rascals -- "I liked him. He had great style. I never saw anyone play the way he did. I liked his simplicity. (1984 interview for The Big Beat by Max Weinberg)

George Martin -- "I did quickly realize that Ringo was an excellent drummer for what was required. He's not a technical drummer. Men like Buddy Rich and Gene Krupa would run rings around him, but he is a good solid rock drummer with a steady beat, and he knows how to get the right sound out of his drums. Above all, he does have an individual sound. You can tell Ringo's drums from anyone else's and that character was a definite asset to the Beatles' early recordings." (All You Need Is Ears, 1979)

Mike McCartney -- "There were quite a few drummers around Liverpool and I used to go home and tell Paul about Ringo. I often saw him play with Rory Storm. ...With Rory he was a very inventive drummer. He goes around the drums like crazy. He doesn't just hit them -- he invents sounds." (1983 interview for The Beatles: A Celebration by Geoffrey Guilliano, 1992)

Max Weinberg -- "More than any other drummer, Ringo Starr changed my life. The impact and memory of that band on Ed Sullivan Show in 1964 will never leave me. I can still see Ringo in the back moving that beat with his whole body, his right hand swinging off his sock cymbal while his left hand pounds the snare. He was fantastic, but I think what got to me the most was his smile. I knew he was having the time of his life." (The Big Beat, 1984)

Lenny Kaye -- "He was always meant to be utilitarian, a drummer to provide feisty beat. He did this directly with wit imagination and the famous Ringo personality. And his Spartan Ludwig kit showed his ability to cut economically to the heart of the rhythm." (interview for The Compleat Beatles, 1985)

Martin Torgoff -- "As a drummer, he was a natural, purely intuitive, remarkably tasteful, spirited, but always basic, a proponent of less is more school of minimal drumming. ...He had an uncanny understanding of John's rhythm and Paul's base line. Time and again, the Beatles rode his backbeat to glory. Precisely because he never overstated a beat, or over accented a phrase (unless it was appropriate) he managed to get more mileage out of his licks than most drummers could ever dream of. The results were extraordinary." (The Compleat Beatles, 1985)

Don Was -- "Ringo's drums are one of the greatest things you can have on a record."

Buddy Rich -- "Ringo Starr was adequate. No more than that." (Speaking Words of Wisdom by Spencer Leigh [Leigh's note: "Buddy Rich's opinions were as forceful as his drumming. So don't be dismayed, Ringo, he paying you a compliment."])

Dave Ballinger -- "Technically brilliant drummers do not necessary make good rock drummers. ...You don't have to be a technical Buddy Rich type drummer, you just need to be inventive. He (Ringo) did things I would never have thought of doing." (interview for Speaking Words of Wisdom)

Chris Whitten -- " I think I understand why he (Paul) loves Ringo, now after working with him. Paul loves 50s Rock 'n' Roll and Ringo is a great 50s Rock 'n' Roll drummer." (Rhythm magazine, 1990)

Hal Howland -- "It is fascinating to trace the drummer's stylistic development from rock-steady club veteran to studio innovator ... Ringo's command of an exhaustive list of arrangements and new originals is matched only by his versitility. (review for Modern Drummer magazine, June 1995)

[web2.airmail.net]

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
stanlove
I personally like the Stones much more then the Beatles and its not close at all. But I think its silly to go around claiming the Stones are greater then the Beatles. The Beatles are the most popular,influential,famous, and legendary band ever.

i just don't understand this thinking at all,because more people think this that makes it true?
.

Where did I say only because more people think so? Beatles are more popular,more influential, more critical aclaim, and more legendary then the Stones, What possible argument could anyone make for the Stones being greater.

The Beatles art effected things much more then The Stones. Someone;s personal preference or personal opinion doesn't change that. Again there are some who think Ratt is greater then the Stones and Beatles combined but who cares. We know whos art had much more of an impact and will be talked about much longer/

Personal preference who greatness is a waste of time. What is the point.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
stanlove
Personal opinions or preferences are a waste of time on music forums.

Funny...did I miss some scientific proof or do you just share your personal opinion?

I enjoy personal opinions and preferences on music forums...that's the sense of it.
Fact sheets can be found anywhere else.

So are you denying that the Beatles were more popular,influential,critically acclaimed, and will be remembered longer then the Stones?

Personal opinions about greatness are a waste of time. There are all kinds of opinions out there and yoiu already know that. Why would reading it change anything.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
stanlove
Personal opinions or preferences are a waste of time on music forums.

Funny...did I miss some scientific proof or do you just share your personal opinion?

I enjoy personal opinions and preferences on music forums...that's the sense of it.
Fact sheets can be found anywhere else.

So are you denying that the Beatles were more popular,influential,critically acclaimed, and will be remembered longer then the Stones?

Personal opinions about greatness are a waste of time. There are all kinds of opinions out there and yoiu already know that. Why would reading it change anything.

I was just quoting your sentence and refering to it...

No,I don't have the chrystal ball and I don't know and don't care about who will remembered longer.
I think The Beatles had the greatest impact on pop music.
But who cares? Old people,young people...?
There are so many factors and different perceptions,backgrounds...a twenty year old woman working with me recently told me she bought a greatest hits compilation by The Who and enjoys listening to it.
That's really cool I think.

Opinions about whether opinions on subjective matters are subjective or opinions are a matter of opinion.

Allow me to try and explain myself more clearly if I can, as it wasn't my intention of putting people on the defensive on a Stones forum regarding cultural perceptions of their favorite band.

In those responding to my post, they again used qualifying terms like "great" and "greater", which are measures of opinion rooted in personal appreciation.

What I was getting at was something beyond both the trite, obscure differences between "pop" and "rock" music as well as personal opinion, but the simple fact of the collective memory of a culture. It is the Beatles that the present culture chooses as its main de facto window on the music and attitudes of the 1960s. For this reason, they are remembered, collectively, so that everyone knows who they were. It also happens that more archive footage from that time exists of the Beatles than of the Stones and Who combined, so perhaps in the sixties as well it was being decided what should be saved and what could be erased. I merely mentioned the Kinks because they are as worthy as any rock (and/or roll) band of any of the accolades bestowed on both the Stones and the Who.

This collective cultural memory I speak of, it's merely a product of hindsight. For instance, in 1964, 1965 the Beatles were all but snubbed by such institutions as the Grammy Awards in favor of the more "established" artists like Henry Mancini and so on. At the 1965 Grammy Awards, the only "Ringo" present was the one as sung by Lorne Greene, and yet 50 years later the real Ringo is part of a huge gala Grammy spotlight on the music and legacy of the Beatles. Again, hindsight.

Speaking of hindsight, you may take it for granted the "greatness" of Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven, but in their working lives they were nothing special. Each in his own time was just another composer. But time and hindsight changed that in the eyes of generations to follow.

It has nothing really to do with personal opinion.

Townshend said Mick was the only man he's ever wanted to bang .... hhhaaa
But I bet ya..bet ya...bet ya Keith will never have the same thoughts about Daltrey .... HHHHAAAAA



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Townshend said Mick was the only man he's ever wanted to bang .... hhhaaa
But I bet ya..bet ya...bet ya Keith will never have the same thoughts about Daltrey .... HHHHAAAAA

That said, Keith wanted Daltrey to replace Mick in the 80s

Oh god Dandeeee ... I cant even think about that one ... ooooowww



ROCKMAN

Quote
stone66
Speaking of hindsight, you may take it for granted the "greatness" of Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven, but in their working lives they were nothing special. Each in his own time was just another composer.

Not quite true - they were all highly regarded and respected in their lifetimes.

Mozart

"After finally returning with his father from Italy on 13 March 1773, Mozart was employed as a court musician by the ruler of Salzburg, Prince-Archbishop Hieronymus Colloredo. The composer had a great number of friends and admirers in Salzburg[26] and had the opportunity to work in many genres, including symphonies, sonatas, string quartets, masses, serenades, and a few minor operas".

"At 17, Mozart was engaged as a musician at the Salzburg court, but grew restless and traveled in search of a better position. While visiting Vienna in 1781, he was dismissed from his Salzburg position. He chose to stay in the capital, where he achieved fame...".

"..he soon "had established himself as the finest keyboard player in Vienna".[52] He also prospered as a composer, and in 1782 completed the opera Die Entführung aus dem Serail ("The Abduction from the Seraglio"), which premiered on 16 July 1782 and achieved a huge success. The work was soon being performed "throughout German-speaking Europe",[52] and fully established Mozart's reputation as a composer".

Bach

"After graduating he held several musical posts across Germany: he served as Kapellmeister (director of music) to Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-Köthen, and as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, a position of music director at the main Lutheran churches and educator at the Thomasschule. He received the title of "Royal Court Composer" from Augustus III in 1736".

"In 1708, Bach left Mühlhausen, returning to Weimar this time as organist and from 1714 Konzertmeister (director of music) at the ducal court, where he had an opportunity to work with a large, well-funded contingent of professional musicians".

"In 1723, Bach was appointed Thomaskantor, Cantor of the Thomasschule at the Thomaskirche (St. Thomas Church) in Leipzig, which provided music for four churches in the city".

"Bach broadened his composing and performing beyond the liturgy by taking over, in March 1729, the directorship of the Collegium Musicum, a secular performance ensemble started by Telemann. This was one of the dozens of private societies in the major German-speaking cities that was established by musically active university students; these societies had become increasingly important in public musical life and were typically led by the most prominent professionals in a city".

In 1747, Bach visited the court of King Frederick II of Prussia at Potsdam. The king played a theme for Bach and challenged him to improvise a fugue based on his theme. Bach improvised a three-part fugue on one of Frederick's fortepianos, then a novelty, and later presented the king with a Musical Offering consisting of fugues, canons, and a trio based on this theme. Its six-part fugue includes a slightly altered subject more suitable for extensive elaboration.

"In the same year, Bach joined the Corresponding Society of the Musical Sciences (Correspondierende Societät der musikalischen Wissenschafften) of Lorenz Christoph Mizler. On the occasion of his entry into the Society, Bach composed the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" (BWV 769).[59] A portrait had to be submitted by each member of the Society, so in 1746, during the preparation of Bach's entry, the famous Bach portrait was painted by Elias Gottlob Haussmann.[60] The Canon triplex á 6 Voc (BWV 1076) on this portrait was dedicated to the Society".
Beethoven

"By 1793, Beethoven had established a reputation as an improviser in the salons of the nobility"

"With premieres of his First and Second Symphonies in 1800 and 1803, Beethoven became regarded as one of the most important of a generation of young composers following Haydn and Mozart".

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
stone66
Speaking of hindsight, you may take it for granted the "greatness" of Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven, but in their working lives they were nothing special. Each in his own time was just another composer.

Not quite true - they were all highly regarded and respected in their lifetimes.

Mozart

...was so highly regarded and famous that he was buried in an anonymous mass grave.

Bach

...whose music and reputation was rescued from obscurity by Felix Mendelssohn after having become all but forgotten by 1830.

Beethoven

...yes, alright, Beethoven was a rock star in his time with a funeral witnessed by some 20,000. Financially, he was the third most successful composer from the classical era, behind Haydn and Salieri, who was the most successful.

So, tell me, since all those accolades of nobility you cited above from all those Wikipedia quotes you copied and pasted into your post are so important and essential to one's reputation of so-called "greatness", then how come Antonio Salieri, the most financially successful and highly regarded court composer of his time is not spoken in the same breath of his contemporaries or near contemporaries as Mozart (never mind that fictional play and the movie that followed!), Haydn and Beethoven et al?

Could it have something to do with... hindsight?

I was only responding to your claim that "you may take it for granted the "greatness" of Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven, but in their working lives they were nothing special. Each in his own time was just another composer". which a simple google search and wiki link has shown to be false. I could get into far more in-depth research and debate, but the fact is they were all highly regarded and respected at some point in their lifetimes - far from being 'nothing special' and 'just another composer'.


*Mozart might have been buried in an anonymous mass grave, but at some point in his life he was enjoying the riches and success that his skills brought him.
Rembrandt was another who died nearly penniless and in obscurity, but that doesn't negate the fact that he was highly regarded and respected at some point in his lifetime.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
DandelionPowderman
...The Kinks never achieved the stardom and hoopla the Stones and the Beatles had to cope with, though. They were always outsiders, even when they finally broke through to the masses in the late 70s.

That's part of what made them great, imo. They didn't had to adjust as much to the general public as the Stones had to. They could be their morbid, funny and charming little selves. What a fantastic band, love them to pieces!

Quite so.

The Stones to some degree have become victims of their own success & continued popularity.

It is this that has dictated the format for their output & activities over the period which some call the "Vegas years "

Quote
HankM
The Rolling Stones will always be ahead of the (short timer) Beatles in music's pecking order and there is no doubt about that.

Of course. The Beatles were more boy band anyway

Such a boring cliche to say a band that blasted rock into people's soul, wrote, four singers, multi instrumental innovators were a boy band. Yawn. Stand in the corner son and draw.

I would agree that the Kinks are an under rated band. However in the pecking order:
4) Kinks
3) Who
2) Rolling Stones
1) Beatles

Its just the way it is anyone who puts the Stones ahead of the Beatles is a personal preference me being one of them.

They were all great in their own ways.

The Beatles have been over for almost 50 years and even today are bigger than the Stones. That's just the way it's always been.
A hundred years from now people will remember a band called the Beatles that played at Shea Stadium and Altamont and were Live and Leeds, and they did albums like Let it Be and Let it Bleed, and John and Paul were the main guys but Keith was their guitarist and Mick fronted them on tours and Keith Moon and Ringo played on drums.
The whole British invasion will be attributed to the Beatles.

The Beatles were the preeminent act in the history of show business. Put them in any category you want they are the top. The Stones, Kinks, Who would not have been what they are without The Beatles blasting through every barrier until they confronted Jesus and Evangelicals. We all have our favourites and Beatle music has been played out for sure but they are history in the largest sense.

Quote
whitem8
Such a boring cliche to say a band that blasted rock into people's soul, wrote, four singers, multi instrumental innovators were a boy band. Yawn. Stand in the corner son and draw.

Whose soul??? Not mine and Hank's. And MANY others . I will not apologize that I found the Beatles pretty darn boring and incredibly overrated. Wow, they had 4 singers. That's incredible. Now you stand in the corner sonny boy

Quote
potus43

Quote
whitem8
Such a boring cliche to say a band that blasted rock into people's soul, wrote, four singers, multi instrumental innovators were a boy band. Yawn. Stand in the corner son and draw.

Whose soul??? Not mine and Hank's. And MANY others . I will not apologize that I found the Beatles pretty darn boring and incredibly overrated. Wow, they had 4 singers. That's incredible. Now you stand in the corner sonny boy

mine either-i don't even understand what the beatleheads are talking about.

there is something comical and bizarre about the baby boomer/post war generation that they think the world began when they arrived in it.
i read somewhere that in 1969 2 out of every 3 americans were white and under 25 and herein lies the problem-
because there are so many of them and the beatles were their gods as they were growing up in the 60's they became confused into thinking the mop tops were universally important-they're not.

beatlemania-anytime there are girls screaming and crowds going wild it's "beatlemania" it's completely lost on them that frank sinatra had the exact same reaction in the 1940's and elvis had the exact same reaction in the 1950's.it wasn't new and it wasn't original.

shea stadium-this was the biggest,greatest concert ever.it changed the game,the first time anyone had played a place so massive,so huge,so great .it was the ultimate,the standard bearer of all time and set the benchmark for all rock and roll shows who come in it's wake-except for the fact that elvis played the cotton bowl in dallas[ which is way bigger than shea stadium] in 1956,so sorry but NO-it had been done before.

you could go on all day,they are a boy band or a pop group but the best rock band? you've gotta be joking.

Quote
potus43

Quote
whitem8
Such a boring cliche to say a band that blasted rock into people's soul, wrote, four singers, multi instrumental innovators were a boy band. Yawn. Stand in the corner son and draw.

Whose soul??? Not mine and Hank's. And MANY others . I will not apologize that I found the Beatles pretty darn boring and incredibly overrated. Wow, they had 4 singers. That's incredible. Now you stand in the corner sonny boy

I dont always agree with potus43, but I look at the comment and words not the user name, and in this case we do agree.

Soul schmoul... the beatles were right place, right time, got lucky made a few albums for a couple of years and quit before they washed out... The Delta blues men, Chuck Berry and Elvis laid the ground work for some band/promoter like them to come along and hit it big like they did in front of a bunch of screaming teenage beiber type fans that welcomed them to America.

Sure they have some good songs but they came and were gone before they ever... ah anyway... I have never understood people who still swoon over them.


Give me a long term, long touring, long living, real rocking band like the one led by Mick and Keith for 50 years any day. Life is too long to fawn over short timers who get lucky for a short period of time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-11-05 21:11 by HankM.

Penny Lane or Strawberry Fields .... which one ya choose ....????



ROCKMAN