The Stones are vastly underrated. The beatles rated as they should be.

Thanks Beely for translating my memory

__________________________

ty nicos; i edited it out cause i thought it was a little too close to the bone and personally exposed but i'm really glad you read it.
ty.

aslecs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess you are not allowed to disagree with the
> precious gazza, huh? Oooooooooooooh!!!
>

having you disagree with me is something I'd actually take as a compliment

Boy bands are manufactured and the brainchild of some mogul,producer or TV show.

Real bands are created by musicians with likeminded tastes coming together.

hardly takes a rocket scientist to figure out what category the Stones AND Beatles fall into.

The Beatles spent more time on concert stages in the last two years before they ever got a record contract than the Stones did for the entire 70s and 80's decades combined. Not bad for an 'artificial' band who you seem to think were some manufactured media creation. Maybe you got them mixed up with the Monkees.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-14 02:25 by Gazza.

No. That is a stupid question to ask.

Absolutely not!

_____________________________________________________

What's your favourite flavour?...........Cherry Red!!

These guys always got approval , but it was deserved !!

Yes in my opinion the Beatles work is a little overrated.
Nobody call me an idiot. It's just a personal opinion. I've tried to get into the Beatles and just can't. Not as much as alot of other bands.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

HelterSkelter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, if you weren't there you ain't gonna get
> it. EVER new song was a step forward, sometimes 2
> or 3. The PROGRESS and INOVATION was just AMAZING
> and will never happen again. To go from "Love Me
> Do" to "She's a Woman" to "In My Life" to "I am
> The Walrus" to "Hey Jude" to "Side 2 of ABBEY
> ROAD" in a little over 5 years is just amazing -
> Happens once in a century in art / music. Kurt
> Cobain said something like that in a more compact
> way.It was way beyond SPECIAL....

______ yep ,, , no need to read two and a half more pages of posts on this topic......

You call me out, I have no problem responding...

KEEP THIS IN MIND
Music is mostly generational
I am 38, born in 1968 so the Beatles were not a band that I experienced while it was happening, my knowledge is from books and music.

I love rock and roll, I have lived it all my life and there are a handful of Beatles tune I dig... but I really think that if it had not been the beatles that paved the way..... it would have been somebody else as I think the world was ripe for that musical revelotion.
I think they are mostly a band in the right place at the right time, THUS my OPINION that they are overrated (I do think John and George were great men)

#1 is ALWAYS the Stones

My 5 OUTSIDE the Stones change from time to time but here is a list of bands I ALWAYS dig.

The Faces
The Grateful Dead
The Ramones
J. Giels Band
The Clash


how about 5 solo artist I ALWAYS dig

Bob Dylan
Hank Williams Sr.
James Brown
Frank Sinatra
Gram Parsons

Here are 5 obscure bands I ALWAYS dig

Hanoi Rocks
The Supersuckers
Drivin' and Cryin'
Screeching Weasel
The Donnas

here are my 5 cheesey guitly pleasures (so you actually have some ammo to call poop, but hey... its all opinion)

Metallica
Motley Crue
Kid Rock
Guns-N-Roses
Van Halen


and finally here are 5 other bands I always dig, but could not think of a catagory for them

Foo Fighters
The Band
Aerosmith
Stone Temple Pilots (and Velvet Revolver)
Bruce and the E Street band


you ask for 5, I give you 25, and I am sure you don't dig on all of it.... but I am JUST as sure you dig on some of it.


RadioMarv

HelterSkelter Wrote:
I'd love to hear who Marv's and Raoul's
> 5 fav bands are (besides the Stones). Come on
> boys, lay down your lists. Wanna see what the 2 of
> you consider genius...... (I bet most will be true
> POOP)...go for it boys....

Radio Marv , I saw the Supersuckers in Providence last November . Great Show !! Great Stage Presence !! Great songs !!

A video from the boys







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-14 03:36 by boston2006.

The Beatles just don't do it for me........there are Beatles songs that I like but they don't have the bluesy, greasy, rootsy feel that I go for. I think the Beatles were great...but I personally can't put them above the Stones. I was listening to Rubber Soul the other day and some of the songs ("Michelle") just so turned me off. Not sayin that the Stones never did a song I didn't like. They did plenty...but I tend to like music that's directly linked to roots music such as blues, country, bluegrass, folk.....

I've tried to get into the Beatles, and I do like the White album and I do like Revolver and I do like alot of Abbey Road......but there's also alot of their stuff that I don't like. I tend to take the attitude that "this many people couldn't be wrong" about the Beatles and I try to see what's so great but in the end, their music just doesn't turn me on the way the Stones do.....or Zeppelin, or the Band, or Hank Williams for that matter....

HelterSkelter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I'd love to hear who Marv's and Raoul's
> 5 fav bands are (besides the Stones). Come on
> boys, lay down your lists. Wanna see what the 2 of
> you consider genius...... (I bet most will be true
> POOP)...go for it boys....

Not necessarily all bands, but the music I have listened to the most in the past(other than the Stones) comes from these people: Pink Floyd, Pearl Jam, The Dave Matthews Band, and Fiona Apple. I have dabbled a little in folk music (Ani DiFranco) a somewhat in Jazz (John Coltrane and Thelonious Monk). As you can see, it's a pretty straightforward list (with perhaps a couple of sleepers). I am no connoisseur, I play no instruments, and wasn't even alive when the Beatles split up. I just think that - from a musical standpoint, not social/historical -the Beatles don't even belong in the same sentence with bands like The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd. And, to the extent that their contribution is invariably considered in a category of its own, I think they are vastly overrated.

I wouldnt say the Beatles are overated, but i would say they get more credit in certain developments than they deserve. Sometimes it seems that the Beatles invented everything in Rock and Roll post 1964 (e.g grunge, psychedelia, hard rock, etc) as well pioneering the rock concept album (if Sgt Peppers is a concept album, then the concept is lost on me, or its weak. I agree with a previous person that said if Helter Skelter had been done by any other group it would be garbage (BTW, i had read where macca said it was the Beatles attempting to be the Who, who he said at the time were one of the loudest and most racous acts at the time).
But for their significance in rock, that cant be disputed. But I maintain I think they are given too much credit in certain areas, namely those mentioned above.

_____ particular about that tune 'helter skelter',,,
it became a culture
adjective, a culture nown,, , was scribbled in blood at a scene of butchery

murders. . along with 'rise' and 'pigs' ... delve into that history and the

song should become very hauntin'.. ... play it very loud....

check out the book 'helter skelter', real life stuff.

soundcheck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> _____ particular about that tune 'helter
> skelter',,,
> it became a culture
> adjective, a culture nown,, , was scribbled in
> blood at a scene of butchery
>
> murders. . along with 'rise' and 'pigs' ...
> delve into that history and the
>
> song should become very hauntin'.. ... play it
> very loud....
>
> check out the book 'helter skelter', real life
> stuff.


Again, I think you make a good case for the social and historical significance of the band and the song in particular. But the fact that some crackpot drew inspiration from it to go on a murderous rampage says little about how good the music really is. Sure, perhaps if someone broke into a Hollywood celebrity party, chopped off a dozen heads, and used the blood to scribble "Popozao" on the wall, the song would probably be remembered 20-30 years down the road. But it wouldn't mean that the song or Kevin Federline (the "singer") are any good.

... hmmmm, wasnt intending to 'make a case' about anything,,, just mention'd

that it was a 'particular' tune.... and with its particular history, can be a

hauntin' song... .......

_______yeah, play it loud,, play the whole dam album loud...........

Well, the argumentation in the article is quite clear and convincing. I think they will seen in another light in the future, not nearly as important as they are seen today.

Opinions are like perspectives, everyone has one. I cannot relate to the European perspective of the Beatles and their revelance and influence. All I have is the perspective of a ten year-old kid from the midwest of the USA who's life (and I assume I have a few million for company) was radically changed in February of 1964 when the FAB FOUR appeared on Ed Sullivan. The Beatles Kicked down the door for the British Invasion to begin! I wonder if I would have ever heard of The Stones,Who etc if not for them. It is not hyperbol to state that they truely changed my world. My perspective on music, clothes, politics, parents, was filtered through their influence on the mid to late 60's.
I hate to sound like an old fart, but you really had to be there! If you are under 50 it is history...to me it is the best of memories.

pop and roll

jjsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes, way overrated... they have no live legacy,.
> they kept it in the safety of the recording
> studio... keith has always said, it is the live
> music - playing in front of people - that is what
> it is all about. seocondly, the beatles were
> really john and paul writing great songs and then
> having them be heavily produced in the studio with
> george martin... ringo was useless.. george was
> just OK... they were not a true band, in the sense
> of what a true band is supposed to be - the
> stones, zeppelin, who, etc.... the betales were
> more just a 2 guy act.. in this sense, they are
> overrated as the greatest rock band of all time..
> maybe the biggest name in music of all time, yes,
> but not the greatest band, there is a difference.
> the stones would be the biggest/greatest band.
> each unit making an undeniable contribution that
> was necessary to the final product. i am not
> talking about post steel wheels era stones, but 64
> to the 80's, when ronnie made great contributions
> on some girls, emotional rescue, and tattoo you.

You say the Beatles were a '2 guy act', not a 'true band'. Well are the Stones not a 2 guy act? Lennon and McCartney didn't call themselves 'The Glimmer Twins', an ego-trip if anything. I think Mick and Keith promote a '2 guy act' more than the Beatles ever did.

Also, you say they have no 'live legacy'. It's not their live performances which are being over-rated, are they?

>> 'The Glimmer Twins', an ego-trip if anything. <<

i don't get why the other person is saying the Beatles were a 2-man act any more than the Stones are,
but why is calling themselves "the Glimmer Twins" when acting as a production team such an ego-trip??
"glimmer" doesn't mean anything hifalutin - well, maybe it does now, a little bit,
but it's just a meaningless phrase pretty much like Nanker Phelge.

but i digress. sorry.

Gazza wrote (answering me):

(A) "well, thats two more albums more than I can listen to the whole way through by about 99% of all artists.”

Gazza, the problem – as for my appreciaton for the Beatles- is that i can gladly listen to the whole way through a lot of albums, which are created by many artists. Personally, if i have the requesite time i can listen, from the first track to the last one, to every CCR album. To every Bowie’s album from the years 1969- 1977. To every Van Morrison’s album- from “Astral Weeks” to nowadays. To every Patti Smith’s album. To every Black Crowes album. To every Lynyrd Skynyrd album. My personal catalogue of “hey, boys i can listen all the albums of yours or most of them, in the wost case” includes atleast 20 –25 artists. Veterans or new artists. But the Beatles, who supposely is the greatest band in the entire music history, has not a position on my catalogue. They’re not even close to it. I loved the Beatles when i was 8 years old. My love hold 4 years. Only.

( “It is (long gone dy if not a bit childish) , of course. However,the fact that none of them were recorded later than 1969 would be more a comment of your age, perhaps than the quality of the music?”

I couldn’t say “quality of the music”, of course, because, as I said, it’s a matter of taste. And talking about my personal preferences, i say that many albums from the years 1962- 1969 sound fresh enough in my ears, even today. Dylan, Velvet Underground, etc, etc, etc. So…

(C) “ I get the impression that the vast majority of Stones fans on here and various other sites dont really appreciate their output pre-Jumpin Jack Flash either.”

I think you’re right. But why does it happen? Just because the Stones fans compare the “early years” with the years of maturity. IMO that’s exactly the point, Gazza! When the Beatles got at a level of real artistical maturity, i could say "rock maturity", they arrived in the end. Why? Because of an “evil woman”? Very childish theory. IMO the explanation is that the Beatles, never had been really “versed” in the so rich and wonderful american musical tradition- and i don’t mean only the blues. Yes, the Beatles discovered a new world. But they didn’t explore it. That’s my opinion.

From a musician whose favourite all time band has been the Stones since childhood, who has been a Rock History buff since the mid-80's, who was born after the Beatles broke up, who appreciates music in and out of countless genres and eras, my answer is a screaming NO BLOODY WAY.

As a cultural entity earned by their skill as songwrites (and I understand the vast differences between musical and lyrical intricities, no one touches them. Not the Stones, and not Dylan either.

None of them were virtuoso musicians, nor were theyamazingly gifted vocalists. However, their creativity in the studio and songwriting over-all is still unmatched.


Yes, there are a few things they did which I consider to be a little over-rated (Sgt. Pepper comes to mind). But Rubber Soul, Revolver, the White Album and Abbey Road Alone push the Beatles above the crowd.

They are not my favourite group, The Rolling Stones are - their songs 'do it' for me in a primal way that the Beatles don't. Cerebrally though, I can appreciate that The Bealtes deserve to be considered #1.


Now John Lennon's solo material on the other hand...

no

Performance is half of it and NO ONE comes close to the Stones.

It's like a designated hitter in baseball (they can't field/"play the stage")

That's why the Stones are the best.

I think the Beatles are brilliant and not overrated but its all a matter of opinion

On a Stones forum I would expect people to prefer Mick and the boys (I love each band equally) but I find it amusing that acts such as Pink Floyd (zzzzz), Van Morrison (zzzz), J Geils Band (???) and the Doors (Good but not great) are used in evidence against.

For me the Beatles and Stones go together and cannot be overrated. But my opinion is no more important then anyone elses.

Helter Skelter I think is one of the best songs by The Beatles. But I agree, The Beatles have got a "better than the rest"-image that they (as much as I love them!) perhaps don't deserve. Take myself as an example - I seldom play The Beatles, I play other acts like e.g. The Stones, Aretha Franklin, Van Morrison.

aslecs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Performance is half of it and NO ONE comes close
> to the Stones.
>
> It's like a designated hitter in baseball (they
> can't field/"play the stage")
>
> That's why the Stones are the best.


a reasonable argument had the question been about the Stones or asking to compare the two. However, it isnt. No one's disputing the Stones' greatness as far as I can see.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-14 18:50 by Gazza.