ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thats a good point I hadnt thought of. You hardly
> ever hear bealtes on classic rock stations. here
> in the bay area the last Oldies staion went off
> the air, so you just dont get any beatles on the
> air, but you do hear 40 licks a lot!!

It's like that in the New York market too. Our only oldies station is gone. There are a couple stations that play a mix of old and new and the Beatles/Stones have a token song here or there. The classic rock station does play a lot more Stones than Beatles.

That's not to say hairball is off base. I can only go by what I hear- maybe it varies from market to market.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-03 05:52 by FrankM.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sweetcharmedlife Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Okay time for me to put in two more cents here.
> > FrankM the main thing that I had a problem with,
> > was your statement that the Beatles were in the
> > right place at the right time. WHAT? You can say
> > that about anybody,but to imply the Beatles were
> > lucky to be successful is ridiculous.
>
> Well it's something you have to deal with as a
> Beatles fan since even most music insiders would
> agree that the Beatles were in the right place at
> the right time. The music world was ready for a
> fresh sound. Why are you so disgruntled about it?
>
> Where did I say they were lucky to be successful?
> They were in the right place at the right time and
> that's why they were AS SUCCESSFUL AS THEY WERE.
> Of course you have to have talent to succeed at
> all. Looking back on their music in retrospect
> they don't seem anywhere near the Stones as far as
> quality of music- just my opinion.


First of all,just for the record, the Stones always have been and always will be my favorite band. But tell me, what music insiders agree that the Beatles were in the right place at the right time? Have you ever heard of the British invasion? There was a lot of bands in the right place at the right time. It's called history! Radio SUCKS. Radio airplay has nothing to with anything. The fact is the Beatles are still very marketable. have you ever heard of stonesmania,I dont think so. Again I'm not trying to knock the Stones. I haven't seen them 19 times for nothing. But the Beatles White Album still stands up as one of the very best albums ever made.

I almost never hear Stones songs on the radio here in California, so I drop everything if one comes on. But Beatles songs get regular airplay here.

Allright well I live in California as well. As ryanpow,whom also lives in the Bay Area as well said earlier. The Beatles do not get a lot of airplay here. The Stones much more. Which as a Stones fan is great. But basicly terristrial radio in Nor Cal stinks.

Yes Sweet I have heard of the British Invasion. It happened over forty years ago. There is nothing wrong with looking back and trying to decipher what bands were overrated or underrated.

My opinion is that the Beatles were a good band but they were overrated. Looking back The Stones look like the more talented band. Agree with it or disagree with it- I really don't care. That's my opinion.

I'm out of this thread. Tired of arguing about The Beatles. All you Beatlemaniacs can listen to "She Loves You" ad nauseum for all I care.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-03 07:11 by FrankM.

I believe the writing team of Lennon/McCartney will always overshadow that of Jagger Richards.
And add George Harrison to the mix, the Beatles easily have the advantage.

In a short 7 years, the Beatles catalogue is phenomenal,
with each album being followed by another groundbreaking cultural/musical event.
In comparison, the Stones have written only a handful of great songs in over 40 years.
It may be a large handful, but after the Some Girls album, the hits have been too few and far between.
Their most appreciated album by most fans (Exile) was released over 35 years ago.
(My favorite is Let It Bleed, but thats for another thread).
I love the Stones as much as most of you, and thankfully they still tour.
But this thread has brought out alot of truths as to who is the greater band...
and it's the Beatles in my opinion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-04 05:22 by Hairball.

Lets make some votes for the RS...the GREATEST rock & roll band ever.


www.bandmadness.net

only 80 votes difference now! go go stones!

okay..down to the wire now...



Lets get some votes for the RS


go to the link below to vote for the Rolling STones

[bandmadness.net]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-04 18:33 by Shine A Light.

Thisd thread need to be hi-jacked
Cindy ?

As the difference of votes was 59 at 15:00 (Belgium) on only an hour, the Beatles had 50 votes more !!!

It was hard to find people who loves or simply respects the Stones to reduce this difference votes from 138 to 66 on about 12 hours.

I even told about it on my firefighters message boards, saying this:

"Unfortunately this tournament opposes the Stones currently to the Beatles who always had at all times a head in advance, grrr... (I really wonder why. ..) They're good, but well, they are not anymore. While the Stones're always rolling, but not more for a long time.

In fact, I really think this European tour is effectively the last one. To say this, I'm thinking about the guitarist cerebral accident that happened in spring 2006 (and unfortunately, he's continuing smoking and drinking, apparently...).

Well, perhaps FOR ONCE, they could be at the first place, this time. They were always second behind the Beatles. This would have been such a great gift from their fans... Now, they are losing and this is perhaps because of a lack of real fans, respectful of life."

They helped and voted. Like all my friends did...

SO, GO ON NOW AND VOTE, FRIENDS !!!

yes..very well put Folkyfirekitten1


lets all group together and vote for the stones today...this hour..it will make a difference...

Shine A Light Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets stir up some more votes...we need over 130
> votes....
>
> We owe it to the Stones

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> [i82.photobucket.com]
> rthegoodtimes.jpg



Lol, if you need an ambulance, be sure I won't be the ambulance worker, haha...

well thank god for that folkyfirekitten...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-04 19:51 by Beelyboy.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thisd thread need to be hi-jacked
> Cindy ?


Ah thanks Erik. Did you ever see that movie Wild at Heart. Nicolas Cage belts out a loverly version of Elvis' "Love Me".

CindyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Erik_Snow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thisd thread need to be hi-jacked
> > Cindy ?
>
>
> Ah thanks Erik. Did you ever see that movie Wild
> at Heart. Nicolas Cage belts out a loverly
> version of Elvis' "Love Me".
>
>





My God, Cindy ! How did you end up in that scene ?!?!?

HAHAHAHA - I was just telling Scott the other day how people tell me I look like her a lot.

You sure do, LOL, can't believe it, just dye your hair; and you're her !

HAHAHAHA - I was living in LA when this movie was released, and I had long blond, permed hair (yes this was a LONG time ago).

I walked in to a hair salon and the girl screams at me "OH MY GOD". I look around, and I said "What??" thinking I just stepped on her cat or something, and she said "Oh, I thought you were Laura Dern, I thought I was going to be able to cut Laura Dern's hair".

Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.

Hairball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe the writing team of Lennon/McCartney
> will always overshadow that of Jagger Richards.
> And add George Harrison to the mix, the Beatles
> easily have the advantage.
-----
> But this thread has brought out alot of truths as
> to who is the greater band...
> and it's the Beatles in my opinion.

I vote for the stones
theyre so much better

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

To me, there is such a difference in the style of the Beatles and Stones that it becomes almost two different genres.

The Beatles were the best at what they did - writing timeless pop melodies with classical overtones. That is what they mainly did.

and the Stones were the best at what they did - writing classic rock n roll tunes rooted in the blues. That is what they mainly did.

Needless to say perhaps, each of them made great forays into each other's territory - Beatles (great rock n roll tunes: Get Back, Revolution, etc)
Stones (great pop melodies: Under My Thumb, Tears Go By, etc)

I enjoy both. When I want rock n roll with a great beat I'll listen to GYYYO and when I want to hear great melodies, I'll listen to Sgt. Peppers or Revolver.

kkk

[/color]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-09-26 03:12 by copsnrobbers.

Interesting read

Quote
copsnrobbers
kkk

[/color]

???

Beatles Vs Stones on a Stones wbsite. I wonder who will win?

Reasons why the Beatles aren't as good as the stones

1) Without the Beatles, we wouldn't have the Beatles snob - the guys who thinks they did all there is to do in music.

2) They let Ringo near a microphone. An event that should only occur when he is speaking about Thomas the tank engine.

3) you can't even have S-x to a Beatles record, it would be like doing it in front of your gran.

4) Without the Beatles we wouldn't even know Yoko Ono, like cheers John.

5) They kicked started Cilla Black's career. What a lorra laughs that has given us.

Oh stop already!! Where's that Vinyl copy of Rolling Stones no2 I need some real music??

Ah....that's better

Such a played question...

For the magic of life and the universe, the Beatles.

For flesh and blood, the Stones.

Quote
robertfraser
Reasons why the Beatles aren't as good as the stones

1) Without the Beatles, we wouldn't have the Beatles snob - the guys who thinks they did all there is to do in music.

2) They let Ringo near a microphone. An event that should only occur when he is speaking about Thomas the tank engine.

3) you can't even have S-x to a Beatles record, it would be like doing it in front of your gran.

4) Without the Beatles we wouldn't even know Yoko Ono, like cheers John.

5) They kicked started Cilla Black's career. What a lorra laughs that has given us.

Oh stop already!! Where's that Vinyl copy of Rolling Stones no2 I need some real music??

Ah....that's better

Come on, that's a bit unfair. I like Cilla Black.