The Beatles or the Rolling Stones ? |
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Author | ||||
Padraic
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: May 19 2008 at 23:00 | |||
I have no idea what you are talking about. This poll was placed in Prog Polls, but neither of these bands are prog bands. It is therefore in the wrong forum. This was directed not at you, but at the creator of the thread. |
||||
earlyprog
Collaborator Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams Joined: March 05 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 2130 |
Posted: May 20 2008 at 03:47 | |||
Beatles and Stones had a hate/love relationship. Perhaps it all started when The Beatles gave 2 minutes of their time and wrote "I wanna be your man" on the spot and gave it to the Sones, Lennon keeping it simple so that the Stones were able to perform it. He later gathered that even Ringo could sing it better and recorded it for "With The Beatles". Hillarious, really.
|
||||
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 05 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2614 |
Posted: May 20 2008 at 03:48 | |||
The Stones had talent, songwriting skill, and influence as well. Also you shouldn't base your hatred of the Stones on a terrible super bowl performance when they are at a very old age. I mean if thats the case of basis the Beatles must SUCK a great deal. Look at all the garbage Paul has been putting out since 1970! You would think having worked with George and George, and John for several years, and practicing for over 4 decades, you would be able to write good songs.
Stones, Non-Musicians? Yet the only considered "musician" in the Beatles was Paul.
The Beatles WERE "groomed" when after they had formed and written some tunes that were obviously enjoyed by several people, as to make them more marketable. They were no where near the level of "groomed" as the Monkees. Yes they started as a simple rock and roll group playing some of their original songs, and a good amount of covers, yet over time they developed into an incredible, artistic group. The transition can be heard from their first, to their last album. I'd say they knew what they were doing, but they did indeed receive help and advice from George Martin, Geoff Emerick, and the other closely related people. (Remember the Stones also started as an R&B cover group before writing their own songs and eventual masterpieces). I guess its fair to base your opinion of the Beatles on completely bogus conspiracy theories. However, there is more true information in the following quote: "In 1963 Lennon and McCartney agreed to assign their song publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by music publisher Dick James. The company was administered by James' own company Dick James Music. Northern Songs went public in 1965, with Lennon and McCartney each holding 15% of the company's shares Dick James and the company's chairman, Charles Silver, held a controlling 37.5%. In 1969, following a failed attempt by Lennon and McCartney to buy the company, James and Silver sold Northern Songs to British TV company Associated TeleVision (ATV), from which Lennon and McCartney received stock. In 1985, after a short period in which the parent company was owned by Australian business magnate Robert Holmes ŕ Court, ATV Music was sold to Michael Jackson for a reported $47 million (trumping a joint bid by McCartney and Yoko Ono), including the publishing rights to over 200 songs composed by Lennon and McCartney." In any case, I love both these bands. They all have their own great history, songs, albums, etc. In the end, I find myself going back to the Stones more and more. I'm quite surprised by the amount of Stones hate on the forums, but I guess it happens. Between 1964 and 1972 the Stones created great albums. Some were obviously better than others, but all were still great (yes even the Sgt. Peppers inspired Their Satanic Majesties...). Following Exile on Main Street the stones started falling apart, but they still managed to produce good albums like Goat's Head Soup, the uneven Its Only Rock and Roll, the interesting Jamming with Edward, Black and Blue, Some Girls, and their last mostly good album Emotional Rescue. I really don't see the need for bickering about these two great bands. |
||||
Yukorin
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 21 2005 Location: Japan Status: Offline Points: 1589 |
Posted: May 20 2008 at 04:42 | |||
Voted for the Stones. Not that it matters much with all the easy listeners on here. So effortlessly cool
|
||||
zicIy
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 04 2007 Status: Offline Points: 413 |
Posted: May 20 2008 at 04:42 | |||
The Rolling Stones.
|
||||
Sacred 22
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 24 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1509 |
Posted: May 21 2008 at 01:14 | |||
The Beatles WERE "groomed" when after they had formed and written some tunes that were obviously enjoyed by several people, as to make them more marketable. They were no where near the level of "groomed" as the Monkees. Yes they started as a simple rock and roll group playing some of their original songs, and a good amount of covers, yet over time they developed into an incredible, artistic group. The transition can be heard from their first, to their last album. I'd say they knew what they were doing, but they did indeed receive help and advice from George Martin, Geoff Emerick, and the other closely related people. (Remember the Stones also started as an R&B cover group before writing their own songs and eventual masterpieces). I guess its fair to base your opinion of the Beatles on completely bogus conspiracy theories. However, there is more true information in the following quote: "In 1963 Lennon and McCartney agreed to assign their song publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by music publisher Dick James. The company was administered by James' own company Dick James Music. Northern Songs went public in 1965, with Lennon and McCartney each holding 15% of the company's shares Dick James and the company's chairman, Charles Silver, held a controlling 37.5%. In 1969, following a failed attempt by Lennon and McCartney to buy the company, James and Silver sold Northern Songs to British TV company Associated TeleVision (ATV), from which Lennon and McCartney received stock. In 1985, after a short period in which the parent company was owned by Australian business magnate Robert Holmes ŕ Court, ATV Music was sold to Michael Jackson for a reported $47 million (trumping a joint bid by McCartney and Yoko Ono), including the publishing rights to over 200 songs composed by Lennon and McCartney." In any case, I love both these bands. They all have their own great history, songs, albums, etc. In the end, I find myself going back to the Stones more and more. I'm quite surprised by the amount of Stones hate on the forums, but I guess it happens. Between 1964 and 1972 the Stones created great albums. Some were obviously better than others, but all were still great (yes even the Sgt. Peppers inspired Their Satanic Majesties...). Following Exile on Main Street the stones started falling apart, but they still managed to produce good albums like Goat's Head Soup, the uneven Its Only Rock and Roll, the interesting Jamming with Edward, Black and Blue, Some Girls, and their last mostly good album Emotional Rescue. I really don't see the need for bickering about these two great bands. [/QUOTE] Here is a good read http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_04.htm
|
||||
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: May 21 2008 at 01:21 | |||
I only like one Rolling Stones album, but Their Satanic Majestoies Request is IMO better than anything The Beatles did except Abbey Road.
Well, at least from my perpective.
Iván
|
||||
|
||||
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65152 |
Posted: May 21 2008 at 02:08 | |||
as phenomenal as the Fab Four were, the Stones stayed a real band that were able to jam and recreate their material quite well ..see The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus, also featuring Lennon
|
||||
zicIy
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 04 2007 Status: Offline Points: 413 |
Posted: May 21 2008 at 05:15 | |||
yea, very interresting. thanks, that gived to me an idea for one poll!
|
||||
boo boo
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 28 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 905 |
Posted: May 21 2008 at 07:13 | |||
I don't agree with the bunch of ya saying The Stones had no talent, that certainly isn't true. They were a solid rock n roll band, Keith knows his riffs man. Let it Bleed, Beggers Banquet, Exile on Main Street and Sticky Fingers are all solid albums. That being said, I do think The Rolling Stones are insanely overrated. And The Beatles are tied with Pink Floyd for my favorite band. So its gotta be The Beatles. Edited by boo boo - May 21 2008 at 07:16 |
||||
spookytooth
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Atlanta, Ga Status: Offline Points: 438 |
Posted: May 21 2008 at 07:16 | |||
I love the Beatles a lot, but over the years I've started to like the Rolling Stones better. Albums like Beggars Banquet, Stick Fingers and Let it Bleed are among my favorite albums ever.
|
||||
Would you like some Bailey's? |
||||
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 02 2006 Location: Norway Status: Offline Points: 4202 |
Posted: May 21 2008 at 11:51 | |||
I love both bands ca. 65-70 (or for RS: 72), but if I had to choose between a McCartney or Stones concert now I'd defenetly choose the latter. All in all most fab four post Beatles-stuff are just as uneven/pointless as what Stones have been releasing for the last 35 years.
Mick Jagger's a fantastic vocalist and a frontman. Anyone seen him in Nic Roeg's Performance? So Stones for me. Edited by Rocktopus - May 21 2008 at 11:58 |
||||
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
||||
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 05 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2614 |
Posted: May 21 2008 at 15:01 | |||
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a ridiculous, good read. |
||||
Sacred 22
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 24 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1509 |
Posted: May 21 2008 at 22:30 | |||
are you sure?
|
||||
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 05 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2614 |
Posted: May 21 2008 at 23:51 | |||
So very sure. Dr. John Coleman seems to be confused with his "information" in terms of it being factual, intelligent, and with its placement in time. It is also said that the Rolling Stones were also players in the little....whatever you want to call that rubbish.. |
||||
alanerc
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 20 2007 Location: Mexico Status: Offline Points: 278 |
Posted: May 22 2008 at 00:14 | |||
well, what are you waiting to move it to the right section? |
||||
alanerc
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 20 2007 Location: Mexico Status: Offline Points: 278 |
Posted: May 22 2008 at 00:17 | |||
Your f**king kidding? how can you say that the stones are non.musicians ?!?!?! and also primitive? well... you can stay in ypur little world of selfishness listening "REAL" musicans all day |
||||
Sacred 22
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 24 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1509 |
Posted: May 22 2008 at 00:58 | |||
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer 1788-1860
|
||||
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65152 |
Posted: May 22 2008 at 03:07 | |||
agreed, one of the best, his solo stuff is great too |
||||
Zargus
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 08 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 3491 |
Posted: May 22 2008 at 10:43 | |||
Love em both of course, never understod why you have to shoose between em both made loades of great music. I culdent say you can ever get tierd of ither but the last year i been lisenting more to the stones so they get my vote, and anyone who slam the stones yust show the only thing that sucks is hes music tast. Or let me put it this way if you dont like RS you dont like rock n roll. Edited by Zargus - May 22 2008 at 11:09 |
||||
|
||||
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |