The Beatles or the Rolling Stones ?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=48777
Printed Date: May 14 2024 at 21:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones ?
Posted By: alanerc
Subject: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones ?
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 17:37
|
the "good guys" of rock vs the "bad guys" of rock Vote: The Beatles  |
Replies:
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 18:24
Talk of no contest. One of the main reasons I have loved prog is my profound 40 year distaste for the Stones , a group of thugs, profiteers and non-musicians (I repeat NON-MUSICIANS) that cater to ultra primitive innuendoes that aren't even clever. Ape music and that is not even kind to monkeys (: They even had a song about themselves) Their last decent album was with Brian Jones (but they drowned him!) . Yuck , extremely overated , basic garbage . Even as a rock band , they suck stones. Gall bladder pain.I could go on for years with facts to back my disdain . Oh well!   
The Beatles on the other hand, exactly the polar opposite. ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 18:29
|
I definitly agree with tszirmay! Every word! Yes Sir! Don't understand, why the heck are they even f**king popular! Would have prefered if The Who had reached a such high status than The Rolling Drunk Stones. In my country there are guys called Rollingas that they have that Mick Jagger comb hair and they just suck! There are many alt rock bands here in Argentina that are "heavily" influenced by their music...that sucks! The Beatles as well said before, is, mm, the contrary! Devil or God is this poll about.. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 18:36
|
I don't much care for either, but The Beatles had talent and songwriting skill. And influence. What about the Stones? Um...booze? Did you catch Mick Jagger's halftime performance during the Super Bowl a few years back? |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 18:37
Sadly, very sadly, I understand fully why they are so popular: people's lowest common denominator is always primitive: McDonalds (honestly, is any of it good?), Coca-Cola (Coloured sugar, think about it!) and Rolling Stones (musical diarrhea) . Its all logical, as Supertramp (A fave of yours, Cacho) , they did a song about it.  ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
cacho wrote:Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 19:45
 Yep I fully coincide with your hipotesis! hehe
|
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 19:58
Wow  But yes, the famous Liverpudlians for me as well. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/LinusW88" rel="nofollow - Blargh |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 20:01
| the rolling stones are not as terrible as you all are saying. They have some good songs, but of course the beatles are 100000000000000 times better. |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 20:05
|
^^^ You are right, let me rephrase my opinion:
“Let it Bleed” was the last great song, saved by some fabulous backing vocals and a sizzling Mick Taylor solo. When Their unending rip-offs (“Time Waits for No One” and its plagiarized Santana solo). Their disco pandering was laughable, mind you it was the only time Wyman’s bass was up-front, probably took 400 hours of practice –Entwhistle or JP Jones, he is not. As for that gnome behind the drum kit, you must be drunk to appreciate his total lack of technique (To think he actually had the gall of calling himself a “jazz” purist! In your dreams Charlie!) Keith Richards, a genius? A genius of what? Barely caressing his bourbon soaked guitar and eventually some kind of sound will emerge! Rock’s answer to the Mummy! A drunken disgrace only surpassed by that farcical pseudo bi-sexual affront to humanity that is Jagger! A prancing gigolo who uses feminine attributes to attract women. Dumb women (or transsexual?)! Can he sing? No but he can cavort! No Freddie Mercury and Tina can shake her booty fifty times better. Hey, Linus, how da ya laika datta! ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 20:51
Oh yeah! That's what I like PA!!! Make suffer the so "popular bands", pff, popular of getting drunk each time they play... Can you believe I fall for that, that Charlie Watts(he has no watts) played jazz!!!!   Some years ago though..thx God for that.
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 20:54
|
1. This isn't in the right section. 2. Please try to keep the flaming to a minimum. Thanks. |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:12
With all due apologies, this is the correct section as we are asked to choose between the good boys and the bad boys.
 I was only underlining my opinion on why the Stones have absolutely no-prog credibility and I would add (perhaps a tad rudely) that even in rock terms they are dysfunctional. I have friends who like the stones and who agree that they are more cartoon characters than anything. As far as the flaming goes, I was under the perhaps misguided impression that abusing opinions and opinion givers is forbidden. With a current 22-0 score , who may I ask am I offending.? I am known to be gentle, polite and diplomatic at all times, but the Rolling worship must be recognized.
That some (in fact most) people like the Stones is fine with me I just believe
"They are the EPITOME and the PARAGON of ugly beast called Corporate rock but they cunningly suck people into believing they are genuine, what a masterful Con job! Marketing geniuses they are! Musicians they are not!" . I now promise to retreat from further heaping of venom and bile. But it's only rock 'n roll ...... ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:17
But I Like It!!! It's only prog rock...well we all love it! |
Posted By: febus
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:23
|
Hey Thomas what is going on with the STONES? If the Stones cannot compare with the BEATLES, there are for tonight 15 reasons i like the STONES at least until 1973/74
-GIMME SHELTER -MIDNIGHT RAMBLER--- - LADY JANE -STICKY FINGERS
-EXILE ON MAIN STREET -SHE'S A RAINBOW -SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL -AS TEARS GO BY
- WE LOVE YOU -JUMPIN JACK FLASH -YOU CAN'T GET ALWAYS ......... -RUBY TUESDAY
-HONKY TONK WOMEN -PAINT IT BLACK -MOTHERS LITTLE HELPER
Tomorrow i might find a few reasons more
 And M.JAGGER still got voice!!!
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:25
disregard my earlier PM  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:28
|
no talent .. pfffff. hahhahahhaha http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeuvdBMVdPg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeuvdBMVdPg all jokes aside... a frickin KILLER song.... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:35
------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Dominic
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:37
| The Beatles by far... |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:40
|
did someone say Monkey.... ooooooohhhh yeah.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU5VQSdZoco - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU5VQSdZoco ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: May 19 2008 at 22:58
|
Oh The Beatles, a band that was heavily groomed much like the Monkees were. I think much of what the Beatles allegedly wrote was way over their heads considering they started out as a basic blues band and then out of no where they started spinning out hit after hit. They did not even own the rights to 'their' music. The music was owned by a fellow by the name of Theodor Adorno who was incidentally a composer by the way. Paul McCartney had the chance to buy the music but Michael Jackson out bided him for it. I don't know about you, but if I was the composer of my music and someone else owned the rights to that music, I would do anything in my power to get it back unless of course I never wrote the music in the first place......
That leaves the Stones then. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date 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. |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date 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. |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Songs - Northern Songs , a company created by music publisher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_James - Dick James . The company was administered by James' own company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_James_Music - 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_TeleVision - 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Holmes_%C3%A0_Court - Robert Holmes à Court , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATV_Music#ATV_Music - ATV Music was sold to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson - Michael Jackson for a reported $47 million (trumping a joint bid by McCartney and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoko_Ono - 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. |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date 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 ------------- 
|
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: May 20 2008 at 04:42
| The Rolling Stones. |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Songs - Northern Songs , a company created by music publisher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_James - Dick James . The company was administered by James' own company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_James_Music - 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_TeleVision - 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Holmes_%C3%A0_Court - Robert Holmes à Court , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATV_Music#ATV_Music - ATV Music was sold to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson - Michael Jackson for a reported $47 million (trumping a joint bid by McCartney and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoko_Ono - 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 - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_04.htm
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date 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 ------------- 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date 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 |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: May 21 2008 at 05:15
yea, very interresting. thanks, that gived to me an idea for one
 poll! |
Posted By: boo boo
Date 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. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: spookytooth
Date 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? |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date 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. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: May 21 2008 at 15:01
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a ridiculous, good read. |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: May 21 2008 at 22:30
are you sure?
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date 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.. |
Posted By: alanerc
Date Posted: May 22 2008 at 00:14
well, what are you waiting to move it to the right section? |
Posted By: alanerc
Date 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 |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date 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
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 22 2008 at 03:07
agreed, one of the best, his solo stuff is great too |
Posted By: Zargus
Date 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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: May 22 2008 at 12:54
This I can attest to. Voted Beatles. o=) ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 22 2008 at 14:28
|
please... there's no contest here.. the boring, repetitive, one-lick-only Rolling Stones vs The Beatles, whose albums are so different and varied and who have some of the great songs ever? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: May 22 2008 at 15:29
|
The Rolling Stones are way too inconsistent for me to enjoy. Their weird moments are so far apart and in little quantity compared to The Beatles. Plus, The Beatles provide and all-around more pleasant experience. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: May 22 2008 at 19:43
Key word there being "truth". |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: May 22 2008 at 23:28
That's it, you got it.
|
Posted By: Prof.
Date Posted: May 23 2008 at 00:47
|
The Beatles only edge by a tiny bit.
Mainly because I am in love with The White Album(Clapton Is God).
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 01:24
Indeed I do. |
Posted By: crimson87
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 22:28
|
Both are amazing bands , I voted for the Stones because they are terribly underrated , OK they are not prog for sure , and the Beatles are WAY proggier.However nobody did rock and roll as pure as the Stones did |
Posted By: NurseryCryme89
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 22:33
haha~! i dig what ye are sayin' |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 07:48
------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 09:44
|
*edit. Was one over the eight last night... -------------
|
Posted By: tardis
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 15:57
|
*covers my ears in horror* I voted Beatles. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 18:17
|
God I love PA's...
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 18:25
You are a clever guy, I must say (savvy and very cunning!) . The oldest form of selective argumentation is to omit certain points to the benefit of critiquing others. Lawyers use this all the time, they teach it day 1 of law school. It's like going bound and gagged to face a judge. I never said they always sucked, please remind yourself that I stated that AFTER "Let it Bleed" IMHO, they became quite soggy in terms of quality and have been profiteering ever since (AKA certain alliances with corporate powers) . I also mentioned rather clearly that Mick Taylor was the last real musician they had , when he left , it went deeper in the abyss. I don't like the Stones, I am allowed to express my thoughts. Yukorin , on the other hand , seems more weak in attacking me as opposed to my arguments. Language , you know.....You , Sir, have at least a modicum of class.  But read all I said, bile and all.------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 18:41
|
Hey, Micky, you see what happens when you stir the pot ? You once said that you are the King of Smartass, do you think I earned at least some small Princedom? Even though I am considered a Gentle sort, I couldn't help myself, certainly attempting provocation but this is a Prog site after all and only a few decided to fall into my trap of insulting me, instead of my comments . One did , one didn't , sort a like yin and yang , no? This eternal quest for supreme stupidity is exactly why "the more I analyze the human race, the more I love my dog" (quote from JJ Rousseau, masterful French philosopher). He was right, it was only rock "n roll, back then.
I have a great story about Gene Simmons of Kiss back in the 80s, BTW . Let me know if you tongue is long enough ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 18:50
|
hahahha... I'll be watching my pot stirring for awhile.. yesterday it took the admins . .2 of them. .30 minutes and like 60 hidden posts to clean up the troll-pot I kicked over. I do hereby anoint you... Prince of Smartass have some clappies  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 19:05
I am truly and humbly honoured, Sire  Especially coming from such a classy rebel, may I return some clappies to you. ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 19:11
|
My faves of The Beatles: Let it Be Abbey Road Sgt. Pepper... Rubber Soul The White Album Fave Rolling: ...none...cofcof... |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 19:25
| I never thought I'd find myself defending the Stones, but Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, and Sticky Fingers are all good rock albums. Not up to the Beatles' standard but in the genre pretty decent, particularly when Mick Taylor gets involved. |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 19:35
you are missing My Satanic Majesties Requests |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 21:04
f**king A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIGdWzXhqlo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIGdWzXhqlo ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Tim
Date Posted: May 25 2008 at 22:55
|
Hands down, the Beatles are almost infinately better than the massively overrated Stones. Plus, Mick Jagger scares the crap out of me. Every time I see his face, I swear I'm looking at a corpse |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 03:02
If I omitted any points it was not deliberate. You've had a "40 year distaste for the Stones" yet Taylor didn't leave until December 1974, excuse me for being confused. You mention alliances with corporate powers, what's your opinion of Macca hooking up with Starbucks? ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 08:05
|
I hate some of these statements.
NONE MUSICIANS?
What an elitist statement. Maybe someone lied to me but I always went by the assumption that if you made and composed music, you were a musician. I guess I was wrong, I guess being a musician now only relates to one thing, how skilled you are at your instrument. Heck, does it even matter when its in complete disregard for the music itself?
The Rolling Stones may not be as good as The Beatles, and they may not be incredibly skilled musicians, but they made some very solid albums at the prime of their career, the late 60s to early 70s, I personally don't like anything they've done after that.
The point of musicianship is so obvious that I'm amazed some people don't even know what it is. Its MAKING GOOD MUSIC, sure good music is subjective. But I personally have more respect for The Rolling Stones and AC/DC than I ever will for Yngwie Malmsteen or anyone of the virtuoso sort who envision themselves as less like musicians and more like atheletes. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 08:24
|
^ amen brother Boo Boo and they did far more than make solid albums.. they made some of the greatest albums in all of rock. taking into account a lot of comments here are tongue in cheek... trying to get a rise out of people. But this a prog forum.. so I guess the Stones are bound to come up short again most anyone here ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 08:57
I just rounded out the figure to the nearest . I guess I should have shown more precise numbers such as 34 years of distaste! Not that Taylor was the greatest ever, in fact , he faded into semi-oblivion after leaving the Stones. As for Mac, I didn't know as I read little gossip but he has become a corporation already , no? As I said before, I have some fondness for the early Stones material but I still feel that they are not what they are made up to be. So I kicked up a storm , good! ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 13:04
|
topics liek this and the coments some mabers make yust show all prejudice people have agains prog and us who lisen to it are true, its realy disgusting to see how elitist, selfindulgent and eggheaded some mebers are thinking they are smart and over everyone els caus they lisen to prog. -------------
|
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 13:07
|
Neither? (ducks) ------------- |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 14:11
Neither it is. (ducks behind Drew) |
Posted By: febus
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 17:10
Keep me young this kind of thread!! it' like i am back in 1970
What's next? Maccatneys versus the Lennonistos?
or Sean Connery versus Roger Moore?
|
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 17:50
No contest, Connery every time! ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 18:07
We agree! Scene by pool with sharks (Thunderball). Largo (with the eye patch) asks Bond: "What do you think of this rifle?" "It's a woman's rifle " replies the Conn. "Ah, I see you know a lot about rifles!", Reply for the ages: "No I know a lot about women!" ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 18:12
|
hahahhaha.... that WAS classic by the way.. a Roger Moore fan here. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 18:13
You're own comment isn't all that impressive either. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 18:19
Touche, mon ami! I 'd rather be elitist than illiterate any day, ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 19:16
You disappoint me, Mr. Bond....
|
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 19:53
Is it because Moore will always be the ultimate Simon Templar? and his white Volvo?
I mean to choose between " ooooooh! James" and "ooooooh! Simon" ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 20:04
No Mr. Bond, it is because I expect you to die! Mwah hahahahaha
|