Having read the rather fabulous sons of Beatles thread........

The Beatles will remain unassailable. They have carefully nurtured and protected their legacy over the last 41 years. No Dirty Work by The Beatles.

You only have to read this forum to gauge the evident distaste that it's contributors have for so many aspects of the bands output /persona over the same 41 years. Some argue that they haven't done anything decent since Exile. Some argue that things were never the same after Mick Taylor left. We are already 23 years into the Vegas era - something many here are critical of. How many postings have there been disparaging Keith? Indeed John and Paul never fell into discussing each others todgers.

That's just a brief overview of the negativity attached to the Stones.

My own view. I love the Stones and everything about them. Just not as much as I love the Beatles.

Well Well Well...Ooh Well...(John Lennon 1970)

2 1 2 0

YAWWWWN....

The Beatles loved each other.

If they could have gotten back together in the 90s
All woud have been revealed.

The Stones are an R&B band that has basically gone 50 years without releasing a bad studio album (Dirty Work is probably their weakest studio album, but it sure sounds good today). Since their debut, they have yet to miss the top 5 in the United States.

That's pretty cool that you admit to being such a big Beatles fan, especially on this board. The Beatles came first to me as a youngster and I still love them, but I'm a bigger Stones fan in my adult years. I would agree with most of your comments but no one knows what would of happened if The Beatles stayed together, or were capable to re-unite. Maybe they would of produced something like Dirty Work? Anyhow, we still have Paul who is still kicking butt. And with a little luck we'll have The Stones next year, and just maybe they'll put all the negative comments to bed by proving they are still the greatest Rock and Roll band in the world.

Quote
frankotero
That's pretty cool that you admit to being such a big Beatles fan, especially on this board. The Beatles came first to me as a youngster and I still love them, but I'm a bigger Stones fan in my adult years. I would agree with most of your comments but no one knows what would of happened if The Beatles stayed together, or were capable to re-unite. Maybe they would of produced something like Dirty Work? Anyhow, we still have Paul who is still kicking butt. And with a little luck we'll have The Stones next year, and just maybe they'll put all the negative comments to bed by proving they are still the greatest Rock and Roll band in the world.

I am now thinking Ali v Larry Holmes in 1980!!!!

I am now thinking Ali v Larry Holmes in 1980!!!!


...but the Beatles QUIT in 1970, ten years earlier.

Just watch Live In Texas and you realize who´s the greatest band ever.

Quote
TooTough
Just watch Live In Texas and you realize who´s the greatest band ever.

True.

Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage
Having read the rather fabulous sons of Beatles thread........

The Beatles will remain unassailable. They have carefully nurtured and protected their legacy over the last 41 years. No Dirty Work by The Beatles.

You only have to read this forum to gauge the evident distaste that it's contributors have for so many aspects of the bands output /persona over the same 41 years. Some argue that they haven't done anything decent since Exile. Some argue that things were never the same after Mick Taylor left. We are already 23 years into the Vegas era - something many here are critical of. How many postings have there been disparaging Keith? Indeed John and Paul never fell into discussing each others todgers.

That's just a brief overview of the negativity attached to the Stones.

My own view. I love the Stones and everything about them. Just not as much as I love the Beatles.

I know what you mean. The longevity is the virtue and the sin of the Stones; in some sense it works for them, in some sense not. The Beatles quit when they were young and beutiful, and they left a wonderful, almost perfect legacy that is easy to love. The Stones decided to continue and play until they drop, or have any bullets in their gun. No one almost remembers when the Stones were young and beautiful (this is a metaphor); they have created a legacy that is very much associated with old men playing young man's music. But then, they had given millions a chance to see them live, to hear the 'original music' flesh and blood. First hand - not through a record or a DVD. The legacy of their long career is bit harder to grasp at moment. After years of the vaults being closed, we have been now treated with some first grade material from the past, but it is clear that they will not rise such hype than the perfect Beatles legacy if any gem is revealed or re-released from there. EXILE had something to that effect but SOME GIRLS landed us back to earth. Considering how big and popular and 'relevant' the band was at time, it caused very little interest outside the hardcore fan circles. LIVE IN TEXAS is probably greatest footage of any rock band ever but it left almost unnoticed by the big media or masses. No reason to even mention the legendary BRUSSELLS AFFAIR here.

I don't know if the things would be any better if they would have called it quits say, in 1974 or 1982. Yeah, in that case the whole picture had been better to sell in nostalgywise; full of James Dean kind of stuff. Would that made the band look better to new generations than playing as old man live for them? Is teh deal nwayadays that a casual older generation fans put their nostalgy money to, say, The Beatles or Led Zeppelin stuff, and in the case of The Stones, to tickets? Would that be different then?

Anyway, selling the 'Stones story' coherently is very difficult since to ABKCO/Rolling Stones Record deal. The band tries its best to sell the back catalog they have in their hands which unfortunately starts not until in 1971 and misses almost all of their important hits and some key albums, etc. I think one reason for their, especially Jagger's nostalgy envy is the bad memories of constractwise of those days, and the fact that they can't control their high profile stuff from the 60's. They started from a blanco in many ways in 1971, and worked hard to get a new kingdom. Many years it looked like that the Klein clan and the Stones clan did their best to sapotage each other, and the double-existing Stones legacy suffered as a result.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-28 13:48 by Doxa.

It has been a long long time since I cared what big media or the masses were selling me and/or telling me..... From Miley Cyrus to lady gaga, I have no interest in that manufactured crap.

The notion that big media or masses ignore probably the greatest footage of any rock band ever, shows the problem with music and big media today.... but it does not change the fact that the Beatles QUIT 40 years ago, and the Stones kept going, and they made great music and performed it live for their fanswhile making 100s of millions of Dollars... that is success... and The Stones have done that, and no matter how much people want that to not be true, it is.

Even though I lately have been very impressed with Paul McCartney, and I give him credit for what he does, he is not the Beatles.... the Beatles QUIT 40 years ago, and it is beyond me why that extinct group is even mentioned in the same sentence or compared to the Rolling Stones.... except maybe to glom onto the longevity and success the Stones have continued to have... and where the Beatles failed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-28 14:05 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
The notion that big media or masses ignore probably the greatest footage of any rock band ever, shows the problem with music and big media today.... .

But then when that big media or masses - the same ones - are crazy for fifty/sixty/seventy old icons trying their est to give an impression of twenty/thirty somethings, and backed up with a dozen back up plaeyers, playing thirty/forty year old songs under the brand name "Rolling Stones" they are doing alright?

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
The notion that big media or masses ignore probably the greatest footage of any rock band ever, shows the problem with music and big media today.... .

But then when that big media or masses - the same ones - are crazy for fifty/sixty/seventy old icons trying their est to give an impression of twenty/thirty somethings, and backed up with a dozen back up plaeyers, playing thirty/forty year old songs under the brand name "Rolling Stones" they are doing alright?

- Doxa

Things evolve... if it is good, then it is good.... if it sucks then it sucks.... so far I like the Stones evolution, it is what it is.... and it has been great. I am excited to see what happens with my Stones next... and I will allow the masses and big media to continue their inafturation with crap like will.i.am lady gaga beiber and whatever else is the falva of the month and will be unheard of in 5 years ala spice girls milli vanilli etc etc.... The Stones roll on ... they always have.. it is cool.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-28 14:19 by Max'sKansasCity.

i love the Stones...
i dont really like the Beatles...
BUT...think any argument is ridiculous...
the beatles will always be better for the average person.
i think people (generally) know more Beatles songs than Stones songs..

And that is 10 years of Beatles ... versus... 40 years of Stones !!

Partly because the Stones' music is rooted in the blues, from which they rarely strayed, it has a more timeless character to it. In the eyes of my daughters and their friends, the Beatles music is the music that they sing along with in the school choir and is from a definite time period. The Stones music is rock and roll, and therein lies the difference - the Stones music is still cool. The evidence is overwhelming.

1. Stones music is widely used in music and television. I won't even get into Scorcese or the Sopranos, but from Angelina singing "Satisfaction", to "Sympathy" used for the trailer for Wall Street II, to "Street Fighting Man" used (amazingly) at the end of V for Vendetta - it's always cool.

2. Stones T-shirts are worn by hot young women - that's just the way it is. Paris or Miley or Britney or Beyonce are happy to be spotted in a Stones shirt, but a Beatles shirt --- uhh,no.

3. "Wild Horses" - Adam Levine and Alisha Keys. That's very cool. Susan Boyle - well that's not cool, but it doesn't matter.

4. "Moves Like Jagger" - Number one across the board. Talk about props.

5. Stones ring tones - kids love "Start Me Up". Old guys like "Yellow Submarine".

The Beatles are great music, just like Nat King Cole and Frank Sinatra and Bach. They will always be respected as representing great music from that period. I suspect that in 50 years, though, people will still be grooving to "Satisfaction" and "Brown Sugar".

He He..write Beatles vs Stones and hundreds of opinions comes dropping in...

what if I start a 'New Topic' Lennon vs Jagger?

2 1 2 0

My biggest complaint is how they have maintained their archives. The Beatles 2009 remasters were a class act. Witness the minidocumenaries of each album, the Apple USB with FLAC files, the Mono Box. All in all superb. What did we get? Loudly compressed remasters in an ugly box. I'll admit, I enjoyed Brussels, the deluxe Exile and Some Girls and the DVDs put out in 2010 and 2011. I'll bet the Stones could care less about their "product".

why do people keep bringing this beatles vs. stones nonsense up? is it your precious egos that need reassuring?

Quote
drbryant
Partly because the Stones' music is rooted in the blues, from which they rarely strayed, it has a more timeless character to it. In the eyes of my daughters and their friends, the Beatles music is the music that they sing along with in the school choir and is from a definite time period. The Stones music is rock and roll, and therein lies the difference - the Stones music is still cool. The evidence is overwhelming.

1. Stones music is widely used in music and television. I won't even get into Scorcese or the Sopranos, but from Angelina singing "Satisfaction", to "Sympathy" used for the trailer for Wall Street II, to "Street Fighting Man" used (amazingly) at the end of V for Vendetta - it's always cool.

2. Stones T-shirts are worn by hot young women - that's just the way it is. Paris or Miley or Britney or Beyonce are happy to be spotted in a Stones shirt, but a Beatles shirt --- uhh,no.

3. "Wild Horses" - Adam Levine and Alisha Keys. That's very cool. Susan Boyle - well that's not cool, but it doesn't matter.

4. "Moves Like Jagger" - Number one across the board. Talk about props.

5. Stones ring tones - kids love "Start Me Up". Old guys like "Yellow Submarine".

The Beatles are great music, just like Nat King Cole and Frank Sinatra and Bach. They will always be respected as representing great music from that period. I suspect that in 50 years, though, people will still be grooving to "Satisfaction" and "Brown Sugar".

ridiculous. everything you said. ridiculous.

Ridiculous? This took 30 minutes of my life, but it was worth it. How cool are the Stones?

























Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-28 18:13 by drbryant.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-28 18:55 by Max'sKansasCity.

Like, OMG! Jessica Simpson is wearing a Stones t-shirt! OMFG! that must mean the Stones are better than the Beatles! And look at the Hoff wearing a Beatles t-shirt. LOL! WhAt A loSer! LOL!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-28 18:18 by GumbootCloggeroo.

Never cease to be amazed why anyone who isnt stuck in a 1964 time warp as a 12 year old girl still gives a damn about this.


'Hot women' (and not so hot women) wear Stones t-shirts because the tongue logo is sexually suggestive. It invariably has f*** all to do with liking the band. Young people wear retro t-shirts all the time without any significance attached to the artist associated with them.

Laughable to pass off shite like 'Moves like Jagger' or t-shirts worn by bubble-headed cretins like Miley Cyrus, Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears off as some kind of yardstick of coolness. The same Britney Spears, who had heard of Paul McCartney but admitted that she didn't know he was in The Beatles......

..and er..Stones music is 'used' in films and adverts because the publishers gave permission in order to make money.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like, OMG! Jessica Simpson is wearing a Stones t-shirt! OMFG! that must mean the Stones are better than the Beatles!

Not better, but regarded as a lot cooler.

Quote
Gazza
Never cease to be amazed why anyone who isnt stuck in a 1964 time warp as a 12 year old girl still gives a damn about this.


'Hot women' (and not so hot women) wear Stones t-shirts because the tongue logo is sexually suggestive. It invariably has f*** all to do with liking the band. Young people wear retro t-shirts all the time without any significance attached to the artist associated with them.

Laughable to pass off shite like 'Moves like Jagger' or t-shirts worn by bubble-headed cretins like Miley Cyrus, Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears off as some kind of yardstick of coolness. The same Britney Spears, who had heard of Paul McCartney but admitted that she didn't know he was in The Beatles......

..and er..Stones music is 'used' in films and adverts because the publishers gave permission in order to make money.

I can't believe you actually believe this, Gaz. I should inform you, by the way, that the Stones charge the highest rates in the industry to use their music in any synchronization (i.e., in film, television), but creative folks insist on it. Budgets have been rewritten to accommodate the use of Stones music. Not sure how relevant that is, but it is what it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-28 18:40 by drbryant.

Only if you believe that Jessica Simpson is 'cool'.

Which would, in itself, be a bizarre perspective to say the least.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like, OMG! Jessica Simpson is wearing a Stones t-shirt! OMFG! that must mean the Stones are better than the Beatles!

Not better, but regarded as a lot cooler.

The Stones logo is cool, yes. It looks cool. It looks good. It's fashion. But how many Stones songs can Jessica Simpson or any other celeb you posted name? The Beatles logo isn't as nice to look at when you compare it to the Stones logo. But that means absolutely nothing. I've seen so many people wear t-shirts with Che Guevera's image on it. But I've never seen anyone wear a shirt with Yasser Arafat's face on it. Does that make Che cooler than Yasser?

Quote
Gazza
Only if you believe that Jessica Simpson is 'cool'.

Which would, in itself, be a bizarre perspective to say the least.

drbryant seems to think Adam Levine is cool. So who knows, maybe he thinks Jessica Simpson is cool as well.

Ohh we have started posting chick-pics again HUH!



2 1 2 0

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Like, OMG! Jessica Simpson is wearing a Stones t-shirt! OMFG! that must mean the Stones are better than the Beatles!

Not better, but regarded as a lot cooler.

The Stones logo is cool, yes. It looks cool. It looks good. It's fashion. But how many Stones songs can Jessica Simpson or any other celeb you posted name? The Beatles logo isn't as nice to look at when you compare it to the Stones logo. But that means absolutely nothing.

You know something? I disagree. I think that if the same logo represented the Doobie Brothers or Creedence Clearwater Revival, the Dead or Traffic (all great bands), no one would wear the shirts.