Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 4> |
| Author | ||
alanerc 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: December 20 2007 Location: Mexico Status: Offline Points: 278 |
 Topic: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones ?Posted: May 19 2008 at 17:37 |
|
|
the "good guys" of rock vs the "bad guys" of rock
Vote: The Beatles  |
||
 |
||
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: August 17 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 6673 |
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.
|
||
|
||
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: January 16 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 15745 |
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.. |
||
|
||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32524 |
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? |
||
|
||
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: August 17 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 6673 |
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.
|
||
|
||
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 16 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 15745 |
Posted: May 19 2008 at 19:45 |
|
 Yep I fully coincide with your hipotesis! hehe
|
||
|
||
|
LinusW
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 27 2007 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 10665 |
Posted: May 19 2008 at 19:58 |
|
Wow  But yes, the famous Liverpudlians for me as well. |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group 
|
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.
|
||
|
||
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: August 17 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 6673 |
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.
|
||
|
||
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 16 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 15745 |
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. Edited by cacho - May 19 2008 at 20:52 |
||
|
||
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
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. |
||
|
||
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: August 17 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 6673 |
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.
|
||
|
||
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 16 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 15745 |
Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:17 |
|
But I Like It!!! It's only prog rock...well we all love it! |
||
|
||
|
febus
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: January 23 2007 Location: Orlando-Usa Status: Offline Points: 4312 |
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!!!
|
||
|
||
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46833 |
Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:25 |
|
disregard my earlier PM  |
||
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
||
|
||
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46833 |
Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:28 |
|
|
no talent .. pfffff. hahhahahhaha
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
|
||
|
||
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: August 17 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 6673 |
Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:35 |
|
|
||
|
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
||
|
||
|
Dominic
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 02 2008 Location: Liberation Land Status: Offline Points: 651 |
Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:37 |
|
|
The Beatles by far...
|
||
|
||
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46833 |
Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:40 |
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
||
|
||
|
Sacred 22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 24 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1509 |
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. |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 4> |
| 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 |
The Beatles or the Rolling Stones ?
Topic Options
cacho wrote: