The Beatles or the Rolling Stones ? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

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...

tszirmay

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673

Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:35

febus wrote:

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!!!

They are my pet peeve I guess! All of the above songs (save one I think) are pre-Let it Bleed, no? If so, my point is well taken, they have been riding "Rolling Stone" wave of propaganda and have not made anything remotely cohesive since. They have sold out 35 years ago and still mega stars! Go figure. I am sorry if I offended anyone but i have been waiting a while to get the.......Monkey.........off my back

I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.

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

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 LOL

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

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!!!

The Quiet One View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745

Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:17

tszirmay wrote:

NaturalScience wrote:

1. This isn't in the right section.2. Please try to keep the flaming to a minimum.Thanks.

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

<P =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>"They are the EPITOME and the PARAGON of <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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 ......

But I Like It!!!

It's only prog rock...well we all love it!

tszirmay

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673

Posted: May 19 2008 at 21:12

NaturalScience wrote:

1. This isn't in the right section.
2. Please try to keep the flaming to a minimum.

Thanks.

With all due apologies, this is the correct section as we are asked to choose between the good boys and the bad boys.

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.

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.

The Quiet One View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745

Posted: May 19 2008 at 20:51

tszirmay wrote:

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 Taylor left (he was the only musician there), lights out. Ron Wood, an accomplished guitarist? You got to be kidding!

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!

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

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 Taylor left (he was the only musician there), lights out. Ron Wood, an accomplished guitarist? You got to be kidding!

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.

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.

LinusW

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665

Posted: May 19 2008 at 19:58

tszirmay wrote:

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.

Wow

But yes, the famous Liverpudlians for me as well.

Blargh

The Quiet One View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745

Posted: May 19 2008 at 19:45

tszirmay wrote:

cacho wrote:

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..

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. ileys/smiley36.gif" height="17" width="17" alt="LOL">

Yep I fully coincide with your hipotesis! hehe

tszirmay

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673

Posted: May 19 2008 at 18:37

cacho wrote:

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..

I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.

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?

The Quiet One View Drop Down

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..

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.

alanerc

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 20 2007
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 278

Posted: May 19 2008 at 17:37

the "good guys" of rock vs the "bad guys" of rock

Vote: The Beatles Smile

Poll Question: B or RS
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Beatles	40	[78.43%]
Rolling Stones	11	[21.57%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted