|
|||||||
| Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
04-01-2006, 10:21 AM
|
#51 (permalink) | |
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hot-lanta
Posts: 3,140
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2006, 10:39 AM
|
#52 (permalink) | |||
|
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
Quote:
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
04-01-2006, 01:18 PM
|
#54 (permalink) | |
|
The Sexual Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
|
Quote:
 The Rolling Stones have had something like 30 hit albums & we`re supposed to be 'pwned' because they had one minor hit with a Beatles song. Oh Please
__________________
 Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2006, 01:33 PM
|
#55 (permalink) | |||
|
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
Quote:
The Stones as great as they can be, were much much more hit and miss than The Beatles were, both made their share of mediocre songs, but The Beatles never really did a bad studio album, The Rolling Stones have made a half a dozen or so, of course The Stones have had 30 years of more longativity, so this comparison probably isnt fair. I still think The Beatles were better for several reasons, one is that they make better music (in my opinion), two they were better musicians and three they made 7 classic albums in a 5 year period, which is pretty damn remarkable i think...And both are equal when it comes to albums that could be considered classics...Of course The Stones had longativity on their side, The Beatles didnt.
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
04-01-2006, 02:26 PM
|
#56 (permalink) | |
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hot-lanta
Posts: 3,140
|
Quote:
That song was the Stones' very first number 1 hit. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2006, 03:32 PM
|
#57 (permalink) | |
|
The Sexual Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
|
Quote:
It`s All Over Now was their first No 1
__________________
Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2006, 01:08 AM
|
#59 (permalink) | |
|
Seeker of Peace
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Newark, De.
Posts: 341
|
Quote:
That's actually a pretty cool piece of musical knowledge. I learn something just about every time I come into this place. Excuse me, I need to go scrub the egg off my face before it dries. LOL.
__________________
Be strong then, and enter into your own body; there you have a solid place for your feet. ~ Kabir |
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2006, 09:24 PM
|
#60 (permalink) |
|
killedmyraindog
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
|
The Beatles wrote let it be, the stones wrote let it bleed. But we have a beatles vs. stone thread....
For all the green day bashing out there, I used to not understand why Blink-182 didn't get bashed alot more. While Greenday moved away from their original sounds (albeit slowly), Blink-182 did an about face at dude ranch and only got worse from there. What makes it easier to bash Greenday is that they were more successful, and the more a culture loves something, the more the counter-culture loves to be against it. Therefore, bands that really inspire adoration in a demographic (which can denote talent) is hated far more than bands who actually deserve it. An interesting question that might make you mindless lemmings think for once is "what band is rated poorly, and deserves that rating" with nothing to 'rage against' I wonder how you might answer.
__________________
I've moved to a new address |
|
|
|
Linear Mode
