crash_override

That's a great way to say it.


Yeah, I guess so. For a second there I thought you were just trying to stir people up

Is there some sort or divine force that prevents people from being fans of both bands?

Urban Hat€monger ?

Yes, Beatles fanboys

I don't actually mind both. But so much shit is written praising the Beatles at the detriment of the Stones that whenever you find yourself taking issue with it you get labelled as a Beatles hater.

__________________

lucifer_sam

i like a handful of songs from both bands, i don't think either one ever recorded a masterpiece but there are certainly good albums between them both.

though i have yet to meet a rabid Stones fan as moronic as most Beatles fans i run across.

__________________
first.am

Neapolitan

Beatlemania was coined to discribe all the screaming fans at concerts etc., where were the screaming fans at when they stopped touring???

Well, if you knew anything about any Beatle's historical albums you would know they were constantly changing their sound and image, Ad Nauseam!

And so were the Beatlemania fans also deeply trouble and disappointed when they release the single/video, Strawberry Feilds Forever. And The Beatles album fans were deeply troubled and disappointed when they release We All Live In The Yellow Submarine, that too goes on Ad Nauseam.

And some say that Rubber Soul and Revovler should had been a "double album!"
And The Bealtes thought what Capitol Records rearranging their albums a capitol offense. So how an ablum should be release, and how many songs should be on it is another argurment that goes on Ad Nauseam.

wrong! The comment is trivia, not trival.
I don't know if you know that I know that Sgt. Pepper was more impactful on the general public then any album The Bealtes released, bar none, and that includes (or excludes whatever is the word I'm looking for) The Beatles aka The White Album.

Bulldog

I love both bands in equal measure, so I wouldn't say so. They're two of my favourite bands and they are for different and equally valid reasons, which is why I wouldn't really care to make a significant comment about who's better than the other.

almauro

Beatlemania was coined by the media in their attempt to mass market the Beatles harmless, clean-cut, asexual image to a bunch of teens. The Beatles were a cash cow for everyone including promoters, record companies, retailers and news organization. Stones, more threatening, didn't get close to the attention, even though, they too produced excellent, albeit a little racy, singles during this period. Lennon, to his credit, submarined the whole Beatlemania enterprise, by doing an album, like Beggars Banquet, of stripped-down and blues rock and folk oriented songs, which failed to produce the type of feel-good pop single from previous albums. Ironically, they too became threatening with songs like "Helter Skelter" "Revolution" 'Happiness is a Warm Gun" and others. Instead of comforting fans, The Beatles made them uncomfortable. Songs like "Revolution 9" scared the sh___t out of those little kids. To compare the the change of musical directions experienced between earlier albums to this is ridiculous, and completely naive. The media, feeling betrayed, no longer gave them as much coverage nor good reviews, the fans became disenchanted. Whether they chose to perform or not, was completely inconsequential. They simply weren't lovable anymore. They became "Stones-like". I'm eternally grateful for John Lennon, in making this grand artistic statement. If you can appreciate his intense desire to distance himself as a artist from the Beatles past, then you can better understand his decision to undertake the weirdness he created with Yoko. But I believe he made that decision to break from the past, before meeting her, so blaming her for the break up of the Beatles is ridiculous as well.

__________________
rock n music blog

annapurna

I don't think it's easy to pinpoint the Beatles breakup. Brian Einstein's death is part of it, Lennon's disillusionment with the Beatles is another, and the whole Apple Corps fiasco adds another layer of muck to that mess. Yoko is kinds of the black sheep embodiment of all that chaos...not that I blame her in any way for the breakup. Still don't like her though.

Beatlemania *was* fueled by the media right before their arrival to America and their "clean cut" image was meticulously crafted by Brian Epstein. What you failed to mention is that The Stones image was manufactured to be just the opposite as the Beatles by their manager. It was a smart move.

I don't think that The White Album was a direct response to Beggar's Banquet at all. It does have bluesy tracks, but it kind of has a bit of everything. These bands fueled each other, that was the beauty of that time.

lightStevOo

i like them both i dunno, maybe the beatles

Neapolitan

wrong! The Rolling Stones did Beggars Banquet.

Hold on let me get my fishing boots on, OK I'm back, I glad I got them on because you are really shoveling the **** tonight, Wait a minute, what do you call Ob La Di Ob La Da? If that ain't feel good pop then what is?????? You are talking like you never listened to The Beatles aka The White Album, dude.

Unless you admit right now that you are 51 y/o and it was you that got the "sh___t" scared out of, then it's all a long yarn you've just woven.

Did you ever heard any of The Beatle's earlier work? probably not.
If you don't think "Tomorrow Never Knows" is the cat's pajamas and revolutionary for it's time, then you're an olive short of a pizza.

What???? Hold on, I gotta get some duck tape, I have tape my head before my brain explodes all over my moniter, because that is the dumbest thing I ever heard, Hold on I'll be back.... slosh, slosh, slosh, slosh, slosh.



OK I'm back, oh yeah, all the sloshing you heard is from the sh___t you shoveling my way.

What do you call Yellow Submarine?? An Unlovable cartoon?

That's only because Billy Preston played piano for the both of them.

What grand artistic statement was that? Wait don't tell me because I'll be externally ungrateful to hear any more ****.

When you say "undertake the weirdness he created with Yoko" are you talking about in the bedroom or in the recording studio???

You're ridiculous as well, Oko Yono was a wet blanket that added extra stress to the already strained, interpersonalrelationship of members of The Beatles, and beside she kept John Lennon from joining up with his ol' bandmates once the dust settled in the 70's. I like her and everything, but that doesn't mean I don't think she had absolutely no part in the untimely demise of The Beatles.

almauro

If you weren't always so quick to be negative and took the time to ready what I wrote, you'd understand that it was a comparison to BB.


One of the least impressive from the Beatles canon. What Lennon would describe it as a "granny song". He thought it sucked. It wasn't even released as a US single!

That's f__cked up. You're focusing on one song, as opposed to an album. You yourself said, Rubber Soul and Revolver could have been packaged as a double album. Both are very similar, but I will say, Lennon does sound thrilled to be singing that tune, ending this sequence of albums with his best composition. He had an Ace in the Hole with that one.

I'd stop bringing up this stupid soundtrack to a kids movie. It's the most embarrassing recording of their careers. Demonstrates more of a devolution.

Give John some credit. He may have used her as a way out. He was sick as sh__t of the bitchin and moanin between Paul and George and I don't think he had any interest whatsoever in hanging out with his "ol' bandmates".

__________________
rock n music blog