|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: Stones or Beatles | |||
Stones | 1,000,000,059 | 99.90% | |
Beatles | 1,000,073 | 0.10% | |
Voters: 1001000132. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-14-2007, 04:18 PM | #421 (permalink) |
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
ibility.
|
01-14-2007, 04:36 PM | #422 (permalink) |
killedmyraindog
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
|
I'll just assume you get this and for anyone else who did not, I'll explain myself.
The idea that the bealtes changed the way music was done and is still having an impact is so commonly known to any music fan its disgusting. While I'm not saying it was copy and pasted from a web site, palgerised from a music journal or stolen from your neighborhood snarky indie music critic, it could have been and everyone knows it could have been. Rather than address this in such a manner, I decided to point out the absurdity of writing such things on a music message board where people come to dicuss music. We know this, why point it out? My second reason for addressing the all too common argument is that, since the Stones aren't given the same type of talking points in every peice of print dedicated to them (presumably because their still together, and that Keith, Mick and Charlie havn't died yet), no one knows arguments for the Stones well enough to defend them. So what you have here (and im refering to Urban here, not myself) is a stones fan who knows what he's tlaking about and making valid points based on a knowledge of a catalouge while the presumed "Beatles fan" is just saying what has been said to him. I decided to not be the anal retentive den mother I usually am, apparently the sarcastic method isn't appreciated either. Theres your cred, hippie.
__________________
I've moved to a new address |
01-14-2007, 05:19 PM | #423 (permalink) |
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
I'm not a Hippie, I'm a right leaning Libertarian.
|
01-14-2007, 07:43 PM | #424 (permalink) | |
Pepper Emergency!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 493
|
Quote:
One point I do want to make though...Even though the Stones have had longevity that dwarfs the Beatles short span of existence, both bands have produced roughly the same amount of great albums. The Stones: Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street The Beatles: Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The White Album, Abbey Road I'd be willing to drop Sgt. Pepper's from the Beatles' list, since I find it massively overrated. It's not even that much of a concept album (if you think about it), and half of the songs sound like dull filler to me (that could be chalked up sheerly to personal preference though). I find their real opus to be Abbey Road, though my personal favorite is Rubber Soul. I have to admit that I think the Stones perfected being epic within a single song without sounding indulgent and pompous ("Sympathy For The Devil" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want"), a feat that few bands have managed since. Plus they released the perfect bar-band album with Exile which they recorded in a french villa! That's just nuts. I remember coming home from the library and putting the borrowed copy of Beggar's Banquet on the stereo, sitting down and making the quick transition from puzzlement to sheer bliss. That was my discovery of classic rock, and that was the moment from which I approached music with a completely new mentality. Thinking: This is always going to be important to me. Damn...I guess this argument is a closer call for me than I thought at first. Curse you Big3... I no longer know where I stand. |
|
01-15-2007, 06:16 AM | #425 (permalink) |
killedmyraindog
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
|
Hey welcome to MusicBanter, I'm the forum asshole, arguing for no reason at all is really my forte. And spelling badly, I do that well also.
At this point, I don't care who you vote for as long as you give the stones a fair shot. And I've thought about the possibility that the stones might not have as much to celebrate about but quickly dismissed it. Just because the Stones played music that had already been invented doesn't mean its easy to do, and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone can do it, or do it without trying to sound ridiculous or pompous. They won't be given credit until one of the big ones dies, until then we're getting a "who's better, Hendrix or Clapton", where one's dead and always the winner and the other one lived and made a bunch of suck ass records that makes him "subpar."
__________________
I've moved to a new address |
01-15-2007, 07:54 AM | #426 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 223
|
I can't help you with all your problems but download firefox 2 and then your spelling will be fixed.
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ It has a built in dictionary!! |
01-15-2007, 08:13 AM | #427 (permalink) |
Groupie
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Jersey
Posts: 19
|
Defintly the Beatles, cus they set the stage for so many bands that are out there, and that were. I was never a fan of the stones, i dont have nething against them, it wus just i never really got into them for some reason. The Beatles were original and very unique for their time.
|
01-15-2007, 10:45 AM | #428 (permalink) | |
Pepper Emergency!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 493
|
Quote:
Clapton came in on the ground floor of blues-rock through the Yardbirds and Cream, but then went on to sterilize the blues and prostitue it by making it into soft radio rock. He has the chops, but in his performances, all the grit is gone. Without the down-home back-porch feel it's just not the same. I know it might be kind of odd to argue against good production values, but I think that that time-honored genre deserves more respect. He did make the Wah pedal cool with "Tales of Brave Ulysses" and also sort of spawned hard rock with that band (which was cream)... but I think his solo career was so weak that I can't give him too much praise. I didn't mind the Unlpugged album though. I think what it comes down to, is the fact that Jimi has enough soul to move mountains (and chop them down with the back of his hand) while Clapton's a little too clean and whitebread. |
|
01-15-2007, 03:06 PM | #429 (permalink) |
Alan
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In bed, with Cheryl Tweedy
Posts: 275
|
Clapton's life was far from clean, and led just as interesting a life, if not more so than Jimi.
I still think its strange to compare these two bands, it's like comparing black and white, they're so different. And I still prefer the Stones, they have that bit more edge. And their guitarists were better.
__________________
http://kungfucrazy.forum-motion.com/ |
|