I love both bands, The Rolling Stones are my personal favorites between the two so there is no debate about that. As performers, neither The Beatles or The Stones have anything on the likes of Elvis and James Brown ;D
Printable View
I love both bands, The Rolling Stones are my personal favorites between the two so there is no debate about that. As performers, neither The Beatles or The Stones have anything on the likes of Elvis and James Brown ;D
James Brown was a real showman. If I'm not mistaken, in addition to "The King of Soul", he was also known as "The Hardest Working Man in Show Business".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRbqHyoYrFU
James Brown = 100% pure talent
And of course THE KING was just a marvelous performer/showman as was Frank Sinatra but just sticking with this argument I sides with The Stones.
Mick Jagger sounds like Gilbert Gottfried. Not the voice you would want for a love song.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMI get a feeling this thread is repeating itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
I'll say this much for the Beatles, they had some lovely melodies. Which makes for easy translation into musak for doctor's office and elevators, and grocery stores.
That bit about the Stones love songs lacking heart is questionable. By heart you mean emotion? Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate your point with examples of Beatles "heart" as something the Stones don't have?
Sure Bud, ok Jagger sounds like Gottfried, and he can't sing love songs, whatever you say, At least he didn't sing Obladi Oblada. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1Mick Jagger sounds like Gilbert Gottfried. Not the voice you would want for a love song.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMI get a feeling this thread is repeating itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
I'll say this much for the Beatles, they had some lovely melodies. Which makes for easy translation into musak for doctor's office and elevators, and grocery stores.
That bit about the Stones love songs lacking heart is questionable. By heart you mean emotion? Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate your point with examples of Beatles "heart" as something the Stones don't have?
You didn't think that was funny?Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMSure Bud, ok Jagger sounds like Gottfried, and he can't sing love songs, whatever you say, At least he didn't sing Obladi Oblada. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1Mick Jagger sounds like Gilbert Gottfried. Not the voice you would want for a love song.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
Difinitely the Beatles.
You mean Obla Di Obla da? I don't know about funny in the humorous sense, but it was good for a laugh. Incredibly trite and banal lyrics, like a lot of Beatles songs, especially the ones McCartney wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1You didn't think that was funny?Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMSure Bud, ok Jagger sounds like Gottfried, and he can't sing love songs, whatever you say, At least he didn't sing Obladi Oblada. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
If you meant your Gottfried comment, no, it didn't occur to me that you were joking. I don't really know your posting style. I've never heard of Gottfried and I ain't a mindreader.
Anyways, Beatles vs Stones is something I argued 25-30 years ago, it really don't matter all that much. I've got more Johnny Winters or Steely Dan, or Neil Young albums than Beatles and Stones combined, which tells you where I'm at.
cheers.
I love, and I mean love, the Beatles, but I'll take Neil Young over them 10 times out of 10. One of the best lyricists and unconventional guitarists/musicians of all time. I saw him last year and he was one of the best shows I have ever seen, even in his twilight years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMYou mean Obla Di Obla da? I don't know about funny in the humorous sense, but it was good for a laugh. Incredibly trite and banal lyrics, like a lot of Beatles songs, especially the ones McCartney wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1You didn't think that was funny?Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
If you meant your Gottfried comment, no, it didn't occur to me that you were joking. I don't really know your posting style. I've never heard of Gottfried and I ain't a mindreader.
Anyways, Beatles vs Stones is something I argued 25-30 years ago, it really don't matter all that much. I've got more Johnny Winters or Steely Dan, or Neil Young albums than Beatles and Stones combined, which tells you where I'm at.
cheers.
You Canadians are weird :-\
;D
Im joking... I've always had a soft spot for the Beatles. But the Stones are appropriate sometimes but i doubt i could get bored of listening to the Beatles. (And that's coming from someone who really isn't around that kind of music much).
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI love, and I mean love, the Beatles, but I'll take Neil Young over them 10 times out of 10. One of the best lyricists and unconventional guitarists/musicians of all time. I saw him last year and he was one of the best shows I have ever seen, even in his twilight years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMYou mean Obla Di Obla da? I don't know about funny in the humorous sense, but it was good for a laugh. Incredibly trite and banal lyrics, like a lot of Beatles songs, especially the ones McCartney wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
If you meant your Gottfried comment, no, it didn't occur to me that you were joking. I don't really know your posting style. I've never heard of Gottfried and I ain't a mindreader.
Anyways, Beatles vs Stones is something I argued 25-30 years ago, it really don't matter all that much. I've got more Johnny Winters or Steely Dan, or Neil Young albums than Beatles and Stones combined, which tells you where I'm at.
cheers.
I'm must've been drunk when I wrote that. I have absolutely no recollection of that post. NY over the Beatles? Maybe sometimes, but not 10/10 that's for sure.
You are forgiven for your sins.;DQuote:
Originally Posted by CFH:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI love, and I mean love, the Beatles, but I'll take Neil Young over them 10 times out of 10. One of the best lyricists and unconventional guitarists/musicians of all time. I saw him last year and he was one of the best shows I have ever seen, even in his twilight years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
I'm must've been drunk when I wrote that. I have absolutely no recollection of that post. NY over the Beatles? Maybe sometimes, but not 10/10 that's for sure.
Bigger influence and more of an Icon- Beatles
Who I'd rather listen to- Stones
Beatles but the Stones are good as well
I like the Stones as well. My problem with them is that they never grew up. Their music is the same old thing year in and year out. The Beatles did not change with the times they change the time they were in. The Beatles of 64 were not the Beatles of 66. People grow up and change. That's what I love about them. great artist, great song writers. The Stone are good song writer themselves but not on the same level as the Beatles.