The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones | Page 3 | Fab Forum

Introducing the inaugural Fab Forum February Fundraiser! Click here for more details.

Please consider registering
Guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones
No permission to create posts
21 September 2012
10.42am
Avatar
minime
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 515
Member Since:
16 February 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

MKR said
I'm sorry, but this is a stupid debate.  Who really cares who was better?  They're both great bands who put out some amazing material through the 60s and in the case of the stones part of the 70s. They all became shadows of their former selves sometime in the mid 70sand by that i mean the beatles as solo artists and the stones  Like i'll just say even though double fantasy for example had it's moments, it can't hold a candle to the plastic ono band creatively speaking.

The beatles are my favorite band, but one thing i'll say in relation to this topic is that Let it Bleed is as good if not better than any Beatles album. 

 

Well, the thing is, I sort of agree with you on that one, but I still don't think it takes anything away from the album. Like, Mother a is brutal show of honesty from John's part, but Beautiful Boy is every bit as heartfelt. John became more mellow, that's for sure, but people change, and the change reflected in his songs. There is no way to know how John would have evolved had he not, well, died, but I think there were still some signs that he might have gotten a little "rougher" at some point; where as Real Love as we know it is very hopeful and tender, some of the earlier versions sure weren't. Maybe it's a bit silly to argue about this, but I definitely don't think John deteriorated any. I'm not accustomed enough to Paul and George's solo output to say much about them, but I have heard some great songs from Paul after that. 

 

21 September 2012
12.19pm
Avatar
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6980
Member Since:
19 September 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
21 September 2012
12.48pm
Avatar
MKR
The Indra
Forum Posts: 42
Member Since:
29 August 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

minime said

Well, the thing is, I sort of agree with you on that one, but I still don't think it takes anything away from the album. Like, Mother a is brutal show of honesty from John's part, but Beautiful Boy is every bit as heartfelt. John became more mellow, that's for sure, but people change, and the change reflected in his songs. There is no way to know how John would have evolved had he not, well, died, but I think there were still some signs that he might have gotten a little "rougher" at some point; where as Real Love as we know it is very hopeful and tender, some of the earlier versions sure weren't. Maybe it's a bit silly to argue about this, but I definitely don't think John deteriorated any. I'm not accustomed enough to Paul and George's solo output to say much about them, but I have heard some great songs from Paul after that. 

I'm not saying double Fantasy is a bad album.  It's nice and it's reflective of where John was at that point of his life, but as a music fan when you take a step back and look at the full collection of work, surely anyone can admit that it's a couple notches down plastic ono band and imagine.  Musicians generally speaking don't get better with age.  They just don't and all of our beloved beatles are no exceptions just like the stones weren't either.  I don't even own anything more recent than 'some girls' because frankly it's not worth my listening time.  like i said most of the greats had their best before dates at some point in the mid 70s.  Look at George. For the brilliance of All Things Must Pass and then a decent effort with material world, it all went downhill fast afterwards.  So while i can appreciate some of the later solo beatle albums, i know that it's not of the same standard as the 'real thing.'

 

and to comment on mr. sun king and tkj once more...  Maybe what i said was harsh, but it's the truth.  I registered here to talk about the beatles because i love them and i love music and i take it pretty seriously.  So when someone says something stupid yes stupid like the stones weren't even a good band, well then i will call them out for it.  you can not like them just like people can not like the beatles that's fine, but shit you have to respect what they've been able to do at the very least AS a band.  I don't like U2.  in fact i think anything they've made after 1992 is utter shite, but i can admit they're a good band.  If your brother doesn't like the arcade fire that's OK, but i bet he can admit that they're a decent band - you know play their instruments alright, write their own songs, etc. 

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: ewe2, leoc
35 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 17120

Ahhh Girl: 10726

Annadog40: 9698

Zig: 7531

parlance: 7092

mr. Sun king coming together: 6980

Mr. Kite: 6092

Silly Girl: 5746

trcanberra: 5528

Ron Nasty: 4926

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 87

Members: 3329

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 42

Topics: 3815

Posts: 201845

Newest Members:

Stockholm1955, tomomi, ttn48griff, Beatles007, Edwardo

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 10726, meanmistermustard: 17120, Zig: 7531, Joe: 4390

Administrators: Joe: 4390, Ellie: 3

Members Birthdays
sp_BirthdayIcon
Today: VeraChuckDave
Upcoming: None