Page 1 of 1
So ? Beatles, Stones or both?
Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 2:15 pm
by Oscar Namechange
I have done this thread before but seeing as we have new members here, let's do It again.
What's your best track and why?
As this track has been mentioned In a couple of other threads, I'll start.
I was a child when this was released on The Beggars Banquet album In 1968. I'd play this over and over and one day, I just got It. Very hard to explain but the lyrics just made me get It.
For me, It was what set Jagger apart from the Beatles...
It's still my most played track all these years later.
Rolling Stones - Sympathy For The Devil (live).flv - YouTube
So ? Beatles, Stones or both?
Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 3:37 pm
by Bruv
The Stones are and always have been a parody of themselves.
Angry kids with fake accents and attitude.
Saying that.......I like their music......if I dont have to watch them, especially the prancing poseur.
The Beatles were British and original, not english versions of rhythm and blues groups or copying US rock bands up to and including the accents.
At there very best the Stones were the epitomy of Rock and Roll super stars, and didn't they let you know it.
The only downside to the Beatles was they stopped too soon, quite the opposite of The Stones who have gone on long after their Best By date, but better to leave the audience wanting more, than the performance be wanting.
So ? Beatles, Stones or both?
Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 3:47 pm
by Oscar Namechange
Bruv;1455995 wrote: The Stones are and always have been a parody of themselves.
Angry kids with fake accents and attitude.
Saying that.......I like their music......if I dont have to watch them, especially the prancing poseur.
The Beatles were British and original, not english versions of rhythm and blues groups or copying US rock bands up to and including the accents.
At there very best the Stones were the epitomy of Rock and Roll super stars, and didn't they let you know it.
The only downside to the Beatles was they stopped too soon, quite the opposite of The Stones who have gone on long after their Best By date, but better to leave the audience wanting more, than the performance be wanting. Sorry but I have to disagree. The Beatles as all early bands were Influenced.
The Beatles | Reason to Rock
Jagger and Richards were heavily Influenced In the early days by Little Richard. The originality of both didn't come to the fore until after those early days.
I know what you mean about carrying on too long...Paul McCartney.... Olympic opening ceremony !!!!!!
So ? Beatles, Stones or both?
Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 3:59 pm
by Bruv
McCartney is the Beatles Jagger
So ? Beatles, Stones or both?
Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 4:10 pm
by Oscar Namechange
Bruv;1456001 wrote: McCartney is the Beatles Jagger The most prolific songwriter maybe... front man ? Show man ? Never
So ? Beatles, Stones or both?
Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 4:15 pm
by Bruv
Oscar Farage;1456004 wrote: The most prolific songwriter maybe... front man ? Show man ? Never
None of them.....just a bit of a knob
So ? Beatles, Stones or both?
Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 4:35 pm
by Oscar Namechange
Bruv;1456006 wrote: None of them.....just a bit of a knob My admiration for the Liptabulous Jaggs has never been a ' ooooo errrr I fancy you type way'... In fact he's never been the best of lookers. I've never had lustful thoughts as I have over the years for Jean Jacques Burnel but for me It was always about the music, the lyrics and the Intelligence behind those lyrics.
I remember once some ctitic saying that If you took The Stranglers apart, the only people who could put them back together again was The Stranglers. I think that Is true of The Beatles but I think Lennon, Harrison and Starr could have done that without McCartney. The Stones, I don't believe It applies. I have always believed It was all about Jagger and Richards.