Stones v. Beatles breakup?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by doc021, Sep 2, 2016.

  1. Skywheel

    Skywheel Forum Resident

    Location:
    southern USA
    The Beatles have never been referred to as a boy band by anyone who grasps the common definition of "boy band" (a group you have eliminated yourself from). Therefore your point is invalid.
    Rejected.

    Next.
     
  2. drbryant

    drbryant Forum Resident

    Hmmm. I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but in case you are just unfamiliar.

    When it looked like the Stones might be broken up in 1986-88, Mick Jagger recorded a couple of albums, put together a band and went on tour, starting in the East, with I believe 20 or so shows in Australia/NZ and 5 or 6 shows in Japan. The tour was very successful, both commercially (he played two sold out shows at the 55,000 seat Tokyo Dome), and critically. To be honest, for me and most Stones fans, it was fine, but it just wasn't the same. But, the initial signs were that he would have had a very successful career. The two solo albums Mick released prior to the tour, She's the Boss, and Primitive Cool, did alright, similar to other 60's artists during that time (the comparable albums released by McCartney, for example, would have been Press to Play and Flowers in the Dirt, neither of which broke the top 20 in the US).

    He binned his solo career when he and Keith reconciled and they released Steel Wheels and went on tour. Of course, we all know what happened - the album hit the top 5 in both the US and UK, as all Stones albums do, and the tour was the biggest in history at the time, as ticket demand was sky high (they hadn't toured in 8 years, which seemed like a looonnnngg time back then). I remember the 10 shows in Tokyo Dome. They also did I believe 5 or 6 shows at Shea Stadium and a similar number at the LA Coliseum. For whatever reason, people just love the Rolling Stones. That's the reason they've stayed together.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016
  3. Dylancat

    Dylancat Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    My cd version of "Let It Bleed" sounds superb and one can easily distinguish instruments, vocals etc. and does not remotely sound like its from an AM radio.
    Ditto other Stones CDs such as "Beggars Banquet", "Sticky Fingers", and even the purposely muddy "Exile" all sound great.
     
    RogerB likes this.
  4. drbryant

    drbryant Forum Resident

    I've been a Stones fan for decades, and I can tell you that most Stones fans have little interest in trashing the Beatles. They are usually too busy trashing their own band. If you hang out on Forums with Shidoobee or IORR members, the most bile is spewed in debates over Mick vs. Keith, Brian vs. Mick/Keith, Brian vs. Mick Taylor, Mick Taylor vs. Ronnie, Bill vs. Mick/Keith, Keith's poor playing, Ronnie's poor playing, the group's poor post-Exile output, their poor post-Tattoo You output, outrageous ticket prices, stale set lists/warhorses, lack of studio albums, etc., etc. It goes on and on. Charlie Watts is the only one who seems to be loved by all.
     
  5. Darrin L.

    Darrin L. Forum Resident

    Where in those posts did I ever suggest that "The Rolling Stones are a so horrible and talentless bunch of people"?
    You make assumptions about people, and then regard it as fact.
     
  6. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    "The Beatles were hard men too. Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia--a hard, sea-farin' town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo's from the Dingle, which is like the f***ing Bronx. The Rolling Stones were the mummy's boys--they were all college students from the outskirts of London. They went to starve in London, but it was by choice, to give themselves some sort of aura of disrespectability. I did like the Stones, but they were never anywhere near the Beatles--not for humour, not for originality, not for songs, not for presentation"
    Lemmy (Motorhead)
     
    angelees, Rekkerds, silat and 4 others like this.
  7. RogerB

    RogerB Forum Resident

    Location:
    Alabama
    Dude you are the textbook Beatle fanboy! Can't see the forrest from the trees. So biased it would be impossible to carry on a meaningful conversation with you. You remind me of a house fly. The definition of annoying.
     
    MHP and laf848 like this.
  8. Mr. Grieves

    Mr. Grieves Forum Resident

    I like the Beatles a bit more, but it's not because they were a boy band, or because they were actually hard or tough or because the Stones were "mummy's boys" or because Lemmy(r.i.p.) prefers them, or because Ringo was from the Bronx(or Liverpool's equivalent of one). The songs & how much you enjoy em is what matters to me, and I enjoy em in spades from both of these bands
     
  9. Muggles

    Muggles Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brooklyn
    No member of either band would frighten me in a dark alley.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016
    Darrin L. and The Hole Got Fixed like this.
  10. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    Way off IMHO. They get pulled along in the Beatles wake thanks to Oldham. Like they are attached magnetically. Quite a few much better bands since 1970 that are more worthy of the #2 spot. Radiohead,The Smiths,XTC to name a few. But that's just my humble opinion..
    I had the opposite experience - was at high school in the same period and remember lots of Beatles fans and they were often the topic of conversation. The Beatles gain new fans with every generation
     
  11. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    Yeah typical put down & %100 wrong - Beatles were an organic rock band. The Monkees are the proto boy band.
     
  12. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    Yup - Lennon referred to them as a Trojan horse. They never would have broken America as their real selves. Leather clad swearing drinking pill popping rockers.
     
    Price.pittsburgh and silat like this.
  13. Mr. Grieves

    Mr. Grieves Forum Resident

    And you're entitled to it of course. I'm not sure where I'd place the Stones, but they wouldn't be far off from the Beatles(neither would Radiohead or the Smiths). I came to that conclusion on my own. Not because Oldham, but because of the songs
     
  14. Zoot Marimba

    Zoot Marimba And I’m The Critic Of The Group

    And don't forget Stu. Everyone loves him.
     
  15. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    I was responding to the Beatles "Boy Band" comment which is an insult.
    Exile is my favorite album ever BTW.
    If I was textbook it would have to be a Beatles album.
     
  16. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    I wasn't referring to you,moreso the general public. The Stones are always associated with The Beatles. I like them btw especially the '65-'67 period that many don't rate that highly compared to '68-'72
     
    Mr. Grieves likes this.
  17. JohnnyQuest

    JohnnyQuest Forum Resident

    Location:
    Paradise
    Maybe they Beetles had no clunkers but the Beatles sure did. :D (When I'm 64, What Goes On, Don't Pass Me By, etc.)
     
  18. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    I'd agree with What Goes On which is a blight on Rubber Soul. I do like When I'm 64 - no clunkers on Pepper IMHO. And the other...well it is Ringo!
     
    Mr. Grieves likes this.
  19. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    I agree the Beatles had clunkers but I don't thing the one's you mentioned qualify.
    What Goes On and Don't Pass Me By are just Country songs.
    Maybe Ringo taking the lead doesn't help to some but I think his voice fits the Country attempts better than the other 3 would have, without having to force a country accent as Paul does on Rocky Raccoon and his solo Sally G.
    I agree WGO and DPMB don't fit well with their respective albums so from that standpoint they could be clunkers.
    But I'm sure if Mick Jagger used his forced Country accent on the same songs as he does on Dead Flowers, Country Honk, Dear Doctor and Far Away Eyes, the die hard Stones fans would love them.
    I have always loved 64.
    I think it's a nice little Vaudeville number and seems like it's part of the "show" of Sgt. Pepper's.
     
  20. JohnnyQuest

    JohnnyQuest Forum Resident

    Location:
    Paradise
    There's plenty more but my point is that no band has a spotless record. The Beatles had a few duds on each of their best albums that held them back from achieving perfection.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2016
    bonus likes this.
  21. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    Yeah, perfection would have been subjective anyway.
    We Pro US Capitol albums believe Capitol acheived it on the US Rubber Soul and Meet The Beatles.
     
  22. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    All just a matter of personal taste. For me Revolver and Pepper are perfect - no duds. I'd also say Abbey Road is about as close to perfection as rock music gets even though personally I'm not too fond of Oh Darling , others love it.
     
    bonus likes this.
  23. rod sphere

    rod sphere Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose, CA, USA
    i love gomper too..very much. that whole lp
     
    WilliamWes likes this.
  24. rod sphere

    rod sphere Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose, CA, USA
    no. it was about that dr. guy in NY, who everyone went to.
     
  25. rod sphere

    rod sphere Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose, CA, USA
    Love it.
     
    Skywheel likes this.

Share This Page