Stones v. Beatles breakup?

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JohnnyQuest

    JohnnyQuest Forum Resident

    Location:
    Paradise
    Maybe I'm listening to the wrong stuff. I did give Muddy Waters a few chances but nothing registered. :sigh: I like my Blues with a little Rock and Roll.
     
    Mr. Grieves likes this.
  2. Darrin L.

    Darrin L. Forum Resident

    Location:
    Golden, CO
    I don't know Zeppelin really seamed to be running out of steam by '79.
     
    Hardy Melville likes this.
  3. stanlove

    stanlove Forum Resident

    There is no reason to talk about personal preference on this thread. Its about the pecking order which I have brought up before and for some reason some people try to deny because of their personal preference. It didn't matter when the Stones broke up they would never be as high as the Beatles in rocks pecking order. I do think if they broke up in 1972 they might be thought up a little higher then they are now but not at the Beatles level all things considered. Dylan is the only one there/ And I personally prefer the Stones to the Beatles.

    I think in rock history the Stones are as a great as a rock and roll band can get, but the Beatles and Dylan top the greatest rock band, I think what the Beatles and Dylan did took more talent then what the Stones did. People had the talent to do what the Stones did they just didn't do it. Nobody else had the talent to do what the Beatles or Dylan did. I haven't listened to the Beatles in years becaue they were all played out years ago to me but i did listen to St Pepper for some reason the other day and A Day In The Life is mind blowing incredible . Nobody else could do that. I think thats how its looked at in the big picture. And save me the posts that the Kinks or others were greater then any of them. Thats personal preference and nothing else. I am talking about the big picture.

    I saw Tom Petty talk about that once. He said when you listened to the Beatles you didn't sit around and think you could do that, but when you listened to the Stones you did think you could do that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
    muffmasterh likes this.
  4. Mr. Grieves

    Mr. Grieves Forum Resident

    Oh my. Muddy is never the wrong stuff. Maybe Robert Johnson, Howlin Wolf, Lightin Hopkins, Big Bill Bronzy, Jimmy Reed, Blinde Willie Johnson? Surely you can appreciate the great B.B. King?

    It's cool if you don't, really I get how you can see it as boring rather than extremely powerful, passionate, life affirming, honest, chill inducing, world stopping performances that suck you into the world of the storyteller paints. It's not for everybody(like the Jazz that 2/3 of my friends & family label boring & unlistenable), though I wish more people dug it.
     
    JohnnyQuest likes this.
  5. Darrin L.

    Darrin L. Forum Resident

    Location:
    Golden, CO
    Never crapped out? They both attempted solo careers and failed. Heck...Ringo's solo career was more successful than all of their's combined. They stayed together out of desperation, which is rather sad.
     
  6. stanlove

    stanlove Forum Resident

    You mean 75
     
    bonus likes this.
  7. Darrin L.

    Darrin L. Forum Resident

    Location:
    Golden, CO
    ...except for the last half of "You Can't Always Get What You Want". Well...the whole song, with Jagger ripping of Dulan vocally. Yea...the Stones way inferior to the Beatles, vocally.
     
  8. WilliamWes

    WilliamWes Likes to sing along but he knows not what it means

    Location:
    New York
    I know this is a bit off topic but The Beatles and Stones had a healthy rivalry and it never got too bitter. Mick Jagger might be thinking about how his friend John Lennon died 36 years ago tonight. Just thinking of them together doing a little duet like they did in 1968...
     
  9. Darrin L.

    Darrin L. Forum Resident

    Location:
    Golden, CO
    Little Walter-Sad Hours:
     
  10. stanlove

    stanlove Forum Resident

    I believe I saw him say he was just down the road when it happened.
     
    WilliamWes likes this.
  11. Hamhead

    Hamhead The Bear From Delaware

    If Moon and Entwistle were still with us, The Who would still do stadium tours and produce classic albums.
    In terms of musicianship and showmanship, The Who have it over both of those bands hands down.
     
    WhoTapes1 likes this.
  12. Baba Oh Really

    Baba Oh Really Certified "Forum Favorite"

    Location:
    mid west, USA
    Indeed they are.
     
  13. Kingsley Fats

    Kingsley Fats Forum Resident

    No offence taken because if we were to judge The Rolling Stones purely on their blues tracks & as a blues band they would be a long, long way back in the pack.
    If the Stones had only stuck to their attempts at the blues they would have been long forgotten about. The Rolling Stones are regarded as one of the greatest ROCK bands ever because they are a ROCK band.
     
    JohnnyQuest likes this.
  14. Zoot Marimba

    Zoot Marimba And I’m The Critic Of The Group

    Location:
    Savannah, Georgia
    Dude, Dirty Work couldn't destroy the Stones' legacy. They are set.
     
    JohnnyQuest and RogerB like this.
  15. stax o' wax

    stax o' wax Forum Resident

    Location:
    The West
    Close but not quite.
     
  16. RogerB

    RogerB Forum Resident

    Location:
    Alabama
    Hilarious!! Funniest post I've seen all week! Ha ha
     
    Zoot Marimba likes this.
  17. Moonbeam Skies

    Moonbeam Skies Forum Resident

    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona
    I think the Stones would have been wise to bow out in 1983, with Undercover as their final LP. In fact, they almost did. In the mid-80s they started doing solo albums. At Live Aid in 1985, Mick Jagger performed separately from Keith Richards and Ron Wood, the hatred was so intense. The next Stones album, Dirty Work, was on a new label. It had a slick, trendy sound and was probably mostly performed by session players. Sadly, in 1989 the Stones decided to stay together forever just for money. So mediocre albums and huge tours followed every few years. The only member who retired with his dignity intact was Bill Wyman, who left them soon after the Steel Wheels album and tour.
    Credit to John Lennon for sticking by his word. He said in 1964 they might keep it going for 5 years. And about 5 years later it was over. He made sure of it by his bizarre actions with Yoko Ono, among other things!
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
    evilpants likes this.
  18. stanlove

    stanlove Forum Resident



    I remember Dec 11 1968. It was me and my twins Birthday and I get beat up in school. I was in second grade. I used to hear about it all the time. Its good to know that at least some people had a good day besides the guy who played a tune on my head.
     
    WilliamWes and Moonbeam Skies like this.
  19. moople72

    moople72 Forum Resident

    Location:
    KC
    That's too dismissive of George. Simply playing his solo in Old Brown Shoe would discount dismissing him merely as an "accompaniment" guitarist.

    The Carl Perkins Special was well past his prime.

    I'm saying he may have extended his brilliance had they stayed together.

    You listen to the 2nd position solos on The End and tell me he is not a great soloist.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2016
  20. Kingsley Fats

    Kingsley Fats Forum Resident

    I'd rather listen to George Harrison than Eddie Van Halen any day
     
    vanye, Rfreeman and moople72 like this.
  21. Astralweeks

    Astralweeks Diamond Dog

    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Oh I love to talk about this. I think the only reason The Rolling Stones aren't considered as good as The Beatles is because of their post-Exile work (save Some Girls). I think if they stopped at Exile, they would've been saved from literally any bad material and no one would have any reason to say they're not as good as The Beatles. IMO, their material up to Exile was all as excellent and groundbreaking as The Beatles'.
     
    RogerB and éder like this.
  22. Jim B.

    Jim B. Senior Member

    Location:
    UK
    No, for two reasons. The Stones were just not as good as the Beatles and John Lennon's tragic death adds a degree of 'importance' (not sure what the right word is). An artists work is always regarded higher when they die a tragic death I think, I don't know why.

    And I think solo Stones would have probably churned out a load of awful records anyway which would finish off their legacy.
     
  23. MHP

    MHP Lover of Rock ‘n Roll

    Location:
    DK
    There are so many theories. The fact is that The Rolling Stones decided to continue. I'm sure it has diminised their legacy in some kind of way and you can find the clues in people's desire to find a reason when they in their minds, should have stopped or where they think they lost steam.

    But to me, it's actually a long journey that hasn't concluded yet. There ARE up's and down's, positives and negatives and also reasons as to why they should have stopped. The fact is, they didn't.

    It's important to mention here, that this band has left nothing to prove. There are various theories why they still are out there and I think it's mostly due to them wanting to play and do something they still find a meaning in. Being so close to closing time, I doubt money is that great a factor anymore.

    And of course, Mick Jagger is not the same person today as he was in 1965. There are numerous of regrets, I'm sure. Being rude to Brian Jones is one, but it's so many damn years ago. Freezing out Jones, Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman from writing is another. Again, does it matter now? The band was egomaniac youngsters 50 years ago, with a lot to prove.

    Jones and Wyman got their due on the recent Exhibition. Plenty of artifacts there from both of them. It bought a little tear to my eye that they had been in contact with Jones' relatives, to get his clothes and guitars. That shows to me, that the band DOES care about them.

    The relation between Taylor and the band has once again grown sour. Taylor made big bucks with them during 2012-2014, but unfortuately something happend and he was almost non-present on the Exhibition.

    The bottom line here is: The Beatles stopped at the top (or very close). It was a nicley rounded experience. They didn't get to experience the downfall that would possibly had happend later on. Pure luck.

    The Stones bought their whole lifes into being that band. They took the up's and down's. That, of course, will also include some misfires, but when they are done, they will be celebrated for taking it to the end.
     
    bonus, RogerB and Fortuleo like this.
  24. John Fell

    John Fell Forum Survivor

    Location:
    Undisclosed
    My understanding from what I have read on various Mick Taylor Facebook related pages is that the Stones wanted to use photos with Taylor and other things at the Exhibitionism exhibit without consulting him and that he was not even invited to the Exhibitionism opening until fans complained and by that time it was too late from him to attend since he no longer lives in the U.K.
     
    Moonbeam Skies likes this.
  25. MHP

    MHP Lover of Rock ‘n Roll

    Location:
    DK
    To me, that only states that something has happend. I don't know what, but things has turned sour during the 2014 tour.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine