Suz,
I think of all the ladies here like my little sisters. Raunchy is not a picture that fits well in that context! LOL
Beatles or Stones?
suziko wrote:
Suzi, This is just about the same thing I would have said. Both Bands are irreplaceable but they fit entirely different moods. I spent much of my youth singing Beatles songs loudly on ski lifts, at parties, picnics, dinner at home and all kind of other gatherings (my pal Paul and I were probably quite obnoxious that way). But I listened to a lot of the Stones in my later teens and twenties. Even had the picture of 'Goats Head Soup' pinned on the wall of my lab as a grad student. Both bands are indelibly part of me today. Just depends on if I'm feeling naughty or nice!
BTW You got to love any band that can come up the lyrics to 'Dead Flowers."
Tom
Darn!I went with both. I like the Beatles when I'm in a sweet mood, the Stones when I'm feeling raunchy.
Suzi, This is just about the same thing I would have said. Both Bands are irreplaceable but they fit entirely different moods. I spent much of my youth singing Beatles songs loudly on ski lifts, at parties, picnics, dinner at home and all kind of other gatherings (my pal Paul and I were probably quite obnoxious that way). But I listened to a lot of the Stones in my later teens and twenties. Even had the picture of 'Goats Head Soup' pinned on the wall of my lab as a grad student. Both bands are indelibly part of me today. Just depends on if I'm feeling naughty or nice!
BTW You got to love any band that can come up the lyrics to 'Dead Flowers."
Tom
-
AcousticAl
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:10 pm
- Status: Offline
Beatles for me. Although if I started guitar earlier in life, I'm sure I'd get more girls with stones songs.
Would they be raunchy girls, Suzi? B)
Here's a great tune you should check out if you haven't heard it with this topic in the lyrics...
Gimme Sympathy by Metric. Good Canadian band.
Guess you have to double click it to watch it on youtube. They've disabled embedding for some reason.
Would they be raunchy girls, Suzi? B)
Here's a great tune you should check out if you haven't heard it with this topic in the lyrics...
Gimme Sympathy by Metric. Good Canadian band.
Guess you have to double click it to watch it on youtube. They've disabled embedding for some reason.
Damn Al, I really enjoyed that song, never heard of Merto, Great stuff.
As I said before, Lennon and McCartney songs and melodies will live on forever, they are the Buch and Bethoven of the 29th century,
There is the Beatles and then there is everybody else.
Gary B)
As I said before, Lennon and McCartney songs and melodies will live on forever, they are the Buch and Bethoven of the 29th century,
There is the Beatles and then there is everybody else.
Gary B)
Tovo, I thank you for asking this forum question. For me, attempting to find the words have left me speechless. I am left trying to find comparable comparisons. Connery or Moore? Sex or food? Hearing or seeing? Coffee or tea?
Alas, I cannot find an equal comparison to Stones or Beatles, save perhaps life or death. And it this life............THE BEATLES Damn it!!!!!!
Hi Tony, I think they are (were) fantastic bands for what both have contributed to music. I would say that the Beatles were more popular, because, you can recognize their sound after a few measures. The Rolling Stones were much more diversified in their tonality and intensity making them not as easy to identify the song to them as easily. I was more Beatles when I was younger, but now I appreciate the Rolling Stones better because of the depth of their song repertoire and their overall sound which is richer than the Beatles.
Marc
Marc
Suzi makes a good point regarding the "mood" difference between Beatles and Stones. Within the Beatles catalog, you can often differentiate further - between the McCartney songs that tend to be more on the "sweet" side, the Lennon songs that tend to be edgier, and the Harrison ones that tend to be more complex. Each one's post-Beatles solo work highlights these differences more sharply.
Jeff
Jeff
I'd really hate to pick between the two. Both these bands are far and away the two largest collections I have. I'd say I probably have more Stones just because they put out more music but every year I seem to find more hidden treasures of the Beatles that find there way out. It is such a shame that we'll never know if the Beatles would have followed in many of their peers footsteps and reunited in the 80's. What could have been........ If I'm forced to pick between the two it would be the Beatles. There music constantly changed from album to album and from song to song. They were the trend setters at the time and even the Stones tried to mimic them at times. The stones even covered "I want to be Your man" from the Beatles when they were getting started. Lastly the Beatles really had 3 voices to their music with 3 distinct musical personalities. With all this said though you just can't say enough about the Stones Exile on Main Street. Grab one or 3 of your favorite beverages and turn it up to 11.
Markm
Markm
Another interesting thread Tony...
(after the "Buttocks" misfire I thought maybe you were slipping...Ha!)
I think the Beatles are: far more diverse, (probably more talented), & have more quality songwriters. (The Beatles are more prolific than the Stones anyway you slice it. But, I think I would have to choose the Stones.
Sure, the stones catalog is not as prolific as the lads from Liverpool... but to me the stones are like a big savory grease-bomb double cheeseburger with an extra side of grease.( I think the Stones are more of an acquired taste, than the go-down- smooth every-time Beatles.)
(The Mods vs. the Greasers if you will?) Guess, I'm a Greaser at heart!
I lot of the Beatles catalog (especially early stuff) is real common iconography Boy- meets- Girl type stuff. And, the stones were more rough and tumble from the onset. With the Beatles you have to wait till, I dunno..almost the White Album for the kind of edgier stuff the Stones were producing much earlier. (I can even forgive the stones for taking a shot at disco! Ouch!)
I think Harrison was a great guitarist and Lennon a criminally underrated rhythm guitarist but something about Keef's thumping away in those big open tunings is really cool to me.
Yeah, he rips off Chuck Berry right & left and he plays painfully behind the beat (like Page & Beck have said of him) but so what.
(after the "Buttocks" misfire I thought maybe you were slipping...Ha!)
I think the Beatles are: far more diverse, (probably more talented), & have more quality songwriters. (The Beatles are more prolific than the Stones anyway you slice it. But, I think I would have to choose the Stones.
Sure, the stones catalog is not as prolific as the lads from Liverpool... but to me the stones are like a big savory grease-bomb double cheeseburger with an extra side of grease.( I think the Stones are more of an acquired taste, than the go-down- smooth every-time Beatles.)
(The Mods vs. the Greasers if you will?) Guess, I'm a Greaser at heart!
I lot of the Beatles catalog (especially early stuff) is real common iconography Boy- meets- Girl type stuff. And, the stones were more rough and tumble from the onset. With the Beatles you have to wait till, I dunno..almost the White Album for the kind of edgier stuff the Stones were producing much earlier. (I can even forgive the stones for taking a shot at disco! Ouch!)
I think Harrison was a great guitarist and Lennon a criminally underrated rhythm guitarist but something about Keef's thumping away in those big open tunings is really cool to me.
Yeah, he rips off Chuck Berry right & left and he plays painfully behind the beat (like Page & Beck have said of him) but so what.