Log In
Register
6.28am
23 November 2011
Offline
Is there any possible reason to thing the Stones “evolved” or have done anything, after Brian’s death, other than what they did before? It’s the same stuff over and over, isn’t it? Nicely done, but nothing new in 40 years.
3.18am
3 March 2012
Offline There’s these things. They’re called apples. They’re also these other things. Oranges. Both bring both nutrition and large degrees of yummy. They are nothing alike. Love me both.
A square is not a square when the sides are less than four...
6.50pm
20 September 2011
Offline I don’t like apples. Love the Beatles, love the Rolling Stones, love oranges, don’t like apples. Great metaphor though!
"Now and then, though, someone does begin to grow differently. Instead of down, his feet grow up toward the sky. But we do our best to discourage awkward things like that."
"What happens to them?" insisted Milo.
"Oddly enough, they often grow ten times the size of everyone else," said Alec thoughtfully, "and I’ve heard that they walk among the stars."
–The Phantom Tollbooth
7.23pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
I cant think of [m]any songs that are anywhere as good as their 60’s and early 70’s work. Tho Brian Jones’ influence had been on the wane for a while before his premature death so its argueable how much he contributed to the late 60’s Stones recordings. Maybe they needed the rivalry with The Beatles to get their creative flow going and push on and that gradually wore thin.
Maybe its that they have been together for 6,000 years, keep having farewell tours and people are fed up with them doing the longest goodbye round ever. Tho it could be worse, they could have had a 40 year career only ever playing only 3 chords .
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
12.38am
19 April 2010
Offline While I like a lot of the Rolling Stones tunes, to me they are not in the same league as the Beatles.
Consider this – the Stones are still together (at least 4 of them) they are all still alive (unless you count Brian Jones), they still tour, they still record. And yet their number one competition remains a group that has not toured since 1966 and has not recorded together since 1969.
C’mon!
"She looks more like him than I do."
2.23pm
29 August 2012
Offline 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 70s and 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.
3.10pm
14 December 2009
Offline
Excellent points all. (I think Let It Bleed is a bit overpraised, but whatever.)
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
3.48pm
29 August 2012
Offline Von Bontee said
Excellent points all. (I think Let It Bleed is a bit overpraised, but whatever.)
The praise is totally justified. It’s their best record and one of the best albums of all time made by anyone.
4.17pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline MKR said
Von Bontee said
Excellent points all. (I think Let It Bleed is a bit overpraised, but whatever.)The praise is totally justified. It’s their best record and one of the best albums of all time made by anyone.
I features my favorite Stones song, “Gimme Shelter”.
Yeah, this is one of those debates that bores me to no end. I can see why people enjoy debating it, but it does nothing for me. I really like the older Stones output – not crazy about anything from Emotional Rescue, forward. There are certainly individual gems on each album from that point on, but as wholes, the albums do nothing for me.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
10.24pm
14 December 2009
Offline Yeah, “Gimme Shelter” is probably their best track! “Country Honk”, not so much. Plus that children’s choir finale will irritate me for all eternity. Good album, but I’ll take Beggar’s Banquet over everything else.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
9.33pm
8 August 2012
Offline Okay, I hate The Stones but Im not going to write a whole paragraph why. But this is what I think: The Beatles is one gazillion trillion billion zillion times better than them. The Beatles is the best band ever walked the earth, The Stones arent even a good band.
9.48pm
19 September 2010
Offline First off, before I say anything else: how the hell did Mick Jagger not die of an overdose 30 years ago?
As for the Stones, my opinion has stayed pretty much the same since last time this was updated – great musicians, they have some top notch songs, and I really ought listen to Let It Bleed and Beggars Banquet soon. And I think any reunion tour will be a massive mistake. Unless they add a couple of young guys on guitar (which won’t happen) it’ll be lifeless and boring.
(Also, I really am meaning to look up the Jagger – hosted finale of SNL from last year. Not Stones really, but I want it so bad.)
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
9.56pm
4 December 2010
Offline Von Bontee said
Yeah, “Gimme Shelter” is probably their best track! “Country Honk”, not so much. Plus that children’s choir finale will irritate me for all eternity. Good album, but I’ll take Beggar’s Banquet over everything else.
I would level exactly the same criticism at Beggar’s Banquet as Let It Bleed– one amazing song (“Sympathy For The Devil”) but otherwise take-it-or-leave-it, though nothing as appalling as “Country Honk”. I much prefer their albums from a bit later like Sticky Fingers and especially Exile On Main Street, and their poppy albums from the mid-60s- Aftermath, Between The Buttons, and particularly Flowers.
I told her I didn’t
10.37pm
14 December 2009
Offline SunKing, surely you meant “Keith Richards” in your first paragraph, right? Jagger’s never been much of a druggie at all – at least not after the ’60s.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
2.39am
19 September 2010
Offline I actually meant to put them both there. I think it’s that I was thinking about that Jagger episode I put him only. Both of them could have dropped, but I agree Keith was luckier to still be standing.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
3.31am
29 August 2012
Offline tkj said
Okay, I hate The Stones but Im not going to write a whole paragraph why. But this is what I think: The Beatles is one gazillion trillion billion zillion times better than them. The Beatles is the best band ever walked the earth, The Stones arent even a good band.
This is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever read on the subject of popular music and makes me question your level of maturity in addition to your level of taste.
Obviously these things are matters of opinion, but how can anyone not respect the output of the stones in the 60s and early 70s? Especially beatles fans who obviously can appreciate good musicianship and good songs. Look the Beatles are my favorite band. I can’t ever see a band have the impact they did or be as good as they were ever again, but s**t man the Stones were pretty DAMN good and like i said Let it bleed is as good as any Beatles album. sorry to burst your bubbles but it’s simply true. You know it’s funny to even get on a song like country honk (which i actually think is a great playful track), when you need look no further than something like Rocky Raccoon .
Like i said in an earlier post: this is a stupid debate.
10.42am
16 February 2011
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.
11.09am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I personally think that a couple of reasons Johns music mellowed out after JLPOB was that the issues surrounding the beatles faded and a lot of the pent up anger and whole piles of crap were released thru Primal Scream Therapy.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
12.19pm
19 September 2010
Offline MKR said
tkj said
Okay, I hate The Stones but Im not going to write a whole paragraph why. But this is what I think: The Beatles is one gazillion trillion billion zillion times better than them. The Beatles is the best band ever walked the earth, The Stones arent even a good band.This is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever read on the subject of popular music and makes me question your level of maturity in addition to your level of taste.
If he hates the Stones, he hates the Stones. I also disagree, but I think you’re taking it a little far. I’ll give you an example: I (for those of you to this forum) have a love for Arcade Fire that is the closest thing thing to topping the Beatles on my list of favourites. My brother, who’s taste I respect (and who introduced me to at least 50% of my current favourite bands) can’t stand AF. We had this discussion 3 weeks (to the day, actually) ago. I don’t care. My love of AF isn’t diminished, and the Earth keeps spinning. You obviously disagree with TKJ. But that doesn’t mean you should go reacting as you did. Just let it go. I learned a long time ago that not everyone will have the exact same taste in music. I’m not sure you’ve come to learn that yet.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
12.48pm
29 August 2012
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 s**t 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 s***e, 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.
1 Guest(s)