Log In
Register
1.26pm
19 September 2010
Offline
One man’s truth is another man’s lie. We both disagree, but you shouldn’t be rude.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
1.40pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline George released one of the best solo beatles albums ever with Cloud 9 in 1987. A very well produced and well rounded album with some incredible songs from an artists who quickly got fed up with the music business and all its executives in the 70’s and stopped in ’82. It was also nigh-on impossible for him to ever match the quality and success of ATMP from the off.
I agree about Double Fantasy not being Johns best release but i personally think his music would have improved if he had been lived. For me DF was a “hello, im John, im still alive and kicking and have made a new album, how you all doing?”. Of course there is no way we can possibly know what would have happened if John hadnt of been killed but its what i think. He was in a far happier place when he returned having come to peace with his past and himself (thats one of the reasons why i find it incredibly difficult to read the events of September 1980 to January 1981).
I hated Driving Rain and Memory Almost Full , still absolutely detest them, but many folks praise Pauls Chaos and Creation and rank it up with his very best work (i havent heard it because im not paying £7-8 after the previous two, i’ll wait till i find it for £3 second hand).
As for the Stones i wrote previously that whilst i like their 60’s output after that they just repeated the same thing over and over ad nauseum. Saw them in Glasgow about 10/15 years ago and found their concert to be largely dull with songs i did not like at all.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3.45pm
12 April 2012
Offline
For me comparing the beatles and the stones is like comparing paul’s solo carrer and john’s solo carreer. I would call the stones more rock and the beatles more pop. Same goes for lennon and mccartney: lennon mor rock, paul mor pop. The stones are on of my favourite bands and john is one of m favourite musicians. But I absolout,ey 100 percentl prefer the beatles and paul. The beatles and paul’s solo carrer is much more easy-listening than the stones and john’s solo stuff. I can absoloutley see why some people prefer the stones over the beatles and why some people prefer john over paul. I just don’t do it
Once there was a way to get back homewards. Once there was a way to get back home; sleep pretty darling do not cry. And I will sing a lullaby
4.13pm
4 December 2010
Offline I see what you are saying, George, but I feel that is a very simplistic way of looking at things. Most of the Stones’ best stuff is accessible pop music, and the Beatles moved towards rock (or at least, successfully moved towards rock) much earlier. The Rolling Stones’ first attempt at a “proper” rock album came out about the same time as Magical Mystery Tour , by which time The Beatles had already defined the genre with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper ‘s.
I told her I didn’t
4.38pm
14 December 2009
Offline 
MKR, my only real issue with “Country Honk” is that “Honky Tonk Women” is so much better. Really, Let It Bleed is pretty great, it’s just a couple of minor details that irritate me (children’s choir, “Midnight Rambler”‘s silly spoken-word bits in particular.)
And yeah, I definitely agree about the diminishing Stones-and-solo-Beatle returns throughout the ’70s.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
4.48pm
14 December 2009
Offline The Rolling Stones’ first attempt at a “proper” rock album came out about the same time as Magical Mystery Tour , by which time The Beatles had already defined the genre with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper ‘s.
Don’t really understand this, Walrus…why aren’t the Stones’ first 4-5 albums “proper” rock albums? Or the Beatles’ pre-Revolver albums, for that matter? Are you drawing a line between “rock” and “pop” or “rock ‘n roll” or whatever?
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
1.15am
8 August 2012
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.
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.
Well, at least I like the intro of ‘Gimme Shelter’.
And btw, maybe I would’ve liked The Stones if they had a vocalist who could sing.
1.20am
29 August 2012
Offline ya i don’t really get the 1967 first rock album comment regarding the stones. What would you call Out of their heads? Aftermath? December’s children?
And i have another parallel to draw for you von bontee. Revolution is much better than revolution1. just sayin!
6.45pm
4 December 2010
Offline Von Bontee said
The Rolling Stones’ first attempt at a “proper” rock album came out about the same time as Magical Mystery Tour , by which time The Beatles had already defined the genre with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper ‘s.Don’t really understand this, Walrus…why aren’t the Stones’ first 4-5 albums “proper” rock albums? Or the Beatles’ pre-Revolver albums, for that matter? Are you drawing a line between “rock” and “pop” or “rock ‘n roll” or whatever?
I am kinda drawing a line between “rock” and “pop”, and I don’t mean that in a snobby, derogatory way like people often do when they talk about rock. For example, I would probably call Rubber Soul pop, but it is in my five favourite albums. There is also a line between the Sam Cooke/Chuck Berry Rock ‘N’ Roll and the rock of the Beatles etc. that I suppose comes into play.
I’m talking partly about sound, and partly about being album orientated. Satantic Majesty was the Rolling Stones’ first attempt to make an album, rather than record enough songs for an album, as far as I am aware. Before that, I find most of their stuff to be easily accessible, commercial, basically Jagger and Richards’ take on A Hard Day’s Night or an inspiration for Blur’s Parklife. MKR mentions Aftermath– in my eyes closer to pop than rock, though really somewhere in between- and Out Of Their Heads- two of the first great rock songs on here, but zero cohesion as an album, very accessible, not nearly pretentious enough, basically the height of “rock and roll”. I’ve not listened to December’s Children, in fact I hadn’t heard of it until MKR mentioned it, but a quick glance at Wikipedia makes it out to be the Rolling Stones’ equivalent of the Hey Jude LP.
I’d like to reiterate that I don’t think being accessible, commercial, radio friendly, or anything like that is a bad thing. In fact I think those are positive qualities for music.
Von Bontee said
MKR, my only real issue with “Country Honk” is that “Honky Tonk Women” is so much better.
I am much the same. Whenever I listen to it, I think “I could be listening to that riff and those sexy vocals”. I also don’t think it has any particular redeeming features, whereas there are the backing vocals on Revolution #1, and the opening guitar work, and the false start, and the way John sing/sneers those opening lines. Also, I don’t like “Honky Tonk Women” for the lyrics, I like it for the general sound, whereas Revolution has great lyrics to go with the sound.
I told her I didn’t
6.36pm
14 December 2009
Offline Hmm…OK, except I really question the notion that two of the first great rock songs are on “Aftermath” – two of the first 3000 great ones, maybe! Plus, I’d say that that album is as much blues and folk-rock as rock and pop. And I don’t understand the allusion to “Park Life”, but I know next to nothing about Blur aside from the coupla tracks I’ve heard.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
4.25pm
4 December 2010
Offline Von Bontee said
Hmm…OK, except I really question the notion that two of the first great rock songs are on “Aftermath” – two of the first 3000 great ones, maybe! Plus, I’d say that that album is as much blues and folk-rock as rock and pop. And I don’t understand the allusion to “Park Life”, but I know next to nothing about Blur aside from the coupla tracks I’ve heard.
I was talking about Out Of Our Heads when I said “two of the greatest rock songs”- The Last Time and Satisfaction.
I hate amalgamating genres, but I would agree with you about Aftermath being very blues-y. Blues-pop? Compare it with Disreali Gears, for example, which mostly straddles blues and rock, though as always other genres mingle in.
When I mention Parklife (and AHDN ) I simply mean that they are also quite “pop” albums with a little bit of “rock” coming through, made by “rock” bands, though Parklife does have some very experimental tracks. The three albums don’t really sound very alike.
I told her I didn’t
6.12pm
14 December 2009
Offline OK, all is clear now! You originally said “two of the first great…” rather than “two of the greatest” but I agree that those are two of the first great Stones originals.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
7.56am
25 September 2012
Offline Ok so I guess here is my two cents on the topic…
I have never been able to get into the stones. I don’t really know why, they are an exciting bluesy rock band from the same time as The Beatles, but they just have never appealed to me. So whenever this conversation comes up (and it does a bit), I kind of just say I am not in to the stones and thats end it. I usually say The Beatles were the trail blazers, and the Stones were the gold rushers. Which leaves some people confused, offended, or both.
That said, I don’t think “apples to oranges” describes accurately enough some of the differences and similarities between the two bands. A lasting impression I had for a while was made by John in his 1970 interview with Rolling Stone Magazine in which he basically said the Stones ripped off The Beatles every album. I then looked up the recording and release dates of a lot of the works mentioned and a few others, and I laughed a bit. It does seem like a blatant rip-off in my opinion regarding some material, and certainly album covers and titles. I was not alive at the time though, but I know stylistically a lot of bands were going through these changes, so I assume that’s what the times were like then maybe…? But John does seem to raise a few good points, and a few points of praise between the bits of bashing. However John was pretty bitter and spiteful of just about every aspect of his life that wasn’t John & Yoko at the time.
The excerpt is here:
5.34pm
14 December 2009
Offline What did John think was ripped off? The only things I can think of are “As Tears Go By”/”Yesterday ” (ballad w/strings) and “Paint It Black”/”Norwegian Wood ” (sitar).
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
6.04pm
29 August 2012
Offline John was totally bitter and was very competitive. I remember reading about how he always felt inferior to artists with better sales than him and it would really piss him off namely Paul. He used to run his mouth a lot. I’ve heard that clip i few times and quite frankly it looks a bit worse on John than anything. Not that it takes away my admiration and opion of Lennon. He was a genius, but he could also be a prick. I don’t really agree that much with what he was saying there. The beatles were geniuses yes. they pioneered a lot of concepts and approaches in the mid 60s, but to outright accuse the stones of ripping them off is weak sauce. We love you was written for their fans in light of their drug bust – not really trying to be All You Need Is Love . I mean where does it stop? was everyone singing about love ripping off All You Need Is Love ? Sometimes he was ‘just a jealous guy.’
6.14pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline He thought that We Love You was a rip off of All You Need Is Love tho i believe the basic tracks of We Love You were recorded first and that Their Satanic Majesties Request was a complete rip off of Pepper. Those are the two that come to mind at the moment, there will be others.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
6.59pm
29 August 2012
Offline meanmistermustard said
Their Satanic Majesties Request was a complete rip off of Pepper.
How so?
7.24pm
19 September 2010
Offline Have you seen the cover? Or looked at the title? Or the story behind the album? Or the story behind the name of the album?
Also, everything Lennon says was true. Throwing around terms like prick (which he was at times, no doubt) because you can’t prove him wrong is weak. I watched that clip this morning – there is nothing he said that is wrong.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
7.55pm
14 December 2009
Offline “Satanic Majesties” was certainly Pepper-inspired, but there was a lot of that about at that time.
“We Love You” had nothing to do with “All You Need Is Love “.
I think John was a bit paranoid. What else did he mention specifically? (I can’t view that clip.)
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
1 Guest(s)