KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

The Beatles

Grm · 58096

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 31   Go Down

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Grm

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 3,413
    • Woos/Boos: +456/-117
  • Goodbye KB
on: May 17, 2009, 09:49:32 PM
« Last Edit: November 10, 2013, 08:33:42 PM by Grm »


Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1719/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #1 on: May 17, 2009, 11:30:02 PM
The Bad Boys of Rock and Roll - The Rolling Stones with Not Fade Away - 1964

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ8xM83fMhU&feature=related

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.

Offline Grm

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 3,413
    • Woos/Boos: +456/-117
  • Goodbye KB
Reply #2 on: July 11, 2009, 09:36:46 AM

Awesome Beatles at the Shea.


Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1719/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #3 on: July 15, 2009, 01:36:37 PM
I agree Prom. The Bad Boys of Rock and Roll keep on rolling.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.

Offline Poppet

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 492
    • Woos/Boos: +202/-32
    • Gender: Female
Reply #4 on: August 01, 2009, 03:29:02 AM
nah... BORING boys of rock and rock more like... well at least they can count to four. That's 100 in binary if it makes you feel better. The Stones' stuff is VERY standard material and has always been the same. At least the Beatles were inventive and original - for years it was only them and Brian Wilson pushing things forward. Sorry guys...

hugsnstuff
Pop

Hippety Hop, It\\\\\\\'s Pippety Pop. I have guns...and...I give instruction..

Offline Kopmatt09

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 151
    • Woos/Boos: +15/-9
Reply #5 on: September 20, 2009, 10:56:36 PM
Sorry Poppet, but I'm with watcher on this one, the Stones kick the Beatles ass when it comes to rock music.

I know the beatles pioneered rock etc, but I think the Stones just had that edge, which made their music so much better. The best thing about the beatles was lennon, and he was far better on his own than in the beatles anyway.

*prepares for abuse*


Offline Gina Marie

  • So fucking done with it all.
  • Global Moderator
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 9,470
    • Woos/Boos: +1376/-70
    • Gender: Female
  • Rumors Of My Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Reply #6 on: September 21, 2009, 12:21:11 AM
How many Rolling Stones songs did the Beatles perform? Oh that's right.... NONE!

...or the movies and cartoons produced with the Rolling Stones?

...or how about all those remastered stereo and mono box sets of the entire Rolling Stones catalog that have been sold recently (2009)?

...or the amazing documentary on 5 DVD's called the "Rolling Stones Anthology".

...or the CD called "1" that featured all 27 of their number one singles?

...or the fantastic Rolling Stones edition of Rock Band?

...or all the hundreds and hundreds of books about "Stonesmania"?

...or the unbelievable wide range of cover versions of Stones songs recorded over the years by everyone from Count Basie to U2?

Yeah.... not so much.

The songs of Lennon and McCartney have stood the test of time and will continue to do so long after they have passed on. Hell long after I have passed on, and I was born eight years after they broke up!

In a period of seven short years, the Beatles not only redefined the fad known as Rock & Roll to entire world, they re-invented their style and sound no less than four times:

1963-64: The Moptops (The prototype for all Boy-Bands)
1965-66: Cool Hipster Stoners
1967-68: Mod Psychedelic Warriors
1969-70: Spiritual Revolutionaries

As to the Rolling Stones, they always took their cues from the Beatles, and if you break it down... they truly owed their initial success to George Harrison who recommended signing them to Dick Rowe (The man from Decca who rejected the Beatles as a passe guitar group, on their way out.)

Take for example "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" which is a vastly superior incarnation of The Rolling Stones "Their Satanic Majesties Request", the record that ironically came out seven months after Sgt. Pepper.

Pop archivists are clearly intrigued by this strange parallel between the Beatles and the Stones catalog... it often seems as if every interesting thing The Rolling Stones ever did was directly preceded by something the Beatles had already accomplished, and (to me) it feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970. For fucks sake, they fired their most talented member (Mick Taylor) for not having the "Stones sound".

The Rolling Stones had just 8 number 1 singles in their career which continues as of today: (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction - Get Off Of My Cloud - Paint It, Black - Ruby Tuesday - Honky Tonk Women - Brown Sugar - Angie and lastly, Miss You (which was in 1978... the year I came to be!)

Whereas the Beatles had no less than 27 #1 hits in a remarkable seven-year run of musical evolution, one that stretches from the neo-skiffle of "Love Me Do" through a remarkable synthesis of R&B, rockabilly, Tin Pan Alley, gospel, country, and classical that still defies efforts to effectively deconstruct it.

These songs are so prolific and popular that they were compiled into a CD in November of 2000 with worldwide sales that have to date, exceeded 31 million copies worldwide, with 10 million of those sales being in the U.S. alone.

****{^}****

The Rolling Stones undoubtedly were a great rock band and had some really awesome songs... But the enduring legacy of the Fab Four will NEVER be matched.

There will always be those who prefer the sloppy, harder edge of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards...

However, the charm, style, musical invention and huge list of ground-breaking work by John, Paul, George and Ringo is and will be an island never visited by any other band.

... JUST SAYIN.

Rolling Stones Never... BEATLES FOREVER!

GET BACK 1969

« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 06:15:12 AM by Gia1978 »


Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1719/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #7 on: September 21, 2009, 01:17:16 AM
but who is still touring as a band?   The Stones. ;D

btw:  nice Beatle resume.  to our number 1 Beatle fan - a big WOO!

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.

Offline mostdeviant

  • New Pervert
  • *
    • Posts: 41
    • Woos/Boos: +13/-5
Reply #8 on: September 21, 2009, 05:11:32 AM
Quote from: watcher1 on September 21, 2009, 01:17:16 AM
but who is still touring as a band?   The Stones. ;D

btw:  nice Beatle resume.  to our number 1 Beatle fan - a big WOO!

Should they still be touring?  God no, please stop ;D 

The light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long, and the Beatles were freaking Sirius in the Rock'n'Roll sky.  I remember spending 3 months learning Blackbird, and it was worth it, still one of the most beautiful songs on the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ERnT1X9HPw

These were the original rednecks, back in the Caveman Cro-magnon Big Dick Days, the day that everybody had a big dick, all women had motors in their pussys, nobody had a job!  It was a glorious time on the Planet Earth!
-Mojo Nixon "Redneck Rampage"

Offline jedd

  • Not Yet A Pervert
    • Posts: 3
    • Woos/Boos: +1/-0
Reply #9 on: September 21, 2009, 06:06:12 AM
Really, all I have to say about this is this, LONG LIVE THE BEATLES! And to the person who said, "Who is still touring? The Stones!" Uh, don't know if you know this, but John Lennon was murdered. And George Harrison died of cancer. Hmm, might be two good reasons why they don't tour together. And The Stones? Seriously, how can any of you people compare them to the Beatles?


Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1719/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #10 on: September 21, 2009, 02:05:40 PM
Past their prime groups tour without many of their original members. I am sure if Paul and Ringo put their minds to it they would have found two suitable replacements, although I have to agree finding a replacement for John would have been very tough.
The Stones came on the scene in the early 60's with cutting edge music for that time, whereas the Beatles produced so-so music, but had the different look, long hair, etc. It wasn't until the Beatles produced Sgt. Pepper and the White Album were their true talents shown. The Stones just kept producing music that kept them known as the bad boys of Rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVyNEul6DIc
« Last Edit: September 21, 2009, 02:21:02 PM by watcher1 »

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.

Offline staci

  • KB Pervert of the Year 2023
  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 3,971
    • Woos/Boos: +1934/-28
    • Gender: Female
Reply #11 on: September 21, 2009, 03:36:03 PM
fun, comedic and entertaining. My favourite (english spelling for UK friends).






one of the originals

Offline mostdeviant

  • New Pervert
  • *
    • Posts: 41
    • Woos/Boos: +13/-5
Reply #12 on: September 21, 2009, 06:39:24 PM
Quote from: watcher1 on September 21, 2009, 02:05:40 PM
Past their prime groups tour without many of their original members. I am sure if Paul and Ringo put their minds to it they would have found two suitable replacements, although I have to agree finding a replacement for John would have been very tough.
The Stones came on the scene in the early 60's with cutting edge music for that time, whereas the Beatles produced so-so music, but had the different look, long hair, etc. It wasn't until the Beatles produced Sgt. Pepper and the White Album were their true talents shown. The Stones just kept producing music that kept them known as the bad boys of Rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVyNEul6DIc

Wow watcher, what I see in the Stones early years are a bunch of songs they didn't write, and a bunch of songs they didn't make famous.  Susie Q, Under the Boardwalk, Route 66.  They were a cover band for the first 2 years of their recording career ;D 

And all 3 albums preceding Sgt Peppers, rock in their own right.  Hide Your Love Away, I've Just seen a Face, Norwegian Wood, In My Life, Elanor Rigby, and I'm only Sleeping are all songs that blow away just about anything the Stones have ever written since.

These were the original rednecks, back in the Caveman Cro-magnon Big Dick Days, the day that everybody had a big dick, all women had motors in their pussys, nobody had a job!  It was a glorious time on the Planet Earth!
-Mojo Nixon "Redneck Rampage"

Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1719/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #13 on: September 21, 2009, 06:58:33 PM
The Beatles are more famous then the Stones. Their songs are recorded by others more then the Stones. I am pretty sure that the Beatles are very popular with the young crowd today, more popular then the Stones.  What can I say? I grew up liking the Stones. And Eric Burden and the Animals. The Blues. But not the early Beatles.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.

Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1719/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #14 on: September 22, 2009, 08:56:31 PM
A fine tribute to the Beatles by David Crosby, of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, as it appears in the September 17th edition of Rolling Stone magazine:

"I can tell you what is damn hard to try: a Beatles song. You wrap yourself around one of their songs and make an arrangement and try to do it.  And then you go and listen to the Beatles' record of it and go, 'Ah.......no.'  It's too amazingly good."

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.

Offline Grm

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 3,413
    • Woos/Boos: +456/-117
  • Goodbye KB
Reply #15 on: September 22, 2009, 10:30:43 PM
Quote from: staci on September 21, 2009, 03:36:03 PM
fun, comedic and entertaining. My favourite (english spelling for UK friends).
Staci you are so kind, a woo for being so thoughtful.

Trying to compare the Beatles and the Rolling Stones is very difficult since the only thing they have in common, is they are/were English bands and are of the same generation. Their music diverged very early in their careers when the Beatles evolved quickly into pop, whereas the Stones have retained their rock persona throughout their career. The Beatles are re discovered by each new generation of music lovers and their music is so diverse it appeals to a huge cross section of age and taste. My son, a musician himself, often asks me when I first listened to their music, I tell him I was still at high school when they burst onto the radio and within a year no one our age could imagine a world without them.

My son used to listen to this a lot a year or two ago.

McCartney pop maestro.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2013, 08:37:21 PM by Grm »


Offline Gina Marie

  • So fucking done with it all.
  • Global Moderator
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 9,470
    • Woos/Boos: +1376/-70
    • Gender: Female
  • Rumors Of My Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Reply #16 on: September 22, 2009, 10:45:52 PM
I cant even begin to imagine how cool it was to be alive back when the Beatles were together, and getting to hear the latest album when it was just released! (Although the new box set is kinda like hearing it for the first time!)

I don't remember exactly how old you are Grm, but if memory serves, you were but a wee young lad yourself when those four lads took over the world...

*sighs with envy*

« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 06:19:45 AM by Gia1978 »


Offline Kopmatt09

  • Degenerate
  • ***
    • Posts: 151
    • Woos/Boos: +15/-9
Reply #17 on: September 22, 2009, 11:11:24 PM
Quote from: Grm on September 22, 2009, 10:30:43 PM
Trying to compare the Beatles and the Rolling Stones is very difficult since the only thing they have in common, is they are/were English bands and are of the same generation. Their music diverged very early in their careers when the Beatles evolved quickly into pop, whereas the Stones have retained their rock persona throughout their career. The Beatles are re discovered by each new generation of music lovers and their music is so diverse it appeals to a huge cross section of age and taste.

I completely agree there Grm, their music is so different that a strict comparison is not possible. I think it all comes down to personal taste, and for me, I tend towards the rockier/heavier side of music, and so I can associate myself more with the Stones, but I think that the Beatles were still good musicians, and they wrote some great songs. One thing I like about the Beatles songs, and music from that generation in general, is that the songs represented something. Music these days seems to be written for music sake, rather than having something to say, or a reason for doing it. It's one quality in the Beatles which I deeply admire and think is sadly lacking from current music :(.


Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1719/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #18 on: September 22, 2009, 11:45:22 PM
Quote from: Gia1978 on September 22, 2009, 10:45:52 PM
I cant even begin to imagine how cool it was to be alive back when the Beatles were together, and getting to hear the latest album when it was just released! (Although the new box set is kinda like hearing it for the first time!)

I don't remember exactly how old you are Grm, but if memory serves, you were but a wee young lad yourself when those four lads took over the world...

*sighs with envy*



I was 13 when they appeared on the old Ed Sullivan show for the first time in 1964 and was one of the estimated 70 million viewers watching that Sunday night. Hard to believe their final appearance in concert together here in the U.S. was 1969. 
Gia, their remastered and digitalized music sound much better now then when we first heard them on our record players.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.

Offline Gina Marie

  • So fucking done with it all.
  • Global Moderator
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 9,470
    • Woos/Boos: +1376/-70
    • Gender: Female
  • Rumors Of My Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Reply #19 on: September 23, 2009, 06:10:06 AM
Quote from: watcher1 on September 22, 2009, 11:45:22 PM
Hard to believe their final appearance in concert together here in the U.S. was 1969.


Candlestick Park, San Francisco - August 29, 1966


This was the Beatles' last concert tour appearance ever, a 33-minute performance at San Francisco's Candlestick Park on Monday August 29, 1966. The Park's capacity was 42,500, but the Beatles only filled 25,000 seats, leaving entire sections of unsold seats.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 06:20:19 AM by Gia1978 »


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 31   Go Up
« previous next »