Xixax Film Forum

Non-Film Discussion => Real-Life Soundtracks => Topic started by: moonshiner on September 11, 2003, 09:14:36 AM

Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: moonshiner on September 11, 2003, 09:14:36 AM
an enigmatic character once said that every band fell into a category, Beatles or Rollingstones? with argument structure defined, i'll start

Radiohead=Beatles
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SoNowThen on September 11, 2003, 09:23:30 AM
Vines
Black Crowes            = Rolling Stones
Ryan Adams
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: ShanghaiOrange on September 11, 2003, 09:25:13 AM
Elvis = Rolling Stones
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SoNowThen on September 11, 2003, 09:28:37 AM
Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeElvis = Rolling Stones

no

Chuck Berry + Muddy Waters = Rolling Stones
Title: Re: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Sigur Rós on September 11, 2003, 09:46:01 AM
Quote from: moonshineran enigmatic character once said that every band fell into a category, Beatles or Rollingstones? with argument structure defined, i'll start

Well, I don't agree with this guy!
Title: Re: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Dirk on September 11, 2003, 10:37:51 AM
Quote from: Sigur
Quote from: moonshineran enigmatic character once said that every band fell into a category, Beatles or Rollingstones? with argument structure defined, i'll start

Well, I don't agree with this guy!

Yeah, that dude is whack.
Title: Re: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: AlguienEstolamiPantalones on September 11, 2003, 11:15:36 AM
Quote from: moonshineran enigmatic character once said that every band fell into a category, Beatles or Rollingstones? with argument structure defined, i'll start

Radiohead=Beatles

apples and oranges


but the stones lasted a few more years, i would say after exile they were pretty much done, but they still had a few great moments in between sad moments
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: AlguienEstolamiPantalones on September 11, 2003, 11:17:28 AM
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeElvis = Rolling Stones

no

Chuck Berry + Muddy Waters = Rolling Stones

those two and motown and you got the stones they would take motown licks right and left and cover motown songs all the time, under my thumb was a out and out motown rip off not the lyrics the music

but your right
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: moonshiner on September 11, 2003, 01:09:54 PM
sigur ros = beatles

white stripes = rollingstones
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SoNowThen on September 11, 2003, 01:16:49 PM
Quote from: AlguienEstolamiPantalones
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeElvis = Rolling Stones

no

Chuck Berry + Muddy Waters = Rolling Stones

those two and motown and you got the stones they would take motown licks right and left and cover motown songs all the time, under my thumb was a out and out motown rip off not the lyrics the music

but your right

You're right, my mathematician friend, I shall now provide the ultimate formula:

Chuck Berry + Muddy Waters
_________________________                        = Stones

The Temptations
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: moonshiner on September 11, 2003, 02:01:54 PM
don't think of this analogy as a direct comparison, Beatles or Rollingstones, to me it's thought-out pop experimentation vs. raw rock 'n roll.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: AlguienEstolamiPantalones on September 11, 2003, 02:35:25 PM
Quote from: moonshiner

white stripes = rollingstones

::Looks for pistol:: what the fuck did you say

jack white is a kid who learned about the blues from indie rockers in the 90's,  he just so happens to have more talent then jon spencer, but thats who he learned about the blues from

but the stones ???? are you kidding me some of his new shit sounds like led zep with out jimmy page and bonam just robert plant
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: AlguienEstolamiPantalones on September 11, 2003, 02:37:29 PM
the wu tang clan plus the charlie daniels band plus brian adams plus  chuck norris = jack johnson
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SoNowThen on September 11, 2003, 02:45:42 PM
please minus brian adams from the jack johnson equation


brian adams...
*shudders*
another "proud" Canadian addition to the world
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: phil marlowe on September 11, 2003, 02:47:59 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenplease minus brian adams from the jack johnson equation


brian adams...
*shudders*
another "proud" Canadian addition to the world
HEY BRYAN ADAMS IS MY CHILDHOOD HERO
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SoNowThen on September 11, 2003, 02:49:06 PM
I can't tell over the inet....


that was sarcasm, right?
Please let that be sarcasm...
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: AlguienEstolamiPantalones on September 11, 2003, 02:52:13 PM
i was just making one of those insane comprasions like

" paul oakenfeld= duran duran

for god sakes i said chuck norris in there too the red headed porn star looking karate master and texas ranger ta boot
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SoNowThen on September 11, 2003, 02:56:55 PM
yeah but comparisons only get better with more bizarre references, just not shitty untalented references.

well, I guess norris is kinda shitty, but he's sooo cheesy that he by default becomes somewhat cool again...
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: AlguienEstolamiPantalones on September 11, 2003, 03:06:47 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenyeah but comparisons only get better with more bizarre references, just not shitty untalented references.

well, I guess norris is kinda shitty, but he's sooo cheesy that he by default becomes somewhat cool again...


ohhh i so agree i hope tarantino works with him, i never dissed him i find him funny

but to add him to a musicical equation= funny
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: moonshiner on September 11, 2003, 08:38:04 PM
Quote from: AlguienEstolamiPantalonesapples and oranges


but the stones lasted a few more years, i would say after exile they were pretty much done, but they still had a few great moments in between sad moments

here you have the right idea, the Stones and Beatles aren't alike at all in their styles of music, that's the point...the Stones are raw, rock 'n roll, loud and emotional, the Beatles are high-gloss pop geniuses, precise and beautiful....the quote and the category is how this is meant, argue which category other bands fit into, Rollingstones or Beatles, this is not to say any of the artists' mentioned are as good as the Stones or Beatles

Quote from: AlguienEstolamiPantalones::Looks for pistol:: what the fuck did you say

jack white is a kid who learned about the blues from indie rockers in the 90's, he just so happens to have more talent then jon spencer, but thats who he learned about the blues from

but the stones ???? are you kidding me some of his new shit sounds like led zep with out jimmy page and bonam just robert plant

here you are way off base...the Stripes are raw, their music happens in a way that would put them into the Stones category for me....this has nothing to do with street cred, who Jack ripped off, or how much you want to kill me...or if i like the band

another one

Bob Dylan=Stones
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: NEON MERCURY on September 11, 2003, 11:34:49 PM
the beatles...............................
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SoNowThen on September 12, 2003, 08:57:55 AM
Yep, I agree with the Dylan one...


Aimee Mann = Beatles

Donovan = Stones
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: moonshiner on September 12, 2003, 09:03:04 AM
Quote from: NEON MERCURYthe beatles...............................

please read more than the topic headline

Quote from: SoNowThenAimee Mann = Beatles

no doubt about that

Tori Amos='Stones
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Vile5 on September 12, 2003, 12:26:21 PM
Blur= Beatles
The Hives= Stones


too obvious category:
Oasis= Beatles
Aerosmith= Stones
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Sigur Rós on September 12, 2003, 12:30:28 PM
Where would you guys place Smashing Pumpkins... this is stupid....
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: moonshiner on September 12, 2003, 12:49:54 PM
the Smashing Pumpkins is a tough one, there is room for discussion, argument.....early Pumpkins was more Rollingstones, the latter was more Beatles....Corgan fucks up the whole categorization of this, he's Beatles, the band is 'Stones

as far as i'm concerned this gives more of an angle than "I love Sigur Ros...discuss"
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SoNowThen on September 12, 2003, 12:53:27 PM
Quote from: Vile5Blur= Beatles
The Hives= Stones


too obvious category:
Oasis= Beatles
Aerosmith= Stones

Yeah, but that makes the Stones look like shit.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Sigur Rós on September 12, 2003, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: moonshineras far as i'm concerned this gives more of an angle than "I love Sigur Ros...discuss"

Yeah, because I would kill everybody who said otherwise...
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: AlguienEstolamiPantalones on September 12, 2003, 02:38:08 PM
jack white has talent but in 95 he was just another kid who liked sebadoh and pavement and jon spencer

and via spencer and all those fake artsy blues bands from new york he learned about the blues

and now he is saying he grew up on the blues but his in interviews have been inconsistent

to say he has no talent would be a joke, but to say he grew up listening to blues masters like Lightning Hopkins, Blind Lemon Jefferson, barry mannilow, and  Blind Willie Johnson is just wrong

he was a kid with talent who got to the blues third hand

muddy waters-the rolling stones-jon spencer and now the white stripes

but i dont see a stones like sound to them, infact i hear weird other influences like robert plant singing solo circa 71

but i hated jack white ever since he said he was never a fan of motown music, and he is from detroit , and acording to people from detroit nobody in the detroit music scene knew who they were

so he was just some sebadoh fan, with talent mind you who got lucky and made it big overseees first then kinda in america

since everyone talks about them but nobody really sings their songs like we do " crazy in love" by beyonce
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Vile5 on September 12, 2003, 06:11:46 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: Vile5Blur= Beatles
The Hives= Stones


too obvious category:
Oasis= Beatles
Aerosmith= Stones

Yeah, but that makes the Stones look like shit.
exactly!
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Duck Sauce on September 13, 2003, 12:20:03 AM
Beatles
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Sigur Rós on September 13, 2003, 04:23:37 AM
Blur= The Kinks!!!

You Americans are so used to chose between to things....Pepsi or Coke, Bush or Gore, Basket or Baseball.....Grow up!
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Pubrick on September 13, 2003, 05:12:29 AM
Quote from: SigurYou Americans are so used to chose between to things....Pepsi or Coke, Bush or Gore, Basket or Baseball.....Grow up!
hahaha man that is pretty insightful, sigur.  :shock:
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Sigur Rós on September 13, 2003, 05:20:10 AM
Quote from: Phahaha man that is pretty insightful, sigur.  :shock:

I'am going to write a book about it.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Redlum on September 13, 2003, 06:27:25 AM
Oasis = mos def the BEATLES

On the brit-pop documentary 'Live Forever', Noel was taking the piss out Liam cause he used to pay close attention music mags, and at one point thought about telling the rest of the band to start calling him John.

Of course, trying and doing are two different things
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Vile5 on September 13, 2003, 06:08:48 PM
Quote from: ®edlumOf course, trying and doing are two different things

well said! i can't stand when Liam wants to be someone he will never be...
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: RegularKarate on September 13, 2003, 06:29:57 PM
This is stupid... and saying Oasis = the Beatles is like saying that The Cars = The Talking Heads... of course they do, that's exactly what they were going for... and they failed... oh 'cept the Cars had some good songs.

And Sigur... I like Dr. Pepper.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: neatahwanta on September 13, 2003, 08:19:36 PM
http://blackcrowes.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14506
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Pubrick on September 13, 2003, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: neatahwantahttp://blackcrowes.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14506
haha, breaking new ground in the field of redirecting.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: moonshiner on September 13, 2003, 11:42:00 PM
Quote from: Phaha, breaking new ground in the field of redirecting.

unfair, very unfair.....i'd say the Black Crowes' would be Rollingstones

ironically, the man who made this quote at the start of this thread, nearly undefinable

Quote from: RegularKarateThis is stupid

and some people have short attention spans...this aggression will not stand, man
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: RegularKarate on September 14, 2003, 01:49:08 AM
I didn't call YOU stupid... I just meant the whole "Beatles/Rolling Stones" junk.

Stuff is stupid sometimes... we'll survive.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: neatahwanta on September 14, 2003, 02:13:46 AM
If you have to actually choose, deserted island and all that, you have to say Beatles.

But the only real answer is "both".

If you're comparing Oasis to The Beatles, please poke your eardrums out with a sharp metal object because you will no longer be needing them....and I should know, because I heard Oasis open up for the Crowes' 4 times, and that was 3 times too many.  Bland, no energy, songs that sound all the same, and blokes who can't play their guitars even as well as Rich Robinson can.  (Rich is an average to below average player, and even he blew them away when the 2 guitar players came out for the blues jam at the end.)

And its not a matter of hating the brothers Gallager (spelling?), because they were actually pretty cool to their fans.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Redlum on September 14, 2003, 05:04:38 AM
Noel = talented
Liam = Idiot . Not that I'd say it to his face.

I remember seeing footage from a recent Who gig at the albert hall and Noel came on to play with them and Townsend said 'thank fuck you didnt bring your borther'.

You cant deny the similarities, not just in their 'looks' but take Dont Look Back in Anger, Little by Little and Stop Crying Your Heart Out. The way the music is written is even similar.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: moonshiner on September 14, 2003, 09:45:25 AM
i don't like the Beatles or the Rollingstones, in a weird way, they're the reason that thousands of people haven't listened to new music for 25-30 years.......i love most Beatles or Rollinstones covers though
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Pubrick on September 14, 2003, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: moonshineri don't like the Beatles or the Rollingstones, in a weird way, they're the reason that thousands of people haven't listened to new music for 25-30 years
make that millions. ur right tho, interesting..
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: neatahwanta on September 14, 2003, 10:08:22 AM
Quote from: mogwaii think rolling stones is the most overrated band ever. they wouldn't even exist if they met lennon and mccartney.

peas eggsplane
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SoNowThen on September 14, 2003, 10:36:03 AM
Quote from: neatahwantaIf you have to actually choose, deserted island and all that, you have to say Beatles.

But the only real answer is "both".

If you're comparing Oasis to The Beatles, please poke your eardrums out with a sharp metal object because you will no longer be needing them....and I should know, because I heard Oasis open up for the Crowes' 4 times, and that was 3 times too many.  Bland, no energy, songs that sound all the same, and blokes who can't play their guitars even as well as Rich Robinson can.  (Rich is an average to below average player, and even he blew them away when the 2 guitar players came out for the blues jam at the end.)

And its not a matter of hating the brothers Gallager (spelling?), because they were actually pretty cool to their fans.

I saw them play with (not open for) the Crowes in Vegas.  I was in front row, and loved every second. When the Crowes came on I stood there mute until Noel walked back out for the encore. Rich looked hella unimpressed. I like the Crowes, but c'mon, Oasis songs are 100% better. Whatever you think of the band, most people would kill to have an album as fucking rocking as What's The Story. I like Oasis much more than the Beatles. Ha. Bring on the hate.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: moonshiner on September 14, 2003, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: Pinteresting..

indeed
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: neatahwanta on September 15, 2003, 09:47:57 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenI like the Crowes, but c'mon, Oasis songs are 100% better. Whatever you think of the band, most people would kill to have an album as fucking rocking as What's The Story. I like Oasis much more than the Beatles. Ha. Bring on the hate.

The fact that you say you "like Oasis much more than The Beatles" makes any rebuttal mute....er...moot.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: phil marlowe on September 15, 2003, 09:51:30 AM
yeah oasis is indeed a shitty band and i have two of their albums so i know what i'm talking about. liam galagher though, is a very very funny man.
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: moonshiner on September 15, 2003, 01:12:24 PM
now, comparing Oasis and the Beatles, that's apples and oranges.....
Title: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SoNowThen on September 15, 2003, 01:19:57 PM
Be Here Now


fucking great rock record.
Title: Re: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SiliasRuby on August 20, 2011, 10:03:56 AM
I've been on a rolling stones kick. The Beatles I think were a more haromonious band and the rolling stones were the hardcore rockers. I love both but for the last two weeks I've been addicted to listening to stones record. Couldn't find a thread anywher else on the rolling stones here. Maybe I missed it but I wrote a small piece on my second favorite record that the stones ever put out. Tattoo You.

Tattoo You: The Last Great Stones Album
Anyone who knows me knows I'm a huge fan of the Rolling Stones. Behind the doors, Led zeppelin, they're my fav. band overall with the beatles and Third Eye Blind bring up the rear as far as my top 5 overall favorite bands go... (This doesn't include of course singer songwriters which have their own catagory).

Sure, now they are known as dinosaurs and trying to see the sexuality of Mick jagger now you would need at least a poud of LSD and a box of chocolate to do such a thing but in the time that this album was put up you could still see Mick as a sex object. That would certainly help tour sales.

The stones in the late 70's early 80's were falling apart, keith with his addiction and mick with his ego which is still as big as montana now. They weren't getting along and after the dismal response of Emotional Rescue and the mountain of bills they needed to go on tour again but they needed a album to tour with, as with most bands had to do those days.

So, an engineer started digging, scrounging through the rolling stones archives looking for gems and my god, did he find them. He presented them to the group (I forgot his name) and they accepted. Although some dubs had to happen for mick to sing over and some lyrics needed to be written for some other songs, the majority of the songs were done.

To be honest this is to me, the last great stones album overall (cohesively). After this they stones didn't really feel completely like themselves. Although, theres at least one or two tracks on each album after 'Tattoo you' that I love to death this is the last solid aIbum overall by mick and the gang that mattered where it didn't feel like they were going through the motions. It really works, for what it is, a collection of b sides and scrapes of songs that feel right. All of side one is really rocking with tracks like 'Hang Fire'. Side two is relaxing, extremely relaxing. So mellow I believe you could die of cancer with side 2 of this album playing the background and be okay with it, as okay as you can be when it comes to having cancer. Put on 'Heaven' right before you smoke a joint of medical mariquana that your doctor perscribed for your 'back pain' and you'll know what I'm talking about...

Sure, 'start me up' has been over played but if you want to introduce your child to the rolling stones but you don't know where to start dig into  areas: 1964-1973 (they were out of world in the late 60's though) and 1978-1981. Look at the discography and pick and choose which ones again if you like but this is a strong recommended album and it really is slowly becoming fav. 'sticky fingers' always beating it out in the last second.

Another under-rated stones album is goats head soup because it came out after the epic 'exile on main street' so its not as well known but also worth a listen but I digress.
Title: Re: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: Reel on August 20, 2011, 10:52:37 PM
whats your favorite stone's song?? mines as tears go by.
Title: Re: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: SiliasRuby on August 21, 2011, 02:15:11 AM
Its 'Can't you hear me knocking?' From Sticky Fingers
Title: Re: Beatles or Rollingstones
Post by: mogwai on August 21, 2011, 02:46:38 AM
My favorite is "Waiting on a friend".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9hbf-IRig