Author Topic: Beatles or Rollingstones  (Read 6544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2003, 02:49:06 PM »
0
I can't tell over the inet....


that was sarcasm, right?
Please let that be sarcasm...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1715
  • Respect: 0
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2003, 02:52:13 PM »
0
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

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2003, 02:56:55 PM »
0
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...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1715
  • Respect: 0
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2003, 03:06:47 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
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...



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

moonshiner

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 279
  • Respect: 0
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2003, 08:38:04 PM »
0
Quote from: AlguienEstolamiPantalones
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


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
the rumble of the train trails off to infinity, a place where no one goes anymore

JC, no not that one

NEON MERCURY

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
  • Respect: +16
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2003, 11:34:49 PM »
0
the beatles...............................

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2003, 08:57:55 AM »
0
Yep, I agree with the Dylan one...


Aimee Mann = Beatles

Donovan = Stones
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

moonshiner

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 279
  • Respect: 0
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2003, 09:03:04 AM »
0
Quote from: NEON MERCURY
the beatles...............................


please read more than the topic headline

Quote from: SoNowThen
Aimee Mann = Beatles


no doubt about that

Tori Amos='Stones
the rumble of the train trails off to infinity, a place where no one goes anymore

JC, no not that one

Vile5

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 663
  • Respect: +1
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2003, 12:26:21 PM »
0
Blur= Beatles
The Hives= Stones


too obvious category:
Oasis= Beatles
Aerosmith= Stones
"Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die." - Salvador Dalí

Sigur Rós

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
  • The H.W. of Xixax...
  • Respect: +7
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2003, 12:30:28 PM »
0
Where would you guys place Smashing Pumpkins... this is stupid....

moonshiner

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 279
  • Respect: 0
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2003, 12:49:54 PM »
0
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"
the rumble of the train trails off to infinity, a place where no one goes anymore

JC, no not that one

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2003, 12:53:27 PM »
0
Quote from: Vile5
Blur= Beatles
The Hives= Stones


too obvious category:
Oasis= Beatles
Aerosmith= Stones


Yeah, but that makes the Stones look like shit.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Sigur Rós

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
  • The H.W. of Xixax...
  • Respect: +7
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2003, 01:01:14 PM »
0
Quote from: moonshiner
as 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...

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1715
  • Respect: 0
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2003, 02:38:08 PM »
0
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

Vile5

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 663
  • Respect: +1
Beatles or Rollingstones
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2003, 06:11:46 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: Vile5
Blur= Beatles
The Hives= Stones


too obvious category:
Oasis= Beatles
Aerosmith= Stones


Yeah, but that makes the Stones look like shit.

exactly!
"Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die." - Salvador Dalí

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy