Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Same! CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Determining Beatles greatness based on Hey Jude is like determining Zeppelin greatness based on Stairway. Most popular very rarely equals best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Determining Beatles greatness based on Hey Jude is like determining Zeppelin greatness based on Stairway. Most popular very rarely equals best. Even my favorite band which I love (seeing them tonight BTW) has a few songs I just skip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I'd put Gimme Shelter, Tumbling Dice or Sympathy for the Devil up against anything else... Time by Pink Floyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Determining Beatles greatness based on Hey Jude is like determining Zeppelin greatness based on Stairway. Most popular very rarely equals best. Who said Hey Jude had anything to do with greatness of anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I hate starting new threads so I thought I'd stick this thought in here. Between the Beatles and the Stones do either have an album that can top Dark side of the moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) not to take ANYTHING away from DSOTM(incredible album), but Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed, Exile on Main St....to name just a few are as good as Dark Side(in my humble opinion)... I hate starting new threads so I thought I'd stick this thought in here. Between the Beatles and the Stones do either have an album that can top Dark side of the moon? Edited March 8, 2015 by The Poojer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 not to take ANYTHING away from DSOTM(incredible album), but Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed, Exile on Main St....to name just a few are as good as Dark Side(in my humble opinion)... Agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Who said Hey Jude had anything to do with greatness of anything? I must have misunderstood. This is, indeed, a thread with regard to who is the greatest band between the Beatles and the Stones. In that context, someone brought up Hey Jude (a very popular Beatles song). So, surely you can understand how that led me to believe that someone was using the song Hey Jude to add to that person's argument that the Beatles were not a great band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 not to take ANYTHING away from DSOTM(incredible album), but Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed, Exile on Main St....to name just a few are as good as Dark Side(in my humble opinion)... Those are great for sure! I'll throw in The Wall and Animals! IMHO Pink Floyd has to be mentioned in the same sentence when talking about the best of all time great bands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 no doubt, though i would argue, what holds them back from being included is that they weren't as mainstream as the Beatles and the Stones, so asking casual music fans, Floyd, the Kinks, the Who(to some extent) would never enter the conversation. But like others have alluded to, this who's best conversation doesn't mean that liking one band or another isn't a mutually exclusive opinion....that's a good problem to have Those are great for sure! I'll throw in The Wall and Animals! IMHO Pink Floyd has to be mentioned in the same sentence when talking about the best of all time great bands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Those are great for sure! I'll throw in The Wall and Animals! IMHO Pink Floyd has to be mentioned in the same sentence when talking about the best of all time great bands I'd also like to throw out there that I'm not sure DSOTM is even the best Floyd album. Personally, I think "Wish You Were Here" (recorded @ Abbey Road) is their best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I'm sitting in a local brewery and shine on you crazy diamond is on and that first 7 minutes is mesmerizing. They absolutely belong in any best of conversation. And bonus points for me. My 22 year old knew it was Floyd during the intro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I'm sitting in a local brewery and shine on you crazy diamond is on and that first 7 minutes is mesmerizing. They absolutely belong in any best of conversation. And bonus points for me. My 22 year old knew it was Floyd during the intro. Wicked bonus points for you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) I'd also like to throw out there that I'm not sure DSOTM is even the best Floyd album. Personally, I think "Wish You Were Here" (recorded @ Abbey Road) is their best. Cant argue with you on that! That is an awesome album. So is Delicate Sound of thunder and Momentary lapse of reason. You know they made 20 albums altogether that were new pieces of work. Then a bunch of live or best of albums. I haven't even heard all of the albums they made. Wicked bonus points for you!! My 83 year old mother loves Pink Floyd ! Talk about crossing generations! I'm a big Floyd fan. A little known fact that the BBC played a song made by Pink Floyd during the coverage of the 1969 lunar landing below is a link to a bootleg copy recorded back then. I thought I read somewhere that on one of the lunar missions Pink Floyd played live for hours during the BBC coverage. I was looking for a link to that nugget. But below is a link to the 1969 BBC coverage played by David Gilmore http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/pink-floyds-moon-landing-jam-session/comment-page-1/?_r=0#respond Edited March 8, 2015 by Fan in San Diego Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted March 9, 2015 Author Share Posted March 9, 2015 People talk about how The Stones coppied The Beatles, which may be true. However, The Beatles broke up in 69. And The stones best period, was from like 68-79ish, when they didn't have The Beatles to steal from anymore. I'm sitting in a local brewery and shine on you crazy diamond is on and that first 7 minutes is mesmerizing. They absolutely belong in any best of conversation. And bonus points for me. My 22 year old knew it was Floyd during the intro. Parenting: You're doing it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Both bands were great, but The Beatles did their thing and then called it quits when they were still very popular and very influential in both music and popular culture. They also had a secret weapon not often acknowledged for his influence in shaping their sound: George Martin. For my tastes, The Rolling Stones' best work was during the Brian Johnson years. They changed their sound with their adding/replacing of members over the years, and have been very, very weak since the Some Girls/Tattoo You days. McCartney's penchant for writing pop-style (Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Obla Di Obla Da, etc) songs was balanced by Lennon's more dark and somber songs (Revolution, I want You/She's So Heavy, etc). They each had their own beautiful compositions, like McCartney's Let It Be or Lennon's Across The Universe. A great example of both Lennon's and McCartney's styles together in one song is The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill, with the McCartney portion being the intro/chorus and the Lennon portion being the verse. You can clearly hear each's style and personality juxtaposed back-to-back. Another strength of The Beatles which was sadly underutilized was compositions by George Harrison, since he was never allowed more than one or two songs per album. While My Guitar Gently Weeps and It's All Too Much are only two examples. Nothing against The Stones, I like a lot of their old (old) material, but they came along in the footsteps of The Beatles, and never had the impact on popular music they way The Beatles did. Edited March 9, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted March 9, 2015 Author Share Posted March 9, 2015 Both bands were great, but The Beatles did their thing and then called it quits when they were still very popular and very influential in both music and popular culture. They also had a secret weapon not often acknowledged for his influence in shaping their sound: George Martin. For my tastes, The Rolling Stones' best work was during the Brian Jones years. They changed their sound with their adding/replacing of members over the years, and have been very, very weak since the Some Girls/Tattoo You days. McCartney's penchant for writing pop-style (Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Obla Di Obla Da, etc) songs was balanced by Lennon's more dark and somber songs (Revolution, I want You/She's So Heavy, etc). They each had their own beautiful compositions, like McCartney's Let It Be or Lennon's Across The Universe. A great example of both Lennon's and McCartney's styles together in one song is The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill, with the McCartney portion being the intro/chorus and the Lennon portion being the verse. You can clearly hear each's style and personality juxtaposed back-to-back. Another strength of The Beatles which was sadly underutilized was compositions by George Harrison, since he was never allowed more than one or two songs per album. While My Guitar Gently Weeps and It's All Too Much are only two examples. Nothing against The Stones, I like a lot of their old (old) material, but they came along in the footsteps of The Beatles, and never had the impact on popular music they way The Beatles did. Fixed. I read Keith's autobiography. He said him and Paul had a conversation recently, which is like five years ago, but somewhat recent compare to their "prime years." They both agreed that The Beatles were a more vocal band. They had two very good lead singers, Plus George and Ringo weren't too shabby either. The Stones on the other hand, were musicians. They had one lead singer, but the band could play. They were also more raw. The Beatles were more innovative, but The Stones didn't have to be. They were old fashioned rock and roll. Rock, blues, country. They did it all, and did it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm sitting in a local brewery and shine on you crazy diamond is on and that first 7 minutes is mesmerizing. They absolutely belong in any best of conversation. And bonus points for me. My 22 year old knew it was Floyd during the intro. How candid have your conversations been with the 22 year old on the topic of drugs? Fixed. I read Keith's autobiography. He said him and Paul had a conversation recently, which is like five years ago, but somewhat recent compare to their "prime years." They both agreed that The Beatles were a more vocal band. They had two very good lead singers, Plus George and Ringo weren't too shabby either. The Stones on the other hand, were musicians. They had one lead singer, but the band could play. They were also more raw. The Beatles were more innovative, but The Stones didn't have to be. They were old fashioned rock and roll. Rock, blues, country. They did it all, and did it well. I don't think it's fair to say the Beatles had a lead singer. George took the lead on A LOT of the early stuff and Paul/John split them up as they wrote them which was pretty much right down the middle. And then who could forget the Ringo classics! Don't Pass Me By! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Fixed. I read Keith's autobiography. He said him and Paul had a conversation recently, which is like five years ago, but somewhat recent compare to their "prime years." They both agreed that The Beatles were a more vocal band. They had two very good lead singers, Plus George and Ringo weren't too shabby either. The Stones on the other hand, were musicians. They had one lead singer, but the band could play. They were also more raw. The Beatles were more innovative, but The Stones didn't have to be. They were old fashioned rock and roll. Rock, blues, country. They did it all, and did it well. Stones were never great musicians, though. McCartney and Harrison were masters of their crafts. I consider both of them to be seriously underrated bassists/guitarists, respectively, and thoroughly listening to their music would lead any musician to agree, in my opinion. Not knocking the Stones at all. As I stated in an earlier post, I believe they defined Rock-n-Roll. But I truly believe that the Beatles were exponentially superior musicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts