- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/2/24 at 3:11 pm to kingbob
quote:
If you think Ringo sucks, then you’ve never tried to actually replicate what he’s doing. He’s not a bad drummer, just extremely unconventional.
I never said he sucks, in fact I regard him as a serviceable drummer.
He is lucky, because the timing of Pete Best leaving and he himself being available is why. The other reason is that he was fortunate to be in a band with some of the most talented musicians (especially song writing) who have ever lived, with almost no creative responsibility on his shoulders. I stand by what I said.
Posted on 11/2/24 at 4:22 pm to geauxbrown
quote:Lemmy from Motörhead opinion on The Beatles vs Rolling Stones:
Beatles - without whom the other bands wouldn’t exist in all likelihood. Stones - who paved the way for the next two Zeppelin - who showed the world you could take Mississippi Delta Blues and combine it with pieces of what both the Beatles and Stones did Floyd - who took pieces of the above bands and introduced the world to a revolutionary soundscape
the "Beatles or Rolling Stones" question was easy: It was the Fab Four all the way.
Coming from England when he did, of course, Lemmy had been front and center when both bands dominated the ‘60s. Despite the fact that the members of the two groups were friends, there was always someone trying to push the angle of a feud. Lemmy’s opinion was formed not from the made-up battles in the press, but in physical fights on the streets.
“[T]he Beatles were hard men,” he wrote in his 2004 memoir White Line Fever. “[Manager] Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption, but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia – a hard, sea-farin' town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo's from the Dingle, which is like the fricking Bronx.”
He continued: “The Rolling Stones were the mummy's boys – they were all college students from the outskirts of London. They went to starve in London, but it was by choice, to give themselves some sort of aura of disrespectability. I did like the Stones, but they were never anywhere near the Beatles – not for humor, not for originality, not for songs, not for presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger dancing about. Fair enough, the Stones made great records, but they were always shite on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.”
Read More: Why Lemmy Preferred the Beatles to the Rolling Stones | LINK
Posted on 11/2/24 at 8:07 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
They were contemporaries….
True, but the Stones simply didn’t have the same impact on the next generation of musicians the way the Beatles did.
The Beatles 1964 Ed Sullivan Show appearance is without a doubt the single most important performance in rock and roll history.
The number of young teens who witnessed that show, who went on to become legendary recording artists is insane.
Very few people speak of the Stones in that way.
Music stores from coast to coast sold out of instruments within days of the Sullivan appearance.
I love the Stones, but I just can’t rank them above the Beatles in any meaningful category
This post was edited on 11/2/24 at 8:08 pm
Posted on 11/2/24 at 11:58 pm to geauxbrown
Like Morbid said:
Beatles
Zeppelin
Floyd
Stones
Beatles
Zeppelin
Floyd
Stones
Posted on 11/3/24 at 2:50 pm to justaniceguy
Beatles
Stones
Zep
Pink
Stones
Zep
Pink
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:14 pm to justaniceguy
Stones
Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
Posted on 11/4/24 at 10:24 pm to justaniceguy
Stones
Beatles
Led
Pink
No band can write pop songs like The Beatles. But, the Stones are still an operational band 60+ years later. And they wrote what I believe is the best rock song ever written “Gimme Shelter.”
Beatles
Led
Pink
No band can write pop songs like The Beatles. But, the Stones are still an operational band 60+ years later. And they wrote what I believe is the best rock song ever written “Gimme Shelter.”
This post was edited on 11/4/24 at 10:28 pm
Posted on 11/5/24 at 12:30 pm to justaniceguy
Honestly, they are all about on the same incredibly high level to me. I love them all. I find they are different enough in their approach that I cannot really sort them in my mind as to which is better or that I like better.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:31 pm to justaniceguy
Beatles
Floyd
Zeppelin
Stones
Floyd
Zeppelin
Stones
Posted on 11/6/24 at 12:35 am to nealnan8
quote:You have no idea what you're talking about. The Beatles actively plotted the swap for months but didn't have the sack to do it for a long time. Best didn't "leave". He was kicked out so they could install Ringo.
He is lucky, because the timing of Pete Best leaving and he himself being available is why.
Posted on 11/6/24 at 12:37 am to Johnny Carson
quote:Someone famous said something like "The Beatles were thugs parading as squares and the Stones were squares parading as thugs".
“[T]he Beatles were hard men,” he wrote in his 2004 memoir White Line Fever. “[Manager] Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption, but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia – a hard, sea-farin' town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo's from the Dingle, which is like the fricking Bronx.”
He continued: “The Rolling Stones were the mummy's boys – they were all college students from the outskirts of London. They went to starve in London, but it was by choice, to give themselves some sort of aura of disrespectability. I did like the Stones, but they were never anywhere near the Beatles – not for humor, not for originality, not for songs, not for presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger dancing about. Fair enough, the Stones made great records, but they were always shite on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.”
Posted on 11/6/24 at 6:57 am to justaniceguy
Ya gotta stick The Who in there somewhere!
Posted on 11/6/24 at 8:10 am to kingbob
quote:
I would rank The Who just behind The Beatles.
At their peak, absolutely.
Posted on 11/6/24 at 11:28 am to Perfect Circle
quote:nah
Ya gotta stick The Who in there somewhere!
Posted on 11/6/24 at 2:28 pm to nealnan8
quote:
I never said he sucks, in fact I regard him as a serviceable drummer.
He is lucky, because the timing of Pete Best leaving and he himself being available is why. The other reason is that he was fortunate to be in a band with some of the most talented musicians (especially song writing) who have ever lived, with almost no creative responsibility on his shoulders. I stand by what I said.
What? He wrote all or most of the drum parts that were very unique and essential to the songs. We tend to rate the drummers who are fast and technical like Neil Peart and Danny Carey but Ringo's subtlety makes songs like In My Life and A Day In the Life.
Posted on 11/6/24 at 6:28 pm to justaniceguy
Stones
Beatles
Led Zep
Pink Floyd
Beatles
Led Zep
Pink Floyd
Posted on 11/6/24 at 6:51 pm to justaniceguy
Beatles
Pink Floyd
Don't care for the other two.
Pink Floyd
Don't care for the other two.
Posted on 11/7/24 at 5:35 pm to justaniceguy
Beatles, to quote Mike Tomlin, the Standard is still The Standard
Zeppelin
Stones
Pink Floyd.
Zeppelin
Stones
Pink Floyd.
Posted on 11/7/24 at 5:36 pm to DeltaTigerDelta
quote:
Stones
Zep
The other two do not make the list
quote:
DeltaTigerDelta
Yikes.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News