Bluelight

Thread: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 39 of 39
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    Administrator Sadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    At home in my nook
    Posts
    12,266
    The Beatles hands down!
    ____________________________________
    Bluelight User Agreement
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    Bluelighter BlindHelperMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    a pile of nigella lawsons dirty lingerie
    Posts
    2,733
    not feeling particularly loquacious, but spacejunk is talking sense for a change


    this isnt even a contest, as stated many times by many people more qualified - though less handsome, im betting - than myself.. and they did it all inside a decade. fubars longevity argument is in fact testimony to the beatles' ability to have imprinted themselves in the social psyche to a greater degree than the stones (or anyone else) despite only creatively existing for a fraction of the time


    and yeah, to echo spacejunk; the beatles whilst teenagers were alone in a foreign country, playing all night sets in dive bars whilst whizzing their nuts off and becoming acquainted with hamburg's finest ladies of the night.. and when they got back to the cavern club - they were drilled as a band. thats why in an era of screaming crowds before band facing stage speakers or much amplification in general actually.. they were able to keep in perfect time with eachothers playing, despite not being able to hear much at all. that demands respect, if nothing else


    with the beatles, looking back so far removed as we are, you have to put yourself or listen to others who were in that time and contemplate the immense musical boundaries they were shattering. lemmy kilmeisters favourite band were the beatles. ozzy osbournes favourite band were the beatles. the byrds, early sixties rivals speak of their utter astonishment when the beatles began moving to new levels of creativity post rubber soul.
    similarly brian wilson from the beach boys, having heard rubber soul was inspired to write pet sounds, and when hearing sgt peppers for the first time actually pulled over in traffic and burst into tears, sobbing 'they did it, they got there first'. the beatles' genius put wilson out of creative action, and possibly contributed to his overarching mental breakdown. which personally anyhow, i regard as a plus.. pet sounds being absurdly overrated and all


    the beatles always have multiple albums voted inside greatest top ten countdowns, which i know, generally doesnt mean much - but time after time, in differing genre websites or magazines, the same albums unswervingly top the conversation. besides nme that is, but theyre attention-desperate hipster trash who by nature strive against the abiding zeitgeist. thus telling you all you need to know


    i could go on, but as a final thought; the beatles wrote songs for the stones. never ever would that be vice versa
    now i rest my case (it is very heavy, afterall)



    Quote Originally Posted by spacejunk View Post
    ^ i reckon macca's bass playing on "lady madonna" is better than anything clapton ever did

    agreed.. but to be honest i consider both clapton and hendrix generally, to be overrated. but thats another thread i guess


    his bass on rain is also awesome. mccartney was pretty damn near virtuoso-level in his early years. if you catch video of him playing back then, when not singing main or backup, just playing bass.. he looks almost bored, it obviously came that easy

    there are others, but yeah.. check out rain, nonbelievers
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    Moderator
    Basic Drug Discussion
    F.U.B.A.R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12,144
    The Beatles wrote songs for the Stones? One song - 'I wanna be your Man'. That's it. Plus the Beatles had a hit with it after the Stones did.

    Stones FTW...
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #29
    Bluelighter gannetsarewe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,075
    There is a lot that could be added to what BlindHelper says but he has the gist of the right. I am a Stones fan too 5/6 great albums, but they did throw a lot of darts.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    Moderator
    European & African Drug Discussion
    Shambles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    A Pottering Shed Somewhere in the Scotchland
    Posts
    51,845
    S'all been said already but, aside from a (scant) handful of good albums and a few good tracks outside of that, the Stones were never that great. Their good stuff is outstanding... but in terms of overall quality they are a distant second place even in a direct comparison. What they did, they quite often (within a few albums) did really, really frikkin' well... but... there really is no competition here cos it's the Beatles all the way. Their relative importance to music now is chasms apart.

    Put this way, if the Stones never existed then somebody - many, many others - would and did carry the blues-rock sound over to the mainstream. Without the Beatles it's hard to imagine what direction music would have ultimately taken. No comparison really.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #31
    Bluelighter BlindHelperMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    a pile of nigella lawsons dirty lingerie
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by F.U.B.A.R. View Post
    The Beatles wrote songs for the Stones? One song - 'I wanna be your Man'. That's it. Plus the Beatles had a hit with it after the Stones did

    to paraphrase bill hicks.. one is pretty much all thats needed to be off the artistic roll call for life - at least any within spitting distance of the beatles, anyhow


    and stop! have some pity. your aim is true, cease these merciless barbs of shame.. yes.. the beatles had the bare faced cheek to actually release a song they had themselves previously written. its said paul mccartney still, to this day sheds a single solemn tear of regret whenever he hears jaggers masterful rendition on the radio. fully aware of the shame that is doomed to pass down through his children and his children's children, till the unspeakable act is expunged from all living memory - to be spoken of nevermore


    if brian jones had stuck around it may have been somewhat more interesting. but he didnt so it wasnt and the guy who ended up in charge spent more time following lennon around like a lost puppy - laughing at his jokes, making tea and - when he felt creative, inspired and especially brave - asking for the proper technique for shaking that tambourine
    Last edited by BlindHelperMonkey; 12-09-2018 at 00:36. Reason: issues pertaining to superfluous punctuation
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #32
    Moderator
    Basic Drug Discussion
    F.U.B.A.R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12,144
    ^But The Stones' version was better


    Also The Beatles were a bunch of wankers...

    https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/11/paul-...l-7934546/amp/

    Last edited by F.U.B.A.R.; 12-09-2018 at 00:29.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #33
    Bluelighter BlindHelperMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    a pile of nigella lawsons dirty lingerie
    Posts
    2,733
    mate, it was a throwaway composition requiring small effort and valued little enough to be given away to give another group their first hit. the stones put the effort into recording it to sound as good as possible precisely because it was the beatles who wrote it for them and it was their big chance - itd be odd if it wasnt a superior version -
    the beatles were busy off writing a hard days night, one of the greatest albums of all time. im sure re-recording their charity throwaway song for the stones was not high on the agenda for '64


    Mick Jagger and Keith Richards would later credit being able to watch Lennon and McCartney that day with giving them a greater understanding of how to write a song."
    - Ultimate Classic Rock
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #34
    This is tough for me but in there prime the Stones, I don't like any of the stones stuff after like 81 but they are savage.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #35
    Administrator spacejunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    20,023
    Anyone else catch he recent jarvis cocker interview of paul mcartney?

    Pretty bloody good, for any beatles fans (or jarvis fans?).
    ✺✹✺✹BLUA✺✹✺✹
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #36
    Bluelighter BlindHelperMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    a pile of nigella lawsons dirty lingerie
    Posts
    2,733
    no but im gonna go check that out now. thankyou young man
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #37
    Administrator Tranced's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Newcastle, UK
    Posts
    9,013
    The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

    Sasha.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #38
    Bluelighter KingOfWessex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    South-West UK
    Posts
    1,382
    Wouldn't fuck any of them. Now that Jessie bird from little mix.....
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #39
    Administrator spacejunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    20,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranced View Post
    The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

    Sasha.
    Shulgin? Now we're talking mate!


    ...which reminds me. did anyone see this article last week?

    Paul McCartney 'saw God' after taking DMT during Beatles heyday

    Sir Paul McCartney has revealed how one experience with drugs during The Beatles' heyday led to him seeing "God".

    Speaking about his spiritual beliefs, McCartney said in an interview with the Sunday Times that he believed there was 'something higher', and linked it to his experience of taking Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) with a group of people including art dealer and gallery owner Robert Fraser.

    "We were immediately nailed to the sofa," he recalled. "And I saw God, this amazing towering thing, and I was humbled. And what I'm saying is, that moment didn't turn my life around, but it was a clue."

    "It was huge," he continued. "A massive wall that I couldn't see the top of, and I was at the bottom. And anybody else would say it's just the drug, the hallucination, but both Robert and I were like, 'Did you see that?' We felt we had seen a higher thing."

    DMT became popular in the 1960s as a faster-working alternative to more widely-known hallucinogenics such as LSD and magic mushrooms.

    Talking about this vision of God as 'a clue', McCartney went on to describe a 'thrilling' moment which later occurred following the death of his first wife, photographer and activist Linda.

    While grieving, he spent time in the countryside, where he saw a white squirrel which he believes was 'Linda, come back to give me a sign'.
    McCartney releases his first full-length album in five years, Egypt Station, on 7 September.

    “I liked the words 'Egypt Station',” he said of the title in a statement. “It reminded me of the 'album' albums we used to make...

    “'Egypt Station' starts off at the station on the first song and then each song is like a different station. So it gave us some idea to base all the songs around that. I think of it as a dream location that the music emanates from.”
    the part about seeing god makes sense - but i don't know about the bit about the squirrel...

    i know that when i tried DMT, i'd heard a lot about it and read stuff online - so i had some idea of how earth-shattering it could be.

    but devoid of any context, can you imagine what a mindfuck it must have been to smoke that shit in the 60s, before much was known about it?
    i mean - DMT is fucking nuts no matter how prepared you are.
    talking about DMT in an interview is a pretty cool story and a savvy way for him to promote the new record.

    people always assumed john was the subversive, avant-garde beatle because he married yoko and did crazy shit with her - but it was paul's interest in all manner of esoteric and experimental art that led to a lot of their early experiments all sorts of stuff like tape loops in "tomorrow never knows" and interest in other art that was happening around the time, which inspired some the really revolutionary shit they were doing in the studio from revolver onwards. john got in on it too later on ("revolution #9" etc) - but paul was said to be the most adventurous member of the group, artistically.
    so it makes perfect sense that he was smoking DMT with robert fraser, i guess.

    for those who don't know about him, fraser was a legendary art dealer who sort of epitomised the dandy "swinging london" thing - he was a gay heroin addict before there was much public awareness of such things - and he really ties into this thread because he was one of the 3 people arrested at the famous drug bust at Keith Richards' Redlands house.

    Mick was arrested for possession of amphetamine pills without a prescription, and got a 3 month jail sentence. Keith was arrested (and sentenced to a year in prison!) for allowing cannabis to be smoked in his house. Robert Fraser was busted with smack and methamphetamine pills....and got 6 months.
    anyway, this is the famous photo of him cuffed to jagger on the way to trial.

    ✺✹✺✹BLUA✺✹✺✹
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •