FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles or Rolling Stones
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
"I'll go for the Beatles What about you "The Beatles, the Stones were probably better in the early years but they have just turned into a parody of themselves | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'll go for the Beatles What about you
The Beatles, the Stones were probably better in the early years but they have just turned into a parody of themselves "That doesn't make any sense, if the Stones were better in the early years then surely they are better now as the Beatles didn't have any later years. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Beatles, for sure ! Great question btw x"  | |||
| |||
"Neither x" Not possible  | |||
| |||
"I'll go for the Beatles What about you
The Beatles, the Stones were probably better in the early years but they have just turned into a parody of themselves
That doesn't make any sense, if the Stones were better in the early years then surely they are better now as the Beatles didn't have any later years. "The Stones later stuff wasnt very good while the Beatles got better and better, in my opinion so while the Stones were better in the beginning they faded so taking both bands over their entire album releases, the Beatles are better | |||
 | |||
"Neither x" Neither | |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! "You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger? | |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?"He is a cunt!  | |||
| |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt! "Why is he a cunt? | |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt! "What have I started here  | |||
"The Rolling Stones The Beatles were over rated." Truth^ | |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt!
What have I started here "He has anger management issues....move along please....  | |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt!
What have I started here He has anger management issues....move along please.... " | |||
| |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt! Why is he a cunt? "He is rich and shags celebrities?... | |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt!
What have I started here He has anger management issues....move along please.... " | |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt! Why is he a cunt?
He is rich and shags celebrities?... "Scrap that Golden Horn...anger management and self esteem issues....bless. | |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt! Why is he a cunt?
He is rich and shags celebrities?... Scrap that Golden Horn...anger management and self esteem issues....bless. "Shut your cakehole! | |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt! Why is he a cunt?
He is rich and shags celebrities?... "I was hoping for something a little more ermmmmmmm better than that. May be something like "a clean shaven set of big lips that have gone slightly saggy with age" | |||
| |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt! Why is he a cunt?
He is rich and shags celebrities?...
I was hoping for something a little more ermmmmmmm better than that. May be something like "a clean shaven set of big lips that have gone slightly saggy with age""Yes! This too! | |||
"I don't see what all the fuss was about. I'm a through and through Oasis fan and I know Oasis built a lot of their stuff on the beatles but honestly I think the Beatles are shit. The Rolling Stones..ok..but I can't accept Mick Jagger. He's one ugly fucker! You shouldn't like Oasis if you dislike the Beatles....what's wrong with Jagger?
He is a cunt! Why is he a cunt?
He is rich and shags celebrities?... Scrap that Golden Horn...anger management and self esteem issues....bless. "Scribbling down my case notes here | |||
"I'll go for the Beatles What about you
The Beatles, the Stones were probably better in the early years but they have just turned into a parody of themselves
That doesn't make any sense, if the Stones were better in the early years then surely they are better now as the Beatles didn't have any later years.
The Stones later stuff wasnt very good while the Beatles got better and better, in my opinion so while the Stones were better in the beginning they faded so taking both bands over their entire album releases, the Beatles are better "That explained it a bit better. You're still wrong though. The sones were a good rock n roll band whereas the Beatles were a jingly jangly boy band in the mould of one direction or take that. | |||
"I'll go for the Beatles What about you
The Beatles, the Stones were probably better in the early years but they have just turned into a parody of themselves
That doesn't make any sense, if the Stones were better in the early years then surely they are better now as the Beatles didn't have any later years.
The Stones later stuff wasnt very good while the Beatles got better and better, in my opinion so while the Stones were better in the beginning they faded so taking both bands over their entire album releases, the Beatles are better
That explained it a bit better. You're still wrong though.
The sones were a good rock n roll band whereas the Beatles were a jingly jangly boy band in the mould of one direction or take that. "There is no right or wrongs, just opinions | |||
| |||
"None of them" | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'll go for the Beatles What about you
The Beatles, the Stones were probably better in the early years but they have just turned into a parody of themselves
That doesn't make any sense, if the Stones were better in the early years then surely they are better now as the Beatles didn't have any later years.
The Stones later stuff wasnt very good while the Beatles got better and better, in my opinion so while the Stones were better in the beginning they faded so taking both bands over their entire album releases, the Beatles are better
That explained it a bit better. You're still wrong though.
The sones were a good rock n roll band whereas the Beatles were a jingly jangly boy band in the mould of one direction or take that.
There is no right or wrongs, just opinions "Fair point but in my opinion your wrong | |||
"I'll go for the Beatles What about you
The Beatles, the Stones were probably better in the early years but they have just turned into a parody of themselves
That doesn't make any sense, if the Stones were better in the early years then surely they are better now as the Beatles didn't have any later years.
The Stones later stuff wasnt very good while the Beatles got better and better, in my opinion so while the Stones were better in the beginning they faded so taking both bands over their entire album releases, the Beatles are better
That explained it a bit better. You're still wrong though.
The sones were a good rock n roll band whereas the Beatles were a jingly jangly boy band in the mould of one direction or take that.
There is no right or wrongs, just opinions
Fair point but in my opinion your wrong " | |||
| |||
| |||
"Paint it black is one of my all time favorite's so its the Stones for me "has to be the stones here , apart from a dozen Beatles tracks ,the stones win ! | |||
| |||
"We can take it a step further now Jagger or Richards And Lennon or McCartney I'm going for Lennon and Richards "I'd rather here songs about sex and partying than walruses and submarines so take a guess. | |||
| |||
"We can take it a step further now Jagger or Richards And Lennon or McCartney I'm going for Lennon and Richards
I'd rather here songs about sex and partying than walruses and submarines so take a guess. "That's JR. And not from Dallas either | |||
"I just can't imagine a Bell OH-58 Kiowa helicopter low flying over paddy fields belting out "help me if you can I'm feeling down" "
Stones..... It's an attitude thing. My grandparents thought the Beatles were a nice bunch of lads but the Stones were long haired druggie hooligans! | |||
| |||
"Looks like the Rolling Stones have won "Are you surprised ? People on an adult site choosing grown up music over poppy pap. | |||
"Looks like the Rolling Stones have won
Are you surprised ? People on an adult site choosing grown up music over poppy pap. "I dunno, there are a few Cliff Richard fans and glee fans knocking about.  | |||
| |||
"We can take it a step further now Jagger or Richards And Lennon or McCartney I'm going for Lennon and Richards
I'd rather here songs about sex and partying than walruses and submarines so take a guess. "I like both and here's some of their songs.. I SAW HER STANDING THERE. wow she was HOT STUFF. fancy a walk down PENNY LANE, my sweet LADY JANE. SHE SAID YEAH, I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND. just PLEASE PLEASE ME. we ROCKED AND ROLLED. as we got our ROCKS OFF. I couldn't HOLD BACK as SHE SAW ME COMING. Boy she was one sexy CRAZY MAMA.. | |||
| |||
"Looks like the Rolling Stones have won
Are you surprised ? People on an adult site choosing grown up music over poppy pap. I dunno, there are a few Cliff Richard fans and glee fans knocking about. "Fortunately they are either end if my age range so I don't hear from them. | |||
"For me always been The Beatles ." Ooh Beatles making a come back here - metaphorically speaking xx | |||
| |||
"Looks like the Rolling Stones have won
Are you surprised ? People on an adult site choosing grown up music over poppy pap. I dunno, there are a few Cliff Richard fans and glee fans knocking about.
Fortunately they are either end if my age range so I don't hear from them. " | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" My favourite band of all time is The Beatles. " Me too !! | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"I'll go for the Beatles What about you
The Beatles, the Stones were probably better in the early years but they have just turned into a parody of themselves
That doesn't make any sense, if the Stones were better in the early years then surely they are better now as the Beatles didn't have any later years.
The Stones later stuff wasnt very good while the Beatles got better and better, in my opinion so while the Stones were better in the beginning they faded so taking both bands over their entire album releases, the Beatles are better
That explained it a bit better. You're still wrong though.
The sones were a good rock n roll band whereas the Beatles were a jingly jangly boy band in the mould of one direction or take that. "You are so right!! I particularly enjoyed One Directions cover of "Why don't we do it in the road"  | |||
"I'll go for the Beatles What about you
The Beatles, the Stones were probably better in the early years but they have just turned into a parody of themselves
That doesn't make any sense, if the Stones were better in the early years then surely they are better now as the Beatles didn't have any later years.
The Stones later stuff wasnt very good while the Beatles got better and better, in my opinion so while the Stones were better in the beginning they faded so taking both bands over their entire album releases, the Beatles are better
That explained it a bit better. You're still wrong though.
The sones were a good rock n roll band whereas the Beatles were a jingly jangly boy band in the mould of one direction or take that.
You are so right!! I particularly enjoyed One Directions cover of "Why don't we do it in the road" "Their cover of Helter Skelter and Yer Blues is amazing | |||
| |||
"I've never been a fan of either but at least The Beatles had the good grace to split up and call it quits!" Wasn't Lennon's murderer a Stones Fan - ended all chances of a reunion | |||
| |||
"I've never been a fan of either but at least The Beatles had the good grace to split up and call it quits! Wasn't Lennon's murderer a Stones Fan - ended all chances of a reunion " They had split long before that... | |||
| |||
"Rolling Stones, although I wouldn't pay to see them these days. Way past their best. The 4 albums in a row, Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street are classics that stand the test of time. They were never able to reach those heights again though (unsurprisingly)" I would include Goats Head but it does have filler, but I do live Coming Down Again especially the change arounds. But that's what the Stones are great for, the rhythm constantly changes from push (jagger) to behind (keef) | |||
| |||
"We could also talk about the different producers Jimmy Miller and George Martin. The side men Billy Preston and Clapton against Chuck, Gram Parsons and Ry Cooder. Although it had to be said Keef owes an awful lot to Ry Cooder, the whole Open G tuning. " Impressive knowledge | |||
"We could also talk about the different producers Jimmy Miller and George Martin. The side men Billy Preston and Clapton against Chuck, Gram Parsons and Ry Cooder. Although it had to be said Keef owes an awful lot to Ry Cooder, the whole Open G tuning. " Keith took a fair bit from those around him and worked it into his play. As for producers, I remember reading an interview where Lennon said that George Martin ruined many of their songs. I'm not a Beatles fan but a song like Strawberry Fields sounds far better imo without Martin's (over) production. | |||
"We could also talk about the different producers Jimmy Miller and George Martin. The side men Billy Preston and Clapton against Chuck, Gram Parsons and Ry Cooder. Although it had to be said Keef owes an awful lot to Ry Cooder, the whole Open G tuning. Keith took a fair bit from those around him and worked it into his play. As for producers, I remember reading an interview where Lennon said that George Martin ruined many of their songs. I'm not a Beatles fan but a song like Strawberry Fields sounds far better imo without Martin's (over) production." Well to be fair, Martin only did what Lennon asked him to on SFF. John talked a lot of shit sometimes. | |||
| |||
"Hello all, I have always preferred The Rolling Stones to the Beatles, the latter being just a bit too bland, nice music but no real soul to it. Some people rate them as being the best band ever but I agree, on that basis, they are over rated. Alec" just how can a group that has sold a billion records worlwide be overrated | |||
| |||
"Never got the Beatles. Stones all the way here" Ditto..the stones rocked!! (haa haa see what I did there!?) | |||
"Never got the Beatles. Stones all the way here" Ditto..the stones rocked!! (haa haa see what I did there!?) | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Beatles all the way, stones were art students or summat, beatles were from the mean streets of liverpool n had it hard!!" I think Lennon and Best were Art School students too, and was the place they met before forming the band | |||
"Beatles all the way, stones were art students or summat, beatles were from the mean streets of liverpool n had it hard!! I think Lennon and Best were Art School students too, and was the place they met before forming the band" Lennon was an art student, along with Stuart Sutcliffe, whom John drafted in on bass. McCartney and Harrison were members long before Pete Best. | |||
"Beatles all the way, stones were art students or summat, beatles were from the mean streets of liverpool n had it hard!! I think Lennon and Best were Art School students too, and was the place they met before forming the band Lennon was an art student, along with Stuart Sutcliffe, whom John drafted in on bass. McCartney and Harrison were members long before Pete Best." | |||
 | |||
) | |||
"Stones. The Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of music. (Tin hat on )"Tell me about it! And that Mozart couldn't write music to save his life. | |||
"I'll go for the Beatles What about you "The Stones 'Gimme Shelter' | |||
"Stones. The Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of music. (Tin hat on )"overated bands do not sell a billion records worldwide.the beatles split 43 yrs ago but still sell millions of records every yr and will continue to do so .no other band comes close to what they achieved in just 8 yrs | |||
"Stones. The Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of music. (Tin hat on )
overated bands do not sell a billion records worldwide.the beatles split 43 yrs ago but still sell millions of records every yr and will continue to do so .no other band comes close to what they achieved in just 8 yrs "Over 300 songs recorded, how many can you name? And more importantly how many do you genuinely like? I went through the discography on wiki and came to the number 24 and that was being generous. That means I like 8% of their stuff - overrated! | |||
"Stones. The Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of music. (Tin hat on )
overated bands do not sell a billion records worldwide.the beatles split 43 yrs ago but still sell millions of records every yr and will continue to do so .no other band comes close to what they achieved in just 8 yrs
Over 300 songs recorded, how many can you name? And more importantly how many do you genuinely like?
I went through the discography on wiki and came to the number 24 and that was being generous. That means I like 8% of their stuff - overrated! "But it's interesting to note how many modern day song writers always quote Lennon & McCartney as being influences | |||
"Stones. The Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of music. (Tin hat on )
overated bands do not sell a billion records worldwide.the beatles split 43 yrs ago but still sell millions of records every yr and will continue to do so .no other band comes close to what they achieved in just 8 yrs
Over 300 songs recorded, how many can you name? And more importantly how many do you genuinely like?
I went through the discography on wiki and came to the number 24 and that was being generous. That means I like 8% of their stuff - overrated! "i can only come to the conclusion that you are in fact deaf | |||
"Stones. The Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of music. (Tin hat on )
overated bands do not sell a billion records worldwide.the beatles split 43 yrs ago but still sell millions of records every yr and will continue to do so .no other band comes close to what they achieved in just 8 yrs
Over 300 songs recorded, how many can you name? And more importantly how many do you genuinely like?
I went through the discography on wiki and came to the number 24 and that was being generous. That means I like 8% of their stuff - overrated!
But it's interesting to note how many modern day song writers always quote Lennon & McCartney as being influences "Don't get me wrong, Lennon was a talented songwriter and McCartney is a competent musician but as a band they weren't nearly as special as they've been made out to be. Despite only being around for a short time their volume of work is huge and an awful lot of it is average at best, there's a lot of hype over what is actually a relatively small number of great hits. | |||
"Stones. The Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of music. (Tin hat on )
overated bands do not sell a billion records worldwide.the beatles split 43 yrs ago but still sell millions of records every yr and will continue to do so .no other band comes close to what they achieved in just 8 yrs
Over 300 songs recorded, how many can you name? And more importantly how many do you genuinely like?
I went through the discography on wiki and came to the number 24 and that was being generous. That means I like 8% of their stuff - overrated!
But it's interesting to note how many modern day song writers always quote Lennon & McCartney as being influences
Don't get me wrong, Lennon was a talented songwriter and McCartney is a competent musician but as a band they weren't nearly as special as they've been made out to be. Despite only being around for a short time their volume of work is huge and an awful lot of it is average at best, there's a lot of hype over what is actually a relatively small number of great hits. "Personally I can name most of them and like about 90%. What you have said is your personal opinion, not a fact. From your statement " Lennon being a talented songwriter and McCartney being a competent musician" I conclude that you know little about the music of the band you are commenting on. | |||
" Personally I can name most of them and like about 90%. What you have said is your personal opinion, not a fact. From your statement " Lennon being a talented songwriter and McCartney being a competent musician" I conclude that you know little about the music of the band you are commenting on." Of course it is an opinion, taste in music is entirely subjective. Aptitude, however, is not and as a musician myself the comment of McCartney being "competent" is factual, there are kids on YouTube that are better guitarists/bassists than him. | |||
" Personally I can name most of them and like about 90%. What you have said is your personal opinion, not a fact. From your statement " Lennon being a talented songwriter and McCartney being a competent musician" I conclude that you know little about the music of the band you are commenting on. Of course it is an opinion, taste in music is entirely subjective. Aptitude, however, is not and as a musician myself the comment of McCartney being "competent" is factual, there are kids on YouTube that are better guitarists/bassists than him. " Yes, yes, that's obvious. I'm pretty sure there are kids on Youtube who are better than you too! I am also a musician, it's not unique. I was referring to your dismissal of McCartney as a songwriter. Are there kids on Youtube who are better songwriters than him too? Competent is what he was happy with. It was all about the songs with The Beatles, not who could play the flashiest solo. | |||
" Personally I can name most of them and like about 90%. What you have said is your personal opinion, not a fact. From your statement " Lennon being a talented songwriter and McCartney being a competent musician" I conclude that you know little about the music of the band you are commenting on. Of course it is an opinion, taste in music is entirely subjective. Aptitude, however, is not and as a musician myself the comment of McCartney being "competent" is factual, there are kids on YouTube that are better guitarists/bassists than him. Yes, yes, that's obvious. I'm pretty sure there are kids on Youtube who are better than you too! I am also a musician, it's not unique. I was referring to your dismissal of McCartney as a songwriter. Are there kids on Youtube who are better songwriters than him too? Competent is what he was happy with. It was all about the songs with The Beatles, not who could play the flashiest solo." That's very true. Otherwise I'd be a wealthy rock star rather than playing for the love of performing. Ah, that was actually just an oversight. I had planned on commenting on George and Ringos talent too but decided to cut my post short and failed to acknowledge Paul as a songwriter. He was fine, he's had success since the Beatles so can't be that bad. Not my taste and I wonder how much praise he'd get if he was only ever known as a solo artist. As for you liking 90% of ther stuff, good for you, there are very few bands in my cd collection that can claim that accolade. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'd have to say i love both but lets all be honest, Zeppelin are far better, had Bohnam not died, the 80's would have been fairly Zeppelin tinged" It's all down to personal preference. I, for one, hate Led Zeppelin. | |||
" Personally I can name most of them and like about 90%. What you have said is your personal opinion, not a fact. From your statement " Lennon being a talented songwriter and McCartney being a competent musician" I conclude that you know little about the music of the band you are commenting on. Of course it is an opinion, taste in music is entirely subjective. Aptitude, however, is not and as a musician myself the comment of McCartney being "competent" is factual, there are kids on YouTube that are better guitarists/bassists than him. Yes, yes, that's obvious. I'm pretty sure there are kids on Youtube who are better than you too! I am also a musician, it's not unique. I was referring to your dismissal of McCartney as a songwriter. Are there kids on Youtube who are better songwriters than him too? Competent is what he was happy with. It was all about the songs with The Beatles, not who could play the flashiest solo. That's very true. Otherwise I'd be a wealthy rock star rather than playing for the love of performing. Ah, that was actually just an oversight. I had planned on commenting on George and Ringos talent too but decided to cut my post short and failed to acknowledge Paul as a songwriter. He was fine, he's had success since the Beatles so can't be that bad. Not my taste and I wonder how much praise he'd get if he was only ever known as a solo artist. As for you liking 90% of ther stuff, good for you, there are very few bands in my cd collection that can claim that accolade. " Change your cd collection. | |||
"I'd have to say i love both but lets all be honest, Zeppelin are far better, had Bohnam not died, the 80's would have been fairly Zeppelin tinged It's all down to personal preference. I, for one, hate Led Zeppelin. " ah well, you just don't appreciate good music | |||
| |||
| |||
" Personally I can name most of them and like about 90%. What you have said is your personal opinion, not a fact. From your statement " Lennon being a talented songwriter and McCartney being a competent musician" I conclude that you know little about the music of the band you are commenting on. Of course it is an opinion, taste in music is entirely subjective. Aptitude, however, is not and as a musician myself the comment of McCartney being "competent" is factual, there are kids on YouTube that are better guitarists/bassists than him. Yes, yes, that's obvious. I'm pretty sure there are kids on Youtube who are better than you too! I am also a musician, it's not unique. I was referring to your dismissal of McCartney as a songwriter. Are there kids on Youtube who are better songwriters than him too? Competent is what he was happy with. It was all about the songs with The Beatles, not who could play the flashiest solo. That's very true. Otherwise I'd be a wealthy rock star rather than playing for the love of performing. Ah, that was actually just an oversight. I had planned on commenting on George and Ringos talent too but decided to cut my post short and failed to acknowledge Paul as a songwriter. He was fine, he's had success since the Beatles so can't be that bad. Not my taste and I wonder how much praise he'd get if he was only ever known as a solo artist. As for you liking 90% of ther stuff, good for you, there are very few bands in my cd collection that can claim that accolade. Change your cd collection. "You just admitted to hating Zeppelin, I think you're the one that needs to address your collection. | |||
" Personally I can name most of them and like about 90%. What you have said is your personal opinion, not a fact. From your statement " Lennon being a talented songwriter and McCartney being a competent musician" I conclude that you know little about the music of the band you are commenting on. Of course it is an opinion, taste in music is entirely subjective. Aptitude, however, is not and as a musician myself the comment of McCartney being "competent" is factual, there are kids on YouTube that are better guitarists/bassists than him. Yes, yes, that's obvious. I'm pretty sure there are kids on Youtube who are better than you too! I am also a musician, it's not unique. I was referring to your dismissal of McCartney as a songwriter. Are there kids on Youtube who are better songwriters than him too? Competent is what he was happy with. It was all about the songs with The Beatles, not who could play the flashiest solo. That's very true. Otherwise I'd be a wealthy rock star rather than playing for the love of performing. Ah, that was actually just an oversight. I had planned on commenting on George and Ringos talent too but decided to cut my post short and failed to acknowledge Paul as a songwriter. He was fine, he's had success since the Beatles so can't be that bad. Not my taste and I wonder how much praise he'd get if he was only ever known as a solo artist. As for you liking 90% of ther stuff, good for you, there are very few bands in my cd collection that can claim that accolade. Change your cd collection.
You just admitted to hating Zeppelin, I think you're the one that needs to address your collection. "There are many bands and Genres that I do like, including; The Who, Cream, The Eagles, Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, Queen, The Stones, Clapton, Van Halen, Gary Moore, Stevie Ray Vaughan, ect, ect. I just don't like LZ. It's not a crime is it? I have a very good cd collection thank you, unlike you it seems.  | |||
" Personally I can name most of them and like about 90%. What you have said is your personal opinion, not a fact. From your statement " Lennon being a talented songwriter and McCartney being a competent musician" I conclude that you know little about the music of the band you are commenting on. Of course it is an opinion, taste in music is entirely subjective. Aptitude, however, is not and as a musician myself the comment of McCartney being "competent" is factual, there are kids on YouTube that are better guitarists/bassists than him. Yes, yes, that's obvious. I'm pretty sure there are kids on Youtube who are better than you too! I am also a musician, it's not unique. I was referring to your dismissal of McCartney as a songwriter. Are there kids on Youtube who are better songwriters than him too? Competent is what he was happy with. It was all about the songs with The Beatles, not who could play the flashiest solo. That's very true. Otherwise I'd be a wealthy rock star rather than playing for the love of performing. Ah, that was actually just an oversight. I had planned on commenting on George and Ringos talent too but decided to cut my post short and failed to acknowledge Paul as a songwriter. He was fine, he's had success since the Beatles so can't be that bad. Not my taste and I wonder how much praise he'd get if he was only ever known as a solo artist. As for you liking 90% of ther stuff, good for you, there are very few bands in my cd collection that can claim that accolade. Change your cd collection.
You just admitted to hating Zeppelin, I think you're the one that needs to address your collection.
There are many bands and Genres that I do like, including;
The Who, Cream, The Eagles, Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, Queen, The Stones,
Clapton, Van Halen, Gary Moore, Stevie Ray Vaughan, ect, ect. I just don't like LZ. It's not a crime is it?
I have a very good cd collection thank you, unlike you it seems. "The who - check Cream - check Dire straits - check Queen - check Stones - check Clapton - check Van Halen - check Nothing wrong with my collection thanks. | |||
" Personally I can name most of them and like about 90%. What you have said is your personal opinion, not a fact. From your statement " Lennon being a talented songwriter and McCartney being a competent musician" I conclude that you know little about the music of the band you are commenting on. Of course it is an opinion, taste in music is entirely subjective. Aptitude, however, is not and as a musician myself the comment of McCartney being "competent" is factual, there are kids on YouTube that are better guitarists/bassists than him. Yes, yes, that's obvious. I'm pretty sure there are kids on Youtube who are better than you too! I am also a musician, it's not unique. I was referring to your dismissal of McCartney as a songwriter. Are there kids on Youtube who are better songwriters than him too? Competent is what he was happy with. It was all about the songs with The Beatles, not who could play the flashiest solo. That's very true. Otherwise I'd be a wealthy rock star rather than playing for the love of performing. Ah, that was actually just an oversight. I had planned on commenting on George and Ringos talent too but decided to cut my post short and failed to acknowledge Paul as a songwriter. He was fine, he's had success since the Beatles so can't be that bad. Not my taste and I wonder how much praise he'd get if he was only ever known as a solo artist. As for you liking 90% of ther stuff, good for you, there are very few bands in my cd collection that can claim that accolade. Change your cd collection.
You just admitted to hating Zeppelin, I think you're the one that needs to address your collection.
There are many bands and Genres that I do like, including;
The Who, Cream, The Eagles, Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, Queen, The Stones,
Clapton, Van Halen, Gary Moore, Stevie Ray Vaughan, ect, ect. I just don't like LZ. It's not a crime is it?
I have a very good cd collection thank you, unlike you it seems.
The who - check
Cream - check
Dire straits - check
Queen - check
Stones - check
Clapton - check
Van Halen - check
Nothing wrong with my collection thanks. "Does it contain a sense of humour? x | |||
" Personally I can name most of them and like about 90%. What you have said is your personal opinion, not a fact. From your statement " Lennon being a talented songwriter and McCartney being a competent musician" I conclude that you know little about the music of the band you are commenting on. Of course it is an opinion, taste in music is entirely subjective. Aptitude, however, is not and as a musician myself the comment of McCartney being "competent" is factual, there are kids on YouTube that are better guitarists/bassists than him. Yes, yes, that's obvious. I'm pretty sure there are kids on Youtube who are better than you too! I am also a musician, it's not unique. I was referring to your dismissal of McCartney as a songwriter. Are there kids on Youtube who are better songwriters than him too? Competent is what he was happy with. It was all about the songs with The Beatles, not who could play the flashiest solo. That's very true. Otherwise I'd be a wealthy rock star rather than playing for the love of performing. Ah, that was actually just an oversight. I had planned on commenting on George and Ringos talent too but decided to cut my post short and failed to acknowledge Paul as a songwriter. He was fine, he's had success since the Beatles so can't be that bad. Not my taste and I wonder how much praise he'd get if he was only ever known as a solo artist. As for you liking 90% of ther stuff, good for you, there are very few bands in my cd collection that can claim that accolade. Change your cd collection.
You just admitted to hating Zeppelin, I think you're the one that needs to address your collection.
There are many bands and Genres that I do like, including;
The Who, Cream, The Eagles, Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, Queen, The Stones,
Clapton, Van Halen, Gary Moore, Stevie Ray Vaughan, ect, ect. I just don't like LZ. It's not a crime is it?
I have a very good cd collection thank you, unlike you it seems.
The who - check
Cream - check
Dire straits - check
Queen - check
Stones - check
Clapton - check
Van Halen - check
Nothing wrong with my collection thanks.
Does it contain a sense of humour? x"I've never heard of them. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It may not be a crime to dislike zeppelin but it should be. Lol just foxes me how you can like so many great bands but not a powerhouse of rock like Zeppelin" I know, it's strange isn't it. I can play Stairway (including the solo) on my guitar. Well, it's obligatory isn't it. But as a whole, I just can't take to them. Maybe it's because i'm a tranny? | |||
"It may not be a crime to dislike zeppelin but it should be. Lol just foxes me how you can like so many great bands but not a powerhouse of rock like Zeppelin I know, it's strange isn't it. I can play Stairway (including the solo) on my guitar. Well, it's obligatory isn't it. But as a whole, I just can't take to them. Maybe it's because i'm a tranny? "lol i don't see that being the reason. Yes its a must to be able to play stairway. Give them a listen with unbiased ears. Right there you have some of the most iconic figures in rock in one band | |||
"It may not be a crime to dislike zeppelin but it should be. Lol just foxes me how you can like so many great bands but not a powerhouse of rock like Zeppelin I know, it's strange isn't it. I can play Stairway (including the solo) on my guitar. Well, it's obligatory isn't it. But as a whole, I just can't take to them. Maybe it's because i'm a tranny?
lol i don't see that being the reason. Yes its a must to be able to play stairway.
Give them a listen with unbiased ears. Right there you have some of the most iconic figures in rock in one band"There's something about Jimmy Page's overall sound that gets on my tits. He has a really thin tone and always seems to be playing just beyond the limit of his ability. Not saying he isn't a brilliant player but I'm not really into that style of sacrificing feel in order to squeeze as many notes in as possible. Just sayin | |||
"It may not be a crime to dislike zeppelin but it should be. Lol just foxes me how you can like so many great bands but not a powerhouse of rock like Zeppelin I know, it's strange isn't it. I can play Stairway (including the solo) on my guitar. Well, it's obligatory isn't it. But as a whole, I just can't take to them. Maybe it's because i'm a tranny?
lol i don't see that being the reason. Yes its a must to be able to play stairway.
Give them a listen with unbiased ears. Right there you have some of the most iconic figures in rock in one band
There's something about Jimmy Page's overall sound that gets on my tits. He has a really thin tone and always seems to be playing just beyond ythe limit of his ability. Not saying he isn't a brilliant player but I'm not really into that style of sacrificing feel in order to squeeze as many notes in as possible.
Just sayin "you're entitled to your opinion, even if you are wrong lol. How can a man regarded as one of the all time greats be regarded as playing beyond his limits? His tone is beautiful in anything i've heard. All his playing isn't just crammed full of notes for the hell of it, its what he wanted to play and he did in style | |||
