Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 195

Thread: When did the Rolling Stones stop writing songs?

  1. #26
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    32S 116E
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Adm.Kirk View Post
    I would have loved to see them tour with the modern PA systems we have today. One can only imagine what they would have sounded like.
    "See" is the operative word, as I don't think anyone attending their concerts ever actually heard them.
    Most likely, the fans in attendance at the time also had to "imagine what they sound like".

  2. #27
    Banned Dave (in MA)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    4209′30″N 7108′43″W
    Posts
    2,510
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberrybrick View Post
    Thus, I'll never understand why Rolling Stones usually win in Beatles vs Stones face-offs.
    The other team left the ice before the puck was dropped.

  3. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,581
    Well The Stones had all the screaming fans too, witness 'Got Live If You Want It'. By the late 60s the fans had grown up, they weren't screaming throughout.

    Paul McCartney in particular pushed for a return to live performance circa Let It Be but it didn't happen, other than that rooftop performance.

  4. #29
    Member No Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL, USA
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythos View Post
    Good songs?

    1969
    My sentiments as well.

  5. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Adm.Kirk View Post
    I think the reason the Stones usually win those faceoffs is because there is the whole outlaw image they had and that they could "rock out" more. I don't know that I agree with that, but I think that's the perception. The Beatles could be a bit ornate at times. ... the Stones were a better live act.
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ88 View Post
    I don't think there are many rock bands in history who could touch The Stones live. 'Midnight Rambler' on that is about as thrilling as rock and roll gets IMHO.
    Absolutely right all around.

    Quote Originally Posted by ronmac View Post
    I'm guessing the one about pure "rock and roll bands," ... those who criticize The Beatles on that front clearly never heard their early BBC recordings. They could rock as well as anyone at the time. They simply moved onto different things.
    Exactly. Both bands found, and succeeded in perfectly nailing, the things they were searching for/best at doing. They were also such different things that I wouldn't imagine comparing them by the same standards anyway. Speaking for myself, I never found the Beatles completely convincing when it came to rocking out. But who cares? I never found the Stones convincing at psychedelic cartooniness either, but I don't enjoy "She's a Rainbow" any less because it wasn't a quintessential example of what the band was all about.

  6. #31
    Oh No! Bass Solo! klothos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiral View Post
    I never found the Beatles completely convincing when it came to rocking out. But who cares? I never found the Stones convincing at psychedelic cartooniness either

  7. #32
    Paperback Writer and Revolution both rock more than anything the Stones ever did. And the Beatles version of I Wanna Be Your Man rocked more than the Stones too.

  8. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiral View Post
    Absolutely right all around.
    Speaking for myself, I never found the Beatles completely convincing when it came to rocking out.
    Agreed that The Beatles weren't much of a rock band. But they were the quintessential boy band and, later, an accomplished studio pop band.

  9. #34
    On a good night, The Who could blow them all off stage.

    Bill
    She'll be standing on the bar soon
    With a fish head and a harpoon
    and a fake beard plastered on her brow.

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Adm.Kirk View Post
    On a good night, The Who could blow them all off stage.

    Bill
    Can't argue with that. Nobody beat The Who at high volume power-chord rock in the '60s.

  11. #36
    The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone.

  12. #37
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    32S 116E
    Posts
    0
    Sounds like most of these so-called "face-offs" are more about what tribe you see yourself belonging to than about the musicians.

  13. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiral View Post
    Absolutely right all around.


    Exactly. Both bands found, and succeeded in perfectly nailing, the things they were searching for/best at doing. They were also such different things that I wouldn't imagine comparing them by the same standards anyway. Speaking for myself, I never found the Beatles completely convincing when it came to rocking out. But who cares? I never found the Stones convincing at psychedelic cartooniness either, but I don't enjoy "She's a Rainbow" any less because it wasn't a quintessential example of what the band was all about.
    I love a good 3/4 of 'Satanic Majesties'. It would be thought of as a classic if 'We Love You' and 'Dandelion' replaced the sloppy jams...their UK albums kept the album and single tracks completely separate then, though.

  14. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by bob_32_116 View Post
    Sounds like most of these so-called "face-offs" are more about what tribe you see yourself belonging to than about the musicians.
    No doubt, because the bands were good friends.
    The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone.

  15. #40
    Progga mogrooves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Past
    Posts
    1,807
    The Beatles were innovators, re-configuring pop music to a fare-thee-well. But, I'm more likely to thrown on a Stones LP. I like stuff you don't have to think about too much.
    Michael: "Harold, don't you have any other music, you know, from [last] century?"
    Harold: "There is no other music....."

  16. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave (in MA) View Post
    The other team left the ice before the puck was dropped.
    That they did.

    I'd take the Pretty Things over the lot of 'em though for "rockin' out".
    "Always ready with the ray of sunshine"

  17. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,581
    ^Listening to something like 'Rosalyn', I wonder what the fuss is about punk rock. The Pretty Things had done it already in 1964.

  18. #43
    Progga mogrooves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Past
    Posts
    1,807
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ88 View Post
    ^Listening to something like 'Rosalyn', I wonder what the fuss is about punk rock. The Pretty Things had done it already in 1964.
    Yeah, this was pretty much my "take" on punk: been there, done that. But....I'm no expert.
    Michael: "Harold, don't you have any other music, you know, from [last] century?"
    Harold: "There is no other music....."

  19. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by trurl View Post
    Paperback Writer and Revolution both rock more than anything the Stones ever did. And the Beatles version of I Wanna Be Your Man rocked more than the Stones too.
    I'll see your Paperback Writer and Revolution and raise you a Midnight Rambler. LOL! Both bands were/are great and I dearly love both. The Beatles could and did rock out at times and the Stones could be ornate occasionally as well, but by and large I think the Stones style of music lends itself to rocking out more.

    Even though I Wanna Be Your Man is Lennon/McCartney tune and The Beatles do a good job on it, I have always preferred the Stones' rawer approach.

    Bill
    She'll be standing on the bar soon
    With a fish head and a harpoon
    and a fake beard plastered on her brow.

  20. #45
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    32S 116E
    Posts
    0
    The difference is, the Beatles actually progressed. The Stones are a rare example of a Regressive Rock band.

  21. #46
    Oh No! Bass Solo! klothos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by bob_32_116 View Post
    The difference is, the Beatles actually progressed. The Stones are a rare example of a Regressive Rock band.
    I had to stop and think about this statement for a second............While profound, this statement certainly carries quite a bit of merit

    Nice observation

  22. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by bob_32_116 View Post
    The difference is, the Beatles actually progressed. The Stones are a rare example of a Regressive Rock band.
    The Rolling Stones evidence progression through the '60s and into the '70s. Can't You Here Me Knockin,' for example (and numerous others) would not have been possible much earlier than the album on which it came out.

    Also, are you really sure about the truth of your comment concerning progression/regression? Rare? Quite common, I'd say. You're familiar with the career arcs of Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP, etc. etc.?

  23. #48
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    32S 116E
    Posts
    0
    ^^^ I'd say, Facelift, that the Stones did progress a bit up to the 70's and then stopped doing so. At best, their later work picked up on trends that other artists had set, eg. the disco influences on some of the 1980's albums.

    And I take your point about Genesis/ELP etc, so perhaps I should just say "example" rather than "rare example".

  24. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,581
    But by invoking The Beatles, that implies you are talking about when both bands were a going concern- that is, the 1960s. The Rolling Stones made huge creative strides in that decade.

  25. #50
    Progga mogrooves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Past
    Posts
    1,807
    Where the Beatles were compelled to innovate out of an artistic impulse to do so, the Stones self-consciously dabbled for reasons rather less exalted until they took stock and settled on what they were really good at, a "come to Jesus" moment that resulted in the masterful Beggars Banquet and the albums that followed from its premises. Know thyself. Indeed.
    Michael: "Harold, don't you have any other music, you know, from [last] century?"
    Harold: "There is no other music....."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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