Shots fired

PurpleThrobber

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/paul-mccartney-calls-the-rolling-stones-a-blues-cover-band-1241319/


And so there's no confusion on where the Throbber stands on this issue - the Beatles suck.

BleachedAnusDawg

Stones suck.

LebamDawg

this is a brown eye for the Stones

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10085975/Rolling-Stones-drop-hit-song-Brown-Sugar-tour-set-list-now.html

YellowSnow

PurpleThrobber said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/paul-mccartney-calls-the-rolling-stones-a-blues-cover-band-1241319/


And so there's no confusion on where the Throbber stands on this issue - the Beatles suck.

McCartney isn’t totally off the mark. He just used the wrong tense. The Stones “were” a blues cover band to start. The first 5 albums were almost entirely blues and R&B covers. They didn’t really hit their stride as songwriters till later in 1965, two years into their recording career.

The Beatles on the other hand had great original compositions from the get go, albeit with a some covers on albums 1, 2 and 4.

I’m still Stones > Beatles based on what the Stones did from 1968- 72, but still….

Shut hole, you ignorant Idaho hillbilly

alumni94

They should fight it out.

YellowSnow

BleachedAnusDawg said:

Stones suck.

RaceBannon

Paul is a faggot

YellowSnow

RaceBannon said:

Paul is a faggot

Things John Would say.

BleachedAnusDawg

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

Stones suck.

I know they are your wheelhouse. Frankly, both of these bands are too early for me to care all that much. I don't care much for Mick, though. Of course, this is coming from a guy who loves David Lee Roth, so YMMV.

YellowSnow

BleachedAnusDawg said:

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

Stones suck.

I know they are your wheelhouse. Frankly, both of these bands are too early for me to care all that much. I don't care much for Mick, though. Of course, this is coming from a guy who loves David Lee Roth, so YMMV.

You bias against pre 80s befuddles me. IFL love David Lee Roth era Van Halen as much as any guy here, but I love Elvis too.

BleachedAnusDawg

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

Stones suck.

I know they are your wheelhouse. Frankly, both of these bands are too early for me to care all that much. I don't care much for Mick, though. Of course, this is coming from a guy who loves David Lee Roth, so YMMV.

You bias against pre 80s befuddles me. IFL love David Lee Roth era Van Halen as much as any guy here, but I love Elvis too.

For the record, VH is late-1970's. I am pretty hit and miss prior to the late-70's era. Hendrix and Zeppelin, yes. Beatles and Stones, no. Probably based upon the level of cranked up and distorted guitar.

YellowSnow

BleachedAnusDawg said:

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

Stones suck.

I know they are your wheelhouse. Frankly, both of these bands are too early for me to care all that much. I don't care much for Mick, though. Of course, this is coming from a guy who loves David Lee Roth, so YMMV.

You bias against pre 80s befuddles me. IFL love David Lee Roth era Van Halen as much as any guy here, but I love Elvis too.

For the record, VH is late-1970's. I am pretty hit and miss prior to the late-70's era. Hendrix and Zeppelin, yes. Beatles and Stones, no. Probably based upon the level of cranked up and distorted guitar.

Yes, of course. Like most people, I just think of them as an 80's band as that when they were are their commercial and artistic peak.

For me, as a rock music history nerd, I love studying the evolution of the genre and how things got from point A to point B. I mean you can't understand, VH with out understanding what Page was doing in the late 60s. And you can't understand Page, without understanding what the Stones were doing in 1964.

BleachedAnusDawg

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

Stones suck.

I know they are your wheelhouse. Frankly, both of these bands are too early for me to care all that much. I don't care much for Mick, though. Of course, this is coming from a guy who loves David Lee Roth, so YMMV.

You bias against pre 80s befuddles me. IFL love David Lee Roth era Van Halen as much as any guy here, but I love Elvis too.

For the record, VH is late-1970's. I am pretty hit and miss prior to the late-70's era. Hendrix and Zeppelin, yes. Beatles and Stones, no. Probably based upon the level of cranked up and distorted guitar.

Yes, of course. Like most people, I just think of them as an 80's band as that when they were are their commercial and artistic peak.

For me, as a rock music history nerd, I love studying the evolution of the genre and how things got from point A to point B. I mean you can't understand, VH with out understanding what Page was doing in the late 60s. And you can't understand Page, without understanding what the Stones were doing in 1964.

I'm definitely no music historian. One of my two Dads is, and if I had paid attention to all the stuff he talked about over the years I would probably know a lot more than I do. "Art" in its various forms, and the meaning/history of it, is not my bag, baby.

PurpleThrobber

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/paul-mccartney-calls-the-rolling-stones-a-blues-cover-band-1241319/


And so there's no confusion on where the Throbber stands on this issue - the Beatles suck.

McCartney isn’t totally off the mark. He just used the wrong tense. The Stones “were” a blues cover band to start. The first 5 albums were almost entirely blues and R&B covers. They didn’t really hit their stride as songwriters till later in 1965, two years into their recording career.

The Beatles on the other hand had great original compositions from the get go, albeit with a some covers on albums 1, 2 and 4.

I’m still Stones > Beatles based on what the Stones did from 1968- 72, but still….

Shut hole, you ignorant Idaho hillbilly

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rolling-stones-brown-sugar_n_6166c9d2e4b0fcd00f982c7e

Your favorite band is racist. So, therefore you are too.

YellowSnow

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/paul-mccartney-calls-the-rolling-stones-a-blues-cover-band-1241319/


And so there's no confusion on where the Throbber stands on this issue - the Beatles suck.

McCartney isn’t totally off the mark. He just used the wrong tense. The Stones “were” a blues cover band to start. The first 5 albums were almost entirely blues and R&B covers. They didn’t really hit their stride as songwriters till later in 1965, two years into their recording career.

The Beatles on the other hand had great original compositions from the get go, albeit with a some covers on albums 1, 2 and 4.

I’m still Stones > Beatles based on what the Stones did from 1968- 72, but still….

Shut hole, you ignorant Idaho hillbilly

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rolling-stones-brown-sugar_n_6166c9d2e4b0fcd00f982c7e

Your favorite band is racist. So, therefore you are too.

#WhiteWakanda

RoadDawg55

Longevity matters. Stones > Beatles.

Fishpo31

The Beatles broke up when I was 9. I bought my first Stones record when I was 14. I didn't really begin to figure out (or truly enjoy) either until I was in my mid-20's. Just as the Beatles were splitting, the Stones were in their sweet spot (Bleed, Fingers, Exile). They turned me on to Chicago Blues, R & B, blue eyed soul, even country. I've wondered what 3 or 4 more Beatles albums would have sounded like, but the Stones put out solid albums into the early 80's.

"I don't have a racist bone in my body", and Brown Sugar fucking ROCKS...

dflea

So what's Paul looking to do here? Does he think he needs to tell everyone what The Rolling Stones were/are?

'Blues cover band' seems pretty harsh to me. I think Keith should go knock the piss out of Paul, frankly.

chuck

dflea said:

So what's Paul looking to do here? Does he think he needs to tell everyone what The Rolling Stones were/are?

'Blues cover band' seems pretty harsh to me. I think Keith should go knock the piss out of Paul, frankly.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I love both bands.

Paul and any other Beatle would skull fuck Keith or any other rolling stone un a fight though. The Beatles were softer musically, but were ll blue collar kids who were no strangers to fighting. They became a band playing in rowdy joints in Hamburg, where fights on and off stage were commonplace. I remember reading one specific story about Paul and Stu Sutcliff getting into it on stage at a show. Paul best the shit out of him before they could be restrained.

The Stones gritty edge was manufactured. They were spoiled art school kids. Pussies.

RaceBannon

chuck said:

dflea said:

So what's Paul looking to do here? Does he think he needs to tell everyone what The Rolling Stones were/are?

'Blues cover band' seems pretty harsh to me. I think Keith should go knock the piss out of Paul, frankly.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I love both bands.

Paul and any other Beatle would skull fuck Keith or any other rolling stone un a fight though. The Beatles were softer musically, but were ll blue collar kids who were no strangers to fighting. They became a band playing in rowdy joints in Hamburg, where fights on and off stage were commonplace. I remember reading one specific story about Paul and Stu Sutcliff getting into it on stage at a show. Paul best the shit out of him before they could be restrained.

The Stones gritty edge was manufactured. They were spoiled art school kids. Pussies.

I actually did not know that about the Stones

My problem if you can call it a problem is over saturation with all of them

It is very hard for a 60's song to be on my digital collection. They were so huge that FM played them into the 80's and I got burned out

Except for Neil Young and selections from the Who and Zeppelin

I watched the Ed Sullivan Beatles show when it happened and my older sister got all the albums and we had one stereo so I played them too

PurpleThrobber

RaceBannon said:

chuck said:

dflea said:

So what's Paul looking to do here? Does he think he needs to tell everyone what The Rolling Stones were/are?

'Blues cover band' seems pretty harsh to me. I think Keith should go knock the piss out of Paul, frankly.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I love both bands.

Paul and any other Beatle would skull fuck Keith or any other rolling stone un a fight though. The Beatles were softer musically, but were ll blue collar kids who were no strangers to fighting. They became a band playing in rowdy joints in Hamburg, where fights on and off stage were commonplace. I remember reading one specific story about Paul and Stu Sutcliff getting into it on stage at a show. Paul best the shit out of him before they could be restrained.

The Stones gritty edge was manufactured. They were spoiled art school kids. Pussies.

I actually did not know that about the Stones

My problem if you can call it a problem is over saturation with all of them

It is very hard for a 60's song to be on my digital collection. They were so huge that FM played them into the 80's and I got burned out

Except for Neil Young and selections from the Who and Zeppelin Faces

I watched the Ed Sullivan Beatles show when it happened and my older sister got all the albums and we had one stereo so I played them too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTe0aTxARj0

Edit for 1972 and the greatest rock and roll song of all tim and, well, Rod Stewart > Neil Young.

#neverforget