Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Shots fired
PurpleThrobber
Member Posts: 48,028
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.
And so there's no confusion on where the Throbber stands on this issue - the Beatles suck.
Comments
-
Stones suck.
-
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 -
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.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.
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 -
They should fight it out.
-
-
Paul is a faggot
-
Things John Would say.RaceBannon said:Paul is a faggot
-
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 said: -
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 said:
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 said: -
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 said:
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 said:
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 said: -
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.BleachedAnusDawg said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.BleachedAnusDawg said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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. -
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rolling-stones-brown-sugar_n_6166c9d2e4b0fcd00f982c7eYellowSnow said:
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.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.
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
Your favorite band is racist. So, therefore you are too.
-
#WhiteWakandaPurpleThrobber said:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rolling-stones-brown-sugar_n_6166c9d2e4b0fcd00f982c7eYellowSnow said:
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.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.
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
Your favorite band is racist. So, therefore you are too. -
Longevity matters. Stones > Beatles.
-
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... -
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.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.
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 Stoneschuck said:
I don't have a dog in this fight. I love both bands.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.
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.
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 -
RaceBannon said:
I actually did not know that about the Stoneschuck said:
I don't have a dog in this fight. I love both bands.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.
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.
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 forNeil Young and selections from the Who and ZeppelinFaces
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 -
Paul is not wrong. But that doesn't mean the Stone aren't kick ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEuV82GqQnE -
I don't judge your take on the Beatles. Hell, even Old Yeller has had a Beatles burnout phase and a Zep one too.RaceBannon said:
I actually did not know that about the Stoneschuck said:
I don't have a dog in this fight. I love both bands.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.
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.
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
Being able to listen to a lot of this material on a high fi system helps to keep it fresh and interesting to me. I rarely listen to them on Spotify however which is my M.O. for the car or working out. Too much other great music to be exploring. -
I’m a John over Paul guy. I’ve seen Paul McCartney in concert at Coachella in 2009. I was bored outta my fucking skull and wished I was poppin molly in the techno tent.
-
Same here. Paul had a couple of decent and a bunch of really shitty songs as a post Beatle. John was erratic and not very prolific but recorded some of his best songs as a solo artist.
It's more even when they were Beatles, but McCartney fagged out way too much and it obscures his better work a bit.
-
I was mocking - but I'm pretty sure the most likely outcome would be one of them falling down on the front steps and getting a broken hip and the other one not even being able to find the 7-11 they agreed to meet up at.chuck said:
I don't have a dog in this fight. I love both bands.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.
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.
-
Yeah I know but I felt like sharing that bit of lesser known info about them. I hated 80s music and was obsessed with 60s classic rock in HS. Even wrote my massive junior English research paper on the Beatles and how they influenced the evolution of rock.dflea said:
I was mocking - but I'm pretty sure the most likely outcome would be one of them falling down on the front steps and getting a broken hip and the other one not even being able to find the 7-11 they agreed to meet up at.chuck said:
I don't have a dog in this fight. I love both bands.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.
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.
