- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Beatles or Stones?
Posted on 5/9/24 at 8:43 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Posted on 5/9/24 at 8:43 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:Let It Beer says hold my be
We never saw the Beatles grow old (as a group) or make a sub-par album
2
Posted on 5/9/24 at 8:57 pm to Kafka
Not one "All The Young Dudes" reference yet?
Posted on 5/9/24 at 8:57 pm to canyon
quote:Ahead of the Beatles? Come on.
Their resume is so far ahead of any other band it’s not funny.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 8:59 pm to Kafka
quote:
Let It Beer says hold my be
A sub-par album with at least 3 crushing all time classics - one of them possibly being the greatest song of all time.Posted on 5/9/24 at 9:02 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:all of which were atrociously recorded
A sub-par album with at least 3 crushing all time classics
quote:I have to ask which one that would be
one of them possibly being the greatest song of all time
Posted on 5/9/24 at 9:03 pm to Kafka
quote:meh
all of which were atrociously recorded
quote:I think you know.
I have to ask which one that would be
Posted on 5/9/24 at 9:10 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:I do not
I think you know
Posted on 5/9/24 at 10:08 pm to SaintlyTiger88
No Beatles equals no Stones.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 10:16 pm to geauxbrown
I like both but if I had to choose it would be The Stones. Put on Can't You Hear Me Knockin' and tell me the Beatles had anything close to this.
Posted on 5/9/24 at 10:32 pm to SaintlyTiger88
I am a big fan of both.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 7:20 am to SaintlyTiger88
Fan of both, but prefer the Beatles. They are The Standard. And there are no Stones w/o the Beatles, Mick has said that himself.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 7:29 am to TejasHorn
quote:
The Beatles had the advantage of probably the best producer in music history.
I'm a Beatles fan and this is a great point.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 7:39 am to DeltaTigerDelta
quote:
the Beatles were a flash in the pan
Posted on 5/10/24 at 7:46 am to SteelerBravesDawg
Andrew Loog Oldham was no slouch either.
Imo, the problem between the two (early Beatles and early Stones), was the engineering. It was like night and day.
The Stones earlier recordings sound like they were recorded in a stairwell, while the Beatles earlier recordings were so clean and clear. Compare songs like "Time Is On My Side" to "I Feel Fine". It's night and day.
Tribute that to their studios and engineering.
Imo, the problem between the two (early Beatles and early Stones), was the engineering. It was like night and day.
The Stones earlier recordings sound like they were recorded in a stairwell, while the Beatles earlier recordings were so clean and clear. Compare songs like "Time Is On My Side" to "I Feel Fine". It's night and day.
Tribute that to their studios and engineering.
This post was edited on 5/10/24 at 7:47 am
Posted on 5/10/24 at 8:56 am to DeltaTigerDelta
quote:
Beatles were a flash in the pan.
LOL…The Beatles have sold more records than The Stones and Led Zeppelin combined in that 8 year “flash”. Pretty successful “flash”. Also, Lennon, McCartney & Harrison all had #1 albums in their solo careers. Even Ringo had two #1 singles. Can’t say that about any member of the Stones or LZ. FYI… I love the Stones & LZ. Grew up listening to both every day. Saw both live at the LSU Assembly Center in the late 1970’s. Both top 5 bands of all time in my opinion. But The Beatles are the GOATS! Everyone has their own personal preferences.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 9:22 am to SaintlyTiger88
Just the Beatles 1964-1965 catalog blows any other group out of the water.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 9:24 am to hogcard1964
quote:
The Stones earlier recordings sound like they were recorded in a stairwell, while the Beatles earlier recordings were so clean and clear. Compare songs like "Time Is On My Side" to "I Feel Fine". It's night and day.
Tribute that to their studios and engineering.
Yes, if you bought the 45 or especially album.
On AM radio it didn't matter. Fuzzy Mono seemed to work just fine.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 10:05 am to SaintlyTiger88
The Beatles
Stones are 1000x cooler though
Stones are 1000x cooler though
Posted on 5/10/24 at 10:49 am to Kafka
quote:
I got from a book called, curiously, Beatles vs Stones
I hSean O’Mahony, publisher of both bands’ official fan magazines starting respectively in 1963 and 1964, crafted and softened their public images. He opines: “The Beatles were thugs who were put across as nice blokes, and the Rolling Stones were gentlemen who were made into thugs by Andrew [Loog Oldham, their manager].” McMillian accepts this as closer to the truth than the bands or their fans might admit during the next half a decade.onestly don't remember who said it
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:33 am to Liberator
quote:
Just the Beatles 1964-1965 catalog blows any other group out of the water.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News