February 18, 20223 yr On 1/8/2022 at 6:50 PM, closetohumping said: Taco Bell is garbage yes. But a crispy taco supreme from there is about as good as any crispy taco your abuelita can make. If you want a “good Taco Bell taco”, go to Taco Casa.
February 18, 20223 yr 13 hours ago, Helobious said: Right thread to say this… I don’t like the Stones or the Beatles. And there’s old music I do like but they never did it for me. If you don't like the Stones then you don't have any
February 18, 20223 yr I can understand not liking the Beatles. It’s wrong, but I can understand it.Not liking the stones though? Does not fucking compute at all.
February 18, 20223 yr 36 minutes ago, tbone_ said: I can understand not liking the Beatles. It’s wrong, but I can understand it. Not liking the stones though? Does not fucking compute at all. I’m not from that time so it has no nostalgic value to me at all and I just listen objectively. I don’t think they suck but they don’t do it for me, or I guess more accurately their genre just doesn’t do it for me. I’m more into the Smiths, The Cure, Joy Division/New Order, Misfits as far as that time goes. And yes I know the stones are older than all those bands.
February 18, 20223 yr I think groove is timeless and they are as good at it as anyone ever. Just my $.02.
February 18, 20223 yr If someone doesn't think Sympathy for the Devil is amazing, I don't think that person is amazing.
February 19, 20223 yr 7 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said: If someone doesn't think Sympathy for the Devil is amazing, I don't think that person is amazing. I don’t think it’s “amazing,” but I think it’s a great song. Does that at least make me a great person?
February 19, 20223 yr 8 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said: If someone doesn't think Sympathy for the Devil is amazing, I don't think that person is amazing. One of their best. "Amazing" isn't one of my go to descriptors for music but it's a phenomenal song.
February 19, 20223 yr 9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said: I don’t think it’s “amazing,” but I think it’s a great song. Does that at least make me a great person? Well, it makes you a wrong person.
February 19, 20223 yr 8 hours ago, ztejas said: One of their best. "Amazing" isn't one of my go to descriptors for music but it's a phenomenal song. Written when Mick Jagger was somewhere around 25 years old. I drove a Saturn at 25.
February 19, 20223 yr 33 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said: Well, it makes you a wrong person. Perhaps you are too easily “amazed.”
February 19, 20223 yr I don’t think it’s “amazing,” but I think it’s a great song. Does that at least make me a great person?Pretty sure ohio cancels it out
February 20, 20223 yr 12 hours ago, tbone_ said: Pretty sure ohio cancels it out That’s another great song.
February 21, 20223 yr On 2/18/2022 at 3:24 PM, Helobious said: I’m not from that time so it has no nostalgic value to me at all and I just listen objectively. I don’t think they suck but they don’t do it for me, or I guess more accurately their genre just doesn’t do it for me. I'm 40 and I feel that way about The Beatles. I acknowledge their importance, but their music just doesn't do it for me. However, I love me some Stones.
February 21, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, lateshow said: I'm 40 and I feel that way about The Beatles. I acknowledge their importance, but their music just doesn't do it for me. However, I love me some Stones. Congrats on becoming a man.
March 8, 20223 yr I don't think Troy Aikman is a very good commentator. His observations mostly could be made by a 15 year old Ohio schoolgirl.
March 8, 20223 yr 28 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said: I don't think Troy Aikman is a very good commentator. His observations mostly could be made by a 15 year old Ohio schoolgirl. he's average at best
March 8, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said: he's average at best He has the personality of a warm turnip.
March 31, 20223 yr I didn't want to shit all over the Bruce Willis thread so I'll post it here instead: I think his movie the 5th Element is terribad.
April 5, 20223 yr one shining moment is the lamest college sports tradition outside of college station.
April 5, 20223 yr 8 hours ago, elfenix said: one shining moment is the lamest college sports tradition outside of college station. I’ve never seen it. I didn’t even watch the championship game this year because I couldn’t care less. But when I do watch the game, I tune out as soon as the game is over.
April 5, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said: I’ve never seen it. I didn’t even watch the championship game this year because I couldn’t care less. But when I do watch the game, I tune out as soon as the game is over. Repped for proper use.
April 8, 20223 yr On 4/4/2022 at 10:56 PM, elfenix said: one shining moment is the lamest college sports tradition outside of college station. Even with new singers it still feels like a cheesy charity video from the 80s. I agree it’s become lame.
April 8, 20223 yr On 2/18/2022 at 2:02 PM, NeverMarryAStripper said: If you don't like the Stones then you don't have any the stones are a blues cover band.
April 8, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, futureman said: the stones are a blues cover band. Since Sir Paul has already rethought and backed down from that comment, you might consider doing the same…….
April 8, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, Horn Draoi said: Since Sir Paul has already rethought and backed down from that comment, you might consider doing the same……. oh did he? yeah I don’t care, I was just being contrarian. I love the stones.
April 8, 20223 yr On 2/18/2022 at 2:39 PM, tbone_ said: I can understand not liking the Beatles. It’s wrong, but I can understand it. Not liking the stones though? Does not fucking compute at all. Yeah, I like the Beatles, but it's more of a recognition that they're really fucking good at what they did. Their music rarely truly moves me, and a lot of feels like pastiche showing off. Lots of brilliant songs, the ability to play multiple genres really well, and undeniable influence on everyone, but there's a brittle ness to it, for lack of a better word. The Stones on the other hand - that shit feels real. The Stones are everything rock and roll is supposed to be. And the interesting part is that they didn't become that band until the Beatles retired and they quit trying to be the Bad Beatles.
April 8, 20223 yr 53 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said: The Stones on the other hand - that shit feels real. The Stones are everything rock and roll is supposed to be. And the interesting part is that they didn't become that band until the Beatles retired and they quit trying to be the Bad Beatles. This. No clue how you can listen to a song like "Tumbling Dice" or "Gimme Shelter" and say, meh, just your average bar band.
April 18, 20223 yr The Stones. Each of the band mates had a tremendous respect and love for their work. And those fuckers worked. Sympathy for the Devil was supposed to be fast but they slowed it down and each of them came to the conclusion that Mick almost speaking the lyrics was fucking badass. They knew instinctively the way to their best sound. That is their contribution... they blazed the way by following their sound. I don't know but that is a convergence of luck and timing that they found each other and created some great fucking work together during that era of time when blues needed to be heard by a wider audience and then evolve into where they took it. Imagine Rock and Roll without them and tell me that it would be as big a genre as it became. Their work was not only foundational but seminal throughout R&R.
April 18, 20223 yr Beatles don't age well. And I'm tired of the "they did so much for music and I really appreciate them and understand how important and influential they were BUT..." You mean... BUT you don't enjoy their music? I mean for me that's sort of the barometer for appreciating an artist's contribution. Guess I'm sort of sick of pretending like the Beatles are some unassailable force of popular music and rock and roll when 2 or 3 generations now have let everyone know that they were kind of overrated and didn't really generate much that still persists today.
April 18, 20223 yr I mean... let's go real deep while we're at it... Who's Next is a better album than anything the Beatles or Stones ever put together.
April 18, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, ztejas said: Beatles don't age well. And I'm tired of the "they did so much for music and I really appreciate them and understand how important and influential they were BUT..." You mean... BUT you don't enjoy their music? I mean for me that's sort of the barometer for appreciating an artist's contribution. Guess I'm sort of sick of pretending like the Beatles are some unassailable force of popular music and rock and roll when 2 or 3 generations now have let everyone know that they were kind of overrated and didn't really generate much that still persists today. The Beatles aged perfectly fine outside of maybe their earliest few albums. Not sure which generations are calling them overrated either because I'm a millennial and my generation for the most part loves them. If anything, not liking the Beatles is a contrarian opinion regardless of which generation you're in. And I like the Stones. I just like the Beatles better.
April 18, 20223 yr 4 hours ago, ztejas said: I mean... let's go real deep while we're at it... Who's Next is a better album than anything the Beatles or Stones ever put together. I love The Who, and I love Who's Next, but Beggar's Banquet>Let It Bleed>Sticky Fingers>Exile on Main Street is the best rock and roll music ever made by anyone.
April 18, 20223 yr If I’m in my car, and my daughter is with me, I’ll be listening to The Eagle. It’s Houston’s only classic rock station. They play the Stones all the time and I can’t remember the last time I heard the playa Beatles song. That suits me just fine.
April 18, 20223 yr 58 minutes ago, Tom said: The Beatles aged perfectly fine outside of maybe their earliest few albums. Not sure which generations are calling them overrated either because I'm a millennial and my generation for the most part loves them. If anything, not liking the Beatles is a contrarian opinion regardless of which generation you're in. And I like the Stones. I just like the Beatles better. The Beatles didn’t make a bad album. Their first albums were great. Hell, Twist & Shout was on their first album Please Please Me. That’s a rock ‘n’ roll classic. Are you telling me you don’t like that song, didn’t enjoy it in the parade scene in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? You know the construction workers dancing along to it? Those weren’t actors. Those were actual construction workers who were dancing along during the shooting of the scene and they filmed them. A lot of people judge them unfavorably because they grew up in a world of music influenced by later Beatles albums. The early Beatles had influences like Elvis and the Everly Brothers and Buddy Holly and Buck Owens and a host of R&B acts. They did covers but they also synthesized and came up with something new and unique when they wrote a bunch of their own songs. The Stones wouldn’t exist if not for the Beatles. They were Beatles fans. They were copycats while the Beatles were around. The Beatles wrote I Wanna Be Your Man for the Stones and that inspired the Stones to start writing their own music too. (It appeared on With the Beatles, their fourth album.) You won’t find many artists who’ll cite the Stones as an influence and not the Beatles too. Nothing is 100% so you can’t expect everyone to love the Beatles. But they have so much diversity in their music that it’s hard to imagine that anyone who likes rock music can’t find songs in their catalog that they like. If not, then it makes me wonder if they’re just being obstinate and contrarian and only want to find individuality by not going along with the pack. (I know a guy who doesn’t like Seinfeld for that reason.) Or maybe they think I Wanna Hold Your Hand is representative of their entire catalog. Maybe they never heard Savoy Truffle or The Ballad Of John And Yoko or Everybody’s Got Something To Hide Except For Me And My Monkey. (What a great song title.) The Stones are a good band. So are The Who. So was Led Zeppelin. So was Pink Floyd who put out arguably the greatest rock album of all time without any influence from the Stones and who have influenced a lot of other artists too. The Who played Woodstock. The Stones didn’t so they answered with the disaster at Altamont. And while the Stones played a lot of great music, they also played some total crap and I haven’t met a Stones fan yet who won’t admit that. Beatles ftw.
April 18, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said: If I’m in my car, and my daughter is with me, I’ll be listening to The Eagle. It’s Houston’s only classic rock station. They play the Stones all the time and I can’t remember the last time I heard the playa Beatles song. That suits me just fine. Child abuser.
April 18, 20223 yr Yes, those albums were great. But I'll have to commend Ztejas for recognizing that Who album with its innovative use of synthesizers and great sound. It propelled hard rock forward and is a definite landmark album. Saying it is better than anything the Stones put out is arguable at best.
April 18, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said: If I’m in my car, and my daughter is with me, I’ll be listening to The Eagle. It’s Houston’s only classic rock station. They play the Stones all the time and I can’t remember the last time I heard the playa Beatles song. That suits me just fine. 3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said: Child abuser. Ha ha, meant to type Isn’t. If she’s in the car we’re listening to K-POP, which qualifies as elder abuse
April 18, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said: Ha ha, meant to type Isn’t. If she’s in the car we’re listening to K-POP, which qualifies as elder abuse Lol. I retract my accusation.
April 18, 20223 yr 34 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said: The Beatles didn’t make a bad album. Their first albums were great. Hell, Twist & Shout was on their first album Please Please Me. That’s a rock ‘n’ roll classic. Are you telling me you don’t like that song, didn’t enjoy it in the parade scene in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? You know the construction workers dancing along to it? Those weren’t actors. Those were actual construction workers who were dancing along during the shooting of the scene and they filmed them. A lot of people judge them unfavorably because they grew up in a world of music influenced by later Beatles albums. The early Beatles had influences like Elvis and the Everly Brothers and Buddy Holly and Buck Owens and a host of R&B acts. They did covers but they also synthesized and came up with something new and unique when they wrote a bunch of their own songs. The Stones wouldn’t exist if not for the Beatles. They were Beatles fans. They were copycats while the Beatles were around. The Beatles wrote I Wanna Be Your Man for the Stones and that inspired the Stones to start writing their own music too. (It appeared on With the Beatles, their fourth album.) You won’t find many artists who’ll cite the Stones as an influence and not the Beatles too. Nothing is 100% so you can’t expect everyone to love the Beatles. But they have so much diversity in their music that it’s hard to imagine that anyone who likes rock music can’t find songs in their catalog that they like. If not, then it makes me wonder if they’re just being obstinate and contrarian and only want to find individuality by not going along with the pack. (I know a guy who doesn’t like Seinfeld for that reason.) Or maybe they think I Wanna Hold Your Hand is representative of their entire catalog. Maybe they never heard Savoy Truffle or The Ballad Of John And Yoko or Everybody’s Got Something To Hide Except For Me And My Monkey. (What a great song title.) The Stones are a good band. So are The Who. So was Led Zeppelin. So was Pink Floyd who put out arguably the greatest rock album of all time without any influence from the Stones and who have influenced a lot of other artists too. The Who played Woodstock. The Stones didn’t so they answered with the disaster at Altamont. And while the Stones played a lot of great music, they also played some total crap and I haven’t met a Stones fan yet who won’t admit that. Beatles ftw. I don't disagree with any of that. When I say the earliest albums didn't age as well I'm talking specifically about the production. Nothing wrong with the songs themselves or Twist and Shout, I like them all, but some of the recordings or the mixing or whatever you call it sounds dated to my ears. I still enjoy the songs, but they sound "old" whereas the later albums almost feel like they could have been recorded much more recently then the 1960s. Edited April 18, 20223 yr by Tom
April 18, 20223 yr The Stones absolutely made some shit albums (pretty much everything after 1980). They were better at their best than anyone though, and that's what hardcore Stones are generally referring to.
April 18, 20223 yr Stones / Beatles argument annoys me. I love fried chicken. I love brisket. Just because you prefer brisket to fried chicken doesn't mean fried chicken sucks.
April 18, 20223 yr 12 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said: Stones / Beatles argument annoys me. I love fried chicken. I love brisket. Just because you prefer brisket to fried chicken doesn't mean fried chicken sucks. this is surly EVERYTHING is black and white; no greys allowed
April 18, 20223 yr 42 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said: this is surly EVERYTHING is black and white; no greys allowed It’s not an opinion that the Stones stood on the shoulders of the Beatles. It’s fine if you like the Stones better than you like the Beatles. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. But you don’t have the right to your own facts. History is what it is. There were a lot of influential artists who came both before and after the Beatles and there’s no way to say what the musical world would be like if the Stones had never existed. They were the “bad boy” version of the Beatles after Brian Epstein got the Fab Four to ditch their leather jackets and don matching suits. The Stones marketed themselves as a gritty alternative. But as long as the Beatles existed the Stones were always in their rear view mirror. It’s weird when fans of one band are threatened by the popularity of another band. They’re not sports teams where there are winners and losers. Music is a collaborative art and everyone can win. It’s weird when fans of one band dislike a band who the band they love respects and admires. If you hate band A but love band B while band B loves band A, what does that say? Maybe it says you should loosen up and expand your musical horizons. It’s not a competition. Sgt. Pepper’s was to rock music what Citizen Kane was to cinema. Listen to what people were playing before Sgt. Pepper’s and then to what people were playing after. (The Stones answered with Their Satanic Majesties Request — answer for that one, Stones fans.) The same thing happened before and after Kane in cinema. There was a sea change. They changed perspective and the notion of what was possible. It’s great if you love the Stones but they didn’t introduce the blues to rock music anymore than Rush introduced syncopation (an opinion my brother seems to hold).
April 18, 20223 yr 31 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said: It’s great if you love the Stones but they didn’t introduce the blues to rock music anymore than Rush introduced syncopation (an opinion my brother seems to hold). Led Zeppelin says hello
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.