[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ It's A Gas, Gas, Gas Message Board ]
Posted by Alex (152.163.213.182) on January 21, 2001 at 12:34:48:
In Reply to: Interesting point, but... posted by Micaela on January 21, 2001 at 12:07:57:
: None of the Beatles are the most talented in their respective fields. In my opinion, Mick is a better vocalist than John was, and can handle a variety of different styles. Paul and George don't even show up on the guitar radar, and Ringo can't touch drummers like Moony, Chawley, and Bonzo. The Beatles are my SECOND favorite band, but they don't have the longevity that the Stones do (by this I don't mean the longevity of their music, because obviously their legacy has lasted, but the band was only together for what, seven years?). The best thing about the Stones is that each one of those guys could hold their own in a solo career, and each one is at the top of the list with their talents. The Stones ARE, in my opinion, the greatest band because they are all the best in the field at what they do, have released an incredible number of quality albums, have stood the test of time, put on about 5,000 more shows than the Beatles EVER did, and they're still going. That's all there is to say.
Anyone into the Beatles should know that they formed in 1957 as the Quarry Men. Okay, it wasn't the Beatles as we came to know them. That happend in 1960 in Hamburg. Alright no Ringo but there you go. Ringo wasn't the best drummer, but does that matter. Moon and Charlie who i love wouldn't of fitted the Beatles style. Ringo was just right. He had that personality, which Charlie in those days was lacking, oh and Bill. Another thing, don't compare John to Mick. Micks great at what he does and vice vercer. In fact John ws proboaly better. Another thing you were wrong about was the Stones holding their own in their solo careers. Mick had one top ten hit. "Dancing in the Street" with David Bowie. And one top ten album, Shes the boss. Keiths career didn't really get going, which was a shame. Mind you saying that.. (What would of happend to the Stones. Charlie released an album last year which did fuck all, and Bills rythem kings album only did marginaly well. John and Pauls (not too keen on Pauls) solo stuff did great. As did Ringo and Georges for a while. George had a top ten hit only about 12 years ago, and the Traveling Wilburys was a success. Also perhaps the Beatles would of lasted longer without Yoko in the way? Anyway, evan if they did survive, their music would of gotton slowly worse. Same with the Stones. Come on, except Sticky Fingers and Exile what have the Stones really done which could match their sixtes stuff? Dont get me wrong, i love everything by the Stones (cant wait for the new one) and i don't want to get on the wrong side of anyone. You must see my point. Also paul was a pretty good base player. I don't really see how anyone can say Bill is any better. Listen to paper back writer and stuff like that. Anyway the best Stones bass was played by Keith. SFTD and Live With Me. Yes George wasn'ta great guitar player, but dd the Beatles need a better one? He just fitted in. Couldn't imagine Keith there.