[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ It's A Gas, Gas, Gas Message Board ]
Posted by Micaela (188.8.131.52) on January 21, 2001 at 13:39:58:
In Reply to: Sorry but thats rubbish posted by Alex on January 21, 2001 at 12:34:48:
I'm usually not bitchy, but this calls for an exception....
Look honey, that was my OPINION...you can't call someone's fucking OPINION rubbish. You will note, if you read my post carefully, that I stressed the fact that my sentiment was purely that, and nothing else. Take it or leave it, but don't call it rubbish.
: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.
I'm not counting that, because Stu Sutcliffe was still a member. Anyway, don't be so picky about how many years they were together. Ten years, seven years, what the fuck ever..my point is that that they were only a group for a quarter of the time that the Stones have been.
:Okay, thAlright 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.
Did I SAY that they would fit the Beatles's style? No. Where did you even GET that? I merely stated that I think they were better drummers. I was comparing them to Ringo to stress my point that Ringo couldn't compete with others in the drumming field. There's nothing I hate more than when people put words in my mouth.
:Ringo was just right. He had that personality, :which Charlie in those days was lacking, oh and :Bill.
I NEVER SAID RINGO WASNT' "JUST RIGHT"!!! Good God, boy, I just said he wasn't as good as Moon, Watts, or Bonham. And what ABOUT Bill, exactly? A great fucking bassist, is all.
:Another thing, don't compare John to Mick.
Gee, thanks, Mom! I'll compare whomever I want, thank you very much. You think I'm the first one to do this?
: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.
Hits, schmitz! When I said they could "hold their own in their solo careers", I didn't say they were the best solo artists. I meant that they were all decent, and above average. I was not taking media attention or chart-breaking into consideration. Had each Stone started in on their solo careers earlier, they could have been even better.
: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?
Hmm..let's see. Tatoo You, Some Girls, Voodoo Loungue, It's Only Rock and Roll, and Goats Head Soup to name a few. Besides, it's ridiculous to compare what they're putting out now to what they did before. It's inevitible that anyone who has been writing music for FORTY YEARS will start to run out of ideas and start to decline. Syph made an excellent point on this subject a week or so ago, when he said he hated it when people tried to draw parallels between new and old Stones material. OF COURSE their newer stuff isn't up to their late '60s standards, but can you really expect it to be? It's still infinintely better than most of the crap being released today.
:Dont get me wrong,
Too late, pal.
You must see my point.
:Yeah, I see your point. You're an overly analytical, judgemental, nit-picking kid who has tried to take my opinion and turn it inside out.
: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.
Keith's BASS on SFTD? How about his fucking GUITAR?!?!?!
:Yes George wasn'ta great guitar player, but dd :the Beatles need a better one? He just fitted in. :Couldn't imagine Keith there.
Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER, said, not even ONCE that I think Keith should have been a member of the Beatles. I was just SAYING he's better than ANY of the Beatles on guitar, for the love of God!
Next time you try and deprecate someone's opinion, don't say that they're "wrong". It is IMPOSSIBLE for opinions to be wrong. That would be like me saying to you, "You're wrong if you think Sticky Fingers is better than Exile". Now, if someone fucks with the facts, that's different. And I didn't, and I don't think my opinion instigated this sort of reply from you.
Enjoy your flight....
No peanuts for you.