Who was the greatest, The Beatles or Stones?

Nov 23, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Tahoe Daily Tribune

What: Beatles vs. Stones When: 7:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday, Nov. 23-24 Where: Harrah's South Shore Room Tickets: $22 STATELINE, Nev.

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of104
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Dec 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

chris wrote:
You know Octo, it's a shame Elvis died so young. Just imagine what he would've done in the 80s & 90s, & all the different collaborations he could've had with other recording artists. He might've even been part of a supergroup, like the Traveling Wilburys. It's too bad we'll never know.
It was like when Rick Nelson tried to progress into the new decade and was booed at MSG for doing his updated act. He even wrote one final hit about it called, "Garden Party" I think that Elvis would have fared well with the early 80's 'Urban Cowboy' phase when suddenly, Country music crossed over to the popular mainstream once again. He could've returned to Hollywood and starred in bad ass action movies also. That was Elvis's desire. But sadly, he never got to do those things because he died in 1977. It's like wondering what John Lennon would've done had he lived. Perhaps, we would've seen a Beatles reunion.
chris

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Dec 24, 2012
 
You must be talking Elvis's 68 comeback special, which was a triumphant return for the king. That's actually the year I was born, so it was a good year for me, as well as Elvis.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Dec 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Greg wrote:
I would like to say that I was not talking down to Elvis. In fact I was talking over Elvis. I do like him very much, much more than the Stones. And you know, I consider the Kinks, Yardbirds or Animals close to the Rolling Stones if not equivalent. They were underrated. The fact that(the R.S.) have endured so many years doesn't mean that much to me. I just thought that the Beatles' work is more significant than any other artist in Pop/Rock industry. THAT'S ALL. Oh, have a merry merry Christmas and enjoy the music.
The Rolling Stones were simply taken over by Mick Jagger's interests in taking them into a more disco direction and then modernizing The Stones through the eighties, which may have worked at the time but has dated very badly today. The Kinks eighties comeback really does hold up much better but it was very brief like The Moody Blues and Yes. For the most part though, the eighties sound really doesn't sound all that great today. The sixties and seventies music still sounds timeless as long as it stayed away from disco. Yuck. MTV did introduce a lot of new creativity into the mainstream that wouldn't have gotten noticed otherwise. There were a lot of choices then. You could avoid what you didn't like and still enjoy new music from your favorite artists.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Dec 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

chris wrote:
You must be talking Elvis's 68 comeback special, which was a triumphant return for the king. That's actually the year I was born, so it was a good year for me, as well as Elvis.
I could certainly hear an improvement in the quality of the material of the last few Elvis movies in the late sixties but they were not originally released on soundtrack album. The NBC Special was quite a stunning achievement, which led to the Memphis sessions and then the excellent 'That's The Way It Is' album in 1970. Two completely different Elvis's. The live performances changed also as Elvis kept updating the show as he went along. That is why I love hearing the live seventies bootlegs because Elvis could rock depending on the night and how he felt. I had just got another unreleased show most recently called,'Wild Tiger At The Hilton' from 1-28-74 dinner performance. Very bluesy. Elvis was always changing, moving forward and even today, I can be totally surprised and blown away by what I hear. You are only a couple years younger then me. I happen to have some excellent Beatle boots as well. I like hearing unreleased performances and studio outtakes from the rock era. You only live once. Might as well hear them since the music today is mostly useless.
chris

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Dec 24, 2012
 
Hey Octo, where do you find your Elvis & Beatle boots? Also, I was wondering if theire are any unreleased Elvis songs left, that the estate has not released yet. I'm talking about complete songs that were never released, not demos or alternate takes. And, I agree with your opinion of todays music, which is why I listen to the oldies & the classic rock most of the time.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Dec 24, 2012
 
chris wrote:
Hey Octo, where do you find your Elvis & Beatle boots? Also, I was wondering if theire are any unreleased Elvis songs left, that the estate has not released yet. I'm talking about complete songs that were never released, not demos or alternate takes. And, I agree with your opinion of todays music, which is why I listen to the oldies & the classic rock most of the time.
There used to be an independent record store near me that sold a lot of great imports, but sadly they closed their doors some years ago. However, there is a record fair held once a year and I go to search for rarities from the rock era. My friend from NY City sometimes finds me some new Elvis stuff and over the years I've amassed such a large collection. Of course, I search for Elvis first, then move on down to The Beatles, The Stones, The Doors, Led Zeppelin and others. As for being any unreleased Elvis left, they just found an unheard live version of "Little Mama" and "I Forgot To Remember To Forget" from a 1955 radio broadcast. I have Elvis doing "Susie Q" in concert in 1975 that was never released before in any other form. You would probably be blown away by some of the better Beatle boots. I did find some good ones over the years but I avoid live imports by The Beatles because they were disappointing. One of the best Beatle boots is called, "Turn Me On Dead Man" and another one that I would recommend is a title that's called, "Casualties" Really, superior sounding stuff with drastically different mixes and takes. A real eye opener. I love finding great material like that.
chris

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Dec 24, 2012
 
Thanks Octo, I think I'll start looking at some flea markets around me. I have a couple of Beatle boots, 2 live & 1 from the Pepper era. I agree that a lot of their live stuff isn't that great, but the one I have of them in Paris is actually quite good. Probably because the fans weren't as hysterical as other places, so they could actually hear themselves, which made for a better performance.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Dec 24, 2012
 
chris wrote:
Thanks Octo, I think I'll start looking at some flea markets around me. I have a couple of Beatle boots, 2 live & 1 from the Pepper era. I agree that a lot of their live stuff isn't that great, but the one I have of them in Paris is actually quite good. Probably because the fans weren't as hysterical as other places, so they could actually hear themselves, which made for a better performance.
I have enough live stuff from The Beatles and rarely play them. The Rolling Stones 1964-1965 soundboards were much better, for some reason and fans screamed at their concerts as well. My stepfather first saw The Stones in 1965 and said that he could not hear a word. The Beatles in the studio were much more entertaining. Sometimes, you'll hear a different Beatle singing lead that is not in the original release. Then you have completely different mono or stereo mixes. They were released in different formats in other countries. US Capital LP's were poorly done compared to some of the foreign stuff. Amazing sound too. Every Beatle fan should hear them. It is mind blowing what is out there.
chris

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Dec 24, 2012
 
Your take on the Beatles studio work is correct, they really grew as recording artists, once they became a full time studio band. And, I have also noticed that their US Capitol releases sound inferior to other releases. I have been a Beatle fan for 32 years, & I have quite an extensive collection including DVDs, CDs & vinyl LPs. I recently got back into vinyl, & I think they sound better on good quality vinyl, then they do on CD. Do you feel the same way about Elvis?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Dec 24, 2012
 
chris wrote:
Thanks Octo, I think I'll start looking at some flea markets around me. I have a couple of Beatle boots, 2 live & 1 from the Pepper era. I agree that a lot of their live stuff isn't that great, but the one I have of them in Paris is actually quite good. Probably because the fans weren't as hysterical as other places, so they could actually hear themselves, which made for a better performance.
I was able to find a lot of interesting Beatle stuff from every era that they recorded. 2 disc sets from the sessions from "Help" and "Rubber Soul" which were excellent. But the sessions from "Revolver" were rough. That surprised me since its one of my favorite Beatle albums. The sessions for "The White Album" certainly should be heard in outtake form because its amazing. "Abbey Road" has some interesting outtakes too but where never complete. The long instrumental piece that George wrote for "Something" should've stayed on the song. Another great outtake is Ringo's "Octopus's Garden" with bubbles in the mix. Great stuff.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Dec 24, 2012
 
chris wrote:
Your take on the Beatles studio work is correct, they really grew as recording artists, once they became a full time studio band. And, I have also noticed that their US Capitol releases sound inferior to other releases. I have been a Beatle fan for 32 years, & I have quite an extensive collection including DVDs, CDs & vinyl LPs. I recently got back into vinyl, & I think they sound better on good quality vinyl, then they do on CD. Do you feel the same way about Elvis?
The problem was that I couldn't find a quality turn table and it ruined a couple of my vinyl albums. But the compact discs sound fine depending on who remasters them. You would be surprised how some bootleggers take the time with the recordings to get them to sound perfect. It must be a fan thing. I'm very disappointed by the remastering work done on The Beatles original titles. They should've left them alone. I was happy with the Elvis catalog remasters in the 90's but the new Elvis Sony stuff is overdone, which the music bleeds out of the speaker. There should always be separation in the instruments for a warm sound. I hate when the music sounds so unnatural that it becomes un listenable. Have a great holiday. I gotta go.
chris

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Dec 24, 2012
 
Hey Octo, I bought a really good turntable on Amazon, brand new for $80. I looked up reviews for it, & people had nothing but good things to say. And, I myself have been very happy with it. It is made by Audio Technica model# AT-LP60. I think that The Beatles & Elvis, should be listened to on vinyl, because they both recorded before the digital age, & were around for the mono to stereo conversion as well. Plus, they recorded & mixed their music to be listened to on a record player. Also, for me, it's like stepping back in time. Ok I'll talk to you later, happy holidays to you & your family.

“Shadowville All-Stars”

Since: Dec 08

Columbus, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Dec 24, 2012
 
Beatles, Stones, Dylan, The Kinks... I've just gone beyond trying to figure out who is/was best, or even who I enjoy the most.
Stuart Sutcliffe RIP

Rochester, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Dec 27, 2012
 
octo wrote:
<quoted text>
With the help of George Martin that spliced up straps and bits, tape loops, backwards songs, overdubs and other weird shit they recorded in the studio? Ok. But really, it was a product of a tune in, tune out sixties culture. Apparently, a lot of people thought they were hearing something great. However,'Sargent Pepper' is a dated, overblown and hyped up relic from a dead era. Many other worthy artists deserve credit for making great music also and it wasn't because of The Beatles. By 1968, that 'summer of love' period was already over with so how did it pave the way for others?
The album is SGT. Pepper's, not "sargent" at least get it right and have some respect. We can figure out you're a Beatles hater, so be it.
Stuart Sutcliffe RIP

Rochester, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

octo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Beatles were neatly packaged so it is easier to make claims. Elvis was very professional and was always prepared before recording his sessions. A lot of superior, mind blowing take ones or early takes.
Good Luck comparing studio recording and production of Elvis in the 50's to the Beatles in the 60's. Equipment had evolved so much in that time. Recording styles and ideas changed too. Technique and other stuff.
Tell us about recording experimentations and innovations Elvis did?
Also dont disparage the ability of George Martin to grasp an idea John, Paul or George had and how he would make it work due to his knowledge of recording and orchestration or sound effect.

Better yet, why dont you just go start an Elvis thread where you can blubber all you want.
chris

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Dec 28, 2012
 
Stuart Sutcliffe RIP wrote:
<quoted text>
The album is SGT. Pepper's, not "sargent" at least get it right and have some respect. We can figure out you're a Beatles hater, so be it.
He's actually not a Beatle hater. If you read his posts, you'll find that he owns a lot of their music. He is however, a huge Elvis fan, & he doesn't like it when people put down the king. So, let's have a healthy discussion, & leave the insults out of it.
Stuart Sutcliffe RIP

Rochester, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Dec 28, 2012
 
Then lets leave Elvis out of this thread, it's Beatles vs Stones.
He can go start a new Elvis thread himself
chris

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Dec 28, 2012
 
Hey Elmer, when's your next album coming out. You could probably use the money because your beer fund must be getting low by now.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
Dec 28, 2012
 
chris wrote:
Hey Octo, I bought a really good turntable on Amazon, brand new for $80. I looked up reviews for it, & people had nothing but good things to say. And, I myself have been very happy with it. It is made by Audio Technica model# AT-LP60. I think that The Beatles & Elvis, should be listened to on vinyl, because they both recorded before the digital age, & were around for the mono to stereo conversion as well. Plus, they recorded & mixed their music to be listened to on a record player. Also, for me, it's like stepping back in time. Ok I'll talk to you later, happy holidays to you & your family.
That's cool. I still have most of my old vinyl LP's that I bought when I was a kid. I have some rare imports from The Beatles and The Rolling Stones on vinyl but back then, I didn't know what they were. I have a rare Holland pressed 'Beatles Greatest' that sounded a billion times better than any US release. It put the others to shame. I'd like to get a turntable. The holidays were went too quickly, didn't it? Looking forward to the new years. Thanks, Chris. You seem like a cool person.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
Dec 28, 2012
 
Stuart Sutcliffe RIP wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Luck comparing studio recording and production of Elvis in the 50's to the Beatles in the 60's. Equipment had evolved so much in that time. Recording styles and ideas changed too. Technique and other stuff.
Tell us about recording experimentations and innovations Elvis did?
Also dont disparage the ability of George Martin to grasp an idea John, Paul or George had and how he would make it work due to his knowledge of recording and orchestration or sound effect.
Better yet, why dont you just go start an Elvis thread where you can blubber all you want.
"Please Please Me" still sounds like it was recorded in a tin can. Sorry, but Elvis still had superior production in the fifties. RCA was a top of the line and their studios were so much more advanced then the studios in the early sixties in England. Even Sun had better sound. You should check out Jerry Lee Lewis "Live At The Star Club, 1964" Amazing German soundboard recording. The Beatles did not get passable sound until "Help" Elvis recorded with Boots Randolph in 1960 and did "Reconsider Baby" for one example. Bluesy hot sax in stereo then recorded Hawaiian music in 1961 and sang in Latin. Don't make me laugh.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of104
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent The Beatles Discussions

Search the The Beatles Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Bob Dylan yes or no (Jun '10) 15 hr Greg 11
150 Best Selling Artists in the World! (Dec '08) Mon RICK 12,614
Yoko Ono (Jul '06) Mon Ron 119
my beatles friends (Nov '07) Apr 12 Greg 95
Non-LP Singles, B-Sides, & Rarities From the Be... (Jan '11) Apr 12 Stormin Norm 9
YOU SUCK PAUL McCartney (Jun '13) Apr 11 Jerry Sandusky 125
25 Top Travelers' Choice Destinations Apr 11 John Shatzalot 7
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••