fortuneandserendipity said:

rdhull said:

fortuneandserendipity said: Naw... they deserve all the accolades they've received. It's their influences that haven't got the amount praise they should be given.

See my profile for 5 bands that cane the shit out of any mentioned here. Good day!

Hon, theyre all great as well. I mentioned that. The ones we are talking at hand are as well. In some opinions, such as your, they dont hold a candle to the ones you mentioned. Even if so (hey, it's all subjective opinion) doesn't mean Stones, WHO, etc weren't good lol. What kind of game are we playing here?

Hmm is beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, or exile on main street as good as fuzzy logic, radiator, rings around the world, phantom power? Basically to compare their four best albums... That game. While at same time, remembering there is an objective truth to everything. Was Jesus the messiah? No he wasn't, he was probably a very naughty boy.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Hmm is beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, or exile on main street as good as fuzzy logic, radiator, rings around the world, phantom power?

fuck yeah

thank you goodnight

fortuneandserendipity said:

Hmm is beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, or exile on main street as good as fuzzy logic, radiator, rings around the world, phantom power? Basically to compare their four best albums... That game. While at same time, remembering there is an objective truth to everything. Was Jesus the messiah? No he wasn't, he was probably a very naughty boy.

yawnamundo

Pixies, The Beatles or One Direction.

Dasein said:

jjhunsecker said:

As much as I love the Beatles and especially The Rolling Stones, I'm going to have to say LED ZEPPELIN

Brother, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Oh, yes !

fortuneandserendipity said:

The Stones like The Who The Kinks and Led Zeppelin are all overrated I'm afraid.

Stones, Led Zep, and the Who are probably among the greatest fans in history. You cn never overrate them. I like the Kinks but put them at a slightly lower level

MoBettaBliss said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Hmm is beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, or exile on main street as good as fuzzy logic, radiator, rings around the world, phantom power? Basically to compare their four best albums... That game. While at same time, remembering there is an objective truth to everything. Was Jesus the messiah? No he wasn't, he was probably a very naughty boy.

yawnamundo

hell yeah

purplethunder3121 said:

fourletterwords said:

homesquid said:

Queen for me

Co-sign. Early 70s queen in particular is just phenomenal. One of the odd bands where the critics had to catch up to the fans. Beyond the best known stuff, Songs like "In the Lap of the Gods", "Stone Cold Crazy", "Death on Two Legs", all of the album Queen 2, "Prophets Song" "Jealousy" "Somebody to Love"..... and on and on. Freddie as a vocalist is obviously revered but as a songwriter is highly underrated. His personal travails, and the tragedy, kind of overshadowed the musical genius. Dude was amazing. And influence on newer generation - right up there w/ Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin... Can challenge all the best bands.

I agree he is very underrated as a songwrter

MoBettaBliss said:

mick taylor era stones

what say you?

jjhunsecker said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

The Stones like The Who The Kinks and Led Zeppelin are all overrated I'm afraid.

Stones, Led Zep, and the Who are probably among the greatest fans in history. You cn never overrate them. I like the Kinks but put them at a slightly lower level

Yes they do have some of the greatest most fervent fans in history. Typo = freudian slip, I presume.

Some bands are just overrated I'm afraid. Popularity doesn't equal quality. We have Hootie and the Blowfish and Linkin Park as valid proof. And further up the scale The Eagles and Queen and others.

MoBettaBliss said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Hmm is beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, or exile on main street as good as fuzzy logic, radiator, rings around the world, phantom power? Basically to compare their four best albums... That game. While at same time, remembering there is an objective truth to everything. Was Jesus the messiah? No he wasn't, he was probably a very naughty boy.

yawnamundo

^ belong on M1 M2 and Orince thread

mjscarousal said:

MoBettaBliss said:

mick taylor era stones

what say you?

All their 70's work are masterpieces and I think they are far better than the Beatles musically particularly during this period.

Me three, even though Taylor was completely ruined at the end of it. Yes the group were fucked up but look at the music.

. Let it Bleed (Their finest album)

. Sticky Fingers

. Exile on Main Street

. Good live album - get yer ya yas out. (In fact their only good live album)

.

The Stones had left behind their poppy mid 60s past and grown out of the flower powered psychedelia of 1967 (Well Beggars Banquet was as unpsychedelic as you could get) and it wa sbefore they moved into their 4 decades of dross.

.

The yes extends only to Exile, Goats Head Soup and I love Rock and Roll are rather fluffy and indulgent next to the rock of the big three. They have good songs, but a sthe 70s wore on the Stones were heading in a more commercial rock direction and Mick was bringing in his flirtations with disco and the like.

.

Most of yes extends to Mick, Keef and Charlie. Bill and Mick Taylor really were the filler and Mick Taylor is no Brian Jones or Ronnie Wood.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Adorecream said:

mjscarousal said:

All their 70's work are masterpieces and I think they are far better than the Beatles musically particularly during this period.

Me three, even though Taylor was completely ruined at the end of it. Yes the group were fucked up but look at the music.

. Let it Bleed (Their finest album)

. Sticky Fingers

. Exile on Main Street

. Good live album - get yer ya yas out. (In fact their only good live album)

.

The Stones had left behind their poppy mid 60s past and grown out of the flower powered psychedelia of 1967 (Well Beggars Banquet was as unpsychedelic as you could get) and it wa sbefore they moved into their 4 decades of dross.

.

The yes extends only to Exile, Goats Head Soup and I love Rock and Roll are rather fluffy and indulgent next to the rock of the big three. They have good songs, but a sthe 70s wore on the Stones were heading in a more commercial rock direction and Mick was bringing in his flirtations with disco and the like.

.

Most of yes extends to Mick, Keef and Charlie. Bill and Mick Taylor really were the filler and Mick Taylor is no Brian Jones or Ronnie Wood.

you don't get it

jjhunsecker said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Yes they do have some of the greatest most fervent fans in history. Typo = freudian slip, I presume.

Some bands are just overrated I'm afraid. Popularity doesn't equal quality. We have Hootie and the Blowfish and Linkin Park as valid proof. And further up the scale The Eagles and Queen and others.

Just curious- what bands do you think are BETTER than the Stones, The Who, or Zeppelin?

I LIKE the Stones, The Who and Zeppelin. But to me The Beatles, REM, The Smiths, The Boo Radleys, and Super Furry Animals make better albums. Lots of bands do great songs. Doing more than 2 great albums just about everyone struggles with, and that's why I set those bands apart.

Dasein said:

The only knock I have against the Stones is that they are really, just fundamentally, practicing
pastiche: their body of work is mostly an imitative art that is celebratory of delta blues and all things
Americana (country-western, etc). I think most English blues-rock bands from the 60s and 70s
are really just celebrating the music that GIs introduced to their country during World War II any-
ways.

The Crowes are from Georgia and really lived it: they actually grew up in southern gospel churches
and hootenannies, so their boogie down rock n roll gospel country music just felt more authentic to
me. That said, my knock against the Crowes is that Rich Robinson's bridges always contain moving
four whole steps up from the tonic, adopting it as such, and then moving back down, which gets
kinda boring after awhile.

i get what you're saying about the stones...i just don't see it as a bad thing, necessarily. they eventually transcended imitation and, to my ears, made music that was uniquely 'the rolling stones'. chris robinson has followed the same path, only in reverse, focussing on being the grateful dead.

and i have no idea what you're talking about as far as rich robinson and his tonic and things...sometimes i'm glad i'm not a musician and can hear with my heart solely. as long as it makes me put my hands over my head and swing my hips askew, it'll do; fuck the math.

fortuneandserendipity said:

jjhunsecker said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

I LIKE the Stones, The Who and Zeppelin. But to me The Beatles, REM, The Smiths, The Boo Radleys, and Super Furry Animals make better albums. Lots of bands do great songs. Doing more than 2 great albums just about everyone struggles with, and that's why I set those bands apart.

To each his own. I love the Beatles. I liked REM up until about 1996, then they got boring to me. Never cared for The Smiths- I simply can't abide droning singers. I don't think I ever even heard a single song from either the Boo Radleys or the Super Furry Animals, so I can't comment on the quality of their music at all. Different strokes for different folks

I kind of agree on REM. '96 was their last great album before their swansong. What marks out the Boos and Furries as great to me are what make Prince great. Tunes and stylistically daring. I'm sure he would have been a fan, had he come across them.

purplethunder3121 said:

They look surprisingly well, better than they were 10 yrs ago.

oh, I thought that honor went to SPINAL TAP..!

("hello, Cleveland..!!! hello.. CLEVELAND!!!!")

.

for me, it's a "tie" probably between Aerosmith & Van Halen (Roth's original stint with the band..).

.

I'm tempted to say STEELY DAN

but as it turned out.. after their 2nd album of ("classic") rock..

they evolved into something different..

Adorecream said:

PurpleSullivan said:

peedub said:

Dasein said:

The only knock I have against the Stones is that they are really, just fundamentally, practicing
pastiche: their body of work is mostly an imitative art that is celebratory of delta blues and all things
Americana (country-western, etc). I think most English blues-rock bands from the 60s and 70s
are really just celebrating the music that GIs introduced to their country during World War II any-
ways.

The Crowes are from Georgia and really lived it: they actually grew up in southern gospel churches
and hootenannies, so their boogie down rock n roll gospel country music just felt more authentic to
me. That said, my knock against the Crowes is that Rich Robinson's bridges always contain moving
four whole steps up from the tonic, adopting it as such, and then moving back down, which gets
kinda boring after awhile.

i get what you're saying about the stones...i just don't see it as a bad thing, necessarily. they eventually transcended imitation and, to my ears, made music that was uniquely 'the rolling stones'. chris robinson has followed the same path, only in reverse, focussing on being the grateful dead.

and i have no idea what you're talking about as far as rich robinson and his tonic and things...sometimes i'm glad i'm not a musician and can hear with my heart solely. as long as it makes me put my hands over my head and swing my hips askew, it'll do; fuck the math.

Well, the reason why I don't criticize the Stones as much as I do bands like Led Zeppelin, is because
they (the Stones) openly acknowledged their influences and didn't present themselves with an aura
of mystique so as to convince their audience that their music was given to them in a vacuum. Chris
Robinson started out as an Otis Redding disciple; his inflection on the first two Crowes albums high-
lights this. I think a really good way to juxtapose this is by listening to Redding's "Try a Little Tender-
ness" to be followed by the Crowes' "Sometimes Salvation." Hell, the Crowes' first single was a Red-
ding cover. But, yeah; he's now on some Jerry Garcia tip . . .


As for the music theory, I hear ya. But, having some knowledge of that which I enjoy has only deep-
ened my appreciation for it. Then, I can hopefully opine on that subject with some kind of authority.
I listen with my head and my heart!

It is hard to argue with The Rolling Stones because that they were really good for at least a couple of decades and still aren't embarrassing. I preferred the Beatles in the 1960s, but really they were more on the pop side of rock. I really like Zeppelin but other than their first album I think they strayed more into the heavy metal realm of rock, and weren't as diverse as the Stones. Queen does deserve plenty of accolades because the were extremely diverse with their hybrid brand of guitar rock, pop, and theatre. However, their choices to do so many styles rather than rock n' roll may negate them from being the best band of that genre.