Chef Jim Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 crickets. What are you expecting. A standing ovation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Having a bad day jw? You pretty much slapped everybody in your post. So who is your favourite group? Everybody has an opinion thats why we have the off the wall discussions. just expressoing myself. favorite group: The Replacements, of course. best rock and roll band of all time: The Rolling Stones, of course. jw What are you expecting. A standing ovation? what i feared the most, a post from you. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 what i feared the most, a post from you. jw Yeah really. What the !@#$ am I doing posting in a music thread seeing I know absolutely nothing about music. All bow to the untouchable music knowledge and appreciation of the great wawrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpmenow Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Maybe as a whole, though I wouldn't agree. Mick Taylor in his prime was a far more talented musician than anyone in the Beatles. And Charlie Watts crushes Ringo. McCartney plays guitar, bass, piano and drums! Dreaming about Mick Taylor. It's always easy to bash Ringo as well. Pretty darn good drummer I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 McCartney plays guitar, bass, piano and drums! Dreaming about Mick Taylor. It's always easy to bash Ringo as well. Pretty darn good drummer I'd say. Bashing Ringo is easy. He is an okay drummer. But saying Charlie W. is anything more than marginally better is just silly. McCartney, alone, has more talent than the Stones put together. Keith Richards' riffs, while sweet to listen to, are far from original. Nearly everything the Beatles did, beginning with the Help! album was purely original. Apples and oranges; Beatles were not a rock-n-roll band past 1965 or so. The Stones were Rock and Roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Exactly - I love Rock and Roll! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Yeah really. What the !@#$ am I doing posting in a music thread seeing I know absolutely nothing about music. All bow to the untouchable music knowledge and appreciation of the great wawrow. you're a mere harpee, seemingly pretending to make a point without revealing anything in any post of yours i've ever read. it's quite predictable, as is this post. i state my case. you follow up with some empty retort, devoid of point, substance or reason. jw and there, never found something so rewarding as hitting the ignore button. man, that felt so good. Edited March 18, 2015 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I77SuTVkluI Alternate version of Brown Sugar with Clapton on slide guitar. Not neccecarily relevant to the Beatles/Stones debate, just found this awesome, and didn't want to start a new thread to share. Edited March 18, 2015 by The Real Buffalo Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Bashing Ringo is easy. He is an okay drummer. But saying Charlie W. is anything more than marginally better is just silly. McCartney, alone, has more talent than the Stones put together. Keith Richards' riffs, while sweet to listen to, are far from original. Nearly everything the Beatles did, beginning with the Help! album was purely original. Apples and oranges; Beatles were not a rock-n-roll band past 1965 or so. The Stones were Rock and Roll. I love both bands...but honestly, this is not all that accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 you're a mere harpee, seemingly pretending to make a point without revealing anything in any post of yours i've ever read. it's quite predictable, as is this post. i state my case. you follow up with some empty retort, devoid of point, substance or reason. jw and there, never found something so rewarding as hitting the ignore button. man, that felt so good. Wus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I love both bands...but honestly, this is not all that accurate. Details, please. Because everything Richards played was played generations before him. And the Stones had very little musical talent; talent isn't what Rock and Roll is about, though, so it didn't matter. The Beatles created their own genre and did it with an incredible amount of talent - mostly from Paul McCartney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Details, please. Because everything Richards played was played generations before him. And the Stones had very little musical talent; talent isn't what Rock and Roll is about, though, so it didn't matter. The Beatles created their own genre and did it with an incredible amount of talent - mostly from Paul McCartney. You are right. According to the great musical historian wawrow R&R is not about musical talent. It's 100% image, rebellion and swagger. The quality of the music comes in a distant fourth. Edited March 18, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 No. According to the great musical historian wawrow R&R is not about musical talent. It's 100% image, rebellion and swagger. The quality of the music comes in a distant fourth. Obviously that's an exaggeration, but obviously there are some bands **cough cough** Kiss **cough** that this is true for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Obviously that's an exaggeration, but obviously there are some bands **cough cough** Kiss **cough** that this is true for. Kiss is more talented than the Stones, too, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Kiss is more talented than the Stones, too, actually. Ace maybe. Even Tommy Thayer. But Gene is average, as is Paul. You can't tell me that without the makeup, pyrotechnics, merchandising, etc, they'd be at the point they're at today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Obviously that's an exaggeration, but obviously there are some bands **cough cough** Kiss **cough** that this is true for. With regard to wawrow? No it's not an exaggeration at all. In his mind if a band isn't sloppy or rebellious they are not R&R at all. And god forbid they use a flute. Which is quite funny seeing his beloved Stones used a flute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Ace maybe. Even Tommy Thayer. But Gene is average, as is Paul. You can't tell me that without the makeup, pyrotechnics, merchandising, etc, they'd be at the point they're at today. Gene Simmons is a marketing genius. But he is also a very underrated bass player. For the purposes of this thread, I believe he's a better bass player than Bill Wyman. Peter Criss is a FAR better drummer than Charlie Watt. And, as you stated, Ace/Tommy are both more talented than Keith Richards. Paul Stanley (and I'm a 1974-1979 KISS fanatic) was/is a joke, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 ...and George Martin... Details, please. Because everything Richards played was played generations before him. And the Stones had very little musical talent; talent isn't what Rock and Roll is about, though, so it didn't matter. The Beatles created their own genre and did it with an incredible amount of talent - mostly from Paul McCartney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 ...and George Martin... Behind every great band is an even greater producer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Gene Simmons is a marketing genius. But he is also a very underrated bass player. For the purposes of this thread, I believe he's a better bass player than Bill Wyman. Peter Criss is a FAR better drummer than Charlie Watt. And, as you stated, Ace/Tommy are both more talented than Keith Richards. Paul Stanley (and I'm a 1974-1979 KISS fanatic) was/is a joke, in my opinion. I'm not gonna deny that Gene is a marketing genius. He admits to this. William Shatner asked him what his favorite Kiss song was he said it was "Rock and Roll All Nite" Because it's the most popular, and it makes him the most money. Keith is quite underrated as a rhythm guitarist. He's not gonna come out with any shredding solos like Jimmy Page or Eddie Van Halen, but as far as his simple catchy riffs, he's the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts