Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 164

Thread: Stones vs. Beatles

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Izzy Mac
    Posts
    26,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chazoe60 View Post
    It's all style and no substance.
    What's wrong with style?
    “The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.”
    ― Ernest Hemingway

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aberdien View Post
    What's wrong with style?
    It ain't got shit on substance.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Izzy Mac
    Posts
    26,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chazoe60 View Post
    It ain't got shit on substance.
    Do you listen to anything that is lacking a bit in substance?
    “The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.”
    ― Ernest Hemingway

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aberdien View Post
    Do you listen to anything that is lacking a bit in substance?
    I'm sure I do, but I don't classify it as the greatest music of all time the way Beatles fans do.

    I've just always hated the Beatles. I hear them and I just can't understand the hype at all. The stones are a clearly superior band.

  5. #35

    Default

    Oh, and I love to be especially harsh in Beatles threads because MO eventually loses it. It's hysterical.

  6. The Following 2 Users High Fived chazoe60 For This Post:


  7. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Pat Bowlen
    Posts
    91,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chazoe60 View Post
    Oh, and I love to be especially harsh in Beatles threads because MO eventually loses it. It's hysterical.
    Your takes are hilariously bad on the subject. To say the most prolific No. 1 charting songwriters have no substance is just purely absurd.

    I’ve been mostly laughing at the nonsense this afternoon knowing you were trying to troll.
    *The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    I love the Shitgun.

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Pudge
    Posts
    22,111

    Default

    Chaz, do you mind defining 'substance' in this context?
    "It's ultimately about you, trying to put yourself around people that want to see you be successful--in the right way."

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    5,280
    Posts
    38,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawgdriver View Post
    It really is. It became apparent when I tried making a list and I got to thinking...this is oil and water. Beatles hit me in a kind of introverted intimate way, Stones speak more to my asskicker ethos.
    The Beatles were considered rock, but really they're pop by today's standards. The Stones are definitely rock, with a bit of pop mixed in but only on a few of their hits. Different genre's.

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawgdriver View Post
    Chaz, do you mind defining 'substance' in this context?
    Its like the difference between a jingle intended to sell lip gloss to teenage girls and a National Anthem.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Pudge
    Posts
    22,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chazoe60 View Post
    Its like the difference between a jingle intended to sell lip gloss to teenage girls and a National Anthem.
    So it's a matter of compositional depth? I don't think that definition holds--Tumbling Dice is an exquisitely simple blues tune. Both bands are supremely catchy in that sense. Perhaps musicianship is the angle you are trying to hit? I think more experts would give the nod to the brilliance of Beatle song composition as compared to Stones. There are actually a lot of inventive chord concepts in the Beatles discog...stuff that had not been done to that point.
    "It's ultimately about you, trying to put yourself around people that want to see you be successful--in the right way."

  12. The Following 2 Users High Fived Hawgdriver For This Post:


  13. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Pudge
    Posts
    22,111

    Default

    I think many equate the Beatles with boy bands and write them off as not manly enough to openly appreciate. Sexual identity posturing. That's never made sense to me, but I'll admit I'm into the music itself and not the social context.
    "It's ultimately about you, trying to put yourself around people that want to see you be successful--in the right way."

  14. The Following User High Fived Hawgdriver For This Post:


  15. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Woodinville, Wash.
    Adopted Bronco:
    King87
    Posts
    46,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawgdriver View Post
    I think many equate the Beatles with boy bands and write them off as not manly enough to openly appreciate. Sexual identity posturing. That's never made sense to me, but I'll admit I'm into the music itself and not the social context.
    I'll admit. When I think of the Beatles, I think of it as my Mom's music when she was in high school. She graduated in '67, so not sure the years when the Beatles were big time.
    why you so serious!

  16. The Following 2 Users High Fived Nomad For This Post:


  17. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    5,280
    Posts
    38,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawgdriver View Post
    I think many equate the Beatles with boy bands and write them off as not manly enough to openly appreciate. Sexual identity posturing. That's never made sense to me, but I'll admit I'm into the music itself and not the social context.
    This.

  18. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawgdriver View Post
    I think many equate the Beatles with boy bands and write them off as not manly enough to openly appreciate. Sexual identity posturing. That's never made sense to me, but I'll admit I'm into the music itself and not the social context.
    I don't care about manly enough. I call them a boyband because there's a contrived feeling to them for me. I like a lot of music that wouldn't be considered manly.

    It's all subjective though isn't it. There's no scientific formula to figure out which music is good and which isn't.

    All we can really know for sure is that if MO likes it it sucks.

  19. The Following User High Fived chazoe60 For This Post:


  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    5,280
    Posts
    38,266

    Default

    Music is a very personal thing. Almost religious. There's no right or wrong. Just opinion and taste.

    As a side note, Amazon has Fleetwood Mac: The Dance concert available. Yes, I spent 2 hours watching it.

  21. The Following 3 Users High Fived BroncoJoe For This Post:


Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?
    By OrangeHoof in forum What's on your Mind (Chit Chat)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-10-2014, 10:24 PM
  2. Top 20 Beatles songs.
    By Hawgdriver in forum Music
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 02-11-2014, 12:30 AM
  3. The Beatles are the best band ever
    By aberdien in forum Music
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-17-2013, 08:20 PM
  4. Beatles Rockband
    By girler in forum Video Games
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group