FortWayneMusic.com

Very straight forward, very true, very honest. I think they were relevant for a few albums and then the money took over. If they had hung it up when they should have, they would at least have my respect. Yet, they don't even have that.

I'm a Beatles man, thats not to say I cannot listen to the Stones, I just chose my camp a long time ago. Will I give you sh*t about not liking the Beatles? Nope. Will I not understand why? Maybe, but I won't give you sh*t about it.

At least I have an actual reason of why I choose not to listen to the Stones than (secretly, shhhh) not liking them because everyone else does or because it might be controversial if I don't, equaling some sort of failed artistic statement about myself.

Massage...Bored wrote:Very straight forward, very true, very honest. I think they were relevant for a few albums and then the money took over. If they had hung it up when they should have, they would at least have my respect. Yet, they don't even have that.

I'm a Beatles man, thats not to say I cannot listen to the Stones, I just chose my camp a long time ago. Will I give you sh*t about not liking the Beatles? Nope. Will I not understand why? Maybe, but I won't give you sh*t about it.

At least I have an actual reason of why I choose not to listen to the Stones than (secretly, shhhh) not liking them because everyone else does or because it might be controversial if I don't, equaling some sort of failed artistic statement about myself.

due to the "who's serious and when are they just kidding" nature of this topic, it's become on of the funniest ever...a confessional even!

(i too used to deny the stones...and the beatles. i now love both. mk and ss, on the otherhand, deny the beatles.)

for the record, if i had to pick between the 2, i'd go stones anyday.

GxWxLx wrote:

Massage...Bored wrote:Very straight forward, very true, very honest. I think they were relevant for a few albums and then the money took over. If they had hung it up when they should have, they would at least have my respect. Yet, they don't even have that.

I'm a Beatles man, thats not to say I cannot listen to the Stones, I just chose my camp a long time ago. Will I give you sh*t about not liking the Beatles? Nope. Will I not understand why? Maybe, but I won't give you sh*t about it.

At least I have an actual reason of why I choose not to listen to the Stones than (secretly, shhhh) not liking them because everyone else does or because it might be controversial if I don't, equaling some sort of failed artistic statement about myself.

due to the "who's serious and when are they just kidding" nature of this topic, it's become on of the funniest ever...a confessional even!

(i too used to deny the stones...and the beatles. i now love both. mk and ss, on the otherhand, deny the beatles.)

for the record, if i had to pick between the 2, i'd go stones anyday.

I'm sure you could have a "real" conversation with me on why you'd choose that. Others, on the other hand, cannot and its sad.

Let's settle this once and for all: Faces trump all.


Easily my favorite band of the era.

I love Faces.
I really like the Stones.
I'm ok with the Beatles.

Like someone said in another topic, I'm kind of numb to the Beatles for having heard them so much. Someday I will fall for them for real, it's entirely likely. I was old when I finally "got" the Stones, and older still with The Clash. It's funny how bands you love today can trace you back to the forefathers.....but I've found most bands and artists I love trace back to a man named Zimmy or the Faces/Stones vibe, and less so to the Beatles.

I certainly don't hate them.

And re: 1995....
I thought Blur was 10x better than Oasis, and Pulp shat all over them all.

DELETED

i too was numb to the beatles...then i heard "tomorrow never knows" and found a second wind. to this day I think the White Album is maybe the best rock album of all time.

the beach boys, on the otherhand...I'm totally numb to those guys.

I'm not much a fan or either the Rolling Stones OR the Beatles. Mick Jagger looks sort of like Skeletor...and I always thought Skeletor would be part of a much cooler band.

Love the later Beatles. Like the early Stones. Don't care for the Beach Boys - except Pet Sounds, which is absolutely amazing, especially given the era it was recorded in. Any of the early Zappa stuff rocks my world too.

I should never say hate about any band when describing how I feel about them. It sounds stupid. Yet, I do it all the time. Oh well.

What I will say about the Beatles is that I love one of their songs.
I like a few others.

Other than that....numb is a good word.

what song do you love?

zs...have you heard of a lil' diddy by the name of "wild horses?"

undeniable.

imo, there are very few albums as good as sticky fingers

Let's not get into a debate over the best Beatles songs, but I do have a special place in my heart for Blackbird. 'nuff said.

7WetCigarettes wrote:Let's not get into a debate over the best Beatles songs, but I do have a special place in my heart for Blackbird. 'nuff said.

i was just curious. and of course, it's off of the white album, which further proves my point that the white album is the cream of the crop.

fragile_funk wrote:Mick Jagger looks sort of like Skeletor...and I always thought Skeletor would be part of a much cooler band.

I never thought of it that way, that was a good laugh this early.

GxWxLx wrote:what song do you love?

zs...have you heard of a lil' diddy by the name of "wild horses?"

undeniable.

imo, there are very few albums as good as sticky fingers

I said, "Beast of Burden" and "Wild Horses" I'll take. (I believe I stated this in another thread.)

mkelley wrote: And re: 1995....
I thought Blur was 10x better than Oasis, and Pulp shat all over them all.

I was big on Blur, but then I heard Pulp....Awesome. Plus, I believe Pulp kicked Blur's ass in a heated soccer match a while back.

Oasis is another example of a talented group of guys that won't get my support because of their attitudes and their band politics. Their best material is sung by Noel anyways.