Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

the Beatles

the Rolling Stones

undecided

[side_show]

In asking "who would you rather be,"  to me the question is, if you were to form a band that was to become your life's work, what creative path would you prefer to take?

I love the Beatles, and although I definitely also greatly enjoy the Stones, artistically, I think the Beatles have had a more significant impact artistically.  In the end their work resounds more with me - it gets into my heart every time and has changed me in a way the Stones music has never done. 

That said, there's a major difference between having done something remarkable with a team of artists, and leaving it at that, vs having done something remarkable and continuing on with the same group of artists.  Just getting along with the same band members over the long haul is a major accomplishment.  Beyond that, even when I've tried to stop being an artist, I can't.  I don't necessarily have any desire to chase after my past successes, but I also don't plan to stop creating.  If you're an artist, it's a life-long occupation, so I "get" the Stones on that level.   

Hrm.  I don't know.  I'm still totally undecided.

[theinevitable]

The thing is, though, if you are Keith Richards, you could still be a musician and not be in the rolling stones and make gabs of money.
Paul McCartney is no longer in the Beatles, and is still a musician. he did not give up his craft.
The difference is whether you move on to new things, or... don't.

[pmcd9]

The thing is, though, if you are Keith Richards, you could still be a musician and not be in the rolling stones and make gabs of money.
Paul McCartney is no longer in the Beatles, and is still a musician. he did not give up his craft.
The difference is whether you move on to new things, or... don't.

I think the main difference between Lennon/McCartney and Jagger/Richards is Lennon and McCartney grew apart as song writers while Jagger and Richards grew together. 

The last 2-3 years of their partnership Lennon and McCartney were collaborators in name only, they wrote separately.  They continued to collaborate on the creation of the recordings, but the days of sitting across from one another on the sette in the living room of McCartney's fathers house were long past.  This is most likely due to the fact that they were both strong song writers in their own right, but also because they grew apart as friends.

Jagger and Richards on the other hand always each relied heavily on the other.  Jagger being the primary lyricist and Richards the main music writer.  Crucially they both knew enough about their partner to edit and make suggestions which is what made them such a great team.

[KeithHernandez]

having done something remarkable and continuing on with the same group of artists.  Just getting along with the same band members over the long haul is a major accomplishment.

Again, the person who shaped the early Stones died in 1969*.  A running joke is that Mick Jagger had him killed. Please, stop with this.  Also, not so much when you aren't really creating anymore.  They just have been doing the same thing since like 71.  That is a group of artists deciding not to create, really.  I guess it is probably a surprise a legitimately good band didn't have one member to know when to stop, at least until later when they needed money.  That is rare maybe.  Oh yeah, also they did, but Mick Jagger killed him.

* they were all good musicians, but he made them different, without him they would have just been The Pretty Things or something, not legendary basically.  He brought a lot to the basic blues of richards/jagger, plus him and richards together on guitar, oh man (though obviously richards gets some credit there too).  Those are all the things that make the Stones more than just a band.

[Carlos del Vaca]

I picked the Stones, but for a different reason:  I liked playing live too much.

[Ben-San]

So okay, looking it over.

Either way, you get a good early head of steam and release some of the best and most influential popular rock of your period, possibly of the century. One of your bandmates will die, and a lot of people will claim that he was the reason you were any good. Eventually either (a) your band breaks up and people say you haven't done anything really memorable since your days in the band or (b) your band does not break up and people say you haven't done anything really memorable since your band's golden days.

However Mick Jagger is rumored to have boned David Bowie, and if there's any dude who a gay affair with is a plus for living that life it's early-70s David Bowie. So point to the Stones, I guess.

[littlefallsmets]

Somehow, having gay sex with David Bowie might spin the needle around and actually be one of the straightest things of all time.

Through the power of Bowie, gay sex with him might involve him turning into two ladies that you then have double-straight sex with.

Math/theorethical science is not my forte but I think it has something to do with Schrodinger's Cat and the Everett Many-Worlds Theory resolution thereupon. 

[AugustWest]

Somehow, having gay sex with David Bowie might spin the needle around and actually be one of the straightest things of all time.

Through the power of Bowie, gay sex with him might involve him turning into two ladies that you then have double-straight sex with.

Math/theorethical science is not my forte but I think it has something to do with Schrodinger's Cat and the Everett Many-Worlds Theory resolution thereupon. 

Fag.

[side_show]

Best thread rebirth ever.

See if this board weren't so guy oriented, I would have asked, who would you rather fuck? Also a tough one to answer.  I bet the Beatles would take you out for a nice breakfast the next morning.  With the Stones, you'd wake up alone, and the hotel room would be trashed but you'd have tried out some pretty wild styles. 

Also, I would do David Bowie, but definitely not two girls.  I don't imagine David Bowie would be all that much work actually.  He'd be a dynamo though.

[jay-ell]

I would SO do David Bowie. Absolutely.

John Lennon, not so much. Mick Jagger? Uh, no. Paul McCartney?

Hells yes. Then or now, or any stage in between.

Also, Micky Dolenz.

[AugustWest]

Also, Micky Dolenz.

Careful.  If he googles himself he might show up at your front door...

[jay-ell]

Did I miss a news flash? Is this a thing that happens?

If so, I just have two words:

Antonio Banderas.

[bluemoon72]

Paul McCartney?  Hells yes.   

As for the Beatles, George Harrison FTW.  As to all other bands, 1980-vintage Sting.  Man oh man.

Edited to add:  1990-vintage Eddie Vedder.  **drool**

[littlefallsmets]

I read a book about high-end prostitutes once and the only story I remember was the George Harrison story.

That he paid the girl for a blowjob, was playing a ukelele the whole time and when he came he... strummed really fast, like the end of an old vaudeville song.

Gave her a generous tip and then left, not saying another word.

[jay-ell]

I read a book about high-end prostitutes once and the only story I remember was the George Harrison story.

That he paid the girl for a blowjob, was playing a ukelele the whole time and when he came he... strummed really fast, like the end of an old vaudeville song.

Gave her a generous tip and then left, not saying another word.

Class act, that guy.

Yeah, I'd take George if I couldn't get Paul. But Paul is nerdy, which is an automatic win for me.