why is interference never talking about the rolling stones? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2007, 12:45 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
MrPryck2U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Long Island, NY, USA, Earth
Posts: 8,953
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Lance, you didn't burst my bubble. You are entitled to your opinion. The Stones are a great band who's core members have managed to stick together for over 40 years. Not exactly an easy feat.
__________________

__________________
MrPryck2U is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 12:49 PM   #17
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
the bigger bang tour was a vastly more impressive undertaking than the vertigo tour (and included more rareities than any u2 show, too... so much for it being a "hits parade").

bitterness? jelousy? upset that people now see u2 as "they were cool but i only really like their early stuff" and want to take it out on the stones in return? no real reason? who knows...

the stones fucking rock
Took the words right out of my mouth.

And how anyone can see the Stones as "boring" just escapes me.
__________________

__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 01:04 PM   #18
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,447
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh_OMG
Except 3-4 songs, they are boring as hell!!!


satisfaction
street fighting man
paint it black
sympathy for the devil
gimmie shelter
salt of the earth
jumpin' jack flash
19th nervous breakdown
under my thumb
mother's little helper
ruby tuesday
start me up
wild hoses
get off my cloud
honky tonk woman
brown sugar
beast of burden
angie
miss you
fool to cry
it's only rock and roll
love is strong
out of control
tumbling dice
waiting on a friend
midnight rambler
saint of me


and that's just the ones i can think of off the top of my head... 3 or 4 songs??? boring??? come on now
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 01:22 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 11:47 AM
^ Those songs weren't boring when they came out. It's just that for me personally I've heard them so many millions of times that it's hard to get excited about them anymore. There's not one song on that list that I'd crank up if it came on in the car today and in fact there are a few that would make me change the channel (Satisfaction, Beast of Burden, Honky Tonk Woman, Brown Sugar, It's Only Rock & Roll). Maybe it's because I'm older and I actually bought Rolling Stones records as they were released. I played them over and over and over until I wore the damn things out. By the time I had the opportunity to see them live it was already the mid-80s and I'd lost interest but thought I could re-ignite some excitement by going to see them. I tried my best to get into it--had good seats and everything--but it just wasn't there for me. They've lost all relevance for me. There are people who think the artists I like are boring, too, and that's just fine.

I have never felt a need to compare them to U2. Which isn't to say a comparison isn't valid, it's just that such a comparison is irrelevant to me.

BUT, I will say that I love watching "Gimme Shelter." They were an amazing band and I'm glad people are still listening to them even if I'm not.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 01:24 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
IWasBored's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 36,504
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryMullen's_POPAngel

And how anyone can see the Stones as "boring" just escapes me.
yeah, i don't get it either.

the people who think they're boring, exactly what did you listen to?
__________________
IWasBored is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 01:38 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,414
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
the bigger bang tour was a vastly more impressive undertaking than the vertigo tour (and included more rareities than any u2 show, too... so much for it being a "hits parade").

bitterness? jelousy? upset that people now see u2 as "they were cool but i only really like their early stuff" and want to take it out on the stones in return? no real reason? who knows...

the stones fucking rock
Absolutely true. As far as albums go, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, and Exile on Main Street are all top notch.

I saw them here in Austin in October and they were unbelievable. The show was much more impressive than the Vertigo tour. I like U2 more and I enjoyed the U2 show I went to more, but the show itself, by which I mean everything from theatrics to stage design to setlist variety, was so much better. They filmed that show for a DVD, too (look for me during Under My Thumb, I had a camera all up in my grill).

Yeah, the Stones do fucking rock.
__________________
impy13 is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 01:46 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,062
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by inmyplace13


Absolutely true. As far as albums go, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, and Exile on Main Street are all top notch.
You forgot Sticky Fingers.

We've had quite a few threads on the Stones, so I don't know why there's this perception that we don't talk about them enough.

They have made some of the most timeless classics in rock history, and they certainly aren't boring.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 01:50 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 07:47 PM
but i often hear people saying: u2 are so boring nowadays, i wanna hear radiohead!!!!

i never hear people saying: u2 are so boring nowadays, i wanna hear the stones!!!!
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 01:54 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,062
Local Time: 01:47 PM
That's cuz the Stones newer output is not on the same level.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 02:25 PM   #25
Refugee
 
cdisantis83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Among Badgers
Posts: 1,033
Local Time: 01:47 PM
It is also partially because the Stones were never really innovators; in many ways they really aped the Delta Blues and R&B scenes, but managed to do it in such a way that they appeared to be ingenious. I have never been one to subscribe to the opinion that music must necessarily be innovative to be great (Oasis is one of my favorite bands), but there are many who do feel this way.
__________________
cdisantis83 is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 03:25 PM   #26
Refugee
 
annie_vox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Where the wind calls my name
Posts: 1,492
Local Time: 06:47 PM
I saw them last Summer. They didn't impress me at all, though I recognize they have some good tunes. I respect the band but I don't like them that much.
__________________
annie_vox is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 03:32 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 01:47 PM
I think they're overrated as hell and of average talent. Actually, their older stuff from the late 60s and early 70s is good enough I guess, but it just really gets me when people try to speak 'The Stones' in the same breath as 'The Beatles'. To me it's not even a discussion. I just don't think the Stones can even begin to touch the realm of the Beatles.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 03:40 PM   #28
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase




satisfaction
street fighting man
paint it black
sympathy for the devil
gimmie shelter
salt of the earth
jumpin' jack flash
19th nervous breakdown
under my thumb
mother's little helper
ruby tuesday
start me up
wild hoses
get off my cloud
honky tonk woman
brown sugar
beast of burden
angie
miss you
fool to cry
it's only rock and roll
love is strong
out of control
tumbling dice
waiting on a friend
midnight rambler
saint of me


and that's just the ones i can think of off the top of my head... 3 or 4 songs??? boring??? come on now

How in fuck can these be boring?

__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 03:42 PM   #29
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
I think they're overrated as hell and of average talent. Actually, their older stuff from the late 60s and early 70s is good enough I guess, but it just really gets me when people try to speak 'The Stones' in the same breath as 'The Beatles'. To me it's not even a discussion. I just don't think the Stones can even begin to touch the realm of the Beatles.

If you've ever read any rock books focusing on the 60's you'll understand why those two bands are mentioned in the same breath. They were of completely different musical backgrounds, yet were fighting for the same audience, then later learned from one another and incorporated it into their later work.

Do you think if the Beatles had stayed together they'd be touring like the Stones are now? Just a question.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 03:54 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryMullen's_POPAngel



If you've ever read any rock books focusing on the 60's you'll understand why those two bands are mentioned in the same breath. They were of completely different musical backgrounds, yet were fighting for the same audience, then later learned from one another and incorporated it into their later work.

Do you think if the Beatles had stayed together they'd be touring like the Stones are now? Just a question.
You mean if Lennon and Harrison were still alive?

I don't know. That's a hard question actually - I mean, the Beatles didn't even tour during the second half of their career, when they were in their prime and still making all-time great records - if they didn't want to tour then, why would they tour when they were past-prime legends?
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com