Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Battle of the Brians.; Brian Jones vs Brian Wilson
Topic Started: Apr 14 2006, 06:35 AM (5,951 Views)
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
that's just what you guys tell yourselves so you can feel better =P
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
Carpenter
Oct 30 2006, 07:36 PM
that's just what you guys tell yourselves so you can feel better =P

Shut >< up. I'm serious.

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
I'm Mike.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Thomas
Member Avatar
i love katie
Carpenter
Oct 30 2006, 11:34 PM
thank god i write songs: i didn't know history would be so cruel to the guy that didn't write the chords and lyrics. no matter how bad ass the riff you contributed is, the 'songwriter' always prevails.

thank you. i'll remember the guy who writes "my generation" and most of the other who songs over the guy who wrote the basslines and a select few. it's like that with most bands, isn't it?
-thomas

last.fm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yankee8156
Member Avatar
Loretta
I personally, just think using the fact that Jones was a prime factor in the formation of The Rolling Stones is a very weak point, since the same exact thing can be said about Wilson. That's my final thought on that part of the conversation, because I don't think I can be any more straightforward about it. Obviously, I wasn't serious when I said that Mick Jagger's parents deserve as much credit for the group starting as Jones, but I was just trying to point out that time would be better spent defending other details, because in the scheme of things, it really is insignificant, since the same thing can be applied to the other half of the poll.
My Beatles Trading Post (Updated Regularly)

"George had just come off tour, I'd flown in specially from England, Ringo had flown in specially, too, I think, and John wouldn't show up! He wouldn't come from across the park! George got on the phone, yelled, 'Take those fucking shades off and come over here, you!' John still wouldn't come over. He had a balloon delivered with a sign saying, LISTEN TO THIS BALLOON. It was all quite far out." -Paul McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
Yankee8156
Oct 31 2006, 01:59 AM
I personally, just think using the fact that Jones was a prime factor in the formation of The Rolling Stones is a very weak point, since the same exact thing can be said about Wilson. That's my final thought on that part of the conversation, because I don't think I can be any more straightforward about it. Obviously, I wasn't serious when I said that Mick Jagger's parents deserve as much credit for the group starting as Jones, but I was just trying to point out that time would be better spent defending other details, because in the scheme of things, it really is insignificant, since the same thing can be applied to the other half of the poll.

The same thing can be applied to both, but some of the people that voted for Wilson think that The Stones are a greater band than the Beach Boys. So yes, the point that the bands wouldn't exist without both Brians is true, but it gains significance if people start to consider which band was greater, more popular, more influential, more important, etc.

Therefore, it isn't a weak point. If you think The Beach Boys are better or more important it may be, but looking at the bigger picture, that is, which band had a bigger effect on popular culture and music history, it isn't a weak point. Because then you think, what if they'd never been there? And they wouldn't have, without either Brian.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
NorwegianWood65
Oct 31 2006, 12:16 AM
Carpenter
Oct 30 2006, 11:34 PM
thank god i write songs: i didn't know history would be so cruel to the guy that didn't write the chords and lyrics. no matter how bad ass the riff you contributed is, the 'songwriter' always prevails.

thank you. i'll remember the guy who writes "my generation" and most of the other who songs over the guy who wrote the basslines and a select few. it's like that with most bands, isn't it?

i was being sarcastic.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Thomas
Member Avatar
i love katie
Carpenter
Nov 1 2006, 05:56 PM
i was being sarcastic.

i caught it, but you unknowingly made a good point.
-thomas

last.fm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
damn. that makes me a sad, sad man.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Thomas
Member Avatar
i love katie
Quote:
 
fuck then, i'm screwed with this rivalry we have going on with this other band. their guitarist is fucking van halen #2 and their bassist is at least as good as ours, but they can't write songs half as good as we can. i guess that doesn't matter live though, right?
-thomas

last.fm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
NorwegianWood65
Nov 1 2006, 07:56 PM
Quote:
 
fuck then, i'm screwed with this rivalry we have going on with this other band. their guitarist is fucking van halen #2 and their bassist is at least as good as ours, but they can't write songs half as good as we can. i guess that doesn't matter live though, right?

That's just the thing, me and frank and david and javi consider 'songwriting' differently than The Beatles and The Stones did.

Lennon and McCartney thought of crediting almost as a business contract (all mccartney songs would be credited to both and vice versa, they would help the others with songs and not get credit for monetary purposes) and mick and keith were pretty much the same. And their definition for who 'wrote' the song seemed to be who wrote the chords and lyrics. If in my band, somebody contributed something as big as the dulcimer part in Lady Jane or the guitar riff in The Last Time to a song, they would *automatically* get their name in there, no question.

You're probably right about songwriters deserving the most credit, but I think the crediting system of the time was flawed.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yankee8156
Member Avatar
Loretta
Carpenter
Nov 1 2006, 06:56 PM
Yankee8156
Oct 31 2006, 01:59 AM
I personally, just think using the fact that Jones was a prime factor in the formation of The Rolling Stones is a very weak point, since the same exact thing can be said about Wilson. That's my final thought on that part of the conversation, because I don't think I can be any more straightforward about it. Obviously, I wasn't serious when I said that Mick Jagger's parents deserve as much credit for the group starting as Jones, but I was just trying to point out that time would be better spent defending other details, because in the scheme of things, it really is insignificant, since the same thing can be applied to the other half of the poll.

The same thing can be applied to both, but some of the people that voted for Wilson think that The Stones are a greater band than the Beach Boys. So yes, the point that the bands wouldn't exist without both Brians is true, but it gains significance if people start to consider which band was greater, more popular, more influential, more important, etc.

Therefore, it isn't a weak point. If you think The Beach Boys are better or more important it may be, but looking at the bigger picture, that is, which band had a bigger effect on popular culture and music history, it isn't a weak point. Because then you think, what if they'd never been there? And they wouldn't have, without either Brian.

I think The Rolling Stones are better than The Beach Boys in that they have lasted a lot longer, and have been a lot more consistent with their efforts. I think The Beach Boys are better than The Rolling Stones in that they brought music a long way from where it was when they got on the scene, and helped open the door for acts like The Rolling Stones. At both of their high points, The Beach Boys top the Stones. At both of their low points, the Stones top the Beach Boys.
My Beatles Trading Post (Updated Regularly)

"George had just come off tour, I'd flown in specially from England, Ringo had flown in specially, too, I think, and John wouldn't show up! He wouldn't come from across the park! George got on the phone, yelled, 'Take those fucking shades off and come over here, you!' John still wouldn't come over. He had a balloon delivered with a sign saying, LISTEN TO THIS BALLOON. It was all quite far out." -Paul McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
Yankee8156
Nov 1 2006, 10:12 PM
Carpenter
Nov 1 2006, 06:56 PM
Yankee8156
Oct 31 2006, 01:59 AM
I personally, just think using the fact that Jones was a prime factor in the formation of The Rolling Stones is a very weak point, since the same exact thing can be said about Wilson. That's my final thought on that part of the conversation, because I don't think I can be any more straightforward about it. Obviously, I wasn't serious when I said that Mick Jagger's parents deserve as much credit for the group starting as Jones, but I was just trying to point out that time would be better spent defending other details, because in the scheme of things, it really is insignificant, since the same thing can be applied to the other half of the poll.

The same thing can be applied to both, but some of the people that voted for Wilson think that The Stones are a greater band than the Beach Boys. So yes, the point that the bands wouldn't exist without both Brians is true, but it gains significance if people start to consider which band was greater, more popular, more influential, more important, etc.

Therefore, it isn't a weak point. If you think The Beach Boys are better or more important it may be, but looking at the bigger picture, that is, which band had a bigger effect on popular culture and music history, it isn't a weak point. Because then you think, what if they'd never been there? And they wouldn't have, without either Brian.

I think The Rolling Stones are better than The Beach Boys in that they have lasted a lot longer, and have been a lot more consistent with their efforts. I think The Beach Boys are better than The Rolling Stones in that they brought music a long way from where it was when they got on the scene, and helped open the door for acts like The Rolling Stones. At both of their high points, The Beach Boys top the Stones. At both of their low points, the Stones top the Beach Boys.

I disagree completely, but you probably could've guess that.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yankee8156
Member Avatar
Loretta
Carpenter
Nov 1 2006, 10:20 PM
Yankee8156
Nov 1 2006, 10:12 PM
Carpenter
Nov 1 2006, 06:56 PM
Yankee8156
Oct 31 2006, 01:59 AM
I personally, just think using the fact that Jones was a prime factor in the formation of The Rolling Stones is a very weak point, since the same exact thing can be said about Wilson. That's my final thought on that part of the conversation, because I don't think I can be any more straightforward about it. Obviously, I wasn't serious when I said that Mick Jagger's parents deserve as much credit for the group starting as Jones, but I was just trying to point out that time would be better spent defending other details, because in the scheme of things, it really is insignificant, since the same thing can be applied to the other half of the poll.

The same thing can be applied to both, but some of the people that voted for Wilson think that The Stones are a greater band than the Beach Boys. So yes, the point that the bands wouldn't exist without both Brians is true, but it gains significance if people start to consider which band was greater, more popular, more influential, more important, etc.

Therefore, it isn't a weak point. If you think The Beach Boys are better or more important it may be, but looking at the bigger picture, that is, which band had a bigger effect on popular culture and music history, it isn't a weak point. Because then you think, what if they'd never been there? And they wouldn't have, without either Brian.

I think The Rolling Stones are better than The Beach Boys in that they have lasted a lot longer, and have been a lot more consistent with their efforts. I think The Beach Boys are better than The Rolling Stones in that they brought music a long way from where it was when they got on the scene, and helped open the door for acts like The Rolling Stones. At both of their high points, The Beach Boys top the Stones. At both of their low points, the Stones top the Beach Boys.

I disagree completely, but you probably could've guess that.

:huh: I thought that was when we were finally going to agree.
My Beatles Trading Post (Updated Regularly)

"George had just come off tour, I'd flown in specially from England, Ringo had flown in specially, too, I think, and John wouldn't show up! He wouldn't come from across the park! George got on the phone, yelled, 'Take those fucking shades off and come over here, you!' John still wouldn't come over. He had a balloon delivered with a sign saying, LISTEN TO THIS BALLOON. It was all quite far out." -Paul McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
I don't know about The Beach Boys 'low point'. I've heard it's pretty bad, but I don't have their whole catalogue or anything so I can't say. I can say, however, that The Rolling Stones 'low point' is pretty fucking horrible ('80s stuff like Dirty Work).

But their high point was amazing. Most people think their 'high point' was the big four albums, but I disagree. For me, the Rolling Stones were at their best from when Out Of Our Heads was released in the US in '65 along with the singles in that year. Bill Wyman was even quoted as saying they were 'number one [as in, bigger than The Beatles] for a few months now' in England. This streak of albums:
Out Of Our Heads
Aftermath
Between The Buttons
Their Satanic Majesties
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed
Sticky Fingers
Exile On Main Street
Goats Head Soup

is, in my opinion, greater than 'the high point' of the Beach Boys. And overrall, considering everything, I believe The Rolling Stones are greater than the Beach Boys and second only to The Beatles in terms of bands.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fear of Music · Next Topic »
Add Reply