Gunzen Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 The Stones, if I am not mistaken, haven't particularly been the kings of consistent line-ups. They only have about as many original guys lefts as GNR do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Mick and Keith are the only members of the real original lineup left (Brian Jones, Dick Taylor, Ian Stewart gone, and the original Rolling Stones didn't have a permanent drummer). Talk about a revolving door, the Stones have had their share: 4+ drummers, 3 bassists, at least 3 keyboardists, 4 guitarists.....sounds like a GNR-style lineup to me!EDIT: Also, I've seen the Stones. They were fantastic, but nowhere near the best show I've ever seen and I've only been going to shows since about 2002.How dare you interject facts into this forum, you are right, but that guy was just spouting off. Nice post dude, but you will find logic is largely ignored on this post in favor of misplaced tirades and icorrect observations from teenages from their parents comp You mean a teenager like yourself that can't spell or haven't been able to figure out mommy's spell checker?nothing is more common than someone who has no comeback to pick on typos, they are not spelling errors, they are typos. I am not a secretary, and I am way to lazy to run a spellcheck, this is a forum, not a term paper. who gives a shit, most times I am too lazy to reach for the shift button to capitalize. Nice try douchebag, if all you can do id pick on my typing, then so be it. I never claimed to be a secretary, I only claim to have my own personal one at work. And she is way to valuable to have check this bullshit. I am guilty as charged, I dont give a shit about my typos on forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avg_ Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 i LOVE when topics are reduced to "typos", its either that or cd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohyesindeed Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 The Rolling Stones came into being in 1962 when former schoolmates Mick Jagger and Keith Richards met Brian Jones, who was playing with Alexis Korner's band Blues Incorporated. Brian named their new group after the title of the Muddy Waters song "Rollin' Stone".[3] The original line-up included Mick Jagger (vocals, harmonica), Brian Jones, (guitar, harmonica, vocals), Keith Richards (guitarist, vocals), Ian Stewart (piano), Dick Taylor (bass) and various drummers such as Mick Avory (later of The Kinks), Tony Chapman and Carlo Little. Guitarist Geoff Bradford participated in some rehearsals in June 1962 but left before the band's first official gig. Taylor left shortly after to return to art school, and was later to form Pretty Things. He was replaced by Bill Wyman. Charlie Watts joined the Stones in January 1963 as their new permanent drummer.From Wikipedia. According to them at least, Charlie joined in 1963, and Wyman joined in late 1962 - about a half a year after the band formed. I'm not saying that that makes Wyman and Watts replacements persay, I'm just saying that perhaps having new people doesn't automatically make the band worse (although in the case of Ron Wood, it does...)they were never "the stones" until watts and wyman were there, just like it wasn't gnr until adler, slash, and duff came along........don't bash ronnie wood! have you ever listened to the faces or his work with rod stewart? i think woodie's great....not as good as mick taylor, but still great. he's the glue that has held that band together since he joined, which, depending on who's side you're on is either good or bad. ronnie's the glue, and money is the applicator! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 i LOVE when topics are reduced to "typos", its either that or cd.yeah, reason is that people cant argue a point and pick on typos, as if that is a ameasure of intelligence. If you ask me any guy here who can type perfectly is either a computer programmer or a gaming nerd. Good point though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 The thing with Stones is that they carried on and went on to have a mid period with albums like Some Girls, Undercover, Black and Blue which in someways outshines the early hits like Satisfaction et la.Miss YouUnder Cover of the NightStart Me UpThis was way after thier AFD era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kropotkin Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Great, another patch of dickweed figured out how to use a computerlol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetumblindice Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 (edited) I love the Stones (as you can maybe guess by my username)...I've enjoyed getting to see them live, albeit past thier prime. I've seen them 4 times. 2 were just very good...and the other 2 were amazing unforgettable!I love GnR...but I cherish my Stones memories more than my GnR memories Edited November 29, 2006 by thetumblindice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I love the Stones (as you can maybe guess by my username)...I've enjoyed getting to see them live, albeit past thier prime. I've seen them 4 times. 2 were just very good...and the other 2 were amazing unforgettable!I love GnR...but I cherish my Stones memories more than my GnR memoriesbut would you say that GNR is in a lower category though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I love the Stones (as you can maybe guess by my username)...I've enjoyed getting to see them live, albeit past thier prime. I've seen them 4 times. 2 were just very good...and the other 2 were amazing unforgettable!I love GnR...but I cherish my Stones memories more than my GnR memoriesbut would you say that GNR is in a lower category though? I think most people would rank the Stones above GN'R to be honest. I can see why - the Stones are legends, they've been around since the '60s revolutionizing rock 'n roll.Without the Stones there would never have been a GN'R. Axl, Slash and the others had immense love for the Stones. Axl took a lot from Mick Jagger in various ways. They may not be so great these days but their best material was some of the best ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepsicoca Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Guns N'Roses would be in the same league as the Stones if they had stayed together. GNR is not relevant anymore. This pic says it all, Axl+Slash=Jagger+Richards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandita Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 That picture isn't even real.The Stones would have won this 30 years ago but now they are just way past their prime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepsicoca Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 That picture isn't even real.I know. That's precisely why GNR is not in the same league as the Stones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandita Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 That picture isn't even real.I know. That's precisely why GNR is not in the same league as the Stones.Right, the Stones are in the league of the AARP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandita Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 That picture isn't even real.I know. That's precisely why GNR is not in the same league as the Stones.Right, the Stones are in the league of the AARP.Actualy, in fairness, they are probably one of the 3 best live acts I've ever seen and arguably the best band ever.Call them old, but these guys seriously rock like very few others ever have. I just don't see how this is in any way relevant to GnR.It isn't. People just want something to complain about so they pick any stupid thing to compare GNR to.It's just fucking sad to me. If you don't like GNR just find something you DO like...I don't get why people can't just move on if they have so much hate for what GNR is now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 That picture isn't even real.I know. That's precisely why GNR is not in the same league as the Stones.Right, the Stones are in the league of the AARP.Actualy, in fairness, they are probably one of the 3 best live acts I've ever seen and arguably the best band ever.Call them old, but these guys seriously rock like very few others ever have. I just don't see how this is in any way relevant to GnR.we were just comparing, and it is cool to say the stones still rock, but Mick's voice (not his energy) are gone and the rest of the band is uninspired. Its okay to say it........"they are done". Though they may have been the greatest show ever, agreed. For some reason it seems taboo to say the stones are slow and old now, but they really are.Axl still has the pipes though, you gotta admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendrix5150 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 (edited) I actually agree with him, I was at that Vancouver Stones show, I prefer Guns music much more than Stones, but the Stones are a much better live act. Edit: And I see now had I read this I would have known we werent talking about better live acts Edited November 29, 2006 by Hendrix5150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 That picture isn't even real.I know. That's precisely why GNR is not in the same league as the Stones.Right, the Stones are in the league of the AARP.Actualy, in fairness, they are probably one of the 3 best live acts I've ever seen and arguably the best band ever.Call them old, but these guys seriously rock like very few others ever have. I just don't see how this is in any way relevant to GnR.It isn't. People just want something to complain about so they pick any stupid thing to compare GNR to.It's just fucking sad to me. If you don't like GNR just find something you DO like...I don't get why people can't just move on if they have so much hate for what GNR is now....hey dude, you are wrong here, we werent complaining, and the comparison was salient. Axl and Mick are very similar in that they are energetic front men, and have both been at the top of their field. This sint complaining, see Jakomo, Dead Flower, Old Skool etc for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetumblindice Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 (edited) I love the Stones (as you can maybe guess by my username)...I've enjoyed getting to see them live, albeit past thier prime. I've seen them 4 times. 2 were just very good...and the other 2 were amazing unforgettable!I love GnR...but I cherish my Stones memories more than my GnR memoriesbut would you say that GNR is in a lower category though? Not at all a lower category...GnR accomplished huge things with just a few albums.... Stones took well over 20 albums that built thier career...Had GnR released music all these years, they may have rivaled a band like the Stones or Beatles...I loved seeing GnR as much in 92 as I've loved seeing the Stones....but, there is no comparison as to which band has been more prolific in recent years (and mind you, on the 1989 tour, the Stones were considered washed up) Edited November 29, 2006 by thetumblindice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandita Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 (edited) hey dude, you are wrong here, we werent complaining, and the comparison was salient. Axl and Mick are very similar in that they are energetic front men, and have both been at the top of their field. This sint complaining, see Jakomo, Dead Flower, Old Skool etc for that.I know you are right, this thread isn't that bad as far as complaining goes (at least not yet but they all seem to get there after a few pages these days no matter how innocuous the topic)....I guess I vented in the wrong thread. I just really hate all the negativity.The Stones in their hayday were great, I don't think anyone can dispute that. My main issue with them is that they charge up to $400 bucks for a ticket to see them here in NY. They obviously don't need that kind of money. Oh and I am a dudette Edited November 29, 2006 by bandita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohyesindeed Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 The Stones would have won this 30 years ago but now they are just way past their prime.yeah, but here's the wrinkle:the stones' "prime" lasted for 10-15 years.between england's newest hit makers (62) and exile on main st. (72), they did not make a bad record. sure there were a few lowpoints in certain songs here and there (re:"wild horses") but overall, their recorded output was astonshingly consistent, especialy when you consider the fact that from 65-72 they put out a new record every 9 months with all new, original material on it, and each record was different. now, after exile things started to slip a little, but they still put out a record every year, toured behind it, and there were always at least 2 or 3 memorable songs on each alum for the rest of the 70s. beyond that, you got 1 1/2 great stones songs on each record in the 80s if you were lucky. guns n roses made one undeniable classic record (AFD), incredible follow-up E.P. (lies) and then UYI 1 & 2, which are inconsistent to say the least. "the stones would have won this 30 years ago"?!?!? try "gn'r would have maybe tied from 87-90!"I know. That's precisely why GNR is not in the same league as the Stones.NO ONE is in the same league as the stones! maybe "tho who" or the travelling macca show......other than that, no one can even get close to touching them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 hey dude, you are wrong here, we werent complaining, and the comparison was salient. Axl and Mick are very similar in that they are energetic front men, and have both been at the top of their field. This sint complaining, see Jakomo, Dead Flower, Old Skool etc for that.I know you are right, this thread isn't that bad as far as complaining goes (at least not yet but they all seem to get there after a few pages these days no matter how innocuous the topic)....I guess I vented in the wrong thread. I just really hate all the negativity.The Stones in their hayday were great, I don't think anyone can dispute that. My main issue with them is that they charge up to $400 bucks for a ticket to see them here in NY. They obviously don't need that kind of money. Oh and I am a dudette I hear ya, I hate the negativity too, I get hypersensitive too, whenever someone agrees with my positive comments, I useually think it is to be condescending.By the way as far as the Stones needing money, viagra can be expensive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepsicoca Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I just don't see how this is in any way relevant to GnR.This comparison is relevant because back in the '90s GNR and the Stones were in same league in terms of ticket sales. That's not the case anymore. Why ? Because there have been so many changes in GNR that the current band can hardly be considered as GNR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandita Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I mean past their prime strictly on a performance level in 2006. Obviously by level of full career, they have most bands beat now AND 30 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd Wheel Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Axl still has the pipes though, you gotta admit.I would usually say something witty along the lines of "I wish I could admit it." but since I must refrain from bashing all aspects of GNR until January 1st comes and goes w/o an album, release date, or announcement explaining what happened(read my sig) I will only say that Axl's voice is very inconsistent and is only solid on certain songs. I will not say his worst performance, but his best has been "Sailing" at Wembley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssiscool Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 the stones have been around way longer than gnr so it would be easyier for them In my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.