Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
You have no argument from me concerning who the biggest band of all time is, but John and George are dead.
As far as influence, the Beatles weren't really original except in their recording techniques. Whether it's the early style cropped from African American blues artists that deserved recognition but never got it or even the influence of country-western. Even the later psychedelic era of The Beatles wasn't really original. The Beatles just introduced those styles of music to mainstream listeners.
As far as the Rolling Stones vs. McCartney, The Stones are the best rock n roll band of all time, and they are definitely commercially successful to. Plus if you want to look at McCartney's songs, without John co-writing, both solo and with The Beatles vs. The Stones there's no question which artist is better. Shit if you cut off The Stones career off after Some Girls there's little doubt in my mind they would be viewed in much higher esteem. Staying together and constant touring has diminished their music in the eyes of the public. But The Stones discography>The Beatles discography The highs are higher for Mick and Keith <3
Just because the Beatles knew when to quit doesn't make them worse than the Stones.
You have no argument from me concerning who the biggest band of all time is, but John and George are dead.
As far as influence, the Beatles weren't really original except in their recording techniques. Whether it's the early style cropped from African American blues artists that deserved recognition but never got it or even the influence of country-western. Even the later psychedelic era of The Beatles wasn't really original. The Beatles just introduced those styles of music to mainstream listeners.
As far as the Rolling Stones vs. McCartney, The Stones are the best rock n roll band of all time, and they are definitely commercially successful to. Plus if you want to look at McCartney's songs, without John co-writing, both solo and with The Beatles vs. The Stones there's no question which artist is better. Shit if you cut off The Stones career off after Some Girls there's little doubt in my mind they would be viewed in much higher esteem. Staying together and constant touring has diminished their music in the eyes of the public. But The Stones discography>The Beatles discography The highs are higher for Mick and Keith <3
Just because the Beatles knew when to quit doesn't make them worse than the Stones.
Post by awolfatthedoor on Oct 28, 2010 12:58:38 GMT -5
Just because The Beatles hated each other.... All of them continued putting out music, including McCartney. Much of which is shit. It's really unfair to paint them as having some great filter. Let It Be is pretty mediocre, and if it was put out by any other band it would be recognized as mediocre same with Yellow Submarine.
Just because The Beatles hated each other.... All of them continued putting out music, including McCartney. Much of which is shit. It's really unfair to paint them as having some great filter. Let It Be is pretty mediocre, and if it was put out by any other band it would be recognized as mediocre same with Yellow Submarine.
Besides The Stones put out more great albums.
I have seen the Stones twice and Paul once. Paul puts on a much better show than the Stones do.
Post by Mean Mr. Mustard on Oct 28, 2010 13:28:56 GMT -5
First off, I'm going to say I love both bands and hate arguing which one is better(one of my good friends tries to get into every time i see him), but I give a small edge to the Beatles. Also, maybe some of their solo stuff is not great but their is also a lot of excellent work as well. A few Examples are All things Must Pass (Harrison), McCartney I, Band on the Run, Plastic Ono Band, hell Ringo had a couple semi-decent singles. Also, you have to say McCartney has still been making good music the last 15 years (Flaming Pie, Chaos and Creation, Memory Almost Full are a few), which the Stones definitely have not done. You discount the Beatles based on their solo work, but how does it compare to the Stones members solo work (honestly asking I havent listened to much of it i just have a Ron Wood record from the 74 Ive got my own Album to Do that I love). I dont know who would be billed 1, but I also know that we won't have to worry about that ever so no point in arguing that. As far as live goes I thought McCartney was better (probably my favorite show ive ever seen), but not by as much as everyone tries to say. It seems everyone on here discounts the Stones live because the halftime show was pretty cheesy, but having seen them several times they are excellent live. Their stage show is larger than life and the still have amazing energy (especially Mick), only complaint is lack of a few songs that i love, but that goes with any band with a catolougue that large.
The only band that will get me to come back to Bonnaroo is THE WHITE STRIPES and what better band to have there for the 10 year anniversary.
1. The White Stripes 2. Neil Young 3. David Gilmour
They wouldn't headline.
I'm pretty sure, at this point, the White Stripes could headline bonnaroo, esp if the lineup wasnt that top heavy beyond the first 2 headliners. If KOL and beastie boys could, White stripes can. I could definitely see them 3rd on the lineup as friday headliner. maybe something like Mccartny or Radiohead(sat), Phish or Neil Young (sun), White Stripes (Fri)
I would like to throw something out there which would be the coolest thing ever and in many ways appropriate for RooX.
Neil Young and Pearl Jam
Throughout all of Neil's activities at Bridge School he did not look happier than when he was jamming with PJ and trading verses with Eddie.
I've always wanted to see them play together, so if this were to happen it'd be a personal highlight for me. Maybe more likely, as some have suggested would be an Eddie Vedder solo show, with Eddie joining Neil Young during his set?
I'm pretty sure, at this point, the White Stripes could headline bonnaroo, esp if the lineup wasnt that top heavy beyond the first 2 headliners. If KOL and beastie boys could, White stripes can. I could definitely see them 3rd on the lineup as friday headliner. maybe something like Mccartny or Radiohead(sat), Phish or Neil Young (sun), White Stripes (Fri)
Much as I hate to say it KOL is quite a bit bigger than the White Stripes, and the Beasties didn't headline
Since the White Stripes aren't that "big" lets still find a way to get them on the farm. Jack White isn't one to argue if he's "headlining" or not. He would probably play that budweiser stage with his homemade guitar from It Might Get Loud if someone asked him to.
Post by A$AP Rosko on Oct 28, 2010 14:00:15 GMT -5
I think the Stripes would be the fourth band on the bill. And a hell of a fourth band they'd be. Imagine The White Stripes > Radiohead on Friday night. Probably doesn't get any better than that.
Post by awolfatthedoor on Oct 28, 2010 14:09:17 GMT -5
I'm definitely not discounting The Beatles because of their solo work. I'm just saying the argument that they never put out any crap is kinda wrong. Just because they couldn't stand being in a band together doesn't mean they are without mistake in their discographies. Lennon put out more mediocre solo albums that great solo albums. George put out a lot of mediocre to bad solo albums. And while McCartney put out Ram, Band on the Run, and McCartney I, he also put out a lot of mediocre albums. I'm just saying the argument that The Beatles knew when to quit isn't really valid because they all put out plenty of crap later in their careers too. None of McCartney's recent solo output is anywhere near the level of either band's peak, and it's pretty mediocre comparing it to modern greats too.
My point is that the musicians in The Stones continued to put out great work as long as The Beatles member's solo great work was coming out and longer. And fwiw Keith's first solo album is pretty good.
*If the White Stripes don't headline its not a big deal, just as long as they attend the farm in 11...thats all that matters.
This lineup would make me very very happy.
I would like to throw something out there which would be the coolest thing ever and in many ways appropriate for RooX.
Neil Young and Pearl Jam
Throughout all of Neil's activities at Bridge School he did not look happier than when he was jamming with PJ and trading verses with Eddie.
Ive been begging for this in some fashion.
and as far as The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones goes...
The beatles existed for a little less than 13 years, from 57 - 70, and weren't huge until 62/63. The Rolling Stones released their first album in 64, released some damn good music from 67 til 70, and really hit their stride in 71.
As far as commercial success, the beatles win, as every effort they put forth was atleast decent, plus their music defined the time period in which they played. The beatles are iconic, and their music will always be appreciated.
That said, how do you think they would have fared had they not broken up? Seriously? I just dont think the beatles' music would have been nearly as relevant in the 70's. The beach boys were their biggest competition and they didn't impact the 70s nearly as hard. Hell they only had 1 or 2 songs chart in the top 20 in the 70s, compaired to the 20-something hits they had the decade before. And how many of us have parents that threw away their beatles albums in the 70s? My mom did, she had every last LP, and nearly all the EPs, in PERFECT CONDITION, most of them had only been listened to 15 times. And she threw every last one of them away.
Also, Paul McCartney is not the beatles. On his own, and even with Wings, he never released anything Beatles caliber.
The Rolling Stones were big in the 60s, huge in the 70s, and now, 45 years later, are still appreciated, and still semi relivent,
If bonnaroo x is a European invasion, and the European all stars came over, the lineup would look like this...
The Rolling Stones - Waters / Gilmore - Paul McCartney Radiohead - Daft Punk - Eric Clapton - The Who - Elton John
And the Schedule would look like this...
Fri: The Who ---> The Rolling Stones ---> Daft Punk (LN) Sat: Eric Clapton ---> Waters / Gilmore ---> Radiohead (LN) Sun: Elton John ---> Paul McCartney
And honestly, that lineup would be facking amazing.
Post by awolfatthedoor on Oct 28, 2010 14:33:23 GMT -5
The self-indulgent dreck that is Electronic Sound is pretty mediocre, Gone Torpo, of course, Dark Horse, and there are other albums that I have heard that are mediocre, but haven't personally listened to. I can list the McCartney and Lennon ones too if need be.
Post by awolfatthedoor on Oct 28, 2010 14:44:41 GMT -5
I'm just trying to point out the fact that there is this notion that all of the members of The Beatles have some sort of infallibility. "HE'S A BEATLE!" When really the only thing keeping The Beatles from having a similar career path to The Stones is a disdain for each other.
And "The Beatles" themselves weren't perfect. Let It Be and Yellow Submarine are two sub 7.0 albums, and neither album contains a truly great song.
Last Edit: Oct 28, 2010 14:45:07 GMT -5 by awolfatthedoor - Back to Top
The self-indulgent dreck that is Electronic Sound is pretty mediocre, Gone Torpo, of course, Dark Horse, and there are other albums that I have heard that are mediocre, but haven't personally listened to. I can list the McCartney and Lennon ones too if need be.
That's not exactly "a lot", wolf... and I thought Electronic Sound was pretty good, not to mention the classic All Things Must Pass.
Post by awolfatthedoor on Oct 28, 2010 14:47:34 GMT -5
As I mentioned there are other albums that are regarded as mediocre, but I haven't listened to them. So I think it would be unfair for me to say definitely that I think they are mediocre, but I don't see anything to make me think otherwise.