Who would you rather be (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Off Topic: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=23
- - - Who would you rather be: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=221716

[Poll]

Who would you rather be


The Beatles
  33% (4)
The Rolling Stones
  66% (8)


Total Votes : 12
(last vote on : Jun. 17 2013 2:24:10) 


Message


gmburns -> Who would you rather be (Jan. 25 2013 12:49:43)

Was listening to a Metric song today (Gimme Sympathy) and they had a legit question: "who would you rather be, The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?"

This song was oddly followed by a Cloud Cult song (Happy Hippo) that has the lyrics "it's better to burn out than to fade away."

Note, this is not a "who made better music" question.

I chose The Beatles. I'm going to die in ball of flames anyway, so why the hell not go big?

What do you want: longevity but never the best, or to be the best for a short period of time?




edguerin -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 25 2013 16:58:59)

quote:

Who would you rather be 

me




NormanKliman -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 25 2013 17:03:57)

quote:

me


Ha-ha! I swear, I was going to post exactly the same thing!




gmburns -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 25 2013 17:44:56)

I was thinking it'd be more fun to stick to the answers. [8|]




Doitsujin -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 25 2013 17:46:41)

If its not about music.... I would go for Rolling Stones .... I think they have spent more time of their life outside of the UK! :P haha And they are much more interesting personality wise than the beatles....Didn´t the beatles stop making music when the mommy of Elton wanted him to be in beddy before sun goes down?.... She also forced the whole band to get this Dumb & Dumber haircut.. these are 2 no goes... so the Rolling stones make it.




gmburns -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 25 2013 17:51:53)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doitsujin

If its not about music.... I would go for Rolling Stones .... I think they have spent more time of their life outside of the UK! :P haha And they are much more interesting personality wise than the beatles....Didn´t the beatles stop making music when the mommy of Elton wanted him to be in beddy before sun goes down?.... She also forced the whole band to get this Dumb & Dumber haircut.. these are 2 no goes... so the Rolling stones make it.


A good defense.

I chose the Beatles just because their flame was bright simply because the world went bonkers for them overnight, whereas the Stones had to work it.

I guess a similar question would be, if you could own a one-hit wonder / masterpiece painting vs. a painting by a well-known painter who never had a masterpiece but was pretty good overall...




Leñador -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 25 2013 19:14:14)

Rolling stones look like they had way more fun. Live to be 70+ drinking, smoking, playing, and rooting? I'm in.........

Just learned that Aussie slang, trying to make it part of my vocab [:D]




Doitsujin -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 25 2013 21:53:17)

quote:

I guess a similar question would be, if you could own a one-hit wonder / masterpiece painting vs. a painting by a well-known painter who never had a masterpiece but was pretty good overall...



I was just joking. Well to that question I would choose the option that makes more money overall..... Since I´m not Achilleus, fame doesn't matter...money matters... Sad isn´t it?




gmburns -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 25 2013 22:36:37)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doitsujin

quote:

I guess a similar question would be, if you could own a one-hit wonder / masterpiece painting vs. a painting by a well-known painter who never had a masterpiece but was pretty good overall...



I was just joking. Well to that question I would choose the option that makes more money overall..... Since I´m not Achilleus, fame doesn't matter...money matters... Sad isn´t it?



[:D] I know you were joking. This was meant to be a fun question.

I hadn't even thought about the money when I posed the question. With the exception of Michael Jackson buying the rights to the Beatles right out from under McCartney's nose (and indirectly as a result of McCartney's own advice to Jackson), I would have thought the Beatles have made more money. Anyone know the answer to that?




estebanana -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 26 2013 20:58:13)

quote:

This song was oddly followed by a Cloud Cult song (Happy Hippo) that has the lyrics "it's better to burn out than to fade away."


This is from Neil Young's song Hey hey, My my, On the album 'Rust Never Sleeps'.

Rolling Stones did it better, they never hung out with perverted gurus, heroin must a have a preservative in it. To survive Anita Pallenberg and drugs is a feat beyond comprehension.




gmburns -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 26 2013 21:10:09)

quote:

ORIGINAL: estebanana

quote:

This song was oddly followed by a Cloud Cult song (Happy Hippo) that has the lyrics "it's better to burn out than to fade away."


This is from Neil Young's song Hey hey, My my, On the album 'Rust Never Sleeps'.

Rolling Stones did it better, they never hung out with perverted gurus, heroin must a have a preservative in it. To survive Anita Pallenberg and drugs is a feat beyond comprehension.


All good points. I still think I'm on the Beatles side. Not sure I want to end up like Keith Richards.




Guest -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 0:47:21)

quote:

Keith Richards.

mmm
still alive
still touring
still getting laid...[rooting lol]
odd movie cameo..

the stones for me
to much credit given the beatles for the work of george martin...




gmburns -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 0:50:22)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlVal

quote:

Keith Richards.

mmm
still alive
still touring
still getting laid...
odd movie cameo...

the stones for me
to much credit given the beatles for the work of george martin...


something tells me the remaining beatles are doing OK in those regards, too.




Guest -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 1:02:42)

guess it comes down to this...



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px




Guest -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 1:04:13)

or this
if its about lasting rock and roll
still with captain jack sparrow...


Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px




gmburns -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 1:05:44)

yeah, good point.




edguerin -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 10:14:40)

How much better is this?



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px




gmburns -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 10:37:00)

I'd take that over both of them.

Actually, where did you get that photo? Is the photographer referenced?




edguerin -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 15:58:25)

I cot it from this blog.




gmburns -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 16:11:37)

quote:

ORIGINAL: edguerin

I cot it from this blog.



Thanks. Appreciated.




FredGuitarraOle -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 17:06:24)

I'm sorry for deviating from the topic but since you were talking about Niño Miguel, here are two recent videos of him I saw the other day. He looks great and is playing even better!







gmburns -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 17:58:05)

no apologies necessary - both were fantastic. thanks for sharing!




Leñador -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 19:39:31)

Thanks Fred, haven't seen those yet, it's good to see some weight on his bones.




estebanana -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 21:50:31)

quote:

All good points. I still think I'm on the Beatles side. Not sure I want to end up like Keith Richards.


I would not mind being Keef-

A still fetching in her late 50's model wife, a few houses around the world, some money, still has not allowed himself to be knighted thus he is still non complicit with the higher social orders...but he probably does as much charity giving as Sir Paul.

He stays up late at night cooking bangers and mash, and he gets to play Pirates in movies. He fell out of a tree and lived.

In the beginning they concert promoters said of the Stones and the Beatles; The Stones were gentlemen they had to gussy up to look shabby and tough and the Beatles were street toughs they had to put in suits and ties to make them look less like Marlon Brando clone punks. In Germany in the pre invasion days they dressed like greasers. In America that look was too menacing and tough to make them seem like those dapper Lads from Liverpool. The Stones first tours of the US took them through areas where they hung out in black night clubs where whites did not go, but they seem to have been welcomed because they knew the music in detail.

Sort of like Americans or Japanese going to Spain and being welcomed by Gitano's more so than Gitano's might be open to non Gypsy Spaniards. I remember telling some Spanish guys I hung out with that I went to a Gypsy baptism, they were both jealous and repulsed at the same time. They said how could I stand to hang out with 'thieves and drug addicts' while in the next breath saying I love flamenco and I've lived in Spain all my life and have never been invited to a flamenco Gypsies private life or home. I filled them in on what happened and they just sat there gawking.

Some time ago I read, maybe in one of Paco Sevilla's books, that Camaron was invited to sing in a private fiesta for the Rolling Stones for the sum of 30,000 dollars. In the end Camaron declined to perform for some reason, I don't know why. Who knows why, maybe he was too strung out. Sometimes when junkies meet up it flares their interest in going on a jag and getting high..or maybe Camaron just did not want to sing for such a small sum..the lore around both the Stones and Camaron is so Byzantine and opaque how could you ever know unless you asked one of them yourself?

Maybe the reason flamencos pick the Stones over Sir Paul and Co. is because the Stones themselves are just more flamenco than the Beatles. The image, the sound, the strutting..

Maybe Camaron did not want to compete with Mick for who struts better...



[;)]




aarongreen -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 23:45:37)

When it comes to the music, I am more of a Beatles fan. However if it came down to living a life, I'd go with Keith too. A friend and neighbor (relatively speaking, he lives 2 miles from me) is Keith's guitar tech when the Stones tour. He's been all over the world with them, has stories on top of stories that occasionally I can pry out of him. What I do get from him is Keith is a happy, carefree kind of guy and fun to be around. Thats good enough for me.

I also like the fact that a few years ago he fell off a ladder in his library in one of the toniest towns in Connecticut. I can only imagine him tanked, reaching for a rare edition of Dickens or Chaucer when it happened.




aarongreen -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 23:47:42)

Any reason why Charles Dicken's name is verboten? What about John Handcock?

Pussy Galore?




Leñador -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 27 2013 23:59:18)

Jaja, that's funny as the dickens :)




estebanana -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 28 2013 0:17:17)

That's redickulous.




gmburns -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 28 2013 9:20:55)

quote:

ORIGINAL: estebanana

quote:

All good points. I still think I'm on the Beatles side. Not sure I want to end up like Keith Richards.


I would not mind being Keef-

A still fetching in her late 50's model wife, a few houses around the world, some money, still has not allowed himself to be knighted thus he is still non complicit with the higher social orders...but he probably does as much charity giving as Sir Paul.

He stays up late at night cooking bangers and mash, and he gets to play Pirates in movies. He fell out of a tree and lived.

In the beginning they concert promoters said of the Stones and the Beatles; The Stones were gentlemen they had to gussy up to look shabby and tough and the Beatles were street toughs they had to put in suits and ties to make them look less like Marlon Brando clone punks. In Germany in the pre invasion days they dressed like greasers. In America that look was too menacing and tough to make them seem like those dapper Lads from Liverpool. The Stones first tours of the US took them through areas where they hung out in black night clubs where whites did not go, but they seem to have been welcomed because they knew the music in detail.

Sort of like Americans or Japanese going to Spain and being welcomed by Gitano's more so than Gitano's might be open to non Gypsy Spaniards. I remember telling some Spanish guys I hung out with that I went to a Gypsy baptism, they were both jealous and repulsed at the same time. They said how could I stand to hang out with 'thieves and drug addicts' while in the next breath saying I love flamenco and I've lived in Spain all my life and have never been invited to a flamenco Gypsies private life or home. I filled them in on what happened and they just sat there gawking.

Some time ago I read, maybe in one of Paco Sevilla's books, that Camaron was invited to sing in a private fiesta for the Rolling Stones for the sum of 30,000 dollars. In the end Camaron declined to perform for some reason, I don't know why. Who knows why, maybe he was too strung out. Sometimes when junkies meet up it flares their interest in going on a jag and getting high..or maybe Camaron just did not want to sing for such a small sum..the lore around both the Stones and Camaron is so Byzantine and opaque how could you ever know unless you asked one of them yourself?

Maybe the reason flamencos pick the Stones over Sir Paul and Co. is because the Stones themselves are just more flamenco than the Beatles. The image, the sound, the strutting..

Maybe Camaron did not want to compete with Mick for who struts better...



[;)]


OK, I guess I need to come around a bit then!

There's similar thing here in Brasil about the rich and poor. I have a friend (M) who's gay, and he's American and has a damn good job that lets him work wherever. M has had friends here in Brasil for years and has come down for the perennial summer for about six or seven years now. At the moment, he lives here in Curitiba with a Brasilian friend (B) of his who he knew in the U.S.. B comes from a very wealthy lawyer-type family. M pays a little rent to B to live in B's gorgeous apt in a swanky part of town.

M also has a boyfriend here (R), but R isn't so wealthy. In fact, he works as a lineman for GVT and lives in what in the U.S. we'd essentially call a project; where the government built a bunch of tiny houses on a free plot of land and sold them to poor people who otherwise couldn't afford to buy. M is quite a bit older than both B and R, with B and R being approximately the same age (within a few years).

Whenever R stays the night with M, B leaves the house. B never accepts invitations to go to the movies, to grab a coffee, to grab a beer, etc. It's as if B is afraid that R's poorness will rub off on him. The wealth gap here is pretty cruel, and people wonder why there's so much violence.

I'd go to the gypsy baptism. Not sure why I'd have a problem with it to begin with. I'm a small-town guy who does get rattled by the big-city violence here, but part of that is why my girlfriend worries so much about me; I just don't pay attention to my surroundings. People are people.

OK, I think I'm turning.




Anders Eliasson -> RE: Who would you rather be (Jan. 28 2013 13:28:30)

Rolling stones.
If I was the beatles, I would have to support McCartney and I cant stand him. Besides, I was a kid in the 60th and my parents bought all these Beatles albums that I had to listen to..... [&o]




Page: [1] 2    >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET