|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Beatles? or the Rolling Stones? |
| Beatles |
|
66% |
[ 28 ] |
| Rolling Stones |
|
33% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 42 |
|
| Author |
Message |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
 Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 5:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| desultude wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| desultude wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Keith Richards undergoes brain surgery: media
Sun May 7, 11:18 PM ET
WELLINGTON (Reuters) - Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards had surgery to relieve a blood clot on his brain caused by an accident while holidaying in Fiji, local media reported on Monday.
The 62-year-old rocker was recovering in New Zealand after "brain surgery," Australian and New Zealand media reported.
A spokeswoman for the band said last week that Richards only suffered a mild concussion from an accident in Fiji in late April and would not require surgery.
The New Zealand Herald reported that Richards underwent brain surgery to relieve a subdural haematoma or blood clot on the brain. The operation normally involves drilling a hole through the skull to drain the clot.
Subdural haematoma can be caused by mild knocks to the head.
"The Herald understands the 62-year-old's condition was much more serious than previously reported," said the newspaper, but did not quote any hospital or medical officials.
Australian Broadcasting Corp radio also reported that Richards had undergone surgery and remained in New Zealand under observation.
Auckland's Ascot Hospital told Reuters on Monday that Richards had been discharged but would give no further details.
"I can confirm that he was discharged ... but other than that I can't make any comment. The hospital's policy is quite clear that we don't discuss any patients' past, present or future," said the spokesman.
Richards was flown to Auckland, New Zealand, in late April after an accident while holidaying in Fiji following the end of the Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand leg of a world tour.
A band spokeswoman said last week that Richards had been discharged and was in "good spirits" and adamant he would join the rest of the Stones in Barcelona for the kick-off of the European leg of their tour on May 27.
Along with lead singer Mick Jagger, Richards has been the backbone of the Rolling Stones since the 1960s.
His history of arrests and drug abuse in younger years has given him the reputation as rock 'n' roll's ultimate survivor. He pokes fun at his checkered past by greeting concert audiences with the catchphrase, "Good to be here, good to be anywhere."
He has suffered his fair share of freak accidents.
In 1998, he broke three ribs and punctured a lung after falling from a ladder while reaching for a book in his library.
In 1990, one of his fingers got infected after he punctured it on a guitar string. In both cases, the Stones were forced to postpone concerts. |
Damn, I wonder what that life of drugs and rock and roll does to a brain- his would be the paradigmatic "brain on drugs". I'm seriously curious if there is a visible effect. |
I don't know much about Richards' personal life, but I do know he spent years addicted to heroin. Had a truly massive habit by all accounts. Whilst long-term heroin use has numerous adverse physical effects on the user - such as constipation (during the making of 'Exile on Main Street' Richards would spend hours on the toilet waiting for his guts to move), collapsed veins, weight loss, and of course there are other health risks like overdose and death - there's no evidence at all that it causes brain damage. |
Okay, I guess you must be an American of a certain age to remember the "this is your brain on drugs" egg splat commercial/ government propaganda. Without that, my comment falls rather flat.  |
Nope. Brit, 27. I have seen that ad on Youtube however. It's complete *beep*.  The effects of heroin are essentially the same as morphine, from which heroin is made. Actually, heroin is considered more effective, or certainly more rapid and in the case of purer forms, stronger. When heroin is used medically, it is called Diamorphine, or Diacetylmorphine. If it caused brain damage, it wouldn't be administered medically to sufferers of serious injury, heart attack and cancers (as a painkiller. The intravenous injection of morphine/heroin is still considered the most effective painkiller). Heroin is not used medically in the USA however, but it is in many other countries. Cocaine is still used medically too, to aid endoscopes (it's sprayed on the back of the throat). Not many people know that. Wider society needs to know that drugs prohibition is an extremely expensive and ridiculous practise, and far more important things in society are neglected. Anyway, sorry to bore you to death. Back to the Stones and the Beatles........  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
funkywinkerbeans
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going with the Stones.Some absolute great songs and always felt the Beatles were overhyped and basically a studio band. I love requesting the Stones' song, " 2000 light years from home" An absolute gem of song and different than most of their material.
But my real vote for a band from that era goes to The Who.
There has to be some old mods around that will agree with The Who. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Rolling Stones pretty much sucked before Mick Taylor joined in 1969 and continued to suck after he left in 1975.
Watch the video of him playing Streetfighting man with the Stones that is here and you'll understand (he's the lead guitarist, in case you didn't know):
http://www.micktaylor.net/multimedia.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
The Rolling Stones pretty much sucked before Mick Taylor joined in 1969 and continued to suck after he left in 1975.
Watch the video of him playing Streetfighting man with the Stones that is here and you'll understand (he's the lead guitarist, in case you didn't know):
http://www.micktaylor.net/multimedia.htm |
Now here's man who knows his Stones! Totally agree, it was thier golden era, and Taylor was a superb guitarist...
To the poster above, I'll give you "studio band", duh, they are "the" studio band. But not over hyped. Thier music continues to sell like hot cakes, 30 years after thier breakup, no videos, no performances, how do you explain this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| To the poster above, I'll give you "studio band", duh, they are "the" studio band. But not over hyped. Thier music continues to sell like hot cakes, 30 years after thier breakup, no videos, no performances, how do you explain this? |
Norae-bang. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
The Rolling Stones pretty much sucked before Mick Taylor joined in 1969 and continued to suck after he left in 1975.
Watch the video of him playing Streetfighting man with the Stones that is here and you'll understand (he's the lead guitarist, in case you didn't know):
http://www.micktaylor.net/multimedia.htm |
Now here's man who knows his Stones! Totally agree, it was thier golden era, and Taylor was a superb guitarist...
To the poster above, I'll give you "studio band", duh, they are "the" studio band. But not over hyped. Thier music continues to sell like hot cakes, 30 years after thier breakup, no videos, no performances, how do you explain this? |
Yeah. Mick Taylor is the guitarist Keith Richards would love for us to forget about. I mean, the guy was the lead guitarist for John Mayall's Bluesbreaker. If that isn't proof enough that he's a virtuoso, just listen to him play. Compare his fluid jazz influenced blues riffs to Keith Richards 3 chords.
You mean the Funk Brothers? They still sell because they are the masters who made the magic happen on some of the most famous recordings of some of the most famous artists ever. And don't forget that Jimmy Page was a studio artist before he became famous (in fact, he has hinted that he played some guitar licks as a studio artist that made others guitarists very famous).
Last edited by Hollywoodaction on Thu May 11, 2006 4:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Im well aware of the Funk Brothers of Motown, I love them. They made some of the best recording ever, I agree. I think for range and reach the Beatles pip them at the post though. Instrumentally the Funk Brothers were streets ahead. And they did innovate too, bringing the jazz licks of thier impromptu late night jam sessions into the frield of commercial RnB.
The Beatles just have too many recording firsts under thier belt, use of sitar, melotron, vocal doubling, tape splicing, and on and on. And thier music is a fair bit more wide ranging and colorful, and the songs themselve were so stellar and almost certainly reach more people than even the best Motown stuff. It's a close call though... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
The Rolling Stones pretty much sucked before Mick Taylor joined in 1969 and continued to suck after he left in 1975.
|
Saying they pretty much sucked is a bit of an exaggeration surely?
Let's Spend the Night Together
Ruby Tuesday
Satisfaction
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Get off of My Cloud
Mother's Little Helper
19th Nervous Breakdown
Paint It, Black
Under My Thumb
It's all over now
That's hardly sucky material in my book.
Besides, I thought I'd made it clear that 1965's AFTERMATH is the Stones' best album? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
The Rolling Stones pretty much sucked before Mick Taylor joined in 1969 and continued to suck after he left in 1975.
|
Saying they pretty much sucked is a bit of an exaggeration surely?
Let's Spend the Night Together
Ruby Tuesday
Satisfaction
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Get off of My Cloud
Mother's Little Helper
19th Nervous Breakdown
Paint It, Black
Under My Thumb
It's all over now
That's hardly sucky material in my book.
Besides, I thought I'd made it clear that 1965's AFTERMATH is the Stones' best album? |
Sure, I'll give you that the lyrics were great. But I'm speaking in terms of musicality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
Let's Spend the Night Together
Ruby Tuesday
Satisfaction
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Get off of My Cloud
Mother's Little Helper
19th Nervous Breakdown
Paint It, Black
Under My Thumb
It's all over now |
Every song on that list would easily make my own personal Top 25 All-Time Favourite Stones' Hits.
(and most would make my Top 10 as well)
When we attempt to rate & rank the music of such familiar bands as the Beatles & the Rolling Stones -- music we heard growing up, music we've heard again and again and again and again -- our opinions are inevitably influenced by extraneous, subjective and personal factors to a much greater degree than were we judging lesser-known and less-often-heard bands.
I'm positive that's the case for me. I know my own picks have less to do with a strictly objective critique of the musicality, creativity, etc. than were I weighing the merits of Miles Davis and John Coltrane (another recent thread). With the Beatles & Stones it's never _just the songs_ but all kinds of moods and memories that I'm consciously or subconsciously associating with particular songs, and I know that's affecting my judgment.
Last edited by JongnoGuru on Thu May 11, 2006 6:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
So there's no confusion, Im a massive Stones fan. Im less religious and fervent about it than when I was 16-24, and I can see and acknowledge thier weak points and recording/songwriting ups and downs. Im not saying pre Taylor Stones sucked, Im just supporting the notion that the Taylor era was thier golden era. My top Stones albumn? Without a shadow of a doubt, "Let It Bleed". Check the track listing and see if you can find a more consistantly brilliant album in thier catalogue...
Let it Bleed 1969
Gimme Shelter
Love In Vain
Honky Tonk Women
Live With Me
Let It Bleed
Midnight Rambler
You Got The Silver
Monkey man
You Can't Always Get What You Want |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bo Peabody
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Bo Peabody on Thu May 02, 2013 12:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the Stones only did 4 utterly classic albums, but then again, 4 is quite a lot!
Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main St... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
