rapscallion
Fledgling
"don't f**k wit de jesus!!!'
Posts: 67
|
Post by rapscallion on Aug 1, 2005 16:34:05 GMT -5
now here are some dudes that have outlived their expiration date by about thirty years, yet still come back like clock work to ride the nostalgia/gravy train...at least the beatles had the good sense to break up die/and or get killed...
|
|
bleh
Initiate
Posts: 41
|
Post by bleh on Aug 1, 2005 17:30:58 GMT -5
yea...did the beatles have a magazine named after them? One that promotes right-wing propaganda like a certain other magazine (let's just call it ohhh I dunno...the rolling stones) ?
|
|
|
Post by pissmachine on Aug 2, 2005 0:10:46 GMT -5
Actually, dumb ass, the magazine is "Rolling Stone" not rolling stones, named for a muddy waters song. And don't dare to compare the beatles to the stones. The beatles were girl thingys. Yeah, I said it, girl thingys. The stones were a bunch of dirties, spitting fire and rock-juice all over the faces of the same teeny-pukes that fawned over the beatles, except they couldn't handle the stones. Furthermore, I defend the thesis that the stones do it because they like it. None of these guys need the money or could possibly use all of the money they make, therefore, the nostalgia/gravy train argument doesn't work. They do it because they still enjoy playing these songs for people. However... Ringo, if you want to talk about riding the gravy train... and Paul, if you want to talk about milking the nostalgia...
|
|
rapscallion
Fledgling
"don't f**k wit de jesus!!!'
Posts: 67
|
Post by rapscallion on Aug 2, 2005 1:09:23 GMT -5
the 'stones' as everyone knows were just counter programming, a brilliant marketing scheme, in the same vein as yer backtreetboy/nsync variety, something for the 'too-cool-fer-school' rebel hipsters to rock out to, when their parents started listening to the beatles. The savy businessmen that they are, decided to tap in to the rebellious spirit of the late sixties counter culture which fed their egos to the point of adiction. Their rabid yuppie fan base can easily afford the 200$ tickets and the incessant proliferation of merchandise/endorsement deals/sponsorships, yes the stones know how to milk the teet of mass consumer, it seems they'll never learn. I'd reserve judgements on their financial condition until the records are disclosed to the public, i mean we're talking about a mulit-national corporation here, with employees, lawyers, marketers, pr departments, management, accounts, as i don't think any of these guys have retained the capacity for managing a multi-million dollar empire, if anything they're probably still touring because of decades of chronic mismanagement, wasted resources, hasty, drug induced choices...(altamont anyone...?), they are crusty old men obsessed with their own self-importance, addicted to the admiration and acolades of yuppiedom.
|
|
bleh
Initiate
Posts: 41
|
Post by bleh on Aug 2, 2005 10:24:16 GMT -5
thank you for correcting me pissmachine, but my question now is: What's wrong with "girl things" you homo? why does the only kind of "rock" that deserves recognition have to be puke and fire juice? Do you have a longing for the male thingy? Do you have a longing for the male juices that shoot out of the male thingy?
I just think your definition of rock (and maybe music altogether) is incredibly restricted and narrowed like the male thingy's urethra, because you are discounting the Beatles music on the count that it's "girly thingy", which kills yer "thesis" and I'll tell you why:
The only thing that shoots out of the Rolling Stones is borring, repetitive sperm-like notes aimed at fertelizing yer brain to believe that "puke and puss, and male juice" are the way to go.
Furthermore you homosexual-pig-dog-propaganda muncher, The Stones were a bunch of insecure, rat-suit wearing, peppah-gut, barn-yard mofos with one thing on their mind (read rapscallion's post above), AAAANNDDD they also did not have the slightest clue how to express music except by jamming a nice big male thingy in yer ears, mouth, arse, brain and most importantly yer WALLET...Classic example, The Simpsons, which is one the biggest product placement sitcomes along with Seinfeld, introduced one of their episodes as FEATURING THE ROLLING STONES, where a bunch of middle-aged MEN got together at a BANDCAMP RUN BY THE ROLLING STONES, so that they could reminess and revist their past overdue, nostalgic, gravy trains...They were on the simpsons plugging their ugly arses to reach a certain kind of audience, namely the Rolling Stones gravy train audience (you're on the Simpsons to either be made fun of, or make money, or both, at least it seems that way to me)
this is simply and example to illustrate that it was not about their sorry ass music which was aimed at (again read rapscallion's post, he put it quite well) making money, not music, and giving the nostaligia/gravy train some more steam (So Rapscallion's argument DOES work).
Your Thesis is motivated by biases, your argument is poor and unstructured (you don't even bother to explain or support half, if not most the things you are talking about i.e. "girl thingies", "they couldn't handle the stones", and "the stones do it because they like it". Now if you had said you're simply yammerin I could have understood, but a thesis there is not. You say that "the stones cannot possibly use all of the money they make" which means that:
1- You admitt that they make shyteloads of money 2- They do not Use all that money (which still needs some support) 3- Which entails that they just want to HOARD all that money for no reason
And now that I have fixed your argument, it seems that what you mean to say is that the stones are a bunch of money-hoarding, puke shooters, who "enjoy playing the music for the people" Oh and What people are you talking about? middle-aged, barn-yard, rat-suit wearing, peppah-gut mofos? Or simply people that have been skull f**ked by the capitalist-money-hoarding pig dogs that are "The Rolling Stones" ?
|
|
|
Post by thebutt on Aug 2, 2005 18:00:25 GMT -5
Let TheButt's ultimate opinion sum up this discussion:
The Stones f**king Blow.
As do the Beatles.
Have A Nice Day!
|
|
rapscallion
Fledgling
"don't f**k wit de jesus!!!'
Posts: 67
|
Post by rapscallion on Aug 2, 2005 18:02:25 GMT -5
and lets not forget aerosmith!
|
|
bleh
Initiate
Posts: 41
|
Post by bleh on Aug 2, 2005 18:43:25 GMT -5
AND KISS !! OH GOD PLEASE DON'T FORGET THOSE HORES OF BABYLON !! THOSE FOCKIN BLOW HOLES OF $#((#$%^)#$^Y*%(^*%^*)@
|
|
|
Post by pissmachine on Aug 3, 2005 0:54:38 GMT -5
f**k it... I'm going to go with the butt on this one. I've been wrong this whole time about the stones. But then again, so has everyone else about the beatles, so it's not such a big deal. Good rule of thumb: any old british f**ks are probably just in it for the money and typically write nutsty music. Including: Cream, the Byrds, Deep Purple-Nurple, Pink Floyd. the exception being King Crimson 1970-75 and 80-92ish
the lesson learned: f**k the brits.
|
|
rapscallion
Fledgling
"don't f**k wit de jesus!!!'
Posts: 67
|
Post by rapscallion on Aug 3, 2005 2:14:37 GMT -5
lets not forget the Led Zeppelin (they sold 'rock and roll' to cadillac) and David Bowie (now there's a useless piece of human flesh we could do without, simultaneously convincing the masses that his lamo gender-bending antics were REALLY the mark of an artist while amassing a fortune convincing the same masses that he wasn't just re-playing the beatles catalogue while wearing makeup and a sun dress) yep those brits sure are savy businessmen, i'm glad we've all learned our lesson.
|
|
|
Post by raven on Sept 1, 2005 20:32:52 GMT -5
it's hard to believe the stones do it cause they like it when they charge so much for tickets
|
|
rapscallion
Fledgling
"don't f**k wit de jesus!!!'
Posts: 67
|
Post by rapscallion on Sept 2, 2005 0:48:38 GMT -5
exactly!
|
|