|
|
| Mother baby |
Look ... I'm doing some pennance here maybe,... aren't the Stones Beatle fans themselves? I know Paul is an idiot but thats no reason to belittle Harrison or Lennon. Apart from The Stones and Presley, The Beatles have never been topped.
depending on how you look at it.
BTW, it wasn;t Yoko or Paul who "broke up" The beatles, Harrison claims he was the first one to walk away.
Wasn't it?
[Edited by Mother baby] |
|
|
| doo doo doo Dude |
I stand by whatever jb states on this topic. |
|
|
| moy |
no, no please no, not again, the only thing we need now is a taylor.vs.wood thread 
[Edited by moy] |
|
|
| egon |
i have to take this up with jb, before i can comment.
jb, what are my thoughts on this? |
|
|
| egon |
...quickly please jb!
i feel the urge to say i like the beatles. |
|
|
| Mother baby |
quote:
doo doo doo Dude wrote:
I stand by whatever jb states on this topic.
One dies of too many cigarettes and the other one gets shot in the back.....but I can't be a fan?
If I do I'm disloyal to The Stones????
[Edited by Mother baby]
[Edited by Mother baby] |
|
|
| TheSavageYoungXyzzy |
There's no rule that states "you must hate the Beatles if you love the Stones". I happen to like both bands, and yes, even a lot of McCartney and Harrison's solo stuff.
-tSYX --- Silver rain was falling down... |
|
|
| doo doo doo Dude |
>>Well fuck you because I've been a Stones fan since 1965 and I like the Beatles....so go put that in your pipe and smoke it.<<
Geez mother baby, settle down. Didn't john and george preach peace and love. You need to take the Magical Mystery Tour out of your CD player and put on Let It Bleed and remember...THIS RECORD SHOULD BE PLAYED LOUD
BTW, george may have tried to quit but this certainly would not have broken up the band since john was more than happy to replace him with eric clapton.
|
|
|
| Mother baby |
[quote
BTW, george may have tried to quit but this certainly would not have broken up the band
since john was more than happy to replace him with eric clapton.
Not a chance, Harrison was irreplacable....
[Edited by Mother baby] |
|
|
| doo doo doo Dude |
>>"Not a chance, Harrison was irreplacable...."<<
Not according to John Lennon and the newly unearthed tapes from the Let It Be sessions (excerpt from Rollingstone.com):
Harrison snapped. "I'm leaving the group," he declared. "When?" Lennon shot back. "Now," Harrison said. He suggested that the others advertise for a replacement, then he split. "I didn't care if it was the Beatles," he said in a later interview. "I was getting out." Lennon was not impressed: "If he doesn't come back by Tuesday," he snorted after Harrison left, "we get [Eric] Clapton."
|
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Oh, no doubt Lennon gave a shit about no one but himself at the time and same goes for McCartney. Ringo just did what the others wanted to do, but George was kept down by John and Paul and it pissed him right off. Can't blame the fact he wanted to quit and get out because it was becoming an excersise in futility. They denied George's good songs and although he cared more about his own music, you can bet he was more angry about the other two than being just the lead guitarist in the Beatles who wanted to do his own thing. They were completely using him as a sideman and it wasn't really a real group anymore. As Ringo said in 1968, each member of the group thought the other 3 hated them together. A drugged-out, paranoid bunch. At least when the Stones hit this roadblock they got through it.
[Edited by Prodigal Son] |
|
|
| full moon |
I would have said goodbye to George and replaced him with Clapton in a heartbeat.. |
|
|
| sammy davis jr. |
Clapton never would've worked in the Beatles. Everyone points to "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" as proof otherwise, but that is Georges song to begin with, with Eric wanking behind it. George was one of those guitarists who never wasted a note-PERIOD. He was irreplaceable in the Beatles. |
|
|
| parmeda |
quote:
TheSavageYoungXyzzy wrote:
There's no rule that states "you must hate the Beatles if you love the Stones". I happen to like both bands, and yes, even a lot of McCartney and Harrison's solo stuff.
-tSYX --- Silver rain was falling down...
...and I'm making it my own personal mission to make sure that Xyzzy turns into an AC/DC freak as well.
Right, buddy?  |
|
|
| Rollingstoned58 |
I love the Beatles, not huge on AC/DC tho |
|
|
| Moonisup |
beatles: no energy
stones: full of it
I wanna hear band that can play their songs live, I can sit in a studio a record every strummed chord and make a wonderfull album, and never play it live,
I wanna hear songs live, like the stones and other bands do, think of springsteen what you want, he does it live, that's what I respect in Bands
rik |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
TheSavageYoungXyzzy wrote:
There's no rule that states "you must hate the Beatles if you love the Stones". I happen to like both bands, and yes, even a lot of McCartney and Harrison's solo stuff.
-tSYX --- Silver rain was falling down...
Sometimes I have to acknowlege, a very WISE head, on very young shoulders Savy......and The Silver Train ref' didn't go un-noticed either. Rock on Mr. Bass! |
|
|
| F505 |
A Beatles thread without JB???? That's the same as The Stones without Jagger/Richard. So come on JB, let's start it all over again! Can't wait!!! |
|
|
| Cant Catch Me |
The Beatles, those babies, were all whacked out on drugs? Like what, they were sniffing milk powder, plus the occassional joint?
Really, though, I think you have to be way, way, way gone on drugs before you start getting psychotically paranoid, or worried about things that don't exist. They were too young to be that far gone, I think, therefore their fears about the others were not imaginary. So they did all hate each other, can't say I blame any of them 'cause I would too! 'Xcept for Lennon, he was cool. |
|
|
| corgi37 |
awww, not this shit again. the beatles were a pop band for fuck sake. no, i wont partake of this thread. i hate those liverpulian bastards!!!! |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
awww, not this shit again. the beatles were a pop band for fuck sake. no, i wont partake of this thread. i hate those liverpulian bastards!!!!
When one really wants to irritate a Liverpudlian, the term one uses is; Ya fucking SCOUSE GIT!........But how the hell, Die-hard Stoner that I am, can I ever diss 'Rubber Soul'..Revolver...or Abbey Road. Whatever you may think of The Fabs, you can't deny they were like a cattle prod to contemporary rock between 1962, and 1969. Without The Mop-Tops boundaries would have remained unbreached. In 1967 Mick & Keith would've still been content to cover Muddy, The Wolf & Chuck. Credit where credit is due my good droogs. |
|
|
| JaggaRichards |
The Stones were a lot tougher band.
Can you imagine if Yoko tried to get into it with one of them? |
|
|
| TheSavageYoungXyzzy |
quote:
parmeda wrote:
...and I'm making it my own personal mission to make sure that Xyzzy turns into an AC/DC freak as well.
Right, buddy?
Right. Sure. I'm running away now.
Alright, maybe not. So which album do you recommend I start with?
quote:
Moonisup wrote:
I wanna hear band that can play their songs live, I can sit in a studio a record every strummed chord and make a wonderfull album, and never play it live...
Moon, I was just listening to a few cuts from the Apple Rooftop Concert. Now that had some good ol' fashioned rock and roll in it - listen to the last cut of "Get Back" before they get dragged off stage - they play quite a nasty rocking version with our resident cockmonger Billy Preston.
You are right - they didn't try and go out live. But when they were doing studio stuff like that, going out live woulda killed that innovation, I think. Look at Zeppelin. Their live shows didn't hold a candle up to their studio stuff because Page would overdub five guitar parts or something onto stuff like "The Song Remains The Same", and the songs sounded empty live. And on McCartney's most recent tour, most what he played he played fantastically, but he didn't take any chances like the Stones did.
I would be thrilled if guys like McCartney took the hint and played club shows or different venues where they switched around everything, played never-before-heard cover songs, stuff like that, because listening to his soundchecks it's clear that he can play rock and blues with more emotion than his own "Pop Horses" he plays live every night.
-tSYX --- Get back to where you once belonged... |
|
|
| Mother baby |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
awww, not this shit again. the beatles were a pop band for fuck sake. no, i wont partake of this thread. i hate those liverpulian bastards!!!!
It's a new day..
Yeah...sorry...I don't blame ya, this topic has been beaten to death...but I don't think it it will go away. I was thinking about whacking it but too many people have posted on the thread. Sometimes I'll whack one of my own posts if it's just a wise crack, off the cuff or something. But I don't like to whack posts if it causes other posts below it not to make sense....anyway I will not start a new thread on this theme again LOL |
|
|
| Mother baby |
quote:
parmeda wrote:
...and I'm making it my own personal mission to make sure that Xyzzy turns into an AC/DC freak as well.
I can only think of one record album that I liked every single song...AC/DC...FLY ON THE WALL. try that one Xyzzy when ya get a chance...if you ain't already.
|
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
Its very true this topic has been beaten to death. But this argument has being running since the 60s! Its never going to dissapear.
The Beatles early 1962 - 1966 music sounded poppy and well produced, while the Stones 1963 - 1966 music sounded DIRTY.
I don't know really whether anyone can use the argument that the Stones were a better live band. In the early days, were they a better live band? I think everyone here is thinking of 1969 onwards when the Beatles were not touring.
Alex |
|
|
| Moonisup |
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
"I don't know really whether anyone can use the argument that the Stones were a better live band. In the early days, were they a better live band? I think everyone here is thinking of 1969 onwards when the Beatles were not touring."
Alex
oh well I think you can use the argument.
and well if the beatles would tour, it's well just easy listening I think, although people really believe that Macca rocks, oh well people also believe in UFO's |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
JaggaRichards wrote:
The Stones were a lot tougher band.
Can you imagine if Yoko tried to get into it with one of them?
While I'm in no hurry to join in this beaten to death thread. I must point out that JR,that's just plain wrong. The Beatles were much tougher than the embryonic Stones. I mean their little cute mop top fab four image was completely made up by Brian Epstien. The Beatles were low class fucks from Liverpool. The Stones on the other hand were all from London and,with the exception of Keith,were all lower to moderate middle class. Even Keith's family was better off than any of the Beatles. The Beatles got their start in Hamburg Germany playing in front of drunken sailors and whores,all the while they were taking fistfulls of pills and swallowing them with ale and whiskey.
Just as the Beatles image was all fabricated so was the Stones. They were nowhere near as tough as Oldham would have had everyone beleive. Brian Jones was the closest thing to a rebel outlaw of the bunch and he was emotionaly a child. The Beatles very well may have mellowed into their image in time. Just as the Stones grew into theirs,but make no mistake the Beatles were leather wearing pill poping hooligans long before Bill pissed against the wall of that petrol station!
Riffhard |
|
|
| F505 |
JB where are you??????? |
|
|
| T&A |
The Beatles a pop band? Helter Skelter was a nice little ditty, now that I think about it.
The Stones didn't do pop. Ruby Tuesday was a balls-out rocker, yeah, that's right. |
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]