ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

Announcing The Tour - NYC 1997
By Fernando Aceves
[Ch1: Sike-ay-delic 60's] [Ch2: Random Sike-ay-delia] [Ch3: British Invasion]



Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:


ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Beatles vs Stones Return to archive
04-25-02 11:30 AM
TomL Went to the McCartney concert on the 23rd in DC. I have always wanted to see a Beatle, John Lennon has always been my first choice but I had to settle for Paul the other night. I am not a big Beatle fam but thought it would be nice to hear some forgotten tunes. The old Beatle songs were great, some Wings stuff was alright also, alot of the newer stuff will put you right to sleep. Point in hand, now I could compair all the hoop la myself. Although it was nice to hear, for the last time, some songs that will go down in history. Bottom line. There is NO FUCKING WAY you can compair the electricity of a Stones concert to a McCartney concert. The end , point made. All you folks that say that McCartney can blow the stones away, better force a stick of dynamite in you ass and light it baby. It was historic but not in any way compairable.
04-25-02 12:52 PM
Vile Dance McCartney blowing the Stones away??????
Keith getting a face lift?????
Boycotting Stones' tours?????
....what is the world coming to anyway?

04-25-02 12:58 PM
nankerphelge Your loyalty is beyond question.
Different bands, different auras, different messages
The Stones remain in a class by themselves.

I am getting so jazzed for this announcement I can hardly stand it. Last nite, as I drove back to my hotel, 107.7 "the Bone" in San Fran played JJF. I turned the radio in the rental Buick so loud I think I blew out the speakers. So then I just sang it myself the whole ride. People got out of my way, no kidding.

04-25-02 01:18 PM
sandrew My respect for Paul McCartney has been declining steadily. He has always been profoundly uncool; now he's becoming a parody of himself. It infuriates me to read the countless media blowjobs the guy receives. For example, read today's Washington Post for a review of last night's show at the MCI Center.
04-25-02 03:44 PM
Joey "The "N" works best when it falls between TNT...the "N" just doesn't seem to work as well when the "T"'s are gone. "

You make young Joey say , huh ?????

Bunny Joey

The Joey , C10

04-26-02 11:39 AM
Scot Rocks It is very simple...The STONES KICK THE BEATLES ASS!!!!

that is all I have to say

04-27-02 07:02 PM
MRD8 The point that many Stones fans miss is that you NEVER would've heard of the Rolling Stones in America if the Beatles hadn't opened it up first for the British Invasion! The Stones would've "faded away" in a couple of years like they all expected to do when they first started...IF the Beatles hadn't opened the door for them and all the others who followed...for that we should be eternally grateful to them...
04-27-02 07:39 PM
Happy Motherfucker!! Yes, we should be grateful for the Beatles. They opened the door for the British bands that followed and they wrote some damn good music. But, anyone that thinks the Beatles are a better ROCK'N ROLL band is just full of shit! There is no comparison between the two. The Beatles lasted, what, seven years in the public eye? The Stones were kicking ass after seven years and still are doing it now fourty years later. I do love the Beatles, they where an important part of music history but when it comes to good ole fashion Rock'n Roll, The title says it all, The Greatest Rock'n Roll Band In The World! The Rolling Stones! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
04-27-02 10:03 PM
JaggaRichards What about poor Ringo? Nobody's taken him seriously for 30 years......
04-28-02 12:34 AM
gypsy "Poor" Ringo ended up with the best-looking wife than all the other, he didn't do so bad, eh?
04-29-02 03:55 PM
RobertAndres Your thread name says Beatles vs. Stones, Not One Man Without The Benefit Of His Band vs. Stones. If John Lennon and George Harrison were alive and touring with McCartney and Starr as The Beatles, there'd be no argument. I'm sure Stones fans, if forced to pick between the two, would go see The Beatles.

04-29-02 06:32 PM
sandrew I've always thought - objectively, not just because I prefer the Stones - that if you could imagine the Beatles and Stones being unknown and then compared the two bands, the Stones - at least as a live combo - would be superior. Man, that was a run-on sentence...

The point is, the Beatles were not that great a playing unit. Sure, they worked magic in the studio. But as Mick himself said, their live act was not "mind boggling." Chris Robinson nailed in when he said the Beatles were probably superior recordmakers - but the Stones were more of a "band band."

Don't tell me about the Beatles' days of playing the Cavern. Does anyone seriously believe the Beatles were capable of making a sound remotely comparable to "Midnight Rambler" off Ya Yas? I think not.
[Edited by sandrew]

On June 16, 2001 the hit counter of the WET page was inserted here, it had 174,489 hits. Now the hit counter is for both the page and the board. The hit counter of the ITW board had 1,127,645 hits when it was closed and the Coolboard didn't have hit counter but was on line only two months and a half.