It was in August 1960, that the four lads from Liverpool finally settled on the name 'the Beatles', and began their first series of Hamburg gigs.

Perhaps they could do a tour, if the Who can with 2 then The Beatles can, urr maybe not.

When either Paul or Ringo kick the bucket (not anytime soon, I hope!), the last surviving one can tour as...THE BEATLE!

now that would be boring

Paul have tried that the last 30 years singing fab-songs...

Quote
mickscarey
now that would be boring

mickscarey, your posts are boring. why you feel the need to post in EVERY beatles thread is beyond me. get lost.

If you want to become a successful composer
you should buy:
a Beatles song book,
we recommended to buy:
an Abba songbook
but to perfect you you need to buy:
a Stones songbook too.

As we approach 50 years of the 'Stones ya just gotta admire the fact that macca still can entertain so well at the same age. We caught his show last year in Halifax, it was quite good. I'm nearing 50 too, went with my older siblings that a couple of generations ago turned me on to the 'Stones. We had a great time. My fav that night was Helter Skelter and Sir Paul and his band rocked it. Not sure in 400 years how the 'Stones and macca will be reviewed, but at 50 they are still 'smokin.

Quote
Keefan
It was in August 1960, that the four lads from Liverpool finally settled on the name 'the Beatles', and began their first series of Hamburg gigs.

Neat! Point of historial note also that the still astounding Paul on masterful bass vocals and piano is with a TOP EXCELLENT pack o mates in great voice doing two hour shows. And old Ringo packs in the pop fans every summer with rotating ALL STARS...and they all really are always interesting fun players. Lite but thats his thing. Worth acknowledging Paul joined John's The Quarrymen in 1957 and Paul brought George in by early 1958. in the next two years they performed as Johnny & The Silver Beetles..The Moondogs and other names. Of special note the rapidly big breaking young Beatles, all four, went to see The Stones club set in 1962 and made friends talking into the night. George personally interceded for their label deal and The Sones 2nd or 3rd single release...the one that charted respectfully in the UK and really started everything serious for their shot as a promoted act, was a light weight motonous Beatles raver that The Stones put a highly original mark on ...stinging slide etc... The Beatles GAVE The Rolling Stones unbelievable friendship and support...real respect and love. They remained friends through all their respective 20s until the sixties ended and The Beatles were no more. Despie Keiths shit talk in his LIFE BOOK "co written" edited INTERVIEWS regarding John, when Keith has talked of John with Hunter Thompson, who he could not hope to impress with narcisstic venal tabloid insanity, he called John the strongman whos kicked open the door for everyone and would not let Thompson off when he offhandedly attempted to generally minimize the music and what The Beatles had been all about.

I'm not so sure that Keith really talks too much trash about John in the Life book...
just a little friendly/harmless anecdote about their partying lifestyle.
It's Mick that gets the short end of the stick with all this talk of "tiny todger", etc.

To see and hear what Keith really thinks about John and the Beatles ("John was a particularly good friend of mine" ), watch this:





_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

"Paul have tried that the last 30 years singing fab-songs..."

and If you've been to a recent gig you'll know it's an absolutely cracking night out.

I once saw Paul McCartney interviewed by Leeza Gibbons and John Tesh and the two Americans were saying how they were too young to really have observed the Beatles' career that closely. And Paul patiently sat there with the look, "Well, you two twits are making me look old by using me as a measurement of what's old and what isn't! Thanks!"

Having been one of those fans, 9-years old when they played on Sullivan, who saw their arc play out in real time, I can't imagine what later generations think of them. Those who loosely said Michael Jackson was as big or bigger than the Beatles were either ignorant or idiots. Only Presley was in that realm. And neither of them achieved the artistic heights of the Beatles. They were Pop Stars, but on a much higher level. They were the news when they existed. It's an ephemeral time that is hard to explain to modern day audiences. The artistic growth from album to album, all done in a short 7-year span, will go unmatched. As much as I love the Stones, the Beatles were on a whole other plane, with no peers. We were lucky to live in their time.

Stones WAY WAY WAY better. Come on!

The Stones were number two, but a distant number two. Obviously they were much better at blues based music, and they were generally playing a more mature music, but no one tops the Beatles for innovations in pop music. Or sales. Or world wide fame. They attracted a mass audience the Stones weren't even geared for. The Stones in 'Hard Days Night', or 'Help'? Come on. They simply didn't have the studio expertise or the recording support system the Beatles did. Lennon alone, or McCartney alone, and sometimes George, could write and perform songs as good as the Jagger-Richard team could pull off. That being said, I listen to the Stones all the time, and I rarely listen to the Beatles, now.

And look at them as solo artists. Lennon's Plastic Ono Band is the Sgt. Pepper of the 70s. McCartney had hit after hit. Harrison had a friggin' triple album smash with All Things Must Pass. What's the Stones equivalent, Let's Work? Take It So Hard? The Stones are what the Stones are, which is much more than we deserve, but don't rewrite history. The Beatles were it, standing on a high mountaintop with no one around them.