Don't get me wrong but who cares.....

"If the Beatles had toured after '69, with new sound systems &c. they would have given the Stones a run for their pin money."


You are giving the Beat les...too much credit...they stopped playing live in 1966. They couldn't hack having to prove it every night so they hid in the studio.

I hate the Beat-less

To answer elvisloose, I saw the Beatles live in 1966 at Dodger Stadium in LA. Although they played quite well, it was really impossible to evaluate their performance, as there were 50,000 screaming teenage girls drowning out the sound. It was more of a cultural event than a concert performance. I also saw the Stones perform that year and they put on a great show (almost identical to "Got Live if you Want It"). Which group was better in concert that year? For me it is like comparing apples to oranges. Each group had a different style of music and of performing. Each concert was very exciting and memorable. Of course, as time went on, the Stones emerged as the greatest live band anywhere, incomparable. When I saw them 3 years later it was almost like seeing a different group. They had become more serious about their music and had begun to mature as performers. They really began to hit their stride as a live act in '69.

For the record, I like both groups but really do not compare them much.

The stones are the greatest live band ever. Although the Who is an amazing live act from what I have seen, and I'm sure they were much better in the 60's no one can compare with the Stones live. The 69 tour was the greatest tour ever as far as I'm concerned.

Raise your glass to the good and the evil, Let's drink to the salt of the earth.

DaveG wrote:
For the record, I like both groups but really do not compare them much.

What a lovely final comment for this (useless) discussion! Its really comparing apples with oranges, Dave is so right. I like apples and oranges.

I'd like to thank all those who took part in this "useless" discussion.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

I NEVER like the Beatles' concerts, very poor IMO!!!

Rank I don't know why I'm having to break this down but if you insist me lad...

because we were taking about stage work ie live performances I assumed people would make the connection that that was what I was talking about when comparing Jagger's vox (live) to John and Paul's vox (live).

As for the finding his feet statement, you have taken a common saying as a literal one.
His voice was "finding it's feet" - figuratively speaking. And I stand by that statement. So as to your comment..

"I think that's just you're way of saying McCartney and Lennon were better singers?"

..in a live context during the aforementioned time periods, yes, I do.

I have a few 66/67 shows from the Stones and Mick's singing is good but still not controlled.

Listen to Lennon or McCartney in almost any live show and their voices are controlled and usually on song.

That all said, I think during 1972/73 period that the greatest rock vocals ever delivered were from diety Jagger.

Absolute rock Godliness singing in my little opinion.


And Country Honk my mate as for....

"Lennon later discovered the more rockier voice.... Macca still has the same old sweet childish voice..... which is perfect for his tralalalalalalala songs....."

I'd like to to know how you'd fair singing 'tralala' songs like "Helter skelter", "Oh Darlin", "Why don't we do it in the road" or one of their earlier songs "Long tall Sally" me love....

Even Mr Penniman couldn't sing it as well as Paul.


kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

I knowm it's easy to dismiss Paul with the tralala sounds. He has done it to himsle. But the tunes that monkey man quoted are all prime examples of him at his best. Untouchable. "Monkberry Moon Delight", "I've Got A Feeling" are screamers. But also on the ballds like "Here There" and "My Love" he rules. The close harmony period of L/McC is also without peers. "If I fell" eg. Try any one of the two harmonies. They are great.

Monkey man, thanks for the breakdown, I like Paul's voice. In fact "Oh Darlin' was my favorite Beatles tune for quite some time, It's ALMOST a blues tune. The closest thing they ever did anyway to a straight ahead blues tune that I can think of.

I almost made a post, (maybe I still should?), about McCartney's performance at the last Super Bowl here. I thought it was the best live thing I've ever seen him do, I was VERY impressed, considering the fact that it was a small group and all. Do you or anyone else here know about the musicians he had with him? They looked like young guys. They even looked good! The guitar player looked like he could have been a Beatle stand-in.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

The guys with McCartney at the Super Bowl were his band from the last tour. Except for the keyboardist, who has been with him for many years (I think he's called Wix) they are young guys who were relatively unknown prior to touring with Paul The drummer, Abraham Laboreal Jr., is the son of a very accomplished jazz musician, who has done studio work and was in a jazz-fusion group in the '80's called Kononia.

Both bands have done some great studio wrok and great live gigs.
The ever so boring comparison about the Beatles or the Stones, which was the best?
Isn't it a bit too boring to compare these days.

I mean there is one band out there still and that's what counts for me.

HJofSweden

Why did you take the time to post if it's so boring? And, given the number of posts, (your's included), I'd say that most, (the VAST majority), people thought it was worth it. It's nice to see the Stones win one ever now and then I can think of some other things I'd like to say right now but I like this board. GET OVER IT!

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Well Rankoutsider, I also took the time to bother. And My post wasn't an attach at you personally. The outcome of this subject could only go one way as we did know from the beginning. I was just saying what we older fans and I say might think is boring nowadays and that's because we have lived thru that comparison time ages ago.

I'm proud to have followed this band since 1964 and then again I was quite a big Beatles fan before that. But the Stones have been my "darlings" ever since 1964.



HJofSweden

I'm 50 years old. My first record was purchased for me as a gift by my mother in late 1963. That record was "Introducing The Beatles" on the VeeJay label out of St.Louis, Missouri. The English version was called "Please Please Me. like I said earlier, maybe you should stay away from threads that you find boring. (God I sound like an obnoxious "bore" here, sorry

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-15 20:07 by RankOutsider.