Quote
ash
weren't all those studios equipped with valve desks ?

Olympic Studios wasn't.

Quote
walkingthedog
I have trained my dog to like the Stones and not the Beatles.

There's no comparison, but that's just me.

.

--------------
ColonialstoneNZ
--------------



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-02-16 21:31 by colonial.

The NME show. Otherwise, I give up.

The Beatles last concert was the rooftop show.

The Beatles' final concert: Monday, 29th August 1966, 8.00pm, Candlestick Park, San Francisco [Source]
(apart from the unannounced live appearance on Thursday, 30th January 1969 on the rooftop of the Apple building, 3 Savile Row, London, UK [Source]).

Thursday, 28th July 1966: The Rolling Stones end their 1966 North American Tour in Honolulu, Hawaii, which they play for the first time. [Source]
(The Rolling Stones were not on Tour on 30th January 1969, nor they had a live appearance [Source]+[Source])

The Rolling Stones American Tour 1966: [Source]

The Beatles' 1966 Tour: [Source]


When they played last a concert on the same day: seems to be Monday, 4th July 1966:

The Rolling Stones: Virginia Beach (United States), Under the Dome Theater
The Beatles: Manila (Philippines), Rizal Memorial Football Stadium



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-11 12:15 by Irix.

The "summit" meeting at 102 Edith Grove.

Quote
stonehearted

The "summit" meeting at 102 Edith Grove.

Seems to be this one: [books.google.com]

(Click on the link again, if Google won't display the appropriate Book page at the first time)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-11 15:15 by Irix.

The rivalry between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones makes a return on Sunday night as the Grammy Awards take place in Los Angeles.

Paul McCartney and The Stones have both been nominated in the same category - Best Rock Song.







[www.bbc.co.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-26 16:07 by Lien.

Both pretty good songs. I have to go with "Cut Me Some Slack" though.

I wonder if the Stones will have anyone there to represent them, in case they win.

Both of them are also nominated for Best Boxed or Special Limited Edition Package, for Brussell Affair and Wings over America.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-26 16:04 by latebloomer.

In this case, Doom and Gloom. Paul's song is just a Helter Skelter jam. I mean, I like it, it was cool when he did it live with the ex-Nirvana members, but it is not the best rock song of the year, while Doom and Gloom is really a great song.

Best New Artist in '64 and Album of the Year in '68, but for the most part, the grammys were clueless about the Beatles during the years they were a working band.

The Stones were never even nominated for a grammy until 1982. Trying to make up it now by giving them awards for records that are not representative of their best work is pointless.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-26 16:43 by tatters.

Because of the whole 50th anniversary of the Ed Sullivan show thing, I predict 'the Beatle' will clean up.


I agree though with Doom and Gloom over the Nirvana jam.

Regarding the battle over superdeluxe box sets, I haven't a clue which is preferable. Wings over America is a fantastic 3 LP set mind you.

Quote
tatters
Best New Artist in '64 and Album of the Year in '68, but for the most part, the grammys were clueless about the Beatles during the years they were a working band.

The Stones were never even nominated for a grammy until 1982. Trying to make up it now by giving them awards for records that are not representative of their best work is pointless.

Not really so tatters, The Beatles won six grammys while they were still together, the two you mentioned, but these as well:
Michelle - Best song of the year
Sgt Peppers - Album of the year
Sgt Peppers - Best contemporary Album of the year
Let it Be- Best soundtrack of the year

Then three more after the break up (all for Anthology and Free as a Bird).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-26 17:01 by whitem8.

Quote
tatters
Best New Artist in '64 and Album of the Year in '68, but for the most part, the grammys were clueless about the Beatles during the years they were a working band.

The Stones were never even nominated for a grammy until 1982. Trying to make up it now by giving them awards for records that are not representative of their best work is pointless.

At that time you had to be cute and nice to be nominated - thank godness they didn't

Quote
whitem8

Quote
tatters
Best New Artist in '64 and Album of the Year in '68, but for the most part, the grammys were clueless about the Beatles during the years they were a working band.

The Stones were never even nominated for a grammy until 1982. Trying to make up it now by giving them awards for records that are not representative of their best work is pointless.

Not really so tatters, The Beatles won six grammys while they were still together, the two you mentioned, but these as well:
Michelle - Best song of the year
Sgt Peppers - Album of the year
Sgt Peppers - Best contemporary Album of the year
Let it Be- Best soundtrack of the year

Then three more after the break up (all for Anthology and Free as a Bird).

I mentioned Sgt Pepper. That was their only Album of the Year award. Weird thing is that Michelle won Song of the Year in '67, even though it was released in '65.

(They also won Best Performance by a Vocal Group for "A Hard Day's Night" in 1964)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-26 17:09 by tatters.

The Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney each won awards for their big packages at the Grammy Pre-Telecast Ceremony today. Hang on, it’s not as dirty as it sounds…

McCartney and his other former group Wings won the Grammy for Best Boxed or Special Limited Edition Package for the deluxe edition of ‘Wings Over America,’ a live album chronicling the band’s 1976 world tour. As you can see from the photo above, the 2013 reissue was jam-packed with photographs, historical liner notes and replicas of the tour’s backstage passes and other memorabilia.
McCartney’s late-2012 collection ‘Live Kisses’ also took home the Grammy for Best Surround Sound Album, beating out a diverse field of competitors that also included Primus.

As for the Stones, they were co-winners in the Best Historical Album category for last year’s ‘Charlie is My Darling – Ireland 1965‘ live collection. They shared this honor with Bill Withers and his ‘The Complete Sussex and Columbia Albums’ collection. We’re guessing Mick Jagger can’t argue about that too much, seeing as how he covered Withers’ ‘Use Me’ on his 1993 solo album ‘Wandering Spirit.’


[ultimateclassicrock.com]

Quote
walkingthedog
I have trained my dog to like the Stones and not the Beatles.

I would have been more impressed by your dog if you had trained it to like the Beatles, but it had preferred the Stones.

Quote
whitem8

Quote
tatters
Best New Artist in '64 and Album of the Year in '68, but for the most part, the grammys were clueless about the Beatles during the years they were a working band.

The Stones were never even nominated for a grammy until 1982. Trying to make up it now by giving them awards for records that are not representative of their best work is pointless.

Not really so tatters, The Beatles won six grammys while they were still together, the two you mentioned, but these as well:
Michelle - Best song of the year
Sgt Peppers - Album of the year
Sgt Peppers - Best contemporary Album of the year
Let it Be- Best soundtrack of the year

Then three more after the break up (all for Anthology and Free as a Bird).

Can you imagine anyone serious giving Song of the Year to a saccharine ballad like "Michelle"? Wow, the Grammys have actually gotten better.

Horrible song.

Quote
michaelsavage
Horrible song.

Yup, Lennons 'Girl' (flip-side on the single) is much better...

2 1 2 0

The Grammys have no credibility.

This week here in the United States there is special attention by television and radio doing specials for The Beatles first coming to America. They first landed at JFK airport 50 years ago today (Feb.7,1964). Their appearance on the Ed Sullivan show 2 days later has been called the start of the British invasion. The Stones did their first US tour that same year to far less fanfare.Unlike The Beatles, who waited until they had a Number One hit before invading America, The Stones arrived stateside in 1964 with few record sales. American teens were still under the spell of “Beatlemania".They did a small tour of the states and returned to England. After scoring a hit with "Time Is On My Side" they made their return.The Rolling Stones first appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show on October 25, 1964. Another short tour followed 5 days later starting in California.

I do recall both bands appearances on Ed Sullivan although I was only 7. I am wondering if any of you have recollections of these events that you may want to share and also if you think that The Rolling Stones will get the same attention that The Beatles are getting right now? For some odd reason I think that they won't.

I don't think that there is anything odd about it. The Beatles arrival in the United States was a historical moment in pop music history and should be celebrated as such. It was an amazing moment - a group from Liverpool landing at JFK to a group of a couple thousand screaming fans, stating the British Invasion. It was an important day 50 years ago. The Stones in the meantime will be in the headlines as well, but not for their visit to America 50 years ago, but for touring Asia and Europe, selling out three shows at Tokyo Dome and headlining Pinkpop this summer in the process.

No........The Beatles are something else...........

__________________________

They should considering the Stones are a way better band.

"I like journalists, except for the idiots who visit our dressing room and ask, `Which one of you is Ringo'?" — Mick Jagger, 1965

I don't think a journalist ever asked the Beatles, "Which one of you is Mick?"

I love the Stones, but they did not have the same cultural impact as the Beatles. No way will The Stones' first appearance on Ed Sullivan get any kind of mention on it's 50th anniversary.

is this a rhetorical question?