Quote
walkingthedog

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I won't define TSMR as a pop album.

PIB and 19thNB aren't really pop as such.

An important note: The Kinks played pop longer than the Stones did. That also makes them bigger in that segment. But you have several points, I give you that.

Good. I love the Kinks, by the way, have all their LPs and every single f...ing single. (Yes, even You Still Want Me, but in very poor condition.) One of my favourite Kinks songs is Shangri-La. I also love the trilogy Something Else/Village Green/Arthur. A shame they didn't sell so well!

I'm with you there, mate. That trilogy is nothing but awesome. I like Face To Face as well.

I have all the albums, too, and I'm working my way toward getting all the singles as well.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
michaelsavage
Silly argument. Who keeps bringing it up? There are the Stones..and then everyone else. Case closed. Stop it!

Don't you mean 'There are the Beatles, a couple steps down are the Stones, a couple more steps Led Zeppelin, three more The Who', and then everyone else? Even to be mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles is quite enough. Most people do say 'The Beatles and The Stones'. The Stones never had the top five spots on the Billboard charts. They didn't kick in the door for British acts. They didn't have double A-sides like Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields, or Hey Jude/Revolution, with both sides being top sellers. The Stones weren't in movies. Most people couldn't have named all the members. The Beatles were four superstars, the Stones were one. It's okay. Being number two to the Beatles is not shameful. They were plain and simple a phenomena.

Not sure if Honky Tonk Women/YCAGWYW is a double a-side but I'm not sure it could be considered anything but that. Similarly Brown Sugar/Bitch. Similarly Miss You/Far Away Eyes.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
michaelsavage
Silly argument. Who keeps bringing it up? There are the Stones..and then everyone else. Case closed. Stop it!

Don't you mean 'There are the Beatles, a couple steps down are the Stones, a couple more steps Led Zeppelin, three more The Who', and then everyone else? Even to be mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles is quite enough. Most people do say 'The Beatles and The Stones'. The Stones never had the top five spots on the Billboard charts. They didn't kick in the door for British acts. They didn't have double A-sides like Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields, or Hey Jude/Revolution, with both sides being top sellers. The Stones weren't in movies. Most people couldn't have named all the members. The Beatles were four superstars, the Stones were one. It's okay. Being number two to the Beatles is not shameful. They were plain and simple a phenomena.

Not sure if Honky Tonk Women/YCAGWYW is a double a-side but I'm not sure it could be considered anything but that. Similarly Brown Sugar/Bitch. Similarly Miss You/Far Away Eyes.

Not to nitpick, but I believe it was Brown Sugar/Wild Horses (not Bitch as the b side).

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
michaelsavage
Silly argument. Who keeps bringing it up? There are the Stones..and then everyone else. Case closed. Stop it!

Don't you mean 'There are the Beatles, a couple steps down are the Stones, a couple more steps Led Zeppelin, three more The Who', and then everyone else? Even to be mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles is quite enough. Most people do say 'The Beatles and The Stones'. The Stones never had the top five spots on the Billboard charts. They didn't kick in the door for British acts. They didn't have double A-sides like Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields, or Hey Jude/Revolution, with both sides being top sellers. The Stones weren't in movies. Most people couldn't have named all the members. The Beatles were four superstars, the Stones were one. It's okay. Being number two to the Beatles is not shameful. They were plain and simple a phenomena.

Not sure if Honky Tonk Women/YCAGWYW is a double a-side but I'm not sure it could be considered anything but that. Similarly Brown Sugar/Bitch. Similarly Miss You/Far Away Eyes.

Not to nitpick, but I believe it was Brown Sugar/Wild Horses (not Bitch as the b side).

It was Bitch (+ Let It Rock on one release). I have both copies

Somehow it seemed they weren't too shure about B.Sugar. In Germany at least the company asked over fanclub and radio which song should be the a-side. Bitch or Sugar.Part of the copies were with Let it rock as well.

My apologies - - I'm in America...I only think of the American or British releases of singles.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
walkingthedog

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I won't define TSMR as a pop album.

PIB and 19thNB aren't really pop as such.

An important note: The Kinks played pop longer than the Stones did. That also makes them bigger in that segment. But you have several points, I give you that.

Good. I love the Kinks, by the way, have all their LPs and every single f...ing single. (Yes, even You Still Want Me, but in very poor condition.) One of my favourite Kinks songs is Shangri-La. I also love the trilogy Something Else/Village Green/Arthur. A shame they didn't sell so well!

I'm with you there, mate. That trilogy is nothing but awesome. I like Face To Face as well.

I have all the albums, too, and I'm working my way toward getting all the singles as well.

The triumvrate of British music is always discussed as the Beatles, Stones and Who, but I think had the Kinks not abandon the US between 1966-69 they would have been the third great. (BTW in his book Americana, Ray Davies concludes that he feels that there was no ban on the Kinks, simply that the US didn't understand the Kinks and therefore they were not asked back, which is a shame.)
As for how to rank bands, its pretty much the Beatles at the top, the Stones a step down, the Who a step down from there, the Kinks a couple steps down and the rest (including Zeppelin and Floyd).
I often wonder a number of things about the Beatles and the good fortune they had in music (lets face it a number of things went their way). Among the questions:
1.What if Decca had signed them? They wouldn't have worked with Martin (at least not initially) who wouldn't have encouraged them and helped create their sound.
2. If JFK had not been killed in November 1963, would the Beatles have been as culturally[/u] popular? I read one asinine report of the Beatles 50th anniversary on Ed Sullivan that said the youth didn't care about JFK's death. This is simply wrong. Never before had the youth in America rallied around a president (and would not again until 2008 around Obama). BTW this same report said the Stones didn't play Sullivan until 1967!
3. Finally what if the Beatles hadn't disbanded in 1970, but rather went back touring and continued on as a band through say 1980. Would their legacy still be the same? Part of the Beatles legacy, IMO, is what they accomplished in such a short time, which is remarkable. I think alot of the Stones hype is their longevity 50 years is quite a long time for a band!

Quote
Happy Jack

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
walkingthedog

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I won't define TSMR as a pop album.

PIB and 19thNB aren't really pop as such.

An important note: The Kinks played pop longer than the Stones did. That also makes them bigger in that segment. But you have several points, I give you that.

Good. I love the Kinks, by the way, have all their LPs and every single f...ing single. (Yes, even You Still Want Me, but in very poor condition.) One of my favourite Kinks songs is Shangri-La. I also love the trilogy Something Else/Village Green/Arthur. A shame they didn't sell so well!

I'm with you there, mate. That trilogy is nothing but awesome. I like Face To Face as well.

I have all the albums, too, and I'm working my way toward getting all the singles as well.

The triumvrate of British music is always discussed as the Beatles, Stones and Who, but I think had the Kinks not abandon the US between 1966-69 they would have been the third great. (BTW in his book Americana, Ray Davies concludes that he feels that there was no ban on the Kinks, simply that the US didn't understand the Kinks and therefore they were not asked back, which is a shame.)
As for how to rank bands, its pretty much the Beatles at the top, the Stones a step down, the Who a step down from there, the Kinks a couple steps down and the rest (including Zeppelin and Floyd).
I often wonder a number of things about the Beatles and the good fortune they had in music (lets face it a number of things went their way). Among the questions:
1.What if Decca had signed them? They wouldn't have worked with Martin (at least not initially) who wouldn't have encouraged them and helped create their sound.
2. If JFK had not been killed in November 1963, would the Beatles have been as culturally[/u] popular? I read one asinine report of the Beatles 50th anniversary on Ed Sullivan that said the youth didn't care about JFK's death. This is simply wrong. Never before had the youth in America rallied around a president (and would not again until 2008 around Obama). BTW this same report said the Stones didn't play Sullivan until 1967!
3. Finally what if the Beatles hadn't disbanded in 1970, but rather went back touring and continued on as a band through say 1980. Would their legacy still be the same? Part of the Beatles legacy, IMO, is what they accomplished in such a short time, which is remarkable. I think alot of the Stones hype is their longevity 50 years is quite a long time for a band!

#1 Beatles without Martin - who knows what would have happened, maybe someone else would have done greater things for their sound. What would have happened if they kept Best and not hired Starr?

#2 I don't know, I think they would have been just as popular.

#3 Good point. However, they were running out of steam by the end of the 60's (Keith said he felt that they should have taken a year or two off and started up again). If they lasted another 10 years and their music was not up to par with their 60's output, then it's possible their Legacy would have been a few points lower.


<As for how to rank bands, its pretty much the Beatles at the top, the Stones a step down, the Who a step down from there, the Kinks a couple steps down and the rest (including Zeppelin and Floyd).>

IMHO, I'd put Zep & Floyd above the Kinks and maybe even above the Who (which I love). But the 1st two is probably right ...

Pop vs. Blues and Rock.

I just noticed on this Live Nation email I got, a Beatles vs. Stones show at the Anaheim House of Blues.

Is it me? Referencing the Beatles NA invasion Grammy special last weekend.

Two reasons I have never seen MAC live. #1 when you go to a Stones show you expect ‘representative’ versions, you look forward to what they will bring to the table from a long term touring band. From a recording band on a pedestal The Beatles in my mind are what I have enjoyed from vinyl to CD, so you better play it bang on. Change one note in George's solo in Let it Be and you have lost me, why did I come? #2 But more on topic MAC slaughters the tunes with his singing in my opinion.

Now MAC was never formally a front guy, did his share of solo ballads with success and I thought he was OK, seemed to work. And honestly from the early days Mick was always buried in the band, part of the whole, so it‘s hard to compare. From your friends that don’t get the Stones I think Mick is a big part because he is part of a ‘sound ‘ we have come to love as the collective Stones, you don’t get the music, you don’t get Mick.

When I asked a new girlfriend to take in a BB show in Seattle she hummed and hawed and agreed. She danced and sang the whole first half of the show without comment. Then they kicked into “the Night Time is the Right Time” and Lisa started to sing. As with anyone, the girlfriend was blown out of the water and turned to me and said this is where Mick gets his butt kicked, I said nothing. Then Mick steps up and mirrors Lisa note for note. I swear the girlfriend starts screaming out loud “I get it, I get it. Mick is talented”, I nod with a smile, she is screaming herself silly now and I ask “ did you just turn into a Mick S*#t in 5 seconds?” she nodded and screamed some more. It took her two more shows to state out of the blue “I think I get Keith now”. But even for me I was taken back this tour when they pulled Emotional Rescue out, some complain about the choice but I thought it was a great diversion and ‘well done’.

So for those who have seen MAC, why does he hack something like Hey Jude to almost death? Does it get to you?

It´s Mac now?

I thought this was going to be about Stones vs Fleetwood Mac.
But it's the other Mac, as we all call him, of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-12 23:59 by BowieStone.

Of course...

Is it good to be a Mick S*#t?

I thought this has to do with Ian "Mac" McLagan.

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
I thought this has to do with Ian "Mac" McLagan.

Same here

Sympathy For Friends [Beatles vs. Stones mashup]

Cool guys!


2 1 2 0

Baby You Can Start My Car

This is the best singles from the 60ies by the bands:

vs.

I say Strawberry Jack....

2 1 2 0

Hmmm. I think Hey Jude/Revolution was their best single. But I would agree with you about Jumping Jack Flash/Child of the Moon.

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
treaclefingers
Not sure if Honky Tonk Women/YCAGWYW is a double a-side but I'm not sure it could be considered anything but that. Similarly Brown Sugar/Bitch. Similarly Miss You/Far Away Eyes.

Not to nitpick, but I believe it was Brown Sugar/Wild Horses (not Bitch as the b side).

Wild Horses with Sway as the B-side was the second single from STICKY FINGERS.

still a favorite - Jagger, in a building he had conquered more than a dozen times at that point - hanging at the circus with Lennon-

Classic John in that clip. It really is those clips of him acting normal that just make me most upset. God he is so missed.

Anyway, the short interview segment at the Rock And Roll Circus will always be my favorite Lennon/Jagger clip.

agree- Jagger dodges the camera like some rare bird in the bush that spots a hunter

Happy birthday, Yoko.
81 years old. Unbelievable!

I wish John had moved from NYC.....but I guess the lunatic would have followed him...

He would have. He was from Hawaii, and flew to NYC and stalked him for weeks. IT wouldn't have mattered, this nut bag was on a mission. Perhaps if Lennon was in the UK the crazy would not have had easy access to a gun, but then he might have used something else.
Look what happened with George and the nutbag that scaled his high security wall, broke into his house and stabbed him multiple times...sad.