<<Just think how great it would be if they were around today still performing like the Stones>>

As the Threetles? Even if Lennon hadn't been killed, George Harrison passed--as all things must--in 2001.

The Beatles would never have made it past 2000.

Come on !!! Come On ... It is ok that you like the Beatles, But if you are on the STONES site why are you putting them above the Stones ... Profess your love and allegiance on a Beatles site

Quote
stonehearted
<<Just think how great it would be if they were around today still performing like the Stones>>

As the Threetles? Even if Lennon hadn't been killed, George Harrison passed--as all things must--in 2001.

The Beatles would never have made it past 2000.

If fate hadn't gotten in the way they would have eventually gotten back together and would have been performing today. Or, at least recording. All four of them!

Quote
jjo
Come on !!! Come On ... It is ok that you like the Beatles, But if you are on the STONES site why are you putting them above the Stones ... Profess your love and allegiance on a Beatles site

I don't think it matters if some people 'prefer' the Beatles. Didn't Black Hat talk about being an 'insecure Stones fan' a few posts ago?

Who cares...welcome the Beatles fans!

Quote
jjo
Come on !!! Come On ... It is ok that you like the Beatles, But if you are on the STONES site why are you putting them above the Stones ... Profess your love and allegiance on a Beatles site

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Beatles should be thanked and praised for helping boost the spirits of the Stones in those early desperate days...





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

Desperate days?

__________________________

<<The Beatles should be thanked and praised for helping boost the spirits of the Stones in those early desperate days...>>

George and Ringo didn't have anything to do with it, and neither did their management or production team, let alone their publicists. Lennon and McCartney did it as a favor to Andrew Loog Oldham, who had worked for the Beatles as a publicist before managing the Stones.

In the early days of the Beatles, John Lennon and Paul McCartney often gave songs to their friends. They wrote one of them, ‘I Wanna Be Your Man,’ for the Rolling Stones at London’s De Lane Lea Studio on Sept. 10, 1963.

The meeting of the two groups was arranged by Stones manager Andrew Loog Oldham, who had also been the Beatles publicist. “Oldham had almost literally bumped into Lennon and McCartney as they stepped out of a cab,” writes Bill Janovitz in ‘Rocks Off: 50 Tracks that Tell the Story of the Rolling Stones. “He invited them to the studio where the Stones were rehearsing, and right then and there, the two finished off what had been a McCartney sketch of an idea, handing it the Stones for their single.”

Further details at: [ultimateclassicrock.com]

Furthermore, Lennon later admitted it wasn't that big of a favor....

"It was a throwaway. The only two versions of the song were Ringo and the Rolling Stones. That shows how much importance we put on it: We weren't going to give them anything great, right?"
John Lennon, 1980
All We Are Saying, David Sheff

The tune has meant quite alot to the Stones, and they're not hesitant to show their appreciation...

Keith, 1988:



Stones, 2012:



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

A full 25 years for Keith to show his appreciation, and 49 years for the band to show theirs--I'd call that pretty hesitant indeed.

After 1963, the Stones don't seem to have played it live. Aside from the one television clip, there doesn't seem to be any live recording, filmed or otherwise, from the mid-60s in existence. They certainly didn't allow the song to define them, and following this resorted to covers once again, finding greater chart success with Little Red Rooster, their first #1.

Perhaps you're right stonehearted regarding the Stones being hesitant, but at least they finally did show their appreciation!
And glad the Stones didn't follow the blueprint of I Wanna Be Your Man even though it was their highest charting song at that point.
As you noted, Lennon called it "a throwaway", but whatever the case it was a boost to their career.


Can't find a direct source for this quote from Mick, but found it on wikipedia:

Mick Jagger recalled the song in 1968:
“ We knew (the Beatles) by then and we were rehearsing and Andrew brought Paul and John down to the rehearsal. They said they had this tune, they were really hustlers then. I mean the way they used to hustle tunes was great: 'Hey Mick, we've got this great song.' So they played it and we thought it sounded pretty commercial, which is what we were looking for, so we did it like Elmore James or something. I haven't heard it for ages but it must be pretty freaky 'cause nobody really produced it. It was completely crackers, but it was a hit and sounded great onstage".

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-01 03:22 by Hairball.

<<but at least they finally did show their appreciation!
And glad the Stones didn't follow the blueprint of I Wanna Be Your Man even though it was their highest charting song at that point.
As you noted, Lennon called it "a throwaway", but whatever the case it was a boost to their career.>>

No disagreements with you Hairball--it remains one of Brian Jones' finest moments on slide guitar, explosive and trailblazing. Also one of the few times where Brian can be heard distinctly on backing vocals.





Here's the above TV performance clip with enhanced sound. Actually it's an enhanced version of the original studio recording with the 1963 television clip as a backdrop. Really puts you in the room with them, or they with you....

Yes indeed, Brian's slide is wicked on that tune.
And despite what Lennon may have said (he's been known to be overly-harsh and opinionated on a number of things, including alot of Beatles tunes),
I always thought it was a great tune whether it was played by the Beatles or the Stones.

Anyways, here's a quote from Bill Wyman about the song...again can't find original source:

Bill Wyman (1982): "We kind of learned it pretty quickly 'cause there wasn't that much to learn.
Then Brian got his slide out, his steel (guitar) out and dadaw... dadaw.. and we said, Yeah, that's better, dirty it up a bit and bash it out,
and we kind of completely turned the song around and made it much more tough, Stones- and Elmore James-like.".

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

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jjo
Come on !!! Come On ... It is ok that you like the Beatles, But if you are on the STONES site why are you putting them above the Stones ... Profess your love and allegiance on a Beatles site

I don't think it matters if some people 'prefer' the Beatles. Didn't Black Hat talk about being an 'insecure Stones fan' a few posts ago?

Who cares...welcome the Beatles fans!

Well, some Stones fans do seem threatened and insecure. Don't know why. Seems a bit silly. The Stones are still here, the Beatles are not. But both bands will always "exist" and be massive.

I was 8 years old, and I had a decision to make. I went with what my heart told me sounded better.

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jjo
Come on !!! Come On ... It is ok that you like the Beatles, But if you are on the STONES site why are you putting them above the Stones ... Profess your love and allegiance on a Beatles site

I don't think it matters if some people 'prefer' the Beatles. Didn't Black Hat talk about being an 'insecure Stones fan' a few posts ago?

Who cares...welcome the Beatles fans!

Well, some Stones fans do seem threatened and insecure. Don't know why. Seems a bit silly. The Stones are still here, the Beatles are not. But both bands will always "exist" and be massive.

My wonder is why Beatles-fans could not make an OT-thread about the Beatles, instead of all the time having to attract Stones-fans by invoking rivalry from the past by virtue of threads that are "versus the Stones". I mostly find waving of flags, not so much real discussion in that latter type of threads. I feel tempted to ask: Are not the Beatles an interesting subjectmatter enough in itself to have OT-threads about? I'd rather read different opinions of the Beatles from Beatles-fans than this "our band was greater than yours"-posts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-01 14:21 by Witness.

Quote
jjo
Come on !!! Come On ... It is ok that you like the Beatles, But if you are on the STONES site why are you putting them above the Stones ... Profess your love and allegiance on a Beatles site

Since I'm a Stones Fan so I would never humiliate myself to visit such a site...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Witness

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jjo
Come on !!! Come On ... It is ok that you like the Beatles, But if you are on the STONES site why are you putting them above the Stones ... Profess your love and allegiance on a Beatles site

I don't think it matters if some people 'prefer' the Beatles. Didn't Black Hat talk about being an 'insecure Stones fan' a few posts ago?

Who cares...welcome the Beatles fans!

Well, some Stones fans do seem threatened and insecure. Don't know why. Seems a bit silly. The Stones are still here, the Beatles are not. But both bands will always "exist" and be massive.

My wonder is why Beatles-fans could not make an OT-thread about the Beatles, instead of all the time having to attract Stones-fans by invoking rivalry from the past by virtue of threads that are "versus the Stones". I mostly find waving of flags, not so much real discussion in that latter type of threads. I feel tempted to ask: Are not the Beatles an interesting subjectmatter enough in itself to have OT-threads about? I'd rather read different opinions of the Beatles from Beatles-fans than this "our band was greater than yours"-posts.

Indeed. This thread seems to have started as a reference to a book. And then Michael Salvage seems to have gone on the attack. I suspect that MichaelSalvage has perpetuated this thread. Without him it would crashed and burned a long time ago.

The Beatles and the Stones influenced each other. Fact. That was what was great about that era - bands influencing each other. We should be able to discuss these bands in relation to the Stones in comfort. Some people around here need some prozac. They are too stressed by such an issue.

HEY! Let's play Bungalow Bill and all be friends!





2 1 2 0

Quote
BlackHat
.........................

The Beatles and the Stones influenced each other. Fact. That was what was great about that era - bands influencing each other. We should be able to discuss these bands in relation to the Stones in comfort. Some people around here need some prozac. They are too stressed by such an issue.

But the Beatles-fans' way of discussing those cross influences to a great extent seems to me to consist of Beatles-boasting of a one way influence. I can hardly ever remember a mentioning of impulses that the Beatles received from other bands. So is there a real discussion apart from Beatles bragging?

Added: And this receiving of direct or indirect influence from the Beatles only concerns certain parts of Stones history.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-01 15:36 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

Quote
BlackHat
.........................

The Beatles and the Stones influenced each other. Fact. That was what was great about that era - bands influencing each other. We should be able to discuss these bands in relation to the Stones in comfort. Some people around here need some prozac. They are too stressed by such an issue.

But the Beatles-fans' way of discussing those cross influences to a great extent seems to me to consist of Beatles-boasting of a one way influence. I can hardly ever remember a mentioning of impulses that the Beatles received from other bands. So is there a real discussion apart from Beatles bragging?

Added: And this receiving of direct or indirect influence from the Beatles only concerns certain parts of Stones history.

Well, the beatles were influenced by Dylan, the Beach Boys, etc. I also believe that the Beatles were slightly influened by the Stones in early 68 in terms of returning to a more straight ahead rock style. But the clearest influence of the Stones on the Beatles is simply that of being a competitor - somebody to egg them on to make great records. I think that waya two way street.

Stones fans (not inc myself) tend to put the Beatles down as pop/granny music/elevator music. That's a bit naieve. And a bit tunnel visioned.

Quote
Witness

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jjo
Come on !!! Come On ... It is ok that you like the Beatles, But if you are on the STONES site why are you putting them above the Stones ... Profess your love and allegiance on a Beatles site

I don't think it matters if some people 'prefer' the Beatles. Didn't Black Hat talk about being an 'insecure Stones fan' a few posts ago?

Who cares...welcome the Beatles fans!

Well, some Stones fans do seem threatened and insecure. Don't know why. Seems a bit silly. The Stones are still here, the Beatles are not. But both bands will always "exist" and be massive.

My wonder is why Beatles-fans could not make an OT-thread about the Beatles, instead of all the time having to attract Stones-fans by invoking rivalry from the past by virtue of threads that are "versus the Stones". I mostly find waving of flags, not so much real discussion in that latter type of threads. I feel tempted to ask: Are not the Beatles an interesting subjectmatter enough in itself to have OT-threads about? I'd rather read different opinions of the Beatles from Beatles-fans than this "our band was greater than yours"-posts.

I think this discussion/thread was supposed to be about John McMillian's recently released book: Beatles vs Stones. It's a great read and leaves no doubt that the Stones and Beatles were not only friends, but also rivals.

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
Witness

Quote
BlackHat
.........................

The Beatles and the Stones influenced each other. Fact. That was what was great about that era - bands influencing each other. We should be able to discuss these bands in relation to the Stones in comfort. Some people around here need some prozac. They are too stressed by such an issue.

But the Beatles-fans' way of discussing those cross influences to a great extent seems to me to consist of Beatles-boasting of a one way influence. I can hardly ever remember a mentioning of impulses that the Beatles received from other bands. So is there a real discussion apart from Beatles bragging?

Added: And this receiving of direct or indirect influence from the Beatles only concerns certain parts of Stones history.

Well, the beatles were influenced by Dylan, the Beach Boys, etc. I also believe that the Beatles were slightly influened by the Stones in early 68 in terms of returning to a more straight ahead rock style. But the clearest influence of the Stones on the Beatles is simply that of being a competitor - somebody to egg them on to make great records. I think that waya two way street.

Stones fans (not inc myself) tend to put the Beatles down as pop/granny music/elevator music. That's a bit naieve. And a bit tunnel visioned.

I think if you asked most Stones fans they would say they have a great respect and admiration for the Beatles. How could they not? They paved the way, and that is undeniable. Michaelsavage, and a few others, do not represent all of Stones Nation.

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
Witness

Quote
BlackHat
.........................

The Beatles and the Stones influenced each other. Fact. That was what was great about that era - bands influencing each other. We should be able to discuss these bands in relation to the Stones in comfort. Some people around here need some prozac. They are too stressed by such an issue.

But the Beatles-fans' way of discussing those cross influences to a great extent seems to me to consist of Beatles-boasting of a one way influence. I can hardly ever remember a mentioning of impulses that the Beatles received from other bands. So is there a real discussion apart from Beatles bragging?

Added: And this receiving of direct or indirect influence from the Beatles only concerns certain parts of Stones history.

Well, the beatles were influenced by Dylan, the Beach Boys, etc. I also believe that the Beatles were slightly influened by the Stones in early 68 in terms of returning to a more straight ahead rock style. But the clearest influence of the Stones on the Beatles is simply that of being a competitor - somebody to egg them on to make great records. I think that waya two way street.

Stones fans (not inc myself) tend to put the Beatles down as pop/granny music/elevator music. That's a bit naieve. And a bit tunnel visioned.

The "granny" music line came from Lennon. That was his term for some of Paul's tunes - Obladi Oblada, Your Mother Should Know, Maxwell, Honey Pie and the like. I don't like those tracks either, but that's a small handful of the Beatles' output. Their post-Pepper output is definitely "pop", but that's not meant as a putdown - it's great pop music, brilliantly conceived and executed. I don't know what else you would call it. Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers are rock and roll, distilled to its essence. Abbey Road and Let it Be are clearly different - but if we don't want to use the term "pop" what should we call them, other than "great"?

Rock and roll and pop music group, both of which the Beatles excelled at. There's examples of both on all of their albums. And the Stones are not the sole proprietor of rock and roll, or the one group that influenced all the others.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
Witness

Quote
BlackHat
.........................

The Beatles and the Stones influenced each other. Fact. That was what was great about that era - bands influencing each other. We should be able to discuss these bands in relation to the Stones in comfort. Some people around here need some prozac. They are too stressed by such an issue.

But the Beatles-fans' way of discussing those cross influences to a great extent seems to me to consist of Beatles-boasting of a one way influence. I can hardly ever remember a mentioning of impulses that the Beatles received from other bands. So is there a real discussion apart from Beatles bragging?

Added: And this receiving of direct or indirect influence from the Beatles only concerns certain parts of Stones history.

Well, the beatles were influenced by Dylan, the Beach Boys, etc. I also believe that the Beatles were slightly influened by the Stones in early 68 in terms of returning to a more straight ahead rock style. But the clearest influence of the Stones on the Beatles is simply that of being a competitor - somebody to egg them on to make great records. I think that waya two way street.

Stones fans (not inc myself) tend to put the Beatles down as pop/granny music/elevator music. That's a bit naieve. And a bit tunnel visioned.

The "granny" music line came from Lennon. That was his term for some of Paul's tunes - Obladi Oblada, Your Mother Should Know, Maxwell, Honey Pie and the like. I don't like those tracks either, but that's a small handful of the Beatles' output. Their post-Pepper output is definitely "pop", but that's not meant as a putdown - it's great pop music, brilliantly conceived and executed. I don't know what else you would call it. Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers are rock and roll, distilled to its essence. Abbey Road and Let it Be are clearly different - but if we don't want to use the term "pop" what should we call them, other than "great"?

Pop ain't rock

Quote
michaelsavage

Quote
drbryant

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
Witness

Quote
BlackHat
.........................

The Beatles and the Stones influenced each other. Fact. That was what was great about that era - bands influencing each other. We should be able to discuss these bands in relation to the Stones in comfort. Some people around here need some prozac. They are too stressed by such an issue.

But the Beatles-fans' way of discussing those cross influences to a great extent seems to me to consist of Beatles-boasting of a one way influence. I can hardly ever remember a mentioning of impulses that the Beatles received from other bands. So is there a real discussion apart from Beatles bragging?

Added: And this receiving of direct or indirect influence from the Beatles only concerns certain parts of Stones history.

Well, the beatles were influenced by Dylan, the Beach Boys, etc. I also believe that the Beatles were slightly influened by the Stones in early 68 in terms of returning to a more straight ahead rock style. But the clearest influence of the Stones on the Beatles is simply that of being a competitor - somebody to egg them on to make great records. I think that waya two way street.

Stones fans (not inc myself) tend to put the Beatles down as pop/granny music/elevator music. That's a bit naieve. And a bit tunnel visioned.

The "granny" music line came from Lennon. That was his term for some of Paul's tunes - Obladi Oblada, Your Mother Should Know, Maxwell, Honey Pie and the like. I don't like those tracks either, but that's a small handful of the Beatles' output. Their post-Pepper output is definitely "pop", but that's not meant as a putdown - it's great pop music, brilliantly conceived and executed. I don't know what else you would call it. Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers are rock and roll, distilled to its essence. Abbey Road and Let it Be are clearly different - but if we don't want to use the term "pop" what should we call them, other than "great"?

Pop ain't rock

But rock is pop.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
michaelsavage

Quote
drbryant

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
Witness

Quote
BlackHat
.........................

The Beatles and the Stones influenced each other. Fact. That was what was great about that era - bands influencing each other. We should be able to discuss these bands in relation to the Stones in comfort. Some people around here need some prozac. They are too stressed by such an issue.

But the Beatles-fans' way of discussing those cross influences to a great extent seems to me to consist of Beatles-boasting of a one way influence. I can hardly ever remember a mentioning of impulses that the Beatles received from other bands. So is there a real discussion apart from Beatles bragging?

Added: And this receiving of direct or indirect influence from the Beatles only concerns certain parts of Stones history.

Well, the beatles were influenced by Dylan, the Beach Boys, etc. I also believe that the Beatles were slightly influened by the Stones in early 68 in terms of returning to a more straight ahead rock style. But the clearest influence of the Stones on the Beatles is simply that of being a competitor - somebody to egg them on to make great records. I think that waya two way street.

Stones fans (not inc myself) tend to put the Beatles down as pop/granny music/elevator music. That's a bit naieve. And a bit tunnel visioned.

The "granny" music line came from Lennon. That was his term for some of Paul's tunes - Obladi Oblada, Your Mother Should Know, Maxwell, Honey Pie and the like. I don't like those tracks either, but that's a small handful of the Beatles' output. Their post-Pepper output is definitely "pop", but that's not meant as a putdown - it's great pop music, brilliantly conceived and executed. I don't know what else you would call it. Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers are rock and roll, distilled to its essence. Abbey Road and Let it Be are clearly different - but if we don't want to use the term "pop" what should we call them, other than "great"?

Pop ain't rock

Yeah, whatever dude...

And Rock ain't POP..........but I'm glad we have them both......

__________________________

Quote
NICOS
And Rock ain't POP..........but I'm glad we have them both......

Last time I looked, pop was short for popular and as far as I'm concerned pop is Frank Sinatra and Nirvana as well as the Beatles and Stones.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"