Sometimes I turn Beatles No 1 on - it lasts a few minutes and say to myself, what boring music that is..... and turn it of Again and put other good music on like Zep, Ac/Dc, Stones, FooFighters..... y the way, I neither listn to Back Street Boys, Robbie Williams etc.

It certainly would have been interesting (if the Beatles had carried on) to have seen if they would have been able to keep pace with the Stones throughout the seventies artistically and as a touring band. Maybe if they had they wouldn't be viewed with quite the same reverence today? The one thing the Stones could do to enhance their legacy is retire. Or, produce one last great album and then retire. Or, keep performing at a high level for a few more years.

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
It certainly would have been interesting (if the Beatles had carried on) to have seen if they would have been able to keep pace with the Stones throughout the seventies artistically and as a touring band. Maybe if they had they wouldn't be viewed with quite the same reverence today? The one thing the Stones could do to enhance their legacy is retire. Or, produce one last great album and then retire. Or, keep performing at a high level for a few more years.

That sounds like 3 things

Quote
mtaylor
Sometimes I turn Beatles No 1 on - it lasts a few minutes and say to myself, what boring music that is..... and turn it of Again and put other good music on like Zep, Ac/Dc, Stones, FooFighters..... y the way, I neither listn to Back Street Boys, Robbie Williams etc.

Yep.

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
MKjan

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
MKjan
Beatles win on cuteness and first to do Ed Sullivan, and hugging stuffed animals.
Stones win on music, sound, songwriting,etc.

Joking aside, clearly more to it than that. You marginalize the entire Beatles album catalogue while inflating whatever the Stones did.

I think both are great, or are equals. Whether they liked or not they were intimately connected throughout the sixties (see Andrew Oldham, 'I wanna be your man,' 'We Love You,' Maharishi, etc.). They even used the same film director (Michael Lindsay-Hogg).

Yes, I marginalized the Beatles. Not as a Beatle hater, but because objectivity
requires Beatlemania be deflated and the sizable degree they are overrated be
bought down to earth. Underneath all the hoopla, they were just a band….imo a
scattering of good songs but many not so good songs that just got by on blind
worship and good marketing.Lets give a round of applause to George Martin….the
idea that a band caged in a studio and not a performing band is worthy enough….is
just more lingering Beatlemania. Too much hype.
The Stones on the other hand……wow!

Well imo I think the Beatles wrote many more than just scattering of great songs...and George Martin was a nice add on as slick producer.

Also, I think it is important to point out the circumstances that existed at the time...that it was hard for the Beatles to tour in later years when all they had were huge stadiums filled with screaming teen girls.

Well, you like more Beatle songs than me, and that's fine. If i had to pick my fav's, they would be I saw her standing there,Love me Do,I should have known better, Blackbird,
Oh Darling, something,the last ones on abby road, a couple others…but not many
I don't think screaming girls kept them from touring….despite what is said. I saw
a lot of arena shows and small stadium shows in 68-69 that were great, they could have jumped on board. Especially if their music appealed to more than screaming girls, which I thought it did at the time.

<<I don't think screaming girls kept them from touring>>

But they did keep the band from being able to hear themselves play, because there were not adequate PA systems until later in the decade, and the music they were making by 1966 could not be reproduced live anyway. Also, you can't get tours booked if your manager happens to die. By the time new management came on board, the choice of manager was bitterly divisive among the group, and by which time other deep-rooted personal issues had come into play.

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
It certainly would have been interesting (if the Beatles had carried on) to have seen if they would have been able to keep pace with the Stones throughout the seventies artistically and as a touring band. Maybe if they had they wouldn't be viewed with quite the same reverence today? The one thing the Stones could do to enhance their legacy is retire. Or, produce one last great album and then retire. Or, keep performing at a high level for a few more years.

if we trust rolling stone magazine's 500 greatest albums as a reliable source, the beatles produced as many of the great albums in their 6 years of recording than the stones did in their entire career.

while both the beatles and stones were recording, the beatles produced 10 of the top 500 albums of all time, and the stones 6.

if you look at the period after the beatles quit recording in 69, the stones produced 4 of the 500 greatest albums, and as solo artists the beatles produced 4 (lennon 2, harrison 1, mccartney 1).

reference: [www.rollingstone.com]

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
It certainly would have been interesting (if the Beatles had carried on) to have seen if they would have been able to keep pace with the Stones throughout the seventies artistically and as a touring band. Maybe if they had they wouldn't be viewed with quite the same reverence today? The one thing the Stones could do to enhance their legacy is retire. Or, produce one last great album and then retire. Or, keep performing at a high level for a few more years.

The Beatles became so big that they were almost demigods...I think had Brian Epstein lived they would've kept it together for a few more years. Perhaps up until 1974 at the latest, so they would've kept churning out hits. But I doubt they would ever go back on the road.

To be honest I'm of the school of thought that if all 4 were alive today they still wouldn't have reunited. Yoko would never allow it...and I don't think all 4 ever really wanted it.

11 years passed between their breakup and Johns death. There has never been 1 documented instance of all 4 being in the same room together.

<<To be honest I'm of the school of thought that if all 4 were alive today>>

For all 4 of them to be alive today, this would have required a cure for cancer.

<<I'm of the school of thought that if all 4 were alive today they still wouldn't have reunited. Yoko would never allow it...and I don't think all 4 ever really wanted it.>>

You mean Anthology never would have happened? Yoko gave Paul, George, and Ringo three of John's unreleased songs to record--two of which were released. I'm sure she would have given them John as well.

1963 when I were 9 years of age I thought 'She Loves You' was very annoying with it's 'Yeah, Yeah, Yeah'...today I can't think of any more tight and well-sunged/played Rock'n'Roll (Brit-Pop)...





2 1 2 0

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
It certainly would have been interesting (if the Beatles had carried on) to have seen if they would have been able to keep pace with the Stones throughout the seventies artistically and as a touring band. Maybe if they had they wouldn't be viewed with quite the same reverence today? The one thing the Stones could do to enhance their legacy is retire. Or, produce one last great album and then retire. Or, keep performing at a high level for a few more years.

if we trust rolling stone magazine's 500 greatest albums as a reliable source, the beatles produced as many of the great albums in their 6 years of recording than the stones did in their entire career.

while both the beatles and stones were recording, the beatles produced 10 of the top 500 albums of all time, and the stones 6.

if you look at the period after the beatles quit recording in 69, the stones produced 4 of the 500 greatest albums, and as solo artists the beatles produced 4 (lennon 2, harrison 1, mccartney 1).

reference: [www.rollingstone.com]

There is no question that Rolling Stone magazine (and their panel of so called experts) have the Beatles on a different (and higher) plane. I just wonder though if that might be different today if they had continued on like the Stones? There is still this reverence today and I wonder also if the deaths of Lennon and Harrison have also contributed to this reverence? I think when the Stones finally call it quits then maybe we will see a gradual deification of the Stones. What do you think?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
It certainly would have been interesting (if the Beatles had carried on) to have seen if they would have been able to keep pace with the Stones throughout the seventies artistically and as a touring band. Maybe if they had they wouldn't be viewed with quite the same reverence today? The one thing the Stones could do to enhance their legacy is retire. Or, produce one last great album and then retire. Or, keep performing at a high level for a few more years.

That sounds like 3 things

You are correct, three, not one.

Quote
chop

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
It certainly would have been interesting (if the Beatles had carried on) to have seen if they would have been able to keep pace with the Stones throughout the seventies artistically and as a touring band. Maybe if they had they wouldn't be viewed with quite the same reverence today? The one thing the Stones could do to enhance their legacy is retire. Or, produce one last great album and then retire. Or, keep performing at a high level for a few more years.

The Beatles became so big that they were almost demigods...I think had Brian Epstein lived they would've kept it together for a few more years. Perhaps up until 1974 at the latest, so they would've kept churning out hits. But I doubt they would ever go back on the road.

To be honest I'm of the school of thought that if all 4 were alive today they still wouldn't have reunited. Yoko would never allow it...and I don't think all 4 ever really wanted it.

11 years passed between their breakup and Johns death. There has never been 1 documented instance of all 4 being in the same room together.

I really believe they would have gotten back together at some point later in life. Few actually believed that Mick Taylor or Bill Wyman would perform with the Stones ever again, but it came to pass. Thank's in large part to the hardcore fans of the Rolling Stones posting on message boards from all over the world.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-08 21:03 by ThickerThanThieves.

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
It certainly would have been interesting (if the Beatles had carried on) to have seen if they would have been able to keep pace with the Stones throughout the seventies artistically and as a touring band. Maybe if they had they wouldn't be viewed with quite the same reverence today? The one thing the Stones could do to enhance their legacy is retire. Or, produce one last great album and then retire. Or, keep performing at a high level for a few more years.

That sounds like 3 things

You are correct, three, not one.

I'm blushing right now...why is there no blushing emoticon?!

<<why is there no blushing emoticon?!>>

There is! There are at least three to choose from....

Quote
stonehearted
<<To be honest I'm of the school of thought that if all 4 were alive today>>

For all 4 of them to be alive today, this would have required a cure for cancer.

<<I'm of the school of thought that if all 4 were alive today they still wouldn't have reunited. Yoko would never allow it...and I don't think all 4 ever really wanted it.>>

You mean Anthology never would have happened? Yoko gave Paul, George, and Ringo three of John's unreleased songs to record--two of which were released. I'm sure she would have given them John as well.

...if all 4 would have survived, John and Yoko would have divorced by 1984 and she would have no say in the matter.....

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
It certainly would have been interesting (if the Beatles had carried on) to have seen if they would have been able to keep pace with the Stones throughout the seventies artistically and as a touring band. Maybe if they had they wouldn't be viewed with quite the same reverence today? The one thing the Stones could do to enhance their legacy is retire. Or, produce one last great album and then retire. Or, keep performing at a high level for a few more years.

Quote
ThickerThanThieves
I really believe they would have gotten back together at some point later in life. Few actually believed that Mick Taylor or Bill Wyman would perform with the Stones ever again, but it came to pass. Thank's in large part to the hardcore fans of the Rolling Stones posting on message boards from all over the world.

You left a while back and swore to never return. You lied. Again.

Can't stay away can ya.

So have the Stones surpassed The Beatles even more by playing Australia or is it still stand as just Glastonbury?

My phone plays "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" as an alarm. That sounds like a Beatles song. I don't know how to change it . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-09 00:30 by drbryant.

Quote
drbryant
My phone plays "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" as an alarm. That sounds like a Beatles song. I don't know how to change it . .

Huh
That's like saying Like a Virgin sounds like a Janis Joplin song....well maybe not exactly...

Quote
drbryant
My phone plays "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" as an alarm. That sounds like a Beatles song. I don't know how to change it . .

Yep, pop is pop and the Beatles are surely pop

Quote
michaelsavage

Quote
drbryant
My phone plays "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" as an alarm. That sounds like a Beatles song. I don't know how to change it . .

Yep, pop is pop and the Beatles are surely pop

I wouldn't call Wham! pop.

Quote
drbryant
My phone plays "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" as an alarm. That sounds like a Beatles song. I don't know how to change it . .

Just give it a good Wham! against a hard surface. That should fix it, and you'll barely hear a careless whisper from it again.

Quote
michaelsavage

Quote
drbryant
My phone plays "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" as an alarm. That sounds like a Beatles song. I don't know how to change it . .

Yep, pop is pop and the Beatles are surely pop

And, being POPular took them a long ways! Forty four years and counting since there demise!

Quote
ThickerThanThieves

Quote
michaelsavage

Quote
drbryant
My phone plays "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" as an alarm. That sounds like a Beatles song. I don't know how to change it . .

Yep, pop is pop and the Beatles are surely pop

And, being POPular took them a long ways! Forty four years and counting since there demise!

Actually Wham was only active for a short period, but George Michael has indeed been popular for over thirty years (not forty four), and is one of the all time best selling pop artists.

Quote
drbryant
My phone plays "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" as an alarm. That sounds like a Beatles song. I don't know how to change it . .

imagine how robert johnson would feel waking up to "doom and gloom". imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, even if the imitators don't do you justice.

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
michaelsavage

Quote
drbryant
My phone plays "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" as an alarm. That sounds like a Beatles song. I don't know how to change it . .

Yep, pop is pop and the Beatles are surely pop

I wouldn't call Wham! pop.

Me neither. I won't even write here in what category I put their music...

2 1 2 0

Quote
drbryant
My phone plays "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" as an alarm. That sounds like a Beatles song. I don't know how to change it . .

Poor drbryant.

The Beatles were pop, they surely were rock. The Beatles were alot of things. And mind, if you turn off "1" after just a few minutes, it safe to say you miss out on the best of the good stuff. Mind you, the "1" album is way way too short to represent the Beatles in any way of fairness at all.

In the end maybe the Beatles are untouchable, but it sure is nice to have a band that is at least in the discussion.