Well of course Macca's gonna say that …..



ROCKMAN

The Beatles will always be better...in fact the very best, but that's not taking anything away from the Stones.

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

I heard an old lady say the same thing …..



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
I heard an old lady say the same thing …..

by chance, was it yesterday?><

.... cant remember ... it all seems far away now



ROCKMAN

We went to America.

Then they went to America.

Seriously?

And Satanic Majesties did not come out a *year* after Pepper. The Stones released two albums in ‘67!

Lol...a little bit of Beatles VS. Stones to ease the isolation....

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

The Beatles aren't even as good as the Everly Brothers.

The Beatles were probably more influential and important, but I prefer the Stones (although both are great). There's no "right" answer but people will go on acting like there is.

Quote
Send It To me
The Beatles were probably more influential and important, but I prefer the Stones (although both are great). There's no "right" answer but people will go on acting like there is.

How I feel as well. When I listen to Beatles music I really do hear something new every time. I really don't think the Stones music is that layered. Having said that, 9 out of 10 times I'd rather hear a Stones track. But I have no problem saying The Beatles are more influential. They are.

As for Howard, this interview is far worse than his previous ones but even a bad few hours with Macca is still pretty good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-15 06:39 by RollingFreak.

I’m impartial, very thankful for both the Stones and the Beatles in my lifetime. You can’t get much better than those two bands. I don’t do the compare, I do the enjoy. Looking forward to an eventual new “Let It Be” sessions film as Paul referenced in the call with Howard from the over 50+ hours of video outtakes left over on “the cutting room floor” as they say.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-15 08:43 by KingmanBarstow.

The Beatles were a great pop band.

The Stones were, and still are a great rock n roll band.

It's that simple boys and girls.

Yep pop !!!! …..its that simple …….






ROCKMAN

All I’ll say is that I think it’s brilliant to have had them both and their music to enjoy. The best thing about comparing them is that they both existed in the first place and we have the chance to do so. And we’ve still got one of them, albeit with 2 of the original 5 members long gone.

And they both came from the same small island

Paul McCartney Talks Reuniting With Ringo Starr, Feuding With John Lennon, and Why He Underestimated George Harrison’s Skills as a Songwriter

Beatles legend calls into the Stern Show from the English countryside

April 14, 2020

[www.howardstern.com]

Quote
Rockman
Well of course Macca's gonna say that …..

Me thinks Paul protests too much.The Beatles were more influential but not better.Do they have a live performance as great as Brussels? Nope.And the big 4 are as good as the Beatles.If he is talking about the Stones records from 1962 to 1967 maybe he’s right.But Beggarsto Some Girls ,come on.

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Rockman
Well of course Macca's gonna say that …..

Me thinks Paul protests too much.The Beatles were more influential but not better.Do they have a live performance as great as Brussels? Nope.And the big 4 are as good as the Beatles.If he is talking about the Stones records from 1962 to 1967 maybe he’s right.But Beggarsto Some Girls ,come on.

They're just different. But its not like people talk about the Beatles 50 years later for no reason. They really did do things that were groundbreaking and no one had done before. The Stones were incredible in their own way, but I absolutely get why people talk about the Beatles half a century later in a very different way than the Stones. Its not a "better" thing.

Ultimately it's pop rock vs. blues rock and which you prefer, it seems to me. But of course, the Stones evolved far beyond simple blues rock. We'll never know how the Beatles would have evolved. The Beatles were certainly more innovative, but they just don't move me like the Stones do.

In the end, the comparison seems like Apples (ha) and Oranges anyway. It seems a band like the Kinks (early stuff) or the Animals, Them, etc., were more Stones comparable than a pop rock group like the Beatles.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-15 19:09 by floodonthepage.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Rockman
Well of course Macca's gonna say that …..

Me thinks Paul protests too much.The Beatles were more influential but not better.Do they have a live performance as great as Brussels? Nope.And the big 4 are as good as the Beatles.If he is talking about the Stones records from 1962 to 1967 maybe he’s right.But Beggarsto Some Girls ,come on.

They're just different. But its not like people talk about the Beatles 50 years later for no reason. They really did do things that were groundbreaking and no one had done before. The Stones were incredible in their own way, but I absolutely get why people talk about the Beatles half a century later in a very different way than the Stones. Its not a "better" thing.

Better PR. Plus popularity does not equal great art. Ask Vincent Van Gogh or Mozart

Quote
grzegorz67
All I’ll say is that I think it’s brilliant to have had them both and their music to enjoy. The best thing about comparing them is that they both existed in the first place and we have the chance to do so. And we’ve still got one of them, albeit with 2 of the original 5 members long gone.

And they both came from the same small island

Another reminder that the word Brilliant is so overused that it is meaningless at this point. It doesn't even make sense in that sentence but still found a way to jam it in.

What is with the fetish with that word?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-15 19:10 by stanlove.

I heard it. Stern always tried to get McCartney to take swipes at the Stones. Its good radio to him and McCartney bites every time. Using the word better when it comes to music really doesn't make allot of sense especially with artists that size.

I think if he used the word greater I would understand it. I easily prefer to listen to the Stones over the Beatles but the Beatles were more popular, more influential, and cast a much bigger shadow over rock than the Stone did. There is no denying any of this stuff.

I think Stern, McCartney and Lennon exaggerate how closely the Stones followed the Beatles. Except for 1967 what else is their really. The Beatles influenced tons of acts at the time. I always find it weird that many people use the Beatles to knock the Stones. I never hear anyone use the Beatles to knock the Who, or Kinks, or Dylan, or Zeppelin, or anyone else. Its like being number 2 is worse than being anyone else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-15 23:04 by stanlove.

If anything, I'd say its flattering to the Stones. It shows they're different (if you need to use a word in this context, better LOL) than the rest of those acts that people only do Beatles and Stones. That those two are superior. And not that the Stones should in any way be lucky to be in that company. They got there because those two bands really were the biggest bands of that era, and still are and always will be. As good as Zeppelin or the Who are, they will never be Beatles and Stones. No one will be. Its a compliment to both groups, the Beatles to be in the Stones company as much as vice versa.

You said it perfectly, there's no denying what the Beatles did and are. It just is that. And in the history books it'll always say Beatles first and not Stones. But the Stones are incredible, both bands know that and so does the world. Its not a knock to the Stones at all. Those two bands are like the only ones that ever reached that level.

The fabel continues to go on ... 1967 1967 1967. Like if 1966 never existed ...

From notes by Ian Stewart (we all know who he was) it's a fact that the Rolling Stones were already working on material that ended up on TSMR during the last quarter of 1966. In that year also work was completed for Between the Buttons. The Beatles knew what the Stones were doing (and vise verse). No competition but inspiration. For one thing they found inspiration from f.i. a song like Something Happened To Me Yesterday. Then there is that never released "Hear It" ... does that sound like ??? And yes, off course the Stones also found inspiration in what the Beatles were doing. Aping? That's only media crap for those who want to believe it. Those believers you can find anywhere. Certain type of music lovers are just one group in society with those kind of "believers", so they can defend their favourite artist(s) and it makes them feel better. Nothing wrong with that, but fact(s)??? It's all a matter of taste.
The Beatles were The Beatles, a nice bunch of very talented guys, who stoppen far too early and who were closer to the Stones than anyone would like to believe. The Rolling Stones are also a nice bunch of very talented guys, who "lost" a few of their mates during their meanwhile 58 years long walk to eternal fame as the Greatest Rock 'n Roll band in our solar system. Some will say that The Monkeys were bigger than both, but no one reading this will believe that, or? Just enjoy your favourite music, that should be enough to smile to life.

Paul McCartney’s Handwritten ‘Hey Jude’ Lyrics Sell for $910,000 at Beatles Auction

$910,000...amazing... HEY JUDE

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

Quote
Hairball
Paul McCartney’s Handwritten ‘Hey Jude’ Lyrics Sell for $910,000 at Beatles Auction

$910,000...amazing... HEY JUDE

I knew you would buy it!
Kidding ...
It may be Paul himself who bought it to add it to a future Beatles museum peanuts for him with an estimated 1 billion ...
Remember how annoyed he was when Michael Jackson owned the original Beatles catalogue.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Hairball
Paul McCartney’s Handwritten ‘Hey Jude’ Lyrics Sell for $910,000 at Beatles Auction

$910,000...amazing... HEY JUDE

I knew you would buy it!
Kidding ...
It may be Paul himself who bought it to add it to a future Beatles museum peanuts for him with an estimated 1 billion ...
Remember how annoyed he was when Michael Jackson owned the original Beatles catalogue.

Why would he need to buy it? All he needs to do would be to sit at a desk and write out the lyrics again. (If he did that a few times he'd have a lot of spare cash).

(Only joking folks).

He does collect - I once sat behind his daughter at a Sotheby's auction (few others knew who she was) and she had a marked catalogue that she was using as a guide. Also, when I ment him he asked me to send him his own copy of the thing he autographed for me - a Pixerama fold out book - as he didn't have a copy already. [www.amazon.co.uk]

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Julian Lennon as far as I know was or is the biggest collector of his Dad's stuff, as the song is written about him...it's gotta be Jules himself right?

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Hairball
Paul McCartney’s Handwritten ‘Hey Jude’ Lyrics Sell for $910,000 at Beatles Auction

$910,000...amazing... HEY JUDE

I knew you would buy it!
Kidding ...
It may be Paul himself who bought it to add it to a future Beatles museum peanuts for him with an estimated 1 billion ...
Remember how annoyed he was when Michael Jackson owned the original Beatles catalogue.

Why would he need to buy it? All he needs to do would be to sit at a desk and write out the lyrics again. (If he did that a few times he'd have a lot of spare cash).

(Only joking folks).

He does collect - I once sat behind his daughter at a Sotheby's auction (few others knew who she was) and she had a marked catalogue that she was using as a guide. Also, when I ment him he asked me to send him his own copy of the thing he autographed for me - a Pixerama fold out book - as he didn't have a copy already. [www.amazon.co.uk]

With coming on age people sometimes (or maybe often) start to appreciate their own history (as long as it wasn't miserable). And Paul has an impressive history.
"I" can still hear him when difficult boy Johnny invited him to Mary's house at the very end of 1957, to practice upstairs. "I", not wanting to bother them, while drinking tea downstairs, noticed that shy Paul had a beautiful voice ...(this "I" thing is a hint for you CC and JahPaul; no questions asked, no b*llsh*t ).

Quote
Send It To me
The Beatles were probably more influential and important, but I prefer the Stones (although both are great). There's no "right" answer but people will go on acting like there is.

Agree 100%

Mick Jagger Responds to Paul McCartney’s Claim That ‘the Beatles Were Better’

This is part of a friendly rivalry that goes back nearly 60 years, and Jagger laughed when it came up. “That’s so funny,” he said. “He’s a sweetheart. There’s obviously no competition.”

“The Rolling Stones is a big concert band in other decades and other areas, when the Beatles never even did an arena tour, Madison Square Garden with a decent sound system,” he said. “They broke up before that business started, the touring business for real.”

“We started doing stadium gigs in the Seventies and [are] still doing them now,” he continued. “That’s the real big difference between these two bands. One band is unbelievably luckily still playing in stadiums, and then the other band doesn’t exist.”
[www.rollingstone.com]