Mick dropping some truthballs on the Beatles

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

It remains fun
I remember our maths teacher asking all of us in class 3 highschool in 1963 about who we prefered within the Beatles. Only (!) girls responded. "I love Paul", "John is the most handsome", "George is so cute". The music they made? Stupid question ... no "Paul is the most handsome" ... gigle, gigle. We, the majority of the boys, were just looking at eachother making funny faces. Other boys maybe didn't dare to say something about those four funny guys.
Then came 1964 .... a shock wave ... 5 guys surfaced internationally who knew how to make real music

Clearly the Stones are the greatest as a live band as they continue to prove by selling out massive stadiums, yet they'll always be standing in the shadows of the Beatles' - not just my opinion, but a fact based on polls, record sales, etc., etc., etc. With their trailblazing efforts in the studio, songwriting, influence, and overall impact on music and the world in general, the Beatles reign supreme. Unfortunately they stopped touring and then ultimately broke up right when sound systems, stages, etc. were evolving in arenas and stadiums - had they continued to tour and never broke up, whose to say they wouldn't have surpassed the Stones in that category also?
Yeah, it's easy for Mick to say "we were better at touring" when the competition doesn't even exist...

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

Quote
georgie48

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

It remains fun
I remember our maths teacher asking all of us in class 3 highschool in 1963 about who we prefered within the Beatles. Only (!) girls responded. "I love Paul", "John is the most handsome", "George is so cute". The music they made? Stupid question ... no "Paul is the most handsome" ... gigle, gigle. We, the majority of the boys, were just looking at eachother making funny faces. Other boys maybe didn't dare to say something about those four funny guys.
Then came 1964 .... a shock wave ... 5 guys surfaced internationally who knew how to make real music

And here you are georgie, still making false claims after all these years.

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
georgie48

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

It remains fun
I remember our maths teacher asking all of us in class 3 highschool in 1963 about who we prefered within the Beatles. Only (!) girls responded. "I love Paul", "John is the most handsome", "George is so cute". The music they made? Stupid question ... no "Paul is the most handsome" ... gigle, gigle. We, the majority of the boys, were just looking at eachother making funny faces. Other boys maybe didn't dare to say something about those four funny guys.
Then came 1964 .... a shock wave ... 5 guys surfaced internationally who knew how to make real music

And here you are georgie, still making false claims after all these years.

Me????
Noooo....
I like (among others) both bands, just happen to be a (lucky, as Mick says) Stones fan
I hope all is well with you! We're still (mostly) home staying people. The wife makes the shopping list, I do the (strategic) shopping and greatly enjoying the new Stones single (I'm sure you do too )

Quote
Hairball
Clearly the Stones are the greatest as a live band as they continue to prove by selling out massive stadiums, yet they'll always be standing in the shadows of the Beatles' - not just my opinion, but a fact based on polls, record sales, etc., etc., etc. With their trailblazing efforts in the studio, songwriting, influence, and overall impact on music and the world in general, the Beatles reign supreme. Unfortunately they stopped touring and then ultimately broke up right when sound systems, stages, etc. were evolving in arenas and stadiums - had they continued to tour and never broke up, whose to say they wouldn't have surpassed the Stones in that category also?
Yeah, it's easy for Mick to say "we were better at touring" when the competition doesn't even exist...

Love that the friendly rivalry still exists

If pushed, even I, a huge stones cheerleader as you know , would probably give the title of "best band" of all time to the Fab Four, for the reasons you mention.

But..
If asked who is the Greatest Rock 'n Roll band of all time, I'd say Rolling Stones without hesitation.
The Beatles, to me, have always been more of a "pop" band being a primary reason. Additionally to be considered the Greatest of all time, longevity is a big factor.

The Beatles may have played to hundreds of thousands of fans in their run, but the Stones eclipsed whatever that number is decades ago.
Lastly, It seems like the title of "greatest live band of all time" would go to The Rolling Stones, with little debate, so a lot of it is how the question is phrased.

The friendly rivalry will always exist, at least until the Stones are eventually forgotten or become a tiny footnote in the annals of history
which could be hundreds of years from now, and by then it will be the Beatles as the last band standing!

Quote
georgie48
I hope all is well with you! We're still (mostly) home staying people. The wife makes the shopping list, I do the (strategic) shopping and greatly enjoying the new Stones single (I'm sure you do too )

Glad you're doing well georgie.

Yes my wife and I are doing great - all of the university/college courses she teaches went online so she stays home practically 24/7 except for a daily walk or a quick trip to the store.
I do most of the shopping though, and am able to go to my art studio which is a sanctuary near the beach, and where almost my entire music collection is (cd, vinyl, cassettes, and even a few 8 tracks haha).
I really enjoy the new Stones tune, and have pre-ordered the single several times over - one purple 10" vinyl, one orange 10# vinyl, and one cd single...even bought the t-shirt! With all the concert refunds flooding back in to my bank accounts, need to blow the money on something...might as well be the Stones.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-24 21:18 by Hairball.

o no not another beatles v stones argument, the media especially music media treated both bands differently as they treated beatles diffferently to every otherband, so what we have is people who regurgetate the same old lies, hype and musical perception that the beatles have always been better than everyone else always and that the beatles and only the beatles influenced other artists, i say its disrespectful to think like that, the beatles got congatulated for producing many shit records that other bands would have been slaughtered with while many bands who did great new music always seen a way for music media to somehow say the beatles done it first, the best 3 bands ever were the stones, pink floyd and the doors, ofcourse beatles fans will say that those bands copied the beatles, just like they say sgt peppers was copied by satanic majesties which as stones fans know it wasnt as satanic was psychodelic rock while peppers was overrated wombles type tunes, as for psychodelia, the beatles didnt blaze the trail for that it was pink floyd, cant imagine the beatles dong interstellar overdrive, and these lame excuses that the beatles were always copied is a joke, comparing titles let it be to let it bleed, comparing instruments like the sitar on norweigan wood and paint it black, that is a lame excuse.

go listen to some beatles songs, sound very like harold lloyd backing music or 1940,s picture hall music or song time at nursery times. beatles best rock band my arse, they didnt even rock, they made some nice bouncy pop music, although in that genre abba done it better, as they did ballads, they had soul and emotion, just as the stones had aggresion, soul, blues, all the stuff most beatles songs lacked, my own opinion is lennon was jelous of the stones cos he knew they were better.

to sum up perspective, satanic which is regarded one of the worst stones albums is better than peppers which is regarded the best beatles album,

Quote
buttons67
o no not another beatles v stones argument

After all, this is a Beatles vs Stones thread....isn't it?

As for the rest of your post buttons, seems you're losing your creative touch a bit - regurgitating and rehashing the same points and arguments you always make on this topic, and almost word for word.
Still though, despite he lack of originality and creativity of this recent rant, gotta give you some credit for all the laughs during this coronavirus crisis...

Speaking of Pink Floyd, I think the story goes they were recording their first album Piper at the Gates of Dawn at Abbey Road at the same time the Beatles were recording Sgt. Peppers.
Evidently the Floyd band members were stunned and in complete shock like giddy little school children when they were given the opportunity to meet members of the Beatles who were their idols that they worshipped.
I suppose almost any rock or pop musician of the time would have felt the same - even Mick Jagger was known to be in complete awe of them, even participating in several Beatles projects.

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

Quote
Hairball
Clearly the Stones are the greatest as a live band as they continue to prove by selling out massive stadiums, yet they'll always be standing in the shadows of the Beatles' - not just my opinion, but a fact based on polls, record sales, etc., etc., etc. With their trailblazing efforts in the studio, songwriting, influence, and overall impact on music and the world in general, the Beatles reign supreme. Unfortunately they stopped touring and then ultimately broke up right when sound systems, stages, etc. were evolving in arenas and stadiums - had they continued to tour and never broke up, whose to say they wouldn't have surpassed the Stones in that category also?
Yeah, it's easy for Mick to say "we were better at touring" when the competition doesn't even exist...

I saw your post. Even though I have always preferred the Stones over the Beatles, I think your observations are accurate and spot on.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
Hairball
Clearly the Stones are the greatest as a live band as they continue to prove by selling out massive stadiums, yet they'll always be standing in the shadows of the Beatles' - not just my opinion, but a fact based on polls, record sales, etc., etc., etc. With their trailblazing efforts in the studio, songwriting, influence, and overall impact on music and the world in general, the Beatles reign supreme. Unfortunately they stopped touring and then ultimately broke up right when sound systems, stages, etc. were evolving in arenas and stadiums - had they continued to tour and never broke up, whose to say they wouldn't have surpassed the Stones in that category also?
Yeah, it's easy for Mick to say "we were better at touring" when the competition doesn't even exist...

Love that the friendly rivalry still exists

If pushed, even I, a huge stones cheerleader as you know , would probably give the title of "best band" of all time to the Fab Four, for the reasons you mention.

But..
If asked who is the Greatest Rock 'n Roll band of all time, I'd say Rolling Stones without hesitation.
The Beatles, to me, have always been more of a "pop" band being a primary reason. Additionally to be considered the Greatest of all time, longevity is a big factor.

The Beatles may have played to hundreds of thousands of fans in their run, but the Stones eclipsed whatever that number is decades ago.
Lastly, It seems like the title of "greatest live band of all time" would go to The Rolling Stones, with little debate, so a lot of it is how the question is phrased.

Pop band, nah - the Beatles were a fantastic rock'n'roll band! Their earlier albums more so than their later albums but overall indeed. I love both so I don't give a shit who's "better" - they're both awesome.

Sure, there's a glacier sized difference in their career arcs. Comparisons could go on with Zep and Floyd... the Stones record sales pale in comparison to them all, but none of it really matters, it's just the fun attention, with a laugh, with McCartney I'd think. You know, really, why would he say anything different? "Oh yes, Howard, the Stones have always been a far better band than The Beatles."

Uh huh. Ain't gonna happen. Mick said it best with the reality of how the Stones have carried on - and never engaged in a chest beating that so many people like to do, he just pointed out facts.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
Hairball
Clearly the Stones are the greatest as a live band as they continue to prove by selling out massive stadiums, yet they'll always be standing in the shadows of the Beatles' - not just my opinion, but a fact based on polls, record sales, etc., etc., etc. With their trailblazing efforts in the studio, songwriting, influence, and overall impact on music and the world in general, the Beatles reign supreme. Unfortunately they stopped touring and then ultimately broke up right when sound systems, stages, etc. were evolving in arenas and stadiums - had they continued to tour and never broke up, whose to say they wouldn't have surpassed the Stones in that category also?
Yeah, it's easy for Mick to say "we were better at touring" when the competition doesn't even exist...

Love that the friendly rivalry still exists

If pushed, even I, a huge stones cheerleader as you know , would probably give the title of "best band" of all time to the Fab Four, for the reasons you mention.

But..
If asked who is the Greatest Rock 'n Roll band of all time, I'd say Rolling Stones without hesitation.
The Beatles, to me, have always been more of a "pop" band being a primary reason. Additionally to be considered the Greatest of all time, longevity is a big factor.

The Beatles may have played to hundreds of thousands of fans in their run, but the Stones eclipsed whatever that number is decades ago.
Lastly, It seems like the title of "greatest live band of all time" would go to The Rolling Stones, with little debate, so a lot of it is how the question is phrased.

Maybe you've forgotten about George's exciting tours.......

I'm sure I'll get slammed by some for this....but here goes:

The Beatles don't even crack my top five (or probably 10 or 20)...they have some good songs, for sure....but, I just never "got it" when it came to the Beatles.

Part of me feels that people just say "The Beatles" b/c it's been said for so long they feel they "have to"....I dunno....obviously this is just a wild speculation on my part....and maybe people have been saying it constantly b/c it's "true"....I dunno....

"Live" is the litmus test for a great band, IMO

if you can't do it live, then whatever....you're not a great band...

IMO.

...not breaking up doesn't hurt either.....I mean, a band is like a "marriage"...would anybody claim "greatest marriage ever" to one that ended in divorce? Maybe this is a crappy analogy to begin with....

What constitutes a "band" anyway?

Jimi Hendrix Experience? Is that a "band?" I think so...and they were/are definitely better than the Beatles...not even a contest..

IMO.

AC/DC is awesome. So was Nirvana. They both dominate the Beatles, IMO.

(ps...it's not even a question at this point that it's the Stones at #1)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-25 20:37 by stickyfingers101.

Quote
stickyfingers101
I'm sure I'll get slammed by some for this....but here goes:

The Beatles don't even crack my top five (or probably 10 or 20)...they have some good songs, for sure....but, I just never "got it" when it came to the Beatles.

Part of me feels that people just say "The Beatles" b/c it's been said for so long they feel they "have to"....I dunno....obviously this is just a wild speculation on my part....and maybe people have been saying it constantly b/c it's "true"....I dunno....

"Live" is the litmus test for a great band, IMO

if you can't do it live, then whatever....you're not a great band...

IMO.

...not breaking up doesn't hurt either.....

What constitutes a "band" anyway?

Jimi Hendrix Experience? Is that a "band?" I think so...and they were/are definitely better than the Beatles...not even a contest..

IMO.

AC/DC is awesome. So was Nirvana. They both dominate the Beatles, IMO.

(ps...it's not even a question at this point that it's the Stones at #1)

Don't worry about being slammed. Why slam somebody over his/her opinion. It's pretty well possible that there are around 7 billion opinions on our planet, not counting cats, dogs, horses, and so on. I have a strong feeling that animals also have an opinion, certainly when it comes to humans.
The nice thing about all those opinions is, that it keeps individuals sharp. Each of us likes to be sure that his/her opinion really counts.
My then best highschool friend (mid 60s) was .... a solid Beatles fan. We mostly disagreed about Beatles and Stones songs (all those other bands were just there and "proved" our band's were by far the best. At some point we decided to swap our LPs for some time and listen to that other band. Very good decision! We both discovered strong little bits here and there in the songs of "that other band", but still never agreed about which band was the best . These days (and in fact already for decades) being "the best" for me is purely subjective. I don't enjoy saying that the Stones are the best to others, because what's the point? I listen, like many among us, to all different kinds of music (even Ludwig van ...) once in a while. I'm glad I do, because if I would listen Gimme Shelter (damn great song) all the time, I could possibly start to get fed up with that song. What a shame that would be.
The other day I listened to Ticket To Ride .... Damn good song

Because of the recent comments from Sir Paul and Mick, the "rivalry" is making waves again in the press...

"We’re all stuck at home going crazy; what else are we gonna do besides banter about music we love"?

From STEROGUM - Beatles Or Stones?

"The time has come to settle (“settle”) one of the oldest debates in popular music history: The Rolling Stones vs. the Beatles.

There is context for this. Broadly, many music fans sheltering in place under COVID quarantine have been entertaining themselves by pitting the classics against each other. Perhaps you’ve seen the prompts going around Twitter listing nine albums from the same genre and instructing you to choose only three of them. Maybe, if you follow @chrisdeville, you’ve noticed me arguing about Wilco on the same godforsaken platform. We’re all stuck at home going crazy; what else are we gonna do besides banter about music we love?

Some interviewers have recently taken this parlour game (shout out to Conor Oberst) directly to the source. It started last week when Howard Stern goaded Paul McCartney with the leading question, “The Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones, am I correct?” After pointing out his group’s more diverse influences and more versatile lineup, Macca concurred, “They’re a great, great band, but I’m with you — the Beatles were better.”

When given the opportunity to speak with Mick Jagger this week, Zane Lowe did the only logical thing: He asked the Stones frontman to respond to McCartney’s declaration of supremacy. “There’s obviously no competition,” Jagger replied — a perfectly vague response that could be interpreted several ways — before explaining that it’s hard to compare his band, which has been on the road for over five decades, with a group that broke up before the arena and stadium touring industry even got off the ground. These are facts, but you can also read them as playful shade if you want!

There are compelling cases to be made for both sides, but it’s time to drop the equivocation and decide once and for all (“once and for all”) which British Invasion titan is superior. You can only keep one. So, who you got: Beatles or Stones"?


Open stereogum link above to cast your vote at bottom of page >Beatles vs. Stones
As of right now, the Beatles are currently and unsurprisingly way out in front 72.6% to the Stones' meager 27.4%.
If enough IORR'ians cast their vote, it might help change it a little bit to an even 72 to 28!





VS.





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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-25 21:02 by Hairball.

Howard Stern didn't ask any question he puts the answers in Paul's mouth.
And If I was Paul I would say the same the Beatles were better .

__________________________

methinks Paulie doth protest too much:

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Gotta love MJ's comeback.

Both were diplomatic, and both were goaded into talking about it by others.

Mick IS a politician....very diplomatic, but still pointing out NICELY that The STONES are still a performing BAND....the Beatles have been gone for 50 years! I know that Mick & Paul respect each other but still they are competing!

Lol @ the Daily Mail....almost as much credibility as Mad Magazine...

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

Congrats to Howard and the Daily Mail. They both got the soundbite they wanted.

Doesn't this one belong to the Beatles versus the Stones thread?

McCartney .....'We did Sergeant Pepper and the Stones did a psychedelic album. There was a lot of that,' he added.


Maybe you were both influenced by things other than each other..............like shed loads of LSD.....possibly........maybe?

that shedload was the undoing of the Beatles, especially John. Talk about jumping off the deep end, but apparently he couldn't handle it too well.

jb

Quote
jbwelda
that shedload was the undoing of the Beatles, especially John. Talk about jumping off the deep end, but apparently he couldn't handle it too well.

jb

I always thought that that was the Maharishi............. .........Just kidding, I have no clue what happened..........

LSD, Maharishi, demanding Apple release a notice that he wanted to be known as the second coming of Christ...its all the same. Oh and Magical Misery Trip too, it was sad at the time to see them coming apart despite a brave front.

And lets not forget the heroin...it wasn't all fun and games with a little acid and weed.

jb

apparently paul mccartney once said everything the stones did, we done it 11 months earlier.

cant ever remember hearing of the beatles doing beggars banquet in 1967 or sticky fingers in 1970, or satanic majesties in 1966, the myth grows every year, its time mick told mccartney where to go,

Quote
buttons67
apparently paul mccartney once said everything the stones did, we done it 11 months earlier.

cant ever remember hearing of the beatles doing beggars banquet in 1967 or sticky fingers in 1970, or satanic majesties in 1966, the myth grows every year, its time mick told mccartney where to go,

Bull. It was Lennon who said that on his 1970 interview. Go somewhere else with your childish hate and get your facts straight.

i think the stones have always been respectful of the beatles, i dont think that has ever worked in reverse,

lennon said in an interview around 1970, something to the effect of i like honky tonk women but nothing much else, when appraising the stones songlist at that time

To me it looks like THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES is for Beatles freaks, and seemingly for McCartney as well - as once upon time for Lennon - the most significiant, if not the only album the Stones ever did. The argument showing the superioty of the Beatles is so strongly based on the example of SATANIC MAJESTIES, since the Stones so clearly were 'following' the lead of the Beatles there. Part of the Beatles mythology is the idea of them being such adventurous, innovative, experimental and 'first' in everything. Like that alone equals to greatness.

However, those following the story of the Stones more closely, or even being fans of them, might imagine that SATANIC MAJESTIES was not the album the band is most remembered for... If the claim that the Stones were copying SGT. PEPPER there is true, one might even conclude that the best thing the Stones ever did was to stop to following the example of the Beatles...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-25 23:59 by Doxa.