Tell Me :
Talk
Yoko Ono.
Haha.. When I consult my personal taste - a root for any objective judgement in the world of aesthetics naturally - I easily understand that BLUE&LONESOME is better than anything Sir Paul or his previous band has ever released. Had the Beatles or him ever made anything as good than it is, wow, I would love them.
I guess he also knows that his stuff is for people who have problems with erection.
No sex there, and no needed, baby.
But The Stones! Oh people...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-16 20:40 by Doxa.
Indeed, but if forced to choose would happily take "Blue and Lonesome" over most of Paul's sappy "Silly Love Songs"...
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
LOL, and probably true.
You have got to be kidding. People were fighting each other to get the limited editions of his last album, with eBay prices immediately going through the roof, and the standard edition flew out of the stores.
The Beatles AND the individual members of the Beatles are icons. The Stones are icons. There's absolutely no value in letting our love for one band blind us to the merits of the other.
C'mon, some reality check. Do you understand how much copies those artists once upon a time sell? Millions! Everyone was buying those. Now they release some die-hardfan editions to make some couple of thousand fans happy (or depending on the point of view....)
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-17 00:13 by Doxa.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
This is a classic "Sorry not sorry."
Dear DOXA,
come on, that´s silly and you know it.
I really respect your posts but in this case - please stay serious.
Macca wrote a bunch of great music, Mick and Keith wrote lots of great music - so what´s the point? Some stupid words to promote his actually releases? Who cares?
That's what you get when you don't hear the difference between an interesting advanced chord progression and a complete worn out predictable crippled 3 chords 12 bar blues -more or less.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: October 16, 2021 18:02
Quote
Honestman
"...The only thing you done was yesterday..."John Lennon
Yoko Ono.
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: October 16, 2021 18:07
So, Sir Paul was bored with "Blue and Lonesome" too? I can't blame him...
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
TumblinDice76
()
Date: October 16, 2021 20:02
On a side note everything Sir Paul has done past 1975 has been a total bore and everything past March 1970 has been a slight bore. What ever keeps you in the news Paul....
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: October 16, 2021 20:18
More PR for Paul- It keeps him in the news so he can promote the upcoming Get Back documentary.
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: October 16, 2021 20:26
You're right, Dice 76. The Beatles were a very short but successful story.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-16 20:27 by Stoneage.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-16 20:27 by Stoneage.
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 16, 2021 20:35
Great PR for Stones ....
Cranks people up ... sells tickets ...
ROCKMAN
Cranks people up ... sells tickets ...
ROCKMAN
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 16, 2021 20:36
Quote
TumblinDice76
On a side note everything Sir Paul has done past 1975 has been a total bore and everything past March 1970 has been a slight bore. What ever keeps you in the news Paul....
Haha.. When I consult my personal taste - a root for any objective judgement in the world of aesthetics naturally - I easily understand that BLUE&LONESOME is better than anything Sir Paul or his previous band has ever released. Had the Beatles or him ever made anything as good than it is, wow, I would love them.
I guess he also knows that his stuff is for people who have problems with erection.
No sex there, and no needed, baby.
But The Stones! Oh people...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-16 20:40 by Doxa.
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: October 16, 2021 20:43
Quote
Stoneage
So, Sir Paul was bored with "Blue and Lonesome" too? I can't blame him...
Indeed, but if forced to choose would happily take "Blue and Lonesome" over most of Paul's sappy "Silly Love Songs"...
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: October 16, 2021 22:01
Quote
DoxaQuote
TumblinDice76
On a side note everything Sir Paul has done past 1975 has been a total bore and everything past March 1970 has been a slight bore. What ever keeps you in the news Paul....
Haha.. When I consult my personal taste - a root for any objective judgement in the world of aesthetics naturally - I easily understand that BLUE&LONESOME is better than anything Sir Paul or his previous band has ever released. Had the Beatles or him ever made anything as good than it is, wow, I would love them.
I guess he also knows that his stuff is for people who have problems with erection.
No sex there, and no needed, baby.
But The Stones! Oh people...
- Doxa
LOL, and probably true.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
crholmstrom
()
Date: October 16, 2021 22:30
The new mix of Let it Be sounds fabulous. Have always loved that album, most of it anyway.
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 16, 2021 22:41
-
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-16 22:53 by Doxa.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-16 22:53 by Doxa.
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 16, 2021 22:51
I guess there always been among the main Beatles dudes a certain kind of jealousy or bitterness towards the Stones. No matter how more popular or anything the Beatles ever have been, the Stones represent something that is beyond the cool. Their music, their style, their personalities, even their longetivity is something that asks no explanations, no excuses, no bullshitting. They define rock and roll. That of them musically deriving from the Blues, popularising this wonderful musically rich genre, and always been close to it, is something like a value of itself. And when ever they play, one can hear it. That's why, even if people stupid or ignorant enough, they can feel it why they are called the greatest and most unique among any rock and roll bands.
John knew it.
Sir Macca never had a clue. Yes, he can be happy that he managed to shift the release of the greatest hits album by Shift for a week to get his first number one in 30 years on UK, but in reality, if he really minds, he supposed to be more worried about ABBA releasing new music that outshines by popularity anything he has done or his old band has done for decades. That is his kind of cup of tea and a claim for fame.
Go figure.
Da Stones.
- Doxa, a proud Rolling Stones fan
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-16 23:05 by Doxa.
John knew it.
Sir Macca never had a clue. Yes, he can be happy that he managed to shift the release of the greatest hits album by Shift for a week to get his first number one in 30 years on UK, but in reality, if he really minds, he supposed to be more worried about ABBA releasing new music that outshines by popularity anything he has done or his old band has done for decades. That is his kind of cup of tea and a claim for fame.
Go figure.
Da Stones.
- Doxa, a proud Rolling Stones fan
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-16 23:05 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 16, 2021 23:24
And who the exactly Paul McCartney is? For the most of the folks, casual fans that is, he is nothing but a Beatles relic. No one gives a shit about his solo records for the last 50 years or so. He is not any Bob Dylan who is 'educated' his audiences to know what to expect. He is too commercial and pop-oriented for that. He wants to be like the Rolling Stones, a big thing. So, Macca relies on his old achievements with the Beatles, and that's why people go to see him. To get some of it, a glimpse of the mighty Beatles. He can release 12 news albums a year, and the people would give no a shit. It would be the same. His claim for a stardom is the Beatles. He sells because of the Beatles (once a time ago he did better on his own, but not any longer).
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-17 00:00 by Doxa.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-17 00:00 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: October 16, 2021 23:50
Hmm. The debate will continue endlessly as politics and religion I suppose. If you knew me you'd first be surprised just how big a Stones fan I am and what I've put into it through the years. However, when asked I always say The Beatles come first in my life and not only that but they are always going to be on top, regardless if The Stones last 100 years or more. Personally I believe The Stones would agree to this, but yet we're still fighting about it. Maybe it's good old fashioned rivalry having some fun but there's a time to understand reality too. By the way my anti-beatles friend I talked about earlier is like my brother to me. We have an understanding about my reverence and love for The Beatles and he will never question my loyalty to The Stones because it's much bigger than his own.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: October 16, 2021 23:58
Quote
Doxa
And who the exactly Paul McCartney is? For the most of the folks, casual fans that is, he is nothing but a Beatles relic. No one gives a shit about his solo records for the last 50 years or so. He is not any Bob Dylan who is 'educated' his audiences to know what to expect. He is too commercial and pop-oriented for that. He wants to be like the Rolling Stones, a big thing. So, Macca relies on his old achievements with the Beatles, and that's why people go to see him. To get some of it, a glimpse of the mighty Beatles. He can release 12 news albums a year, and the people would give no a shit. It would be the same. His claim for a stardom is the Beatles.
- Doxa
You have got to be kidding. People were fighting each other to get the limited editions of his last album, with eBay prices immediately going through the roof, and the standard edition flew out of the stores.
The Beatles AND the individual members of the Beatles are icons. The Stones are icons. There's absolutely no value in letting our love for one band blind us to the merits of the other.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 17, 2021 00:09
Quote
AquamarineQuote
Doxa
And who the exactly Paul McCartney is? For the most of the folks, casual fans that is, he is nothing but a Beatles relic. No one gives a shit about his solo records for the last 50 years or so. He is not any Bob Dylan who is 'educated' his audiences to know what to expect. He is too commercial and pop-oriented for that. He wants to be like the Rolling Stones, a big thing. So, Macca relies on his old achievements with the Beatles, and that's why people go to see him. To get some of it, a glimpse of the mighty Beatles. He can release 12 news albums a year, and the people would give no a shit. It would be the same. His claim for a stardom is the Beatles.
- Doxa
You have got to be kidding. People were fighting each other to get the limited editions of his last album, with eBay prices immediately going through the roof, and the standard edition flew out of the stores.
The Beatles AND the individual members of the Beatles are icons. The Stones are icons. There's absolutely no value in letting our love for one band blind us to the merits of the other.
C'mon, some reality check. Do you understand how much copies those artists once upon a time sell? Millions! Everyone was buying those. Now they release some die-hardfan editions to make some couple of thousand fans happy (or depending on the point of view....)
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-17 00:13 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: October 17, 2021 00:16
Aquamarine, great point but I would argue that The Stones were not seen as Messiahs as The Beatles were. No disrespect or trying to lessen the importance of The Stones. Actually I call them "the greatest rock and roll band in the world" like many others here. I guess it's why John Lennon had a liking to them and maybe even wanted to be in The Stones. Again, good debate that I hope won't end up in fighting. They're both amazing bands.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 17, 2021 00:28
Let's say, I am sick an tired seeing 'Rolling Stones fans' here to assure that Sir Macca with every his doings is some kind of measure to do something better.
I despise those feelings and I am more than happy that the Stones have never give a shit about any bloody Maccas.
Honestly, some of you Rolling Stones fans are simply idiots in my book. Sorry.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-17 00:29 by Doxa.
I despise those feelings and I am more than happy that the Stones have never give a shit about any bloody Maccas.
Honestly, some of you Rolling Stones fans are simply idiots in my book. Sorry.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-17 00:29 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 17, 2021 01:06
To clear my point.. Every time I see someone comparing the Stones for anyone else, that's pure idiotism in my book. They are not Macca, no Dylan, no the Who, or like anyone else. They do not click as any of those acts do. They define themselves, their create their own destiny. So a new Stones release, be it a cut or two, is a more than of all of those artists compined. Or a concert. And every knows the Thing is there, expect some stupid, jealous Macca and his fans for sure.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-17 01:14 by Doxa.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-17 01:14 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: October 17, 2021 01:22
Quote
crholmstrom
The new mix of Let it Be sounds fabulous. Have always loved that album, most of it anyway.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
riffcliche69
()
Date: October 17, 2021 09:55
Doka, I have always loved your posts. And I certainly agree that this McCartney - Stones feud is bloody rubbish.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: October 17, 2021 10:57
Quote
Doxa
Honestly, some of you Rolling Stones fans are simply idiots in my book. Sorry.
- Doxa
This is a classic "Sorry not sorry."
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: October 17, 2021 12:58
hmm think i can see where this discussion will
eventually end up
so who wins in a fight paul or mick
my money's on mick i mean he's got nearly 50 years on me and i'm pretty sure he could kick my ass so.....
eventually end up
so who wins in a fight paul or mick
my money's on mick i mean he's got nearly 50 years on me and i'm pretty sure he could kick my ass so.....
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 17, 2021 13:05
Sorry, I didn't read the entire thread so I might have missed something but I have seen some uproar in social media about the comments of McCartney about the Stones and I really don't get what all the fuzz is about.
He said that the Stones were basically a blues cover band and the Beatles started with a wider scope. Which is true. The only thing missing here is that the Stones were and are pretty much the best effing blues cover band in the world.
Of course, the Stones, starting with the blues (could you imagine the Beatles covering Muddy Waters? No way!), they found they could go elsewhere too. First rock n roll, then soul, then, inspired by the Beatles, writing their own songs, which especially at first contained a large part of pop.
But their core was always the blues, and once they left their babysteps behind them (i.e. in 1968 with Beggar's Banquet) they were the best blues, rhythm&blues, rolling rock band in the world. The Beatles were something else.
So, what's there to get upset about?
I like how Mick Jagger takes all of this rather as a joke without getting upset about it.
He said that the Stones were basically a blues cover band and the Beatles started with a wider scope. Which is true. The only thing missing here is that the Stones were and are pretty much the best effing blues cover band in the world.
Of course, the Stones, starting with the blues (could you imagine the Beatles covering Muddy Waters? No way!), they found they could go elsewhere too. First rock n roll, then soul, then, inspired by the Beatles, writing their own songs, which especially at first contained a large part of pop.
But their core was always the blues, and once they left their babysteps behind them (i.e. in 1968 with Beggar's Banquet) they were the best blues, rhythm&blues, rolling rock band in the world. The Beatles were something else.
So, what's there to get upset about?
I like how Mick Jagger takes all of this rather as a joke without getting upset about it.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: October 17, 2021 16:01
It is too bad that there ever began what has become this never ending debate, that we lovingly (lol) refer to as "Beatles vs. Stones." Every so often throughout the last 50+ years, you'll have your comments (first I remember it being from Lennon comparing how the Stones supposedly did everything after the Beatles and imitating them) or like Paul McCartney who makes his recent little PR worthy comments and then the press runs with it and we're back here again analyzing it and debating it once more.
But why does it have to be an either/or discussion? Over the years when I have gotten together with friends who are into music, inevitably this discussion will rear its ugly head. And then you have the chest pumping and pontificating about who is better? Really?
From my perspective, it has ALWAYS been an apples and oranges argument:
According to Wikipedia- "A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared."
And that's the point.
The Beatles and the Stones are iconic bands with their own musical styles & legacies. One simply isn't better than the other. They can both co-exist and be appreciated at the same time for their own particular talents & uniqueness.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-17 17:04 by Sighunt.
But why does it have to be an either/or discussion? Over the years when I have gotten together with friends who are into music, inevitably this discussion will rear its ugly head. And then you have the chest pumping and pontificating about who is better? Really?
From my perspective, it has ALWAYS been an apples and oranges argument:
According to Wikipedia- "A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared."
And that's the point.
The Beatles and the Stones are iconic bands with their own musical styles & legacies. One simply isn't better than the other. They can both co-exist and be appreciated at the same time for their own particular talents & uniqueness.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-17 17:04 by Sighunt.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: October 17, 2021 20:18
When are we gonna hear the songs Keith and Paul wrote together per Keith's book?
"Maybe I'm Blue and Lonesome"?
"Let It Be Bleeding"
"Sympathy For Sgt. Pepper"?
Medley of "Band On The Run" and "Turd On The Run"?
"Maybe I'm Blue and Lonesome"?
"Let It Be Bleeding"
"Sympathy For Sgt. Pepper"?
Medley of "Band On The Run" and "Turd On The Run"?
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: October 17, 2021 20:22
Haha, I wonder what a collaboration between Keith and Paul would sound like. Maybe great.
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
deardoctor
()
Date: October 17, 2021 21:53
Quote
DoxaQuote
TumblinDice76
On a side note everything Sir Paul has done past 1975 has been a total bore and everything past March 1970 has been a slight bore. What ever keeps you in the news Paul....
Haha.. When I consult my personal taste - a root for any objective judgement in the world of aesthetics naturally - I easily understand that BLUE&LONESOME is better than anything Sir Paul or his previous band has ever released. Had the Beatles or him ever made anything as good than it is, wow, I would love them.
I guess he also knows that his stuff is for people who have problems with erection.
No sex there, and no needed, baby.
But The Stones! Oh people...
- Doxa
Dear DOXA,
come on, that´s silly and you know it.
I really respect your posts but in this case - please stay serious.
Macca wrote a bunch of great music, Mick and Keith wrote lots of great music - so what´s the point? Some stupid words to promote his actually releases? Who cares?
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: October 17, 2021 21:56
Quote
DoxaQuote
TumblinDice76
On a side note everything Sir Paul has done past 1975 has been a total bore and everything past March 1970 has been a slight bore. What ever keeps you in the news Paul....
Haha.. When I consult my personal taste - a root for any objective judgement in the world of aesthetics naturally - I easily understand that BLUE&LONESOME is better than anything Sir Paul or his previous band has ever released. Had the Beatles or him ever made anything as good than it is, wow, I would love them.
I guess he also knows that his stuff is for people who have problems with erection.
No sex there, and no needed, baby.
But The Stones! Oh people...
- Doxa
That's what you get when you don't hear the difference between an interesting advanced chord progression and a complete worn out predictable crippled 3 chords 12 bar blues -more or less.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
mrjones
()
Date: October 17, 2021 23:53
video: [www.insidehook.com] yeah well boys will be boys. brief history of nasty comments.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
2089
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10