Tell Me :
Talk
Indeed. Wanking over some 'advanced chord progression' is never the same as doing the real thing!
Five strings, three chords, two hands and one @#$%&...
Or by other words, HOUSE OF THE BLUES by John Lee Hooker or THE KING OF THE DELTA BLUES SINGERS by Robert Johnson wins anytime in my book anything the FabFour ever has done.
This is VERY subjective...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-18 01:31 by Doxa.
Raise the level, you can do it.
I cannot, my taste is stubborn and omnipotent, it makes no compromises, it is such a son of b..
- Doxa
i too would rather listen to hooker or johnson ( or wolf, muddy, doctor ross, bukka white, blind boy fuller etc.) but i love the beatles too
how would you even begin to compare them talk about apples and oranges
i mean how do you fit all those round pegs into them square holes
also i love paul and his solo stuff but will gladly take the stones cover of little rain over anything he's done in decades which once again i also like
I know, I know, it works with a little help of your friends!
Clearly during the time they were concurrently serving their 'terms'. I'd argue that as the stones evolved they got into a number of different styles the Beatles didn't come near.
One can argue that 'had' the Beatles remained intact, they may also have also experimented in different styles. But if you look at the solo careers of the individuals, you don't see that.
So...in the end I think the Stones had both a wider scope and deeper roots. Beatles after the 60s probably would have stayed closer to the Abbey Road/Let It Be sound and continued to put out very melodic pop/rock songs that would have outsold the stones, but not necessarily have been better material.
You made my day, man!><
I don't think Ringo has played drums for the length of a full concert in decades.
Stones do a rocking twenty flight rock while McCartney does a fluffy pop version. Won’t work. Would Paul be pointing as part of his rocking stage presence?
...and gesticulating. Don't leave that out!
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:
Doxa
()
Date: October 18, 2021 01:21
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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.
Indeed. Wanking over some 'advanced chord progression' is never the same as doing the real thing!
Five strings, three chords, two hands and one @#$%&...
Or by other words, HOUSE OF THE BLUES by John Lee Hooker or THE KING OF THE DELTA BLUES SINGERS by Robert Johnson wins anytime in my book anything the FabFour ever has done.
This is VERY subjective...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-18 01:31 by Doxa.
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: October 18, 2021 01:31
Quote
DoxaQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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.
Indeed. Wanking over some 'advanced chord progression' is never the same as doing the real thing!
Five strings, three chords, two hands and one @#$%&...
- Doxa
Raise the level, you can do it.
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 18, 2021 01:42
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Raise the level, you can do it.
I cannot, my taste is stubborn and omnipotent, it makes no compromises, it is such a son of b..
- Doxa
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: October 18, 2021 01:54
Quote
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band new
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: October 18, 2021 01:21
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
Doxa
Quote
TumblinDice76
On a side note everything Sir Paul has done past 1975 has been a total bore and everything past March 1970 has been a slight bore. What ever keeps you in the news Paul....
Haha.. When I consult my personal taste - a root for any objective judgement in the world of aesthetics naturally - I easily understand that BLUE&LONESOME is better than anything Sir Paul or his previous band has ever released. Had the Beatles or him ever made anything as good than it is, wow, I would love them.
I guess he also knows that his stuff is for people who have problems with erection.
No sex there, and no needed, baby.
But The Stones! Oh people...
- Doxa
That's what you get when you don't hear the difference between an interesting advanced chord progression and a complete worn out predictable crippled 3 chords 12 bar blues -more or less.
Indeed. Wanking over some 'advanced chord progression' is never the same as doing the real thing!grinning smiley
Five strings, three chords, two hands and one @#$%&...
Or by other words, HOUSE OF THE BLUES by John Lee Hooker or THE KING OF THE DELTA BLUES SINGERS by Robert Johnson wins anytime in my book anything the FabFour ever has done.
This is VERY subjective...winking smiley
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-18 01:31 by Doxa
i too would rather listen to hooker or johnson ( or wolf, muddy, doctor ross, bukka white, blind boy fuller etc.) but i love the beatles too
how would you even begin to compare them talk about apples and oranges
i mean how do you fit all those round pegs into them square holes
also i love paul and his solo stuff but will gladly take the stones cover of little rain over anything he's done in decades which once again i also like
Re: Paul McCartney states that Stones are nothing but a blues cover band
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: October 18, 2021 13:04
Quote
DoxaQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Raise the level, you can do it.
I cannot, my taste is stubborn and omnipotent, it makes no compromises, it is such a son of b..
- Doxa
I know, I know, it works with a little help of your friends!
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Torres
()
Date: October 18, 2021 17:11
I was born in 79 and remember well when "We all stand together" came out in the 80s. It was a huge hit in Portugal (and in many countries, I believe). We just stood marvelled in front of the TV watching the frog choir. It was magical.
Nowadays I have a 5 year old son and play to him several Mcartney's (and Wings) songs, especially Mull of Kintyre, Band on the Run, Hope of Deliverance and some others, which he loves, and so do I. I think Paul is a tremendous song composer and has a magnificent work post Beatles.
The comment about the Stones was probably just teasing for marketing purposes and it's something to take with a smile.
Nowadays I have a 5 year old son and play to him several Mcartney's (and Wings) songs, especially Mull of Kintyre, Band on the Run, Hope of Deliverance and some others, which he loves, and so do I. I think Paul is a tremendous song composer and has a magnificent work post Beatles.
The comment about the Stones was probably just teasing for marketing purposes and it's something to take with a smile.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 18, 2021 17:59
Beatles had wider scope. The Rolling Stones have deeper roots.
Both made a lot of people happy. No problem.
Both made a lot of people happy. No problem.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: October 18, 2021 18:21
Quote
matxil
Beatles had wider scope. The Rolling Stones have deeper roots.
Both made a lot of people happy. No problem.
Clearly during the time they were concurrently serving their 'terms'. I'd argue that as the stones evolved they got into a number of different styles the Beatles didn't come near.
One can argue that 'had' the Beatles remained intact, they may also have also experimented in different styles. But if you look at the solo careers of the individuals, you don't see that.
So...in the end I think the Stones had both a wider scope and deeper roots. Beatles after the 60s probably would have stayed closer to the Abbey Road/Let It Be sound and continued to put out very melodic pop/rock songs that would have outsold the stones, but not necessarily have been better material.
Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
chrism13
()
Date: October 18, 2021 04:54
I have an idea. The Stones should invite Paul to sit in at one of their live shows (Hard Rock?)for a blues song! Obviously both the Beatles and the Stones have long history together ...Stones even covering Get Back a few years ago. I would suggest a version of Twenty Flight Rock as that was one of the first songs McCartney played with Lennon..if my memory serves me. Anyway, it would be a fun thing to sear and hear...and I think the world could use a good dose of good lighthearted news.
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: October 18, 2021 04:55
Ummmmm no
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
chrism13
()
Date: October 18, 2021 05:12
We have seen stranger things happen. Mick Taylor playing with them again. Mick on Howard Stern...both of which I loved.
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
Topi
()
Date: October 18, 2021 05:22
When did the Stones cover Get Back?
Come Together was done at Desert Trip.
But no, they are not coming together with Macca.
Come Together was done at Desert Trip.
But no, they are not coming together with Macca.
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
chrism13
()
Date: October 18, 2021 05:31
yes...it was Come Together...my bad.
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 18, 2021 05:58
Maybe even get Yoko in on back-ups
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
Topi
()
Date: October 18, 2021 06:09
Now we're talking!
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
Cooltoplady
()
Date: October 18, 2021 06:25
Where do people come up with this crap?
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 18, 2021 06:29
....Penny Lane
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
Topi
()
Date: October 18, 2021 06:30
Have somebody play sitar.
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
ironbelly
()
Date: October 18, 2021 09:04
This is not the weirdest thing I heard. The top one in my list was a suggestion from one coo-coo from Beatles fan camp to invite Ringo as a replacement for Charlie.Quote
Cooltoplady
Where do people come up with this crap?
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
Ruediger
()
Date: October 18, 2021 14:48
Quote
Rockman
Maybe even get Yoko in on back-ups
You made my day, man!>
<Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
jahisnotdead
()
Date: October 18, 2021 16:06
Quote
ironbellyThis is not the weirdest thing I heard. The top one in my list was a suggestion from one coo-coo from Beatles fan camp to invite Ringo as a replacement for Charlie.Quote
Cooltoplady
Where do people come up with this crap?
I don't think Ringo has played drums for the length of a full concert in decades.
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: October 18, 2021 16:46
That is true. Ringo has been retired for 51 years now. I think it's a bit sad. He was in fact a very good drummer. And it was, probably, not his decision to end the band in 1970.
He is a survivor though. He and Sir Paul.
He is a survivor though. He and Sir Paul.
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: October 18, 2021 18:27
Can we retitle this thread to:
"Paul McCartney and his Rolling Stones"?
If Mick ever gets laid up, the band can keep touring. Only proviso is they lock Paul up in a kitchen and get him to learn 'the blues' and to practice harp.
"Paul McCartney and his Rolling Stones"?
If Mick ever gets laid up, the band can keep touring. Only proviso is they lock Paul up in a kitchen and get him to learn 'the blues' and to practice harp.
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
stanlove
()
Date: October 18, 2021 18:28
Quote
chrism13
I have an idea. The Stones should invite Paul to sit in at one of their live shows (Hard Rock?)for a blues song! Obviously both the Beatles and the Stones have long history together ...Stones even covering Get Back a few years ago. I would suggest a version of Twenty Flight Rock as that was one of the first songs McCartney played with Lennon..if my memory serves me. Anyway, it would be a fun thing to sear and hear...and I think the world could use a good dose of good lighthearted news.
Stones do a rocking twenty flight rock while McCartney does a fluffy pop version. Won’t work. Would Paul be pointing as part of his rocking stage presence?
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: October 18, 2021 21:33
Always wonder how Ruby Tuesday would sound sang by Paul
__________________________
__________________________
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: October 18, 2021 21:37
Unfortunately Paul has lost his voice these later years, so leave him in peace.
Quote
stanloveQuote
chrism13
I have an idea. The Stones should invite Paul to sit in at one of their live shows (Hard Rock?)for a blues song! Obviously both the Beatles and the Stones have long history together ...Stones even covering Get Back a few years ago. I would suggest a version of Twenty Flight Rock as that was one of the first songs McCartney played with Lennon..if my memory serves me. Anyway, it would be a fun thing to sear and hear...and I think the world could use a good dose of good lighthearted news.
Stones do a rocking twenty flight rock while McCartney does a fluffy pop version. Won’t work. Would Paul be pointing as part of his rocking stage presence?
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: October 18, 2021 21:57
Quote
stanloveQuote
chrism13
I have an idea. The Stones should invite Paul to sit in at one of their live shows (Hard Rock?)for a blues song! Obviously both the Beatles and the Stones have long history together ...Stones even covering Get Back a few years ago. I would suggest a version of Twenty Flight Rock as that was one of the first songs McCartney played with Lennon..if my memory serves me. Anyway, it would be a fun thing to sear and hear...and I think the world could use a good dose of good lighthearted news.
Stones do a rocking twenty flight rock while McCartney does a fluffy pop version. Won’t work. Would Paul be pointing as part of his rocking stage presence?
...and gesticulating. Don't leave that out!
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: October 18, 2021 23:06
Paul McCartney could easily have joined the Rolling Stones in 1975 on the guitar.
Enough skills there, after two weeks of diving in Stones songs. .It would probably have bored the hell out of him. Minor point, he doesn't look like a Rolling Stone, something that is very important to a lot of Stones fans.The looks man, the looks. That's important.
Enough skills there, after two weeks of diving in Stones songs. .It would probably have bored the hell out of him. Minor point, he doesn't look like a Rolling Stone, something that is very important to a lot of Stones fans.The looks man, the looks. That's important.
Re: Paul McCartney and the Stones...
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 18, 2021 23:12
Mick should hide behind the amps
and let Macca in Mick's 73 jump suit
execute Rambler ... belt whipping and all ... Have you heard SLAM!!!!
Now come on that'd be worth seeing ...
ROCKMAN
and let Macca in Mick's 73 jump suit
execute Rambler ... belt whipping and all ... Have you heard SLAM!!!!
Now come on that'd be worth seeing ...
ROCKMAN
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1787
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10