Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...198199200201202203204205206207208...LastNext
Current Page: 203 of 223
Re: OT - Ringo Starr VH1 Storytellers video
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: December 24, 2022 01:25

Maybe someone there can re-upload it - [www.Guitars101.com] , [Forum.BeatlegDB.com] .

Re: OT - Ringo Starr VH1 Storytellers video
Posted by: stonesman87 ()
Date: December 24, 2022 03:40

Quote
Irix
Maybe someone there can re-upload it - [www.Guitars101.com] , [Forum.BeatlegDB.com] .

Hmmm, that'd be nice. Hoping that somebody picks up on this.

Re: OT - Ringo Starr VH1 Storytellers video
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: December 24, 2022 08:22

I have this CD. Always liked this time in Ringo’s career.

Re: OT - Ringo Starr VH1 Storytellers video
Posted by: stonesman87 ()
Date: December 24, 2022 10:18

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I have this CD. Always liked this time in Ringo’s career.

Sorry, but that doesn't appear to relate to my question. Please see the first post above. sad smiley

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: December 24, 2022 18:17

It’s amazing that Paul recorded music as aBeatle for less than 10 years but has been recording solo music for 52years.If he hadn’t his Beatles legacy no one would consider him a great artist based upon his solo work.Most of it is forgettable mediocre music



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-24 20:33 by Taylor1.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: December 24, 2022 22:05





ROCKMAN

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: frankotero ()
Date: December 24, 2022 22:54

Quote
Taylor1
It’s amazing that Paul recorded music as aBeatle for less than 10 years but has been recording solo music for 52years.If he hadn’t his Beatles legacy no one would consider him a great artist based upon his solo work.Most of it is forgettable mediocre music

Yes, every solo Stone has made a much greater record than Band On The Run. If only we could ban him from Rock And Roll!winking smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-24 23:00 by frankotero.

Re: OT - Ringo Starr VH1 Storytellers video
Posted by: NathanLaze ()
Date: December 25, 2022 06:27

Ringo - VH1 Storytellers dvd

enjoy

Happy Christmas


mega.nz.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-25 18:07 by NathanLaze.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 25, 2022 07:10

Quote
Taylor1
It’s amazing that Paul recorded music as aBeatle for less than 10 years but has been recording solo music for 52years.If he hadn’t his Beatles legacy no one would consider him a great artist based upon his solo work.Most of it is forgettable mediocre music

Most song writers write their best material in their 20s. You're talking about one of the most prolific writer in popular music history so I find it amusing you have disdain for his songwriting abilities.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-25 07:12 by treaclefingers.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: December 25, 2022 14:20

Paul has written many excellent songs as a solo artist - not to the high percentage he did with the Beatles though.

Perhaps he and John both benefitted from the other's editing.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: December 25, 2022 23:33

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
Taylor1
It’s amazing that Paul recorded music as aBeatle for less than 10 years but has been recording solo music for 52years.If he hadn’t his Beatles legacy no one would consider him a great artist based upon his solo work.Most of it is forgettable mediocre music

Most song writers write their best material in their 20s. You're talking about one of the most prolific writer in popular music history so I find it amusing you have disdain for his songwriting abilities.
His songwriting was great as a Beatle.I can think of maybe 5 songs he has put out as a solo artist that I would say are really good .

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: DrPete ()
Date: December 25, 2022 23:58

Quote
Taylor1
It’s amazing that Paul recorded music as aBeatle for less than 10 years but has been recording solo music for 52years.If he hadn’t his Beatles legacy no one would consider him a great artist based upon his solo work.Most of it is forgettable mediocre music
You do realize that McCartney has sold almost as many records as the Stones have just counting his Post Beatles career

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: December 26, 2022 00:50

Quote
DrPete
Quote
Taylor1
It’s amazing that Paul recorded music as aBeatle for less than 10 years but has been recording solo music for 52years.If he hadn’t his Beatles legacy no one would consider him a great artist based upon his solo work.Most of it is forgettable mediocre music
You do realize that McCartney has sold almost as many records as the Stones have just counting his Post Beatles career
So commercial sales are the measure of artistic quality ?90 percent of his solo music is uninventive fluff.And the songs that sold the most records orcds like Admiral Halsey, Silly Love Songs, With a Little Luck, are fluff. He also wrote maybe the worst Christmas song ever.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: December 26, 2022 02:37

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
Taylor1
It’s amazing that Paul recorded music as aBeatle for less than 10 years but has been recording solo music for 52years.If he hadn’t his Beatles legacy no one would consider him a great artist based upon his solo work.Most of it is forgettable mediocre music

Most song writers write their best material in their 20s. You're talking about one of the most prolific writer in popular music history so I find it amusing you have disdain for his songwriting abilities.

It is the great irony of life that a song-writer of that that caliber can write such crap songs.

If rock music would be defined by Paul McCartney solo stuff, I would hate the whole genre and would never associated myself with it. Thankfully it is not (another mystery in life is that why anyone would care a shit about boring, teethless Macca solo stuff, since there are so much actually great music out there. I guess that is what nostalgy and idiocy does: since there is no Beatles no more, let's cheer the guy who once was a central part of them, and no matter now mediocre his music is).

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-26 02:46 by Doxa.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Paddy ()
Date: December 26, 2022 04:15

What made the Beatles great as a group goes for all great groups: they were greater than the sum of its parts. Lennon, Harrison, McCartney all wrote great stuff after the Beatles, but nothing really on the same level. Harrison maybe had the best of the solo albums early on. He was the only one who benefited artistically. John & Paul lost something.

I’m watching Get Back again, a year later, and I’m seeing new stuff every 3 minutes I didn’t notice first time round. McCartney always seemed a smug prick to me, but I have to give him credit for allowing this warts and all release to happen. I respect that he let things out that made him look bad at times. But it’s clear he was the driving force by this point, the ideas are pouring out of him at an incredible rate. There’s 2 albums of material almost.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: CaptainCorella ()
Date: December 26, 2022 06:02

Quote
Taylor1
Quote
DrPete
Quote
Taylor1
It’s amazing that Paul recorded music as aBeatle for less than 10 years but has been recording solo music for 52years.If he hadn’t his Beatles legacy no one would consider him a great artist based upon his solo work.Most of it is forgettable mediocre music
You do realize that McCartney has sold almost as many records as the Stones have just counting his Post Beatles career
So commercial sales are the measure of artistic quality ?90 percent of his solo music is uninventive fluff.And the songs that sold the most records orcds like Admiral Halsey, Silly Love Songs, With a Little Luck, are fluff. He also wrote maybe the worst Christmas song ever.


... don't even start me on "Mull of Kintyre"!!!

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 26, 2022 06:36

Quote
Doxa
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
Taylor1
It’s amazing that Paul recorded music as aBeatle for less than 10 years but has been recording solo music for 52years.If he hadn’t his Beatles legacy no one would consider him a great artist based upon his solo work.Most of it is forgettable mediocre music

Most song writers write their best material in their 20s. You're talking about one of the most prolific writer in popular music history so I find it amusing you have disdain for his songwriting abilities.

It is the great irony of life that a song-writer of that that caliber can write such crap songs.

If rock music would be defined by Paul McCartney solo stuff, I would hate the whole genre and would never associated myself with it. Thankfully it is not (another mystery in life is that why anyone would care a shit about boring, teethless Macca solo stuff, since there are so much actually great music out there. I guess that is what nostalgy and idiocy does: since there is no Beatles no more, let's cheer the guy who once was a central part of them, and no matter now mediocre his music is).

- Doxa

Is it ironic though? It's pretty rare for artists to write truly prolifically after their first successful decade. How much did the Stones do that you'd consider bullet proof after 1974? Entire albums?

Miss You, Beast, Undercover Of the Night? Lots of great songs besides that, but I'm a fan in the first place so not hard to convince.

EVEN they themselves rely primarily on stuff from their first decade for most of their live material.

I like you am not a big fan of Paul McCartney's latter day stuff, it stylistically isn't my cup of tea but that doesn't mean he hasn't had an illustrious career with a very big song book.

But now we're comparing apples and oranges as well; Paul operated better, far better, within the confines of the Beatles. Had they continued another 5 or 10 years I believe the music would have continued more or less at the same high trajectory.

On the other side, if the Stones had broken up after say, Exile, I wonder how much better a solo Mick would have done that the Stones did in the period that followed, or a solo Paul? We've seen solo Mick and Keith stuff, and let's be honest, it rarely works exceptionally well.

I guess I'm just suggesting it's not a fair comparison to say Paul isn't as good as the Beatles, or as good as the Stones. Of course he's not. Why would anyone even suggest that? Is Mick or Keith better than the Beatles or Stones? Enough with the rhetorical questions, you get the point.

Re: OT - Ringo Starr VH1 Storytellers video
Posted by: stonesman87 ()
Date: December 26, 2022 07:00

Quote
NathanLaze
Ringo - VH1 Storytellers dvd

enjoy

Happy Christmas


mega.nz.

Cool, very nice, thanks very much! thumbs up

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: December 26, 2022 07:12

Nice story/review from Cady Siregar at Consequence.net of the new Abbey Road documentary If These Wall Could Sing


If These Walls Could Sing: 5 Things We Learned From the Abbey Road Doc

The new Disney+ documentary explores the legacy of the world's most famous music studio

BEATLES

There’s a certain reverence linked with Abbey Road Studios. It’s one of the most famous recording studios on the planet, and a household name, having welcomed such greats as The Beatles, Pink Floyd, John Williams, Oasis, and so many more. It’s also the namesake of The Beatles’ final — and arguably best — record. Its iconic album artwork, taken on the street opposite the studios, continues to inspire thousands of fans to make a pilgrimage to London themselves and recreate their own tribute. If These Walls Could Sing is the debut documentary feature by Mary McCartney, daughter of Paul McCartney, and it is her love letter to a recording space that her father still has such an intimate connection with, a place that she herself calls home. Featuring interviews with the musical greats who have created masterpieces in the studio, from her father and Ringo Starr to Pink Floyd’s Dave Gilmour and Roger Waters to Kate Bush, Noel and Liam Gallagher, and Jimmy Page, If These Walls Could Sing is a must-watch for every die-hard music fan. There’s a certain reverence linked with Abbey Road Studios. It’s one of the most famous recording studios on the planet, and a household name, having welcomed such greats as The Beatles, Pink Floyd, John Williams, Oasis, and so many more. It’s also the namesake of The Beatles’ final — and arguably best — record. Its iconic album artwork, taken on the street opposite the studios, continues to inspire thousands of fans to make a pilgrimage to London themselves and recreate their own tribute.

Read below for our five main takeaways from the If These Walls Could Sing documentary.

01. The McCartneys’ Bond With Abbey Road Keeps Getting Stronger
Mary McCartney literally bookends If These Walls Could Sing: In its opening scene, a photograph of her as a baby flashes as she recalls how Abbey Road has been in her life for as long as she can remember. At the end of it, she is seen holding up her phone next to Elton John as they FaceTime her father Paul, in a sweet interaction where John excitedly recounts to the former Beatle how the experience of getting to observe him play “Hey Jude” during a session in the 1960s was one of the greatest moments of his life. Mary’s heart and soul is poured into the documentary: It is she who conducts interviews with the musical icons linked to the studio, with some forgetting their formalities and telling their personal anecdotes and saying “your dad” (i.e. Paul) or “your mother” (i.e. Linda). It’s because it is Mary who is directing this documentary that these high-profile interviewees take on such comfortable and relaxed personas when they’re being filmed, almost as if they’ve forgotten that they are answering questions for a documentary and simply basking in the sentimentality of yesteryear to a familiar face. In the Q&A following its NYC premiere at the Metrograph on December 7th, Mary joked about how frustrating it was to keep reminding her interview subjects to keep it general –– but even folks like John can’t help but address a certain someone as “your father” and not “Sir Paul McCartney” as he recalls his most treasured memories. Having Mary as If These Walls Could Sing’s connective tissue gives it an intimate and original touch. Who better to tell the story of one of the most esteemed recording studios in the world, than through the lens of the daughter of the musician most famously associated with it?


02. Abbey Road Studios Re-Framed the National Perception of Liverpool
Liverpool is the birthplace of all four Beatles, and their international success gave the small English city its first real taste of popularity, going as far as to elevate their own local musicians. In particular, Liverpool-born Brian Epstein, who served as The Beatles’ influential manager from 1962 until his death in 1967, was responsible for taking Liverpudlians under his wing and guiding them to fame. Epstein managed the legendary crooner Cilla Black, as well as Merseybeat group Gerry & the Pacemakers (with both artists having recorded at Abbey Road) whose cover of Rodgers & Hammerstein’s “You’ll Never Walk Alone” is now associated as the official anthem for Liverpool Football Club. Prior to The Beatles’ global domination, musicians from Liverpool were often looked down upon; the instantly-recognizable “Scouse” accent is considered lowly to the rest of England, and the working-class city has never been favored by the monarchy. But with Epstein’s help, he helped alter the attitude towards Liverpool as a whole. If These Walls Could Sing includes archival footage of Black revealing she did not think she could have gotten to the top without Epstein’s help. She states: “I came from Liverpool. At the time, nobody wanted to know anything about Liverpudlians until Epstein came on the scene. It was a bit of a handicap to anyone who did come from Liverpool, because of the way they spoke.” Beatlemania started at the Cavern Club and was nurtured at Abbey Road –– all thanks to some Liverpudlians.


03. Everybody Wants to Be The Beatles
Yes, the documentary is about Abbey Road Studios, but The Beatles’ impact means that it’s impossible to discuss the studios without mentioning The Beatles. The two will forever remain intertwined –– how could they not be? What gives If These Walls Could Sing its character are the musical heroes endlessly waxing lyrical about their fondness and admiration for The Fab Four, such as Gilmour admitting it was the synergy of Abbey Road that made recording Dark Side of the Moon so special and Kate Bush revealing that she had decided to work on Never for Ever at the studio following the release of Abbey Road. These are amazing musicians in their own right, who have produced landmark records on their own, but getting to hear them talk candidly with joy about their passion for The Beatles and how they were inspired them to record their own music at the space is endlessly special. One of the documentary’s most memorable moments features Liam and Noel Gallagher of Oasis. It’s no secret that Oasis are die-hard Beatles fans, with Noel Gallagher sampling John Lennon’s “Imagine” in the opening bars of “Don’t Look Back In Anger” and Liam insisting that he is the reincarnation of Lennon himself (never mind the fact that Lennon was murdered eight years after Liam was born in 1972). While interviewed separately (as the brotherly duo are infamous for hating each other with a burning passion), getting to watch them discuss their pure, shared love for The Beatles is heartwarming. Oasis themselves recorded two albums at Abbey Road: Their 1997 sessions for Be Here Now ended with them getting kicked out entirely after spending one boisterous night in the studio, blasting Beatles records from back to back at maximum volume and eventually blowing out a PA system. When they returned a decade later to record what ended up being their final album, Dig Out Your Soul, the band were better behaved; Liam showed up at the studio at 9 a.m. one morning dressed in a fancy hat, saying he’d been up for hours, trying to decide what to wear for his first day at Abbey Road — like an excited child raring to go for his first day of school. “I’d be the first one here, the last one here,” recounts Liam. “You gotta feel it. You can’t just pop in… you’ve got to let it all seep into your veins, and your soul. It was like going to church, coming into Abbey Road.” Adds Noel: “A huge, massive part of my record collection was made in this room. My musical language was born in this room. My haircut was born in this room. There was no bigger fan of The Beatles than us… except for maybe The Beatles.”

04. Abbey Road Is a Temple of Synergy, Created by Its Staff
Throughout If These Walls Could Sing, there are endless mentions of Abbey Road being likened to a church, a temple, a sanctuary. The very infrastructure of the recording facilities are obviously an important foundation as to why it’s so deeply revered within musical history, but it’s the synergy and legacy of its halls that truly make it seem like a spiritual, cherished home. Members of Pink Floyd as well as Oasis recount how The Beatles’ influence inspired them not only to record at Abbey Road, but to write music in general, with this kind of ongoing, evolving, reincarnating passion acting like an echo chamber of creativity. Mary describes how the studio feels like a family; most of the staff began their career there and were encouraged to work their way up. And without the innovative nature of their engineers and technicians, Abbey Road would not enjoy the reputation it has today. There are some lovely discussions with not just the musical greats that give If These Walls Could Sing an even cozier feel. Orchestra members who were inspired by musicians who had recorded at Abbey Road are interviewed, as well as key members of the studio’s staff, such as technician Lester Smith and studio manager Collette Barber. The brick and mortar that Abbey Road is built on certainly is one aspect of its magical nature, but its true synergy lies in the memories of its hallowed halls, and the lingering harmony of past projects cultivated by the people creating art in it. “People taught music to me by sharing with me what other people’s music meant in their life,” says Nile Rodgers. “People think there’s some magical thing in Abbey Road. Truth of the matter is just in the artist –– but artists are superstitious, and Abbey Road, in a strange way as soon as we walk in, a lot of that bonding that needs to take place between artist and producer happens almost instantly. I find that Abbey Road is the great leveler in our relationship.”

05. Beatlemania Will Live On, Forever
For those who were born way past Beatlemania and find themselves wishing they’d been there during the throes of the ’60s, lining up at record shops for early pressings of Rubber Soul and watching the Fab Four’s Ed Show Sullivan show performance live (this writer included), take comfort in the fact that over half a century later, Beatlemania is still alive and thriving. Long live McCartney and Starr, who are still recording incredible albums and performing arena tours. Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper still stand up as some of the finest records of all time, and each new generation will find a lot to love across Revolver; they will find plenty to scream about on A Hard Day’s Night; there are endless moments to treasure within Get Back. The legacy of Abbey Road Studios, and The Beatles, is thus so immortalized by the musicians and bands they inspire, that it is now impossible to find an artist completely devoid of any influence by Paul, Ringo, George, and John; be it in their own music or through someone they were influenced by. As Liam Gallagher puts it, very earnestly: “Hopefully it’ll be here, for millions of years. It’s a national treasure, innit? You know what I mean?” Because when the day comes, millions of years into the future, when the Earth has been singed to a crisp and humanity as we know it has been eviscerated, it might be reassuring to know that Abbey Road, of all things, will still be left standing.

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

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: ds1984 ()
Date: December 26, 2022 17:31

Beware My Love and Soily are great Paul stuff IMHO. Also Bluebird.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: loog droog ()
Date: December 30, 2022 10:04

Here's an ultra-rare recording I just found out about:

Frank Sinatra singing a new version of "The Lady Is A Tramp" called "Maureen Is A Champ" as a birthday present to Ringo's wife.

[www.youtube.com]

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 30, 2022 17:47

Quote
loog droog
Here's an ultra-rare recording I just found out about:

Frank Sinatra singing a new version of "The Lady Is A Tramp" called "Maureen Is A Champ" as a birthday present to Ringo's wife.

[www.youtube.com]

That's fab!

"She marries Ringo, and she could have had Paul"...hilarious!

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: riffcliche69 ()
Date: December 31, 2022 21:09

I love the Beatles and the Stones. For the sake of argument, the Beatles could not have written “Angie” or “Lady Jane” and the Stones could not have written “Here There and Everywhere”. We are talking about individuals, who, for a brief period, were fortunate to encounter like-minded souls and create songs that we are blessed with.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: January 1, 2023 02:09

The Stones albums peaked from1968-1978.Beatles1963-1969.Beatles started in1957,Stones1962.Stones were better live band.Their peak albums match theBeatles.And even in the early years, although the Beatles had better albums, the Stones had some great songs like Satisfaction, Play With Fire and Paint it Black

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: micktayloryears ()
Date: January 2, 2023 03:13

for me THE STONES were better musicians, period

and THE STONES sounded better from 63 to 65

however once 1965 esp 1966 hit until 1969, no one turned out music better than The Beatles

but they ended, and The Stones were the best... they got their own personal guitar god to compete with the style of music going on Clapton Hendrix Beck on and on, and the rest is history...

but I think the really early years, the TELL ME years, The Stones sounded like a band that'd played together for 15 years

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: frankotero ()
Date: January 2, 2023 13:44

I love Mick Taylor too. But I wouldn’t put him in the same category as Jimi Hendrix. Just my opinion. Sure there’s people that might put Beck and Clapton above him as well, but in this case I’m for Mick. It’s all about taste.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Date: January 2, 2023 14:58

Quote
Taylor1
The Stones albums peaked from 1968-1978.Beatles 1963-1969.Beatles started in1957,Stones1962.Stones were better live band.Their peak albums match theBeatles.And even in the early years, although the Beatles had better albums, the Stones had some great songs like Satisfaction, Play With Fire and Paint it Black

From A Hard Days Night and on, save Help and Let It Be, imo.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: January 2, 2023 15:31

Quote
frankotero
I love Mick Taylor too. But I wouldn’t put him in the same category as Jimi Hendrix. Just my opinion. Sure there’s people that might put Beck and Clapton above him as well, but in this case I’m for Mick. It’s all about taste.
Hendrix and Beck are considered innovators and maybe the 2 best of the 60s and 70s. But Taylor was playing in a band concept where ensemble playing is more important. Witness Ron Wood who had more freedom to play more solos and leadin the Faces.And Hendrix and Beck didn’t play in bands where the other guitarist is the songwriter and music leader



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-03 00:01 by Taylor1.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: NashvilleBlues ()
Date: January 2, 2023 15:44

Quote
Taylor1
Quote
frankotero
I love Mick Taylor too. But I wouldn’t put him in the same category as Jimi Hendrix. Just my opinion. Sure there’s people that might put Beck and Clapton above him as well, but in this case I’m for Mick. It’s all about taste.
Hendrix and Beck are considered innovators and maybe the 2 best of the 60s and 70s. But Taylor was playing in a band concept where ensemble playing is more important. Witness Ron Wood who had more freedom to play more solos and lead.And Hendrix and Beck didn’t play in bands where the other guitarist is the songwriter and music leader

Don’t forget about Duane Allman!

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: January 2, 2023 16:04

Wrong opinions here again grinning smiley

As recording artists The Beatles peaked in 1962-64. Those records shine and are full of youthful energy. If they ever were revolutionary in pop music they were then. Best boyband music ever, and no boyband can rock better as they do in, say, "Twist & Shout". Then they started acting artists, be 'serious' and do whatever boring tricks. Their records started to sound artificial with the natural shine and flow gone, the once awfully hyped SGT PEPPER being the nadir. But another peak came in Lennon's solo career. That was altogether another ballgame: he abandoned the claimed progressive, but in reality self-deceptive, artsy pop star theatre and took a Dylan route. He should have met Yoko and get rid of the lads earlier. Damn they shot the man. We would have needed him during the 80's. We were just left with those three hopeless Ringos. Even the two other giants from the 60's, Dylan and The Stones, were pretty lost during that odd decade.

But judging the quality of music aside (that has so much subjective flavor, although my own taste is naturally right, neutral and objective), their biggest contribution to Western culture is, of course, opening a door for the Stones, and for some time sparring them. We Stones fans - elite group with a perfect taste for music - should always be grateful for them for that.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-02 16:22 by Doxa.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...198199200201202203204205206207208...LastNext
Current Page: 203 of 223


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 2496
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home