Quote
Doxa
Yes, the Stones fans are so stupid, and Hairball knows better. Some of Stones fans actually even like WANDERING SPIRIT (and even do not despise or hate Mick Jagger by principle), but of course, it is nothing compared to Paul McCartney's - the genius who can no do wrong - masterpiece albums he had provided constantly.

Funny guy, but odd agenda.

- Doxa

I actually prefer Wandering Spirit to both Voodoo Lounge and Main Offender, but that's only my opinion.

Yes, the Stones fans are so stupid, and Hairball knows better. Some of Stones fans actually even like WANDERING SPIRIT (and even do not despise or hate Mick Jagger by principle), but of course, it is nothing compared to Paul McCartney's - the genius who can no do wrong - masterpiece albums he had provided constantly.

Funny guy, but odd agenda.

EDIT: haha, he edited his claim how weak the material in WANDERING SPIRIT is. C'mon, be honest!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-02 23:18 by Doxa.

I dislike much of Paul's solo material, as well as some of his Beatles material. And I don't agree with Rick Rubin's opinion regarding Paul as the greatest bass player ever. But this thread is about 'Beatles stuff',, and some people like both the Stones and the Beatles - me being one of them!

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

Quote
Congratulations

Quote
Doxa
Yes, the Stones fans are so stupid, and Hairball knows better. Some of Stones fans actually even like WANDERING SPIRIT (and even do not despise or hate Mick Jagger by principle), but of course, it is nothing compared to Paul McCartney's - the genius who can no do wrong - masterpiece albums he had provided constantly.

Funny guy, but odd agenda.

- Doxa

I actually prefer Wandering Spirit to both Voodoo Lounge and Main Offender, but that's only my opinion.

Well, actually that has been opinion pretty often expressed here (and I agree with that one). But of course, what the hell we Stones fans know about anything. We even like Mick Jagger.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-02 23:22 by Doxa.

Main offender is far superior to both Wandering Spirit and Voodoo Lounge combined IMO

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

One of my favourite Beatles songs is "Don't Let Me Down"...I think it's a rarer cut that shows the Beatles had some soul.

In fact, it's one of the songs which I think is closer to a "Stones sound" (clearly why I probably like it) and I could totally see Mick singing that.

Quote
Doxa
Yes, the Stones fans are so stupid, and Hairball knows better. Some of Stones fans actually even like WANDERING SPIRIT (and even do not despise or hate Mick Jagger by principle), but of course, it is nothing compared to Paul McCartney's - the genius who can no do wrong - masterpiece albums he had provided constantly.

Funny guy, but odd agenda.

EDIT: haha, he edited his claim how weak the material in WANDERING SPIRIT is. C'mon, be honest!

- Doxa

Ha, I was just about to respond to this when I noticed he shied away from his probably all too brave statement!

Quote
Hairball
Main offender is far superior to both Wandering Spirit and Voodoo Lounge combined IMO

You're not coincidentally on Jane Rose's payroll, aren't ya?

Quote
Hairball
I dislike much of Paul's solo material, as well as some of his Beatles material. And I don't agree with Rick Rubin's opinion regarding Paul as the greatest bass player ever. But this thread is about 'Beatles stuff',, and some people like both the Stones and the Beatles - me being one of them!

I guess none of us knows your inner feelings. But what we know is the stuff you write here. I guess you do not have any reflection of that. You seem to mock the Stones and especially Jagger in any imaginable situation (in a new album thread you have a field day), and anything related to Macca or The Beatles is so wonderful, innovative and whatever. So 'liking both bands' seems a bit odd, since you clearly have a preference with a big marginal. Nothing wrong with that, but could it be that you are in a wrong forum?

Of course, you don't give a shit what I or someone else here thinks. But let's say it is a bit sad that showing a fanhood is nothing but expressing negative thoughts about the band. True that being overtly critical is a one way to show respect for the band, and caring for their doings, but I think what yo do here is mostly nihilism and being nasty.

I am thinking that with this comment, like many other else here, I am just hitting a wall.

- Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers
One of my favourite Beatles songs is "Don't Let Me Down"...I think it's a rarer cut that shows the Beatles had some soul.

In fact, it's one of the songs which I think is closer to a "Stones sound" (clearly why I probably like it) and I could totally see Mick singing that.

I think it's closer to John Lennon's stuff with The Plastic Ono Band than to the more lightweight Beatles. I certainly rate highly 'Cold Turkey', 'Instant Karma' and the entire John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band album.

Yeah doxa..you're posts are meaningless to me, and I wonder why I'm even bothering replying to the above. I need to remind myself to IGNORE!

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-02 23:59 by Hairball.

Quote
Congratulations

Quote
treaclefingers
One of my favourite Beatles songs is "Don't Let Me Down"...I think it's a rarer cut that shows the Beatles had some soul.

In fact, it's one of the songs which I think is closer to a "Stones sound" (clearly why I probably like it) and I could totally see Mick singing that.

I think it's closer to John Lennon's stuff with The Plastic Ono Band than to the more lightweight Beatles. I certainly rate highly 'Cold Turkey', 'Instant Karma' and the entire John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band album.

I don't disagree, but will only point out that this is the direction he clearly wanted to go in, and probably why he loved/hated the Stones because they were successful doing a style of music he preferred to 'the granny sounds' that appeared on a lot of the later Beatles albums.

Ironic to be in the 'bigger' recording band yet still be musically frustrated.

Quote
Hairball
Yeah doxa..you're posts are meaningless to me, and I wonder why I'm even bothering replying to the above. I need to remind myself to IGNORE!

I know that. You don't give a shit what other people think. So cool. Just me, me, me and my opinions without any slightest responsibility of their consequences or the respect of other people. There are lots of people like you in a social media.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-03 00:32 by Doxa.

No doxa- you're the only one here that I don't give a shit about! IGNORE!!!

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

"Who's fighting and what for? Why are we fighting! Why are we fighting! We don't want to fight, come-on!"

Mick Jagger, Altamont 1969.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Congratulations

Quote
treaclefingers
One of my favourite Beatles songs is "Don't Let Me Down"...I think it's a rarer cut that shows the Beatles had some soul.

In fact, it's one of the songs which I think is closer to a "Stones sound" (clearly why I probably like it) and I could totally see Mick singing that.

I think it's closer to John Lennon's stuff with The Plastic Ono Band than to the more lightweight Beatles. I certainly rate highly 'Cold Turkey', 'Instant Karma' and the entire John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band album.

I don't disagree, but will only point out that this is the direction he clearly wanted to go in, and probably why he loved/hated the Stones because they were successful doing a style of music he preferred to 'the granny sounds' that appeared on a lot of the later Beatles albums.

Ironic to be in the 'bigger' recording band yet still be musically frustrated.

Lennon was a Stones fan and he respected what the Stones represented. Like he did Dylan. Probably like any cool person at the time. The question was not just who was selling most records, being the biggest 'pop star', it was what kind of people liked you and what one represented. Being a Jagger or a Dylan, both controversial by nature (image, music), was something else than someone 'everybody loves'. Later it came even frustrating for John. That of the 'counter culture' digging the Stones and them seeing as 'revolutionary', much more than the Beatles, was something he couldn't stomach.

Thankfully, John quit the 'granny sound' band and started doing something more relevant. Kudos to Yoko for giving us that John.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-03 01:13 by Doxa.

Just thinking of the times when the Beatles call it quits, what they really had anymore to say? The Stones provided a soundtrack for the times with "Gimme Shelter", and there were so much hot things going on. I mean, "All You Need Is Love" was something spot on to catch the zeitgeist of the times in the summer of love. But what what things like "Let It Be" or "Here Comes The Sun" had to do with the day? Harmless pop music (funnily, the latter, a Harrison tune, is the second popular Beatles-related tune on Spotify, after Lennon's "Imagine". Sorry Macca.).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-03 01:33 by Doxa.

Who cares who Rick Rubin thinks is the greatest bass player of all time. I happen to think that in terms of enhancing a song and moving it along its BillWyman.But these are just subjective opinions.I can say in my subjective opinion I don’t like Rick Rubins produced albums.I really like some of the songs on Wandering Spirit but not how they were produced. As for Paul McCartney, in my sub opinion, 90 percent of his solo music has as much substance as tissue paper.I actually like Jaggers solo music better.

Quote
Doxa
Just thinking of the times when the Beatles call it quits, what they really had anymore to say? The Stones provided a soundtrack for the times with "Gimme Shelter", and there were so much hot things going on. I mean, "All You Need Is Love" was something spot on to catch the zeitgeist of the times in the summer of love. But what what things like "Let It Be" or "Here Comes The Sun" had to do with the day? Harmless pop music (funnily, the latter, a Harrison tune, is the second popular Beatles-related tune on Spotify, after Lennon's "Imagine". Sorry Macca.).

- Doxa

Personally, I think that by that measure, even the Stones ended up pretty soon with producing "harmless pop music", "Wild Horses", "Angie", "Miss You" anyone? As a musician, you can only take social commentary and "being relevant" or "revolutionary" so far because in the end, it's the music that counts (and in that sense, "Let It Be" and "Here Comes The Sun" are as beautiful and perfectly crafted just as the Stones songs I mentioned above) and people primarily see you as musicians, not politicians, philosophers, poets or whatever. Jagger saw that pretty early (see "Street Fighting Man" - what can a poor boy do?) and "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" was not only a song, but a statement, too. If you write shitty songs no one wants to hear the lyrics can be as good as can be, but noone actually listens to them... What's the difference between "Martha My Dear" and "She's So Cold" - or better, what do they have in common? Well, both were "granny music" when they were released, the former harking back to the vaudeville sounds of the turn of the century, the latter being nothing more than a pastiche of early rock'n'roll some decades later. Both not revolutionary at all, but perfectly crafted, it's just a matter of personal musical taste what one likes better (though I must say that in terms of vaudevillian sounds, I like the Kinks' "Mr. Pleasant" better!).

Concerning Lennon - I see not much that he could not have done with the Beatles (apart from the stuff with Yoko's screaming exercises maybe) and being still part of the Beatles would not have hindered his political happening exercises with Yoko at all. Plus, in terms of music he was pretty much back to normal by 1973 with "Mind Games" already and even back to his roots with his album of rock'n'roll covers a year later.

IMO, both the Beatles and the Stones suffered from overblown egos, it's just that the Beatles broke up while the Stones realized timely enough that the sum was (much) bigger than its parts. But in each case, in reality all their solo efforts achieved nothing that surpassed anything that they did with their groups.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-03 03:00 by retired_dog.

Very true, R Dog, what you said about the Stones offering soon pretty convenient stuff. They would be very soon yesterday's papers, as far as trends and nailing the zeitgeit goes. But still they had, like always, a certain edge in their music. Something the Beatles never had.

You mention "Wild Horses", but the true hit of the day was "Brown Sugar" - something in controversiality and bad-assness the Beatles at their wildest dreams were not even close. The effect of "Angie" was that it was so obvious anti-thesis to anything the the Stones represented. A great one-timer (and if nothing else, a good counter example to Beatles fans to 'prove' that Mick and Keith can write beautiful, melodical songs as well, like they are showing "Helter Skelter" to prove the Beatles can 'rock' too). Despite the stunning hit "Miss You", SOME GIRLS is full of good old middle finger stuff in different forms. The ironical and intellectual self-reflection of "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" was also, among other things, an anti-thesis to anything pretentous bullshit the 60's Beatles mythologists love to write about the progressive nature of pop, reminding like what it is all about, even before the punk happened.

ABBA was the 70's reincarnation of the Beatles. Exactly the same components in success: universally stunning singing and catchy tunes (the Beatles fans always love to explain and cover that simple phenomenon with whatever funny stories, like not admitting the true color of it). Everybody loves and nobody is hurt. Nice, genius pop. No controversy. No rock and roll.

Actually when I listen to late 60's rock music - you know, way after the revolutionary Beatlemania years - I wonder who was interested listening to the Beatles any longer. If I'd been there, I wouldn't. There was so much way better and interesting music happening. I mean, what a fvck I do with some pretentous and boring 'White Album' if I can listen ELECTRIC LADYLAND or MUSIC FROM THE Pink? Or even THE VELVET UNDERGROUND & NICO, for god's sakes. What a shit some stupid "All You Need Is love" is when there is a "A Whiter Shade of Pale" to listen to? I think the 1967-70 Beatles stuff is way too over-rated nowadays in compared to the music people were doing at the time (also to what they themselves were doing prior).

When Lennon finally get rid of that and Yoko kick the Dylan out of him, the things start happening: "Working Class Hero", "Instant Charma", "Give Peace A Chance" "Imagine", "Happy Xmas", "Jealous Guy"...


- Doxa



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-03 05:30 by Doxa.

Excellent article published yesterday in GUITAR WORLD:

How the Beatles crafted the guitar and bass tones that forever changed the sound of rock music
By Chris Gill
published 1 day ago

We chart the evolution of the Fab Four's sound through the key tracks and the gear that made them

> BEATLES

No band has had more pages written about them than the Beatles. There are books that examine every day of the band’s history, large volumes about their recordings and books devoted entirely to their gear. Yet for all that has been written about them, there is still much mystery about the finer details, such as what exact guitars and amps they used to record specific songs.

We set out to answer that last question by closely examining a select group of songs spanning the Beatles’ entire recording history. A big part of the challenge is that a great amount of conflicting info exists, even among the experts. Even the members of the Beatles, producer George Martin and engineers like Geoff Emerick have provided conflicting accounts, and sometimes those people have contradicted themselves.

Photos taken during the recording sessions provide helpful hints, but all too often crucial details are missing, and the best anyone can do is speculate. Internet forums are frankly a hell-hole of highly opinionated alpha characters who insist they have golden ears but are usually pulling utter BS out of their golden rears.

What follows is our best attempt to determine the guitars, basses, amps and effects that the Beatles actually used. This information is not perfect and in many cases is highly speculative (such as the amp that Lennon used to record his solo on The End). However, we hope it will provide a good guideline for guitarists who want to decode the magical mystery of the iconic sounds that the Beatles’ crafted over an incredibly prolific seven-year period.

Read all about it: How the Beatles crafted the guitar and bass tones that forever changed the sound of rock music

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

Quote
Hairball
Excellent article published yesterday in GUITAR WORLD:

How the Beatles crafted the guitar and bass tones that forever changed the sound of rock music
By Chris Gill
published 1 day ago

We chart the evolution of the Fab Four's sound through the key tracks and the gear that made them

> BEATLES

No band has had more pages written about them than the Beatles. There are books that examine every day of the band’s history, large volumes about their recordings and books devoted entirely to their gear. Yet for all that has been written about them, there is still much mystery about the finer details, such as what exact guitars and amps they used to record specific songs.

We set out to answer that last question by closely examining a select group of songs spanning the Beatles’ entire recording history. A big part of the challenge is that a great amount of conflicting info exists, even among the experts. Even the members of the Beatles, producer George Martin and engineers like Geoff Emerick have provided conflicting accounts, and sometimes those people have contradicted themselves.

Photos taken during the recording sessions provide helpful hints, but all too often crucial details are missing, and the best anyone can do is speculate. Internet forums are frankly a hell-hole of highly opinionated alpha characters who insist they have golden ears but are usually pulling utter BS out of their golden rears.

What follows is our best attempt to determine the guitars, basses, amps and effects that the Beatles actually used. This information is not perfect and in many cases is highly speculative (such as the amp that Lennon used to record his solo on The End). However, we hope it will provide a good guideline for guitarists who want to decode the magical mystery of the iconic sounds that the Beatles’ crafted over an incredibly prolific seven-year period.

Read all about it: How the Beatles crafted the guitar and bass tones that forever changed the sound of rock music

I'm reading about studio trickery here, playing at 'half speed' so that George could more easily follow the notes and then speeding it up.

I guess that's innovation, though I'm not 'impressed' by what I'm reading. Seems that when it all is put together is sounds really good, and I guess that's what you ultimately want but I thought there'd be something mind blowing that set the path forward, not stuff like turning the treble to 10, and the bass to 2 or 3.

It's all about the treble, no bass!

Quote
Doxa
Very true, R Dog, what you said about the Stones offering soon pretty convenient stuff. They would be very soon yesterday's papers, as far as trends and nailing the zeitgeit goes. But still they had, like always, a certain edge in their music. Something the Beatles never had.

You mention "Wild Horses", but the true hit of the day was "Brown Sugar" - something in controversiality and bad-assness the Beatles at their wildest dreams were not even close. The effect of "Angie" was that it was so obvious anti-thesis to anything the the Stones represented. A great one-timer (and if nothing else, a good counter example to Beatles fans to 'prove' that Mick and Keith can write beautiful, melodical songs as well, like they are showing "Helter Skelter" to prove the Beatles can 'rock' too). Despite the stunning hit "Miss You", SOME GIRLS is full of good old middle finger stuff in different forms. The ironical and intellectual self-reflection of "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" was also, among other things, an anti-thesis to anything pretentous bullshit the 60's Beatles mythologists love to write about the progressive nature of pop, reminding like what it is all about, even before the punk happened.

ABBA was the 70's reincarnation of the Beatles. Exactly the same components in success: universally stunning singing and catchy tunes (the Beatles fans always love to explain and cover that simple phenomenon with whatever funny stories, like not admitting the true color of it). Everybody loves and nobody is hurt. Nice, genius pop. No controversy. No rock and roll.

Actually when I listen to late 60's rock music - you know, way after the revolutionary Beatlemania years - I wonder who was interested listening to the Beatles any longer. If I'd been there, I wouldn't. There was so much way better and interesting music happening. I mean, what a fvck I do with some pretentous and boring 'White Album' if I can listen ELECTRIC LADYLAND or MUSIC FROM THE Pink? Or even THE VELVET UNDERGROUND & NICO, for god's sakes. What a shit some stupid "All You Need Is love" is when there is a "A Whiter Shade of Pale" to listen to? I think the 1967-70 Beatles stuff is way too over-rated nowadays in compared to the music people were doing at the time (also to what they themselves were doing prior).

When Lennon finally get rid of that and Yoko kick the Dylan out of him, the things start happening: "Working Class Hero", "Instant Charma", "Give Peace A Chance" "Imagine", "Happy Xmas", "Jealous Guy"...


- Doxa

I usually hate "overrated" discussions. Simply because imo stating that certain music is "overrated" is just a more elaborate way of simply saying "I don't like it" or "it does not do much for me" with an added generalizing twist as if anybody who thinks differently must be wrong. While each and every personal opinion is perfectly ok, I'd say that there is no such thing as "overrated music" - every piece of music that finds enthusiastic listeners is "rated" exactly what it deserves, if I personally like it or not does not matter at all. Just like stating that something is "underrated" is nothing more than saying "I really like it so much, I wish more people would acknowledge its greatness, they must be deaf!".

You think you have a more elaborate taste because you prefer the Stones, Jimi Hendrix, The Band, Velvet Underground or Procol Harum over the Beatles or ABBA? Well, it's all a matter of perspective. I vividly recall a New Year's Party when early in the morning, someone, obviously a huge Hendrix fan, put "Live At Fillmore East" in the player, to show, in his words, us remaining few what "real music" from "a real genius" sounds like... Of course I know Hendrix, love his music, appreciate his greatness, but after an hour or so, some people asked for relief after an intense listening session and I got my will with "Get Yer Ya Ya's Out". Noticing the enthusiastic reaction from the others, the Hendrix fan suddenly mumbled: "That's rubbish...." What, rubbish? He: "Yeah, it's shit compared to Hendrix. The Stones, yeah, just a pop band. Can barely play. Stole the blues from the real people. Copycats. Posers. What have they achieved? Satisfaction, yeah. Everybody could write something like that. Gimme Shelter or Sympathy, yeah, nice, but not more than a handful of nice tunes. They can't hold a candle to Jimi!"

Left me speechless for a short while (something that doesn't happen all too often). Fun fact is that I tried some of the same points you mention in your above posting to defend "my band": Controversiality, bad-assness, middle finger-attitude but to no avail. His underlying message was clear: The Stones are vastly "overrated"! Talk about "elaborate taste in music"...

Back to Lennon: I had the luck of having an English teacher one time who not only came from Liverpool, but also knew Lennon personally from school and also some of the other Beatles and relatives, namely McCartney and his brother Mike McGear and Pete Best. Talking about Lennon, he said to me: "Knowing the background from where's he's coming from, John should be eternally grateful and proud of what he achieved with The Beatles instead of constantly putting it down!" Maybe it has something to do with "Yoko kicking the Dylan out of him", but anyway, I personally much prefer Dylan's lyrical subletly over rubbing the message into your face like Lennon in his "message songs". But then, I despise any leader cult, no matter where it comes from, left or right, probably in accordance to Dylan: "Don't follow leaders, (better) watch the parking meters" or (here we have it!) The Beatles: "Think For Yourself"... Thankfully, the Stones were wise enough to (mostly) spare us from overly political message songs, the sheer thought of Jagger rapping about the dangers of climate change over a cacophonic noise similar to the stuff Yoko produced with Lennon's band like "Don't Worry Kyoko" to emphasize the seriousness of the matter makes me shudder!

No, sometimes amidst the weirdness of today's world I just want to sit back and simply enjoy the sheer beauty of songs like "Here Comes The Sun" or "Backstreet Girl" and their innocent imagery - and I'm likely not the only one, otherwise "Dancing Queen" would not have been a playlist constant at almost every Stones touring party I've ever been to!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-03 22:41 by retired_dog.

Some excellent commentary there Retired Dog...and of course Doxa as well, thank you both.

For those who live in the Central New York area and are in to tribute bands...
From Syracuse.com:

Who’s better, Beatles or Rolling Stones? Concert battle coming to CNY

Beatles vs. Stones

For decades, music fans have debated: Who’s better, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

A tribute concert coming to Central New York hopes to settle the issue in a musical showdown. Tribute bands Abbey Road and Satisfaction -
The International Rolling Stones Show will perform “Beatles vs. Stones” at the Stanley Theatre in Utica on Friday, April 21, at 7:30 p.m.

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

In the summer of 1978, when John and Yoko were living as hermits at the Hotel Okura in Tokyo, John handed a Japanese singer a list of records he wanted.
The singer's manager, who was an acquaintance of mine, delivered the records to their hotel room. Among them were Some Girls and Street Legal.
Those two records might have helped starting over his secular life again. Or is this my double fantasy?

Quote
Toru A
In the summer of 1978, when John and Yoko were living as hermits at the Hotel Okura in Tokyo, John handed a Japanese singer a list of records he wanted.
The singer's manager, who was an acquaintance of mine, delivered the records to their hotel room. Among them were Some Girls and Street Legal.
Those two records might have helped starting over his secular life again. Or is this my double fantasy?

I think it shows that they were actually not living as "total hermits" - that they were still interested in the outside world, in this case John in what his contemporary musician friends were doing at the time. I wouldn't interpret it as more than it actually was.

Anyway, and in addition to my long post above in reply to Doxa, it's interesting to note that of the three songs Lennon played in his very last live performance, guesting with Elton John on November 28, 1974 at Madison Square Garden, two were actually Beatles songs, furthermore with "I Saw Her Standing There" one that originally had Paul on lead vocals (a song by “an old fiancé of mine named Paul. I’ve never sang it before”), showing imo that he had already come to terms with his Beatles past at this time.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Toru A
In the summer of 1978, when John and Yoko were living as hermits at the Hotel Okura in Tokyo, John handed a Japanese singer a list of records he wanted.
The singer's manager, who was an acquaintance of mine, delivered the records to their hotel room. Among them were Some Girls and Street Legal.
Those two records might have helped starting over his secular life again. Or is this my double fantasy?

I think it shows that they were actually not living as "total hermits" - that they were still interested in the outside world, in this case John in what his contemporary musician friends were doing at the time. I wouldn't interpret it as more than it actually was.

Anyway, and in addition to my long post above in reply to Doxa, it's interesting to note that of the three songs Lennon played in his very last live performance, guesting with Elton John on November 28, 1974 at Madison Square Garden, two were actually Beatles songs, furthermore with "I Saw Her Standing There" one that originally had Paul on lead vocals (a song by “an old fiancé of mine named Paul. I’ve never sang it before”), showing imo that he had already come to terms with his Beatles past at this time.

Those three songs are available on the extended version of Elton's "Here and There" live album. Someone posted the proposed setlist for John's never-to-be 1981 tour. He was planning on doing some Beatles tunes, including some of the early stuff - "Help", I think.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
Hairball
For those who live in the Central New York area and are in to tribute bands...
From Syracuse.com:

Who’s better, Beatles or Rolling Stones? Concert battle coming to CNY

Beatles vs. Stones

For decades, music fans have debated: Who’s better, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

A tribute concert coming to Central New York hopes to settle the issue in a musical showdown. Tribute bands Abbey Road and Satisfaction -
The International Rolling Stones Show will perform “Beatles vs. Stones” at the Stanley Theatre in Utica on Friday, April 21, at 7:30 p.m.

Man I love the write up...this is absolutely hilarious, they sure do know how to market the show!:

“The Beatles cornered the rock market on cute suits and fluffy hairdos, but then they stood still on stage and modeled them,” says Satisfaction frontman Chris Legrand. “The Stones rocked the stage, and worked as hard as the bluesmen they modeled their stage show after, generating the smoldering sexuality that came to be a hallmark of great rock-n-roll acts. The Beatles? Well, they were cute! The Stones were the original punks, outsiders at best. Beatles took tea with the bloody Queen - how rock-n-roll is that?!”

“We had our Sgt. Pepper jackets made extra long so the Stones would have no problem riding our coattails!” Ringo impersonator Axel Clarke, drummer for Abbey Road, responded. “That Mick Jagger sure can move! It’s a shame he has to work twice as hard to be half as good!”

Quote
Doxa

ABBA was the 70's reincarnation of the Beatles. Exactly the same components in success: universally stunning singing and catchy tunes (the Beatles fans always love to explain and cover that simple phenomenon with whatever funny stories, like not admitting the true color of it). Everybody loves and nobody is hurt. Nice, genius pop. No controversy. No rock and roll.

Actually when I listen to late 60's rock music - you know, way after the revolutionary Beatlemania years - I wonder who was interested listening to the Beatles any longer. If I'd been there, I wouldn't. There was so much way better and interesting music happening. I mean, what a fvck I do with some pretentous and boring 'White Album' if I can listen ELECTRIC LADYLAND or MUSIC FROM THE Pink? Or even THE VELVET UNDERGROUND & NICO, for god's sakes. What a shit some stupid "All You Need Is love" is when there is a "A Whiter Shade of Pale" to listen to? I think the 1967-70 Beatles stuff is way too over-rated nowadays in compared to the music people were doing at the time (also to what they themselves were doing prior).


- Doxa

The Beatles are separate from that for me, I don’t expect rock n roll from the Beatles, they’re the Beatles. They had their sound and they had their musical style. The Velvet Underground (a band I love) aren’t comparable to the Beatles. It’s apples and oranges. They came from different places with their music. The Beatles were a musical group, with a wide array of influences and musical stulea. They weren’t playing rock n roll like the Sonics or The Velvets or the MC5 or the stooges. The Beatles will always be a bit too pop and twee for me, but what they done is undeniable and stood up then and now. Sometimes popular doesn’t mean bad. It might not be to my taste. I’ll always be in the Stones camp and the rock n roll camp. Each to their own. It’s only rock n roll (or not)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-06 08:08 by Paddy.