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...125126127128129130131132133134135
Current Page: 135 of 135
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Papo ()
Date: February 20, 2019 09:13

I disagree. That movie/story does only work with The Beatles'songs.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Carnaby ()
Date: February 20, 2019 20:55


Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: MisterDDDD ()
Date: February 25, 2019 19:00

Happy Birthday George!!


Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Deltics ()
Date: March 2, 2019 16:12

John Lennon and Yoko Ono's first gig in 1969 celebrated




"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: March 2, 2019 16:44

Quote
Deltics

With Anita, photographed by George Harrison.




It's Suki. The photo is from June or after as George didn't start the psych paint job until June 1967.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-02 16:47 by His Majesty.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: marianna ()
Date: March 2, 2019 22:01

Did George have a selfie stick?

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: March 3, 2019 12:38

His arms and hands.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: MisterDDDD ()
Date: March 3, 2019 17:07

George was an early fan of the "selfie".
Got some interesting shots over the years.


Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Jah Paul ()
Date: March 3, 2019 18:34

John, Candlestick 1966


Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 15, 2019 00:31




------------>>>>>>> [blog.eil.com]

ROCKMAN

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Deltics ()
Date: March 15, 2019 01:36

Quote
Rockman



------------>>>>>>> [blog.eil.com]

It sold for £9,400 in the end, less than half the price quoted in the article.
And it was warped!
[www.ebay.co.uk]

[www.dailymail.co.uk]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 15, 2019 03:44

awww well nearly 10k
for a warped 7" ain't bad ….

ROCKMAN

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: buttons67 ()
Date: March 15, 2019 04:27

heres my extra tuppence worth regarding the ongoing rivalry between the beatles and the stones.

point 1. think its wrong they are compared only up till 1970, when the stones produced many great songs after. if the beatles were capable maybe they might have stayed together, obviously they had their reasons for not having the quality of stuff the stones were about to put out ready.

point 2. please dont tell me helter skelter is heavier than any rock the stones produced, its not. if thats the heaviest the beatles produced then thats ample proof the stones were a much better rock band. rip this joint, rocks off are good examples.

point 3. the stones didnt copy the beatles all the time, its a john lennon myth.as stones done covers early on, as did many bands, including the beatles, lennon was jealous of the stones, look what they were doing 68-72 compared to the beatles.

point 4. average stones songs often get panned by the media, yet crap like love me do, yellow submarine, obla di obla da never get criticism, why. proof the media were always biased towards the beatles.

point 5. if the beatles were as good at rock as they said they were why didnt they include more rockier songs on album deepcuts, instead they seemed to stick to a lesser intense and safer style.

point 6. why was satanic always accussed of copying peppers album, peppers is overrated and satanic is more trippier and rockier and in line with the stones mystic.

point 7. why do some wombles songs sound similar to the beatles.

point 8. why are so many beatles songs soulless, stones songs are rarely soulless, obviously stones trumped there.

point 9. stones get often accussed of using the same instruments as the beatles, like the sitar on norweigan wood, then followed by paint it black, was this a beatles attempt to hide the fact they have never done anything as passionate, intense, aggressive and beautiful as paint it black. do the beatles own these instruments. and have the patent for what gets used.

point 10. if the beatles had not split up, what would have been the first butlins holiday camp they would have performed at.

point 11. beatles ballads get a lot more praise than stones, as is usually the case, yet the stones have a great collection, like wild horses, no expectations, lady jane, as tears go by, time waits for no one, winter.

point 12. would the beatles be more popular or succesful if they had formed years later, i doubt it,

point 13. are the beatles the greatest rock band ever, i dont think so.

you may agree or disagree with certain points. all these points are opinions, not just mine, bit other peoples too.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: March 15, 2019 05:18

The Wombles - The Wombling Song

smiling smiley

--------------------------------
"Rip this joint, gonna save your soul..."

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Happy24 ()
Date: March 15, 2019 06:47

Quote
buttons67
heres my extra tuppence worth regarding the ongoing rivalry between the beatles and the stones.

....

I have never heard about any "rivalry between the beatles and the stones," it have allways been the fans. I think that the fact that The Rolling Stones' fans keep on writing such lists (this one is super pathetic...my opinion :-) is the ultimate proof, that The Beatles win... if there was a rivalry or a contest, which there isn't. So I would say The Beatles' fans win :-)

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: stanlove ()
Date: March 15, 2019 17:29

Quote
Happy24
Quote
buttons67
heres my extra tuppence worth regarding the ongoing rivalry between the beatles and the stones.

....

I have never heard about any "rivalry between the beatles and the stones," it have allways been the fans. I think that the fact that The Rolling Stones' fans keep on writing such lists (this one is super pathetic...my opinion :-) is the ultimate proof, that The Beatles win... if there was a rivalry or a contest, which there isn't. So I would say The Beatles' fans win :-)

Not sure why people try to deny that there was somewhat of a rivalry between the Stones and the Beatles. Probably the same type of people who claim every comparison between groups is Apples and Oranges.

We have seen that Lennon was competitive and we know that he noted the standing of the two bands. . Harrison was as he used to tell the Stones how much bigger the Beatles were . McCartney has admitted to being competitive. Mich Jagger admitted that they were rivals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-15 17:35 by stanlove.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: ThePaleRider ()
Date: March 15, 2019 20:13

Listen...as a passionate Stones fan I will concede top spot to the Beatles...The Beatles influenced EVERYTHING and just look at the music produced by John, Paul, George and Ringo as solo artists...compared to the Stones...and I prefer the latter.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: March 15, 2019 23:15

The Peace & Love Turntable – 30-Year-Anniversary for Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band by [www.Project-Audio.com] :


Artwork-design by Ringo Starr - Large version of this picture



2Xperience - The Beatles White Album by [www.Project-Audio.com] :


Large version of this picture



More Turntables of the Artist-Collection: [www.Project-Audio.com] .

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: ash ()
Date: March 17, 2019 03:24

Quote
buttons67
heres my extra tuppence worth regarding the ongoing rivalry between the beatles and the stones.

point 1. think its wrong they are compared only up till 1970, when the stones produced many great songs after. if the beatles were capable maybe they might have stayed together, obviously they had their reasons for not having the quality of stuff the stones were about to put out ready.

point 2. please dont tell me helter skelter is heavier than any rock the stones produced, its not. if thats the heaviest the beatles produced then thats ample proof the stones were a much better rock band. rip this joint, rocks off are good examples.

point 3. the stones didnt copy the beatles all the time, its a john lennon myth.as stones done covers early on, as did many bands, including the beatles, lennon was jealous of the stones, look what they were doing 68-72 compared to the beatles.

point 4. average stones songs often get panned by the media, yet crap like love me do, yellow submarine, obla di obla da never get criticism, why. proof the media were always biased towards the beatles.

point 5. if the beatles were as good at rock as they said they were why didnt they include more rockier songs on album deepcuts, instead they seemed to stick to a lesser intense and safer style.

point 6. why was satanic always accussed of copying peppers album, peppers is overrated and satanic is more trippier and rockier and in line with the stones mystic.

point 7. why do some wombles songs sound similar to the beatles.

point 8. why are so many beatles songs soulless, stones songs are rarely soulless, obviously stones trumped there.

point 9. stones get often accussed of using the same instruments as the beatles, like the sitar on norweigan wood, then followed by paint it black, was this a beatles attempt to hide the fact they have never done anything as passionate, intense, aggressive and beautiful as paint it black. do the beatles own these instruments. and have the patent for what gets used.

point 10. if the beatles had not split up, what would have been the first butlins holiday camp they would have performed at.

point 11. beatles ballads get a lot more praise than stones, as is usually the case, yet the stones have a great collection, like wild horses, no expectations, lady jane, as tears go by, time waits for no one, winter.

point 12. would the beatles be more popular or succesful if they had formed years later, i doubt it,

point 13. are the beatles the greatest rock band ever, i dont think so.

you may agree or disagree with certain points. all these points are opinions, not just mine, bit other peoples too.

[www.youtube.com]

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...125126127128129130131132133134135
Current Page: 135 of 135


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 482
Record Number of Users: 184 on May 17, 2018 22:46
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home