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...133134135136137138139140141142143Next
Current Page: 141 of 143
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: October 7, 2019 04:01

Quote
mtaylor
Abbey Road is a very good album, but being No. 1 50 years later just tells a lot about the lack of new music anno 2019.

No it doesn't. It shows how big The Beatles truly are.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: stone66 ()
Date: October 7, 2019 05:58

Quote
GasLightStreet
A few aspects the Stones will always have over The Beatles:

More studio albums
More singles - but less #1s - Beatles had 72 charting singles, the Stones 56
More live albums
More live videos
More music videos (promotional videos for singles etc)
More money
More hits comps
More reissues
More tours
More venues
More money
More tour posters
More money

Except that Macca is worth more twice as much as Mick and Keith combined. Even Ringo has more than Keith and almost as much as Mick.

11. Keith Richards Net Worth – $340 Million
10. Ringo Starr Net Worth – $350 Million
8. Mick Jagger Net Worth – $360 Million
1. Paul McCartney Net Worth – $1.2 Billion

Perhaps going on tour solo all those years helps in that you don't have to divide the pie 4 or 5 ways.

20 wealthiest rock stars, 2019: [moneyinc.com]


Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: LazarusSmith ()
Date: October 7, 2019 06:55

Quote
NICOS
Quote
LazarusSmith
Quote
jlowe
Yes, The Beatles were/are in a class of their own.
Of course, breaking up whilst at the height of their powers was the perfect career move.

It's quite remarkable. Ringo - arguably their least accomplished member - had EIGHT top 10 singles in the US from 1971-74. Keith has never had ONE. Mick had TWO but they were duets with Bowie and the Jacksons; never had one on his own. ("Just Another Night" came close: #12.)

Beatles really on a diff level from everyone else.

It's not remarkable they were the Beatles...........but you comparison is not correct the Stones released there solo stuff much later but even then the Beatles would have won because they had 4 singers and they looked cute and the overall songs were for a wider range of people.

The DRUMMER of the Beatles had EIGHT top 10 singles from 71-74 AFTER HE LEFT THE FRICKIN BAND. The Stones, AS A BAND, during that same period had THREE top 10 singles. Ringo more than DOUBLES the Stones showing ALL BY HIMSELF.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: LazarusSmith ()
Date: October 7, 2019 07:02

Quote
jlowe
BUT
The Beatles world wide sales easily exceed The Stones. By some distance, despite:
(Beatles 1962/70) (The Stones 1963 and still counting).

A big IF question is how Mick and Keith's Solo careers would have panned out if the group had disbanded in say, 1974.

Their solo albums have not had the same chart or critical success as early Beatles solo material. The Gallagher boys have surprised most pundits with their solo careers since Oasis split.
I suppose the big unknown is would more Stones fans have bought the solo material if they knew the group had finished once and for all?

IMHO the only realistic chance the Glimmers ever had to go solo was immediately after the ‘67 drug bust. At that point in their respective lives could Mick and Keith have gone their separate ways and flourished as solo acts? Much better chance then than 15-20 yrs later of course.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: CaptainCorella ()
Date: October 7, 2019 08:08

Quote
LazarusSmith
Quote
NICOS
Quote
LazarusSmith
Quote
jlowe
Yes, The Beatles were/are in a class of their own.
Of course, breaking up whilst at the height of their powers was the perfect career move.

It's quite remarkable. Ringo - arguably their least accomplished member - had EIGHT top 10 singles in the US from 1971-74. Keith has never had ONE. Mick had TWO but they were duets with Bowie and the Jacksons; never had one on his own. ("Just Another Night" came close: #12.)

Beatles really on a diff level from everyone else.

It's not remarkable they were the Beatles...........but you comparison is not correct the Stones released there solo stuff much later but even then the Beatles would have won because they had 4 singers and they looked cute and the overall songs were for a wider range of people.

The DRUMMER of the Beatles had EIGHT top 10 singles from 71-74 AFTER HE LEFT THE FRICKIN BAND. The Stones, AS A BAND, during that same period had THREE top 10 singles. Ringo more than DOUBLES the Stones showing ALL BY HIMSELF.

And of course the highest charting single by a Solo member of The Rolling Stones was "(Si, si), Je Suis Un Rock Star" by Bill Wyman. (How that must annoy Jagger!)

--
Captain Corella
50+ Years a Fan

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: whitem8 ()
Date: October 8, 2019 01:15

Also John Lennon was worth $800 million at the time of his death. George Harrison worth $400 million at the time of his death. The Beatles and amassed far more money than Stones. Beatles have sold over 600 million albums worldwide. The Stones 240 million.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-10-08 01:20 by whitem8.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: October 8, 2019 01:57

And while the Stones have their own themed pinball and slot machines, the Beatles have an entire Cirque de Soleil about them.smiling smiley

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




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-10-08 01:57 by Hairball.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: October 8, 2019 10:28

confused smileyconfused smileyconfused smiley
Figures, figures, figures ... does anyone know how many albums Beethoven, Bach or Mozart (just to name a few) have sold so far? It wouldn't surprise me that any of them make all pop/rock/rap/blues artists look like beginners.

A friend of mine, from the Dutch Beatles fanclub, and I sometimes make jokes about all those comparisons between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. But he said that I was a really lucky guy, because ... his Beatles have long, long gone. They ARE solid history. They WERE great (not ARE). You can still go and see the Rolling Stones LIVE! All we can do is "go after Paul", but he is not the Beatles.
My mom died "only" (sorry Koen) 33 years ago. She is still in my mind almost daily. But ... I can NOT see her, I can NOT talk to her, I can NOT hug her, etc. etc. She WAS a great mom, though.

Due to first Mick's health issue and later my wife's I could not go to the USA this year, but it looks very much like there is, still after more than 57 years, a future for the Rolling Stones!
To all the Beatles fans I would like to say ... come join us and go see the Rolling Stones, because they are, despite all those figures, still ALIVE!
You know what? I will put on a Beatles album today and enjoy the great music of that once upon a time great band.

smileys with beer

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: October 8, 2019 17:39

"Some are dead, and some are living
In my life, I've loved them all..."


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

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: October 8, 2019 18:00

Quote
Hairball
"Some are dead, and some are living
In my life, I've loved them all..."

Was that Paul who wrote it or John?

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: October 8, 2019 18:01

Quote
georgie48
Quote
Hairball
"Some are dead, and some are living
In my life, I've loved them all..."

Was that Paul who wrote it or John?

John

"No Anchovies, Please"

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: October 8, 2019 18:07

Great. Although I am a diehard Stones fan, something happened in my life that links me to John, but I can't talk about it ... yet. It's all up to "Charles".

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: frankotero ()
Date: October 8, 2019 18:22

Most people know me as a die hard Stones maniac, but few get to know me well enough to realize I love The Beatles most. All things considered most my adult life has been dominated by The Stones, and even still The Beatles always come out on top. That's kind of hard to believe, even for me sometimes.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: October 8, 2019 18:24

The Stones can tour for eternity, but the Beatles will always come out on top.

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

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: October 8, 2019 20:49

Quote
Hairball
The Stones can tour for eternity, but the Beatles will always come out on top.

Hi Hairball,
What do you mean with "come out on top"?
I have no problem whatsoever with The Beatles scoring high or even highest on any kind of poll or statistics. What matters to me is that I can still share (and have shared for almost 5 decades now) time with my all time favorite band. You only live once (I think grinning smiley). My highschool Beatles fan friends have to live (and have lived for the past 5 decades) with memories.
Records and CDs is one thing (we all surely "need" them to feel happy from time to time), but imagine .... all those bonus years after their 50st Anniversary: London 2013, Abu Dhabi 2014, USA 2015, Argentina 2016, Amsterdam - Arnhem 2017, Twickenham 2018, and, who knows, Tokyo 2020 ... am I dreaming?
And believe me, in between I can also enjoy Beatles (Elvis, and many others) music on my CD player.
smileys with beer

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: October 8, 2019 21:12

Quote
georgie48
Quote
Hairball
The Stones can tour for eternity, but the Beatles will always come out on top.

Hi Hairball,
What do you mean with "come out on top"?
I have no problem whatsoever with The Beatles scoring high or even highest on any kind of poll or statistics. What matters to me is that I can still share (and have shared for almost 5 decades now) time with my all time favorite band. You only live once (I think grinning smiley). My highschool Beatles fan friends have to live (and have lived for the past 5 decades) with memories.
Records and CDs is one thing (we all surely "need" them to feel happy from time to time), but imagine .... all those bonus years after their 50st Anniversary: London 2013, Abu Dhabi 2014, USA 2015, Argentina 2016, Amsterdam - Arnhem 2017, Twickenham 2018, and, who knows, Tokyo 2020 ... am I dreaming?
And believe me, in between I can also enjoy Beatles (Elvis, and many others) music on my CD player.
smileys with beer

Hi georgie, yes I love seeing the Stones live, and I also love all the bonus years you mention...looking forward to seeing them again some day maybe!
BUT...speaking of bonuses, have you heard the new Abbey Road deluxe box set with all the bonus material? Or last years White album deluxe? Or the year before Sgt. Peppers deluxe? Or the Anthology series? Or the Live at the BBC releases? Or have you seen the Beatles LOVE Cirque de Soleil? While the Beatles may have officially ended as a band in 1970, in some ways it was also just the beginning for Beatles fans. Consider the timeless catalogue, and think about all four of the members solo careers (some great, some crap), and then you have to think about the goldmine of releases they've put out starting with Anthology. They're the band that keeps on giving, and yes while the Stones are still an active band touring, the Beatles will always come out on top in almost every other category. winking smiley

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

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: stone66 ()
Date: October 8, 2019 21:44

Quote
georgie48
confused smileyconfused smileyconfused smiley
Figures, figures, figures ... does anyone know how many albums Beethoven, Bach or Mozart (just to name a few) have sold so far? It wouldn't surprise me that any of them make all pop/rock/rap/blues artists look like beginners.

A friend of mine, from the Dutch Beatles fanclub, and I sometimes make jokes about all those comparisons between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. But he said that I was a really lucky guy, because ... his Beatles have long, long gone. They ARE solid history. They WERE great (not ARE). You can still go and see the Rolling Stones LIVE! All we can do is "go after Paul", but he is not the Beatles.
My mom died "only" (sorry Koen) 33 years ago. She is still in my mind almost daily. But ... I can NOT see her, I can NOT talk to her, I can NOT hug her, etc. etc. She WAS a great mom, though.

Due to first Mick's health issue and later my wife's I could not go to the USA this year, but it looks very much like there is, still after more than 57 years, a future for the Rolling Stones!
To all the Beatles fans I would like to say ... come join us and go see the Rolling Stones, because they are, despite all those figures, still ALIVE!
You know what? I will put on a Beatles album today and enjoy the great music of that once upon a time great band.

smileys with beer

The Rolling Stones are still HALF alive. You cannot see the Stones you saw in the 60s, because one of the founder members is dead (and Stu). Those Stones ARE solid history. Brian and Stu -- you can NOT see them, you can NOT hear them perform. They WERE great, and with also Bill retired, you are getting only HALF of what was once the Stones.



And based on the set lists, it would seem that "still after more than 57 years" their future IS the past.


Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Deltics ()
Date: October 8, 2019 22:37

Forgotten film shows Fab Four in high spirits


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

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: LazarusSmith ()
Date: October 8, 2019 22:43

Quote
georgie48
Figures, figures, figures ... does anyone know how many albums Beethoven, Bach or Mozart (just to name a few) have sold so far? It wouldn't surprise me that any of them make all pop/rock/rap/blues artists look like beginners.

Probably unlikely. For example, one of the better-selling Bach albums of "modern" times was Glenn Gould's recording of the Goldberg Variations. Sold 40,000 copies the year it came out (1955) and had sold around 100,000 copies by the time of Gould's death in 1982. And that record was a SENSATION, commercially speaking.

Other exceptions from more recent decades include the Nonesuch recording of Gorecki's 3rd symphony and the Three Tenors concert album from 1994, both of which sold over a million copies. But those are few and far between. Most classical records, even by established artists and orchestras, sell fewer than 10K copies, even back in the day when physical media meant something.

Huge album numbers are really a phenomenon associated - almost exclusively - with pop music. ('Pop' defined as non-classical, non-jazz.)

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: October 8, 2019 23:53

Quote
LazarusSmith
Quote
georgie48
Figures, figures, figures ... does anyone know how many albums Beethoven, Bach or Mozart (just to name a few) have sold so far? It wouldn't surprise me that any of them make all pop/rock/rap/blues artists look like beginners.

Probably unlikely. For example, one of the better-selling Bach albums of "modern" times was Glenn Gould's recording of the Goldberg Variations. Sold 40,000 copies the year it came out (1955) and had sold around 100,000 copies by the time of Gould's death in 1982. And that record was a SENSATION, commercially speaking.

Other exceptions from more recent decades include the Nonesuch recording of Gorecki's 3rd symphony and the Three Tenors concert album from 1994, both of which sold over a million copies. But those are few and far between. Most classical records, even by established artists and orchestras, sell fewer than 10K copies, even back in the day when physical media meant something.

Huge album numbers are really a phenomenon associated - almost exclusively - with pop music. ('Pop' defined as non-classical, non-jazz.)

That is very interesting information indeed, but (and I think that could be a hell of a job to figure out) Bach music (I take him now as an example) has been recorded by many musicians/orchestras and I dare to discuss wether Glenn Gould is "the" major representative of Bach's music. I am absolutely no expert, but I know that "Deutsche Grammophone" for instance has been very big in recording top classic music, including Bach, by all kinds of different orchestras and individuals and (certainly in Europe) was/is very popular among "that other audience".
I am amazed to see how incredibly popular a man named Andre Rieu with his orchestre is around the world. He alone sells huge numbers of records in countries you wouldn't expect, like Japan, Indonesia and China. Not mentioning his highly popular concerts around the world.
But what I really tried to say was that being popular is not a time issue. 50 years no more Beatles is no basis for not being populair today. But also not for Beethoven or Bach.
For me, being able to enjoy the music of the Stones not only via records/cds, but also by sharing their life music for 5 decades is unique and a privilege for any Stones fan.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: October 9, 2019 00:09

Quote
Hairball
Quote
georgie48
Quote
Hairball
The Stones can tour for eternity, but the Beatles will always come out on top.

Hi Hairball,
What do you mean with "come out on top"?
I have no problem whatsoever with The Beatles scoring high or even highest on any kind of poll or statistics. What matters to me is that I can still share (and have shared for almost 5 decades now) time with my all time favorite band. You only live once (I think grinning smiley). My highschool Beatles fan friends have to live (and have lived for the past 5 decades) with memories.
Records and CDs is one thing (we all surely "need" them to feel happy from time to time), but imagine .... all those bonus years after their 50st Anniversary: London 2013, Abu Dhabi 2014, USA 2015, Argentina 2016, Amsterdam - Arnhem 2017, Twickenham 2018, and, who knows, Tokyo 2020 ... am I dreaming?
And believe me, in between I can also enjoy Beatles (Elvis, and many others) music on my CD player.
smileys with beer

Hi georgie, yes I love seeing the Stones live, and I also love all the bonus years you mention...looking forward to seeing them again some day maybe!
BUT...speaking of bonuses, have you heard the new Abbey Road deluxe box set with all the bonus material? Or last years White album deluxe? Or the year before Sgt. Peppers deluxe? Or the Anthology series? Or the Live at the BBC releases? Or have you seen the Beatles LOVE Cirque de Soleil? While the Beatles may have officially ended as a band in 1970, in some ways it was also just the beginning for Beatles fans. Consider the timeless catalogue, and think about all four of the members solo careers (some great, some crap), and then you have to think about the goldmine of releases they've put out starting with Anthology. They're the band that keeps on giving, and yes while the Stones are still an active band touring, the Beatles will always come out on top in almost every other category. winking smiley

Absolutely true and great. In fact I do have LOVE and their BBC recordings! The Stones do give less on records (but the bonus CDS with Exile and Some Girls were very enjoyable, and I was disappointed with the SF de Luxe), but I, at least partly, blame it to the fact that they are still highly popular as a live act, and focus on tours and the latter I highly appreciate winking smiley

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: October 9, 2019 00:25

Quote
stone66
Quote
georgie48
confused smileyconfused smileyconfused smiley
Figures, figures, figures ... does anyone know how many albums Beethoven, Bach or Mozart (just to name a few) have sold so far? It wouldn't surprise me that any of them make all pop/rock/rap/blues artists look like beginners.

A friend of mine, from the Dutch Beatles fanclub, and I sometimes make jokes about all those comparisons between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. But he said that I was a really lucky guy, because ... his Beatles have long, long gone. They ARE solid history. They WERE great (not ARE). You can still go and see the Rolling Stones LIVE! All we can do is "go after Paul", but he is not the Beatles.
My mom died "only" (sorry Koen) 33 years ago. She is still in my mind almost daily. But ... I can NOT see her, I can NOT talk to her, I can NOT hug her, etc. etc. She WAS a great mom, though.

Due to first Mick's health issue and later my wife's I could not go to the USA this year, but it looks very much like there is, still after more than 57 years, a future for the Rolling Stones!
To all the Beatles fans I would like to say ... come join us and go see the Rolling Stones, because they are, despite all those figures, still ALIVE!
You know what? I will put on a Beatles album today and enjoy the great music of that once upon a time great band.

smileys with beer

The Rolling Stones are still HALF alive. You cannot see the Stones you saw in the 60s, because one of the founder members is dead (and Stu). Those Stones ARE solid history. Brian and Stu -- you can NOT see them, you can NOT hear them perform. They WERE great, and with also Bill retired, you are getting only HALF of what was once the Stones.



And based on the set lists, it would seem that "still after more than 57 years" their future IS the past.

What to say on this?
The very first Rollin' Stones fans (Londoners) saw them with Dick Taylor on base (and Tony Chapman on drums). I (stupidly) missed an opportunity to see the band with Brian in 1967 (Stu I saw a couple of times in Rotterdam), but this goes a bit too far for me. The original Beatles had George Best on drums and Stuart Sutcliffe on guitar, but that's part of life. Everything evolves and so did the Rolling Stones. But they still are the Rolling Stones nontheless.
smileys with beer

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: jlowe ()
Date: October 9, 2019 00:45

Quote
LazarusSmith
Quote
georgie48
Figures, figures, figures ... does anyone know how many albums Beethoven, Bach or Mozart (just to name a few) have sold so far? It wouldn't surprise me that any of them make all pop/rock/rap/blues artists look like beginners.

Probably unlikely. For example, one of the better-selling Bach albums of "modern" times was Glenn Gould's recording of the Goldberg Variations. Sold 40,000 copies the year it came out (1955) and had sold around 100,000 copies by the time of Gould's death in 1982. And that record was a SENSATION, commercially speaking.

Other exceptions from more recent decades include the Nonesuch recording of Gorecki's 3rd symphony and the Three Tenors concert album from 1994, both of which sold over a million copies. But those are few and far between. Most classical records, even by established artists and orchestras, sell fewer than 10K copies, even back in the day when physical media meant something.

Huge album numbers are really a phenomenon associated - almost exclusively - with pop music. ('Pop' defined as non-classical, non-jazz.)

Which is why it always seems so ridiculous to write off albums.
Also, to quote some 'pop ' stars who seem to think it's not worth making new records because the sales are so much less than 20 or 30 years ago..

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Deltics ()
Date: October 9, 2019 00:48

Quote
georgie48
What to say on this?
The very first Rollin' Stones fans (Londoners) saw them with Dick Taylor on base (and Tony Chapman on drums). I (stupidly) missed an opportunity to see the band with Brian in 1967 (Stu I saw a couple of times in Rotterdam), but this goes a bit too far for me. The original Beatles had George Best on drums and Stuart Sutcliffe on guitar, but that's part of life. Everything evolves and so did the Rolling Stones. But they still are the Rolling Stones nontheless.
smileys with beer

He then quit drumming to become one of the finest footballers in the country!




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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-10-09 01:46 by Deltics.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: LazarusSmith ()
Date: October 9, 2019 00:57

Quote
jlowe
Quote
LazarusSmith
Quote
georgie48
Figures, figures, figures ... does anyone know how many albums Beethoven, Bach or Mozart (just to name a few) have sold so far? It wouldn't surprise me that any of them make all pop/rock/rap/blues artists look like beginners.

Probably unlikely. For example, one of the better-selling Bach albums of "modern" times was Glenn Gould's recording of the Goldberg Variations. Sold 40,000 copies the year it came out (1955) and had sold around 100,000 copies by the time of Gould's death in 1982. And that record was a SENSATION, commercially speaking.

Other exceptions from more recent decades include the Nonesuch recording of Gorecki's 3rd symphony and the Three Tenors concert album from 1994, both of which sold over a million copies. But those are few and far between. Most classical records, even by established artists and orchestras, sell fewer than 10K copies, even back in the day when physical media meant something.

Huge album numbers are really a phenomenon associated - almost exclusively - with pop music. ('Pop' defined as non-classical, non-jazz.)

Which is why it always seems so ridiculous to write off albums.
Also, to quote some 'pop ' stars who seem to think it's not worth making new records because the sales are so much less than 20 or 30 years ago..

I should have added the word "historically." Physical media indeed are largely irrelevant today in measuring the importance of an artist. Entire careers are being built by people we've never heard of who make LOTS of money w/o selling many "albums" at all.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: October 9, 2019 01:04

I forgot to mention the Beatles MONO Box set (as well as the stereo box)- the Mono is priceless, and once again they blazed a trail with the Stones following.
That said, thankfully the Stones did release a Mono Box set eventually as it is also pricelss - for that we should thank the Beatles.


*And the Stones BBC which was a bit haphazard, but still, credit to the Beatles for making it happen as they released their BBC Volume 1 way back in '94, and it is essential. thumbs up

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

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: stone66 ()
Date: October 9, 2019 01:41

Quote
georgie48
The original Beatles had George Best on drums

I guess that's why they fired Pete Best -- because you can't have 2 Georges in the same band, it would confuse the fans.


Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: marianna ()
Date: October 9, 2019 03:05

I don't like Giles Martin's remixes. I'm glad the Stones don't have someone remixing their original albums.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: CaptainCorella ()
Date: October 9, 2019 03:18

Quote
marianna
I don't like Giles Martin's remixes. I'm glad the Stones don't have someone remixing their original albums.

Fair enough.

Earlier things he has done really do re-MIX the album. Sgt. Pepper and The White Album definitely differ from the originals.

Abbey Road is different. As I've previously written, it's as if he has got an old and loved car, taken it to pieces, polished and repaired - lovingly - every single bit, and then put it back together precisely as it was. Refurbished and reconditioned.

It's the SAME album, but sounds so much clearer.

Try it.

--
Captain Corella
50+ Years a Fan

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: October 9, 2019 04:16

Quote
stone66
Quote
GasLightStreet
A few aspects the Stones will always have over The Beatles:

More studio albums
More singles - but less #1s - Beatles had 72 charting singles, the Stones 56
More live albums
More live videos
More music videos (promotional videos for singles etc)
More money
More hits comps
More reissues
More tours
More venues
More money
More tour posters
More money

Except that Macca is worth more twice as much as Mick and Keith combined. Even Ringo has more than Keith and almost as much as Mick.

11. Keith Richards Net Worth – $340 Million
10. Ringo Starr Net Worth – $350 Million
8. Mick Jagger Net Worth – $360 Million
1. Paul McCartney Net Worth – $1.2 Billion

Perhaps going on tour solo all those years helps in that you don't have to divide the pie 4 or 5 ways.

20 wealthiest rock stars, 2019: [moneyinc.com]

Oh.

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of how they make money touring vs record sales. There's no way Ringo makes the money the Stones do - or McCartney - on his tours but obviously something is going well for him. I suppose it's not silly to consider McCartney's publishing being a healthy portion of his income.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...133134135136137138139140141142143Next
Current Page: 141 of 143


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 422
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