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...169170171172173174175176177178179Next
Current Page: 174 of 179
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: NICOS ()
Date: October 11, 2021 01:18

I always knew John wanted to breakup the Beatles, only Paul was the one who did it....... and my guess was that John didn't liked that as he was the leader

__________________________

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: tatters ()
Date: October 11, 2021 14:29

In other shocking news, Brian Epstein was a homosexual. Seriously, this revelation of Paul's about John breaking up the Beatles has been common knowledge since John said as much when he was interviewed by Rolling Stone Magazine 50 years ago.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Sighunt ()
Date: October 11, 2021 14:37

Quote
NICOS
I always knew John wanted to breakup the Beatles, only Paul was the one who did it....... and my guess was that John didn't liked that as he was the leader

Lennon said as much in that famous, revealing interview he did with Rolling Stone in 1970 (which later came out as a book entitled Lennon Remembers-great read by the way), saying something to the effect that he was pissed that he hadn't announced it himself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-10-11 14:39 by Sighunt.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: MelBelli ()
Date: October 11, 2021 16:06

Long piece by David Remnick about Macca and forthcoming Peter Jackson documentary:

[www.newyorker.com]

McCartney offers this scintillating insight confused smiley

“McCartney waves away such high-flown talk, but he isn’t above suggesting that the Beatles worked from a broader range of musical languages than their peers—not least the Rolling Stones. “I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are,” he told me. “I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: October 11, 2021 19:47

Might have made more sense if he had said that back around '63...

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

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: October 11, 2021 21:28

Quote
MelBelli
Long piece by David Remnick about Macca and forthcoming Peter Jackson documentary:

[www.newyorker.com]

McCartney offers this scintillating insight confused smiley

“McCartney waves away such high-flown talk, but he isn’t above suggesting that the Beatles worked from a broader range of musical languages than their peers—not least the Rolling Stones. “I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are,” he told me. “I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”

Ah Paul, why do you need to say all those things? What are you trying to prove? You're an all time great, why lower yourself with pity talks? The Rolling Stones "were nearly a Blues cover band" actually means that they had no pretensions. They did what they loved and still do it after almost 6 decades.
The Beatles gradually changed into an experimental band with some (very) great results but also with some rubbish (Lullaby songs ...) and lost contact with the real world. "Charles" told me a lot about you and cousin Johnny. Those were the days. Treasure them, Paul!

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: October 11, 2021 22:44

Paul obviously has "Tiny Todger Syndrome".

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: RollingFreak ()
Date: October 12, 2021 00:47

I think Paul runs out of things to say at times so he throws him something new. And its usually a dumb take like this one even though he's not totally wrong.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: October 13, 2021 02:20

Quote
MelBelli
Long piece by David Remnick about Macca and forthcoming Peter Jackson documentary:

[www.newyorker.com]

McCartney offers this scintillating insight confused smiley

“McCartney waves away such high-flown talk, but he isn’t above suggesting that the Beatles worked from a broader range of musical languages than their peers—not least the Rolling Stones. “I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are,” he told me. “I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”
They started as a blues cover band but became way more than that.And as for the Beatles half their innovations came from George Martin.Lennon and McCartney were great vocalists , the best in rock.And the band had a great sound.But Mac and Lennon are a bit of a fraud as songwriters.There are so many of their songs that are rip offs of other artists.Starting with I Should Have Known Betterripping off Hey Baby and other sources.Lennon and Macwas not some musical writing genius

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: October 13, 2021 02:29

Sorry, Taylor1, but with a few exceptions, they were musical writing geniuses (genii?).

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: MKjan ()
Date: October 13, 2021 03:39

Lots of crappy songs in the Beatles catalog.
Paul periodically trolls the Stones, he can't handle their greatness, and
the Stones were/are a performing band. He has a lot of reasons to be jealous and feel threatened.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Sighunt ()
Date: October 13, 2021 05:13

Quote
georgie48
Quote
MelBelli
Long piece by David Remnick about Macca and forthcoming Peter Jackson documentary:

[www.newyorker.com]

McCartney offers this scintillating insight confused smiley

“McCartney waves away such high-flown talk, but he isn’t above suggesting that the Beatles worked from a broader range of musical languages than their peers—not least the Rolling Stones. “I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are,” he told me. “I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”

Ah Paul, why do you need to say all those things? What are you trying to prove? You're an all time great, why lower yourself with pity talks? The Rolling Stones "were nearly a Blues cover band" actually means that they had no pretensions. They did what they loved and still do it after almost 6 decades.
The Beatles gradually changed into an experimental band with some (very) great results but also with some rubbish (Lullaby songs ...) and lost contact with the real world. "Charles" told me a lot about you and cousin Johnny. Those were the days. Treasure them, Paul!

I have to agree with your post. Like, Paul, you are a great artist. Why do you have to get base here with those comments about the Stones? The Beatles will always have their place in music and culture-that's assured. But after all these years Paul, are you really that insecure where you have to knock the Stones down so you can feel good about yourself? Like, get over yourself, man....

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: October 13, 2021 05:47

The Beatles - still making headlines 50 years after they broke up...

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

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: MKjan ()
Date: October 13, 2021 08:27

The Rolling Stones- still making music and touring for nearly 60 years.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Lady Jayne ()
Date: October 13, 2021 11:12

As Mick told Howard Stern

'The big difference, though, is, and sort of slightly seriously, is that the Rolling Stones is a big concert band in other decades and other areas when the Beatles never even did an arena tour, or Madison Square Garden with a decent sound system,' Jagger said. 'They broke up before that business started, the touring business for real.'

He noted how the Beatles played a concert at New York's Shea Stadium in 1965, and how The Rolling Stones 'started stadium gigs in the 1970s and are still doing them now.

'That's the real big difference between these two bands,' Jagger said. 'One band is unbelievably luckily, still playing in stadiums and then the other band doesn't exist.'

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: windmelody ()
Date: October 13, 2021 11:54

It is really funny that they keep up some kind of fight. Totally unnecessary.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Rip This ()
Date: October 13, 2021 15:47

sells tickets and maybe even spotify or whatever the kids are using to find music these days.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Boognish ()
Date: October 13, 2021 16:35

Quote
MKjan
Lots of crappy songs in the Beatles catalog.
Paul periodically trolls the Stones, he can't handle their greatness, and
the Stones were/are a performing band. He has a lot of reasons to be jealous and feel threatened.
Lots of crappy songs in the Stones catalog, too.
Paul can't handle their greatness? He's a grown man, I'm pretty sure Paul is doing just fine.
Paul is jealous and feels threatened? Threatened by what? What is he jealous of? Again, he's a grown man. I'm pretty sure he's doing just fine.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Cristiano Radtke ()
Date: October 13, 2021 16:47

Get Back - Official Trailer



Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: October 13, 2021 19:38

Lennon was a great singer , created some great music, but most of his solo music was crap , like Mac’s. He wrote some crap with the Beatles also. And Lennon and Mac were great at taking music from others and re-mixing it into new songs .Mac often leaned towards Broadway shows and classical music for ideas whereas Lennon took from old rock songs

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: October 13, 2021 20:01

Keith once said something like "the greatest songwriters are those with the biggest record collection". Any songwriter gets his/her inspiration from somewhere, be it other songs/artists, sounds surfacing in nature or bedrooms or anywhere that songwriter happens to be. Also other humans or even animals (aren't we in fact?) or impressive events can give inspiration for writing a song. As long as the song makes many (or even a few) happy, it serves its purpose. Music, what would we be without it, what hell would we be living in: Before they make me run or It's only Rock 'n Roll or Day Tripper or ... you name it, it's all there to enjoy cool smiley

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: MKjan ()
Date: October 13, 2021 20:54

Quote
Boognish
Quote
MKjan
Lots of crappy songs in the Beatles catalog.
Paul periodically trolls the Stones, he can't handle their greatness, and
the Stones were/are a performing band. He has a lot of reasons to be jealous and feel threatened.
Lots of crappy songs in the Stones catalog, too.
Paul can't handle their greatness? He's a grown man, I'm pretty sure Paul is doing just fine.
Paul is jealous and feels threatened? Threatened by what? What is he jealous of? Again, he's a grown man. I'm pretty sure he's doing just fine.

Thank you, that was my point. The Beatles have a lot of crappy songs. Paul seems jealous, his childish comments are not the words of a grown man.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: sundevil ()
Date: October 13, 2021 21:51

why would paul's comments be childish. he's right, the stones started out as a derelict blues band playing chicago blues. the fact is, the stones are an accident. they just got together to play, and thanks to brian's drive, ended up getting a spot as an interval act. and they took off from there. the beatles played for drunk germans for a few years before getting an accidental recording contract. the only reason they got signed was because they went into their audition with a few self-penned songs. they were signed for copyright potential, not because they were great. paul has even said george martin worked them really hard after they got signed to polish and improve the group.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: October 13, 2021 22:40

Giles Martin on remixing Let It Be and what happens next - [SuperDeluxeEdition.com] .

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Boognish ()
Date: October 13, 2021 22:57

Quote
MKjan
Quote
Boognish
Quote
MKjan
Lots of crappy songs in the Beatles catalog.
Paul periodically trolls the Stones, he can't handle their greatness, and
the Stones were/are a performing band. He has a lot of reasons to be jealous and feel threatened.
Lots of crappy songs in the Stones catalog, too.
Paul can't handle their greatness? He's a grown man, I'm pretty sure Paul is doing just fine.
Paul is jealous and feels threatened? Threatened by what? What is he jealous of? Again, he's a grown man. I'm pretty sure he's doing just fine.

Thank you, that was my point. The Beatles have a lot of crappy songs. Paul seems jealous, his childish comments are not the words of a grown man.
What does he have to be jealous about? He's Paul f*cking McCartney. He was in THE BEATLES. Is he jealous because the Stones are still around and his band is not? That's silly. Paul is still playing stadiums just like they are. It's not like he's been relegated to playing in a bar band like some kind of over the hill has-been.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: NilsHolgersson ()
Date: October 13, 2021 23:03

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
Get Back - Official Trailer


Really looking forward to this

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: jahisnotdead ()
Date: October 13, 2021 23:09

No big deal. It's just advertising hype for Get Back. You really think he's going to get headlines for "they were nice chaps, now let's have a spot of tea" quotes? This is safe controversy. The hype is probably going to continue for another month and a half, so I would just relax about it and not take it so seriously.

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: georgie48 ()
Date: October 13, 2021 23:18

Today I had an interesting conversation with a 25 years young student from Syria, who studies in Germany but paid a visit to the Netherlands to see our largest canal gates (locks?). Apart from talking about ships he pointed at my cap with the Stones logo. He said "I have seen it before". I said "do you know the Rolling Stones?" "Yes", he said, "they came to Germany a couple of years ago". Then I talked about the 60s and the band's biggest "rivals" in those days, the Beatles. He said "never heard of them"! "Okay", I said, "they stopped 51 years ago, so I don't blame you".
Point one is: the Rolling Stones are still up and running (he was amazed that during this current USA tour there could be as many as 1 million people seeing them).
Point two (sorry guys): the Beatles are really history and (I had noticed it often before. This Syrian is by far not an exception) totally unknown to very many young people.
Instead of mocking about Johnny, Paul should lift the one time fame of his only true band, the Beatles.
cool smiley

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: October 13, 2021 23:40

Quote
georgie48

Point two (sorry guys): the Beatles are really history and (I had noticed it often before. This Syrian is by far not an exception) totally unknown to very many young people.

As depicted in the 2019 film 'Yesterday' - Wikipedia. winking smiley

Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by: ds1984 ()
Date: October 13, 2021 23:42

They are taking the best out of the Get Back sessions but hey that is a lot of work for just 5 good songs or so.

Compared to how fast Abbey Road was recorded, the Get Back project was mainly a musical fail.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...169170171172173174175176177178179Next
Current Page: 174 of 179


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 799
Record Number of Users: 189 on August 24, 2021 20:10
Record Number of Guests: 4101 on December 24, 2020 10:57

Previous page Next page First page IORR home