Quote
Deluxtone
Well that's not really a fair fight.

Lennon died in 1980.

Would Julian do instead?

OK, the fight took place in '68!

Then it should be in Keith's book.

If it isn't then we must assume that Lennon won, unfairly ofcourse, probably by offering Keith a something he couldn't resist first

Come to think of it this would explain the patch over Keith's eye in R&R Circus - to conceal his black eye.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 22:02 by Deluxtone.

Quote
Big Al
Here's a good one!

Lennon v.s. Keith Richards in a fist-fight - who'd win? ><

Well Lennon was fairly useful with his fists ("enjoy the honeymoon John?") but i suspect he'd just ask Keith for some drugs and get really ill. Despite our attempts to get a fabs vs stones battle going they were all quite good friends. Given how off they could be to outsiders the fab four were quite supportive of the Stones during all their 1967 troubles. We Love You is a stunner...John and Pauls vocals are awesome and Mr Jones is right out there with the mellotron. Great bit of collaboration, not a great song but one of the Stones finest records.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Why does this kind of certain troll subject keep raising its retarded head?

Get your head out of the sand, man! You live in some kind idealistic fantasy land that doesn't exist. This is a debate that has been going on for half a century. And will continue for years to come. So deal with it! Even when a panel of rock historians and experts come together sometime down the road and declare the Stones the greatest there will still be debate. Having said all that, none of us should take it too seriously, after all, it's only rock 'n roll.

Quote
michaelsavage
I never said I HATE them. I said they were overrated (grossly) and they are good for elevator or department store background music. Safe, puffery, that's all.

If they are so overrated why did it take the Stones a half century to overhaul them? Let's give them their due. They were a formidable opponent and should be respected for leading the British Invasion.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
michaelsavage
I never said I HATE them. I said they were overrated (grossly) and they are good for elevator or department store background music. Safe, puffery, that's all.

If they are so overrated why did it take the Stones a half century to overhaul them? Let's give them their due. They were a formidable opponent and should be respected for leading the British Invasion.

The Stones did not overtake the Beatles at Glastonbury. The Beatles were elevated to a higher plane somewhere between the Anthology and the death of George Harrison.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
michaelsavage
I never said I HATE them. I said they were overrated (grossly) and they are good for elevator or department store background music. Safe, puffery, that's all.

If they are so overrated why did it take the Stones a half century to overhaul them? Let's give them their due. They were a formidable opponent and should be respected for leading the British Invasion.

Who said it took so long to overcome them? They never had to overcome them as there was nothing to overcome. They were better from the git go.

Quote
michaelsavage

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
michaelsavage
I never said I HATE them. I said they were overrated (grossly) and they are good for elevator or department store background music. Safe, puffery, that's all.

If they are so overrated why did it take the Stones a half century to overhaul them? Let's give them their due. They were a formidable opponent and should be respected for leading the British Invasion.

Who said it took so long to overcome them? They never had to overcome them as there was nothing to overcome. They were better from the git go.

I think not.

That's cool, as it's your opinion

I didn't want to engage in another Stones/Beatles contest, because there is none.
I grew up with the Beatles...through my older cousins' scratched copies of Meet the Bealtes, Beatles 65 and Hard Days Night..and then later when I discovered them as a teenager. They've always been part of my life, from my earliest memories, they were there. They are as familiar to me as I Love Lucy reruns or family get-togethers.
And after all the years in and out of Beatles phases, of not listening to them for long stretches...sometimes it just hits me all over again and they amaze the @#$%& out of me.
I was watching The Social Network recently and anybody who has seen it knows it ends on a perfect note: Baby You're a Rich Man.
And hearing that song played over the end-credits to that movie was just ..perfect.
But more than that, the song sounds so amazing, forward, edgy, daring, experimental - and the fact that it works so well in the context of this great, very 21st century film..just makes you realize how incredible, brilliant and timeless the Beatles were.
For their music to still have that kind of resonance...
I love the Stones and on some level, they have achieved that as well.
But the Bealtes are something else...



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 05:39 by stupidguy2.

......s-h-i-t.

I agree. To hold the #1 position for 51 years (before being overtaken by The Stones at Glastonbury) is truly amazing. They will always have my love and respect. They are truly the 2nd greatest rock 'n roll band of all time!

Quote
stupidguy2
I didn't want to engage in another Stones/Beatles contest, because there is none.

Too bad certain other posters here can't leave a single Beatles thread alone without visiting upon each and every such thread their repetitive agenda. No doubt there will be some usual suspects along soon, trolling about with their usual negativity.

How about that Andrew Loog Oldham? He still has the fans fighting it out after 50 years.

Myself, I grew up as a "second hand" Beatles fan, in the 1980s, but am no less amazed at the brilliance and the wonder even after three decades.

In recent years, I've been collecting a lot of sessions CDs and outtakes--bootlegs, that is. It's great to hear how their work was created from behind the scenes--you really get a sense of the fun they were having, as well as the respect and admiration they held for one another.

Here's a case in point from the Rubber Soul sessions during the vocal overdubs for the George Harrisong, Think For Yourself, with John and Paul doing their Goonies comedy routine and even producer George Martin getting in on the act....

I go through phases with them to, with all bands I'm that way. Currently I'm not in a Beatles phase. I can always listen to them though. I have been getting a little excited with the announcement of "On Air", even though early Beatles aren't so much my thing.

John Lennon still amaze me...and therefore also The Beatles...

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I agree. To hold the #1 position for 51 years (before being overtaken by The Stones at Glastonbury) is truly amazing. They will always have my love and respect. They are truly the 2nd greatest rock 'n roll band of all time!

I'm not sure you're correct in as much as i don't consider The Beatles to be rock 'n' roll. They weren't that limited. Even in the early days they are mixing up Little Richard , Peggy Lee, standards,show tunes ,country and western, rockabilly, girl group stuff....they were more of a variety act..Revolver is a case in point...no singer sings consecutive songs and each song is a different style culminating in Tomorrow Never Knows.
Considering these guys were basically the mainstream and yet pushed the form i would argue that they were the greatest pop band of all time. They were always commercial but continued being experimental at least until the white album. Again, the white album is like a compendium of 20th century popular music. The mainstream doesn't have to be stupid it can be creative,experiment and commercial too. That's what the fab 4 prove.
I could go on ( and on )...
Luckily for everyone here, the breakthrough of the Beatles gave lots of other bands the chance to be successful. George recommended the Stones to Dick Rowe at Decca, John and Paul gave them a tune and Oldham set the Stones up as The Anti Beatles.
No Beatles, No Stones.
(Also worth bearing in mind, no Cliff Richard and The Shadows..no Beatles.yikes !)
I'd say it worked out pretty well for us. We got The Beatles and The Stones and you are allowed to have both.
The Beatles still amaze me. They are the greatest British pop band of all-time.
The Stones amaze me too (with Taylor on stage they were white hot). They are the greatest British rock 'n' roll band of all time.

a league of their own....

THe Stones are The Greatest Rock and Roll band in the world but no nesasarily The Greatest Band in the world, there is a difference.

The best band could be The Beatles or maybe dare i say Pink Floyd?

A lot of the Beatles stuff has held up well.

THE KINKS

Quote
pgarof
THe Stones are The Greatest Rock and Roll band in the world but no nesasarily The Greatest Band in the world, there is a difference.

The best band could be The Beatles or maybe dare i say Pink Floyd?

Stranded on a desert island, I would rather listen to a single Beatles song than to choose to have access to all the recorded music of Pink Floyd.

2 1 2 0



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 14:08 by Come On.

Quote
Come On

Quote
pgarof
THe Stones are The Greatest Rock and Roll band in the world but no nesasarily The Greatest Band in the world, there is a difference.

The best band could be The Beatles or maybe dare i say Pink Floyd?

Stranded on a desert island, I would rather listen to a single Beatles song than to choose to have access to all the recorded music of Pink Floyd.

They should have dumped Roger Waters and kept Syd Barrett.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I agree. To hold the #1 position for 51 years (before being overtaken by The Stones at Glastonbury) is truly amazing. They will always have my love and respect. They are truly the 2nd greatest rock 'n roll band of all time!

I'm just curious. How is it that the Stones' appearance at a festival that didn't even exist during The Beatles' time was the catalyst for them overtaking The Beatles? Is it because of their age? If that's the case, why didn't they overtake them during this last tour? Or the previous tour? Or the tour before that? Or the one before that? How come their appearance at the Isle of Wight Festival in 2007 didn't push them past The Beatles?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 16:41 by GumbootCloggeroo.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I agree. To hold the #1 position for 51 years (before being overtaken by The Stones at Glastonbury) is truly amazing. They will always have my love and respect. They are truly the 2nd greatest rock 'n roll band of all time!

I'm just curious. How is it that the Stones' appearance at a festival that didn't even exist during The Beatles' time was the catalyst for them overtaking The Beatles? Is it because of their age? If that's the case, why didn't they overtake them during this last tour? Or the previous tour? Or the tour before that? Or the one before that? How come their appearance at the Isle of Wight Festival in 2007 didn't push them past The Beatles?

He's just trolling for responses. Don't take the bait.

The Beatles still amaze me.


Me too.

I wonder, if The Stones continue touring into their 80s, will JumpinJackOLantern declare that they are officially greater than sex?

I think The Beatles will be long remembered more than The Stones.

They still bore the hell out of me...

Quote
michaelsavage
They still bore the hell out of me...

Lol

Love them since 1964 when my Dad brought home "Meet The Beatles" (I was 6).

Stones vs. Beatles is a false argument. They are both great, but there is no question that the Beatles led the way in terms of songwriting and studio innovation. The quality and quantity of what they put out between 1963 and 1970 is astounding when compared to anything since then. Their influence on other artists and the culture at large cannot be minimized.