"Was that Fred Astaire?" Funny!

Quote
whitem8
He would have. He was from Hawaii, and flew to NYC and stalked him for weeks. IT wouldn't have mattered, this nut bag was on a mission. Perhaps if Lennon was in the UK the crazy would not have had easy access to a gun, but then he might have used something else.
Look what happened with George and the nutbag that scaled his high security wall, broke into his house and stabbed him multiple times...sad.

But George lived because the guy didn't have a gun.

No he lived because his wife knocked the man out. Who's to say what would have happened had Olivia not been there. But Harrison always has humor, "[he] wasn't a burglar, and he certainly wasn't auditioning for the Traveling Wilburys."- George Harrison

Quote
whitem8
No he lived because his wife knocked the man out.

Shouting "Hare Krishna" saved him.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
whitem8
No he lived because his wife knocked the man out.

Shouting "Hare Krishna" saved him.

When I first heard that, I couldn't believe it. Hey, George, perhaps if you went down there with a Smith & Wessen, you probably wouldn't have been stabbed.

Quote
whitem8
No he lived because his wife knocked the man out. Who's to say what would have happened had Olivia not been there. But Harrison always has humor, "[he] wasn't a burglar, and he certainly wasn't auditioning for the Traveling Wilburys."- George Harrison

If the guy had a gun then Harrison would have been dead.

Regarding that clip, I remember seeing it when it was first broadcast. I'm talking about the interview at MSG, not the compliation that the reporter put together. I remember Jagger high-tailing it out of there.

Quote
tomk
Regarding that clip, I remember seeing it when it was first broadcast. I'm talking about the interview at MSG, not the compliation that the reporter put together. I remember Jagger high-tailing it out of there.

Jagger always kept the press at a distance. Lennon lept at any chance to talk about himself..

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
whitem8
No he lived because his wife knocked the man out.

Shouting "Hare Krishna" saved him.

Actually, Harrison greeted the intruder with a "Hare Krishna" when he saw the young man standing there at the bottom of the stairs, and considering his mission and what he thought of Harrison, upon hearing these words the intruder erupted into a full-throttled rage and proceeded then and there to carry out the attack.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
whitem8
No he lived because his wife knocked the man out.

Shouting "Hare Krishna" saved him.

Actually, Harrison greeted the intruder with a "Hare Krishna" when he saw the young man standing there at the bottom of the stairs, and considering his mission and what he thought of Harrison, upon hearing these words the intruder erupted into a full-throttled rage and proceeded then and there to carry out the attack.

No. According to Olivia in the documentary, he chanted when he saw the intruder, knowing he was in some sort of trouble. Chanting the Hare Krishna mantra and just saying Hare Krishna are two different things.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
whitem8
He would have. He was from Hawaii, and flew to NYC and stalked him for weeks. IT wouldn't have mattered, this nut bag was on a mission. Perhaps if Lennon was in the UK the crazy would not have had easy access to a gun, but then he might have used something else.
Look what happened with George and the nutbag that scaled his high security wall, broke into his house and stabbed him multiple times...sad.

But George lived because the guy didn't have a gun.

Not necessarily. Lennon was killed--and in a matter of seconds rather than some time later in the back of a police car as commonly believed--because of the hollow-point bullets that were used. One of the doctors who treated Lennon commented that even if Lennon had hypothetically been shot with those hollow-point bullets right there in the emergency room just a few feet from a stretcher with doctors and ER personnel on hand to treat him, they still wouldn't have been able to save him.

Otherwise, the marksmanship of Lennon's assassin was rather sloppy--one of the shots actually missed him completely despite the fact that the killer was practically standing right behind him when opening fire.

Lennons killing still makes me mad to think about. I've watched the youtube coverage of his killer and the guy had absolutely no damned reason for any of it. Pathetic little loser feels so insecure he feels he needs to do something dramatic just to be noticed so why not Kill John Lennon? Schizofrenia of course again plays a role and in some cases I feel sorry for people suffering from this horrible desease. Not in this case though as the guy knew damned well it was wrong what he was doing but felt so insignificant he went and did it anyway. I wonder has this bag of puke ever felt better for doing what he did after the fact? Is he looked on as a hero by the other shitbirds occupying space in whatever prison holds him? I doubt it!

Good post rob51.

Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
Good post rob51.

Ssshhh! Agreed...

2 1 2 0

Quote
rob51
Lennons killing still makes me mad to think about. I've watched the youtube coverage of his killer and the guy had absolutely no damned reason for any of it. Pathetic little loser feels so insecure he feels he needs to do something dramatic just to be noticed so why not Kill John Lennon? Schizofrenia of course again plays a role and in some cases I feel sorry for people suffering from this horrible desease. Not in this case though as the guy knew damned well it was wrong what he was doing but felt so insignificant he went and did it anyway. I wonder has this bag of puke ever felt better for doing what he did after the fact? Is he looked on as a hero by the other shitbirds occupying space in whatever prison holds him? I doubt it!

"They changed the world and I changed them." In his mind, that probably makes him the ultimate Beatles fan. He seems very proud of himself.

Quote
rob51
Lennons killing still makes me mad to think about. I've watched the youtube coverage of his killer and the guy had absolutely no damned reason for any of it. Pathetic little loser feels so insecure he feels he needs to do something dramatic just to be noticed so why not Kill John Lennon? Schizofrenia of course again plays a role and in some cases I feel sorry for people suffering from this horrible desease. Not in this case though as the guy knew damned well it was wrong what he was doing but felt so insignificant he went and did it anyway. I wonder has this bag of puke ever felt better for doing what he did after the fact? Is he looked on as a hero by the other shitbirds occupying space in whatever prison holds him? I doubt it!

He has had to be held in solitary confinement and segregated from the prison population because of death threats... this guy still makes me angry, and I was so angry that Larry King gave him the spotlight he so wanted by interviewing him. This senseless violent act robbed Lennon of his life, Yoko her husband, and Julian and Sean their father, and the world a talent and friend. I still sometimes can't believe he is gone. The Dream is Over.....

Quote
whitem8

This senseless violent act robbed Lennon of his life, Yoko her husband, and Julian and Sean their father, and the world a talent and friend.

It also took much of the fun out of being a Beatles fan. It changed the way I experience the Beatles. I have never been able to hear John's voice or even look at a photo of him in quite the same way.

Yeah me too Tatters... There is always a tinge of sadness when I see films, pics and hear Lennon. But at the end of the day, I come around and still get a lot of pleasure and enjoyment. I was driving from Saginaw to Birmingham the other day and listened to Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, and got through most of Mind Games before I reached my destination, then on the way home finished Mind Games, Walls and Bridges and Rock and Roll...what a great collection of material from a solo career. Such a variety of material and so much passion. Lennon's solo stuff always has intrigued me and going back to it and listening to all his albums pre 1980 was a fun ride. But also sad when you start thinking about what he would have done and be doing now...

Right rob51, tatters and most of you. Long drives, solo, Lennon on xLoud. Entire works incl. boots. Chronological. The drive slides on by. Simply put, I was (still am) happier for his efforts. Clearly remember driving down the Mount Pleasant hill, hearing Starting Over as it was released ... Recognizing instantly who it was. That voice. Tears of joy welling up - finally, he's back... and then.
That little @#$%& with a gun. piece of shit.
What might have been ? I'd be willing to bet that I'd still be buying his stuff the day it was released, just like always. Loving most of it instantly - letting the rest grow on me as it usually did, just like always. I guess I've come to realize that always ..., damn. Stop reading this now and go put on Leave My Kitten Alone, or pretty much anything else he sang.

Sorry folks, I should have added (since this is a B's vs. S's thread) that the Stones are still the Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the world. There is no question in my mind. Have been since 1970. Somehow they, collectively or individually however, don't/didn't have the same effect on me as John Lennon did/does. John Lennon was the rock. John Lennon was the roll.

Quote
tatters



"They changed the world and I changed them." In his mind, that probably makes him the ultimate Beatles fan. He seems very proud of himself.

More than that, I'd say in his mind this probably makes him God.

God knows what John's recorded output would have been if he'd lived. Double Fantasy wasn't that great. It was rather creaky but sounded like he was on the comeback trail. No, what that little a-hole cheated me out of was growing old with Lennon and hearing his opinions. I had long ago accepted that Lennon was sometimes comically jealous of the Stones at some level, while also defending his own band. John was always interesting, if sometimes full of BS. That little jerk took someone very special from me. And for what? People barely say his name and he'll be locked up until his last wasted breath.

Quote
24FPS
. John was always interesting, .

I guess opinions very on that. I found him to be nothing but boring. Nothing more boring then listening to someone with an obvious complex do nothing but talk about themselves, and this is all he was about. A complete Narcissist.

I am unable to accept the basic premise of the thread title.

"Beatles v Stones".

Why is it always one against the other. I prefer to think of them as..

"Beatles AND Stones"

They were/are different bands and there's absolutely nothing wrong with greatly appreciating both.

Someone much wiser than me (hi Jon!) once wrote.. "The Beatles were the greatest Pop band ever, and The Rolling Stones are the greatest Rock band ever." I can live with that.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
CaptainCorella
I am unable to accept the basic premise of the thread title.

"Beatles v Stones".

Why is it always one against the other. I prefer to think of them as..

"Beatles AND Stones"

They were/are different bands and there's absolutely nothing wrong with greatly appreciating both.

Someone much wiser than me (hi Jon!) once wrote.. "The Beatles were the greatest Pop band ever, and The Rolling Stones are the greatest Rock band ever." I can live with that.

If we move back to 1965, it was fun to be a fan of a 'own' band, because I thought that The Beatles were for girls, and the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix for the tough guys ... it was fun ...

2 1 2 0

When I was growing up, two of the big Beatles hits compilations were: The Beatles: 1962 - 1966 and The Beatles: 1967-1970. And of course the Stones greatest compilation will always be Hot Rocks 1964-71. If you add a year to the Stones to make the time frames comparable, you would have:

The Beatles 1962 - 1970
Stones: 1964 - 1972

When you look at the studio album output quantity wise during those similar time frames, both groups had 12 or 13 studio albums. The Beatles of course were much more commercially successful but the Stones sold a lot of records too in their own right (just not nearly as many as the Beatles - but of course who did back then). But quality wise when you consider the output of these two groups during that time frame, it is just staggering looking back! Being the 'objective' Stones fan that I am, I'll put the Stones output right up there with the Beatles and even beyond. My friends would expect nothing less coming from me!

I agree with you and would add that I find it painfully difficult to listen to early Beatles records. The terrible pop tracks on those first few records (A Taste of Honey, Do You Want To Know A Secret, etc) are just awful. Contrast that to the Stones first few records and it is like listening to early punk. I was not alive during that era so maybe it felt drastically different to the masses at the time..

My comment to Beatles fans is simply to point out how few songs they like prior to Rubber Soul. Favorite Beatles songs always land in the psychedelic era. No one actually listens to those first few bubblegum pop records. In contrast, I would be proud for anyone to throw any early Stones record on a turntable. Earlier today I was listening to Now! telling my better half about Brian Jones playing slide all over Little Red Rooster. There is nothing similar in the Beatles catalog.

To quote Jason and the Scorchers...

"And he yells, and he roars! Loves the Stones, hates the Doors! Thinks the Beatles sing for girls! He's a moonshine guy in a sixpack world!"

"With the Beatles" and "A Hard Day's Night" are two of the greatest hard rock albums ever. Early Beatles rocks the house down, bursting with energy, excitement and creativity whereas early Stones albums in comparison are kinda drab, highly derivative, on par with the Yardbirds and Animals, good, but nothing spectacular.

Don't know that I've ever quite thought of the Beatles as "hard rock".

I loved those early Stones albums and still do.