Tell Me :
Talk
__________________________
Where's the love for Bing Crosby?
The Beatles excelled at rock and roll for 3-4 years (from 1963 to 1966). But, from Sgt. Pepper through the end of their career, their strongest tracks were ballads and except for a handful of decent rock tracks on the White Album, there's very little rock and roll, and most of it is relatively weak. That's not to say it isn't great - MMT is arguably track for track their strongest album (7 of the 11 cuts are on the blue hits album), but there's zero rock and roll - it just isn't rock.
Sgt. Pepper - Sgt. Pepper (reprise)
Magical Mystery Tour - None.
Yellow Submarine - Hey Bulldog
Abbey Road - Come Together, I Want You, Oh Darling
Let It Be - I Dig a Pony, I've Got a Feeling, Get Back, One After 909
Since no-one can make better rock than Stones did with 'It's All Over Now' and 'Around and Around' Lennon thought Let's do something new...what kind of music-loving person doesn't love songs like 'Tomorrow never knows ' and 'Happiness is a warm gun'??? or 'Because' and 'Girl'?
2 1 2 0
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-02 10:22 by Come On.
you might want to go back and give these albums a listen, as you're missing numerous tracks.
leaving aside the white album also seems a little silly. the time period you're discussing encompasses 3 years of recording, to somehow call a double album an aberration just doesn't make sense.
in the time period you're discussing, the stones released exactly 3 studio albums. the beatles released over 2 times as much music in this time period.
indeed, it's safe to say that from 67-69 the beatles released more rock n roll music than the stones did. just because they were more prolific and went in other directions as well doesn't diminish that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-02 11:27 by sonomastone.
Come together, revolution, Lucy in the sky with diamonds...
Strawberry fields was issued as a double a with penny lane. First beatles single to not go to #1 because they split the vote.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-02 11:52 by sonomastone.
Well, it didn't matter that Strawberry Fields wasn't an A-side, since at the time the market was hungry enough for new Beatles singles that they would have made both sides hits, which is exactly what happened. However, depending on where you were, I recall that Strawberry Fields only got as high as #8 but Penny Lane was #1. A Day In The Life is a bit hard to dance to, unless you're a bit dizzy.
Exactly. So the "lack of interest" still provided some of the best songs the Beatles ever wrote and performed, imo
Agreed in fact maybe a closer battle than "beatles vs stones" would be "john Lennon beatles songs vs the stones". It would be close.
Sounds like a collaboration to me. from wiki
The song was recorded without George Harrison (who was on holiday) and Ringo Starr (who was filming The Magic Christian). In his biography, McCartney recalls that Lennon had a sudden inspiration for the song and had suggested that the two of them should record it immediately, without waiting for the other Beatles to return.
Personnel Per Ian MacDonald and Mark Lewisohn:
John Lennon – lead vocal, lead guitars, acoustic guitar, percussion
Paul McCartney – harmony vocal, bass, drums, piano, maracas
As the Beatles might say, "don't bring me down".
You can always distort things.
Hello Goodbye is pretty lightweight. Jumpin Jack Flash is the best Stones song.
To compare these two tracks is unfair.
You can also take Gomper and pair it next to A Day In The Life, to make people believe that The Stones is all hippie-rubbish. It's too easy.
Now THAT is original!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: April 1, 2014 22:35
You are so right Deltics, some people get very hung up and defensive to have the pop label anywhere near the music they like...
But yeah, pop is popular music. Mick Jagger has even called the glorious Rolling Stones a pop group! Everything that was popular in the early 60s was labeled as pop...
But yeah, pop is popular music. Mick Jagger has even called the glorious Rolling Stones a pop group! Everything that was popular in the early 60s was labeled as pop...
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: April 1, 2014 23:02
Quote
DelticsQuote
NICOS
And Rock ain't POP..........but I'm glad we have them both......
Last time I looked, pop was short for popular and as far as I'm concerned pop is Frank Sinatra and Nirvana as well as the Beatles and Stones.
__________________________
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 2, 2014 04:08
Quote
NICOSQuote
DelticsQuote
NICOS
And Rock ain't POP..........but I'm glad we have them both......
Last time I looked, pop was short for popular and as far as I'm concerned pop is Frank Sinatra and Nirvana as well as the Beatles and Stones.
Where's the love for Bing Crosby?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: April 2, 2014 09:48
Quote
nightskyman
Rock and roll and pop music group, both of which the Beatles excelled at. There's examples of both on all of their albums.
The Beatles excelled at rock and roll for 3-4 years (from 1963 to 1966). But, from Sgt. Pepper through the end of their career, their strongest tracks were ballads and except for a handful of decent rock tracks on the White Album, there's very little rock and roll, and most of it is relatively weak. That's not to say it isn't great - MMT is arguably track for track their strongest album (7 of the 11 cuts are on the blue hits album), but there's zero rock and roll - it just isn't rock.
Sgt. Pepper - Sgt. Pepper (reprise)
Magical Mystery Tour - None.
Yellow Submarine - Hey Bulldog
Abbey Road - Come Together, I Want You, Oh Darling
Let It Be - I Dig a Pony, I've Got a Feeling, Get Back, One After 909
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: April 2, 2014 10:20
Quote
drbryantQuote
nightskyman
Rock and roll and pop music group, both of which the Beatles excelled at. There's examples of both on all of their albums.
The Beatles excelled at rock and roll for 3-4 years (from 1963 to 1966). But, from Sgt. Pepper through the end of their career, their strongest tracks were ballads and except for a handful of decent rock tracks on the White Album, there's very little rock and roll, and most of it is relatively weak. That's not to say it isn't great - MMT is arguably track for track their strongest album (7 of the 11 cuts are on the blue hits album), but there's zero rock and roll - it just isn't rock.
Sgt. Pepper - Sgt. Pepper (reprise)
Magical Mystery Tour - None.
Yellow Submarine - Hey Bulldog
Abbey Road - Come Together, I Want You, Oh Darling
Let It Be - I Dig a Pony, I've Got a Feeling, Get Back, One After 909
Since no-one can make better rock than Stones did with 'It's All Over Now' and 'Around and Around' Lennon thought Let's do something new...what kind of music-loving person doesn't love songs like 'Tomorrow never knows ' and 'Happiness is a warm gun'??? or 'Because' and 'Girl'?
2 1 2 0
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-02 10:22 by Come On.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: April 2, 2014 10:30
<<The Beatles excelled at rock and roll for 3-4 years (from 1963 to 1966). But, from Sgt. Pepper through the end of their career, their strongest tracks were ballads and except for a handful of decent rock tracks on the White Album, there's very little rock and roll, and most of it is relatively weak.>>
What you've described there is how the Beatles went from being led and driven by Lennon to being led and driven by McCartney.
After 1966, McCartney's drive accelerated and he always came up with the goods, whereas Lennon's songwriting output diminished along with his interest. After 1965, John Lennon sang on only two A-sides--Nowhere Man in 1966 and All You Need Is Love in 1967. Ballad of John and Yoko was basically a John solo track with Paul contributing, though it is credited as a Beatles release.
Ringo said it best in the Martin Scorsese documentary on George Harrison recently: "Paul was the reason we made as many albums as we did. I'd be up in Weybridge at John's house and we'd be just sitting around hanging out in the garden and then the phone would ring: 'It's Paul! He wants us to work again.'"
What you've described there is how the Beatles went from being led and driven by Lennon to being led and driven by McCartney.
After 1966, McCartney's drive accelerated and he always came up with the goods, whereas Lennon's songwriting output diminished along with his interest. After 1965, John Lennon sang on only two A-sides--Nowhere Man in 1966 and All You Need Is Love in 1967. Ballad of John and Yoko was basically a John solo track with Paul contributing, though it is credited as a Beatles release.
Ringo said it best in the Martin Scorsese documentary on George Harrison recently: "Paul was the reason we made as many albums as we did. I'd be up in Weybridge at John's house and we'd be just sitting around hanging out in the garden and then the phone would ring: 'It's Paul! He wants us to work again.'"
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: April 2, 2014 10:35
Interesting though that some of the best early rock tracks, like Long Tall Sally, were McCartney vocals. (Got no point here, it's just interesting.)
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: April 2, 2014 11:03
Yes, certainly, as a rock vocalist Little Richard was a big influence on Macca, and he has covered Long Tall Sally numerous times since, more notably at the 1979 Concert for Kampuchea. But, as a writer, he had more deftness with ballads than Lennon and went there more often.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: April 2, 2014 11:17
Quote
drbryantQuote
nightskyman
Rock and roll and pop music group, both of which the Beatles excelled at. There's examples of both on all of their albums.
The Beatles excelled at rock and roll for 3-4 years (from 1963 to 1966). But, from Sgt. Pepper through the end of their career, their strongest tracks were ballads and except for a handful of decent rock tracks on the White Album, there's very little rock and roll, and most of it is relatively weak. That's not to say it isn't great - MMT is arguably track for track their strongest album (7 of the 11 cuts are on the blue hits album), but there's zero rock and roll - it just isn't rock.
Sgt. Pepper - Sgt. Pepper (reprise)
Magical Mystery Tour - None.
Yellow Submarine - Hey Bulldog
Abbey Road - Come Together, I Want You, Oh Darling
Let It Be - I Dig a Pony, I've Got a Feeling, Get Back, One After 909
you might want to go back and give these albums a listen, as you're missing numerous tracks.
leaving aside the white album also seems a little silly. the time period you're discussing encompasses 3 years of recording, to somehow call a double album an aberration just doesn't make sense.
in the time period you're discussing, the stones released exactly 3 studio albums. the beatles released over 2 times as much music in this time period.
indeed, it's safe to say that from 67-69 the beatles released more rock n roll music than the stones did. just because they were more prolific and went in other directions as well doesn't diminish that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-02 11:27 by sonomastone.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 2, 2014 11:38
<After 1965, John Lennon sang on only two A-sides--Nowhere Man in 1966 and All You Need Is Love in 1967. Ballad of John and Yoko was basically a John solo track with Paul contributing, though it is credited as a Beatles release.>
There were quite a few songs with Lennon on lead vocals that could very well have been A-sides (quality-wise), but some of those might have been Lennon solo-tracks as well. Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, Julia and Across The Universe come to mind.
There were quite a few songs with Lennon on lead vocals that could very well have been A-sides (quality-wise), but some of those might have been Lennon solo-tracks as well. Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, Julia and Across The Universe come to mind.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: April 2, 2014 11:42
I can't understand when Macca suddenly went to be a better rock-singer than Lennon..
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: April 2, 2014 11:48
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<After 1965, John Lennon sang on only two A-sides--Nowhere Man in 1966 and All You Need Is Love in 1967. Ballad of John and Yoko was basically a John solo track with Paul contributing, though it is credited as a Beatles release.>
There were quite a few songs with Lennon on lead vocals that could very well have been A-sides (quality-wise), but some of those might have been Lennon solo-tracks as well. Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, Julia and Across The Universe come to mind.
Come together, revolution, Lucy in the sky with diamonds...
Strawberry fields was issued as a double a with penny lane. First beatles single to not go to #1 because they split the vote.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-02 11:52 by sonomastone.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: April 2, 2014 12:09
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<After 1965, John Lennon sang on only two A-sides--Nowhere Man in 1966 and All You Need Is Love in 1967. Ballad of John and Yoko was basically a John solo track with Paul contributing, though it is credited as a Beatles release.>
There were quite a few songs with Lennon on lead vocals that could very well have been A-sides (quality-wise), but some of those might have been Lennon solo-tracks as well. Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, Julia and Across The Universe come to mind.
Well, it didn't matter that Strawberry Fields wasn't an A-side, since at the time the market was hungry enough for new Beatles singles that they would have made both sides hits, which is exactly what happened. However, depending on where you were, I recall that Strawberry Fields only got as high as #8 but Penny Lane was #1. A Day In The Life is a bit hard to dance to, unless you're a bit dizzy.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 2, 2014 12:12
Quote
sonomastoneQuote
DandelionPowderman
<After 1965, John Lennon sang on only two A-sides--Nowhere Man in 1966 and All You Need Is Love in 1967. Ballad of John and Yoko was basically a John solo track with Paul contributing, though it is credited as a Beatles release.>
There were quite a few songs with Lennon on lead vocals that could very well have been A-sides (quality-wise), but some of those might have been Lennon solo-tracks as well. Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, Julia and Across The Universe come to mind.
Come together, revolution, Lucy in the sky with diamonds...
Strawberry fields was issued as a double a with penny lane. First beatles single to not go to #1 because they split the vote.
Exactly. So the "lack of interest" still provided some of the best songs the Beatles ever wrote and performed, imo
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: April 2, 2014 12:17
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
sonomastoneQuote
DandelionPowderman
<After 1965, John Lennon sang on only two A-sides--Nowhere Man in 1966 and All You Need Is Love in 1967. Ballad of John and Yoko was basically a John solo track with Paul contributing, though it is credited as a Beatles release.>
There were quite a few songs with Lennon on lead vocals that could very well have been A-sides (quality-wise), but some of those might have been Lennon solo-tracks as well. Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, Julia and Across The Universe come to mind.
Come together, revolution, Lucy in the sky with diamonds...
Strawberry fields was issued as a double a with penny lane. First beatles single to not go to #1 because they split the vote.
Exactly. So the "lack of interest" still provided some of the best songs the Beatles ever wrote and performed, imo
Agreed in fact maybe a closer battle than "beatles vs stones" would be "john Lennon beatles songs vs the stones". It would be close.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 2, 2014 12:27
Quote
sonomastoneQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
sonomastoneQuote
DandelionPowderman
<After 1965, John Lennon sang on only two A-sides--Nowhere Man in 1966 and All You Need Is Love in 1967. Ballad of John and Yoko was basically a John solo track with Paul contributing, though it is credited as a Beatles release.>
There were quite a few songs with Lennon on lead vocals that could very well have been A-sides (quality-wise), but some of those might have been Lennon solo-tracks as well. Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, Julia and Across The Universe come to mind.
Come together, revolution, Lucy in the sky with diamonds...
Strawberry fields was issued as a double a with penny lane. First beatles single to not go to #1 because they split the vote.
Exactly. So the "lack of interest" still provided some of the best songs the Beatles ever wrote and performed, imo
Agreed in fact maybe a closer battle than "beatles vs stones" would be "john Lennon beatles songs vs the stones". It would be close.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Braincapers
()
Date: April 2, 2014 12:32
Quote
stonehearted
... Ballad of John and Yoko was basically a John solo track with Paul contributing, though it is credited as a Beatles release.
Sounds like a collaboration to me. from wiki
The song was recorded without George Harrison (who was on holiday) and Ringo Starr (who was filming The Magic Christian). In his biography, McCartney recalls that Lennon had a sudden inspiration for the song and had suggested that the two of them should record it immediately, without waiting for the other Beatles to return.
Personnel Per Ian MacDonald and Mark Lewisohn:
John Lennon – lead vocal, lead guitars, acoustic guitar, percussion
Paul McCartney – harmony vocal, bass, drums, piano, maracas
OT: A Beatles Appreciation Thread For Stones Fans
Posted by:
BlackHat
()
Date: April 2, 2014 14:56
OK, this is just an idea but let's see how it works. Why not treat this thread as a safe haven for those who wish to comment on the Beatles, a band who are inextricably lnked with the Rolling Stones in terms of friendships, influence and even the women they slept with, without getting sucked into "who's best" discussion. For the benefit of the MichaelSavage wing of the IORR kingdom you could just ignore this thread entirely. What's say we give it a go?
Peace and love, peace and love!
Peace and love, peace and love!
Re: OT: A Beatles Appreciation Thread For Stones Fans
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: April 2, 2014 15:01
A very good Idea...
Re: OT: A Beatles Appreciation Thread For Stones Fans
Posted by:
MarthaTuesday
()
Date: April 2, 2014 15:04
I like the Beatles. No-one beats the Stones for me but the Beatles did some great music. And I had a fab time when I went to see Paul a few years back! He put on a good show.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
BlackHat
()
Date: April 2, 2014 15:20
OK, so my positve Beatles thread idea has been merged with the existing negative, confrontational thread. So much for trying to be harmonious.
I give up on this place. Used to be fun. Now it's a drag.
I give up on this place. Used to be fun. Now it's a drag.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 2, 2014 16:15
Quote
BlackHat
OK, so my positve Beatles thread idea has been merged with the existing negative, confrontational thread. So much for trying to be harmonious.
I give up on this place. Used to be fun. Now it's a drag.
As the Beatles might say, "don't bring me down".
Re: OT: A Beatles Appreciation Thread For Stones Fans
Posted by:
jjo
()
Date: April 2, 2014 16:23
Who / what is Michael Savage?
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 2, 2014 18:12
Keith calls bullshit on rivalry:
photo credit: ?
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
photo credit: ?
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Cristiano Radtke
()
Date: April 2, 2014 18:15
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: April 2, 2014 19:03
The Stones music comes from a different place than the Beatles and that's why it sounds so different even though people want to call everything "rock and roll." When the Beatles jam in the studio, they play what they know and love - and out come all those 50's oldies like Kansas City, Shake Rattle & Roll and Rip it Up (in the Let it Be film). When the Stones jam in the studio, they play what they know and love and it sounds like this.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 2, 2014 19:18
Nice video drbryant.
But this here Beatles jam doesn't sound like "50's oldies like Kansas City, Shake Rattle & Roll and Rip it Up" to me.
Granted, maybe not on par with the Stones jam above, but it is indeed a cool jam.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
But this here Beatles jam doesn't sound like "50's oldies like Kansas City, Shake Rattle & Roll and Rip it Up" to me.
Granted, maybe not on par with the Stones jam above, but it is indeed a cool jam.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Blueranger
()
Date: April 2, 2014 20:40
Quote
drbryant
I was 8 years old, and I had a decision to make. I went with what my heart told me sounded better.
You can always distort things.
Hello Goodbye is pretty lightweight. Jumpin Jack Flash is the best Stones song.
To compare these two tracks is unfair.
You can also take Gomper and pair it next to A Day In The Life, to make people believe that The Stones is all hippie-rubbish. It's too easy.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: April 2, 2014 20:54
Would anybody be comparing the Stones and Beatles if one or the other had made all their stuff in the 60s and one or the other made it all in the 90s?...............
Re: OT: A Beatles Appreciation Thread For Stones Fans
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: April 2, 2014 23:04
Quote
jjo
Who / what is Michael Savage?
Now THAT is original!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
AJDuffer , bluecore , BustedButton , chris girard , ChrisL , corstones , Dan , DandelionPowderman , eduardoacdc , emotionalbarbecue , girl2003 , harald2002 , Hound Dog , HouseBoyKnows , Irix , keefriffhards , lenchik , mab1888 , midimannz , Musicwinn , Nankstone , Nosnibourbos , Paddy , Racca1962 , rockdriguez67 , spunky , stillife , Stilllife09 , thecitadel , toomanycds , TW2019 , vibrolux , WembleyWhammer , yahozna
Guests:
1121
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10