Quote
Socrates1

Quote
Blueranger

That's Tony Bramwell. Jagger didn't even had that kind of haircut in january 1969.

That's weird though, he does kind of look like a blurry version of Mick.

Through this photo, he's also been mis identified as Keith before.

[farm4.static.flickr.com]

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
His Majesty
They actually started recording for a new album/single whatever in November 1968.

Yes, YCAGWYW and Memo From Turner but the LP title didn't come along until much later.

Maybe more, but the title doesn't matter that much, it's when the song was written that's important.

It's a piece of throw away nonsense though, so bleugh to Let It Bleed.

...

Anyway, for the many Beatles fanatics that can't see or hear past the walls of Abbey Road, no reasonable explanation or evidence will change their opinion that Let It Bleed is the stones copying the Beatles.

I think if the Stones had copied the Beatles they would've copied the Beatles. They didn't. The Stones wrote Let It Bleed, the song, prior to going into or during the sessions in Olympic Studio in February through March 1969. The Beatles recorded Let It Be in January of 1969 at Apple.

No matter what, the timeline is evident that no one in the Stones would know that the Beatles were going to call what was then GET BACK LET IT BE instead. And why would they possibly hear a song and then write one with a similar title? That's just ridiculous. And, gripes aside from sniggering Beatles people who insist on spreading misinformation, the Stones did not copy THE BEATLES album cover either since they had nothing to do with the RSVP cover of BEGGARS BANQUET.

The Beatles copied the stones by using Epiphone Casinos. Also by recording at Olympic Studios, using Glyn Johns, achieving guitar distortion via unconvential means, etc etc.

#postilikeabeatlesdickhead

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
His Majesty
They actually started recording for a new album/single whatever in November 1968.

Yes, YCAGWYW and Memo From Turner but the LP title didn't come along until much later.

Maybe more, but the title doesn't matter that much, it's when the song was written that's important.

It's a piece of throw away nonsense though, so bleugh to Let It Bleed.

...

Anyway, for the many Beatles fanatics that can't see or hear past the walls of Abbey Road, no reasonable explanation or evidence will change their opinion that Let It Bleed is the stones copying the Beatles.

I think if the Stones had copied the Beatles they would've copied the Beatles. They didn't. The Stones wrote Let It Bleed, the song, prior to going into or during the sessions in Olympic Studio in February through March 1969. The Beatles recorded Let It Be in January of 1969 at Apple.

No matter what, the timeline is evident that no one in the Stones would know that the Beatles were going to call what was then GET BACK LET IT BE instead. And why would they possibly hear a song and then write one with a similar title? That's just ridiculous. And, gripes aside from sniggering Beatles people who insist on spreading misinformation, the Stones did not copy THE BEATLES album cover either since they had nothing to do with the RSVP cover of BEGGARS BANQUET.

The song was always called Let It Be, the movie was initially to be called Get Back. The Stones certainly had opportunities to hear the song in early 1969 (see above). If it was written in response (which is possible but no one on the inside has ever admitted that was the case), I don't see it as "copying", but rather a crude parody and a bit of a dig. Let It Be is spiritual and hymn-like, where Let It Bleed is quite bawdy with references to drugs and an invitation to that "space in my parking lot"! Totally opposite songs.

If that is the case, I think it's hilarious! It is not impossible that the songs are related that way at all.

I somewhat agree Ross, but I doubt LIB was any sort of a dig at their Beatle brethren.
On the contrary, I'm sure the Beatles were just as amused as the Stones were with their 'crude parody'.
They probably all got high together and celebrated, and John probably wished he could have written it himself.

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

Quote
Hairball
I somewhat agree Ross, but I doubt LIB was any sort of a dig at their Beatle brethren.
On the contrary, I'm sure the Beatles were just as amused as the Stones were with their 'crude parody'.
They probably all got high together and celebrated, and John probably wished he could have written it himself.

Exactly! It would certainly be a good-natured dig, all in fun, they were friends. We may never know for sure, but it is definitely not impossible, and not "copying".

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
His Majesty
They actually started recording for a new album/single whatever in November 1968.

Yes, YCAGWYW and Memo From Turner but the LP title didn't come along until much later.

Maybe more.

Anyway, for the many Beatles fanatics that can't see or hear past the walls of Abbey Road, no reasonable explanation or evidence will change their opinion that Let It Bleed is the stones copying the Beatles.

Yeah, and Crossy Road is a ripoff off Abbey Road.

Quote
Ross

Quote
Hairball
I somewhat agree Ross, but I doubt LIB was any sort of a dig at their Beatle brethren.
On the contrary, I'm sure the Beatles were just as amused as the Stones were with their 'crude parody'.
They probably all got high together and celebrated, and John probably wished he could have written it himself.

Exactly! It would certainly be a good-natured dig, all in fun, they were friends. We may never know for sure, but it is definitely not impossible, and not "copying".

I think this is right; at least this is how it felt when i was in the last year of high school or so and all this stuff was coming out. I think my friends and I made the general connection right away of course, and it was a bit the scoffing laugh but no more; it seemed to fit in with both a John and Mick kind of satiric knowing attitude, but clearly among friends casually, not snide swiping each other... the two groups were both really loved and respected and looked at for their own unique vibe and sound. I think you nailed it.

Quote
Ross

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
His Majesty
They actually started recording for a new album/single whatever in November 1968.

Yes, YCAGWYW and Memo From Turner but the LP title didn't come along until much later.

Maybe more, but the title doesn't matter that much, it's when the song was written that's important.

It's a piece of throw away nonsense though, so bleugh to Let It Bleed.

...

Anyway, for the many Beatles fanatics that can't see or hear past the walls of Abbey Road, no reasonable explanation or evidence will change their opinion that Let It Bleed is the stones copying the Beatles.

...the timeline is evident that no one in the Stones would know that the Beatles were going to call what was then GET BACK LET IT BE instead.

The song was always called Let It Be, the movie was initially to be called Get Back. The Stones certainly had opportunities to hear the song in early 1969 (see above).

The album, not the song. Phil Spector renamed GET BACK to LET IT BE.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
His Majesty
They actually started recording for a new album/single whatever in November 1968.

Yes, YCAGWYW and Memo From Turner but the LP title didn't come along until much later.

Maybe more.

Anyway, for the many Beatles fanatics that can't see or hear past the walls of Abbey Road, no reasonable explanation or evidence will change their opinion that Let It Bleed is the stones copying the Beatles.

Pure Rubbish

Not pure rubbish at all, there is many a Beatle fan that behaves as if The Beatles invented music itself. ><

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Ross

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
His Majesty
They actually started recording for a new album/single whatever in November 1968.

Yes, YCAGWYW and Memo From Turner but the LP title didn't come along until much later.

Maybe more, but the title doesn't matter that much, it's when the song was written that's important.

It's a piece of throw away nonsense though, so bleugh to Let It Bleed.

...

Anyway, for the many Beatles fanatics that can't see or hear past the walls of Abbey Road, no reasonable explanation or evidence will change their opinion that Let It Bleed is the stones copying the Beatles.

...the timeline is evident that no one in the Stones would know that the Beatles were going to call what was then GET BACK LET IT BE instead.

The song was always called Let It Be, the movie was initially to be called Get Back. The Stones certainly had opportunities to hear the song in early 1969 (see above).

The album, not the song. Phil Spector renamed GET BACK to LET IT BE.

No, the MOVIE title was changed from "Get Back" to "Let It Be", so the album was also called "Let It Be" to coincide with the movie. That wasn't Phil Spector's call. My point was that The Stones easily had the opportunity to hear the hymn-like, uplifting (kind of sappy) "Let It Be" (song) in plenty of time to write "Let It Bleed" as a parody. The Album/Movie name change is irrelevant to that. I am not saying that definitely happened ( I wasn't there), just that it makes sense given the similar titles and timeline. And, it's great rock-n-roll anecdote if true!

Yeah it is not copying at all. Both are very different songs, and I am sure Mick saw this as a great opportunity to end the 60s with a nice ironic parody. Nothing malicious and I am sure The Beatles dug it. And it sure is a good commentary about how terrible The Beatles broke up. Let it bleed indeed!

Quote
His Majesty
The Beatles copied the Stones by using Epiphone Casinos. Also by recording at Olympic Studios,
using Glyn Johns, achieving guitar distortion via unconventional means, etc etc.
#postilikeabeatlesdickhead

:E :E :E

Quote
Ross

Quote
GasLightStreet
The album, not the song. Phil Spector renamed GET BACK to LET IT BE.

No, the MOVIE title was changed from "Get Back" to "Let It Be", so the album was also called "Let It Be" to coincide with the movie. That wasn't Phil Spector's call.

I recall reading it somewhere that it was his idea to name the album, which happened in March 1970 when he worked on the album. I always thought that was odd. The timing of him working on the album and the title being changed seems a bit weird.

During the time that the 'Get Back' project was on hold for a year, the Beatles actually broke up, this time John Lennon being the one to quit. However, John was persuaded to keep quiet about the dissolution of the group until new manager Allen Klein could re-negotiate their contract with Capitol. Meanwhile, Klein had decided to market the film as a full-length motion picture hoping to satisfy the Beatles film contract (they still owed one film). By this time nobody, especially the Beatles themselves wanted to touch the 'Get Back' project. So, Klein brought in legendary producer Phil Spector to piece an album together out of the virtual miles and miles of tape. Although Spector's "wall of sound" production might seem contrary to the original concept of "The Beatles As Nature Intended," Spector did an admirable job considering what he had to work with. Plus, his work must have pleased at least two Beatles, since Lennon and Harrison employed Spector well into the ‘70s as producer on solo albums. By this time, the title of the project had changed from "Get Back" (which had been released as a single in 1969) to "Let It Be".

[earcandy_mag.tripod.com]

Looks familiar eh?

Quote
GasLightStreet
Looks familiar eh?

[www.45worlds.com]



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

John and Cynthia in Marrakesh December 1967.

[68.media.tumblr.com]

Pfft! Clearly copying the stones.

@Gaslight, No one is debating that the album was initially called Get Back. Everybody knows that. I just doubt seriously that the change was Phil Spector's call. The article you quoted implies that had more to do with the amount of time that had passed since the Get Back single. Let It Be was the new single and it was hot. Also, since the band was essentially broken up by the time it was released, the title made sense.

Quote
His Majesty
John and Cynthia in Marrakesh December 1967.

[68.media.tumblr.com]

Pfft! Clearly copying the stones.

Thanks for the photo......Cynthia looking none too happy with life.
I wonder if young Julian went along also?

Quote
His Majesty
The Beatles copied the stones by using Epiphone Casinos. Also by recording at Olympic Studios, using Glyn Johns, achieving guitar distortion via unconvential means, etc etc.

#postilikeabeatlesdickhead

Beatle Boots

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
His Majesty
The Beatles copied the stones by using Epiphone Casinos. Also by recording at Olympic Studios, using Glyn Johns, achieving guitar distortion via unconvential means, etc etc.

#postilikeabeatlesdickhead

Beatle Boots

Yes, no one, but the Beatles had ever worn them before they did.

The Stones' first lp, 1964, no artist name or title on the cover.


The Beatles' last lp, 1969, no artist name or title on the cover.





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

So blatant! Note the non matching clothes as well!

Quote
Deltics
The Stones' first lp, 1964, no artist name or title on the cover.


The Beatles' last lp, 1969, no artist name or title on the cover.

Beatles / provincial inferiority complex to Londoners - when continuously complaining about "copy".