I've actually never been much of a Beatles fan - maybe if the Stones and Beatles sounded alike, I would've been more of a fan. In the 1970 interview that's all over the media today, John claims that everytime the Beatles put something out, two months later, the Stones put out the same thing - I can't see what he's talking about - can anyone else?

Yesterday - As Tears Go By
a song - Lady Jane
Sgt Pepper - Their Satanic Majesties Request
White album - Beggars Banquet (white cover, and rock instead of phychedelic)
Let It Be - Let It Bleed

Im sure theres plenty more.

no.....he was sick at the time and under the care of a doctor....
everyone has copied someone else..the stones were into many of the same things as the beatles were...same as chuck berry, muddy walters, who, jerry lee lewis..
etc...it was the times..in fact i think the beatles tried to copy the stones bad boy image..but couldn't. thats why john states his dislike for his fans....

Yes, hot stuff, I only listed typically "imitation-stuff-to-claim" (couldnt find the right word). Just assuring that I dont agree either.

its not like the beatles cornered the market on ballads like "yesterday". the stones put out ballads before ATGB, right? and the whole music world was psychedelic when sgt pepper's and satanic majesties request came out. the title let it bleed is very similar to let it be, true, but the songs are not...

funny part was that the beatles went into the nice good boy band, pretty paul..1st boy band and andrew oldham took the stones into a different direction...the bad boy image..would you let your daughter marry a rolling stone?...i want to hold your hand/ lets spend the night together......
john and the beatles could not match the stones kick off to the 70's with sticky fingers.....the beatles were a 60's band and sadly their fans wouldn't let them move on.....they are still known for their 60's stuff....after 1969 world tour and the release of sticky fingers...the stones were now not just a 60's band but a band of the times....just like some girls rocked the stones into the 80's...
jagger was alway just a little bit a head of his time.....still is!

I recall back in 83 after Paul McCartney did that duet with Michael Jackson, Say Say Say, Mick did State of Shock with him shortly after. Again, the press were making comments of the Stones doing something shortly after the Beatles!

George played sitar on Norwegian Wood shortly before Brian played it on PIB.

Jealous? Not.
"Anything you can do, I can do better."
Beatles = nice
Stones = scary
Beatles = imaginary world
Stones = raunchy real world
I can't back any of this up.
It's my gut feeling.

mick didn't copy paul...paul was out 1st so you would think that jagger would cover many of the things that paul did....but jagger for the most part didn't go out to be a little paul;....the devil himself took a lil from everyone...
the man of wealth and tastes made his own mark being jagger...

brian jones played more things than anyone before of after him...look up the date they recorded, lady jane, paint it black, as tears go by, etc...brian made thing sound better...and everyone at the time tried to copy brian..in fact even the beatles wanted brian....

Totally disagree the Stones are by far bigger then the Beatles if nothing more then the fact the Stones are still together today and making new music and touring and selling out concerts. The Beattles broke up what 35 years ago sure they were big in there time but they should not even be compared to the stones these days because the beatles are has beens.

i hate stupid unthinking comments, but i have to make on right now:


STONES RULE . . . BEATLES DROOL!!!

that felt good

ps the substance of what I said wasn't stupid -its true, in fact. i just didnt provide any evidence

who copied who? brian jones and his rolling stones recorded, ride on baby in 1965 and brian played, the harpsichord, koto and the marimbas...being bored of the guitar brian took the stones into a new and higher direction....

i truely believe everyone has copied from someone else...the beatles were the very best at what they did and the rolling stones are the very best at what they did! they are the 2 best bands of all-time...they were like heads or tails...good or bad...sinner or saint! yesterday/today!

If anything, Lennon's later interviews show a bitter and twisted man, jealous in his own way of his other contemporaries and their ability to keep going and making strong records, when he was little more than his domineering, control-freak wife's bitch and househusband

That interview is old news and was even published in book form in the early 70's ("Lennon Remembers"). Amazed its a big deal to anyone to be honest. The whole interview is full of that crap.

he makes all of us setlist whiners sound like we're full of sweetness and light by comparison....

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Let It Be - Let It Bleed
>
> Im sure theres plenty more.


umm check your dates, let it bleed was released before Let it be. Damn Beatles copying the Stones again!

Pfft never cares of those sixties band. Add to that that the Stones made their best at the end of the 60's - 70's and even now with ABB.

Sad but true, the first thing I ever heard of mr. Lennon was that awful day in New York. When I grew up in the late '70's and '80's the Beatles were not much of a issue, only for historians. I got a bit fed up with this recyling historians keeping up the relevance of the Beatles. Sure they were important but come on, enough is enough.

I think both the beatles and the stones were following dylan when they called an end to their psychedelic phases. His John Wesley Harding album surprised a lot of people in 1967.

cc

Hadn't the "Let it Be" single been released for some time before the album of the same name?

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hadn't the "Let it Be" single been released for
> some time before the album of the same name

the single was released before the album on March 16, 1970 but that was well after Let it bleed was released in Nov 1969

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yesterday - As Tears Go By
> a song - Lady Jane
> Sgt Pepper - Their Satanic Majesties Request
> White album - Beggars Banquet (white cover, and
> rock instead of phychedelic)
> Let It Be - Let It Bleed

And... ?? Connections (more than that both the 67´s albums contained a sitar?)

....."Anyone agree with John Lennon that Mick was jealous and the Stones imitated the Beatles?" No.

On the other hand, is a complicated ethnological or anthropologicál thing...
The Stones is Beatles bad or mean antipode.
Lennon is also wellknown for expressing himself in a drastic & headline-friendly way.

John Lennon was a selfish peice of crap. Great musician, but a selfish piece of crap. I think he was intimidated by the Stones' succes, and the fact that the Beatles were seen as "the group that wants to hold your hand". So he made up silly excuses.

I disgust the Beatles, but I think John Lennon's solo stuff is ok.

Yeah, he was selfish or ego alright; but our boys are too, arent they?
(well, not Charlie!! & Certainly not Ron)... Glimmer Twins, anyone?

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, he was selfish or ego alright; but our boys
> are too, arent they?
> (well, not Charlie!! & Certainly not Ron)...
> Glimmer Twins, anyone?

Ofcourse they are. That's how they made it to the top. I'm not saying they're not.

The Stones were influenced by the Beatles in many ways, most of them good. I'm not sure that Mick and Keith would have developed as a songwriting team (first coming up with Last Time) if not for Lennon-McCartney. I think that the development we saw with Between the Buttons/Aftermath was influenced by Rubber Soul/Dylan. The only time the Beatles influence caused the Stones to go astray was Satanic Majesties. After that, I think that the Stu, Keith and the rest realized that they should do what they do best -- the result was the golden period that stretched from JJF to Exile. I don't see any influence at all there. Can you imagine Mick and Keith sitting in a hotel room listening to "Ram" and comparing it to Sticky Fingers and laughing?

The only similarity Majesties/Peppers is that both has sitars & maybe
Gomper shows slightly, tiny resemblances with Within You, Without You. The rest is silence.

We always tend to forget the Stones´ influence on the Beatles.

John also said in the interview he enjoyed being in the company of the Stones, especially Brian and Mick - and got to know them quite well.
The interview was done when Lennon was at his most paranoid, I should take his comments with a pinch of salt and not analyse too much.
Strange, but in practically all his interviews, Lennon seemed to belittle or criticise his own music, the bEatles music, the Stones music - only people he had a good word for were the 1950's icons - Chuck Berry et al.

Let it Be was completed on January 31, 1969. The recording sessions for the Let it Be album started on January 2, 1969.

The Beatles early albums blew away the Stones early albums. The Stones didn't catch up until Beggar's Banquet, and at around that time the Beatles were descending and the Stones passed them by never to look back.

The Beatles were history after making the most revolutionary and the best sounding "pop" music ever recorded. The Stones endured to progress from "Pop" to "Rock". The Stones were 'wannabes" who never achieved what the Beatles had from 1963-1966; and the Beatles were a historical memory who never achieved what the Stones became from 1968-2006.

That Jan Wenner interview was broadcast on BBC radio recently and was a sad but fascinating insight into Lennons state of mind at the time. The one thing i will say in defence of Lennon is that he says exactly what he thinks and at least you got a proper interview - contrast that with the interviews we get from Mick and Keith these days where we get the same old dull corporate spin and pr based anecdotes (although to be honest most of the questions are pretty lame too).

Andy

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If anything, Lennon's later interviews show a
> bitter and twisted man, jealous in his own way of
> his other contemporaries and their ability to keep
> going and making strong records, when he was
> little more than his domineering, control-freak
> wife's bitch and househusband
>
> That interview is old news and was even published
> in book form in the early 70's ("Lennon
> Remembers"). Amazed its a big deal to anyone to be
> honest. The whole interview is full of that crap.
>
> he makes all of us setlist whiners sound like
> we're full of sweetness and light by
> comparison....



Yup he was just honest and I think tht was typical for him. But of course its true. Stones did copy Beatles in many ways but the interview says more about J.L. He was a rocker held back by Paul and cash and then later Yoko. He wanted to be in the Stones I think.

Best thought of the day (week/month/year/decade/century?)...
Nice, LA! Lennon in the Stones.... I´ll rest on that thought
tomorrow...