VoodooLounge13 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK the stones had their 1000th show in '67, and
> just had their 2000th at Twick #2?????? With all
> those years of tours in between there, how is that
> possible?!


simple...they didnt play as many shows in the last 40 years.

They didnt tour at all in 1968, 1974, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1983-88, 1991-93, 1996, 2000-2001.

And whereas in 1964 alone they played some 322 shows, they played a total of 260 concerts in the 70's - the same decade where many of their fans consider them to have been at their apex as a live act. In the 80's they played only 149 shows.

Total documented concerts in 1963 - 296. 1964 - 322. 1965 - 241. Almost half of the band's shows to date took place in that three year period.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-13 21:28 by Gazza.

Never forgetting that the Stones (in addition to being superb themselves) did also fill a gap in the market created by the ending of The Beatles. The demise of the Beatles allowed the Stones to move into their undisputed position as market leaders.

Keep in mind to, that since their shows were so short back then (less than 1/2 hour), they could play several shows in one day.

hot stuff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> niether.....mick in 1969 would NEVER back up
> anyone in 1969..they were the greatest rock and
> roll band in the world in 1969...plus they didn't
> have too...1969 the stones put on the biggest
> money making tour in the history of the business,
> back in the day..

*WRONG* Mick wanted The Stones to open for The Beatles at the Lyceum & Saville theater shows in 1969, but The Fag Four declined.

Lets face facts- The Beatles were the biggest R&R/Pop band in the history of the world. The Stones were #2.

Having said that, there is no way The Stones are warming-up for anybody in 69.

I don't know how Led Zepp can even be mentioned in the same breath as The Beatles. The Beatles we at least 1,000,000 times better than Led Noise Maker

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

bigfrankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets face facts- The Beatles were the biggest
> R&R/Pop band in the history of the world. The
> Stones were #2.
>
> Having said that, there is no way The Stones are
> warming-up for anybody in 69.
>
> I don't know how Led Zepp can even be mentioned in
> the same breath as The Beatles. The Beatles we at
> least 1,000,000 times better than Led Noise Maker

you just don't like led zepp.. you're biased... if you watch the live dvd that came out recently... well, if you were fair, you might change your mind...

stoned_in_dc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bigfrankie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lets face facts- The Beatles were the biggest
> > R&R/Pop band in the history of the world. The
> > Stones were #2.
> >
> > Having said that, there is no way The Stones
> are
> > warming-up for anybody in 69.
> >
> > I don't know how Led Zepp can even be mentioned
> in
> > the same breath as The Beatles. The Beatles we
> at
> > least 1,000,000 times better than Led Noise
> Maker
>
> you just don't like led zepp.. you're biased... if
> you watch the live dvd that came out recently...
> well, if you were fair, you might change your
> mind...


Hey stoned- you are correct, I don't like Led Zepp. If I watched thier DVD, I would like them even less (if thats possible).

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

Yeah it is always interseting to think about what the Beatles would have sounded like live, had they stayed together. Paul turned out to be a pretty good live performer. The best solo among the BEatles anyway.

As weird and implausible and unfair question as this is, I still think its a really good one. Although I wasn't around then, I assume the Beatles were assumed to be gods, unlike anyone else, so there ya go.

On a related note: Its good to see Stones fans who can't stand Led Zeppelin. They make overindulgent, loud noise. Some songs are admittedly good, but some are simply unlistenable.
I also think Paul turned out to be a good performer/strong solo beatle. Would've been cool to see them continue performing and recording together.

Beatles stopped touring -66 sooo....on the other hand..Beatles on the roof concert in London -69 is amongst the smokiest stuff I know of...

2 1 2 0

Shame it didn't happen really as after the Stones pissed all over them the media might have been forced into a rethink of the Beatles as the world's number 1 band.

Gazza:

What do you know about this show?

September 15, 1963:

The Rolling Stones perform at a prestigious concert called The Great Pop Prom at the Royal Albert Hall in London. It is the first joint performance with the Beatles, who close the show.

Well the Beatles weren't really known as a 'live' band were they (except maybe in their Hamburg days). Playing live was a strength of the Stones. Having said that, in the songwriting stakes it was the Beatles hands down though the Stones did come close.

jamesfdouglas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keep in mind to, that since their shows were so
> short back then (less than 1/2 hour), they could
> play several shows in one day.

Yes, and maybe the number of shows should be adjusted accordingly? I mean, if they played 2 half-hour sets at the same club one day in London, is that really 2 separate shows?

One doesn't know where to draw the line, because it wouldn't seem fair to count 2 exhausting 1972 sets--which they did a few times, I think--as only 1 show. But the numbers seem skewed as it is.

Definately the Beatles, although there was a time in the mid-70's , during which they weren't as big as we think they were. I realize they had broken up 5 years earlier, but they weren't considered as highly as they are now. Of course after Lennon died they were given sainthood status, which is 95% earned and 5% due to Lennon's death, in my humble opinion.

"Having said that, in the songwriting stakes it was the Beatles hands down though the Stones did come close." Why is this perception trotted out ad nauseam even on a Stones website for God's sake?! The Stones wrote far stronger, more grounded, more interesting & more exciting songs than the Beatles. The moptops were good but they weren't that good.

eh heiloobaas, are you living in Heiloo??

The Beatles as a live act had little appeal for me.

A better question would be who was the better live act in 1969, The Stones or The Who. Were the Stones at Altamont better than the Who at Woodstock or IOW?

History shows the Beatles were turkeys sitting out the biggest events of the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-14 17:12 by Steven.

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> History shows the Beatles were @#$%& sitting out
> the biggest events of the time.

Hardly hurt their careers.

The only problem with the Beatles live is that nobody could hear them.

They stopped touring because they were so big that it was total pandemonium.

To suggest that they weren't fantastic live is not right.

Well, one critical issue for the Beatles in 1969 would be performing some of the newer material that defined them as the groundbreaking recording artists of the mid and late '60's. Sure, they could pull off Hey Jude or Why don't We Do It In The Road, but I'm talkin' Day in the Life, I am the Walrus, Penney Lane, Lucy in the Sky, Rain, Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday, etc. The Beatles would have to have had 50 backing musicians on stage in '69 to do any of these type of songs. People complain when the Stones have 4-5 backing musicians. The fact is, the Beatles would have a very difficult time with anything but their more basic material. Of course, nowadays, you can reproduce practically anything live with the right keyboards, which is why McCartney can play pretty much whatever he wants now, but in '69, they would be hard pressed to do anything beyond their old Hamburg and mop top sets, which was passe by '69.

Were the Stones or the Beatles invited to play at Monterey in 1967?

No matter how popular the 'Beatles' were and still are they themselves no matter how big their egos were in 1969 would have considered asking the 'Stones' to open up for them.
Excellent songwriters /reasonable guitar players but live performance was not their fortee from 1966 - 1969 onwards.
The 'Stones' would have blown them away in live performance and there is absolutely no way that John/Paul would have risked the fall out that would have caused with the pop media.
The 'Beatles' and the 'Stones' no matter what the media decried were never seriously vying against each other - in fact they both had great respect and were friends with each other.
If the question had been asked by a promotour both the 'Stones' and the 'Beatles' out of the utmost respect for each other would have avoided the idea like the plague.

The headliner? Allen Klein.

If the Stones and Beatles toured together in 1969, who would be the headliner...

Easily Mick 'cause he would have shagged
Yoko backstage and papers would have had a field day with it......



ROCKMAN

The Stones have always been the better performers by far. They pride themselves on their fantastic stage presence. The Beatles wrote good songs. Let's be honest. We've seen the Beatles perform and it really wasn't much of anything, at all. If you're going to say who's going to put on the better show? Then the Stones should headline. If you're going to base the headliner on absurd fame, then probably the Beatles.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not even close. The Beatles, easy. By far the
> bigger record sellers and they were playing
> stadiums in the mid 60's when the Stones were
> playing theatres
>
>
> >Try to answer this without any favoritism or
> bias.
>
> see how many replies it gets before your request
> for a rational discussion goes out the window....


the stones could have easily filled shea stadium in 65, why they didnt try i dont know, but they would have easily sold it out, its andrews fault not the stones, and by 69 forget about it, the beatles werent even on the same planet as the stones as a live act, the stones would have easily been the headliner



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-17 01:28 by melillo.

If you were going to compare the stones and beatles to coke and pepsi, which would be which??

stones would be coke, they have been here longer and they are better



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-17 01:33 by melillo.

I would say pepsi for kind of the opposite reason. COke came out first, and pepsi was the first comprable alternative.