No one makes a major band do anything.

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Huh?
> >
> > You seriously believe that bands of the Stones
> or
> > Aerosmith's magnitude are 'told' where theyre
> > playing and they just go along with it?
> >
> For the most part yes, but I'm certain they have
> input too, sure.
>

So let me get this right. What you're saying is that Michael Cohl - an employee of the Rolling Stones - insists that they do certain types of gigs such as private shows - and the greatest, biggest and most powerful music actin the world merely nod their heads and go along with it even if they dont want to?

Thats as bizarre as your assertion that the Stones started out playing Beatles covers.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones perform around 150 gigs per tour. Then they usually do one corporate gig per tour.

What corporate gigs did they play until today and when did they start it? As far as I know theyplayed:

1981 an unconfirmed Mississippi riverboat gig
2005 Las Vegas (for some hip IT billionaire)
2007 Barcelona (Deutsche Bank)

Theyve only ever played two AFAIK

The one for Pepsi in Kona, Hawaii Jan 1998
The Deutsche Bank one in Barcelona July 2007

The Las Vegas one was, as you say, a private party (it was November 2002)

I dont believe the rumoured riverboat one in New Orleans in 1981 ever took place. If it did, I dont think it was a formal 'gig' as such.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gazza Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Huh?
> > >
> > > You seriously believe that bands of the
> Stones
> > or
> > > Aerosmith's magnitude are 'told' where theyre
> > > playing and they just go along with it?
> > >
> > For the most part yes, but I'm certain they
> have
> > input too, sure.
> >
>
> So let me get this right. What you're saying is
> that Michael Cohl - an employee of the Rolling
> Stones - insists that they do certain types of
> gigs such as private shows - and the greatest,
> biggest and most powerful music actin the world
> merely nod their heads and go along with it even
> if they dont want to?
>
> Thats as bizarre as your assertion that the Stones
> started out playing Beatles covers.

No, I'm sure they agree to it, but what I'm saying is the musicians don't handle the contract details. I'm sure A-Smith band members agreed to play a private show on tour when their management told them of the offer, but I doubt they said, "Lets not do a public" show in Hawaii"...their management was involved in that contractual decision.

The Stones not only started out playing Beatles tunes but also Chuck Berry and songs from other R&B artists songs too. It took a little (1964ish) while until they began writing their own material.

[members.chello.nl]

What youre now saying about the band going along with what theyre told contradicts what you said earlier. Of course they get someone to arrange contracts but the decisions on what they do are their own.

I've already provided proof to you in another thread that the Stones only ever played one Beatles song in concert - the one that was given to them 17 months after they played their first gig.

[www.iorr.org]

How the hell can you start out playing covers of a band that didnt even have a record contract at the time (July 1962)? The notion that the blues purists who were going to hear the Stones play the music of Willie Dixon, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters and the like were also there to hear them cover songs from the pop charts like 'Love me do' is hilarious.

Fail to see how that link you provided proves your point. It even refers to one of the Beatles as 'McCarthy'....



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-14 17:36 by Gazza.

>> The Stones not only started out playing Beatles tunes <<

for crying in the dust, this again?! the Department of Historical Accuracy protests.
you said you were off the meds, so ... get with it! like Gazza said:
of course the Stones started out doing blues and R&B covers, not "Beatles tunes".
the one & only "Beatles tune" the Stones did was I Wanna Be Your Man,
which was a] one number, not plural "tunes"; b] their second single, not what they started out with;
and c] not even technically a "Beatles tune" when they recorded it - it was a Lennon/McCartney-penned number
that the Beatles recorded only after the Stones had released their rendition of it.

there are maybe five or six instances when *later* Stones had something to do with Beatle tunes:
the Glimmers showing up for All You Need Is Love, Brian playing on Baby You're a Rich Man,
Keith playing on Yer Blues at the R&R Circus, Mick throwing a line of Hey Jude into SFTD at the Baltimore 69 gig
and Keith alone in the studio in 1993 being cranky about the bridge to Please Please Me :E

but the next time you feel like claiming the Stones "started out playing Beatles tunes" ...
forget about it, truly. you'll get a lot further watching this instead:



(thanks folkyfirekitte for that link!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-14 19:30 by with sssoul.

relax, dudes! lol


What I was explaining to you was that the Management company/agency handles the details, some musicians are probably more involved in the details than others, depending on their personality.
Mick seems to be just a slight bit of a control freak so he probably is more aware of gig details than others. Keef and Ron on the other hand, could probably give a rats arse where their next gig is as long as their creature comforts are in place backstage and that their share of the gig receipts is transferred to their bank accounts.
Mick (and many other rockers too) is typically reminded before the show where he is performing that night to prevent him from saying "Well awright Lisbon!" when they actually may be in Madrid. Or "Awright Dallas" when they may be in San Anotonio".
Keef is most likely oblivious to where he's at, it's been his trademark for years, and it's what makes Keef, Keef.
He's been quoted as saying "I'm happy to be here, I'm happy to be anywhere...where are we Mick?...hehehe"
The Stones will tell their management they want to tour and then their mgmt will set it up for them. Mick, Keef, Ron etc most likely don't sit down and argue with the management which cities they will play in and when. The management company takes care of that. However, Mick might say, make sure you add Brazil, this city and that so I cann see me kids their...sure that sort of thing can happen.
But that's why they hire these companies to take care of the details as the musicians should concentrate on their performances.

The Stones definitely started out hevily influenced by the Beatles...they were friends of the Beatles although some try to make it seem they were arch enemies.
The Stones wore suits/ties as the Beatles did, played "I Wanna Be Your Man" and had the same musical influences as the Beatles. The Stones grew their hair similar to the Beatles length at the time. What seperated them was the Stones had 5 members, once which was blonde (Brian Jones) where the Beatles had 4 members, until later on when Billy Preston and Yoko Ono were session members.
Not that the Beatles had a polished sound in the early days but the Stones sound was far more primitive than the Beatles and that was a difference too. But there many similarities. The Stones weren't the only band to copy the Beatles back in the day, but they were the most successful and eventually found their own sound and style.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-14 21:52 by NumberOneStonesFan.

As I wrote in another thread with The Stones it is always about the #$%$ing money!

>> dudes <<

i'm a she-sssoul
[turning up Jiving Sister Fanny way loud again]

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> dudes <<
>
> i'm a she-sssoul
>
I know, sssoul, dudes in a slang sense, not literally...
See, you "guys" take everything so literally, that how you get your panties in a bunch all the time over the little things...

FYI-that's a joke.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-14 22:04 by NumberOneStonesFan.

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick (and many other rockers too) is typically
> reminded before the show where he is performing
> that night to prevent him from saying "Well
> awright Lisbon!" when they actually may be in
> Madrid. Or "Awright Dallas" when they may be in
> San Anotonio".

What utter nonsense


> Keef is most likely oblivious to where he's at,
> it's been his trademark for years, and it's what
> makes Keef, Keef.

Also utter nonsense


>.
>
> The Stones definitely started out hevily
> influenced by the Beatles...

In 1962? You really dont "GET" this band at all, do you?

When do you think the Stones 'started out? 1964?

they were friends of
> the Beatles although some try to make it seem they
> were arch enemies.

They never MET The Beatles until November 1963.


>The Stones wore suits/ties as the Beatles did

The Beatles were hardly the first musical act to wear suits and ties. The Stones on the other hand were pretty much the first popular act who didnt.
They did so once on TV in 1963 because Andrew Oldham told them to. Not because the Beatles did it. After that they refused to


> played "I Wanna Be Your Man"

so that proves they copied the Beatles when they 'started out'? How?



> and had the same musical influences as the Beatles.

Not really. And even if they had, how is that copying the Beatles? They had those musical influences a) before they played their first gig and b) before anyone had ever heard of the Beatles

> The Stones grew their hair similar to the Beatles length at the time.

Right. The Beatles invented long hair.

> What seperated them was the Stones had 5 members, once which was blonde (Brian Jones) where the Beatles had 4 members,

!!!! (For what its worth, the Stones had 6 members and the Beatles had 5, but never mind....)


> until later on when Billy Preston and Yoko Ono were session members.
Not that the Beatles had a polished sound in the early days but the Stones sound was far more primitive than the Beatles and that was a difference too.

You've heard all those rock n roll shows the Beatles played at the Cavern, in Hamburg and all those other places they performed before they ever got a record contract then?


> But there many similarities.
The Stones weren't the only band to copy the Beatles back in the day, but they were the most successful and eventually found their own sound and style

Suggest you invest in a few books on the Stones



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-14 22:22 by Gazza.

>> dudes in a slang sense <<

sure - the same "slang sense" as "the Stones started out playing Beatles tunes"
actually meaning something else entirely ...
[turning up Jiving Sister Fanny even louder]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-14 22:26 by with sssoul.

LOL

lol
C'monnnnnn!!!!

Lennon felt the Stones were Beatles copycats too... see, I KNEW someone else had thought so...


[abcnews.go.com]

Lennon also spoke of rivalries between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.

"I think Mick [Jagger] got jealous," Lennon said. "I always was very respectful of Mick, of the Stones, but he said a lot of sort of tarty things about the Beatles, which I am hurt by, because I can knock the Beatles, but don't let Mick Jagger knock them. Because I just like to … list what we did and what the Stones did two months after, on every … album and every … thing we did, Mick does exactly the same. He imitates us."

er..yeah..he means stuff like Norwegian Wood/Paint it Black and Sgt pepper/Satanic Majesties which is around 1965-67

Not quite the same as your nonsensical assertion that the Stones 'started out heavily influenced' by a band who hadnt even released any songs and whom theyd never even heard of.

Well I guess it's how one interperates Lennon's usage of 'every' … album and 'every' … thing we did


It doesn't sound particular to a specific era



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-20 07:18 by NumberOneStonesFan.

While not complete copycats, it's true that the Stones always followed in the footsteps/shadow of The Beatles.
That is until Beggars Banquet when the Stones truly found a voice of their own
I don't find that concept too hard to comprehend.


Not knocking the Stones, but if it weren't for the trailblazing Beatles,
the Stones would probably be a distant memory from the early '60's.

You gotta love 'em both!

Hairball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While not complete copycats, it's true that the
> Stones always followed in the footsteps/shadow of
> The Beatles.
> That is until Beggars Banquet when the Stones
> truly found a voice of their own
> I don't find that concept too hard to comprehend.
>
>
> Not knocking the Stones, but if it weren't for the
> trailblazing Beatles,
> the Stones would probably be a distant memory from
> the early '60's.
>
> You gotta love 'em both!

Thank you Hairball.

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well I guess it's how one interperates Lennon's
> usage of 'every' … album and 'every' … thing we
> did
>
>
> It doesn't sound particular to a specific era


the word 'everything' doesnt sound specific enough?

Of course the Stones were influenced by the Beatles at certain stages of their career - hairball is corect - but thats not what you've been claiming. You said they 'started out' by copying them, which is simply impossible.

>> I don't find that concept too hard to comprehend. <<

smile: what i don't find too hard to comprehend is that the Stones could only be influenced by the Beatles
after they had heard them, which would be october 1962 at the very earliest;
and that claiming "the Stones started out playing Beatles tunes" is simply wrong and ignorant.

I'm getting more excited nowadays with my 7 euro ticket for the Five O'clock heroes then too spend all my holiday allowance on a concert from the Eagles.