Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Just listened to Abbey Road from start to finish. The Beatles were more innovative than the Stones and it was easier listening to their albums from start to finish. Sargent's Peppers didn't have a single released. However for good old raunchy Rock in Roll the Stones were better. It depends what mood I'm in, but I must admit I spent many a time in my younger days listening to the Beatles stoned, but never to the Stones.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ X using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

  • Like 2
Posted

The Beatles were more innovative than the Stones

Agreed. However, I did like "Her Satanic Majesty's Request" by the Stones, even though I did not have much company.

Posted

Funny John Lennon story...............

At a press conference, someone made the remark to John about Ringo not being the best drummer in the world, he replied "he isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles"

That's John being his usual witty self. Like when one journalist asked him the whereabouts of Brian Epstein: "He's gone to Memphis to form a rhythm and Jews band."

  • Like 1
Posted

For live performances you have to give it to the Stones:

Love that bit at the end: "Lisa - The Maharani of Soul"

Maharani - lit. Great Queen (Sanskrit)

Posted (edited)

Funny John Lennon story...............

At a press conference, someone made the remark to John about Ringo not being the best drummer in the world, he replied "he isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles"

That's John being his usual witty self.

John was referring to Paul. Geoff Emrick, a sound engineer on many of the Beatles records, flat out says that Paul was the best bassist, guitarist, and drummer in the band. Sometimes Ringo would record the drum part to a Beatles song and Paul would throw it away and do the drum part himself. Paul played all the instruments on "McCartney", which is one of my favorite of his records without the Beatles.

Some people like to put Paul down, but his Beatle's songs were just as good as John's - pure genius IMHO.

Edited by Ulysses G.
Posted

I would go for the Stones. Never seen them in concert but just the way Mick can move at his age.... Kudos.

If Freddie was still alive i would say the same.

Posted

Geoff Emrick, a sound engineer on many of the Beatles records, flat out says that Paul was the best bassist, guitarist, and drummer in the band.

Paul a better guitarist than George? Come on.

  • Like 1
Posted

Geoff Emrick really liked Paul, but Lennon and Harrison, not so much. He did work on some of the Beatles best albums and with McCartney as a solo artist. He also said that the Beatles pretty much produced themselves and that George Martin gets too much credit.

Posted

Think one cannot compare the two groups. Music very different. As a kid I saw live.......

Stones, Beatles, The Who, Yardbirds, Kinks, Small Faces, probably a few more, they were all very different. At the time Motown was very big, bigger than folk think.

Posted (edited)

As a kid I saw live.......

Stones, Beatles, The Who, Yardbirds, Kinks, Small Faces, probably a few more, they were all very different.

WOW! You were lucky. I was a little too young and living in the wrong place to see these groups when they were in their prime. I did have the good fortune to catch a lot of new wave groups like The Cure and The Smiths in small clubs before they got famous in the USA.

Edited by Ulysses G.
  • Like 1
Posted

Keith Richards has nailed 14 of the best rock overtures and solos in the business.gga

Prince is the best all round guitarist but edges John Lennon out for best rhythm.

John Entwistle was consistently the best bassist

Drums between Jon Bonhom and Rush's Neil Pert but there were just so many others to chose from.

Steve Winwood, Al Kooper and Little Richard share keyboard honours

Freddie Mercury, Robert Plant, Mick Jagger, John Lennon on occasion and so many others can lay out the lyrics.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

Posted

As a kid I saw live.......

Stones, Beatles, The Who, Yardbirds, Kinks, Small Faces, probably a few more, they were all very different.

WOW! You were lucky. I was a little too young and living in the wrong place to see these groups when they were in their prime. I did have the good fortune to catch a lot of new wave groups like The Cure and The Smiths in small clubs before they got famous in the USA.

Indeed, respect and envy.

I was also born too late to have witnessed these groups in their prime.

The Yardbirds,WOW.

Posted

As a kid I saw live.......

Stones, Beatles, The Who, Yardbirds, Kinks, Small Faces, probably a few more, they were all very different.

WOW! You were lucky. I was a little too young and living in the wrong place to see these groups when they were in their prime. I did have the good fortune to catch a lot of new wave groups like The Cure and The Smiths in small clubs before they got famous in the USA.

Indeed, respect and envy.

I was also born too late to have witnessed these groups in their prime.

The Yardbirds,WOW.

Believe it or not, in the winter our local swimming baths covered the large pool with a dance floor, there l saw the Yardbirds and Goergie Fame and the blue flames............clap2.gif

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

The Beatles was the 60's version of Take That.

They were in 1963 - like everyone else - but they got better and better with every LP. There are not many groups that you can say that about. They brought rock music from bubblegum to brilliance in less than a decade and brought the rest along with them. Back when Lennon said that they were more popular than Jesus, he was probably right!

Edited by Ulysses G.
Posted

The Beatles was the 60's version of Take That.

They were in 1963 - like everyone else - but they got better and better with every LP. There are not many groups that you can say that about. They brought rock music from bubblegum to brilliance in less than a decade and brought the rest along with them. Back when Lennon said that they were more popular than Jesus, he was probably right!

The 60's music revolution started late 59 early 60 in the R & B clubs in London and Manchester.

The Stones where inspired by many Blues artists.

The Beatles where mainstream pop music for the masses and where the most successful pop band in history.,

Posted

The Beatles was the 60's version of Take That.

They were in 1963 - like everyone else - but they got better and better with every LP. There are not many groups that you can say that about. They brought rock music from bubblegum to brilliance in less than a decade and brought the rest along with them. Back when Lennon said that they were more popular than Jesus, he was probably right!

The 60's music revolution started late 59 early 60 in the R & B clubs in London and Manchester.

The Stones where inspired by many Blues artists.

The Beatles where mainstream pop music for the masses and where the most successful pop band in history.,

Because they did their own thing....smile.png

All music was great then, but the Beatles really did their own thing. thumbsup.gif

Posted

The Beatles was the 60's version of Take That.

They were in 1963 - like everyone else - but they got better and better with every LP. There are not many groups that you can say that about. They brought rock music from bubblegum to brilliance in less than a decade and brought the rest along with them. Back when Lennon said that they were more popular than Jesus, he was probably right!

The 60's music revolution started late 59 early 60 in the R & B clubs in London and Manchester.

The Stones where inspired by many Blues artists.

The Beatles where mainstream pop music for the masses and where the most successful pop band in history.,

Because they did their own thing....smile.png

All music was great then, but the Beatles really did their own thing. thumbsup.gif

I would have loved to be a teenager in the early 60's, in fact if i had a time machine ....i would be there right now.

Posted

I was a kid in the 60's, l can tell you it was great thumbsup.gif , My chum was Bob Harris of "Old Grey Whistle Test" fame in my latter teen years. It was a monumental time of change, thought, and a respect for all music. Even now l think back smile.png . I think never to be repeated.

Posted

Think one cannot compare the two groups. Music very different. As a kid I saw live.......

Stones, Beatles, The Who, Yardbirds, Kinks, Small Faces, probably a few more, they were all very different. At the time Motown was very big, bigger than folk think.

Which version of the Yardbirds did you see?

Posted

Think one cannot compare the two groups. Music very different. As a kid I saw live.......

Stones, Beatles, The Who, Yardbirds, Kinks, Small Faces, probably a few more, they were all very different. At the time Motown was very big, bigger than folk think.

Which version of the Yardbirds did you see?

Motown was much bigger because it was more danceable.

The youth aka the Mods/stylists where inspired by the late 50's early 60's soul,Blues acts

Infact most of the styles and fashions came from the American Black singers originally and the youth adopted and tweeked the style with Italian scooters etc.

A fascinating time in the history of music.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...