stedyedy Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Stones for sure years ahead there time and always gets me pumped. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunque Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 got to be the stones and the pattaya national anthem SATISFACTION Or maybe Rocks Off ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Issangeorge Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_rad Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 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." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_rad Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (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 March 2, 2014 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patsycat Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdanielmcev Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 The Beatles. The Stones should have quit in 1974. Incdently, The Who are the best band of all time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Sek Loso. Probably not Born when the Stones and the Beatles were performing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilesofSmiles Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I was born in the 80's, so Ringo Star was a narrator on Thomas the tank engine, not a rock star, right ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8_7m-NN3Fo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 The Stones go psychedelic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zphAHMPtu4g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_rad Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (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 March 4, 2014 by Ulysses G. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkden Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Get your satisfaction. Stones live in concert this Sunday at Venetian Macau!! Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_rad Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Speaking of George: Tom Petty, Steve Winwood, Jeff Lynne, Dhani Harrison (George's son) and an amazing guitar solo by Prince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnie Brasco Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgs2001uk Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 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............ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKK Blues Brother Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Stones! The Beatles was the 60's version of Take That. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (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 March 7, 2014 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKK Blues Brother Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 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., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 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.... All music was great then, but the Beatles really did their own thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKK Blues Brother Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 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.... All music was great then, but the Beatles really did their own thing. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I was a kid in the 60's, l can tell you it was great , 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 . I think never to be repeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdanielmcev Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKK Blues Brother Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now