Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 12:06:41 GMT -5
There's a similar thread to this one on the Hoffman Board and someone there posted that the Beatles would have killed for the Stones "bad boy" image. This was my response. The Rolling Stones image there looks like The Beatles fake cleaned up image! The Beatles were very wild and bad boys in their personal lives just as wild if not more so than The Rolling Stones because they had even more young women groupies,many who were teen girls they had sex with because they were the most successful,popular rock band ever,and ironically they were the most wild this way during their touring years of 1963-1966 when they had the fake cleaned up image Brian Epstein created which was a big fake joke! They were like a pimp playing a priest! I haven't seen the great 1982 Beatles documentary The Complete Beatles in over 20 years,but I remember this part was conveniently left out of The Beatles made Anthology series,and it's that in one of the US states The Beatles were thrown of a hotel in August 1965 because Paul was found with an underage teen girl in his hotel room and Brian Epstein kept it from getting into the press and news.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 12:27:58 GMT -5
The Choir Boys Rolling Stones! What's really funny too is that some years ago on Rate your music a guy said in reviewing The Rolling Stones Black and Blue album or It's Only rock n Roll I don't remember,that they sound like a boy band on some of the songs.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 12, 2015 12:42:32 GMT -5
Back in the '70s when I was a nerdy geek, I would go to the public library and read through all of the bound magazines from the '60s. The card catalogs would tell which magazines mentioned the Beatles. There were all these high brow, stuffy magazines and the more mainstream magazines like Stereo Review and High Fidelity that dealt mostly with classical music and Jazz. They would have a pop album or two, Tony Bennett, Sinatra, those guys. Christian Science Monitor had some Pepper reviews.
When Sgt. Pepper came out, it got reviews from these magazines and all of these reviews were really quite positive. The Beatles had taken a step up with Sgt. Pepper. Pop music and certainly Rock and Roll had taken a step up. In Pepper, the Beatles had created a new modern world, a new life style, another way to be.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 13, 2015 7:04:11 GMT -5
There's a similar thread to this one on the Hoffman Board and someone there posted that the Beatles would have killed for the Stones "bad boy" image. This was my response. Atta' Boy Luther!!!!!!! Man...those are nerdy suits!!!
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 13, 2015 7:16:01 GMT -5
Brian Jones' head looks like it is pasted on the photo of his body like a South Park character. Mick has a Marv Albert hair cut. Keiffer!!!! Cooool mannnn!!!! You are chill dude!!! The Lawrence Welk Show called...they want their suits back!
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Aug 13, 2015 7:35:21 GMT -5
Brian Jones' head looks like it is pasted on the photo of his body like a South Park character. Mick has a Marv Albert hair cut. Keiffer!!!! Cooool mannnn!!!! You are chill dude!!! The Lawrence Welk Show called...they want their suits back! Another pic of the early "bad boys" Stones circa 1963.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 13, 2015 12:18:24 GMT -5
Make jokes about the Stones but the Beatles got on their knees and swallowed(sold out) much more than the Stones to become famous.
The Beatles by and by were more working class than the Stones(but not all, Keith was working class) but that meant the Beatles had to sell out more to become the cute, safe Moptops!
It didn't really change the music so Davy Jones is still all wet.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 13, 2015 12:34:22 GMT -5
Make jokes about the Stones but the Beatles got on their knees and swallowed(sold out) much more than the Stones to become famous. Other than agreeing to wear the matching suits (which The Stones also did) -- how so?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 13, 2015 13:31:17 GMT -5
Most egregious is the Royal Command Performance. I wish John would have dropped the f-bomb on those phonies! The bowing at the end of concerts, the hob-knobbing with the Lord Mayors and their wives and kids. The horrible skits they did in those awful variety shows where they even wore costumes and miserably did those terrible lines! Keith Richards would have knifed anyone who even suggested such to the Stones! Even musically, it was okay that Paul and John appreciated sappy music passed on by their parents/families but did the Beatles need to record "A Taste Of Honey," "'Til There Was Spew" or "Mr. Moonlight?" Again Keith would have stabbed someone and Mick would have been a real bitch! Man this is Rock and Roll. You don't do singing to no damn "Royal Family," a bunch of in-bred phonies who raped and pillaged their "subjects" for centuries. You don't bow to your adoring fans, you spit Jack Daniels on them and wack any charging fan with your axe! Rock and Roll fans want and expect that! No well dressed, bowing little dandies! The Beatles as major sell-outs!Even worse!This really blows!Keefer, just stab me now!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 13, 2015 19:46:42 GMT -5
The Beatles redefined Rock and Roll cool. Not once but every time they released an album. They made themselves old fashioned. Didn't Paul do Till There Was You live a few years back. They did that song and every other song they did because they liked them. Till There Was You is an okay song. Paul gets to show his singing chops. I like a Taste of Honey and Mr. Moonlight too. I like them a whole lot better than all the blues cover songs that the Stones did through that period.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 13, 2015 19:58:53 GMT -5
JSD: first, Keith is a poser; John Lennon could have kicked his arse. Keith is not the tough guy you make him out to be. Keith sold out on some TV show and wore a tuxedo in honoring some other star (it may have been Chuck Berry). And don't forget that The Stones started with the Blues, and then sold out by changing their format. And how about old' tough rocker Keef going DISCO!? Second, there was nothing wrong with Paul doing songs like "Til There Was You" and "A Taste Of Honey". I'm assuming you realize that The Beatles also did those songs when they were in black leather in Hamburg and at The Cavern when they were "badder dudes", right? So they did not "sell out", because they had always done those tunes. The versatility was a strength of theirs, not a weakness. (Now, if they had decided to DROP those tunes from their record albums, THEN they might have "sold out"!). Third, there is nothing wrong with the shows and fun skits they did where they played dress up. The Stones did their ROCK N ROLL CIRCUS thing, and whatever else. Oh no, JSD -- does this mean you're on one of your infrequent "Rolling Stones" kicks again, where you are going to marginalize The Fab Four because the Stones are "oooooh, such bad guys"? If so, please spare us!
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Aug 13, 2015 22:17:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 14, 2015 0:06:06 GMT -5
I just listened to Sgt. Pepper. It's much better than it gets credit for.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 14, 2015 0:47:08 GMT -5
JSD: first, Keith is a poser; John Lennon could have kicked his arse. Keith is not the tough guy you make him out to be. Keith sold out on some TV show and wore a tuxedo in honoring some other star (it may have been Chuck Berry). And don't forget that The Stones started with the Blues, and then sold out by changing their format. And how about old' tough rocker Keef going DISCO!? I think you have it backwards. John was a teddy boy poser who would run at real trouble(and I don't blame him as better a scared cat than a dead duck) while Keith was a magnet for danger. Keith got his ass kicked but kicked some ass perhaps by fighting dirty but still, that is Rock and Roll and that is what Pepper killed, the bad ass part of Rock and Roll but the Stones reclaimed it with "Jumping Jack Flash." I don't begrudge their personal taste in music and they had a lot of time to kill in Hamburg. They needed every song they could perform to fill their slot each night. But for a group that is said to have revolutionized Rock and Roll, did they really have to commit "Honey" and "Spew" to their albums for posterity? Spew on Ed Sullivan is horribly boring, maybe the most boring televised moment in all of Rock and Roll history. That performance is why the early Beatles can still be viably called a "Boys Band." BTW, when McCartney did it live in 2005 (I think), I stood and booed loudly. I couldn't believe I'd paid $230.00 to hear "Spew" and not "Mumbo" or "Bip Bop," truly great songs. I've talked to many young Beatles fans in the 2010's and they say they like the Beatles despite those skits!! No but I get uncomfortable when Beatles fans try to make themselves feel better by bashing the Stones. "Satisfaction" is easily better Rock and Roll than any early to mid Lennon/McCartney song. "Gimme Shelter" is easily better Rock and Roll than any later day Beatles song, just to give two examples. Actually if we Beatles fans were objective, we'd be more paranoid as to how good the Stones really were. It drives us Beatles fans nuts when constantly reading the consensus that The Rolling Stones were The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band. I love both bands and maybe they are apples to oranges. Like John Doe, co-founder of punk band X, said about the Beatles versus Stones, "Do you want it from your brain or do you want it from your groin?" www.grammy.com/news/the-rolling-stones-still-the-worlds-greatest-rock-and-roll-band
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 14, 2015 4:45:13 GMT -5
Most egregious is the Royal Command Performance. I wish John would have dropped the f-bomb on those phonies! Best Career Move Ever! They would have disappeared completely. Absolutely ridiculous thing to say.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 14, 2015 6:01:19 GMT -5
Most egregious is the Royal Command Performance. I wish John would have dropped the f-bomb on those phonies! Best Career Move Ever! They would have disappeared completely. Absolutely ridiculous thing to say. I agree, vectis - that IS a ridiculous thing to say. And that's why sometimes I honestly don't know when our John S D is being deliberately outrageous for the fun of it, or seriously means what he says. Lennon telling them to "rattle your jewelry" was ballsy enough.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 14, 2015 6:32:00 GMT -5
I think you have it backwards. John was a teddy boy poser who would run at real trouble(and I don't blame him as better a scared cat than a dead duck) while Keith was a magnet for danger. I can't believe I'm defending the value of being a "badass" (I deplore that, actually). But while John was smart enough to run when necessary, of course we know that he had his share of beat 'em up's too. You skipped over The Stones selling out with Disco, and Keith wearing a tuxedo (and commenting on that he couldn't believe he was wearing one) on some TV show honoring a great rocker. So now you're going to dump on PEPPER? The Beatles called the shots in the 1960s. They were the ones who decided where "Rock N Roll" was going to go next. They created PEPPER and that's where all the other RNR artists flocked to with their imitations and inspirations. (The inferior THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIE's REQUEST being one of the worst). If what you're interested in is "bad ass", then maybe The Beatles are not your bag? Who says it was done for posterity? As I explained to you, songs like TIL THERE WAS YOU and TASTE OF HONEY were every bit as much a part of The Beatles from the start as were MONEY and JOHNNY B GOODE. The Beatles were no ordinary one-trick rock band, they were versatile. Don't you think that if The Beatles decided to drop those songs from their albums, they would then be actually "selling out" as to who they were and what they liked to play? I disagree. TTWY is not my favorite, but it was a great moment on the show and far from boring as it was aired -- it gave them a chance to "introduce" the band members as they were each highlighted on the show (JOHN: 'Sorry girls, he's married'). Not boring in the least. You booed. Really. Honestly? Seriously. What were you even doing in that audience? Don't you know who Paul McCartney is and what he does? That's always been a part of Paul's appeal and charm. It's part of what makes Paul Paul. As for BIP BOP and MUMBO, I enjoy them and will defend them as fun gibberish. But if you really think they are "great songs", I think that's some serious over-stating going on there, or else you like to have a laugh and see how much you can kid people and have them take it seriously. GREAT songs? Please... I don't like the Shakespeare one myself (don't mind others). But I disagree with you that it takes away from anything. It's just The Beatles being FUNNY -- and being funny was always part of who The Beatles were (to remind you again). First of all, I like The Stones.. they are #2 for me. But you've got it all backwards if you think that Beatles fans have to "bash the Stones to feel better about themselves" LOL! are you for real there? Here we have Keith bashing The Beatles , which is what started this present debate -- not the other way around. But John, Beatles fans don't need to go around bashing The Stones to feel good; we already have confidence and KNOW that The Beatles are #1 forever and that The Stones are like the Beatles' baby brothers. If anything, it's the Stones fans who feel a need to downplay The Beatles, in order to make THMSELVES feel better! As for "Satisfaction", etc -- I like the songs, and The Stones were good at rocking. So what? That's not enough for me... I also like ballads, Pop, etc., too. I want more versatility and creativity along with the Rock. I don't think anything Mick ever sang can rock like John shredding his vocal chords with "Money", "Twist and Shout", "Bad Boy" and "Slow Down", or Paul rocking out "I'm Down", "Long Tall Sally", "Oh Darling" or "Helter Skelter". (by the way, Helter Skelter blows away Satisfaction in terms of Rock). Doesn't drive me nuts -- I realize that his was a self-proclaimed title by The Stones themselves, and it means nothing to me or The Beatles' enduring popularity and legacy. And I feel the same about Michael Jackson's self-titled "King of Pop" label. So now from here on I'm going to be of the opinion that you're more of a Rolling Stones fan than a Beatles fan. Fine ... but maybe you may want to consider monitoring a Stones forum instead?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 6:31:55 GMT -5
My view on the Rolling Stones is they were and still are crap, if the Beatles weren't around who would they have copied.
The Stones have never broken up, but, they have been recording crap albums for over 40 years .
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 14, 2015 6:46:09 GMT -5
My view on the Rolling Stones is they were and still are crap, if the Beatles weren't around who would they have copied. The Stones have never broken up, but, they have been recording crap albums for over 40 years . I agree with everything you say here, except I wouldn't call The Rolling Stones "crap", and I would say their crap albums now have been the last 30 years, not 40. But they always were and always will be second-string wannabe's to The Beatles. Their fans know this, and it's why they resent The Beatles so much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 7:20:33 GMT -5
My view on the Rolling Stones is they were and still are crap, if the Beatles weren't around who would they have copied. The Stones have never broken up, but, they have been recording crap albums for over 40 years . I agree with everything you say here, except I wouldn't call The Rolling Stones "crap", and I would say their crap albums now have been the last 30 years, not 40. But they always were and always will be second-string wannabe's to The Beatles. Their fans know this, and it's why they resent The Beatles so much. Fair points Joe, people express things differently but i think we have the same low opinion of the Stones.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 14, 2015 8:49:39 GMT -5
Fair points Joe, people express things differently but i think we have the same low opinion of the Stones. Not sure, as I do like The Stones in the 1960's, and some '70s -- and even some '80s ! But you don't like them at all, do I understand that right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 9:06:05 GMT -5
Fair points Joe, people express things differently but i think we have the same low opinion of the Stones. Not sure, as I do like The Stones in the 1960's, and some '70s -- and even some '80s ! But you don't like them at all, do I understand that right? I don't like them at all, that is correct.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 14, 2015 10:35:52 GMT -5
Most egregious is the Royal Command Performance. I wish John would have dropped the f-bomb on those phonies! Best Career Move Ever! They would have disappeared completely. Absolutely ridiculous thing to say. So says the Royalist!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 14, 2015 10:38:37 GMT -5
The Beatles redefined Rock and Roll cool. Not once but every time they released an album. They made themselves old fashioned. Didn't Paul do Till There Was You live a few years back. They did that song and every other song they did because they liked them. Till There Was You is an okay song. Paul gets to show his singing chops. I like a Taste of Honey and Mr. Moonlight too. I like them a whole lot better than all the blues cover songs that the Stones did through that period. Just so you know, I'm a big Stones fan. Excluding any live album, I have all of their albums except the last two and Black and Blue. Eventually I will get them. I was just a little surprised with the early albums, how apparently content they were to keep playing hand clapping - foot stomping R and B covers. I don't listen to them much lately, although there is still a core bunch of songs that I'll turn up when they come on. (Miss You and Emotional Rescue included).
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 14, 2015 10:49:48 GMT -5
This weekend on "Things We Said Today" we'll be talking about Keith's statement with Stones fan Michael Lynch. Does he survive? Tune in. beatlesexaminer.podbean.com or on YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 14, 2015 10:54:21 GMT -5
Joe, I do not have to defend my Beatle fan status to you or vectisfabber. I don't like other bands/artists getting trashed by Beatles fans just to make themselves feel superior and smug. That is called being a poor winner. I like good winners, Beatles fans who are gracious and respectful of other bands and artists.
We have all heard of and understand the phrase "Ugly American." I stopped going to Beatlefests because of how greedy and grubbing Beatles fans were, "Ugly Beatles Fans" should be a phrase!
Wow, go into the flea market or the bootleggers' rooms and Beatles fans are literally clawing and fighting each other for the "good stuff." I never saw such greed and materialism! "All you need is love," "money can't buy you love" and "living in the material world"(George not Madonna, vectis!) mean nothing to Beatles fans at Beatlefest.
In 1982, I wore my '81 Stones official tour shirt to Chicago's Beatlefest not to make an anti-Beatles statement but thinking that was a nice shirt to wear, in the spirit of the music, but man I was treated like an infidel at an ISIS convention! The shirt got nearly ripped off my back!
Are we not confident enough in our Beatles, are we not gracious enough knowing that the Beatles outsell everyone except maybe Mariah Carey and Garth Brooks to allow some dissent from RRHFamer Keith Richards? Are we really that insecure to spew such venom at him and the Stones? All I am saying is give Keith a chance!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 14, 2015 11:14:12 GMT -5
...In 1982, I wore my '81 Stones official tour shirt to Chicago's Beatlefest not to make an anti-Beatles statement but thinking that was a nice shirt to wear, in the spirit of the music, but man I was treated like an infidel at an ISIS convention! The shirt got nearly ripped off my back! Are we not confident enough in our Beatles, are we not gracious enough knowing that the Beatles outsell everyone except maybe Mariah Carey and Garth Brooks to allow some dissent from RRHFamer Keith Richards? Are we really that insecure to spew such venom at him and the Stones? All I am saying is give Keith a chance! Probably more like a Shiite at an ISIS convention (ISIS members being Sunni) . After all, you were not beheaded. The Beatles outsell Garth and Mariah. According to Wiki, they are not even close. Elvis is the one nipping at the Beatles' beatle boots. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 14, 2015 11:51:18 GMT -5
Joe, I do not have to defend my Beatle fan status to you or vectisfabber. Fine, but I will remain of the opinion that you're a bigger Stones fan than Beatles. You have been hiding it all these years, but when it leaks out it POURS out! And of course, you would not address the points I brought up. Y'know, I really can't stand when I write something and then someone else comes back as if he hadn't read a thing. I said I liked The Rolling Stones, and that they are my #2 band. I also explained how it's not The Beatles fans (well, not me, anyway) who need to "feel superior by bashing The Stones". But yes, I am a Proud Beatles Snob -- no doubt about that. I know they're the best and they do not require defending... nor do they need to bash Mick and his boys in order to be better. I don't know about Ugly American, but I know Ugly Brit when I see them -- The Rolling Stones! What does that have to do with anything? And please don't spout The Beatles as if I am required to live by their words. I love The Beatles' music, but I don't have to be their zombie slave. It's absurd and downright defiant that you'd wear a Stones shirt to a Beatlefest, and then act all shocked about the reaction. Why do that? Why not wear a plain shirt, if not a Beatles shirt? What are you intending to do, promote that you like The Stones better? Okay -- but then don't deny it. You like ruffling feathers, and I'll bet that is the pure reason you wore the Stones shirt. I laughed when I read that comment from Keith. I mean, really -- who cares? He's a drug-addled mess. I don't take anything he says seriously. But the other day something typical happened... I walked into my record store, and one of the workers there had just read Keith's comments, and he couldn't wait to rake me over the coals about it... so when I walked in, he pre-judged me as probably going to be "all upset about it" -- but the joke was, I didn't care -- honestly! But this guy started laughing before I even opened my mouth, as he said: "So I guess you're all upset over what Keith said, huh?? Ha Ha Ha!!"... to which, I turned on him and insisted: "What? Who cares?", and he kept pushing the issue, adding: "Look at you -- you're so upset, HA HA!!"... and what happened was I began to get mad at HIM (not Keith), for automatically assuming that I was upset, when I really wasn't. We had some tense moments with him pointing at me and laughing, and my blood pressure was soaring -- but NOT because of anything Keith said; -- but because this store guy had his mind made up that I was upset when I wasn't, and he was gloating over nothing. The more pissed I became at HIM, the more he said it was because of a dumb opinion by Keith.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 14, 2015 12:07:45 GMT -5
This weekend on "Things We Said Today" we'll be talking about Keith's statement with Stones fan Michael Lynch. Does he survive? Tune in. beatlesexaminer.podbean.com or on YouTube. I've only just begun listening to many past (and new) shows, Steve. I'm surprised that this silly opinion of Keith's warrants a whole show, but I will listen to it. Sounds very interesting that a Stones fan will be involved!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 14, 2015 13:41:53 GMT -5
It's absurd and downright defiant that you'd wear a Stones shirt to a Beatlefest, and then act all shocked about the reaction. Why do that? Why not wear a plain shirt, if not a Beatles shirt? What are you intending to do, promote that you like The Stones better? Okay -- but then don't deny it. You like ruffling feathers, and I'll bet that is the pure reason you wore the Stones shirt. I can't respond to every point you throw out there at me, Joe, hoping one will stick but you have answered affirmatively my charge that you are rubbing the Beatles success into the faces of other fans of other bands. You say you are a Stones fan but you sure diss them a lot, so much so fabfour thought that you were a fellow Brother Stones Hater! If you are a Stones fan, I'd hate to see a Stones hater! As to my choice of tee-shirt to Beatlesfest, it was not absurb or defiant! I do not view music as a sporting event with winners and losers, I love it all! I thought my '81 Stones concert shirt was a nice selection, it showed I was a music lover and had been to the hottest concert tour that year! I was supporting one of the old acts, contemporaries and friends of the Beatles! You remember 1982 Joe and Punk music was turning into that creepy and synth driven New Wave stuff. I was showing support for the old guys, in that case the Stones, friends of The Beatles! I sometimes believe in yesterday! Notwithstanding our mutual love of John and Yoko and peace and love, you should have kicked that guy's ass!
|
|