|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 14, 2015 14:55:30 GMT -5
I can't respond to every point you throw out there at me, Joe, hoping one will stick How about admitting that soft songs like TIL and HONEY were always Beatles staples, and if they had abandoned them in favor of only doing raucous Rock when they got a recording contract, then THAT would be more like "selling out"? When push comes to shove, yes - I can react. But I don't go around here bashing The Stones for its own sake, and certainly not "to boost up The Beatles". Look how long the Keith Comments thread was in existence before I even bothered joining in -- and even when I did, it wasn't much, until your anti-Beatles comments forced my hand. Well, at least Old Fred is smiling from ear to ear .. he brought up this thread to divert attention away from Davy Jones (whose comment about The Beatles being the first "boy band" was much more wrong-headed than Keith's, even) -- and Fred's plan has certainly succeeded!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 14, 2015 15:35:57 GMT -5
Why yes OldFred did take the heat of Davy, didn't he! Way to divide and conquer OldFred!
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Aug 14, 2015 16:11:48 GMT -5
I went to the trouble of finding out Sergeant Pepper's opinion of Keith Richards. Enough said I think.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 14, 2015 16:26:52 GMT -5
Nice graphic Stavros but you don't really believe that do you? Man, Keith Richards is Mr. Guitar Riff! He is very rough around the edges but when you read his book he is really a loveable old rascal! One of the sweetest chapters was when Paul walked to Keith's beach house in Jamaica(I think) when Paul was going through the Heather troubles. Keith noted that no one just stumbles upon his house because it is so isolated and so heavily guarded! He knew Paul had something very heavy on his mind to walk that far! Paul and Keith had very good visits whenever that was, Keith writing it was better than any visits he had with Paul in the 1960's. They genuinely liked each other and each man is a living jukebox of musical knowledge. How can we hate a man who opened his home to Macca at his lowest moment since Linda died and made Paul feel good! Man, Paul McCartney and Keith Richards, I'd give anything just to have been there and listened to them talk and play their guitars!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 14, 2015 17:17:24 GMT -5
From what I've heard, Keith is a pretty cool guy and mostly nice to the fans. So that's always a plus in my book. Wish I could say the same for them Beatles sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Aug 14, 2015 17:19:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Aug 14, 2015 17:26:35 GMT -5
Nice graphic Stavros but you don't really believe that do you? ........ I think you know I don't. It was just to lighten the mood a little. I was always going to follow it up with what I've written below..... I am going to back Joe K up a little here( I'm sure he was a scouser in a previous life!). Because I am not sure in posting the pics earlier you were fully understanding of British culture and our liking for "comedy farce". Perhaps you have heard of the traditional UK Christmas pantomime? The Beatles were just following a long tradition in these type of shows. We don't like to take ourselves too seriously. I think our friends down under are the same in that respect. But all said from what I can gather Keef and Macca are pretty good pals. I am not really a Rolling Stones fan. I like some of their better known tracks but a lot of their stuff is a bit dull to me. However if the Beatles sit at the Apex of the "Pyramid of Popular Music" then the Stones are just below them. Keith Richards wants to think Pepper was rubbish then that's his prerogative. But I think he was expressing his musical preferences in the interview. Pepper is an album that at the time (I'm guessing - I'm a 70s kid) was seen as a paradigm shift in popular music. Perhaps also the moment pop music went from a "singles 45 rpm" market to an albums market. Whether people like Pepper or not it has earned a certain place in popular music history. I think the Beatles psychedelic era started as a band determined to break the barriers of popular music. But by the end of it all the band itself were beginning to break.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 14, 2015 18:41:02 GMT -5
Good points Stavros and we all know you as extremely reasonable and solid!
But I see Rock and Roll as rebellion and the Beatles could have been just as big doing it their own way, not the Epstein/James show business way. From reading on the Beatles and from posters like you and vectisfabber(and others), I have come to know a little of the traditional UK Christmas pantomime but the beauty of Rock and Roll was it was to smash the parents' and grandparents' traditions, not copy or imitate them!
So if the music hall people did those skits in the 20' through 50's, the Beatles could have come along and said "Sod that!" As Bob Dylan was singing across the pond, "Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command."
Same with Royal Variety and same with that popular British TV show where at the end all the people on the show gather and sing some song and waive to the cameras. The Beatles would have been so cool to say "Screw it, we don't do that."
Eppy and the Beatles did not need to win over the Mums and Dads, the genie was out of the bottle, the post-war baby boom meant young people were going to have a huge say and the finances to back up their preferences.
John Lennon ruefully admitted to RS that the Beatles sold-out big time for fame and were real bastards. The sad thing is they didn't have to, time was on their side.
The Stones in matching suits was very, very brief. They can sleep at night. We know this bothered John a lot.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 14, 2015 19:05:04 GMT -5
Wasn't the whole rebel thing pretty much created by the press and the establishment that was?
Early rock and roll scared a lot of conservative leader types and some concerned parents. Not to mention the Klan element that didn't like white people singing race records, to use a nicer one of their terms for it. But the media machinery, show biz, loved it. Sure they marketed a cleaner version that parents would approve of. And when something didn't quit fit into that, they marketed it as rebels.
The Stones sold out as much as anybody by buying into the bad boy image.
By the way, Til There Was You was from the Music Man, a musical that contains songs that many people consider early Rap music.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 14, 2015 19:10:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 14, 2015 22:25:56 GMT -5
Wow, there is so much upon which to comment, but here's a start:
George once said that as far as the Beatles and the Stones were concerned, Mick Jagger was always a day late and a dollar short.
I think it's true that both bands appreciated and respected each other despite any ragging to the contrary.
Stones selling out to disco? Well, John in interviews was gaga over disco. He thought it was the next big thing. What about Paul and his forays into disco? And George's perm?
What about this "sell out"?
Here's Mick getting into Billy Squier territory:
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 15, 2015 10:45:22 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! We don't talk just about Keith's statement in the show, Joe. The whole issue of the Beatles and the Stones are discussed, too. You also have to wonder based on Keith's past whether he was just opening his mouth or was somewhat serious.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 15, 2015 13:08:48 GMT -5
And Keith has a new solo album coming out so maybe he is doing what they all do, cause some controversy to plug an album!
By the way, Keith's new song on the radio, "Trouble," is awesome! In this ever changing world in which we live in where most change sucks, it is great to have a guitar driven song by Keith Richards! I absolutely love it!
Isn't it great that Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan and Keith Richards are still kicking ass! I wish Mick Jagger would get serious meet Keith halfway so the whole Stones could thrive with new music
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 15, 2015 13:26:09 GMT -5
And Keith has a new solo album coming out so maybe he is doing what they all do, cause some controversy to plug an album! By the way, Keith's new song on the radio, "Trouble," is awesome! In this ever changing world in which we live in where most change sucks, it is great to have a guitar driven song by Keith Richards! I absolutely love it! Isn't it great that Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan and Keith Richards are still kicking ass! I wish Mick Jagger would get serious meet Keith halfway so the whole Stones could thrive with new music Yeah, I like it. It's been out 4 weeks and I'm just now hearing it? It's sounds like Charlie on the drums. I'll have to pick this up when it comes out. I have Talk is Cheap. Wasn't there at least one more album by solo Keith? My only worry is, this will make Mick want to put out another solo album.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Aug 15, 2015 18:58:29 GMT -5
Good points Stavros and we all know you as extremely reasonable and solid! But I see Rock and Roll as rebellion and the Beatles could have been just as big doing it their own way, not the Epstein/James show business way. From reading on the Beatles and from posters like you and vectisfabber(and others), I have come to know a little of the traditional UK Christmas pantomime but the beauty of Rock and Roll was it was to smash the parents' and grandparents' traditions, not copy or imitate them! So if the music hall people did those skits in the 20' through 50's, the Beatles could have come along and said "Sod that!" As Bob Dylan was singing across the pond, "Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command." Same with Royal Variety and same with that popular British TV show where at the end all the people on the show gather and sing some song and waive to the cameras. The Beatles would have been so cool to say "Screw it, we don't do that." Eppy and the Beatles did not need to win over the Mums and Dads, the genie was out of the bottle, the post-war baby boom meant young people were going to have a huge say and the finances to back up their preferences. John Lennon ruefully admitted to RS that the Beatles sold-out big time for fame and were real bastards. The sad thing is they didn't have to, time was on their side. The Stones in matching suits was very, very brief. They can sleep at night. We know this bothered John a lot. Yes I see where you are coming from. But I think the Beatles actually enjoyed playing the fool in costume occasionally. Their appearance on the Royal Variety show was just before they 'broke' America and paved the way for the 'British invasion'. Maybe the younger kids and the parents and grandparents did not need to be won over. It's a fair point to make because it's difficult to know what might have been. I don't think 1960s Britain was quite ready for a 'rebellious' Beatles. Their compromises to make it big probably did mean they made it big. Even by the mid-60s parts of America didn't understand John's "Jesus" comments. The Beatles could rock but were not really overtly political or anti-Establishment in their music. John went a bit radical for a year or two, after the break up of the band. But generally speaking I think their eclectic mix of music made them what they were. Had the Beatles not made it first and broke America it's possible, in fact likely, the Stones wouldn't have either. It had to wait a generation for 'punk' to arrive. The pioneers of 'punk' a decade later disappeared or adapted their music into a more commercial "New Wave" sound within a year or two. So maybe if the Beatles had adopted a more rebellious public persona in the 1960s they would have faded too well before Sgt. Pepper could be conceived of. It really is a difficult point to ponder. What if the Savage Young Beatles had never been tamed by Epstein? That's probably a very good thread on it's own. PS Keith's new song is a belter and should have been a Stones song.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 16, 2015 12:56:18 GMT -5
My only worry is, this will make Mick want to put out another solo album. LOL! Do you mean that a Mick solo album further delays his working with the Stones or that his solo albums tend to be pretty bad(a few songs excepted)? Or both! I think Keith Richards is okay and good for his age and these times. Curiously it is Mick Jagger who seems musically lost to me. I don't mean the Mick Jagger playing live with The Rolling Stones, he does that well. But as to new Stones' or solo music and when Mick performs live solo, he seems lost. Speaking for myself, I don't think Mick has written a really good song in 25 years. I attribute to his physical and emotional split from Keith. Physical in that they never hang out outside of touring or recording and even that is not like the old days. Emotionally they have been on different planes for decades. Reading Keith's book their split was earlier in the 1970's than I imagined. Mick was ready to write Keith off by Some Girls and Keith's heroin bust in Canada. It was never the same after that. John Lennon(in the brief years he had left) and Paul McCartney both made amazing solo music but I think we all agree they made each other even better. Mick needed Keith even more than John and Paul needed each other. Mick's more commercial instincts combined with Keith's bluesy garage vibe produced the Stones' classics. Keith needs Mick too because without those commercial instincts, great Keith riffs and vibes get heard by much smaller audiences and are often unrealized or unfinished songs. And the mini-Greek tragedy of John and Paul, with John being murdered before the two men truly reconciled, makes me very annoyed as to Mick and Keith. One wants to shake them and point them to the tragic, now unfinished forever John and Paul musical relationship! It is not yet too late for Mick and Keith although now old age has caught up with both men. Still, even just one more great album by the Stones is possible unlike anything new from Lennon/McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 16, 2015 16:07:18 GMT -5
My only worry is, this will make Mick want to put out another solo album. LOL! Do you mean that a Mick solo album further delays his working with the Stones or that his solo albums tend to be pretty bad(a few songs excepted)? Or both! Since I still haven't got the last two Stones album, I can't say I'm too worried about a delay in a new one. And in all fairness, I've never heard any of Mick's solo stuff, other than the singles that I did not like at all. I think Mick tries to be more pop outside of the Stones and it doesn't work for him. I liked Voodoo Lounge, the last Stones album I bought. I don't know why I stalled out on them. Probably because I started buying the early albums instead. I hadn't heard any of them before Flowers, which was a best of album. I was surprised they did so many covers. The early albums didn't get me on a new kick like I was hoping they would.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Aug 16, 2015 16:40:41 GMT -5
Have no fear and fret thee not, Joe. Instant Karma will see that Our Johnny gets his comeuppance!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 16, 2015 17:47:47 GMT -5
LOL! Was that 2010? That was my rediscovery of Stones after my fabfour like disclaimer of them in the mid-1990's! Oh well, the change has come, she's under my thumb! Not really.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 16, 2015 22:58:34 GMT -5
. . . The Stones sold out as much as anybody by buying into the bad boy image. By the way, Til There Was You was from the Music Man, a musical that contains songs that many people consider early Rap music. First, there's an old canard that says that the Beatles were bad boys made to look good and the Stones were good boys made to look bad. Based on what I've heard of their upbringings and lives before fame, I think that might be right. I remember reading a comment by Mick about George after he died when he reminisced about the good old days. He said he'd go out partying with George a lot, and George was really good at it. As for Till There Was You, wasn't there something said like, "When the Beatles played I Want to Hold Your Hand they created a lot of Beatle fans and when they played Till There Was You they created a lot of Stones fans"?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 17, 2015 6:29:57 GMT -5
. . . The Stones sold out as much as anybody by buying into the bad boy image. By the way, Til There Was You was from the Music Man, a musical that contains songs that many people consider early Rap music. First, there's an old canard that says that the Beatles were bad boys made to look good and the Stones were good boys made to look bad. Based on what I've heard of their upbringings and lives before fame, I think that might be right. I remember reading a comment by Mick about George after he died when he reminisced about the good old days. He said he'd go out partying with George a lot, and George was really good at it. As for Till There Was You, wasn't there something said like, "When the Beatles played I Want to Hold Your Hand they created a lot of Beatle fans and when they played Till There Was You they created a lot of Stones fans"? Everybody did their softer, more traditional songs. Elvis did Have I Told You Lately That I love You and True Love. Chuck did his ballads and teeny, show bizzy Rock 'N' Roll songs. The Everly Brothers, Jerry Lee Lewis, the Beach Boys ...etc., they all did songs that were aimed at the older generation. There was certainly an older, established audience for the Blues. Sinatra, Tony Bennett..., the blues had an older fan bass. The whole Rock and Roll as rebellion was a media creation. The kids liked it because it was good. Many parents had no problem with rock and roll. Bob Dylan and the folk moment had nothing to do with alienating parents. Creating Stones fan? That joke was written after '65. No one would have got it in "64.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Aug 17, 2015 9:01:14 GMT -5
The Stones rough "bad boys" image always frightened me!
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 17, 2015 15:35:06 GMT -5
The Stones rough "bad boys" image always frightened me! Hey the Stones were doing it long before Jimmy Fallon!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 10:33:44 GMT -5
Brand new Mojo interview with Pink Floyd's ( who I never liked) David Gilmore who says he wished he had been in The Beatles and that he learned everything from them, to play bass,and lead guitar and rhythm from them and that they were fantastic! Hear that Keith Richards! roll:) www.mojo4music.com/21435/david-gilmour-covers-the-beatles-for-mojo/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 11:09:55 GMT -5
Good points Stavros and we all know you as extremely reasonable and solid! But I see Rock and Roll as rebellion and the Beatles could have been just as big doing it their own way, not the Epstein/James show business way. From reading on the Beatles and from posters like you and vectisfabber(and others), I have come to know a little of the traditional UK Christmas pantomime but the beauty of Rock and Roll was it was to smash the parents' and grandparents' traditions, not copy or imitate them! So if the music hall people did those skits in the 20' through 50's, the Beatles could have come along and said "Sod that!" As Bob Dylan was singing across the pond, "Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command." Same with Royal Variety and same with that popular British TV show where at the end all the people on the show gather and sing some song and waive to the cameras. The Beatles would have been so cool to say "Screw it, we don't do that." Eppy and the Beatles did not need to win over the Mums and Dads, the genie was out of the bottle, the post-war baby boom meant young people were going to have a huge say and the finances to back up their preferences. John Lennon ruefully admitted to RS that the Beatles sold-out big time for fame and were real bastards. The sad thing is they didn't have to, time was on their side. The Stones in matching suits was very, very brief. They can sleep at night. We know this bothered John a lot. Who really cares that The Beatles gave in to Brian Epstein's fake cleaned up image just in their early days? They were a great rock n roll and pop rock band in their early days,and that is the only important thing that matters!The Beatles being ''bastards'' is being bad boys too,and The Rolling Stones could also be bastards.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 20, 2015 11:56:13 GMT -5
LOL, I wish The Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan in February 1964 in leather and John with a toilet seat around his neck!
I know, I know, the conventional wisdom is that the Beatles needed to wear suits and needed to sing "Spew" to get on Sullivan. Old Ed Sullivan hated the Rolling Stones but notice that didn't stop him from booking them for the huge ratings they scored. The "Hamburg" Beatles would have scored the same record breaking viewing count as the clean-cut Beatles actually did and maybe even more so! Can you imagine the anarchy if the U.S,. first saw the Hamburg Beatles on Ed?
But yeah Lucy, in the end the love we take is equal to the love we make so it all played out just as it was supposed to!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 12:39:45 GMT -5
But like I also had said a few posts back,their cleaned up *early* image was a fake joke and they were the = of a pimp playing a priest! And their great music was the most relevant anyway.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 21, 2015 10:23:34 GMT -5
But like I also had said a few posts back,their cleaned up *early* image was a fake joke and they were the = of a pimp playing a priest! And their great music was the most relevant anyway. Hey, I love that image of our guys being pimps! With their trendy new suits all they needed were Fedoras!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 7:26:31 GMT -5
Well, as a feminist woman,I don't like or obviously approve of what they did in their personal lives,using all of those young groupie women for their sexual pleasure,and many were as I said under age.But this certainly wasn't only unique to them,The Rolling Stones,The Who,etc etc did the same thing,they all could have and probably should have gotten arrested for statatory rape,I'm sure the laws on this were even much stricter in the 1960's,but they all got away with it because of who they were and The Beatles fake cleaned up image allowed them to get away with it even *more*! About two years ago a guy said on some web site that I don't remember,What were The Beatles doing from 1963-1966 when they were touring? He said left out,drugs,and groupies.Thank God Yoko turned John into a more emotionally together,nurturing house husband and feminist man! Infact Hunter Davies says in his 1985 updated great only authorized Beatles biography called,The Beatles that orginially came out in 1968,that naturally he had not given full details of what happened in the dressing rooms on tours,about the girls queuing up,begging for their favors.He then says,that he thinks any reader over the age of 15 even in 1968,must have been well aware of what really happened,but no one spelled it out in those days.He then says,groupies are a cliche today and we all know all about their excesses.He says,The Beatles were no different from any other group they just had more to pick from. He then says that it was the job of the road managers to say,you,you,and,you five minutes later.He then says in 1968,three of the four Beatles were happily married ,as far as the outside world was aware,and the other had a regular girl friend( he obviously means Paul and Jane Asher) and that the wives did not want such things mentioned, of course,nor did The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 24, 2015 3:30:07 GMT -5
It was sexual freedom in an age of double standards. At least it tends to cut both ways these days.
|
|