|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 24, 2015 10:50:52 GMT -5
It was sexual freedom in an age of double standards. At least it tends to cut both ways these days. LOL, I am looking for that sexual freedom every day! In the words of John Mellencamp, I " better learn to play guitar!"
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Aug 28, 2015 21:07:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 28, 2015 23:32:25 GMT -5
Man, I wish I would have caught the Stones on that Steel Wheels Tour, that might have been them at their best in terms of technical performance, physical conditioning and # of original band members as Bill Wyman was still playing with them.
Their 1970's tours were legendary but mostly because everyone was so messed up at the concerts and the Stones themselves were rocking but ragged because of boozing and drugs. In that 1990 clip, they sound and look great, maybe a little too slick but that is better than them being so drunk or stoned and falling on their asses!
Did I really need to see Paulie five times on his 1989/1990 tour?
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Sept 15, 2015 7:12:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 16, 2015 17:51:50 GMT -5
I'm getting my copy of Keith's new disc at Best Buy. They have a bonus track on their disc.
I like the one album of his that I bought. I not sure why I didn't get the second one. The disc is getting great reviews. It's supposedly his best yet. I feel a No 1 debut on this.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 16, 2015 23:04:25 GMT -5
I actually wish Keith had done exclusively 'solo' records since 1984 or whenever he and Jagger really fell out. Keith seems a musician who puts out quality, not crap. His solo records have all been appreciated... unlike Mick's.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Sept 17, 2015 7:51:42 GMT -5
I always liked Mick's Wandering Spirit album from around '94.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 17, 2015 18:46:07 GMT -5
I always liked Mick's Wandering Spirit album from around '94. So, you're the one...
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Sept 17, 2015 21:02:45 GMT -5
That was me!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 17, 2015 21:33:50 GMT -5
The same you that posts here now?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 17, 2015 21:59:47 GMT -5
I always liked Mick's Wandering Spirit album from around '94. So, you're the one... There was a great song from that album called "Don't Tear Me Up" which I played over and over when I broke up with a hot babe in 1993:
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 17, 2015 22:15:23 GMT -5
You know, Uncle Keith is again right: The Grateful Dead are horribly boring in fact I think they suck! All of that self-indulgent jamming. F-that! And I have thought long and hard and Uncle Keith was right, Pepper was as rubbish as The Beatles ever got. And as I wrote earlier in this Thread, didn't our boys themselves run as far away from Pepper as early as the "Lady Madonna" sessions in February 1968. Shit boys and girls, if the Beatles distanced themselves from Pepper why shouldn't Uncle Keith and the rest of us!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 17, 2015 22:50:54 GMT -5
The only way to top Sgt. Pepper was to go low tech.
Oh wait, we forgot Magical Mystery, or as it was known, Sgt. Pepper: The Motion Picture.
Oh well. They distanced themselves from that. (Paul: "John was more into it that he lets on.")
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 17, 2015 22:59:35 GMT -5
You know, Uncle Keith is again right: The Grateful Dead are horribly boring in fact I think they suck! All of that self-indulgent jamming. F-that! I like a lot of the dead. Not their live stuff nor not so much their bigger hit's that they are know for. Shakedown Street, Terrapin Station, Samson and Delilah, Alabama Getaway; and Touch of Grey is EXCELLENT. "I will get by, I will survive." Lennon seems to be copying Garcia's persona a little in '69/'70.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 18, 2015 6:56:44 GMT -5
What did the Grateful Dead fan say when the drugs wore off?
"This band sucks."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 18, 2015 7:41:44 GMT -5
What did the Grateful Dead fan say when the drugs wore off? "This band sucks." I love this.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 18, 2015 7:45:56 GMT -5
And I have thought long and hard and Uncle Keith was right, Pepper was as rubbish as The Beatles ever got. And as I wrote earlier in this Thread, didn't our boys themselves run as far away from Pepper as early as the "Lady Madonna" sessions in February 1968. Shit boys and girls, if the Beatles distanced themselves from Pepper why shouldn't Uncle Keith and the rest of us! John, I know you're fed up with the marginalizing of John Lennon. But I'm starting to scratch my head about this latest marginalization of the masterpiece that is SGT PEPPER. I really don't take the likes of a Keith Richards seriously... my wonder is, what's with all these other music fans, including Beatle "fans" , who are starting to call it "rubbish"? Reputations come and go, and lately it's become fashionable to de-throne PEPPER.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 18, 2015 11:00:34 GMT -5
And I have thought long and hard and Uncle Keith was right, Pepper was as rubbish as The Beatles ever got. And as I wrote earlier in this Thread, didn't our boys themselves run as far away from Pepper as early as the "Lady Madonna" sessions in February 1968. Shit boys and girls, if the Beatles distanced themselves from Pepper why shouldn't Uncle Keith and the rest of us! John, I know you're fed up with the marginalizing of John Lennon. But I'm starting to scratch my head about this latest marginalization of the masterpiece that is SGT PEPPER. I really don't take the likes of a Keith Richards seriously... my wonder is, what's with all these other music fans, including Beatle "fans" , who are starting to call it "rubbish"? Reputations come and go, and lately it's become fashionable to de-throne PEPPER. "The likes of a Keith Richards?" Joe, you are an astute lover of Rock And Roll, an avid collector and fan of certainly The Beatles(and maybe others) and by studying The Beatles you know a lot about other bands and I would say that next to Paul McCartney, Keith Richards might be the second in command of 1960's Rock Royalty still alive. I would place him above Mick Jagger even(but Mick is close to the top too). Keith's opinion on Pepper could be as valid and as important as anyone's!! And I call Pepper rubbish within the context of the Beatles catalog; I still feel it is much better than most anyone else's efforts. It is like when we do those tourneys here where we rank the Beatles albums. "With The Beatles" and "Beatles For Sale" and maybe "Yellow Submarine" are always at the bottom yet we are not saying we hate them, we are just saying we love other albums more. We say, "They are all great but they all can't be #1!" I am starting to think Pepper was rather pretentious and dated. If it makes anyone feel better, I like "Abbey Road" way more today than I did even a year ago. In my 20's I adopted John Lennon's attitude that AR was too slick, Side 2 was a lucky arrangement of mere fragments nthat didn't mean anything and two songs in particular on Side 1 were too self-indulgent. I still think MSH blows but I love AR more today than yesterday because it is so slick, the playing and singing is outstanding! Pepper was a dead end. Well maybe not if one is a huge Pink Floyd fan or someone like that.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 18, 2015 21:32:05 GMT -5
John, I know you're fed up with the marginalizing of John Lennon. But I'm starting to scratch my head about this latest marginalization of the masterpiece that is SGT PEPPER. I really don't take the likes of a Keith Richards seriously... my wonder is, what's with all these other music fans, including Beatle "fans" , who are starting to call it "rubbish"? Reputations come and go, and lately it's become fashionable to de-throne PEPPER. "The likes of a Keith Richards?" Joe, you are an astute lover of Rock And Roll, an avid collector and fan of certainly The Beatles(and maybe others) and by studying The Beatles you know a lot about other bands and I would say that next to Paul McCartney, Keith Richards might be the second in command of 1960's Rock Royalty still alive. I would place him above Mick Jagger even(but Mick is close to the top too). Keith's opinion on Pepper could be as valid and as important as anyone's!! And I call Pepper rubbish within the context of the Beatles catalog; I still feel it is much better than most anyone else's efforts. It is like when we do those tourneys here where we rank the Beatles albums. "With The Beatles" and "Beatles For Sale" and maybe "Yellow Submarine" are always at the bottom yet we are not saying we hate them, we are just saying we love other albums more. We say, "They are all great but they all can't be #1!" I am starting to think Pepper was rather pretentious and dated. If it makes anyone feel better, I like "Abbey Road" way more today than I did even a year ago. In my 20's I adopted John Lennon's attitude that AR was too slick, Side 2 was a lucky arrangement of mere fragments nthat didn't mean anything and two songs in particular on Side 1 were too self-indulgent. I still think MSH blows but I love AR more today than yesterday because it is so slick, the playing and singing is outstanding! Pepper was a dead end. Well maybe not if one is a huge Pink Floyd fan or someone like that. Pepper is rubbish and a dead end....I must be in an alternate universe here. Clearly this comes from one who was not conscious in 1967. When this album came out, the pop world was speechless. It froze most bands in their tracks. Pop music had moved into a whole different plane. Jimi Hendrix spent the weekend it came out learning the opening track. People followed the lyrics printed on the back of the album with their mouths agape trying to decipher their meanings and the depth of this new style. Brian Wilson was amazed. The world of rock music moved to a whole new level as bands frantically tried to emulate this new concept. Rubbish? Not even close. Guess you had to be there to know. Keith Richards has his head up his butt with this remark. But that is nothing new.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 7:28:30 GMT -5
Sgt Pepper has just called Keith Richard's new album, Crosseyed Heart, rubbish.
Good call !
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 19, 2015 12:51:49 GMT -5
"The likes of a Keith Richards?" Joe, you are an astute lover of Rock And Roll, an avid collector and fan of certainly The Beatles(and maybe others) and by studying The Beatles you know a lot about other bands and I would say that next to Paul McCartney, Keith Richards might be the second in command of 1960's Rock Royalty still alive. I would place him above Mick Jagger even(but Mick is close to the top too). Keith's opinion on Pepper could be as valid and as important as anyone's!! And I call Pepper rubbish within the context of the Beatles catalog; I still feel it is much better than most anyone else's efforts. It is like when we do those tourneys here where we rank the Beatles albums. "With The Beatles" and "Beatles For Sale" and maybe "Yellow Submarine" are always at the bottom yet we are not saying we hate them, we are just saying we love other albums more. We say, "They are all great but they all can't be #1!" I am starting to think Pepper was rather pretentious and dated. If it makes anyone feel better, I like "Abbey Road" way more today than I did even a year ago. In my 20's I adopted John Lennon's attitude that AR was too slick, Side 2 was a lucky arrangement of mere fragments nthat didn't mean anything and two songs in particular on Side 1 were too self-indulgent. I still think MSH blows but I love AR more today than yesterday because it is so slick, the playing and singing is outstanding! Pepper was a dead end. Well maybe not if one is a huge Pink Floyd fan or someone like that. Pepper is rubbish and a dead end....I must be in an alternate universe here. Clearly this comes from one who was not conscious in 1967. When this album came out, the pop world was speechless. It froze most bands in their tracks. Pop music had moved into a whole different plane. Jimi Hendrix spent the weekend it came out learning the opening track. People followed the lyrics printed on the back of the album with their mouths agape trying to decipher their meanings and the depth of this new style. Brian Wilson was amazed. The world of rock music moved to a whole new level as bands frantically tried to emulate this new concept. Rubbish? Not even close. Guess you had to be there to know. Keith Richards has his head up his butt with this remark. But that is nothing new. That argument is so smug. I am well aware of how Pepper was very popular with the bourgeoisie and produced a lot of really bad psychedelic music for about a year but that all came to a skid with Dylan's John Wesley Hardin at Christmas 1967 and then The Rolling Stones' "Jumping Jack Flash" in the Spring of 1968. Bob Dylan hated Pepper in 1967. Lou Reed hated Pepper in 1967. John Lennon sneered at the overrated nature of Pepper by 1971: "So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise, You better see right through those mothers' eyes."
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 19, 2015 14:18:46 GMT -5
There is probably a little jealousy involved in Dylan's opinion. He never came close to writing any album that was a work of art. He doesn't have an album that I don't have to skip a third of the tracks. And I'm a big Dylan fan. iTunes says I have 37 of his albums, of course that includes Bangladesh and probably a few others that shouldn't count.
Dylan playing country music in 1967? Another mis-step of his. It certainly seems like a retreat when compared to what everyone else was doing in one of the greatest years in music there was. I can't bring myself to get John Welsey Harding. There's only two songs I've heard and have them on other disks. I never cared that much for All Along the Watchtower. I'll Be Your Baby Tonight is a great song though.
Between the Buttons was better than Their Satanic Majesties. It was a whole year later before they released another album. (Scared?) Jumping Jack Flash isn't anywhere near my favorite Stones songs.
Lou Reed's early career was like Punk Rock in general. A rebellion against the music of the time because they could not compete. I always took Lennon's "So Sgt. Pepper..." line as John suggesting that the album's popularity went to Paul's head.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 19, 2015 17:06:38 GMT -5
Pepper is rubbish and a dead end....I must be in an alternate universe here. Clearly this comes from one who was not conscious in 1967. When this album came out, the pop world was speechless. It froze most bands in their tracks. Pop music had moved into a whole different plane. Jimi Hendrix spent the weekend it came out learning the opening track. People followed the lyrics printed on the back of the album with their mouths agape trying to decipher their meanings and the depth of this new style. Brian Wilson was amazed. The world of rock music moved to a whole new level as bands frantically tried to emulate this new concept. Rubbish? Not even close. Guess you had to be there to know. Keith Richards has his head up his butt with this remark. But that is nothing new. That argument is so smug. I am well aware of how Pepper was very popular with the bourgeoisie and produced a lot of really bad psychedelic music for about a year but that all came to a skid with Dylan's John Wesley Hardin at Christmas 1967 and then The Rolling Stones' "Jumping Jack Flash" in the Spring of 1968. Bob Dylan hated Pepper in 1967. Lou Reed hated Pepper in 1967. John Lennon sneered at the overrated nature of Pepper by 1971: "So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise, You better see right through those mothers' eyes." Were you around in 1967John? Listening to music? I was. Sgt. Pepper was the biggest thing that happened in pop music that year. Ah yes, everyone followed Lou Reed that year.... And John Lennon's remark was aimed at Paul when they were in each other's faces after the breakup. It had nothing to do with the quality of the album. Like I said. You had to be there in 1967 to understand its impact. Dylan also worshipped The Beatles. Maybe he took a swipe at Pepper. Jealousy will do that to you. Sorry John, but Pepper was and is a big deal in the history of pop music... Sometimes your remarks on this board absolutely amaze me John.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 19, 2015 17:24:53 GMT -5
You know John, The Stones have had over 50 years to compete against a band that only recorded from 1962-1969. And they have never come close to even matching The Beatles in albums, or a catalogue of original songs. So Keith continues his little petty jabs.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 19, 2015 21:36:20 GMT -5
For me, Sgt. Pepper is a great-ish album, but it's nowhere near as good as:
Please Please Me Live at the BBC (both volumes) Beatles For Sale Help! Rubber Soul Revolver The White Album Let It Be (esp. 'Naked') Abbey Road
All Things Must Pass John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band
In addition, it's not as good as:
The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan Bringing It All Back Home Blonde On Blonde John Wesley Harding Blood On the Tracks
(It's about equal to Highway 61 Revisited and Desire.)
Purely 'song-wise', Sgt. Pepper is not one of The Beatles' better albums. There are still a few all-time classics ('A Day in the Life', 'With a Little Help...', 'Lucy'), but the most notable thing about it is the production.
Sgt. Pepper is naturally a divisive album to music nerds, for three reasons:
1) It's the most over-hyped LP ever. Sometime around the mid-80s -- peaking in 1987 with its 20th Anniversary, its CD release, George Martin's book, etc. -- it became established in the white, middle-class media outlets at "the greatest album ever" (esp. in the USA). It's not surprising that one of the 'whitest', least rhythm & blues, slickest periods/places in pop-history established it as such. It's an incredibly 'white', studio-bound album, with little or no rock'n'roll or the black R&B-influenced sound upon which The Beatles made their name in Liverpool and Hamburg.
2) It's the album that (by no fault of The Beatles) leads down the slippery slope to the worst excesses of prog-rock. I mean, if not for Sgt. Pepper there would have been no Tubular Bells, Dark Side of the Moon, or The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.
3) It's clearly a product of the summer of love / psychedelic era, which means it doesn't really exist outside of its time. This is in sharp contrast to, say, John Wesley Harding, which sounds exactly like a bunch of 'Americana' albums being made today. (I personally have no issue with albums sounding 'of their time', but I can see where it makes the album a bit more dated than, say, Revolver or Abbey Road.)
As to the everyone-was-listening-to-it, you-had-to-be-there argument... so what? None of that matters in 2015. The biggest LP in 1967 (US) was 'More of the Monkees', which spent longer at #1 than Sgt. Pepper. I guess everyone was listening to the Monkees and they're more important...?
Anyway, it's a great album but I've never understood why an LP with little-to-no rock'n'roll can be called the greatest rock album. Along with Meet the Beatles (in the USA), and a few others, it's undoubtedly one of the most influential albums ever (for good and for bad), but that doesn't hold any water in 2015.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 19, 2015 22:20:06 GMT -5
For me, Sgt. Pepper is a great-ish album, but it's nowhere near as good as: Please Please Me Live at the BBC (both volumes) Beatles For Sale Help! Rubber Soul Revolver The White Album Let It Be (esp. 'Naked') Abbey Road
All Things Must Pass John Lennon/Plastic Ono BandIn addition, it's not as good as: The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan Bringing It All Back Home Blonde On Blonde John Wesley Harding Blood On the Tracks(It's about equal to Highway 61 Revisited and Desire.) Purely 'song-wise', Sgt. Pepper is not one of The Beatles' better albums. There are still a few all-time classics ('A Day in the Life', 'With a Little Help...', 'Lucy'), but the most notable thing about it is the production. Sgt. Pepper is naturally a divisive album to music nerds, for three reasons: 1) It's the most over-hyped LP ever. Sometime around the mid-80s -- peaking in 1987 with its 20th Anniversary, its CD release, George Martin's book, etc. -- it became established in the white, middle-class media outlets at "the greatest album ever" (esp. in the USA). It's not surprising that one of the 'whitest', least rhythm & blues, slickest periods/places in pop-history established it as such. It's an incredibly 'white', studio-bound album, with little or no rock'n'roll or the black R&B-influenced sound upon which The Beatles made their name in Liverpool and Hamburg. 2) It's the album that (by no fault of The Beatles) leads down the slippery slope to the worst excesses of prog-rock. I mean, if not for Sgt. Pepper there would have been no Tubular Bells, Dark Side of the Moon, or The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. 3) It's clearly a product of the summer of love / psychedelic era, which means it doesn't really exist outside of its time. This is in sharp contrast to, say, John Wesley Harding, which sounds exactly like a bunch of 'Americana' albums being made today. (I personally have no issue with albums sounding 'of their time', but I can see where it makes the album a bit more dated than, say, Revolver or Abbey Road.) As to the everyone-was-listening-to-it, you-had-to-be-there argument... so what? None of that matters in 2015. The biggest LP in 1967 (US) was 'More of the Monkees', which spent longer at #1 than Sgt. Pepper. I guess everyone was listening to the Monkees and they're more important...? Anyway, it's a great album but I've never understood why an LP with little-to-no rock'n'roll can be called the greatest rock album. Along with Meet the Beatles (in the USA), and a few others, it's undoubtedly one of the most influential albums ever (for good and for bad), but that doesn't hold any water in 2015. Keith Richards calling the album rubbish is still nonsense. I hate getting into a discussion of what albums are better than others in any year. I totally disagree with your list of what is better but that doesn't matter because it is totally subjective. You have your favorites and I have mine. And probably no one else out there agrees totally wirh either of us. Sgt. Pepper was a milestone. Are you saying The Monkees #1 that year in the USA outsold Pepper worldwide? It was and is the recording that marked a turning point for The Beatles who became a studio band from that point on. To call it rubbish is silly and clearly Richards showing his jealousy. That is really the point of my post.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 19, 2015 22:43:04 GMT -5
That argument is so smug. I am well aware of how Pepper was very popular with the bourgeoisie and produced a lot of really bad psychedelic music for about a year but that all came to a skid with Dylan's John Wesley Hardin at Christmas 1967 and then The Rolling Stones' "Jumping Jack Flash" in the Spring of 1968. Bob Dylan hated Pepper in 1967. Lou Reed hated Pepper in 1967. John Lennon sneered at the overrated nature of Pepper by 1971: "So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise, You better see right through those mothers' eyes." Were you around in 1967John? Listening to music? I was. Sgt. Pepper was the biggest thing that happened in pop music that year. Ah yes, everyone followed Lou Reed that year.... And John Lennon's remark was aimed at Paul when they were in each other's faces after the breakup. It had nothing to do with the quality of the album. Like I said. You had to be there in 1967 to understand its impact. Dylan also worshipped The Beatles. Maybe he took a swipe at Pepper. Jealousy will do that to you. Sorry John, but Pepper was and is a big deal in the history of pop music... Sometimes your remarks on this board absolutely amaze me John. What influence from Pepper lasted beyond a year? Yes, Pepper made some people giddy at first. It didn't last, Rock and Roll largely went back to its Blues and C&W base by mid 1968. Revolver is one hundred times a better album than Pepper. I was 5 in 1967 what does that have to do with anything? You love Lewisohn's book but he wasn't present for one single episode he writes about!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 19, 2015 22:50:42 GMT -5
You know John, The Stones have had over 50 years to compete against a band that only recorded from 1962-1969. And they have never come close to even matching The Beatles in albums, or a catalogue of original songs. So Keith continues his little petty jabs. Now I know you are joking: 1. Beggars Banquet(1968); 2. Let It Bleed(1969): 3. Sticky Fingers (1971); and 4. Exile on Main St.(1972). Those are easily as good as Pepper, White Album, AR and LIB and probably better than Pepper and LIB. I am not disloyal to say that, just objective.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 19, 2015 23:43:04 GMT -5
You know John, The Stones have had over 50 years to compete against a band that only recorded from 1962-1969. And they have never come close to even matching The Beatles in albums, or a catalogue of original songs. So Keith continues his little petty jabs. Now I know you are joking: 1. Beggars Banquet(1968); 2. Let It Bleed(1969): 3. Sticky Fingers (1971); and 4. Exile on Main St.(1972). Those are easily as good as Pepper, White Album, AR and LIB and probably better than Pepper and LIB. I am not disloyal to say that, just objective. These are all fairly weak albums, in my opinion. What's great? My favorite of these is Beggar's Banquet. It has Sympathy For the Devil. A masterpiece, as good as anything the Beatles did. But what else is on the album? I like side one a lot, but other than Sympathy, there's nothing approaching great. Street Fighting Man, I guess, was good for it's time, but it doesn't do much for me now. Then there's Stray Cat Strut but I barely remember the rest of the side. Let it Bleed has Gimme Shelter, it has a nice groove to it but great? The rest of the side sounds like filler to me. Midnight Rambler? 6.52 minutes. It should had stopped at 2:00. I would have like it then. Monkey Man is good and you can't argue with You Can't Always Get What You Want reaching that aethereal territory. It doesn't fall into my party realm, but ...(skip). Sticky Fingers is probably my second favorite of your picks. Brown Sugar is a masterpiece but the album still has its weak songs. I guess if you were in the right mood, you might like Midnight Mile. But Sway and I Got the Blues aren't in Beatle space. I can't say anything great about Exile on Main St. There is a couple of pop hits but no great Rock and Roll. There's nothing that makes me want to hear more Stones. I'd agree Goats Head Soup is a masterpiece compared to Mind Games but that's a different thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2015 1:06:06 GMT -5
You know John, The Stones have had over 50 years to compete against a band that only recorded from 1962-1969. And they have never come close to even matching The Beatles in albums, or a catalogue of original songs. So Keith continues his little petty jabs. Now I know you are joking: 1. Beggars Banquet(1968); 2. Let It Bleed(1969): 3. Sticky Fingers (1971); and 4. Exile on Main St.(1972). Those are easily as good as Pepper, White Album, AR and LIB and probably better than Pepper and LIB. I am not disloyal to say that, just objective. I think you are jesting JSD with that little list of Stones albums, they aren't in the same ball park as the Beatles albums
|
|