Ayatollah Hermione 14230 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Making out Yoko to be the brains behind the later Beatles work is a far more blatant piece of revisionism tbh. Brains behind such masterpieces as "Revolution #9" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 They were little more than the British Monkees. Rolling Stones is where it was at baby. Beatles nostalgia is revisionism in its worst form. I like both tbh. The Rolling Stones were absolutely abysmal post-London records though. They should've split up at the end of the 60s too. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 They were little more than the British Monkees. Rolling Stones is where it was at baby. Beatles nostalgia is revisionism in its worst form. I like both tbh. The Rolling Stones were absolutely abysmal post-London records though. They should've split up at the end of the 60s too. Only worth listening to the Greatest Hits IMO. I think most of their albums are fucking shocking as a whole. Aye, I'd agree with that. Great when they hit the heights but The Beatles did far better albums and were much more consistent. I love the Beatles early stuff 'poppy' too. Also, no one has reinvented themselves more than Mick Jagger. He was a posh post-grad back in the 60s, not some cheeky cockerney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 They were little more than the British Monkees. Rolling Stones is where it was at baby. Beatles nostalgia is revisionism in its worst form. I like both tbh. The Rolling Stones were absolutely abysmal post-London records though. They should've split up at the end of the 60s too. Only worth listening to the Greatest Hits IMO. I think most of their albums are fucking shocking as a whole. Aye, I'd agree with that. Great when they hit the heights but The Beatles did far better albums and were much more consistent. I love the Beatles early stuff 'poppy' too. Also, no one has reinvented themselves more than Mick Jagger. He was a posh post-grad back in the 60s, not some cheeky cockerney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 They were little more than the British Monkees. Rolling Stones is where it was at baby. Beatles nostalgia is revisionism in its worst form. I like both tbh. The Rolling Stones were absolutely abysmal post-London records though. They should've split up at the end of the 60s too. If they split up at the end of the 60s they wouldn't have made Exile On Main Street, which is considered by many Stones fans to be their best album. They made some of their worst albums in the 60s, Satanic Majesties is godawful. The material post-Exile hasn't been abysmal, but it isn't very good either. They've put out average albums for the most part, with a few real clangers in there. Certainly their albums have never been the best, in terms of British bands both the Beatles and Pink Floyd are significantly better on that front. The Stones were always more about the counter-culture image and the personalities in the band though: the chicks loved Jagger and guys want to party with Keith Richards. Jagger was never a post-grad as far as I recall, think he dropped out of the LSE after studying History briefly. After that he lived in squalor with Richards and Jones for a bit while the band played lots of shit gigs wherever they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniffer 0 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I saw the Stones at the City Hall in 1973 and it was up there with the best concerts I've seen. Not many bands could top their live performances when they felt like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 They were at their best as a live act with Mick Taylor on lead in the early 70s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 They were little more than the British Monkees. Rolling Stones is where it was at baby. Beatles nostalgia is revisionism in its worst form. I like both tbh. The Rolling Stones were absolutely abysmal post-London records though. They should've split up at the end of the 60s too. If they split up at the end of the 60s they wouldn't have made Exile On Main Street, which is considered by many Stones fans to be their best album. They made some of their worst albums in the 60s, Satanic Majesties is godawful. The material post-Exile hasn't been abysmal, but it isn't very good either. They've put out average albums for the most part, with a few real clangers in there. Certainly their albums have never been the best, in terms of British bands both the Beatles and Pink Floyd are significantly better on that front. The Stones were always more about the counter-culture image and the personalities in the band though: the chicks loved Jagger and guys want to party with Keith Richards. Jagger was never a post-grad as far as I recall, think he dropped out of the LSE after studying History briefly. After that he lived in squalor with Richards and Jones for a bit while the band played lots of shit gigs wherever they could. Jagger had tons of charisma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacinofan 0 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Lennon and McCartney wrote one of the Stones first hits, very commercial, but a good vehicle to raise their profile. The Stones made some great music and I agree they should have broke up in the early 70's. Brian Jones was the leader and most talented Stone, but it was Richards and Jagger who wrote the songs (some of them very good ), and Jones's increasing experimentation with drink and drugs saw him gradually pushed out of the group he started, and named, until he was finally sacked. In a business of giant egos and rewriting of histories, Jagger is one of the biggest phonies in music, imo. Lennon was always searching for something to hold his interest, he was easily bored, Ono was 7 years older than him, and offered a world that he'd long been attrracted to. Musically there is no comparison between The Stones and The Beatles. The Beatles albums and single B sides show as diverse a range of lyrics and tunes that you'll find anywhere. You think you have a favourite Beatle song and then you hear another that you'd forgotten about that also blows you away. 'Being for the benefit of Mr Kite' and 'I'm only sleeping' are not two of the most popular Beatle songs but I like them because the music totally fits the picture they're portraying. Lennon was introduced to acid by Georges dentist in 1965. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) They were little more than the British Monkees. Rolling Stones is where it was at baby. Beatles nostalgia is revisionism in its worst form. I like both tbh. The Rolling Stones were absolutely abysmal post-London records though. They should've split up at the end of the 60s too. If they split up at the end of the 60s they wouldn't have made Exile On Main Street, which is considered by many Stones fans to be their best album. They made some of their worst albums in the 60s, Satanic Majesties is godawful. The material post-Exile hasn't been abysmal, but it isn't very good either. They've put out average albums for the most part, with a few real clangers in there. Certainly their albums have never been the best, in terms of British bands both the Beatles and Pink Floyd are significantly better on that front. The Stones were always more about the counter-culture image and the personalities in the band though: the chicks loved Jagger and guys want to party with Keith Richards. Jagger was never a post-grad as far as I recall, think he dropped out of the LSE after studying History briefly. After that he lived in squalor with Richards and Jones for a bit while the band played lots of shit gigs wherever they could. Make it posh ex-student and the end of 1972 and my points still stand Edited October 7, 2011 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 In a business of giant egos and rewriting of histories, Jagger is one of the biggest phonies in music, imo. Musically there is no comparison between The Stones and The Beatles. Just curious, what makes you say that about Jagger? Comes across alright to me, he's always paid tribute to the American Blues artists who inspired all the British bands of that era, which is more than can be said of the likes of Jimmy Page who plagiarised Willie Dixon and subsequently lost a court case. I think Richards is more talented than Brian Jones was. After Brian left the Stones, Ry Cooder did some session work with them and introduced Keef to open string tunings. Keef then went on to develop a pretty unique guitar style based mostly on Open G tuning which can be heard on their best material. Richards is a decent songwriter, and he was pretty innovative in the studio, the use of distorted acoustic guitars on Street Fighting Man being a good example of that. Jones never produced anything as good as that or the best music after he left the Stones: Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile are considered their best albums and Jones was out of the band (or on the verge) during all of them. As for the Stones and the Beatles, the Stones were always deeply rooted in American Blues, when they tried to go psychedelic and ape the Beatles with Satanic Majesties it was a complete disaster musically. Jagger and Richards are a good songwriting team and have produced a lot of decent rock music, but they are pretty limited. The Beatles had stronger writers and a lot more range basically. You couldn't see them playing live with John Lee Hooker or Muddy Waters though. Couldn't see Paul Mcartney writing Little T & A either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 14230 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Satanic majesties is dreadful like. If it wasn't The Stones, every track on it would be relegated to sub-Nuggets-esque compliations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Was reading other day of when Beatles went to meet Elvis . Awkward carry on and no photos / journos allowed as Ves gave a list of "dont's" . When leaving JL allegedly said "Elvis was stoned" to which GH replied "who isn't" Pretty sure this film is to be screened on BBC in November Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017lbh4/Arena_George_Harrison_Living_in_the_Material_World_Part_1/ Just watching it now. Annoyingly the first hour seems to be rehashing the same old stories about the Beatles. Hope it gets past the split soon. It started with news of the split, so I had hoped it would be more about his solo career....as much as I could watch rare Beatles footage and photos all day long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I was sceptical going into it, but came away having really enjoyed it and with a deeper appreciation of the Beatles. There is no in depth look at their musicianship or songs, but you get an intimate sense of this group of creative people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Lennon was clueless till he met her. Clueless about what, Parky? I've never worked out what he saw in her. FFS, she's one of the ugliest women on the planet with no talent as an artist. as JL said in the song How Do You Sleep [directed at Paul and Linda], "a pretty face may last a year or two".........unfortunately, he was probably the only bloke on the planet who would have gave her one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 "God it's like Barbara Fucking Walters in here!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 "God it's like Barbara Fucking Walters in here!" Ringo seems a very funny bloke. Felt sorry for him that these nutters were killing his mates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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