The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

bnt

ashyle wrote: »

Is that true??

Hyde Park was indeed shortly after Jones' funeral. It wasn't the Stones' best gig, and they were basically blown off stage by King Crimson. :cool:

Mr. Presentable

stovelid wrote: »

Marianne Faithful always says no, but she would, wouldn't she?

I think she said it was a Twix :eek:

ashyle

bnt wrote: »

Hyde Park was indeed shortly after Jones' funeral. It wasn't the Stones' best gig, and they were basically blown off stage by King Crimson. :cool:

Aw, so sad

Fago!

I hate the feckin Beatles. One of the most over-rated bands ever like U2.

grumpytrousers

Dudess wrote: »

I've played that a few times now since you posted it - great tune.

Dudess - check out the entire Rutles back catalogue. Neil Innes, who wrote the songs was a mate of the Beatles and they enjoyed the good natured mickey taking. He was a pal of Eric Idle and it was this connection that was one of the factors which encouraged George Harrison to invest in the Monty Python Movies.

Also, irony alert, and i might have pointed this out before...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWdgiFzpolA

Oasis were never sued by the Beatles for ripping off one of their songs; they were sued - successfully - by Neil Innes for nicking this for 'Whatever'.

Wibbs

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

This is not true.

No UK singles were released from the following UK LPs - all released prior to Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (06/1967)

Rolling Stones No 2 (01/1965)
Aftermath (04/1966)
Between The Buttons (01/1967)

With The Beatles (11/1963)

It was common practice in the UK for singles not to be included on LPs. The US took a different view as can be seen from the respective Beatles and Rolling Stones LPs released over there - amended tracklistings with singles included / appended.

Sorry you're dead right. From what I recall, the Beatles contract stipulated that they did an album a year(or was it two??) with 3 separate single releases per year.

Wibbs

grumpytrousers wrote: »

Dudess - check out the entire Rutles back catalogue. Neil Innes, who wrote the songs was a mate of the Beatles and they enjoyed the good natured mickey taking. He was a pal of Eric Idle and it was this connection that was one of the factors which encouraged George Harrison to invest in the Monty Python Movies.

George also makes an appearance in the Rutles movie. As a reporter/interviewer IIRC?

grumpytrousers

Aye. Have another clip...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zciiuMLh9_M

(oh - and is that Ronnie Wood as the punk at the end?)

Dudess

nipplenuts wrote: »

I think she said it was a Twix :eek:

Double the fun eh? Good call!

Wibbs

Yorkie FTW. Ribbed for her pleasure.:D

Dudess

This thread is actually causing me to mentally go through all the chocolate bars on the market.

A standard Kit Kat would be crap, that's for sure.

Mr. Presentable

Dudess wrote: »

This thread is actually causing me to mentally go through all the chocolate bars on the market.

A standard Kit Kat would be crap, that's for sure.

Would a Star Bar be good for you?

Dudess

Well if you look at any Flake ads - the women always seem to be in the throes of sexual ecstasy. And that's just from eating them.

So I'd take a Flake please (bit of a nightmare due to its crumbliness, I know...)

MaybeLogic

Dudess wrote: »

Well if you look at any Flake ads - the women always seem to be in the throes of sexual ecstasy. And that's just from eating them.

So I'd take a Flake please (bit of a nightmare due to its crumbliness, I know...)

Is a Wibbly Wobbly Wonder any good to you?

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

This thread is actually causing me to physically go through all the chocolate bars on the market..

fyp

Latchy

You can tell this is AH when threads, no matter what the subject, always change or divert course to another with sexual imagery

I love the other two groups but it 's


BEATLES

ejmaztec

nipplenuts wrote: »

I think she said it was a Twix :eek:

It was always a Mars Bar, her memory must have gone.:eek:

Wibbs

MaybeLogic wrote: »

Is a Wibbly Wobbly Wonder any good to you?

How you doin?

Latchy

ejmaztec wrote: »

It was always a Mars Bar, her memory must have gone.:eek:

Marianne Faithful always denied that story .It was something hot but it wasn't a Mars bar :pac:

Wibbs

One of my fave songs of all time....

In the midst of bubblegum pop etc(inc their own) and a 25 yr old comes out with this? As a B side to Yellow submarine? Removing the pop/rock musicality, but remaining vital for the time and beyond. "wearing the face she keeps in a jar by the door" and "no one was saved" at the end. Bleak but beautiful with it. Exploring many basic aspects of humanity, encapsulated in just over 2 mins. That's genius. To make the particular the universal. At their best they captured that. That's why the gulf between them and others and the Stones(a great band in their own right) is so large. Dylan was equally plugged in lyrically, but musically was stuck by comparison. Many since have been more sophisticated and clever, but few have been that plugged in. That visceral. That true. Its not their only example either.

entropi

I have a deep seated dislike of Lennon & Co. so i just HAD to vote for The Rolling Stones...

Latchy

That's the subjective thing about the Beatlles ,no mater what angle you come at them from, be it the early image of the leather jackets and suits , there is always the music .It was around the time of 65/66 when people realised these guys are not just another 'pop group ' .You look at all the early 60s interviews they gave (you tube ) , being asked the same goofy questions over and over again and you realise why they gave the same silly replys , because no matter what Pigeon Hole they ( tv/media/jouralist ) tried to place them in, they couldn't , because it wasn't possible to explain them . The Beatles in order to climb those dizzy heights used the media as much as they were themselfs used so it was a game they both played along with .But Lennon and McCartney knew their songs would always have the last say .So in that respect that's how clever they were , confident in themselfs , ambitious and fully focused . It was always about the music which has stood the test of time today as much as any other form of music you can think of .

Wibbs

Master of Nothing wrote: »

I have a deep seated dislike of Lennon & Co. so i just HAD to vote for The Rolling Stones...

as good a reason as any.

Actually 40 odd yrs on, this one could be applied to so very many of the interweb age, that feel somehow disconnected. The bit "isnt he a bit like you and me" hits the nail on the head. Again the particular to the universal. The mark of truly great art.... OK art is a word undervalued of late, but here I use Art with a capitol A.

And as an expression of loss after a romantic affair is lost to you, you could do worse than this;

Pity there isn't a video for this one. Then again a video that worked would require equal genius.

Snowie

ashyle wrote: »

Well no, but I'd consider a band like the Stones pop too! Just cos it literally means popular music to me!

But I dont like the stones i like pink floyd so errrrrr

shine on you crazy diamond in a momentary lapse of reason while sittin on the dark side of the moon, hangin meddles on the devsion bell

that was on every single desk i ever sat on :pac:

jefreywithonef

Of course there are better bands

<Ollie> wrote: »

So, do you care to name them?

Wings - they're only the band the Beatles could have been.

lisajane

The beatles or the rolling stones?

Neither. When are we getting a country music forum?

stovelid

I should point out for the record that I was only making a point about innovation - a small part of what makes you like music.

I adore a great deal of the Stones canon unreservedly, obviously.

Pdfile

im sorry, but thin lizzy where miles better then both in every aspect.


Silly sheep follow any band their bullied into :rolleyes:

wandatowell

Exile on Main St IS the greatest album ever IMO but I prefer the beatles.

K4t

The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

The Kinks.

MaybeLogic

Seeing as 'Classic Rock' is only a day in the life of AH,I thought
i'd post this classic,one of my Beatles favourites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nY0SRsAeaw

ashyle

Monzo wrote: »

Wings - they're only the band the Beatles could have been.

My favourite Beatles album, would have to be The Best of the Beatles.

brummytom

The Beatles, by a billion miles

Intothesea

Apples and oranges, no? The stones for me, but only because I find Beatle music (tuneful and innovative as it is) to be flat on the emotional register.

/stands in doorway

Dragan

Not a massive fan of either, would go so far as to use the term "boring".

grumpytrousers

Dragan wrote: »

Not a massive fan of either, would go so far as to use the term "boring".

so why bother post here? I'm not a fan of peppers of any colour, so if there was a discussion on 'what's your favourite pepper?' I'd steer clear.

I'm not having a pop at you; I'm genuinely curious about why people post in a forum where their contribution can't further the discussion?

Dragan

grumpytrousers wrote: »

so why bother post here? I'm not a fan of peppers of any colour, so if there was a discussion on 'what's your favourite pepper?' I'd steer clear.

I'm not having a pop at you; I'm genuinely curious about why people post in a forum where their contribution can't further the discussion?

Because it's an open forum, and i can post where i like?

Also, perhaps i am open to discussion, and someone will come along and say "boring, the Beatles? Boring, clearly you have never heard of Song X" and post me a link, and i go off and listen and change my mind about the Beatles?

There is a "Who" option, which seems to be catering for people who like neither ( I can only assume it was NOT but in for people who have yet to be touched by two of the best marketed bands on the planet - seriously, i can respect the longevity and the presence, any of the the music that i was exposed to just never did it for me ).

Snowie

Dragan wrote: »

Also, perhaps i am open to discussion, and someone will come along and say "boring, the Beatles? Boring, clearly you have never heard of Song X" and post me a link, and i go off and listen and change my mind about the Beatles?

I'd agree with you on them booth being boreing....

except sargent peapers lonly haerts as thats a truely great album but in genral im not mad on booth

prefer crosby stills and nash and young or with out the young.

Dudess

Pdfile wrote: »

im sorry, but thin lizzy where miles better then both in every aspect.

No need to be sorry for having an opinion.

Silly sheep follow any band their bullied into :rolleyes:

Maybe they just, y'know, like them?

Jay P

The Beatles, by a long shot. The Stones are painfully average in comparison. But don't get me wrong, the Stones are really good, but The Beatles are just amazing.

I love George's songs especially. It's such a pity he wrote so few for them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzLry3ABpV0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrxRAvnU1FQ

And my favourite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieJDbxRH-ck

[/QUOTE]

I love the Eastern ting he put into many songs, especially in Within You Without You. Class.

Rev. BlueJeans

grumpytrousers wrote: »

Aye. Have another clip...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zciiuMLh9_M

(oh - and is that Ronnie Wood as the punk at the end?)

It is indeed. Harrison also practically bankrolled The Life of Brian on his own, through the Handmade Films company.

I know he's made up there, but the guy looked old, even when he was young. Comes across to me, along with Ringo, as the nicest of the bunch. John and Paul had the talent, even though George is often overlooked, but they never struck me as particularly nice people to say the least-particularly in the case of John.

Jay P

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

It is indeed. Harrison also practically bankrolled The Life of Brian on his own, through the Handmade Films company.

Didn't a few lads in Pink Floyd give money to the film as well?

Rev. BlueJeans

Not that I'm aware of. Open to correction though.

Saibh

Given a choice of either listening to The Beatles or The Rolling Stones - would pick The Beatles.

Quint

I love both bands. The Beatles spend 7 years releasing studio albums, what they did in that short time is amazing and will never be repeated. I heard someone put it nicely before, the modern day equivalent is for Westlife to change to Radiohead in 3 years.
This to this in a less than 2 years! The Rolling Stones have been releasing albums for over 40 years and have barely changed their style.

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Stones have always been the better of the two, even more so now:pac:. The Beatles only started to be good when they got their hands on a sh1tload of drugs.

Same with almost every band in the history of music!

Jay P wrote: »

The Beatles, by a long shot. The Stones are painfully average in comparison. But don't get me wrong, the Stones are really good, but The Beatles are just amazing.

I love George's songs especially. It's such a pity he wrote so few for them:

And my favourite:

I love the Eastern ting he put into many songs, especially in Within You Without You. Class.

Don't forget this, one of my top 5 favourite Beatles songs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w36iYgU2zus

rannerap

THE BEATLES,why is this question even being asked?the beatles are far superior,dont see any anyone playing rolling stones rock band at the minute!

kenon

Jay P wrote: »

Didn't a few lads in Pink Floyd give money to the film as well?

Michael Palin said in an interview that Pink Floyd gave them a few bob for the film. I don't have the interview but I have the memory of the interview...

Psychedelic

The Beatles, and to a lesser extent The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, The Kinks, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin are way way better than the Stones in terms of their skill as musicians and the quality of songs they produced.

The Stones had some good rocking tunes in their early days like Satisfaction and Paint It Black but they never wrote anything near as good as classics like Hey Jude, Light My Fire, Waterloo Sunset, Voodoo Chile or Stairway to Heaven.

When the Stones tried to do other styles of music like psychedelic rock and ballads they just sucked. All the other bands I mentioned and especially the Beatles could do lots of style of music and be good at it. The Stones just had more or less the same sound for their whole career. The Stones had probably enough good songs to fill a couple of albums. The Beatles - nearly every song they wrote could be a single it was so good.

Mick Jagger is also an annoying cúnt and I don't think he's that good a singer.

RonMexico

Sarannewrap wrote: »

THE BEATLES,why is this question even being asked?the beatles are far superior,dont see any anyone playing rolling stones rock band at the minute!

Yeah because if it was released I am sure nobody would buy it. :rolleyes:

Wibbs

Quint wrote: »

I love both bands. The Beatles spend 7 years releasing studio albums, what they did in that short time is amazing and will never be repeated. I heard someone put it nicely before, the modern day equivalent is for Westlife to change to Radiohead in 3 years.

Great way to put it. Their speed of change and innovation is utterly staggering. They were a completely different entity at the end. And they did it in one of the fastest changing musical and fashion eras in history. I mean look at who they were competing against. Dylan, the Kinks, The Who, The Doors and all the US west coast stuff, The Stones, the emergence of the lead guitarists Clapton and Hendrix, the whole Motown scene, Simon and Garfunkel, Frank Zappa, early Pink Floyd etc. Though McCartney says the band that spurred them on the most was Brian Wilson and the Beachboys, who were on a par with them for a time studio wise. Those contemporaries were very high quality.