Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fab4Fan]

The Beatles are The Stones, and The Stones are The Beatles. Jimi is The Stones, The Beatles are Jimi. Dylan is Jimi. Jimi is Dylan.

So John got it right when he wrote/sang "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."

[Fab4Fan]

In this film of John Lennon walking in New York including Central Park November 1974,he's also seen going to the Beacon Theatre play based on the Sgt.Pepper's album.

Awesome video! Thanks for posting it!

[Kevin]

Wait! Stop the presses! Kevin, do you seriously not own a copy of Rubber Soul or Revolver? Good gosh, man, I'll send you a legitimate, genuine store bought copy of each if you send me your address!

Thanks or the offer. I bought my first vinyl Revolver and Rubber Souls way back in about 1977. For 5 years I listened to practically nothing but The Beatles. Several moves from NZ to Uk and back again has seen several vinyl and cd collections disappear.
Now I hardly ever listen to the Beatles except to catch up on a song for a discussion here, and I very occasionally play the Blue album.
But I can still here every album in my head. Frankly listening wise I'm Bealed out, and listen to other stuff now.

[Bingo Bongo]

The Rolling Stones also wrote 2 dreadful disco imitations,Miss You and Emotional Rescue. At least when Paul McCartney did a disco like song,Good Night tonight it was good interesting sounding music!

Oooooh I wish I could agree with you on this, (and I don't like disco), but those 2 Stones songs are classics, but I cannot say the same for Macca's!

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

But then, even the weakest Beatles album outshines the best Stones LP...

I do prefer Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers or Exile On Main Street over Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Beatles For Sale or Let It Be (Yellow Submarine shouldn't even be mentioned). But the best Beatles albums certainly outshine the best Stones LPs.

[fanofthefab4]

Oooooh I wish I could agree with you on this, (and I don't like disco), but those 2 Stones songs are classics, but I cannot say the same for Macca's!

  I can't stand those Rolling Stones songs! Paul's are *much* better!

[fanofthefab4]

Awesome video! Thanks for posting it!

You're very welcome,yes isn't it great! John looks great too I love what he was wearing,the black hat and long coat.It's just so depressing seeing him young and alive like that. And notice how he had no body gaurd protection and all of the fans came up to him and he was interacting with them and signing autographs.He had done that in New York for years and then in late 1980 he hadn't been in the public eye and hadn't played live in concert for over 5 years and so he thought he would be OK without a body gaurd because nothing had happened all those years when he went without one

[Mr Mustard]

I do prefer Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers or Exile On Main Street over Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Beatles For Sale or Let It Be (Yellow Submarine shouldn't even be mentioned). But the best Beatles albums certainly outshine the best Stones LPs.

I've no doubt many would share your preferences Hombre. Speaking for myself I honestly stand by my original assertion: even "Yellow Submarine" (I DO count it!), if only on the awesome presence of "Hey Bulldog" alone, beats any of those Stones albums you've listed (all of which I'm familiar with, "Aftermath" probably being my favourite). "Exile On Main Street" will to me always rank as one of the most overrated albums in rock history.

The big difference is that even those early Beatles albums were mostly solid, terrific, energetic stuff: most tracks either hits in their own right, quality B sides, album tracks that could've been singles, great (sometimes better than the original) cover versions or hidden gems. Not much in the way of filler, which is of course what set The Beatles apart from their contemporaries (and don't forget a Beatles "filler" was often better than another group's "hit"). Whereas The Stones albums were usually two or three decent, occasionally very good, tracks padded out with filler the rest of the way. At least that's how I hear them, but each to their own of course. I'd rather listen to a Hollies album than a Rolling Stones one, by and large. 

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

I've no doubt many would share your preferences Hombre. Speaking for myself I honestly stand by my original assertion: even "Yellow Submarine" (I DO count it!), if only on the awesome presence of "Hey Bulldog" alone, beats any of those Stones albums you've listed (all of which I'm familiar with, "Aftermath" probably being my favourite). "Exile On Main Street" will to me always rank as one of the most overrated albums in rock history.

The big difference is that even those early Beatles albums were mostly solid, terrific, energetic stuff: most tracks either hits in their own right, quality B sides, album tracks that could've been singles, great (sometimes better than the original) cover versions or hidden gems. Not much in the way of filler, which is of course what set The Beatles apart from their contemporaries (and don't forget a Beatles "filler" was often better than another group's "hit"). Whereas The Stones albums were usually two or three decent, occasionally very good, tracks padded out with filler the rest of the way. At least that's how I hear them, but each to their own of course. I'd rather listen to a Hollies album than a Rolling Stones one, by and large.

The Beatles are my very favorite band, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the Stones and even recognizing when they were better than the Fab Four (in my opinion, of course). I can also hear hidden gems in the Stones albums, it's not hard to find them if one listens to them with an open mind. And I'm sorry, but I won't take you seriously if you say that Yellow Submarine is better than any Stones album, sounds like a blind devoted fan, though that's not a crime!

About Exile On Main Street, I agree that it's highly overrated, even though I like it a lot. I'd also say that Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers are better than A Hard Day's Night, Help! and The White Album; but Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and (maybe) Abbey Road were never surpassed or equaled by the Stones.

[tkitna]

I love the Stones and prefer some of their albums over some Beatles albums.  I like 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' too.  I think 'Revolver' flows even with all the different styles too and is easily the Beatles best album.  As for Keith saying Peppers is rubbish,,,,who cares.  Its just Keith being Keith.

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

I love the Stones and prefer some of their albums over some Beatles albums.  I like 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' too.  [...]  As for Keith saying Peppers is rubbish,,,,who cares.  Its just Keith being Keith.

I feel the same way. I also like Their Satanic Majesties Request though I think it's far behind the best albums of 1967. There's about eight Stones albums that I consider as essential; and actually I despise most of their stuff, especially after 1972. But when the Stones were contemporaneous to the Beatles, I think they did quality records and there's a lot to enjoy in those albums.

[nimrod]

I've no doubt many would share your preferences Hombre. Speaking for myself I honestly stand by my original assertion: even "Yellow Submarine" (I DO count it!), if only on the awesome presence of "Hey Bulldog" alone, beats any of those Stones albums you've listed (all of which I'm familiar with, "Aftermath" probably being my favourite). "Exile On Main Street" will to me always rank as one of the most overrated albums in rock history.

The big difference is that even those early Beatles albums were mostly solid, terrific, energetic stuff: most tracks either hits in their own right, quality B sides, album tracks that could've been singles, great (sometimes better than the original) cover versions or hidden gems. Not much in the way of filler, which is of course what set The Beatles apart from their contemporaries (and don't forget a Beatles "filler" was often better than another group's "hit"). Whereas The Stones albums were usually two or three decent, occasionally very good, tracks padded out with filler the rest of the way. At least that's how I hear them, but each to their own of course. I'd rather listen to a Hollies album than a Rolling Stones one, by and large.

They wrote quite a few good songs but Id rather listen to next doors cat than Mick Jagger, I just dont think he can sing, imagine him trying to do Let It Be or Eight Days A Week?

and if you dont like the singer of a group you tend to bypass them, Im the same with Roger Daltry, horrible voice imo

[tkitna]

and actually I despise most of their stuff, especially after 1972.

I cant say the same.  I like a good bit of their post 72 stuff.  Hell, I consider 'A Bigger Bang' as one of their top 5 albums ever.  I like it that much.  That's just me though.

[tkitna]

and if you dont like the singer of a group you tend to bypass them, Im the same with Roger Daltry, horrible voice imo

Totally agree with this (well not about Daltry, but your point).  Cant do CCR, Springsteen, Dylan, and AC/DC because of the same.  Theres even a few Christian bands I cant deal with because of the singing.  Third Day and David Crowder.  I refused to go to a Third Day concert because of the lead singer and my worship team looked at me like I was an alien.  Why subject yourself to something you know your not going to like?

[oldbrownshoe]

My fave 4 Beatles LPs are the first four, my fave 3 Stones LPs are the first three.
1963-1965.
I can barely place a cigarette paper between any of them.
I prefer 'Out of our Heads' to 'With the Beatles', but 'Beatles for Sale' to 'Roling Stones No. 2'.

It's all about the era and, in turn, how beautifully those early British LPs were made (in mono!) and designed.
The Beatles are the Stones. 60s London. They're one and the same. Golden age.

That said, I'd no more invest in any Stones product now than I would any Paul product.
Golden age over.

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

I cant say the same.  I like a good bit of their post 72 stuff.  Hell, I consider 'A Bigger Bang' as one of their top 5 albums ever.  I like it that much.  That's just me though.

I can't tolerate the image/sound they adopted after Exile On Main Street, but I admit that I'm a biased 60's fan.

By the way, I think it's time to do some Microscopes of the Rolling Stones. When I get time I'll review some of their LPs.

[Kevin]

I can't tolerate the image/sound they adopted after Exile On Main Street,

I'm the same. I believe Altamont freaked them out (they are nice middle lass boys after all) and I think they found heir "Sympathy for he devil" image had gotten way out of hand, so they became more of a "comedy" band, heir fate sealed by the  departure of Mick Taylor.
But late 60s very early 70's I think they were the Greatest Rock n Roll band  in the world

[Mr Mustard]

They wrote quite a few good songs but Id rather listen to next doors cat than Mick Jagger, I just dont think he can sing, imagine him trying to do Let It Be or Eight Days A Week?

and if you dont like the singer of a group you tend to bypass them, Im the same with Roger Daltry, horrible voice imo

You have absolutely hit the nail on the head. Jagger & Richards were underrated songwriters and I take Hombre's point about listening "with an open mind" but the lead singer is always the focus for me and if the voice ain't there....

I just don't think any of The Stones could sing. Hell, Mick still talks as if his voice is breaking. And he was very limited re musical instruments so papered over it with that always unconvincing if not downright embarrassing prancing, pouting, strutting and clapping. Credit to him for brazening it out I suppose. Most people would have felt like what he looked like. A prat!

I'm the same. I believe Altamont freaked them out (they are nice middle lass boys after all)

It certainly fazed Jagger. To me there was always the smack of sheep in wolves' clothing about those fey, mincing Southern boys... never the dark and dangerous Neanderthals they were marketed as. Conversely the "cuddly moptops" was, as we all know, some way away from the truth. I always felt The Stones would've been scared to play The Cavern and I wouldn't mind betting that The Beatles found The Crawdaddy Club quite posh!

[tkitna]

The Pretty Things were what the Rolling Stones wished they could be image wise.  Hell, musically too if you want to go that far.

[nimrod]

My fave 4 Beatles LPs are the first four, my fave 3 Stones LPs are the first three.
1963-1965.
I can barely place a cigarette paper between any of them.
I prefer 'Out of our Heads' to 'With the Beatles', but 'Beatles for Sale' to 'Roling Stones No. 2'.

It's all about the era and, in turn, how beautifully those early British LPs were made (in mono!) and designed.
The Beatles are the Stones. 60s London. They're one and the same. Golden age.

That said, I'd no more invest in any Stones product now than I would any Paul product.
Golden age over.

so on the whole would you say that you prefer the 60's to any time after ?