A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE READ OUR FORUM RULES HERE

Author Topic: On the cover of Rolling Stone  (Read 4629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sondra

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6968
On the cover of Rolling Stone
« on: August 20, 2009, 03:57:22 AM »

This month's edition.



Link: http://www.rollingstone.com/
Logged

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14651
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2009, 04:13:54 AM »

Well, Sondra, The Beatles fulfilled much of what was mentioned in the lyrics...."ten thousand dollars a show," "big rock singers" with "golden fingers" and even had a "genuine Indian guru" to teach them a better way.  And they got their picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

Did Dr. Hook And The Medicine Show ever get on the cover?
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

Gary910

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 595
  • Beatles Collector
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2009, 03:26:13 PM »

I think this is an interesting article.

It unfortunately exalts John over the others.

I also question some of the sources, for example, it cites Mr. Goldman's "The Lives Of John Lennon", among a few other questionable sources.

I am glad that this is not an article taking the easy course and just blaming Yoko and/or Linda. There is no easy explanation of why the Beatles broke up, it is a complex issue.
Logged
And now you've changed your mind, I see no reason to change mine --Lennon/McCartney

Mairi

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7930
  • The owls are not what they seem
Lennon tapes reveal Beatles bickering
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2009, 05:17:00 PM »

Nothing we haven't heard before.  


http://www.abc4.com/content/news/Entertainment/story/Lennon-tapes-reveal-Beatles-bickering/njMFwDU0nUeoefi_OXn7bw.cspx

Secrets behind the Beatles' split are about to be laid bare in the pages of rock magazine Rolling Stone, thanks to unearthed interviews with an angry John Lennon.

The Imagine singer sat down with Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner shortly after the Fab Four parted ways and revealed a few home truths about the real reasons behind the split, something the four former Beatles have rarely spoken about.

Wenner released the tapes for celebrated rock journalist Mikal Gilmore's study on what tore the band apart, which appears in the upcoming issue of the publication.

The 1970 tapes have also been released to Entertainment Tonight, which aired Lennon's comments on Wednesday.

Lennon can be heard telling Wenner, "We sold out... and I felt sick."

He also takes aim at longtime songwriting partner Paul McCartney, stating, "We got fed up with being sidemen for Paul."

Lennon suggests the Beatles break-up was a long time coming and the "music died" when they first hit the big time in the early 1960s, adding, "That's why we never improved."

And he was less than happy when his bandmates disrespected and "insulted" his wife Yoko Ono, adding, "They despised her... It seemed I had to be happily married to them or Yoko, and I chose Yoko."

Lennon goes so far as to suggest that the Beatles' most peaceful member, George Harrison, was the one who really drove a wedge between Lennon and the band over his treatment of Ono.

He states, "George insulted her right to her face and I didn't hit him, I don't know why. Ringo (Starr) was alright but the other two really gave it to us. I'll never forgive 'em."

Gilmore's Why The Beatles Broke Up article appears in the upcoming issue of Rolling Stone.
  Copyright WENN.com
World Entertainment News Network
Logged
I am posting on an internet forum, therefore my opinion is fact.

DarkSweetLady

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1326
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2009, 12:30:06 AM »

I like how The Beatles broke up like 40 years ago and they are still getting the cover of Rolling Stone! They never cease to amaze me!
Logged

~the guiding light in all your love shines on~

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14651
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2009, 12:41:32 AM »

Did Dr. Hook And The Medicine Show ever get on the cover?


They did.......



March 29, 1973




Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

emmi_luvs_beatles

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2914
  • I'm an Expert.
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2009, 02:05:16 AM »

I saw they were on the cover and went to the  nearest place that sold mags, but they still had last months Jonas Brother's cover. I swear I screamed  :-X The Beatles deserve to be on the cover more! And do you know why? The Jonas Brothers suck big one!!!  >:(

Srry, a little spaz there  ;D
Logged

Mrs Lennon

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1614
  • Standing or Sitting When Not Lying Down
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2009, 02:14:00 AM »

Really? Are you serious? The Jonas Brothers are like, my favoritist band in the whole wide world!!






*sarcasm*
Logged
Music is like candy; you throw away the rappers.

breedofrandy

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2651
  • Ringo Love <3
    • Me Tumblr Blog
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2009, 03:21:35 AM »

I was so HAPPY when I got this Rolling Stone Magazine!!

I read the whole article already, I thought it was really good. But a little if-y in places. But what can ya do?

I liked it for the most part and it made my day having them on the cover and the great pictures inside!!

But there could have been more. :)
Logged


"Ringo will always be my friend"--George Harrison (Rolling Stone Magazine 1987)

sgt. peppie

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 995
  • Lolwut?
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2009, 02:26:34 PM »

why does john always think he doesn't get enough credit? he gets ALOT of credit, it's george who didn't get enough of it and that's basically one of the many reasons he left the band! and george had a good damn reason to insult yoko! she basically critisized his music and it must've been a real pain considering that their manager died on top of that. (sorry, but i'm on george's side ::) )

----
i hope i don't see the freaking jonas brothers when i go to the magazine section of the bookstore... >:(
Logged

George does not approve.

Penny Lane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 4106
  • Paulinate me
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2009, 10:06:11 PM »

I think this is an interesting article.

It unfortunately exalts John over the others.

I've only skimmed this article online because I hope to read the real thing if I can get a hold of the magazine. Is it still on newsstands right now?

Anyway, one point that bothered me was when I read this: "Though Lennon is more commonly regarded as the Beatles' true genius (which is inarguable: he wrote the bulk of their masterpieces and until the last couple years of their career, wrote the best tracks on their albums), it is also fair to say that without McCartney, the Beatles would not have mattered in history with such ingenuity and durability."

As if Paul isn't a "true genius" too? You can say what you want about his personality, but there's no denying that he was a significant and brilliant musical force in the Beatles. What the hell? I love John, but why does it always seem that Paul gets the short end of the stick? :( GAH.

Don't mind me, I just get grumpy when these matters arise.
Logged

emmi_luvs_beatles

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2914
  • I'm an Expert.
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2009, 11:53:33 PM »

^^ I totally agree.

I was talking to someone about them and they said "It's not hard to beat Paul McCartney. John was the real musician and writer. I didn't like Paul's voice either."

And mind you, their favorite Beatle song is Hey Jude!!! How does that work?  >:(
Logged

HeyJude18

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2182
  • "Love and Peace are eternal" - John Lennon
    • le blog
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2009, 12:08:17 AM »

^ oh it happens.  Hey Jude's my favourite Beatles song but I think that most of Paul's writing while a Beatle was a little juvenile - for lack of a better term.  Then again, I think that changed with Hey Jude (the exception being Maxwell's Silver Hammer, in my opinion).
Logged

RAIN-ed on: July 17, 2010; STARR-strucked: July 23, 2010; PAUL-inated: August 8, 2010

Penny Lane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 4106
  • Paulinate me
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2009, 12:38:06 AM »

^^ I totally agree.

I was talking to someone about them and they said "It's not hard to beat Paul McCartney. John was the real musician and writer. I didn't like Paul's voice either."

And mind you, their favorite Beatle song is Hey Jude!!! How does that work?  >:(

Yeah, it's kind of depressing to be a Paul fan sometimes. People seem to forget that he was behind amazing works like "Hey Jude," "Sgt. Pepper", "Eleanor Rigby", "Let It Be", etc. I once read an angry blog post somewhere that made Paul a scapegoat for EVERYTHING, even things that aren't bad or even his fault to begin with.

John gets all the credit for being the "deep" one of the Beatles--as if Paul and George were shallow and useless as music writers.

BTW, I absolutely love Paul's voice and its timbre and range.
Logged

Penny Lane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 4106
  • Paulinate me
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2009, 12:40:10 AM »

I think that most of Paul's writing while a Beatle was a little juvenile - for lack of a better term.  Then again, I think that changed with Hey Jude (the exception being Maxwell's Silver Hammer, in my opinion).

All of their works were juvenile early on. By the mid-Sixties, John, Paul, and George all improved by leaps and bounds.
Logged

emmi_luvs_beatles

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2914
  • I'm an Expert.
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2009, 12:45:19 AM »

Yeah, it's kind of depressing to be a Paul fan sometimes. People seem to forget that he was behind amazing works like "Hey Jude," "Sgt. Pepper", "Eleanor Rigby", "Let It Be", etc. I once read an angry blog post somewhere that made Paul a scapegoat for EVERYTHING, even things that aren't bad or even his fault to begin with.

John gets all the credit for being the "deep" one of the Beatles--as if Paul and George were shallow and useless as music writers.

BTW, I absolutely love Paul's voice and its timbre and range.

I love his voice too!  ;D

Another thing that sometimes makes it hard is that he's supposibly 'Dead' then you feel the need to yell at those people on youtube that spam up Hey Jude with those nasty comments  :( or almost any other Beatles song.
Logged

Penny Lane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 4106
  • Paulinate me
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2009, 01:09:08 AM »

I don't get people who actually think Paul is dead. It's insane. *rolls eyes*
Logged

titaniumman

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2009, 09:31:04 AM »

All of their works were juvenile early on. By the mid-Sixties, John, Paul, and George all improved by leaps and bounds.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions I've ever heard! Even the early work of The Beatles was technically advanced by leaps and bounds over that of their peers.

One case in point; all pop songs in the early sixties followed roughly the same structure verse/verse/chorus/verse/chorus. Sure there was an instrumental break here and there, maybe even a bridge added to the formula, but roughly the same and always in units of eight measures per verse, chorus or bridge. Now take that information with you as you go listen to—and analyze just the structure of—I Want to Hold Your Hand. Listen to it twice; the first time just write down, "chorus," "verse," "bridge," etc. On the second listen, count the measures of each section. Then come back here and tell me that they were, "juvenile."

Or if you're so inclined and able, conduct a musical analysis melody and harmony of If I Fell, which defied certainly Rock conventions of the time.

Legendary genius big-band leader, Count Basie released an entire album of his orchestra playing Beatles compositions in 1966! (The resulting album doesn't use any songs past 1965's Rubber Soul.) There was a reason for that.
Logged

sregis

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 98
Re: On the cover of Rolling Stone
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2009, 04:20:47 PM »

good points, PL-

of course the beatles grew musically through time, but to dismissively broadbrush the early catalog is a gross oversimplification.  need one go any further than AHDN to rest their case?
Logged
 

Page created in 1.008 seconds with 26 queries.