Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Paul McCartney no the Rolling Stones. Ouch!

  1. #1
    Forum Member S. Cane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Ever heard of José Carioca?
    Posts
    4,651

    Paul McCartney on the Rolling Stones. Ouch!

    Last edited by S. Cane; 10-14-2021 at 11:21 AM.

  2. #2
    Forum Member OldStrummer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Paul McCartney no the Rolling Stones. Ouch!

    Amazing that fifty years later they're still at it. Good thing I don't read snippy comments by stars, super or otherwise.
    Striving to be ordinary

    Proud to be a TFF Dumbass!

  3. #3
    Forum Member S. Cane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Ever heard of José Carioca?
    Posts
    4,651

    Re: Paul McCartney no the Rolling Stones. Ouch!

    Quote Originally Posted by OldStrummer View Post
    Amazing that fifty years later they're still at it. Good thing I don't read snippy comments by stars, super or otherwise.
    haha I think it’s fun!

  4. #4
    TFF Stage Crew
    Moderator
    Cogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Burpleson AFB
    Posts
    6,992

    Re: Paul McCartney no the Rolling Stones. Ouch!

    It's not untrue though

  5. #5
    Forum Member ch willie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    8,163

    Re: Paul McCartney no the Rolling Stones. Ouch!

    They are really good friends, and though they don't hang out, they love each other. In the 60s, the press reported so much hatred between Beatles and Stones, and the guys laughed because they hung out and had some wild times in London. McCartney and Jagger were having a laugh.

    The Stones are to a degree a blues cover band. And YET, they took the blues to new avenues. Can't think of many other bands able to come up with anything as wonderful as the songs on Exile and Goat's Head Soup, albums that take the blues but add something new.

    Poet Ezra Poun encouraged poets and artists to keep one foot in tradition but Make It New. In a way, you could say that The Beatles began as a cover band of Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and R&B singers, and so on. The thing is, The Beatles had wider ranging interests in music, music that had its roots in early century jazz standards and pub songs. So the songwriting stretched into areas The Stones couldn't get to. The same can be said about The Beatles. If you compared Let it Be to Sticky Fingers and your goal was to see who rocked harder The Stones would win. Screw competition. pffffft. Beatles and Stones--Who's better? Who cares as long as we have such masterpieces from each?
    If we'd known we were going to be the Beatles, we'd have tried harder.--George Harrison

  6. #6
    Forum Member Tele-Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    6,691

    Re: Paul McCartney no the Rolling Stones. Ouch!

    I have always felt that the Stones were more of an attitude with a loose, slightly sloppy sound track.

    The Beatles on the other hand, produced a more skilled and melodic sound.
    If you're bored, you're not groovin'.

  7. #7
    Forum Member S. Cane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Ever heard of José Carioca?
    Posts
    4,651

    Re: Paul McCartney no the Rolling Stones. Ouch!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tele-Bob View Post
    I have always felt that the Stones were more of an attitude with a loose, slightly sloppy sound track.

    The Beatles on the other hand, produced a more skilled and melodic sound.

    I think that has to do with the fact that we listen to little or no live Beatles stuff. Mostly the albums. Album vs Album, though, I don’t think the Stones are anywhere behind them

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •