https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/13/e...ntl/index.html
Jagger's reply was dead on
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/13/e...ntl/index.html
Jagger's reply was dead on
Last edited by S. Cane; 10-14-2021 at 11:21 AM.
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!
It's not untrue though
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
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'.