Log In
Register
12.56am
17 October 2013
Offline
In 1967……I had the fuzzy hair thing going on…You know the Don King just fallen down an elevator shaft look. I was 15 and my mate 2 years older and looked like Brian Jones. We’d hitched as far as we could across Europe and ended up in a place called ‘Lido de jeselo’ (sp) outside Venice. It was my first time abroad……..And I was loving it.
Being English had, since the year before been a badge of honour worn with pride and marked out by our fashions. No one in Europe could compare. We had ………The Beatles, World Cup, James Bond, Swinging London the Rolling Stones and girls in mini-skirts……..That adds up to just about everything that mattered thankyou!!
The sexy….. debonaire….. frog-eating…… garlic smelling…… floppy botterm-lipped…….. ‘French-kissing’ French…….would suspend their sense of superiority over, ‘Les ros beefs’ for the remainder of the 60’s. Even the amazing super-cool, vesper riding, ‘chow-baby’ Italians were still styling themselves somewhere between Cliff Richard and Dean Martin. But the English and to a lesser extent American bands were all the rage in Italy and everywhere you went it was thrilling to see the joy ‘our’ songs were being received with.
I remember a crocodile of Italian school children spotting my embryonic ‘Afro’ from across the road, together with my mate’s shoulder length locks, pointing excitedly at us and calling. “Beetle Rollin Stone!!”
We’d gone from stiff-upper-lipped……bowler-hated…..weedy blokes in American War films zeros….. to heroes……..Thanks to John….Paul….Mick and Keith.
I was then and always will be a Beatles’ man but I’m glad we had the Stones too…..And The Who, Eric Clapton…..Kinks……And Bobby Moore.
Didn’t last of course but the music did.
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
Ahhh Girl, Joe, trcanberra, SgtPeppersBulldog2.25pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Keith Richards spoke about The Beatles and ‘Pepper’ in the latest Esquire magazine
I’ve been thinking about Rubber Soul , Revolver , Sgt. Pepper , and The White Album and listening to Beggars ?Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main St. Over the past 20 years, I’ve ?listened to that Stones stuff far more often.
No, I understand—the ?Beatles sounded great when they were the Beatles. But there’s not a lot of roots in that music. I think they got carried away. Why not? If you’re the Beatles in the ’60s, you just get carried away—you forget what it is you wanted to do. You’re starting to do Sgt. Pepper . Some people think it’s a genius album, but I think it’s a mishmash of rubbish, kind of like Satanic Majesties—”Oh, if you can make a load of s**t, so can we.”
Despite being one answer amidst a number of questions and answers the title of the article is ‘The ESQ&A: Keith Richards Explains Why Sgt. Pepper Was Rubbish’.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
5.59pm
17 October 2013
Offline I read this too…….. Keith re-inventing history. Didn’t he fall out of a tree a while back…….must have banged his head.!! Irritating…. But he’s allowed his view. He’s also allowed to make himself look ridiculous. Anything to get some interest in his new album.
However, this is a time when we could have done with John in particular and George too for a pithy response. I’m not sure Paul does ‘pith’ Ringo might.
The Stones were great in their way……..I’m not sure what they did ‘Aftermath’…..but nothing was in The Beatles’ class……Should have studied the masters closer Lads.
10.58am
4 August 2015
Offline What I find interesting that for a brief time in America, it was the Dave Clark Five that was the second most popular British group. I remember in 1964-5 many Beatles vs. Dave Clark Five articles in teen magazines and other media of the era. This was before the Rolling Stones started to gain notice.
The DC5 did not have as much talent as either the Beatles or the Stones. They were unable to change with the times of the late 60s. So when it became cool to be more psychedelic, their limited sound faded away. Also, they were more of an American phenomenon. I don’t believe they were very popular in the UK.
I am guessing the DC5 were simply in the right place at the right time during the British Invasion riding the coat heels of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. Their early 60s hits sounded great and they were good performers. They had a similar clean cut image as our beloved Beatles. But that was about it. I recall Dave Clark being more noted as a businessman then a musician.
You are all my friends.
6.14am
27 April 2015
Offline I didn’t know where else this would go, so I’m putting it here:
It has been speculated of how the Beatles (esp John) were really jealous of The Stones taking up the “bad boy” image that was theirs, and they were seen as this harmlessly cute beings. Isn’t this way off the mark? When was their image absolutely harmless? Weren’t the parents saying they were a menace to the society or some such thing? And what was the Rolling Stones image exactly when they were presented as “anti-Beatles”?? In that they were the bad boys or they were for those youngsters who didn’t want to jump on the Beatles bandwagon? If they were bad boys, how were they seen as the bad boys? Because of their stage act? But didn’t the Beatles not want to do all the dancing around and things? And John even made fun of Mick’s “fag dancing”.
Most importantly, how were the Beatles seen as the good guys? People even then had this image about John being a little too callous and rude so much so that I heard an interview where they ask him about certain perceptions about him not caring about anything or anyone to which he says that he cares about himself and his family and that that allegation is absolutely wrong. In another interview he says that Paul could be just as cutting as him if he wanted to. And in the 1966 “bigger than Jesus” interview he says that people have an image of him and he isn’t like that at all.
If you listen to the Larry Kane interviews, some of them are about all of them clarifying that their actions are misunderstood and they didn’t really want to be rude to the press, or they aren’t rude to the fans and so on and so forth.
So what exactly is the image that the Beatles were supposedly so jealous of?
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
9.07am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Brian tried to keep the Beatles image clean and wholesome and often would do deals with the press where they would keep the undesired stories out of the papers in exchange for access to the band, he also instructed them to not be too controversial in their comments. The first real time they went against such advice (i think) was when they commented on the Vietnam war
Q: “Would any of you care to comment on any aspect of the war in Vietnam?”
JOHN: “We don’t like it.”
Q: “Could you elaborate any?”
JOHN: “No. I’ve elaborated enough, you know. We just don’t like it. We don’t like war.”
GEORGE: “It’s, you know… It’s just war is wrong, and it’s obvious it’s wrong. And that’s all that needs to be said about it.”
(applause)
PAUL: “We can elaborate in England.”
There was very little before then aside from John’s “Bigger Than Jesus” comments which were said to a reporter friend and garnered no comment until taken out of context, printed in a US magazine, and then stirred up by individuals who more wanted to take and generate offence to give the Beatles a good kicking. They were marketed as clean cheeky chaps, The Stones on the other hand as the bad boys, but it was complete garbage. Here is a good article, some of which is quoted
….The mostly good-natured rivalry between the Beatles and the Stones had been ongoing for several years. Although the Beatles were more commercially successful, the two bands competed for radio airplay and record sales throughout the 1960s, and on both sides of the Atlantic teens defined themselves by whether they preferred the Beatles or the Stones. “If you truly loved pop music in the 1960s… there was no ducking the choice and no cop-out third option,” one writer remarked. “You could dance with them both,” but there could never be any doubt about which one you’d take home.
Much of this was by design. With their matching suits, mop-tops, and cheeky humor, the Beatles largely obscured their origins as working-class Liverpudlians; by contrast, under the influence of their wily manager, Andrew Loog Oldham, the Stones cultivated a decadent, outlaw image, even though they mostly hailed from the London suburbs. “The Beatles were thugs who were put across as nice blokes,” someone remarked, “and the Rolling Stones were gentlemen who were made into thugs by Andrew.”
Many in the media were quick to notice the two groups’ contrasting styles. When the Rolling Stones arrived in the United States, the first Associated Press (AP) report described them as “dirtier, streakier, and more disheveled than the Beatles.” Tom Wolfe put things more sharply: “The Beatles want to hold your hand,” he quipped, “but the Stones want to burn down your town.” Since these comparisons proved useful to everyone, both the bands and the journalists collaborated on the charade. In the early 1960s, Keith Richards remarked, “nobody took the music seriously. It was the image that counted, how to manipulate the press and dream up a few headlines.” Peter Jones, who wrote about both bands for theRecord Mirror, recalled being in a “difficult position” because he was expected to “gloss over” the Beatles’ tawdry indiscretions. “It was decreed that the Beatles should be portrayed as incredibly lovable, amiable fellows, and if one of them, without mentioning any names, wanted to have a short orgy with three girls in the bathroom, then I didn’t see it.”
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
ewe2"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
12.28pm
3 November 2015
Offline It seems to me that the Beatles might have “dressed nicer,” but they still managed to get their points across. It was more subtle than blunt like the Rolling Stones. I personally wonder why it was necessary the Beatles adopt this persona. Perhaps they were a stepping stone to the Rolling Stones’ own image.
The following people thank KaleidoscopeMusic for this post:
BeatlebugOnly music can save us.
1.06pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline KaleidoscopeMusic said
It seems to me that the Beatles might have “dressed nicer,” but they still managed to get their points across. It was more subtle than blunt like the Rolling Stones. I personally wonder why it was necessary the Beatles adopt this persona. Perhaps they were a stepping stone to the Rolling Stones’ own image.
In my opinion since this could be complete nonsense – at the time when the Beatles entered the music scene everyone (or almost everyone) was clean cut and gave bland answers to dreary questions and was “nice”. The Beatles were one, if not the first band to not follow the treadmill conveyor belt; they were themselves and didnt bow down and kiss the feet of whoever interviewed them and how they were treated. They opened the door to bands like the Stones to be more blunt and be able to be accepted as how they were marketed.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Beatlebug, KaleidoscopeMusic"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.56pm
27 April 2015
Offline No idea where else does this go, but 50 years of Rolling Stones!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..aunch.html
Nice to see them happy & rocking! Esp. Keith 😉
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
The Hippie Chick
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
10.37am
17 January 2016
Offline
LoveUlikeGuitars said
No idea where else does this go, but 50 years of Rolling Stones!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..aunch.html
Nice to see them happy & rocking! Esp. Keith 😉
I want to see this exhibit SO SO BAD. Wish I were there yesterday! Hoping hard that when it starts touring the major cities, it hits Miami or Ft. Lauderdale! As it is I’m very sad I don’t get to see the David Bowie exhibit because it’s come or coming nowhere near me.
“She wasn't doing a thing that I could see, except standing there leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together.” - J.D. Salinger
1.44pm
28 March 2014
Offline meanmistermustard said
In my opinion since this could be complete nonsense – at the time when the Beatles entered the music scene everyone (or almost everyone) was clean cut and gave bland answers to dreary questions and was “nice”. The Beatles were one, if not the first band to not follow the treadmill conveyor belt; they were themselves and didnt bow down and kiss the feet of whoever interviewed them and how they were treated. They opened the door to bands like the Stones to be more blunt and be able to be accepted as how they were marketed.
Safe to say the Beatles started the British Invasion!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
The following people thank Bongo for this post:
vonbontee 
BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms! 
9.19pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Now, here’s a good story I came across researching the Stones. I can’t recall coming across anything in Beatles sources to collaborate this in any way.
As a thank-you to John and Paul for the gift of I Wanna Be Your Man , in around December 1963, among the first songs Mick and Keith wrote, they wrote one for The Beatles.
Give Me Your Hand (And I’ll Hold It Tight), also known as I’ll Hold Your Hand, an obvious response to the just released I Want To Hold Your Hand , the song is pretty dreadful.
However, after recording a demo of the song at Regent Sound Studios on either 7th or 9th December, they are said to have actually offered it to The Beatles, to which John and Paul responded they’d record it if the Stones recorded another one of theirs, The One After 909 . It isn’t beyond the bounds of possibility that this conversation took place as they were still recording covers at the time, so might have briefly considered doing Mick and Keith a favour. Fortunately nothing came of it.
The song would turn up on the b-side of a Teddy Green promotional disc put out by Piccadilly in March 1964. There is no evidence the single was ever actually released:
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldog, Martha, vonbontee"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
1.05am
11 November 2010
Offline ^^^ A Stones version of One After 909 sounds like it would be pretty cool, actually.
The following people thank Necko for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldog, never wears a mac, vonbonteeI'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 
1.21am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Though a Beatles version of the awful Give Me Your Hand doesn’t.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2.58am
24 March 2014
Offline They would probably have improved it
The following people thank Shamrock Womlbs for this post:
Ahhh Girl, Richard"I Need You by George Harrison"
5.02am
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline It sounds like a parody of 60’s music. Every cliche is there.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
1.12pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Beatles v Stones decided thru various categories. Beatles obviously win but it’s not as close as the writer makes it out to be – a matter of who had the better album and that the Stones haven’t decided to give up yet (neither have Ringo or Paul but let’s not go there).
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
11.44pm
15 May 2015
Offline The Stones had a certain magic of songwriting at the beginning, with Ruby Tuesday, As Tears Go By, Get Off My Cloud, Paint It Black, Not Fade Away, Satisfaction, Get Off My Cloud, etc. After that, they seemed to have morphed into a less diverse band.
Meanwhile, and by contrast, instead of solidifying into one genre, the Beatles continued morphing in dynamic ways, right to the very end.
The following people thank Pineapple Records for this post:
Beatlebug, SgtPeppersBulldog, vonbonteeA ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
2.06pm
28 May 2018
Offline I’m curious as to what fans of the Beatles think of the Rolling Stones’ era of Beggar’s Banquet through Exile on Main Street? Basically the Mick Taylor years. I would’ve put this in the non related Beatles forum but it wouldn’t let me post. I think that four album run is one of best in rock and roll but of course I’m a huge fan of the Stones. The two albums that followed had great moments also but not as consistent as the prior four. I’m a fan of the Beatles also by the way and understand that the Beatles were the better musicians in most areas.
10.46am
13 April 2018
Offline I used to like the Stones as a teen but as I’ve grown older I’ve become somewhat bored of them. Personally, I don’t believe their music warrants or elicits the kind of deeper understanding and I have never really seen deeper nuances in the music emerge as I’ve listened to them. Their music works on a more superficial level to me but not in the way the Beatles music keeps delivering over decades.
4 Guest(s)