The Beatles and The Rolling Stones
use...@stephencarter.net
to which band (Beatles/Stones) was the best band.
But this was posted on rec.music.beatles, and it certainly got me
thinking.
>> And you don't get it. If it weren't for the Beatles breakthrough
>> popularity (Beatlemania), the Stones would not have achieved
>> Stones-mania. And the blues would not have ever been seen by white
>> people in the way that it has finally been seen.
>
>You're a fucking imbecile. whether or not the Beatles ever existed the
>Stones would have been huge.
Discuss.
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
Eric Ramon
> I normally run away when people start the (pointless IMHO) discussion as
> to which band (Beatles/Stones) was the best band.
>
> But this was posted on rec.music.beatles, and it certainly got me
> thinking.
>
> >> And you don't get it. If it weren't for the Beatles breakthrough
> >> popularity (Beatlemania), the Stones would not have achieved
> >> Stones-mania. And the blues would not have ever been seen by white
> >> people in the way that it has finally been seen.
>
> >You're a fucking imbecile. whether or not the Beatles ever existed the
> >Stones would have been huge.
>
> Discuss.
>
> --
> steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
> Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
> Mr Kite posters and more athttp://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
>
> --
>
> All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
> If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
> change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
it's very possible the Rolling Stones would have been as big as Chris
Barber or Kenny Ball
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
Rocket Scientist
I believe that whether the Beatles existed or not, the Stone would
have been highly successful because they are very talented and good in
their own right. But the Stones followed the wave that the Beatles
started and together, the British invasion was a powerful one-two
punch.
One final opinion: The Beatles were bigger than the Stones - hell,
they were bigger than Jesus! :-)
-H
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
nowhere man
d8c55a...@i35g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> it's very possible the Rolling Stones would have been as big as Chris
> Barber or Kenny Ball
>
agreed.
with a decent lead singer and some songwriters, they might have given David
Soul a run for his money.
mcnews
or maybe the beau brummelstones
use...@stephencarter.net
>I normally run away when people start the (pointless IMHO) discussion as
>to which band (Beatles/Stones) was the best band.
>
>But this was posted on rec.music.beatles, and it certainly got me
>thinking.
>
>>> And you don't get it. If it weren't for the Beatles breakthrough
>>> popularity (Beatlemania), the Stones would not have achieved
>>> Stones-mania. And the blues would not have ever been seen by white
>>> people in the way that it has finally been seen.
>>
>>You're a fucking imbecile. whether or not the Beatles ever existed the
>>Stones would have been huge.
Well, this is Keith Richards' view on the subject
<http://flavorwire.com/164698/video-of-the-day-hunter-s-thompson-interviews-keith-richards-1993>
(it's several minutes into the interview).
I'll bow to his opinion. :-)
mcnews
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:14:23 -0500, use...@stephencarter.net wrote:
> >I normally run away when people start the (pointless IMHO) discussion as
> >to which band (Beatles/Stones) was the best band.
>
> >But this was posted on rec.music.beatles, and it certainly got me
> >thinking.
>
> >>> And you don't get it. If it weren't for the Beatles breakthrough
> >>> popularity (Beatlemania), the Stones would not have achieved
> >>> Stones-mania. And the blues would not have ever been seen by white
> >>> people in the way that it has finally been seen.
>
> >>You're a fucking imbecile. whether or not the Beatles ever existed the
> >>Stones would have been huge.
>
> Well, this is Keith Richards' view on the subject
>
>
> (it's several minutes into the interview).
>
> I'll bow to his opinion. :-)
>
> --
> steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
> Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
> Mr Kite posters and more athttp://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
>
> --
>
> All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
> If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
> change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
mick agrees;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rolz1VasS4
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
Fattuchus
> I normally run away when people start the (pointless IMHO) discussion as
> to which band (Beatles/Stones) was the best band.
>
> But this was posted on rec.music.beatles, and it certainly got me
> thinking.
>
> >> And you don't get it. If it weren't for the Beatles breakthrough
> >> popularity (Beatlemania), the Stones would not have achieved
> >> Stones-mania. And the blues would not have ever been seen by white
> >> people in the way that it has finally been seen.
>
> >You're a fucking imbecile. whether or not the Beatles ever existed the
> >Stones would have been huge.
>
> Discuss.
The Stones were/are talented, but to say they would have been huge
without the Beatles? I don't think so.
Didn't John and Paul write the first hit for the Stones (I Wanna Be
Your Man) and teach them how to write a song? Now that was huge.
Plus, the Beatles broke down the doors for the British invasion in the
US. The Beatles made it so big because they came across as very clean
cut, nice lads from next door. IMO it took a while for parents to get
used to the "long hair", their singing style, etc. Once parents and
the mainstream accepted the Beatles as appealing, IMO the public was
softened up for the arrival of the Stones who appealed to some as the
"bad boys" of rock. IMO if there were no Beatles to lead the way in
the US, I doubt the American public would have liked the scruffy
appearance of the Stones.
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
Eric Ramon
while we're playing 'what if?', what if the Beatles and Brian Epstein
never connected? No suits, no bow after songs, no Parlophone, no
George Martin.
marcus
> I normally run away when people start the (pointless IMHO) discussion as
> to which band (Beatles/Stones) was the best band.
>
> But this was posted on rec.music.beatles, and it certainly got me
> thinking.
>
> >> And you don't get it. If it weren't for the Beatles breakthrough
> >> popularity (Beatlemania), the Stones would not have achieved
> >> Stones-mania. And the blues would not have ever been seen by white
> >> people in the way that it has finally been seen.
>
> >You're a fucking imbecile. whether or not the Beatles ever existed the
> >Stones would have been huge.
>
> Discuss.
>
The music and personalities of the Stones would have prevented them
from being successful. They needed The Beatles to pave the way, both
in England and in the USA.
The Stones achieved their initial success in the USA by deliberately
using public relations to portray themselves an the "anti-
Beatles"...not cute, not cuddly, not people your parents might like",
and that was quite a successful ice breaker in the States. In that
sense, they also needed The Beatles, to be the negative to The
Beatles' positive.
Marc
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
Fattuchus
That's a very good follow up question. I do think that Epstein was a
critical ingredient to the Beatles' early success. And yes, it is
possible that if the Beatles had not met Epstein, they would have
never reached anywhere near the level of fame that they achieved.
Fattuchus
> On Mar 22, 2:14 pm, use...@stephencarter.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I normally run away when people start the (pointless IMHO) discussion as
> > to which band (Beatles/Stones) was the best band.
>
> > But this was posted on rec.music.beatles, and it certainly got me
> > thinking.
>
> > >> And you don't get it. If it weren't for the Beatles breakthrough
> > >> popularity (Beatlemania), the Stones would not have achieved
> > >> Stones-mania. And the blues would not have ever been seen by white
> > >> people in the way that it has finally been seen.
>
> > >You're a fucking imbecile. whether or not the Beatles ever existed the
> > >Stones would have been huge.
>
> > Discuss.
>
> The music and personalities of the Stones would have prevented them
> from being successful. They needed The Beatles to pave the way, both
> in England and in the USA.
>
> The Stones achieved their initial success in the USA by deliberately
> using public relations to portray themselves an the "anti-
> Beatles"...not cute, not cuddly, not people your parents might like",
> and that was quite a successful ice breaker in the States. In that
> sense, they also needed The Beatles, to be the negative to The
> Beatles' positive.
>
> Marc
So true! Good to see ya back, marcus.
(BTW, there is a different marcus here that I tend to argue
with . . . . not you.)
P-Dub
I agree.
For all this to happen the stars had to be right. And they were.
If Brian Epstein had not received requests for 'My Bonnie', and then had
not developed a crush on John Lennon when he went to see them, he would
not have worked tirelessly to get them noticed, clean them up, and get
them a record contract.
If Decca had not turned down the Beatles, and Parlophone did not hook
them up with George Martin, the Beatles' records would not have had that
magic quality about them - which I believe made them irresistible to the
world (that - plus Brian turning them into the 'clean' boys that they
supposedly became.)
If Kennedy had not been assassinated in November '63, the world may not
have been ready - as they were - for a phenomenon like the Beatles, and
the British Invasion.
If Andrew Loog Oldham - who worked with Brian Epstien, had not had an
argument with Brian, and had not quit, he would not have signed the
Rolling Stones, and managed them himself. His eventual insistence that
Jagger/Richards write their own songs (locking the two of them in a
kitchen, and refusing to let them out until they wrote their own song),
then the Rolling Stones would never had made the incredible impact that
they have made.
The 60s were absolute magic. God bless the Beatles and the Rolling
Stones. The best of the best of the best.
P-Dub: What a drag it is getting up...
Mack A.Damia
"Goodbye Ruby Tuesday, who could hang a name on you?"
(Playin' on the way back from San Diego this afternoon. Haven't heard
it for a long time. Great song)
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--