He studied music and he spells 'snare' as 'snair'.

I can't get 'With A Little Help From My Friends' out of my head. I just got into The Beatles about a month or two ago, and it's really a great insight into how revolutionary they were, considering the time they were active; nothing else was being done quite like it. That's nothing that hasn't been said before though.

Anyway, has any of The Beatles' members performed each other's songs? eg. Paul does Strawberry Fields, or John does Yesterday. It would probably be totally against who they are as writers and artists, but I'm curious.

I just watched a movie about the Beatles called "The First U.S. Visit". It's great to see how fun loving they all were in the early days. Looks like everyone was having a great time.

I couldn't read that.

In fact, the one sentance I did read, read something along the lines that Ringo developed a style called rimshotting.

That sentance in itself points out that you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about, so your entire post is mute.

Btw the Beatles are the best foiking group of all time :thumb:

When I was watching Paul McCartney Live in Red Square, I was suprised to see him preform "I've got a feeling," a half Paul and half John song. I was wondering what he would do for Johns part, but he just got the rythm guitarist and drummer to sing it together.

[QUOTE=Magical_Mystery_Tour]When I was watching Paul McCartney Live in Red Square, I was suprised to see him preform "I've got a feeling," a half Paul and half John song. I was wondering what he would do for Johns part, but he just got the rythm guitarist and drummer to sing it together.[/QUOTE]

That was lead guitarist "Rusty Anderson" and Drummer "Abe Laborial Jr." on drums. (Pointless McCartney Factoids)

[QUOTE]mccartney who is also the best bass player of all time[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE=Schyma]No.[/QUOTE]


Yes. :naughty:

Paul was pretty damn good.

Another great bassist was the guy from Iron Butterfly (never learned his name).

But most of all.....the Ox.

THough if I had to pick between seeing solo McCartney and solo ENtwistle, I think that choice is obvious.

I borrowed the Yellow Submarine DVD from a friend today. Has anyone seen it?

[QUOTE=dr._feelgood]The Beatles are amazing but instrumentally they're just average... nothing revolutionary. But George Martin was a great producer.[/QUOTE]

Um........no. George Harrison is among the best guitarists of all time, Paul McCartney is definately up there in bass and multi instrumentally talented, John wasn't an amazing guitarist but he was certainly competant (was also multi instrumentally talented), Ringo was a very underated drumer but would definatly be the only Beatle I would think a claim such as yours could be applicable to, and John, Paul and George were all amazing singers.

[QUOTE=blue3]I borrowed the Yellow Submarine DVD from a friend today. Has anyone seen it?[/QUOTE]

I love that show :) bought it a while ago. The blue meanie leader is actually freightening.

But [B]EVERYONE LISTEN UP![/B] google video found me a gold mine!

[B][URL="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2229397285502593503&q=magical+mystery+tour"]The Entire Magical Mystery Tour Movie[/URL][/B]

[QUOTE=jerry_soh_619]sorry bout my long comment had to get most of my ideas in there kinda wish jacran would come at me with some hard facts to prove me wrong tho i doubt he will since im understudying in music and i pretty much know what im talking about im not saying their the best of all time evryone has diffrent tastes but the beatles are the greatest its just that simple people, get away from the whole beatlemania syndrome and actually study their music, look at the big picture, they are the most influential revolutionary rock n roll media of all time![/QUOTE]

You want some hard facts?
1-D, ya that’s right I said it. One sided. So they had their early pop years, but were did they go? Right to psychedelic, while bands like The Who and the Stones went psychedelic for an album or two and then moved on to Blues or Hard Rock while the Beatles found a comfy spot and stayed there, and even then they didn't make the best Pop/Psychedelic album that award goes to the Zombies me thinks. And exactly how many "Midnight Ramblers" do the Beatles have, or how about some "Wild Horses"? Not alot. I'm thinking they have maybe 1-2 songs over 6 mins off the top of my head. Not that length matters at all or anything they just like to stay in the comfort zone and not take risks! (I think thats my mose flamable[?] line right there)
Musically? (Since my argument is more towards the Stones as being the best, I'll use them as examples) The Stones have them beat easily but maybe that’s because they have one more band member. Keith Richards has made some of the catchiest riffs of all time, not saying George or John haven't but I dunno "I Can't Get No" sticks in my head a lot longer then "Something" or "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". And Brian Jones could play any instrument George could play if not more, and then if I want to through in Mick Taylor who is one of the most underrated guitarists of all time or Ron Wood who is a decent guitarist that just blows them out of the water. Mick and Brian are both better then George. Paul and Bill are probably even on the bass since bass in both bands wasn't exactly impressive. While many people think that Charlie is an average drummer he was actually quiet impressive, he played in a jazz band in the 80's that showcased what he could play given the right setting, how good of sounding would Keith Moon have been in the Stones or how about John Bonham? Not very good they didn't need booming drums they just needed someone to keep rhythm and make the song fit together. Ringo? Well hell as John once said "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles." So I think there's no argument there.
The only reason the Stones aren't held as high regard is because of the press in the 60's liked to make them sound like out of control kids who were snobby because they were in a band. The police were always trying to bust Mick and Keith, which gave them a lot of bad press when they did finally find drugs on them. While the press loved to cream all over the Beatles, even when John said they were bigger then Jesus it really wasn't [I]that[/I] big of deal, if the Stones would’ve done it they would've got the boot from the record company or something along those lines.
If Altamont would have happened to the Beatles the press would've shrugged it off as some out of control kid getting in a fight with a Hells Angel but after it happened to the Stones people were immediately boycotting the Stones and protesting saying that they provoked this in some way. Politicians were promising people that the Stones would never play in their city left and right.
Influences? Well okay you got me there, the Beatles are one of the most influential bands of all time but so are the Stones in a more subtle way. But just think of this, would Iggy Pop be the same if there were no Stones? No, do you know why? Moves, Mick had the moves and many front men started after they saw what it could do to a crowd, what it could do to a show. Mick was the first non-black guy to be dancing "black" moves. While "white" bands like the Beatles stood around and sang Mick was on stage strutting his stuff making it more acceptable for the Jim Morrison's and Steven Tyler's to do this in the future. And what would Pete Townshend be without his Windmill? Or should I say Keith's windmill although he wasn't even aware he was doing it, Pete has said many times that once when he saw the Stones in concert and during the warm-ups Keith was waving his arm around. Which gave him the idea for it.
Now CD wise, the Beatles released 10 great albums; [I]Rubber Soul[/I], [I]Sgt. Peppers[/I], [I]Revolver[/I], [I]Let It Be[/I], [I]Abbey Road[/I], [I]The White Album[/I], P[I]lease Please Me[/I], [I]With The Beatles[/I], [I]Help![/I] and [I]A Hard Days Night[/I].
Well the Stones released an equally great 10 albums; [I]Exile On Main Street[/I], [I]Sticky Fingers[/I], [I]Flowers[/I], [I]Some Girls[/I], T[I]he Rolling Stones Now![/I], [I]Out Of Our Heads[/I], [I]Let It Bleed[/I], [I]Aftermath[/I], [I]Beggars Banquet[/I], and [I]Between the Buttons[/I].
But if you take the Stones best album against the Beatles I think that I'd take Exile over and Beatles CD.

So in conclusion, I'm a Stones fan boy and that was a major rant. And I'd love to try to see your point because up till about 2 years ago I thought the Beatles were the greatest.

Sorry guys, I just couldn't help myself! I do love the Beatles don't get me wrong, and I'm sure I'm a lone ranger in this "battle", especially in the Beatles thread.

EDIT: But of course it's mostly all a matter of opinions. Opinions are really quiet annoying.

To me the Stones were just a rock n' roll band. A great rock n' roll band but still just a rock band. The Beatles were more than just a band. They were an idea, a movement, and a symbol. They summed up a generation.

Not only were the Bealtes more influential, revolutionized music, came up with amazing recording ideas (backwards guitar, concept albums, flowing tracks) they were better musically (complex and original melodies/harmonies, intricate bass lines, countless varied styles of music, odd time signatures, many key and tempo changes within songs and guitar virtuosity) and they were better lyricists.... and had four front men(three of which could play every instrument under the sun).

The Stones were known for writing catchy 3-chord hard rock with crude solos and lots of attitude. Don't get me wrong I love the Stones and think they are amazing but I do not think that they really compare.

Jacaran, the Beatles had more trouble with the police than the Stones could even think about. Certain members were banned from the US because of drug raids for Christ sakes. They had legal problems up the wazoo and more family problems than you can think of.

Also, please do not try to compare each member individually against each other, that is just plain stupid.

The Beatles took more risks musically than the Stones have. They experimented in pop, country, rockabilly, folk, R&B, hard rock, metal, psychedelia, blues, rock, soul, and eastern music.

[QUOTE=TheShaneOMac]Jacaran, the Beatles had more trouble with the police than the Stones could even think about. Certain members were banned from the US because of drug raids for Christ sakes. They had legal problems up the wazoo and more family problems than you can think of.

Also, please do not try to compare each member individually against each other, that is just plain stupid.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no... The Stones were banned from Canada, and the US and Europe all in a range of 5 years, Keith Richards couldn't even get into the country for 2 years. Mick and Keith both spent about a week in Jail, Keith could've spent 4-5 years in jail but a blind girl they helped out. The Who had to play a benefit concert for them just so they could bail them out of jail one time. Saying the Beatles had more troubles is just stupid I could continue to give you examples for hours.

Well then in my opinion the members of the Stones > Beatles, happy?

And as for your first post, all opinions.

And what Concept album are you talking about? I know its not Sgt. Peppers because that has to be the weakest form of a concept album ever.

[QUOTE=TheShaneOMac]The Beatles took more risks musically than the Stones have. They experimented in pop, country, rockabilly, folk, R&B, hard rock, metal, psychedelia, blues, rock, soul, and eastern music.[/QUOTE]
All of which the Stones did and for 40 years the Stones have been doing it... but when did the Beatles experiment with Metal? Helter Skelter? Revolution? Uh, no thats called Hard Rock.

[QUOTE=Jacaran]Uh, no... The Stones were banned from Canada, and the US and Europe all in a range of 5 years, Keith Richards couldn't even get into the country for 2 years. Mick and Keith both spent about a week in Jail, Keith could've spent 4-5 years in jail but a blind girl they helped out. The Who had to play a benefit concert for them just so they could bail them out of jail one time. Saying the Beatles had more troubles is just stupid I could continue to give you examples for hours.
[/QUOTE]

Read both the Stones and Beatles biography, like I have, and see how ****ed up the Beatles lives were. You would be shocked.

[QUOTE=Jacaranda]All of which the Stones did and for 40 years the Stones have been doing it... but when did the Beatles experiment with Metal? Helter Skelter? Revolution? Uh, no thats called Hard Rock.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Helter Skelter was the first metal song and if you don't believe that it is you have to admit that it was the first blue print for metal.

[QUOTE=TheShaneOMac]Read both the Stones and Beatles biography, like I have, and see how ****ed up the Beatles lives were. You would be shocked.[/QUOTE]
Uh, I have... and I've read biographys on every member of the Beatles minus Ringo and every member of the Stones minus Billy and Charlie. And I really wasn't that shocked.

[QUOTE=TheShaneOMac]Yes, Helter Skelter was the first metal song and if you don't believe that it is you have to admit that it was the first blue print for metal.[/QUOTE]
First blue print maybe... but at the time the White Album came out the Yardbirds were done and had released many blue prints for heavy metal, the same goes with Cream and Led Zeppelin were in the works of [I]Led Zeppelin[/I] at the time.

I haven't heard much other than Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Abbey Road, and the White Album. It's good stuff though.

Get Rubber Soul. It's my favorite Beatles album.

Pure bliss.

I don't think it's fair to compare the Beatles and the Stones. I love them both. I love The Beatles a little more, but no one, not even the Beatles was as good as the Stones as making just straight up rock and roll hits. The Beatles had a ton of problems, within the band and without it. The Stones were definitely the more rebellious group, but I think The Beatles had about as much controversy swirling around them.

I also think the Beatles had the edge in creativity. Their Satanic Majesties Request was very psychadelic and experimental, but asides from that the Stones didn't venture far from blues-rock and the occassional country-rock song. The Beatles experimented with many different sounds. Now you could argue that the Stones didn't need to experiment because their blues-rock formula was incredibly successful for them and their wasn't much reason to change it. In fact, when the Stones did start experimenting a little later with disco and reggae is pretty much where they started declining, so it was a good thing they stuck to primarily blues-rock. They had a perfect blueprint for success, and if it ain't broken, don't fix it. The Beatles did experiment, and it seems to me that no matter what type of music they experimented with, it sounded good. So I think the Beatles were more creative and experimental, but The Rolling Stones strategy was working for them and they had no reason to experiment.

It's really impossible to compare the band's individual talents. Drumming wise, Charlie Watts based a lot of his drumming off of Ringo, and Ringo said that Charlie was his favorite drummer ever. So they were both extremely similar and very, very solid drummers even if they didn't play like Keith Moon or Ginger Baker. I think Bill Wymann was a pretty average bassist to be honest. Good, but nothing special. McCartney had a few very memorable basslines and in addition to being an excellent bassist, was a great piano player, singer, and songwriter, and played a bunch of other instruments too.

Guitar is where it gets really difficult. Keith is the greatest riff writer of all-time IMO. Brian Jones was pretty good, but did not play as many instruments as George. And who brought the sitar into rock music? George's sitar work inspired Brian Jones to take it up and come up with the brilliant intro to Paint it Black. Mick Taylor is an amazing blues guitarist and one of my favorite guitarists ever. George is probably one of my 3 favorite guitarists ever (hence the George avatar). Actually, I'm not going to get into guitar anymore because I love all these guys and I don't know how I can argue against any of them.

Songwriting wise, Keith wrote some very memorable guitar riffs. Lyric-wise, I prefer Paul and John's and even George's to Mick. Mick wrote some excellent lyrics but I just love The Beatles songwriting. Having said that, nobody to write rock albums like The Stones (Street Fighting Man, Satisfaction Sympathy for the Devil...

I am a hardcore fanboy of both of these bands and though I slightly prefer The Beatles, The Stones were very, very close to them IMO. You can't discount that these bands were great friends and had a friendly competition going so they influenced each other a lot in their sounds. Wow I've been typing this out for a really long time and I've realized that it pretty much adds absolutely nothing to this thread. Both bands are just incredible and have a lot in common but also have very distinct styles if that makes sense.

np- Jumpin' Jack Flash:cool:

Edit- And yes Rubber Soul really owns. First Beatles album that I bought on my own. Get it!

I know this question has probalby been asked before but i really want to get into Harrison's solo work. Can anyone give me some song and album recommendations?

[QUOTE=TheShaneOMac]I know this question has probalby been asked before but i really want to get into Harrison's solo work. Can anyone give me some song and album recommendations?[/QUOTE]

All Things Must Pass. George Harrison's death anniversary is coming up and I'm doing a write-up on him for it. I'll upload ATMP and send it out to anyone who's interested when I post the write-up. He died on November 29th so I'll post my write-up and send out some of his solo stuff then.

Brainwashed is excellent aswell.

<3 Jeff Lynne for producing his stuff.

All things must pass is, as previosily mentioned, IMO Geroge best solo album. I have always liked Paul's solo work best, and Johns is ok, but George had some decent stuff too. Not Guilty is a good song.

I don't care how much better the Stones were at their instruments or how much catchier their riffs were, YOU CAN'T BEAT STRAIGHT UP BEAUTIFUL SONGWRITTING! Stones were [I]good[/I] musicians but they weren't great. As for songwritting, the Stones made some extremly catchy and simple riffs but can you honestly compare a catchy riff to such songs as "Strawberry Fields" or "Across the Universe" which overpower you with their overwelming beauty? I think not. The Beatles kill them in originality aswell. The Stones never created something that was truely original as for the Beatles, they basically created Psychedelia with [I]Revolver[/I]. The Stones created a new attitude an attitude that would be later hailed as Rock and Roll but after basing themselves around the whole "bad boy" Rock and Roll image for almost their entire career they instantly sold out with [I]Satanic Majesties Request[/I] and after the Psychedelic trend died down (a trend that the Beatles started) they went right back to that bad boy image as if nothing had happened. I like the Stones but you honestly can't compare them to the Beatles and win period.

Beatles > Stones (easily)

And lets not forget that the Stones first #1, I wanna be your Man, was written by The Beatles.

[QUOTE=Schyma]I don't care how much better the Stones were at their instruments or how much catchier their riffs were, YOU CAN'T BEAT STRAIGHT UP BEAUTIFUL SONGWRITTING! Stones were [I]good[/I] musicians but they weren't great. As for songwritting, the Stones made some extremly catchy and simple riffs but can you honestly compare a catchy riff to such songs as "Strawberry Fields" or "Across the Universe" which overpower you with their overwelming beauty? I think not. The Beatles kill them in originality aswell. The Stones never created something that was truely original as for the Beatles, they basically created Psychedelia with [I]Revolver[/I]. The Stones created a new attitude an attitude that would be later hailed as Rock and Roll but after basing themselves around the whole "bad boy" Rock and Roll image for almost their entire career they instantly sold out with [I]Satanic Majesties Request[/I] and after the Psychedelic trend died down (a trend that the Beatles started) they went right back to that bad boy image as if nothing had happened. I like the Stones but you honestly can't compare them to the Beatles and win period.

Beatles > Stones (easily)[/QUOTE]
Shoo, go back to the Pink Floyd thread you!

The Stones wrote beautiful songs, Wild Horses? Paint It Black? Angie? Under My Thumb?
Arg! /runs back to Rolling Stone thread.... oh shi nm...

:lol:

I'd give you rep for making such a risky argument in the Beatles thread but it says I have to spread first. Sorry....:p

Robo gets rep though.

Paul McCartney in 4 hours. :D