[QUOTE=Schyma]

Robo gets rep though.

Paul McCartney in 4 hours. :D[/QUOTE]

:cool:

Have fun at McCartney, it should be awesome.

Does anyone have any Ringo solo albums? I've always been a little curious about his solo career. I know John, George, and Paul all played on his solo albums but don't really know anything else about his solo career. It Don't Come Easy is an awesome song though.

[QUOTE]<3 Jeff Lynne for producing his stuff.[/QUOTE]

<3 Jeff Lynne for being one of the raddest musicians in existence, period.

I can't hear you! :(
The second I saw you posted in here I knew what'd you say. Your so predictable Med. :P

Whoa, Paul in 4 hours I totally missed the details, how close are you? I take it its in Houston? Who's opening?

Lets see, I have one Ringo album it was pretty boring lemme see if I can find it then I'll get the name up. And I never knew George Harrison co-wrote "It Don't Come Easy" with him, I always figured it was John.

[QUOTE=Jacaranda]And I never knew George Harrison co-wrote "It Don't Come Easy" with him, I always figured it was John.[/QUOTE]

I think Ringo sung it on the Concert for George. I could be wrong, though.

Ya he did, I've seen it on the commercials I think he looks really funny in it singing behind his drum set, it made me laugh actually. I'm not even sure why.

Yes, it's in Houston, I'm about 10 miles away and I have no clue whose opening. Who usualy opens for him?

McCartney was great....

and man the four year anniversary is coming. I can't believe its been that long ago, I was a freshman in high school when one of the Gods fell to the earth and perished.

[B]No one can say The Stones are more rock and roll[/B]

Let me tell you a story of the beatles early days...when they played in the cavern. They played for many many hours straight each day (over 5). Covering Rock and Roll classics such as Chuck Berry songs, and Little Richard songs.

They all slept in the same room which was very tight for the four of them, (two bunkbeds), and George lost his virginity while all the other beatles were in the room. They clapped...

And on stage they had to eat, and sometimes fall asleep behind the piano while playing because they played so long. And they had to deal with drunken bums who climbed up on stage...once John who was eating on stage threw a knife to scare the guy, before kicking him in the head and off the stage.

And there were plenty of other beatings given and recieved back in those days, especially for there early bass players, who were to slow to get away from the "teddy boys."

And when it comes to Rock N' Roll voices, John's voice when he was singing a rock n' roll song could sound more rock than Jaggers (example: Yer Blues), and McCartney when he wanted too could belt out a great rock song (example: Long Tall Sally (cover of Little Richard), and Helter Skelter).

But all you need to do is read up on the Beatles days in the Cavern to find out who paid there dues, and who was more "rock n' roll"

Um, just to point out, that is just the same as what happened to the Stones, but there were riots also every night.
/shrugs.

I'm pretty sure that the scene was similar for other bands in that area and time period.

I don't even know how The Rolling Stones can be compared to The Beatles.
I'm still trying to find what was so good about the Stones and i still haven't found it.

I listened to one of the Stones LP's again recently, i actually got bored.

The Beatles are actually far more rebellious than the stones, i mean, Lennon himself created so much controversy and pulled so much cheek. Also in the Philipines when there was immense chaos, the beatles were hiding with their luggage because they all had their personal weed stashes in their bags.

The stones are still touring and have accomplished far less in 40 years than the beatles did in 8... sad.

[QUOTE=Jacaranda]

Lets see, I have one Ringo album it was pretty boring lemme see if I can find it then I'll get the name up. And I never knew George Harrison co-wrote "It Don't Come Easy" with him, I always figured it was John.[/QUOTE]

I always thought is was John too. The version of It Don't Come Easy on my computer says it's performed with John.

He performed it at the Concert for Bangladash too.

Just because the Beatles had a lot of controversy doesn't make them more rebellious. I think The Stones actually had the more rebellious attitude but they kind of stole it from The Beatles. The Beatles rebellious nature inspired bands like the Stones to act rebellious and I think the Stones took that "bad boy" image further. I still prefer the Beatles, but I think the Stones had more of the "bad boy" image.

EDIT: No comment on el idiota Blackbird.


I was reading George Harrisons credits for albums, boy did that guy produce albums like crazy. He did like 5 Ravi albums, I dont' have any of the ones he played on/produced. I might have to pick one up now.

the stones are not greater than the beatles, before there was stones there was beatles, simple as that! the beatles opened up the door for the british sound wich is basically creative bass lines around guitar verses and yes the stones rode the beatle coatail to fame and style, the beatles even supplyed them with their first hit!the stones werent even that good techinically they were loud and maybe thats why they got away with it using lots of distortion and pedal effects/delays its easy to be loud and its hard to be just right and good thats the main diffrence between the stones/zeppelin and the beatles, first of all i doubt youve listened to the early beatle tapes? pete best was a horrible drumber and yes john lennon did say that in defense of his freind (pete best) its no secret they grew up together along with stuart sutcliffe, so was john right about ringo? heck noooo, did ringo starr invent the rim shoot who knows but it was certainly more noticeable after ringo, i never heard a diffrent snair sound before the beatles it was all the same, and about the bass dude i can teach my little son the bassline to get off my cloud! no one will ever be better, more influential, than sir paul mccartney on the bass the beatle records are blueprints of how the bass is played today! and as far as singing goes jagger was great at just being loud and lyrically not very good, no way in hell are the stones better than the beatles nevermind greater, the beatles were far too advanced for the stones,defentaly more influential, and if jagger made it easy for singers to dance and jump around and shake their booty, i wonder what elvis might say to that!? the beatles were not good but great in every style they touched brit-pop,phsyco,blues-folk, the stones if anything stayed in their rock blues comfort zone, so what does that mean? not the same vision-creation and ideas than the beatles

Periods are your friend.

On the rebellion issue, if I was rioting I would rather blast Street Fighting Man or Jumpin' Jack Flash. If I were protesting peacefully, I would play Let It Be or Come Together.

If I were protesting, I'd use Gimme Some Truth.....

that song>all other protest songs

The Beatles and The Stones were both terriffic bands with great songs and fantastic carreers, but the stage persona of the Beatles and Stones did little to reflect the reality of their lives. The Stones came from rich families and were considered college bound. The Beatles grew up poor; John was a member of a gang and Paul almost quit the band just to make some spare change. If you want real rebels, you need look no farther than the Beatles.

@ jerry_soh_619 it seems you’re the one who hasn't heard early Stones, distortion? Pedal effects? Easy to be loud, oh ya please. The Stones were already formed when the Beatles were making an impact on America so that doesn't even matter, the Beatles just happened to be lucky, they were nothing special in the beginning just another band from the UK who got lucky, right place right time. If the Beatles would've not came over a different band would've. Paul McCartney? Most influential bass player? Er, no. I play bass and as much as I like the Beatles he isn't even in my top 25 of bass players, I don't know of anyone (Famous and friend) who says they started playing because of him. He made simple bass lines any one could make. Nothing special at all.
Lyrically the Stones are bad? Er, again no. Ever heard of a song called "Gimme Shelter"? "Paint It Black"? Please saying the Stones lyrics are bad is like saying the Beatles had bad lyrics, it’s just ridiculous. No argument here about Lennon/McCartney being the greatest writing duo of all time, though. And Jagger just being loud? I'd like to see someone else sing "Ruby Tuesday" or "Under My Thumb" or "Lady Jane" as well as he did. Your argument is so ignorant it’s not funny, your making it sound like the Stones were some trashy bar band that never grew out of being a bar band.
Stones stayed in their blues-rock? Hm, I know [I]Flowers[/I] isn't blues-rock, [I]Their Satanic Majesties Request[/I] isn't blues-rock and I'm not going to use post-72 albums as examples just because everyone hates them (For the most part). Just like the Beatles were best at pop songs the Stones were best at blues, so of course they are going to stay in that area for a majority of their albums, while the Beatles really after [I]Rubber Soul[/I] didn't experiment or change their sound from album to album. There really isn't a big difference between [I]Rubber Soul[/I] to [I]Revolver[/I] to [I]Sgt. Peppers[/I] to [I]White Album[/I].

This thread for the past day or so turned into a Beatles Vs. Stones thread. :P

The Stones were middle class for the most part, Brian Jones was the most wealthy one, I believe. They only let Billy Wymann in because he had a nice amp, because they couldn't afford to buy one. None of them came from rich homes, middle class just like the Beatles.

[QUOTE=Jacaranda]. There really isn't a big difference between [I]Rubber Soul[/I] to [I]Revolver[/I] to [I]Sgt. Peppers[/I] to [I]White Album[/I].[/QUOTE]

:amaze:

[QUOTE=Violent_Bill]:amaze:[/QUOTE]
Uh huh, I went there.

Everyone knows the Who are better than both of them.

[URL="http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10485499&postcount=175"]http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10485499&postcount=175[/URL]
Cough cough...

[QUOTE=Jacaranda][URL="http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10485499&postcount=175"]http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10485499&postcount=175[/URL]
Cough cough...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=From Link in Jacaranda's Post] George Harrison can't even compare to Mike Einziger or Daron Malakian[/QUOTE]

That remark lost that kid all credibility he had.

thats it i'm starting a war

killhim.

Oh well. Not everyone's gonna like the Beatles.

[QUOTE=Lunch]Everyone knows the Who are better than both of them.[/QUOTE]Liar.

Beatles>Who>..........Stones

Not to say they're bad......Paint it Black and Start Me Up kick ***.

But Lunch is half correct.....The Who kick ***, but not the BEatles' ;)

[QUOTE=Seafroggys]Beatles>Who>..........Stones

Not to say they're bad......Paint it Black and Start Me Up kick ***.

But Lunch is half correct.....The Who kick ***, but not the BEatles' ;)[/QUOTE]
I believe your ">'s" are on backwards.

Or maybe they aren't :upset:

Let's take the Beatles hating to another thread guys. This is getting sickening.

I saw Paul McCartney last Friday.



Just thought I would say that.

I love The Beatles.

Whats up with his lack of touring anywhere near me? Maybe it was all those letters written in blood I sent him...