Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sidewinders Bar & Grille' started by Stratafied, Oct 13, 2021.
The link isn't working.
But is the entirety of his diss calling them a "Blues cover band?". What they have always acknowledged from the beginning?
Sorry, I’ll try again.
I like the Stones....but Paul is pretty much dead on.....
McCartney is on a roll. The other day he set the record straight and said it was John, not he who broke up The Beatles.
Yeah, he’s a little chatty lately.
Jagger and Richards literally only aspired to be a blues cover band, until their manager locked them in a room and told them to write their own songs to start making real money. None of this is a secret. Sir Paul using it as a diss seems a little limp.
When you're 79 I guess there's a lot to get off your chest before you take the long and winding road.
The world according to Paul...<yawn...>
At least the Stones never brought their untalented women into their band....and you'd never catch Jagger without a pre-nup.
It's all apples to oranges anyway...and the Stones ARE a blues based band..and quite proud of it. I've never seen any footage of Muddy calling Paul up on stage.
Well done lol.
I’m a complete Beatles nut, but man I hated that, you’re the Beatles not Sonny and Cher.
Love the Beatles, love Paul, love the Stones too. When you’re that accomplished, at the top of the top, it’s unnecessary to make comments like that.
I take the “blues” band as a compliment. The “cover” band was an unnecessary jab.
I simply don’t think that there’s a need to compare the two bands. They weren’t occupying the same space in my view.
I personally have never been a big Beatles fan. Not that they didn’t do great groundbreaking things, but just not my cup of tea. But why the need to throw such jabs?
What makes you lot think this is newsworthy.
oooh a Beatle says something, surely the world willhang of every syllable.
gutter-press looking for something on a bad news day and people lap up the merde like it was milk from the gods.
This has been an 'open for sh-stirring' discussion topic between Paul and Mick for decades and it's always been a source of hysterical public reaction because people see rivalry... and there is none.
Both of them enjoy it, because they are manipulating the media for their own gain. No such thing as bad publicity
"http://www.https//" isn't valid.. I fixed the URL:
Strange comment. A lot of bluster and maybe anger without saying anything.
PM already said John broke up the Beatles on Howard Stern.
You or I can "take" it as a compliment, but it's pretty clear he didn't intend it that way. The only reason we have to compare the two bands is that back in the day, you were either a Beatles guy or a Stones guy - it seemed to matter at the time.
The Stones were a blues band that developed a totally personal and innovative way of playing blues and blues based rock. The Beatles were a pop band that developed a personal and innovative way of playing pop and pop based rock. They're both valid, they're both great. But I personally will take the blues over pop music 24 hours a day and twice as much on Sunday. So I'm a Stones guy - was from the time I was about 9 years old and will be until I'm on my death bed. I liked the Beatles well enough, but if I never heard them again, I wouldn't miss 'em. I'll be listening to Exile when I'm on my way out.