Paul McCartney throwing shade.

[Willie D]

Paul's reputation for silly love songs (another meh Paul song redeemed by a killer bass line) is mostly borne of his singles and hits. The albums have some great material on them. Disc 2 of Wingspan is a good place to start digging into some of his better solo stuff.

 

[Archtops]

You Stones guy’s are quite sensitive.

Maybe they need more Stones?

 

[Archtops]

Even Mick is getting all dressed up for the let it be documentary. View attachment 512947

I can’t unsee that! So funny!

 

[Stratafied]

Maybe they need more Stones?

lol!!

 

[mark1406]

I’m not a fan of the song either way.

 

[Stratafied]

I never thought of the Stones as a blues band.

 

[Stratafied]

I’m not a fan of the song either way.

Me either, but I’ll take the Beatles version.

 

[mark1406]

Comparing the Stones and Beatles. I have a feeling the Stones would have been the better live act in their day.
Undeniably the Beatles were better singers, but also undeniably the Stones were better guitarists.

They have both written great songs and songs that stink. They both started off recording blues based songs too.

I thought it was an unnecessary comment from Paul, I would have though it time to let their body of work do the talking for them.

Regards

Mark

 

[Archtops]

Back in the early days of each band, I would rather have seen a Beach Boys concert.
I loved the “under My Thumb” era.

 

[mark1406]

Me either, but I’ll take the Beatles version.

A week ago I would have said the same thing but on briefly listening to them today the Beatles version is more highly produced and yet lacks the energy of the Stones version.

I think the Stones wrote fine pop songs such as Ruby Tuesday and She’s a rainbow, but ultimately it wasn’t their thing. They were fans of blues music and pursued that sound.

Songs like can you hear me knocking is a great song and Beatles couldn’t have done a song like that in a million years. The same can be said of Beatles songs and the Stones.

 

[AncientAx]

Bunch of old guys.....

 

[Archtops]

John’s given interviews where he’s said that it’s a shame that most of the world didn’t get to see us playing in the clubs in Hamburg, that’s when we’re we’re at our best, really rocking and rolling.

I was just going to post about seeing them in their club days (old video). I thought they were great.

 

[Stratafied]

Comparing the Stones and Beatles. I have a feeling the Stones would have been the better live act in their day.
Undeniably the Beatles were better singers, but also undeniably the Stones were better guitarists.

They have both written great songs and songs that stink. They both started off recording blues based songs too.

I thought it was an unnecessary comment from Paul, I would have though it time to let their body of work do the talking for them.

Regards

Mark

The Beatles were outstanding live performers. Harrison was a very good guitarist and writer.

 

[AntStrat]

And Mick strikes back.

https://outsider.com/news/entertain...neys-rolling-stones-blues-cover-band-comment/

 

[Hanson]

I didn't read the article, so I don't know what he said about John, but both of them said plenty when John was still around.

John was no saint either. I have read plenty about The Beatles, and from most accounts by people who knew him, he was kind of a doosh.

I don’t get it either. Both John and Paul had many disputes with each other over the years. They fought like brothers, but also loved each other dearly like brothers. Paul has the utmost respect for John and expresses that on a regular basis.

 

[guitarface]

Comparing the Stones and Beatles. I have a feeling the Stones would have been the better live act in their day.
Undeniably the Beatles were better singers, but also undeniably the Stones were better guitarists.

They have both written great songs and songs that stink. They both started off recording blues based songs too.

I thought it was an unnecessary comment from Paul, I would have though it time to let their body of work do the talking for them.

Regards

Mark

It is hardly undeniable that the stones were better guitarists.

 

[AncientAx]

It is hardly undeniable that the stones were better guitarists.

And Ringo or Charlie ??????

 

[Baelzebub]

The Stone’s don’t and never did play their own instruments…….

Yeah...I got this in the Fiction section:

500+ pages..I couldn't put it down.

Who am I kidding? At this point I can barely pick it up!



PS- All kidding aside and excellent, thorough and well researched tome.

Babiuk did a similar book on The Beatles gear...also excellent. I'd highly recommend either or both.

 

[Slartybartfast]

He didn't say anything false. It's only a cut if you take him out of context.

 

[strings2wood]

Jagger's response was graceful and dignified with an affirmation of both bands and members and the context they played live shows in context and comparison.
That says more than any disapproval or point scoring comeback.
Class act and comment.