Originally Posted by Sgt.McCartney
For one thing, Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts, Brian Jones, Keith Richard and Bill Wyman continually behave in a sullen, moody and distasteful manner. They have little or no respect for any form of authority, and seem to go out of their way to be as obnoxious and destructive as possible.On the other hand, The Beatles have been know to do many uncalled for acts of kindness. Derek Taylor, their former publicity manager, once told me that they make a point of doing charity benefits back in England.
"If Hitler were alive today, the German girls wouldn't let him bomb London if the Beatles were there."
- Anonymous, date unknown
I think that respect for authority is a weakness. For example, I respect Jerry & co. and all the members here. But it's giving me a hard time. I have to watch out what will I say etc. I don't know if John had a respect for authority. He is seen as a rebbel, a prototipical, archetypical rebel. I don't think he had respect for authority in school. Elvis was his idol, but I think his final verdict on Elvis was given in the '80 Playboy interview: '...Elvis, who is now in hell'. Maybe the only exception is Yoko. Mick has no respect for anything, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
The 'good guys-bad guys' was intentionally created, to sell more albums etc. I don't think Stones were all that serius with satanism, it was all a joke and get more money, which is bad, yes. The more their parents were outraged with Stones, the more it made their fans even more rebellious and buy more records.
I like Stones' music. They're 2nd best.
Originally Posted by beatlebangs1964
What's up with that?
Sir Mick! Now that he shares the honor of being knighted with Sir Paul, Sir Eric and Sir Elton and Sir Ringo, he'll be singing, "Let's Spend the Knight Together!"
Then we will remember things we said today. Yeah.
-- Beatles, 1964
for high caliber Beatles fan fiction.
Originally Posted by ;168519
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By AmandaLennon:
oh...this is like arguing about the gender of the angels. why gently bash the stones now over money comparisons(sp)? i´ve never seen this in my life!!!
and is such a blah-blah-blah to say they wanted to be the beatles, f you REALLY know their work and can see how thin their enormous irony was toward the beatles;
for them, it was all fun and no worries; but the beatles cared a lot about musical growth, but that does not diminish the rs as a band. they´re a lot of fun and rebel style and sex and wild!
c´mon... no one needs to compare them.
the rolling stones WERE the greatest rock 'n' roll band of the 60´s, now... the beatles ARE the greatest BAND of all times.
The Love You Take Is Equal To The Love You Make
Originally Posted by DizzymissLizzy909
The Stones are probably the closest comparison to the Beatles in term of their popularity and lasting effect on music, as well as pop culture. However, the Beatles REALLY revolutionalized sound. The Stones were seen as public rebels, but the Beatles took things to a higher level in their music, which is what everyone remembers at the end of the day.
Nevertheless, and I guess I probably don't know enough about each individual Rolling Stone to judge their character... but they also do seem to have great personality! Especially on stage. It's amazing they've stayed together through the years, especially with the stress of being rock stars.
I agree. Mick and Charlie have great wit.