Reply to The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]From Jagger himself. On the live band point, he’s right they were awesome in their pre-fame days before they literally couldn’t hear themselves play. They didn’t have the conditions to play well by mid-1963 and then they stopped touring before equipment got to the point where you could really rock out, Who style.

Anyway:

The Beatles were so big that it's hard for people not alive at the time to realize just how big they were. There isn't a real comparison with anyone now. I suppose Michael Jackson at one point, but it still doesn't quite seem the same. They were so big that to be competitive with them was impossible. I'm talking about in record sales and tours and all this. They were huge... They certainly were not a great live band. Maybe they were in the days of the Cavern, when they were coming up as a club band. I'm sure they were hilariously funny and all that. And they did have this really good onstage persona. But as far as the modern-day world, they were not a great performing band. But... (t)hey were the Beatles. They were this forerunning, breakthrough item, and that's hard to overestimate. Jagger 1995[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics