Keith Richards disses the Beatles...again

Yeah I figured as much, just making sure

 

He needs to shut his F'n mouth up about every other musician on the planet and thank his lucky stars...

 

One more time: Keith didn't trash anybody. He made a casual, reasonable assessment of their live skills in an interview (whether you share his opinion or not). The only reason there's so much butthurt going on in this thread is because NME predictably singled out that one line and the OP framed it as an outrageous diss to raise the Beatles loyalists' hackles. And then we get pages and pages of "He's so jealous, he should be kissing The Beatles' feet!" It's another classic example of how the clickbait media generates petty outrage online and people just blindly play into it.

 

It's only an opinion, sincere apologies that it's hard to handle.

 

If the guy prefers classic rock, what's it to you?

 

You would be correct. That is factually correct. The Beatles quit, and the Stones carried on and did great, great things throughout the decade. Fact.

 

What may be their best work to you may not be to somebody else. To me, Some Girls and Tattoo You are perhaps their best work.

 

No, it is not a fact. It is just your own personal spin on a complicated set of events. Another way of putting it would be this: The Beatles gradually grew apart for a variety of reasons--some musical, some business related, some personal--so they decided to quit while they were ahead and pursue their solo careers. They had accomplished all that they had set out to do together, so they moved on. That doesn't make them "quitters", which you obviously mean in a pejorative sense. Meanwhile, The Stones kept on going together, descending into mediocrity.

 

You are correct it was complicated. I am glad they stopped touring. I am not sure if they could have produced Sgt. Peppers to the quality it was if they still toured.

 

Keith didn't like that album either.

 

I respect your opinion but totally disagree about Some Girls and Tattoo You.

 

Sure, it was the right move to focus on their increasingly sophisticated studio efforts since they were no longer growing as live players. It would have been nice if maybe they could have returned to touring later on--and the rooftop concert gives us a tantalizing taste of what might have been--but it just wasn't in the cards for them at that point.

 

Your reply is too well thought out ... and windy! A one or, at the most, two sentence sound bite is better!

(Just kidding as I agree with your response.)

 

That was a Lou Reed thread I was referring to, about him not liking The Beatles. I remember it now.
I don't know why I thought it was Zappa.

 

It's shocking to see so many Keith Richards bashers. The man who oozes 'it's my life and I want to live as I please' more than anyone. And I say that as a fan of The Beatles.

 

Why would anyone bash anyone who doesn't like a band, just because you do like them?

 

I love both bands..maybe the Stones even more but his comments/opinions about The Beatles just don't gel with some of his music that was heavily influenced by The Beatles. Maybe it was not his doing but I doubt it.

 

Though I must admit, they never had the chance to develop into a better live band...because no matter what they did, they couldn't get any audience feedback. I must give them credit because they could've come out and lip synched to a prerecorded tape...and the crowds would've been none the wiser.

 

Huh?

 

That's one interpretation. Another is, the Beatles knew when they were done, and the Stones didn't.

 

Define "bashing" as it relates to KR and this thread.

I'm not arguing with you, I just want to be clear.

 

Keep in mind that a lot of people use pejorative terms like "bashing" to describe things they don't like.

 

Personally, I 'spose I alluded to a bashing ! The time he fell out of a coconut tree and bashed his head !! And man..I can relate to that ! OUCH !!!!

 

sad old man ???
I really hope to be as sad as he when I'm old as him... really