Keith Richards disses the Beatles...again

Nah, I don't have the English vocabulary to explain too much. It would be a mess and take the whole night. Maybe I just used a stupid word.

 

Oh God, make it stop.... fifty bloody years of this contrived tribal slap-fight instigated to shift merchandise. Buy both lunchboxes and let... it... go....

D.D.

 

Hey....on an old Led Zeppelin board I was on...there were threads about LZ fighting hand-to-hand with other bands...and who'd win ?

Talk about silly stuff !

I think the best matchup for the Beatles vs. The Stones woulda been Ringo tussling with Brian Jones. I think they'd have opted for a round of tiddlywinks.

 

I don't know what Keith Richards is whining about. After a certain point in the 60s, they became two completely different bands. And, The Beatles broke up in 1971, and his band is still together. Get over it Kefie!

 

He's "whining" about a new book, CD, etc.

Seems to think it's an effective form of advertising, I guess.

 

No worries; generally, we use "bashing" as a term for personal attacks unrelated to an issue. It comes down from practices like "gay-bashing," which refers to actual physical attacks.

 

TRISTERO: I'm sure the Beatles didn't care how they were perceived at their break up. ...whether they were quitting while they were on top etc.
I bet they were just sick of working together and needed to get away.

that's all it takes.

this thread just proves that you can't talk about 60s music without taking the Beatles and Stones together.
Two sides of the same coin.
Brothers from diffeent mothers.

they're joined at the hip.

 

Yeah, Jeez, can't you see his heart is breaking??

 

Well, talk about interpretation. You have now posted an incredible large number of answers in this thread, and it's only you who goes on and on about that Richards are 'advertising'. He is asked in an interview to give his opinion about The Beatles' function as a live-act and gives a straight answer. There is nothing to 'advertise'. That the magazine then choose to make it a headline is not Keith Richards' fault. He was asked and he gave an answer.

Haven't you guessed it yet? The Beatles are this forums biggest sacred cow. You can't critizise them, unless you want to be bombed with 'definitive answers' from the disicipels...

 

Apparently, you are not reading any posts but mine. Lots of people have said the same thing on this thread . . . and on every other thread where KR says something stupid.

 

I still love ya Keith!

 

“Musically, The Beatles had a lovely sound and great songs. But the live thing? They were never quite there.”

-It's an opinion. Even an appreciation of them.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but if that quote is 'stupid', we have reached new heights in being sensitive.

 

Yeah, nearly 500 posts in five days on this Forum alone - there might be some more coming. The new album and tour announcement are probably a month away. Maybe more Beatles, or Mick or maybe something new like Adele. I think the father's ashes thing only works once.

 

It's stupid because it's wrong.

In my sensitive opinion, of course.

 

Shoot, let's go for an even thousand!

 

Zep. Because Peter Grant. And Satan. Sort of the same thing really, though...

D.D.

 

As I said, we have reached a new high.
I'm outta here.

 

Not because you're "sensitive," of course . . .

 

But you're wrong, sir, it is a fact: The Beatles quit and the Rolling Stones carried on decade after decade re-inventing themselves and increasing in popularity: this isn't an opinion, unlike all the stuff you talk about: it is an undisputed fact! You can say the Stones descended into mediocrity until you are blue in the face, but album and ticket sales decade after decade after decade shatter your argument and tell the true story.

 

Album and ticket sales do not define virtuosity or talent. You are merely redefining the word "fact" to support your viewpoint. Of course, it is in no way an "undisputed" fact, since we are herein disputing it.

 

He's stating his opinion. No amount of ticket sales, or popularity can make the Stones later music objectivity good. It is to you, and that's great, but it doesn't mean it's a fact that they did improve. Nothing can shatter an opinion stating they did devolve into mediocrity

 

The Beatles split up because they were moving in different directions and they were tired of each other. They wanted to move on to new things. That doesn't make them "quitters" as you derisively put it. Sometimes it takes guts and wisdom to walk away when something has had its day, rather than clinging to your old security blanket. Lots of bands stick together for years and years, milking the brand name for all its worth long after the inspiration has waned, maybe because they're unsure that they can cut it on their own. And you are correct, I offered my opinion about the decline of the Stones in their later years. I suppose I should have included an IMO in there, but it is a pretty widely held view among fans.

 

Which once again decreases Keith Richards credibility.

 

Well from what I've heard, Paul McCartney didn't want the Beatles to end and was very depressed for quite a while after the Beatles split, so if this is the case, then the split wasn't a decision on all sides. Also: Lennon stated in 1980 that The Beatles would eventually get back together again.