Keith Richards Trashes Beatles’ ‘Sgt. Pepper’ as ‘Rubbish’
-
Ummmmm... it could be that simple but Keith might be a little more envious than jealous!!!
-
Keith may be a bit jealous. But Paul can be too. That is why he is always trying to distance himself from his light pop reputation and tries to emphasize his rock style music. Paul wouldn't mind if Johnny Depp based a movie character on him like he did with Keith!
-
I don't think any of them have no objection to fill up stadiums with people who come to see them. This is also big egos who are aware of their importance in music history. And I don't blame them. They are more popular then...
-
I wish they could finish off the song they "wrote together" ten years ago. Here's Chuck Berry with Keith Richards in the band. Two of the coolest guys who ever lived. Well, according to Keith is Chuck's music cooler than the guy. But...
-
The Rolling Stones are a great band... but will always live in the shadows of the Beatles.... simple, if all to be said. Some should just be happy to be second, cos there is no shame..... I loved the show "Family Ties". Up came "Growing Pains", a bit of a copy of the former, but nowhere as good. Hello Keith and Mick. "Different Strokes" was a huge show. Then up cropped "Webster", the Stones' attempt to match it. The Twilight Zone was brilliant television. As brilliant as it gets with some of those episodes. Brilliant! The Outer Limits was a decent effort, yet a far poorer shade of the former. Far poorer. Like a cheap relica. By all accounts Milton Berle had it all over Johnny Bobbit.... Either way one looks at it, the Stones are/were a great band, but, hey, they're always going to be second to the greatest band that ever graced this earth. By some way. A long, long way.
-
Not to mention that Chuck punched Keith in the face backstage according to the film "Hail Hail Rock n' Roll."
-
The Beatles v.s The Stones is media hype. Muscially speaking they have things in common but only occasionally. They are also miles apart. The Stones never made a "Sgt. Peppers", but The Beatles never made a "Exile on Main Street". People here on PaulMcCarney.com are more poppers than rockers. That is why one gives The Beatles more honor.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
I wish they could finish off the song they "wrote together" ten years ago.
Do you mean Paul & Keith? What is the song?
-
Nancy R:
Hendrix Ibsen:
I wish they could finish off the song they "wrote together" ten years ago.
Do you mean Paul & Keith? What is the song?
He talks about in his autobiography "Life". They spent some days together and jammed and made a song with lyrics that he hung on the wall. It'a a McCartney/Richards song. It was in January 2006.
-
toris:
The Rolling Stones are a great band... but will always live in the shadows of the Beatles.... simple, if all to be said. Some should just be happy to be second, cos there is no shame..... I loved the show "Family Ties". Up came "Growing Pains", a bit of a copy of the former, but nowhere as good. Hello Keith and Mick. "Different Strokes" was a huge show. Then up cropped "Webster", the Stones' attempt to match it. The Twilight Zone was brilliant television. As brilliant as it gets with some of those episodes. Brilliant! The Outer Limits was a decent effort, yet a far poorer shade of the former. Far poorer. Like a cheap relica. By all accounts Milton Berle had it all over Johnny Bobbit.... Either way one looks at it, the Stones are/were a great band, but, hey, they're always going to be second to the greatest band that ever graced this earth. By some way. A long, long way.
I don't agree. In the 60s the Stones were second to the Beatles. When the Beatles broke up, only then did the Stones start to call themselves the world's greatest rock band. And since 1970, they really have not lived in the shadow of the Beatles. I think your argument applies better to just about any act since the Beatles. The Stones are a great band and have done pretty well for themselves without having the Beatles be some cloud over them.
-
RMartinez:
toris:
The Rolling Stones are a great band... but will always live in the shadows of the Beatles.... simple, if all to be said. Some should just be happy to be second, cos there is no shame..... I loved the show "Family Ties". Up came "Growing Pains", a bit of a copy of the former, but nowhere as good. Hello Keith and Mick. "Different Strokes" was a huge show. Then up cropped "Webster", the Stones' attempt to match it. The Twilight Zone was brilliant television. As brilliant as it gets with some of those episodes. Brilliant! The Outer Limits was a decent effort, yet a far poorer shade of the former. Far poorer. Like a cheap relica. By all accounts Milton Berle had it all over Johnny Bobbit.... Either way one looks at it, the Stones are/were a great band, but, hey, they're always going to be second to the greatest band that ever graced this earth. By some way. A long, long way.
I don't agree. In the 60s the Stones were second to the Beatles. When the Beatles broke up, only then did the Stones start to call themselves the world's greatest rock band. And since 1970, they really have not lived in the shadow of the Beatles. I think your argument applies better to just about any act since the Beatles. The Stones are a great band and have done pretty well for themselves without having the Beatles be some cloud over them.
I will have to agree on this. Give it a
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
moptops:
Nothing works better than a sensationalist comment to the press when you've got a new product to sell. Keith actually loves The Beatles, but he's a blues man at heart so Pepper wouldn't be his go to Beatles album. Nor is it mine.
So why did he and Mick try and copy it six months after it was released with their "Her Satanic Majesty's Request"?????... a perfectly dreadful album. That's the album Keith should trash. The Stones copied everything the Beatles did......six months later. He and Mick were so jealous of the Beatles they couldn't stand it. Had there been no Beatles, there would have been no Stones. And if the Beatles hadn't broken up, the Stones would still be in the Beatles shadow. The Beatles will always be ahead of the Stones.
He does trash "Satanic Majesties Request" in the interview. He calls it sh*t. I find it interesting that McCartney doesn't trash or belittle other artists. (At least not publicly). That's the sign of a true professional who respects all musicians.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
RMartinez:
toris:
The Rolling Stones are a great band... but will always live in the shadows of the Beatles.... simple, if all to be said. Some should just be happy to be second, cos there is no shame..... I loved the show "Family Ties". Up came "Growing Pains", a bit of a copy of the former, but nowhere as good. Hello Keith and Mick. "Different Strokes" was a huge show. Then up cropped "Webster", the Stones' attempt to match it. The Twilight Zone was brilliant television. As brilliant as it gets with some of those episodes. Brilliant! The Outer Limits was a decent effort, yet a far poorer shade of the former. Far poorer. Like a cheap relica. By all accounts Milton Berle had it all over Johnny Bobbit.... Either way one looks at it, the Stones are/were a great band, but, hey, they're always going to be second to the greatest band that ever graced this earth. By some way. A long, long way.
I don't agree. In the 60s the Stones were second to the Beatles. When the Beatles broke up, only then did the Stones start to call themselves the world's greatest rock band. And since 1970, they really have not lived in the shadow of the Beatles. I think your argument applies better to just about any act since the Beatles. The Stones are a great band and have done pretty well for themselves without having the Beatles be some cloud over them.
I will have to agree on this. Give it a
A modification. I agree that The Beatles was overall more innovative than The Stones in the 60s. But that doesn't mean the everything The Beatles is first class and everything Stones is second class. They also made essential 60s records. If you don't have "Aftermath" (1966) in your record collection for example, then there is something missing..........
-
The only Stones record I have is the 45 of I Can't Get No Satisfaction! I never saw the appeal for them.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
Hendrix Ibsen:
RMartinez:
toris:
The Rolling Stones are a great band... but will always live in the shadows of the Beatles.... simple, if all to be said. Some should just be happy to be second, cos there is no shame..... I loved the show "Family Ties". Up came "Growing Pains", a bit of a copy of the former, but nowhere as good. Hello Keith and Mick. "Different Strokes" was a huge show. Then up cropped "Webster", the Stones' attempt to match it. The Twilight Zone was brilliant television. As brilliant as it gets with some of those episodes. Brilliant! The Outer Limits was a decent effort, yet a far poorer shade of the former. Far poorer. Like a cheap relica. By all accounts Milton Berle had it all over Johnny Bobbit.... Either way one looks at it, the Stones are/were a great band, but, hey, they're always going to be second to the greatest band that ever graced this earth. By some way. A long, long way.
I don't agree. In the 60s the Stones were second to the Beatles. When the Beatles broke up, only then did the Stones start to call themselves the world's greatest rock band. And since 1970, they really have not lived in the shadow of the Beatles. I think your argument applies better to just about any act since the Beatles. The Stones are a great band and have done pretty well for themselves without having the Beatles be some cloud over them.
I will have to agree on this. Give it a
A modification. I agree that The Beatles was overall more innovative than The Stones in the 60s. But that doesn't mean the everything The Beatles is first class and everything Stones is second class. They also made essential 60s records. If you don't have "Aftermath" (1966) in your record collection for example, then there is something missing..........
For me, it's not about first class or second class. It just seemed the Stones were always about six months behind the Beatles. And then the Beatles were playing baseball stadiums, the Stones were playing theaters. I love the Stones, and agree they were a powerful force in the 60s as well.
-
And let's not forget that fans of psychedelia consider "Their Satanic Majesties Request" a better more heavyweight psych album than "Sgt. Pepper". So.....
-
RMartinez:
Hendrix Ibsen:
Hendrix Ibsen:
RMartinez:
toris:
The Rolling Stones are a great band... but will always live in the shadows of the Beatles.... simple, if all to be said. Some should just be happy to be second, cos there is no shame..... I loved the show "Family Ties". Up came "Growing Pains", a bit of a copy of the former, but nowhere as good. Hello Keith and Mick. "Different Strokes" was a huge show. Then up cropped "Webster", the Stones' attempt to match it. The Twilight Zone was brilliant television. As brilliant as it gets with some of those episodes. Brilliant! The Outer Limits was a decent effort, yet a far poorer shade of the former. Far poorer. Like a cheap relica. By all accounts Milton Berle had it all over Johnny Bobbit.... Either way one looks at it, the Stones are/were a great band, but, hey, they're always going to be second to the greatest band that ever graced this earth. By some way. A long, long way.
I don't agree. In the 60s the Stones were second to the Beatles. When the Beatles broke up, only then did the Stones start to call themselves the world's greatest rock band. And since 1970, they really have not lived in the shadow of the Beatles. I think your argument applies better to just about any act since the Beatles. The Stones are a great band and have done pretty well for themselves without having the Beatles be some cloud over them.
I will have to agree on this. Give it a
A modification. I agree that The Beatles was overall more innovative than The Stones in the 60s. But that doesn't mean the everything The Beatles is first class and everything Stones is second class. They also made essential 60s records. If you don't have "Aftermath" (1966) in your record collection for example, then there is something missing..........
For me, it's not about first class or second class. It just seemed the Stones were always about six months behind the Beatles. And then the Beatles were playing baseball stadiums, the Stones were playing theaters. I love the Stones, and agree they were a powerful force in the 60s as well.
I will have to agree on this. Give it a
-
Nancy R:
The only Stones record I have is the 45 of I Can't Get No Satisfaction! I never saw the appeal for them.
I think I read somewhere else that you liked Tom Jones. Maybe you like "pretty looking" guys. The smooth guys.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
RMartinez:
Hendrix Ibsen:
Hendrix Ibsen:
RMartinez:
toris:
The Rolling Stones are a great band... but will always live in the shadows of the Beatles.... simple, if all to be said. Some should just be happy to be second, cos there is no shame..... I loved the show "Family Ties". Up came "Growing Pains", a bit of a copy of the former, but nowhere as good. Hello Keith and Mick. "Different Strokes" was a huge show. Then up cropped "Webster", the Stones' attempt to match it. The Twilight Zone was brilliant television. As brilliant as it gets with some of those episodes. Brilliant! The Outer Limits was a decent effort, yet a far poorer shade of the former. Far poorer. Like a cheap relica. By all accounts Milton Berle had it all over Johnny Bobbit.... Either way one looks at it, the Stones are/were a great band, but, hey, they're always going to be second to the greatest band that ever graced this earth. By some way. A long, long way.
I don't agree. In the 60s the Stones were second to the Beatles. When the Beatles broke up, only then did the Stones start to call themselves the world's greatest rock band. And since 1970, they really have not lived in the shadow of the Beatles. I think your argument applies better to just about any act since the Beatles. The Stones are a great band and have done pretty well for themselves without having the Beatles be some cloud over them.
I will have to agree on this. Give it a
A modification. I agree that The Beatles was overall more innovative than The Stones in the 60s. But that doesn't mean the everything The Beatles is first class and everything Stones is second class. They also made essential 60s records. If you don't have "Aftermath" (1966) in your record collection for example, then there is something missing..........
For me, it's not about first class or second class. It just seemed the Stones were always about six months behind the Beatles. And then the Beatles were playing baseball stadiums, the Stones were playing theaters. I love the Stones, and agree they were a powerful force in the 60s as well.
I will have to agree on this. Give it a
I mostly agree that the Stones were followers of the Beatles through 1968. Things changed however when the stones went for a more blues rock oriented style starting with jumping jack flash and the Beggars Banquet album. From that point on, The Beatles and the stones were really putting out different types of music. Also I remember reading an interview that John gave that he was somewhat jealous that the stones had started becoming more political and harder edge in their music probably starting with street fighting man single. That was an influence for him to write revolution.
-
The Stones will always be second to The Beatles!!!! Actually, Led Zeppelin should be second to The Beatles!!!