Stones vs. Paul
-
KingMacca:
oobu24:
THAT is the age old question...Beatles or Stones...ever since they became famous. I, of course, would pick the Beatles (Paul) over the Stones. The President picked the Stones. I even have a book on it. http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-vs-Rolling-Stones-Opinions/dp/B005K5KKE6 excerpts are here: http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/turn_it_up/2010/10/beatles-vs-rolling-stones-sound-opinions-on-the-great-rock-n-roll-rivalry-an-excerpt.html
Obama chose The Stones over Paul? After he had Paul in his living room?
I think it was before the bromance began. edit...here is the clip http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2008/04/01/nbcs-ann-curry-tosses-softballs-obama-today
-
well, Paul, I've never been to a Stones concert. Maybe I would have been if their setlist were different, there's no ballads of anything different from the I can't get no satisfaction style. Yes, they're the best at that but I miss things like As Tears Go By, Ruby Tuesday, She's A Rainbow, Angie, Out Of Time...
-
I doubt that I'll ever pay to see a Stones show, despite the fact that there is much of their music that I really like. I love their live-album No Security, which featured mostly newer Stones songs at the time. I've seen a lot of concert footage of theirs, and I've enjoyed it here n' there -- but I just don't get that "Man, I GOTTA' see these guys!" sensation. Charlie's drumming gets on my nerves. One thing that I have noticed that The Stones do a lot -- which is cool -- is how often they bring surprise musicians on stage with them, from blues legends to their rock-music contemporaries.
-
The Stones "don't have an immense back catalogue" and play only "20 mediocre songs"? Yeah right. : As much as I love Paul's music (and if i have to choose, I would choose his concert, at least if I haven't seen both, but I saw Paul already and the Stones not, so maybe today I would choose the Stones), the Stones are nearly equal. Name one band/artist (except Paul/Dylan), who has a bigger back catalogue than the Stones with their 14 #1-albums, nearly every album in the Top 3 in the US and the UK. And I have a few Live-DVDs, they really still rock and played (at least at their last Bigger Bang-Tour) also 30 songs, not 23. Their prices are too high these days, yes, but it seems people pay a lot of money to see the Stones. They can't be so bad, can't they? oobu: I have that book too, very interesting to read. So much talent in both bands, no wonder these are the two most important and successful bands ever.
-
I've seen the Stones twice and enjoyed both shows, but I would rather see Paul. The Stones and Paul might be touring this summer. I'm saving my money to see Paul.
-
Saw the Stones once in the mid '90's and hated it! Deffo would go see Paul eight day's a week!
-
I saw the Stones in Albuquerque in 1997 and they put on a brilliant concert!! It was my third Stones concert. I just prefer Beatles and McCartney music, so I go with Paul. But it is difficult, as Paul is 1/4 of the Beatles, and the Stones are, well, The Rolling Stones. Paul can certaibly compete, but they are very different. I like them both.
-
I like just two or three songs of Stones, I've always been Beatles fans and after those days.... Paul's fan, so I'd never pay for to see Rolling Stones...
-
Nancy R:
Saw the Stones once in the mid '90's and hated it! Deffo would go see Paul eight day's a week!
I'd see Paul 9 days a week!
-
I have seen both although I admit the stones show was on the some girls tour of 1978, There is a reason for that. I have had many opportunity to see them again and I have passed on the chances. I actually like the stones' music but live that day they sucked. Out of the nearly 300 show's I have seen they still rate as my most disappointing concert ever. No contest Paul wins this even though in my opinion Paul is not sounding great vocally the past couple show's that I have seen but still love his show.
-
Let's go to the Stones forum and ask this question and see what their fans think!
-
I've seen Macca and the Stones about 30 times each. I saw Macca in Stl on 11/11 and the Stones in NJ 12/15. I gotta give the edge to the Stones. At least they change their setlist when they are on tour. The 2002-2003 tour they did was absolutely fantastic! 1 club show with rare songs, 1 arena show with rare songs and hits, and 1 stadium show with mostly hits. Absolutely fantastic idea! Paul sounded great in STL, but the Stones rocked NJ like no other. Anybody who would suggest they are mediocre is lying to themselves. Im surprised nobody mentions The WHo in this debate. They're just as good as Paul and the Stones.
-
SIRPAULY:
I've seen Macca and the Stones about 30 times each. I saw Macca in Stl on 11/11 and the Stones in NJ 12/15. I gotta give the edge to the Stones. At least they change their setlist when they are on tour. The 2002-2003 tour they did was absolutely fantastic! 1 club show with rare songs, 1 arena show with rare songs and hits, and 1 stadium show with mostly hits. Absolutely fantastic idea! Paul sounded great in STL, but the Stones rocked NJ like no other. Anybody who would suggest they are mediocre is lying to themselves. Im surprised nobody mentions The WHo in this debate. They're just as good as Paul and the Stones.
The Who are amazing, I agree. I have only seen them once, but they rocked!! I've seen the Stones three times and they were great as well. McCartney is fantastic in concert. It's a moot point puting a thread up like this on a McCartney forum, OF COURSE everyone here would rather see Paul. It's not like any of these acts are having trouble selling tickets. They are fun in concert, all three.
-
SIRPAULY:
I've seen Macca and the Stones about 30 times each. I saw Macca in Stl on 11/11 and the Stones in NJ 12/15. I gotta give the edge to the Stones. At least they change their setlist when they are on tour. The 2002-2003 tour they did was absolutely fantastic! 1 club show with rare songs, 1 arena show with rare songs and hits, and 1 stadium show with mostly hits. Absolutely fantastic idea! Paul sounded great in STL, but the Stones rocked NJ like no other. Anybody who would suggest they are mediocre is lying to themselves. Im surprised nobody mentions The WHo in this debate. They're just as good as Paul and the Stones.
The most I've ever enjoyed "live" Stones was the Scorsese thing a few years back.
-
RMartinez:
Let's go to the Stones forum and ask this question and see what their fans think!
...if we're willing to spend the loot.
-
audi:
RMartinez:
Let's go to the Stones forum and ask this question and see what their fans think!
...if we're willing to spend the loot.
The fans on the Stones site no doubt would rather see the Stones than McCartney. I have a hunch!
-
RMartinez:
audi:
RMartinez:
Let's go to the Stones forum and ask this question and see what their fans think!
...if we're willing to spend the loot.
The fans on the Stones site no doubt would rather see the Stones than McCartney. I have a hunch!
Going to a Stones forum and hearing the Paul disses would be like going back in time -- from the tired, old "John was the main one doing all the writing" to "Paul did only the soft songs, and John did the rockers." Twould be a frustrating venture.
-
The Stones like to repackage their 'hits' every few years. I bought 40 Licks ten years ago, I'll pass on Grrrrr How many times do their fans have to buy the same songs?
-
Who would you rather see in concert than Paul McCartney?
-
RMartinez:
Who would you rather see in concert than Paul McCartney?
Elvis. Nobody else -- not even James Brown, Tina Turner, Jimi Hendrix or U2.