Log In
Register
12.59pm
14 November 2017
Offline
Seems like both had a good 2017 according to this article. Ed Sheeran is no match for Sir Paul 
:
The following people thank Father McKenzie for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldogStill writing the words to the sermon that no one will hear......
2.25pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
It’s quite an achievement for The Beatles to be one of the biggest earners playing live; they last played live in 1969 and two of the band are dead. Brian must have signed some incredible contracts.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldog, Father McKenzie, vonbontee, ewe2, Ahhh Girl, Shamrock Womlbs, Beatlebug"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
4.48pm
14 November 2017
Offline meanmistermustard said
It’s quite an achievement for The Beatles to be one of the biggest earners playing live; they last played live in 1969 and two of the band are dead. Brian must have signed some incredible contracts.
Hahaha,I was thinking that myself as I was reading the article. It just shows that their music is truly timeless, and one of the things I love about the Beatles is that their music can be enjoyed by different generations.
Everyone can get something from their catalogue,even if it’s just from one song. There’s literally something for everyone in there.
Still writing the words to the sermon that no one will hear......
9.39pm
8 January 2015
Offline
I figure Brian went ahead and scouted out the talent on the other side 
At the same time, it’s a problem for the industry, because that dollar is not at all attracted to the top 40 crowd, and newer acts struggle to make a dent. Not saying its impossible to make a living from touring, but the people whose livelihoods depend on big acts with big needs for staging and PA would be a little nervous. We owe a debt to the American music market and the South American market which is still growing and the European festivals that they’re big enough circuits to keep people going, but we’re still left with a generational problem. Many of the bands I was growing up with in the late 70’s and early 80’s are broken up or mostly dead or too devoted to their solo careers to do the kind of nostalgia trip the Beatles and Stones can do.
The following people thank ewe2 for this post:
BeatlebugI'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 
but I may have to get more specific in the future.
12.35am
5 November 2011
Offline meanmistermustard said
It’s quite an achievement for The Beatles to be one of the biggest earners playing live; they last played live in 1969 and two of the band are dead. Brian must have signed some incredible contracts.
Well we all know that Paul was half of the genius of the group… and since 0.5 rounds up to one, mathematically (and logically) speaking, Paul McCartney is The Beatles.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
3.59am
22 December 2013
Offline Kinda hard to take this article all that seriously when it’s subtitled with “THE Beatles and Rolling Stones are still fighting it out to be the biggest live act in the world”?! By the way, the two top grossing tours of 2017 were U2 followed by Guns ‘n’ Roses… neither of which are even mentioned… someone’s obviously living in yesteryear here…:-)
The following people thank Billy Rhythm for this post:
Father McKenzie, ewe2, sir walter raleigh, SgtPeppersBulldog, Beatlebug3.52am
14 June 2016
Offline Not sure if it’s an unpopular opinion, but I like that The Beatles broke up and only performed as a band during the 1960s. Their work remains incredibly consistent and becomes even more legendary. They’re frozen in time as young lads who completely defined the era in which they existed, with the quality of music also standing the test of time. You can’t compete with a myth.
The following people thank Timothy for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldog, Shamrock Womlbs, vonbontee, penny lane, Beatlebug1.The Beatles 2.Sgt. Pepper 3.Abbey Road 4.Magical Mystery Tour 5.Rubber Soul 6.Revolver 7.Help! 8.Let It Be
9.A Hard Day’s Night 10.Please Please Me 11.Beatles For Sale 12.With The Beatles 13.Yellow Submarine
Most Avid John Fan 2020 and 2021: 
11.50am
26 January 2017
Offline Timothy said
Not sure if it’s an unpopular opinion, but I like that The Beatles broke up and only performed as a band during the 1960s. Their work remains incredibly consistent and becomes even more legendary. They’re frozen in time as young lads who completely defined the era in which they existed, with the quality of music also standing the test of time. You can’t compete with a myth.
They really made their career untouchable. The only thing is, since the Stones have stayed together, the fact that they began more than 50 years ago is something to behold. It makes for an interesting argument in the Stones vs. Beatles debate.
The following people thank sir walter raleigh for this post:
penny lane"The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles!"
-Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
"We could ride and surf together while our love would grow"
-Brian Wilson, Surfer Girl
3.35pm
24 March 2014
Offline Timothy said
[…] They’re frozen in time as young lads who completely defined the era in which they existed […]
I like that. Very poetic.
The following people thank Shamrock Womlbs for this post:
Father McKenzie, Timothy, SgtPeppersBulldog, Beatlebug"I Need You by George Harrison"
6.40pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline sir walter raleigh said
…The only thing is, since the Stones have stayed together, the fact that they began more than 50 years ago is something to behold. It makes for an interesting argument in the Stones vs. Beatles debate.
The Beatles – 8 years / 20 #1’s on Billboard
The Stones – 53 years / 8 #1’s on Billboard
That’s not a debate. That’s a Beat(les) down. 
The following people thank Zig for this post:
Ahhh Girl, SgtPeppersBulldog, Father McKenzie, Shamrock Womlbs, BeatlebugTo the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
10.44am
22 December 2013
Offline Zig said
sir walter raleigh said
…The only thing is, since the Stones have stayed together, the fact that they began more than 50 years ago is something to behold. It makes for an interesting argument in the Stones vs. Beatles debate.
The Beatles – 8 years / 20 #1’s on Billboard
The Stones – 53 years / 8 #1’s on Billboard
That’s not a debate. That’s a Beat(les) down.
I feel as though the “longevity” of the Stones actually works against them… In order to maintain their legacy, the Stones have had to change members throughout the years… The Beatles tweaked their lineup before setting out and defining their legacy… I’d put an asterisk beside that “53 years”…:-)
The following people thank Billy Rhythm for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldog, Beatlebug5.06pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline In my opinion, the Stones long lost their attraction and their catalogue is filled with dire material that doesn’t deserve one listen never mind repeated. The fact they have been around for 50+ years doesn’t mean they are brilliant, just that they have produced total crap for the last 3 decades or more.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Father McKenzie, Timothy"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
1.28am
15 May 2015
Offline meanmistermustard said
In my opinion, the Stones long lost their attraction and their catalogue is filled with dire material that doesn’t deserve one listen never mind repeated. The fact they have been around for 50+ years doesn’t mean they are brilliant, just that they have produced total crap for the last 3 decades or more.
One thing we can say about the Stones is that they have been able to sustain the “Dude! The Stones are cool!” mystique for decades with no real musical substance (past, say, Tattoo You in 1981) to back that up.
The following people thank Pineapple Records for this post:
penny lane, Vera Chuckandave, ewe2A ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
5.13am
18 September 2016
Offline Couldn’t the who is better debate end? I wish that both the Stones and post Beatles albums stopped in 1975, not a fan of any of their work after that, except for occasional songs, here and there. But they didn’t stop and there are fans who would argue differently about the quality so, so be it. They want to keep doing it and the fans still want to hear/see them.
Pineapple Records said
One thing we can say about the Stones is that they have been able to sustain the “Dude! The Stones are cool!” mystique for decades with no real musical substance (past, say, Tattoo You in 1981) to back that up.
As for the Stones, it’s the early stuff that keeps it going really, you can’t watch a Scorsese film without tripping over a Stones track… Oops here we go, doesn’t get much cooler really:
The following people thank penny lane for this post:
Vera Chuckandave
“I know, Jerry, that you are as human as the rest of us, if not more so."
8.55am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Yip. Ask anyone about the best Stones material and it’s the 60’s/early 70’s that are mentioned 90% of the time if not more. After that it’s the odd song and it’s probably on one of the compilations. Do they look cool still? Not for me but then I’m not knowledgeable about that. I don’t think they looked that great in the 60’s.
As for seeing them live, it’s the same as with Paul, Ringo etc where most folk go for the big hits from yesteryear. Only the bigger fans go to see them perform songs from the latest release, its the oldies – the newest material is when you go to the bathroom; as soon as one comes on your up and out to the bathroom as quick as possible so not to miss the next classic.
That’s not against the Stones, it’s most artists and they accept it. It’s why the big Paul fans are fed up hearing the same songs every time they go. It’s why I’m not that fussed if I don’t see Paul or Ringo again.
Fair play to the Stones that they are selling albums which are also getting acclaim but it’s nowhere as good as way back – and I’ll argue the same with Paul and Ringo. I hated ‘New’ when it came out and I still do. It’s simply part of life and may they go on doing so for as long as they wish.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
penny lane, Vera Chuckandave"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
2.25pm
26 January 2017
Offline I love NEW, Give More Love, and a lot of other recent solo albums.
The Stones’ 80s output is also solid, with Chuck Leveall playing keys on most of their tracks, you can’t really go wrong. I’m also a fan of their 21st century release “A Bigger Bang, as well as 40 Licks: a compilation album featuring two new songs, one of which is one of my favorite Stones songs: Keys To Your Love
The following people thank sir walter raleigh for this post:
Beatlebug"The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles!"
-Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
"We could ride and surf together while our love would grow"
-Brian Wilson, Surfer Girl
8.32am
9 December 2017
Offline No point in the stones stopping now….I just hope that care home has a large sun lounge with one hell of a quality Marshall stack system…..
The following people thank Vera Chuckandave for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldog, Father McKenzie, BeatlebugAnd my bird can't sing......!!
9.47am
14 November 2017
Offline I’ve never been a fan of the Stones. I like the odd song,like Brown Sugar for instance,but that’s all it is for me,the odd song. As for the Stones looking good,cool etc,no not for me. I’m with @meanmistermustard on that one
Still writing the words to the sermon that no one will hear......
10.34am
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline 
Timothy said
Not sure if it’s an unpopular opinion, but I like that The Beatles broke up and only performed as a band during the 1960s. Their work remains incredibly consistent and becomes even more legendary. They’re frozen in time as young lads who completely defined the era in which they existed, with the quality of music also standing the test of time. You can’t compete with a myth.
It’s certainpy popular with me, @Timothy, as I have the same opinion. My thoughts exactly.
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
Timothy([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
11.34am
22 December 2013
Offline Zig said
sir walter raleigh said
…The only thing is, since the Stones have stayed together, the fact that they began more than 50 years ago is something to behold. It makes for an interesting argument in the Stones vs. Beatles debate.
The Beatles – 8 years / 20 #1’s on Billboard
The Stones – 53 years / 8 #1’s on Billboard
That’s not a debate. That’s a Beat(les) down.
To be fair to The Stones here… The “8 #1’s” that they’d achieved were over a span of 5 years which looks considerably more impressive than “53 years”…:-)
The following people thank Billy Rhythm for this post:
Beatlebug, SgtPeppersBulldog
