Posted on 07/19/2016 7:03:49 PM PDT by Mariner
Like everyone else, The Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards was a Beatles fan, but he said they weren’t a particularly great live band.
“Musically, the Beatles had a lovely sound and great songs. But the live thing? They were never quite there,” he told the Radio Times
And while Richards was friends with The Beatles in their early years, he “excommunicated” them in 1967 after they became influenced by mystic leader Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, NME reported.
“He was a f—ing operator, a sucker job,” Richards said of Yogi.
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.com ...
And an amazing drummer..
Me , too .
Roth became a paramedic in New York City after leaving Van Halen.
“Fool on the Hill” was all about the Maha
Mick Taylor was easily the best guitarist the Stones ever had in their band...and why Richards fired him ‘cuz Ol’ Keith wanted to be the star guitarist...
Who’s the dude dressed like Paul?
:)
The Stones do suck live, except for Charlie Wyman, he’s the only thing that holds them together. They’re good on blues numbers live, but beyond that they are very sloppy.
The Beatles were a little sloppy live, and obviously fell short of their studio sound, but their were a tighter band than the Stones ever were. The real problem is that you had thousands of screaming girls to contend with at a Beatles show, so good luck even hearing the band half the time :)
Nils Lofgren did a solo album with a track called “Keith Don’t Go” about Richards thinking of leaving the Stones.
GREAT song...and audiophile sound quality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_B1AB9nu8
Well, the Stones lost Brian Jones, he was probably their best asset in the studio, and then they started bringing in studio musicians on their later albums. They’d bring the piano players on tour with them, but not all the rest of the guys who played on the album, and sometimes those guys played more of the album than real Stones members who were off shooting heroin.
Plus the band follows Keith’s lead when they play live, and Keith can have an unreliable sense of timing. Most bands are following the drummer, but in the Stones, if you listen close, you’ll see Watts is always trying to keep up with and cover for Keith.
They were always a good live blues band though, so when they play simple stuff like that they can really rock, but they tend to simplify some other songs when they’re playing live it seems to me.
A walrus, I think.
Then i bettet put down mine! They were great last month at the meadowlands :)
Great band, one I wish I had seen.
That is my sentiment as well.
How could you even hear them when all the girls were screaming at the top of their lungs?
Next time you go; get me a ticket.
I’ll buy the beer !
The Who not good live????!???!?!?!
Are you kidding me?
To me “Sympathy For the Devil” was more of a warning than praise for the Devil.
I didn’t get the Beatles at first. They were competing with other British groups, plus several popular music styles already well known.
R&B, Surf instrumentals, folk for example.
I did walk in through residential neighborhoods twice in 1965 to see them live at the Hollywood Bowl. Turned back by cops the first night, but left to watch the second night.
Good as individuals, great as a group. But not alone at the top.
Whereas we had several styles of music to select from in the 60s and 70s, nothing has really come along to equal those times.
Today I like those who have survived and still make great tunes; Clapton, Van Morrison, Rod Stewart, BBKing before his passing, a few others, etc.
What I liked about The Who live, is that their live versions sounded nothing like the studio versions.
When you listen to “Tommy” the studio album, it’s very soft. But played live, there was so much more power put into the songs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.