The Real Buffalo Joe

Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You are good enough albums. But they weren't anything groundbreaking or special. They felt very formulaic and didn't have "heart" for lack of a better term.

Too young to remember personally. But from what I've read, around that time it stopped being The Rolling Stones as a whole band, and started becoming The Mick Jagger Show.

Honestly, as much as I love the Stones, around the late 70s, early 80s, basically after Some Girls, they became a parody of themselves. I don't hate their later stuff. But it kind of feels like they said "Well, this is what sells. This is what the Rolling Stones sound like." Then stopped experimenting or trying anything new. Exception is their most recent album. It was all blues covers, and some songs you barely know it's them on some tracks. Sounds like something straight out of Chess Records.

They were playing 3-4 shows a day. From lunchtime till closing time. They were so hopped up on speed and caffeine, that the show was insane. They played everything from 40s-early 50s standards, rock and roll, Motown, originals. I'd love to have seen them in those days. My dad and I were talking about this the other day. It all depends on the artist, and what the average concertgoer wants to see/hear. Someone going to see a blues/jazz band, or a jam band like The Dead, want to hear extended solos, twists on original songs, songs off a new album, or just something they don't recognize. Same goes for artists known as "virtuoso" for lack of a better term on their insturment, such as Clapton, Hendrix, Rush, etc. On the other hand, an artist like McCartney, the average concert goer wants songs they can sing along to. Paul's newer material is great. He's still the same songwriter he was back in the 60s. But 75% of the audience isn't familiar with much of his non Beatles works outside the few hits he had with Wings. Couple that with the number of signature, must play songs he has in his career, it doesn't leave much room for spontaneity.

The Beatles live in concert, sounded terrible at many concerts, by their own admission. You can't really blame them. Technology back then just wasn't built to play giant stadiums yet. That, coupled with the sounds of screaming teenage girls, the fact that most of their truly "emotional" songs, save for Yesterday and a few others, weren't recorded until after they quit touring. So going strictly by his time with the Beatles, that's true. That being said, what McCartney has done live since then, including playing his old Beatles songs, are amazing. Can't say I know from experience (yet), but I own a few of the concert CDs and DVDs and can attest to what @Gugny is saying.

Just got off the BB dot com. New team slogan "One Heart, Beat Louder." So pissed right now. Swearing off the whole team.

Quit it! Both of you. Take it up in PPP.

The only thing they're good for, is the fact that they won't post anything (other than that weird Marrone cancer incident) that isn't official. So I don't believe a rumor is true until I see it on their official site, app, Facebook, etc. That being said, as far as articles go, they're fluff pieces. I don't hate them for it, their job is to make the team look good, which hasn't been an easy task during most of the time the internet has been popular. But for commentary, I usually come here.

Hurricane Harvey.

IN his old age, I just don't think he fits IN with our plan. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would be trustINg the process. I have no INterest IN him.

Not a Beatles Album. That was the Monkees. People confuse the two.

Watts is much more talented than Ringo, especially his time with The Beatles. He got much better after the breakup. You can't really hear it in Stones songs, because their all so simple, but if you look up some of his solo stuff he does a lot of jazz and you can hear it. I'll give you that McCartney is a better bassist than Wymann. Brian Jones is better than George, but I don't think either of his replacements are. Keith is in a league of his own. All four Beatles are better vocalists than Mick. Lennon/McCartney is lightyears ahead of Jagger/Richards in songwriting. Stones had a better stage show, but they also had the advantage of a singer that wasn't tied to an instrument at a time where cordless mics were a thing. Although Paul solo shows seem to give them a run for their money, at least from what I've seen on TV/DVDs.

He conceded that The Stones were better musicians, and Keith conceded that The Beatles were better vocalists. Beatles blow the Stones out of the water when it comes to songwriting. I'm more of a Stones fan myself, but anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

I should have been arrested once. Few years ago after a Bills Thursday Night game. Got smashed. Stopped for gas on the way home, Houston cop pulls up to the pump next to mine. At this point, my registration had been out by a few months. I got out of the car and intentionally dilly dallied in the gas station for about ten minutes. He was out there waiting for me, but I refused to get into the car. He then lectures me to stop wasting my money on drinking "and get your f*cking car inspected." No ticket, no warning. Drove off.

Hypothetical. If back in 69, when John left the band, or Paul first (I've heard conflicting stories about who quit first.) If when that person left, and the rest of the band kept trucking with a replacement, would we still have a band called The Beatles today? What direction would it have gone in? Would the group have eventually gotten back together? I know it's a whole bunch of "What ifs" but I think about it often.

The messed up thing is Helter Skelter is just a British term for a playground slide.

I wasn't laughing at gobills, so much as Coach's inflated ego and sense of self importance.

Sounds like you got lucky. I've heard of much worse punishments in the military for even smaller offenses.

I can't deny that I genuinley laughed out lout at that. I'm sorry. He knew his football, granted not as much as he thought he did. He atleast had professional experience to qualify as an expert, at least on paper. I just don't get why he thought he was an expert on hockey, baseball, and other sports.

In Keith Richards' autobiography, he talked about a conversation he had with Paul about the whole Beatles/Stones debate. They essentially agreed that it boiled down to a preference over vocal work vs instrumental work. They agreed that the Stones had better musical chops as far as playing their instrument goes, and the Beatles had much better vocals, as all four of them, even Ringo, the weakest link of the band vocally, could probably still have been a decent lead singer somewhere.

Not trolling. Look it up. Buddy Holly got into arguments with studio execs on a regular basis. Refused to record songs he didn't want. Produced is own. Refused to play with a studio band. Not tearing down the Beatles for what they did, I'm just saying they weren't the first artists to do things their own way. And they didn't gain that right until after they were already stars. They'd admit to that. No **** to be cut.

As much as I love The Beatles, this award goes to Buddy Holly. Buddy Holly did it from the start of his career, where the Beatles weren't given that freedom until after stardom. And even then was only because they got to a point where they could fart into a microphone, and sell 100 million records.

The Coach is the voice of my childhood. I'd probably listen for nostalgic reasons alone.

Rumor has it, Ronnie was burred in that shirt. As far as the "rivalry" goes, they were both right in a sense. You're a fool if you deny that there was heavy racism in the South, especially at the time. All Ronnie was saying in Sweet Home Alabama, was that there was much more to the South than just racism, and not to paint that part of the country with such a broad brush.

Decided to just rank them. Abbey Road - Side one is great. But side two, is a masterpice. Revolver - I'm with the people that say these albums are basically tied with each other. I think I like this one better than RS simply because it was first, and the first indication that the Beatles were shaking off what we'd call a boy band image today. Rubber Soul - Same reason I love Revolver. The stepping out of the box. Sgt. Pepper - Gained a new appriciation for it last summer when a local Beatles tribute band perfomed it in it's entirety along with the local symphony. "A Day In The Life" and "She's Leaving Home" are truly up there with Mozart and Beethoven compositions. Hard Day's Night - Pure, unadulterated Rock and Roll. Just a lot of fun. Beatles For Sale - This has a cheap feel to it, which is where the title comes from. But I think that's what I like about it. I'm a huge fan of early rock and roll, so I love the Chuck, Buddy, Little Richard covers on this one. White Album - Basically combined solo albums, and truly hearing the differences in their indiviual songs. Even the songs I don't care for, I respect the experimental nature of them. Please Please Me - Some great tunes. Looked up the original songs recently (since half of them were covers.) Every single one of them were done better by the Beatles. Magical Mystery Tour - Very experimental. I respect the hell out of it for the innovations. But other than Walrus, Strawberry Fields, and Penny Lane, I could take or leave it as far as my personal tastes. Help! Some great songs on it. But it just doesn't have the "feel" of an album. I don't know how to describe it. Let it Be - I know what they were going for here, but just don't like the lack of flow on it. Beatles are geniuses. Spector is a genius. Not a fan of what they did together. I prefer the "Let it Be Naked" that was released about 10-15 years ago. Meet The Beatles - A lot of really good songs on there, but a lot of songs that just aren't. Probably their weakest album. *Yellow Submarine - Only had like four original songs on it, so I don't really count it as an album.