Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by Laggy.RETURNS on Oct 27, 2010 13:59:15 GMT -5
Ok now I'm not even a huge beatles fan, but I think putting Mccartney 2nd on a lineup would be an insult. And I cannot imagine radiohead would object to being billed under a mothefuckin BEATLE, c'mon Plus Mccartney sells out stadiums bigger than Radiohead, tours less, and is a bigger draw. I like radiohead more, but they are not bigger than Mccartney
-When I Hear My Name -Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground -Blue Orchid -Passive Manipulation -Red Rain -Death Letter -My Doorbell -Hotel Yorba -Same Boy You've Always Known -Lovesick -Little Ghost -We're Going to Be Friends -The Hardest Button to Button -Black Math -The Nurse -I Just Don't Know What to Do With Myself
Encore: -Ball and Biscuit -Seven Nation Army -Screwdriver
Post by awolfatthedoor on Oct 27, 2010 14:57:24 GMT -5
considering that the stones are better than the beatles, and its still the band not just jagger or richards. i dont see why the stones wouldnt be above mccartney.
considering that the stones are better than the beatles, and its still the band not just jagger or richards. i dont see why the stones wouldnt be above mccartney.
It is pretty academic regardless I do not see Bonnaroo or any other festival booking both.
Also lets not forget the return of the Superjam, this would seal it for me.
Someone swore to me that there would be a Superjam last year, so who knows. I only believed him because he was taking lessons from Jeff freaking Coffin.
No, I've never met him. But one of my good friends (he even rode down with me to Bonnaroo) played in a music clinic with him and they hung out a few times. So I don't know if he was lying (I don't know why he would) or if Superjam just got canceled or what.
Paul could get audiences and does play venues that Radiohead would never be able to get. That, and he was a fucking Beatle.
In terms of typical venue size, rarity, popularity, appeal, prestige, etc. Paul wins in every category. I can't really think of anyone who would dislike seeing Paul McCartney; I know a lot of people who aren't fans of Radiohead.
considering that the stones are better than the beatles, and its still the band not just jagger or richards. i dont see why the stones wouldnt be above mccartney.
Ahh...maybe it's just me needin' more education on The Rolling Stones, but I'm sorry. No one can top The Beatles in terms of...well, Leno anythin'. In my opinion they were the biggest band to have HUGE mainstream success (before the whole John Lennon statement about bein' more popular than Jesus, which hurt their pop image). I mean really...can any (rock-ish) band today not say they were influenced by The Beatles? Don't get me wrong, both bands have had a humongus influence on the rock and sub genres since their heyday, but quack man it's THE BEATLES. Kinda drunk so I may be ramblin'. I guess maybe if 'Roo X had The Rolling Stones and Macca maybe The Stones would get top billin'. But so help me if 'Roo could get Paul and Ringo to do a Beatles set as a headliner, that would be tops. Hands down, no questions asked. Only thing that could top that would be...shit I had it...hold on...oh yeah, and this is a personal Holy Grail, the Talking Heads and that's just 'cause they're my favorite band of all time. And I would kill ta see them live ala the Stop Making Sense show. Are Talking Heads better than The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? Debate all you want. They are just my personal favorite band of all time that I will never see live.
Post by awolfatthedoor on Oct 28, 2010 10:26:14 GMT -5
You have no argument from me concerning who the biggest band of all time is, but John and George are dead.
As far as influence, the Beatles weren't really original except in their recording techniques. Whether it's the early style cropped from African American blues artists that deserved recognition but never got it or even the influence of country-western. Even the later psychedelic era of The Beatles wasn't really original. The Beatles just introduced those styles of music to mainstream listeners.
As far as the Rolling Stones vs. McCartney, The Stones are the best rock n roll band of all time, and they are definitely commercially successful to. Plus if you want to look at McCartney's songs, without John co-writing, both solo and with The Beatles vs. The Stones there's no question which artist is better. Shit if you cut off The Stones career off after Some Girls there's little doubt in my mind they would be viewed in much higher esteem. Staying together and constant touring has diminished their music in the eyes of the public. But The Stones discography>The Beatles discography The highs are higher for Mick and Keith <3