Think that the Beatles on the roof was more of a historic moment, a symbol of Swinging Sixties, the new path music was taking etc.

It has been said that at this point the Beatles could not stand eachother but from my perspective, the way John and Paul look at eachother and laugh it up while singing, does not strike me as two men with animus towards eachother.

I see two men who have come a long way just loving what they do best. They seem to be really enjoying themselves. Maybe in the studio there was friction, but playing live seems to put them into a total comfort zone. They look like best of friends.

The Rooftop Gig wins hands down - just summing up the points:

1. Last live appearance of an already legendary band that had completely retired from live recording in 1966

2. Considerably improving an already doomed album project by producing some "definitive" takes

3. Happening very spontanous (at least compared to the Stones event which was more of a marketing effort) after weeks of pointless "rehearsing" and arguing

4. Containing brandnew material

5. Inspired playing combined with some tongue-in-cheek humour for the ages

6. Pre-empting the Stones' truck idea (which was nicked from the old bluesmen) by years, at a time when music marketing as we know it had only just begun...


Let me say, that I really like the footage of the Stones event. I think it's quite cool. Just the looks of them, the backdrop and all. But compared to the Rooftop gig it's merely a marketing effort and not making "history". This doesn't take anything from the Stones in general. But if we'd restrict all our judging to what band we prefer generally, there wouldn't be much discussion left. This whole forum would be pointless then. Think about it...!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-28 13:34 by Greenblues.

The Beatles roof-top performance by a mile.

Quote
Greenblues

1. Last live appearance of an already legendary band that had completely retired from live recording in 1966

You have to remember that at the time, no one knew that. In fact, if you watch or listen to all of the "man on the street" interviews that were filmed by the Beatles own film crew while the Beatles were performing, NOT ONE person seemed to be aware that this was "their first live appearance in quite some time".

You're right, tatters. But then again those people in Saville Row where mostly business people, I reckon, hardly following the Beatles affairs.

But what's more important, IMO: NOW we know it was the last live appearance - and isn't hindsight the best judge at who's making history and who's not? ;-)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-28 17:12 by Greenblues.

Quote
Greenblues
You're right, tatters. But then again those people in Saville Row where mostly business people, I reckon, hardly following the Beatles affairs.

But what's more important, IMO: NOW we know it was the last live appearance - and isn't hindsight the best judge at who's making history and who's not? ;-)

The question wasn't "Which was more historic?" It was "Which was cooler?" The Stones was cooler for the people who were actually there AS IT WAS HAPPENING. Even as a Beatles fan, if I had been standing in the street listening to them, I would have been like "WTF? What song is THIS? And why can't we even SEE them?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-28 17:22 by tatters.

Quote
tatters

Quote
Greenblues
You're right, tatters. But then again those people in Saville Row where mostly business people, I reckon, hardly following the Beatles affairs.

But what's more important, IMO: NOW we know it was the last live appearance - and isn't hindsight the best judge at who's making history and who's not? ;-)

The question wasn't "Which was more historic?" It was "Which was cooler?" The Stones was cooler for the people who were actually there AS IT WAS HAPPENING. Even as a Beatles fan, if I had been standing in the street listening to them, I would have been like "WTF? What song is THIS? And why can't we even SEE them?"

Good point. But remember, I had five more ;-) For example it was a very cool move to just get on the roof and do this gig - not completely spontanous, admitted, but at least nearly. Maybe not smart on a business level, but a bold decision on the spur of the moment.

Beatles gig was in January so it must be cooler

Quote
Greenblues

Quote
tatters

Quote
Greenblues
You're right, tatters. But then again those people in Saville Row where mostly business people, I reckon, hardly following the Beatles affairs.

But what's more important, IMO: NOW we know it was the last live appearance - and isn't hindsight the best judge at who's making history and who's not? ;-)

The question wasn't "Which was more historic?" It was "Which was cooler?" The Stones was cooler for the people who were actually there AS IT WAS HAPPENING. Even as a Beatles fan, if I had been standing in the street listening to them, I would have been like "WTF? What song is THIS? And why can't we even SEE them?"

Good point. But remember, I had five more ;-) For example it was a very cool move to just get on the roof and do this gig - not completely spontanous, admitted, but at least nearly. Maybe not smart on a business level, but a bold decision on the spur of the moment.

Yeah, but it really wasn't even a "gig" per se. It was more of an outdoors recording session. They played Get Back THREE times! Imagine what it must have been like, standing there in the street, hearing the familiar voices of John and Paul, but unable to see them, while they played a song you never heard before over and over! I'm not sure I would have even believed it was them, at least not until seeing it on the news later that day. I probably would have thought it was only a sound-alike band that the Beatles were sponsoring and had just signed to Apple Records.

I think the old lady in the film hit the nail on the head when she said "I just don't see how it makes any sense!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-29 02:23 by tatters.

I'll have to check the weatherreport for both events...

Quote
mexicostone
God!! , of course , the stones was better.
They just came into the street , people couldnt believe it , no one saw the beatles , they didnt have style.
no old men got mad against the beatles!

You obviously watched the Let It Be film closely, I see....

Beatles Rooftop.

tough call but it sure as hell wasnt friggin u2 on the roof lmao, how original

The Stones on 5th Ave. is better! Fans on 5th Ave. can look this.
The Beatles on the roof not with this Fans!
No fans see the Beatles on the roof

Quote
bumbum

Quote
ablett
"How can a boy band be cool?"

Not that old chestnut?

Boy bands don't create Helter Skelter, The White Album, introduce world music (sitar), concept albums that blew open music forever etc. etc.

Stones used Sitar early on - BJ did play quite some exotic intruments, it was not only Beatles and BJ did it before Beatles in some occations. The use of classical instruments in Beatles era was because of George Martin, not because of Lennon / Macca. But because of Beatles being more famous being a boys band, they did get more recognition than Stones.

Betales tried to sound rough, but listen to Macca singing - the same stupid hillbilly boy sound like the later CD's he made: Silly Love songs, Band on the run, Ebony and Ivory etc. That's nothing comapred to SFTD, GS, JJF, HTW.

Stones made Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Exile, Sticky Fingers - music not from a boys band. When has Batles music created anything similar to those albums - where is Beatles even close to SFTD, GS, HTW, JJF etc.

Stones was less famous because they played black, blues, raw music that Beatles never played - that's the big issue that many people never realise.

Actually I think the first band to use a sitar on a "pop" recording was The Yardbirds with 'Heartfull Of Soul'. Unfortunately the sitar version wasn't released at the time as they weren't quite happy with the soud balance, but if they were given the same studio time as The Beatles...

I love much of The Beatles' recordings, particularly the more energetic 1963-1965 era ('A Hard Days Night' is oe of the most perfect POP albums ever made!), but I also think they're without a doubt the most over-rated musical act of all time (closely followed by Led Zeppelin & Frank Sinatra!).

And excuse the typos, the "n" doesn't always work on this keyboard!

Frank Sinatra overrated? You better never come to Jersey and say that man lol. You may end up getting buried under the new Giants Stadium alla Jimmy Hoffa. Just kidding.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
bumbum
Where is Beatles even close to SFTD, GS, HTW, JJF etc.

Strawberry Fields Forever, Hey Jude, Yesterday, I Am The Walrus, Let It Be, The Long And Winding Road, In My Life and so on. There's simply no denying that The Beatles were the leaders of the music business in the 60s. When The Rolling Stones started dishing out their classics it was already 1968, except for (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction. The Beatles had been making classics for years on end at that point. The Rolling Stones and The Beatles were pretty much even in '68. When The Beatles started to decline (After The White Album), The Rolling Stones took over. But for the first six years (1962 - 1968), The Beatles were on top of The Stones. Even though I prefer The Stones there's no denying that. Deny it, and you're kidding yourself.

Amazingly stupid answer - Stones had lots of good music before 68.
Listen to Yesterday, (Jagger could have sung the song 10 times better).
Jaggers voice was and is musch better than Macca.
The guy who wrote this comment hasn't listen to Aftermath etc. When not, don't comment on Stones music.

Quote
BrianKeith
The Stones on 5th Ave. is better! Fans on 5th Ave. can look this.
The Beatles on the roof not with this Fans!
No fans see the Beatles on the roof

I guess for the 14 or so people who actually SAW the Beatles playing, it must have been just about the coolest thing you could ever possibly see, but in terms of something people actually COULD see, the Stones on the flatbed truck in '75 was the EPITOME of cool.

Truck on 5th .... Down with the people...fumes..noise.....Rockin'....Coolest

ROCKMAN

Beatles simply because it was more songs, and the last time they appeared together live. But I really hate Beatles-Stones contests. I love 'em both for different reasons.

rockman says it all for me,beatles can not be denied, but for me the stones always have the edge.

somebodys left me loose on this laptop and after two bottles of cava,well make your own mind up.

GOOD NIGHT

A buncha 40-50 years olds debating "cool".. Now, thats uncool, aint it!

..and those wannabees..U2 copied both stunts. They probably tried to get Billy Preston too.


IORR............but I like it!

Cooler...
Both events put together...
To be the only man on the planet to have actually PLAYED at both...

Mr. Billy Preston

On the roof

---

and on the street



Credit: (top) Unknown; (bottom) Waring Abbott

Quote
Baboon Bro
A buncha 40-50 years olds debating "cool".. Now, thats uncool, aint it!

its cool baboon.?

The Beatles roof performance stands out more in my mind.

Is that cool ?

The Stones cause they were playing street level for anyone who happened to be there.
The Beatles, finally playing live.....for no one in the moment.