Anybody gonna watch it?
Personally, I'm not a fan of their music. I understand their influence and appreciate their talent but just never liked their music. I might watch it, though, just because.
Don't understand Sir Paul slagging on the Stones. I mean, at this late in the game, who gives a f*** which band was 'better'? Is his ego so brittle that he can't stand any comparison? I like the Stones much better. From a musician's standpoint, I don't necessarily think the Stones were better although Mick Taylor was clearly the best guitar player in either band by a long way.
The Beatles became a studio band and, imo, lost something vital when they did so. Obviously, their inspiration (Tin Pan Alley, Broadway, classical, Indian raga, jazz, etc.) came from more sources than the Stones (blues, Chuck Berry, country, the Beatles, etc.) but so what? That makes them 'better'? Both bands have incredible legacies which will live a long time after all of them are dead and gone. Personally, I think the Beatles catalog contains too many nonsense songs (Yellow Submarine, I am the Walrus, Octopus Garden, Rocky Racoon, et al) but that's my own personal taste. They have a ton of classic songs, also. I just like other bands better.
And Roger Daltrey's quip 'a mediocre pub band' - if that's true, what does that make HIS band since The Who (also a favorite of mine) were never as big as the Stones? Again, ego problems? Can't admit that some bands are just better? And, in the end, it just makes both Daltry and McCartney seem petty, doesn't it?
Personally, I'm not a fan of their music. I understand their influence and appreciate their talent but just never liked their music. I might watch it, though, just because.
Don't understand Sir Paul slagging on the Stones. I mean, at this late in the game, who gives a f*** which band was 'better'? Is his ego so brittle that he can't stand any comparison? I like the Stones much better. From a musician's standpoint, I don't necessarily think the Stones were better although Mick Taylor was clearly the best guitar player in either band by a long way.
The Beatles became a studio band and, imo, lost something vital when they did so. Obviously, their inspiration (Tin Pan Alley, Broadway, classical, Indian raga, jazz, etc.) came from more sources than the Stones (blues, Chuck Berry, country, the Beatles, etc.) but so what? That makes them 'better'? Both bands have incredible legacies which will live a long time after all of them are dead and gone. Personally, I think the Beatles catalog contains too many nonsense songs (Yellow Submarine, I am the Walrus, Octopus Garden, Rocky Racoon, et al) but that's my own personal taste. They have a ton of classic songs, also. I just like other bands better.
And Roger Daltrey's quip 'a mediocre pub band' - if that's true, what does that make HIS band since The Who (also a favorite of mine) were never as big as the Stones? Again, ego problems? Can't admit that some bands are just better? And, in the end, it just makes both Daltry and McCartney seem petty, doesn't it?
