1 edition of The Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones found in the catalog.
The Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones
Includes bibliographical references and index.
|Statement||Jim DeRogatis and Greg Kot|
|LC Classifications||ML3534 .D466 2010|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||191 p. :|
|Number of Pages||191|
|LC Control Number||2010003192|
Mick Jagger inducts The Beatles - Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductions - Duration: Rock & Roll Hall of Fame 6,, views. Beatles VS Stones - A Musical Showdown. Management, Booking & Press - Andy Nagle. [email protected] |
Each chapter of the book from the year-old Appleton East High School grad is centered around a pop music rivalry, from the Rolling Stones vs. Author: Shane Nyman. “If you were a 60s kid, it had to be one or the other, never both: not Beatles and Stones, but Beatles vs. Stones.” That’s what Greg Kot, a Marquette graduate and Chicago Tribune rock music critic, reflected in his book, The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions on Author: Marquette University.
By the time the Rolling Stones got around to making records in , The Beatles had already been cutting tracks with George Martin at Abbey Road studios for nearly a year. Get this from a library! Beatles vs. Stones. [John Campbell McMillian] -- "With the sophistication of a historian, the storytelling skills of a journalist, and the passion of a fan, John McMillian explores the multifaceted relationship between the two greatest bands of our.
A little learning
World guide to libraries.
Two great Belgian plays, about love. The magnificent cuckold
My Journal (Friendship)
The Role of diet
Greater Los Angeles public service guide.
Indexing and inflation
Brachiopods and conodonts from the Frasnian of the Dȩbnik anticline, Southern Poland = Ramienionogi i konodonty z franu antykliny Dȩbnika, Południowa Polska
The Rolling Stones’ ambitions to play catch-up to the remarkable Beatles is here, but precious little. The author does hammer on the point that the Stones were inspired by the Beatles’ evolution from Rubber Soul through Revolver to Sergeant Pepper, and back again through their later albums, notably the harder rocking White Album.4/4(48).
Beatles vs. Stones is “balanced, informed, yet still passionate Even the most gnarled and intransigent veterans of the debate will emerge enlightened by this ian negotiates The Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones book thickets with insight, care, and a willingness to unsettle clichés” (The New York Times Book Review)/5(57).
The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones: A Tale-of-the-Tape Look at Who Was Really the Best Using categories like innovation, durability and diversity, we make the age-old rock debate into a best-of.
Beatles vs. Stones offers a glimpse behind the curtain at the business, lives, and personalities of (at least) the main players in these bands. My one "gripe" about this book is the ending.
The mention of John Lennon's death as the final paragraph felt disjointed, almost like it was an afterthought, "Oh yeah, forgot to mention Lennon's death/5. Simply titled Beatles vs. Stones, McMillian’s book is meticulously even-handed, but somehow the assumption still persists that you have to choose Written: "Beatles vs.
Stones," John McMillian Simon & Schuster The Beatles and the Rolling Stones represent two sides of one of the Twentieth Century's greatest aesthetic debates. Beatles vs. Stones captures an era that was confusing, tumultuous, often teetering on the edge of violence.
At many concerts, there was more Altamont in the air than there was : Tyler Mcmahon. In Beatles vs. Stones, John McMillian gets to the truth behind the ultimate rock and roll debate. Painting an eye-opening portrait of a generation dragged into an ideological battle between Flower Power and New Left militance, McMillian reveals how the Beatles-Stones rivalry was created by music managers intent on engineering a moneymaking ed on: Novem The Beatles versus The Rolling Stones comparison chart.
The Rolling Stones. #N#current rating is /5. current rating is /5. Introduction (from Wikipedia) The Beatles were a rock and pop band from Liverpool, England that formed in During their career, the group primarily consisted of John.
Beatles vs. Stones - A Musical Showdown. 2, likes 3 talking about this. Beatles or Rolling Stones. Who is the greatest rock band of all time. Join the debate!Followers: K. It depends on the criteria you use. Musical ability The Stones are way out in front. Charlie is a much better drummer than Ringo.
Darryl is better than Paul on the bass. All four guitarists in the Stones were better than the three guitarists in th. Beatles vs. Stones - Two of the greatest bands of all time face off in a high-energy, adrenaline-pumping musical showdown. The Fab Four, represented by tribute band Abbey Road will engage in a barrage of hits against premier Rolling Stones tribute band Satisfaction.
It’s a face-off you won’t want to miss!Start Date: Later, the Beatles embraced Flower Power, while the Stones briefly aligned themselves with New Left militance. Ever since, writers and historians have associated the Beatles with the gauzy idealism of the “good” sixties and portrayed the Stones as representatives of the dangerous and nihilistic “bad” sixties.
Beatles vs. Stones explodes. The writer tells us Tom Wolfe said: "The Beatles wanted to hold your hand, the Rolling Stones wanted to burn your town down." While Wolfe captures the essence of the appeal of the two bands, the stories Outstanding, the author engaged me right from the start with the anecdote about Paul McCartney upstaging Mick Jagger at Jagger's birthday party/5.
John McMillan's 'Beatles vs. Stones' (Jay Gabler/MPR) I decided to feature John McMillan's book Beatles vs. Stones in our Rock and Roll Book Club when I found a copy sitting on a shelf at the station. Someone had applied a Post-It note to the cover: THE KINKS. Beatles vs Stones (Postponed) Apr 3, This Event Has Been Postponed Tentatively rescheduled for October 2, New dates will be announced soon.
Two of the greatest bands of all time will face off in a high-energy, adrenaline-pumping musical showdown. It’s the Battle of the Beatles vs.
the Rolling Stones: edition. In this corner weighing in at 77 years and 10 months Paul McCartney. The challenger at a spry 76 years and 9 months Mick Jagger. It was an eventful week for two of the most legendary figures in all of popular music.
But as John McMillian recalls in his latest book, "Beatles vs. Stones," the differences in the early days were pretty stark: The Rolling Stones were Author: Mark Wheat. In Beatles vs. Stones, John McMillian gets to the truth behind the ultimate rock and roll debate.
Painting an eye-opening portrait of a generation dragged into an ideological battle between Flower Power and New Left militance, McMillian reveals how the Beatles-Stones rivalry was created by music managers intent on engineering a moneymaking : Simon & Schuster.
Mick Jagger Offered His Take on the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones Debate "One band is, unbelievably luckily, still playing in stadiums and then the other band doesn’t exist." By Gabrielle Bruney. The Rolling Stones arrived on the scene around the same time the Beatles did.
At first, the Stones tried out the clean cut look but soon found that it was not for them. They quickly adopted a much rougher, quirkier image than the Beatles. America fell for the Stones, as : Kaitlyn Cox. Stern then mentions the similarities between the Beatles's May album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and The Rolling Stones's December Occupation: Culture Editor.
Beatles Vs. Stones (Book): McMillian, John Campbell: Boasting the intellectual rigor of a historian and the passion of a diehard fan--a groundbreaking narrative account of the biggest and most misconstrued rivalry in the annals of rock and roll.
With the sophistication of a historian, the storytelling skills of a journalist, and the passion of a fan, John McMillian explores the multifaceted.