touche`!
1 Like
I was making a kind of ironic statement about what happened historically: he holed-up in Woodstock NY, worked on the Basement Tapes, and collaborated with the band that became The Band, one of the great partnerships in rock history.
Yes, at a time when the Beatles were fighting among each other and about to break up…they were supposed to do a joint venture with more people? That’s silly. An the Stones were on top of their game at that time (Mick Taylor times), and Dylan was on his way down after a few years of great music. No wonder he wanted to do it.
These all star type band things rarely work out. They all want control, and it ends up a big mess. It’s all about chemistry within a band, and how styles work with each other. Look at Mitch Mitchell. Great drummer, perfect for the Experience. But would not have been a good fit for the Beatles. And Ringo would not have been a good fit for the Experience, but he was absolutely the perfect drummer for the Beatles.
1 Like
Yes, such ventures frequently produce rubbish. The Beatles, Stones and Dylan were all great. Combining them would have been real silly. The smart ones (Paul and Mick) had the brains to realize it.
I can only say This about That: I know I would have bought the album.
I like Dylan, the Stones and the Beatles as much as the next guy. But God damn, I am SO sick of having my face rubbed in the Baby Boomer cultural moment. This is probably the thing that alienates me the most about my fellow liberals. And it’s not just me.
1 Like
Particularly at that point in time.
jw1
Although I must say I liked “Blind Faith” quite a bit.
1 Like
Hey, I know nothing is more annoying, and untrue, that the 60s was some high point in music that is unequaled in history. And lord knows I personally could go a decade or two without hearing, say, another ¨Who¨ song on the radio. But Dylan at least really was a poet who I think is going to be studied for years to come, long after the baby boomers lie a molderin’ in the grave.
2 Likes
Indeed, good stuff. But that was not really Traffic and Cream teaming up for a project. It was at first just Clapton and Winwood getting together to experiment, then other pieces came in. And only of them. And Blind Faith was a good LP, but in my opinion what Traffic and Cream did blew them away.
1 Like
I am a fan of all eras of music, and frankly the 60’s had the most innovative music of all, it truly was an amazing time. The fact that the Beatles and Stones were in that era almost defines it as a high point. You also had the Motown thing, psychedelic rock, great folk, the origins of classic rock, etc. The DC5, Hendrix, Steppenwolf, Zeppelin, Yes, Joni, Judy Collins, Everly Brothers, PG&E, Pink Floyd, Tull, Otis, Byrds, Zappa, Airplane, Nazz, The McCoys, Cohen, Van Ronk, Baez, Doors, Four Seasons, Poco, Blues Project, Beach Boys, the Association, Aretha, Odetta, …and on and on . Also Edgar and Johnny Winter and Queen broke in 1970. Monterey Pop was as groundbreaking a concert as any other. Much better than Woodstock.
It truly was a unique time. You had a good mix of creativity with the ability to mass market music. The creative stuff got out to people. Prior to that it was local. And after that it became dictated more by record companies. Sure, there was great music after that, including now. But the 60’s were a very distinctive era with a wide variety of very innovative acts.
What time are we talking about?
the meeting described took place shortly after Glynis Johns did the engineering work on the Beatles’ “Get Back” sessions which would place the meeting, most likely in late 1969.
Wait, no one here has ever heard of the Masked Marauders? They were great. 
A really stupid idea…no wonder it had no legs. Trust Americans to get starry eyed about it. The Beatles could barely play together, live (I saw them try) and were basically a boy band cleverly produced by George Martin. The Stones were fundamentally an R&B band that excelled in the art of playing together - and they had a proper drummer. Style-wise, content-wise there was no common ground between the two groups. Trust Dylan to come up with such idiocy.
If you are implying Ringo was not a great drummer, you are mistaken. Perfect meter, and VERY tasty. And the Beatles were an excellent live band in the proper setting, like here:
Yes, in other settings where the crowd was nuts, they were not good. But when you can’t even hear yourself or you band mates, it’s very hard to play live. Ask any musician.
Vocally they were superior to the Stones. As to bass, McCartney blows away Wyman, and that is not a shot at Wyman at all. Plus Paul sang while playing those bass lines. Lennon songs like The Word were made great by Paul’s amazing bass lines throughout. Guitar wise the Stones were more talented, and obviously Mick was a better front man than John or Paul. But to call the Beatles a “boy band” is real silly. Yes, George Martin was a great producer and essentially a fifth Beatle, but these were four very talented men who were cranking out 2 LP’s a year, each with about 12 cuts on them. That’s not the work of boys.
Agreed on your overall thought though, this was a real stupid idea. I think Dylan had blown his load at that time, and was looking to milk the Stones and Beatles out of fear he was out of material. Dylan’s best stuff by far was in the 60’s.
Geez, I was thinking I had pissed on a hornet’s nest by questioning the merits of Nashville Skyline, but you have trumped me easily.
I agree that Dylan and The Band was one of the most innovative, and pleasing, partnerships in rock and roll history. I apparently misread your irony – I was looking to deride the source of that quote, but you created the line for the exact same reasons. I think we’re on the same page where this topic is concerned.
1 Like
Dylan’s best stuff by far was in the 60’s.
Blood on the Tracks (1975) says hi.
I think so too 