Quote ="Redscat"Used to be the old Co-op store. Very popular in its ">day.'" The Blue Light.

Quote ="Redscat"Used to be the old Co-op store. Very popular in its ">day.'" The Blue Light.

Haven't had much to say for a while with all that's going on but reading the post about the stones at Leeds Odeon 1965 woke me up I was there as well brilliant memories.

Paul Sykes was not a great character, anyone who thinks he was needs help.



Just because he had occasional glimpses of intelligence and thus could write the odd paragraph does nothing to rehabilitate this horrible individual. He was also only an OK boxer, nothing more, a pastime that allowed him to express his bullying nature with little risk to himself.



His only legacy in my mind were the victims he left in his wake, many of whom were far weaker than him. He has no nobility whatsoever in my book.



Why we celebrate the worst in society and not the best baffles me. So some fool wants to make a film about this bullying thug is a disgrace and exploration in the extreme.



Make a film about Neil Fox? Well of course not, decency and real toughness doesn’t sell.

Quote ="Big lads mate" You’re a similar age to me and when we were at school and teenagers the Stones and the Beatles were more historical than relevant. They were both respected but like you I only new one person, my older cousin who was even remotely interested in them. After 1971 the Stones were dormant really. Then in 1980 they released there last great single, Start me up, started touring and became the machine they are today. The problem with the Stones is simple, they are too successful and due to their huge back catalogue they have no need to be creative. They fill stadiums performing songs that are 50 years old and millions love it. It doesn’t help that Keith and especially Mick are now almost caricatures of themselves but hey. Status Quo like Slade are hugely under rated bands and much maligned. I love both but in terms of ability, creativity and style they can’t compare to the Sones or the Beatles. The Beatles created the idea that a Rock n Roll band can be creative and important. The Stones were also creative but they defined what a band should look like and how they should behave, they created the image of the Rock n Roll band. Every singer is aping Jagger and every lead guitarist wants to be as cool as Richards and every emo indie band want to be as lost and misunderstood as Brian Jones. This is so even though many don’t know they are. Only when Jagger or Richards die will the band be elevated right up there with Elvis and the Beatles, they are imho that important. The charts will be flooded with their music because once again they will be cool because as we know only dead rockers are cool. See Lennon v McCartney icon_wink.gif" alt="icon_wink.gif" title="Wink" />

Quote ="Big lads mate" You’re a similar age to me and when we were at school and teenagers the Stones and the Beatles were more historical than relevant. They were both respected but like you I only new one person, my older cousin who was even remotely interested in them. After 1971 the Stones were dormant really. Then in 1980 they released there last great single, Start me up, started touring and became the machine they are today. The problem with the Stones is simple, they are too successful and due to their huge back catalogue they have no need to be creative. They fill stadiums performing songs that are 50 years old and millions love it. It doesn’t help that Keith and especially Mick are now almost caricatures of themselves but hey. Status Quo like Slade are hugely under rated bands and much maligned. I love both but in terms of ability, creativity and style they can’t compare to the Sones or the Beatles. The Beatles created the idea that a Rock n Roll band can be creative and important. The Stones were also creative but they defined what a band should look like and how they should behave, they created the image of the Rock n Roll band. Every singer is aping Jagger and every lead guitarist wants to be as cool as Richards and every emo indie band want to be as lost and misunderstood as Brian Jones. This is so even though many don’t know they are. Only when Jagger or Richards die will the band be elevated right up there with Elvis and the Beatles, they are imho that important. The charts will be flooded with their music because once again they will be cool because as we know only dead rockers are cool. See Lennon v McCartney icon_wink.gif" alt="icon_wink.gif" title="Wink" />

Quote ="Big lads mate" You’re a similar age to me and when we were at school and teenagers the Stones and the Beatles were more historical than relevant. They were both respected but like you I only new one person, my older cousin who was even remotely interested in them. After 1971 the Stones were dormant really. Then in 1980 they released there last great single, Start me up, started touring and became the machine they are today. The problem with the Stones is simple, they are too successful and due to their huge back catalogue they have no need to be creative. They fill stadiums performing songs that are 50 years old and millions love it. It doesn’t help that Keith and especially Mick are now almost caricatures of themselves but hey. Status Quo like Slade are hugely under rated bands and much maligned. I love both but in terms of ability, creativity and style they can’t compare to the Sones or the Beatles. The Beatles created the idea that a Rock n Roll band can be creative and important. The Stones were also creative but they defined what a band should look like and how they should behave, they created the image of the Rock n Roll band. Every singer is aping Jagger and every lead guitarist wants to be as cool as Richards and every emo indie band want to be as lost and misunderstood as Brian Jones. This is so even though many don’t know they are. Only when Jagger or Richards die will the band be elevated right up there with Elvis and the Beatles, they are imho that important. The charts will be flooded with their music because once again they will be cool because as we know only dead rockers are cool. See Lennon v McCartney icon_wink.gif" alt="icon_wink.gif" title="Wink" />

Quote ="Big lads mate" You’re a similar age to me and when we were at school and teenagers the Stones and the Beatles were more historical than relevant. They were both respected but like you I only new one person, my older cousin who was even remotely interested in them. After 1971 the Stones were dormant really. Then in 1980 they released there last great single, Start me up, started touring and became the machine they are today. The problem with the Stones is simple, they are too successful and due to their huge back catalogue they have no need to be creative. They fill stadiums performing songs that are 50 years old and millions love it. It doesn’t help that Keith and especially Mick are now almost caricatures of themselves but hey. Status Quo like Slade are hugely under rated bands and much maligned. I love both but in terms of ability, creativity and style they can’t compare to the Sones or the Beatles. The Beatles created the idea that a Rock n Roll band can be creative and important. The Stones were also creative but they defined what a band should look like and how they should behave, they created the image of the Rock n Roll band. Every singer is aping Jagger and every lead guitarist wants to be as cool as Richards and every emo indie band want to be as lost and misunderstood as Brian Jones. This is so even though many don’t know they are. Only when Jagger or Richards die will the band be elevated right up there with Elvis and the Beatles, they are imho that important. The charts will be flooded with their music because once again they will be cool because as we know only dead rockers are cool. See Lennon v McCartney icon_wink.gif" alt="icon_wink.gif" title="Wink" />

Quote ="vastman"Paul Sykes was not a great character, anyone who thinks he was needs help. Just because he had occasional glimpses of intelligence and thus could write the odd paragraph does nothing to rehabilitate this horrible individual. He was also only an OK boxer, nothing more, a pastime that allowed him to express his bullying nature with little risk to himself. His only legacy in my mind were the victims he left in his wake, many of whom were far weaker than him. He has no nobility whatsoever in my book. Why we celebrate the worst in society and not the best baffles me. So some fool wants to make a film about this bullying thug is a disgrace and exploration in the extreme. Make a film about Neil Fox? Well of course not, decency and real toughness doesn’t ">sell.'" Get your point vasty. There was a spate a few years ago where it appeared that every underworld thug during the last sixty years put their memoirs to print making lots of money in the process. I would rank Sykesy in that category. I have s copy of his autobiography, "Sweet Agony", which makes interesting reading to ldentify with the Wakefield locations mentioned, and the names of people who were familiar to me, but the fact that he was deeply involved with under aged schoolgirls put me off any other interests in his life that I may have had.

Quote ="vastman"Paul Sykes was not a great character, anyone who thinks he was needs help. Just because he had occasional glimpses of intelligence and thus could write the odd paragraph does nothing to rehabilitate this horrible individual. He was also only an OK boxer, nothing more, a pastime that allowed him to express his bullying nature with little risk to himself. His only legacy in my mind were the victims he left in his wake, many of whom were far weaker than him. He has no nobility whatsoever in my book. Why we celebrate the worst in society and not the best baffles me. So some fool wants to make a film about this bullying thug is a disgrace and exploration in the extreme. Make a film about Neil Fox? Well of course not, decency and real toughness doesn’t ">sell.'" Get your point vasty. There was a spate a few years ago where it appeared that every underworld thug during the last sixty years put their memoirs to print making lots of money in the process. I would rank Sykesy in that category. I have s copy of his autobiography, "Sweet Agony", which makes interesting reading to ldentify with the Wakefield locations mentioned, and the names of people who were familiar to me, but the fact that he was deeply involved with under aged schoolgirls put me off any other interests in his life that I may have had.