scottmc asks:
Paul McCartney recently referred to The Rolling Stones as a ‘Blues cover band’. Which side of The Beatles/Stones debate do you come down on?
It is the great debate of our time. I like them both but for different reasons. They have two very different approaches.
A woman I know once described the contrast as this: The Beatles are the boyfriends you want; the Stones are the guys you want to fuck.
Like every Boomer in America in February 1964 I was blown away by the Beatles when I first saw them on THE ED SULLIVAN SHOW. 76,000,000 people watched that night. (Today, I can’t imagine CBS getting 76,000,000 people to tune in all year.) It was all-Beatles all the time.
The fact that we couldn’t get enough Beatles led to the British Invasion. Billy J. Kramer & the Dakotas, Gerry & the Pacemakers, the Searchers, Freddie & the Dreamers (heaven help us!), and the Dave Clark Five were the first wave.
Also sneaking into that category were the Rolling Stones. They did have, as Paul suggested, a somewhat bluesy sound. I liked it. All white boys from the San Fernando Valley identify with the blues. But they were just one in the pack.
Then I saw a movie called THE TAMI SHOW. This was a filmed super concert at the Santa Monica Auditorium. It featured the Beach Boys, James Brown, Jan & Dean, Lesley Gore, Marvin Gaye, the Miracles, the Barbarians (who???), Billy J. Kramer, the Supremes, Chuck Berry, and the Rolling Stones. Now within that lineup you had some pretty exciting performers. Chuck Berry and James Brown have enough electricity between them to light Cleveland.
But when the Stones performed and I saw Mick Jagger command the stage, I thought “we have a new king of rock n’ roll.” So I became a Stones fan — but never at the expense of loving the Beatles.
A couple of years later the Beatles would go on to make groundbreaking music like SGT. PEPPER and MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR. The Stones would put aside cover versions, do more original content and some longer cuts. A local radio station in the valley, KBLA, started a Sunday night show just featuring the Stones. Hosted by Humble Harv, it was the show for all his “Stone Agers,” of which I was one.
Then came the ‘70s and the Beatles broke up. But the Stones kept going. So I treasure Beatles music as timeless, but I look forward to new cuts by the Rolling Stones. And that’s where I am today.
I never saw the Beatles in concert. I did see the Stones. Mick Jagger was way more impressive in Dodger Stadium than the Dodgers were last week.
I have many albums from both and listen about equally. But I will say this in closing. I can’t stand “Hey Jude” and I am sick to death of “Satisfaction.” Which do I hate more? The debate continues.
69 comments :
I may be confusing shows, but I think it was the TAMI show ... Anyway, as the story goes, there was a backstage, last minute struggle over who would close the show, The Rolling Stones, in one of their first live American performances, or James Brown. The Stones prevailed and were the final act. James Brown, hugely miffed at being relegated to the penultimate slot, cranked his performance up to 11 and utterly blew the crowd away. The Stones reportedly had to be virtually begged to take the stage after having been so upstaged. As Brown exited the stage he said to the waiting, cowed Stones, "Welcome to America, fuckers." May or may not be true, too good not to share ...
Saw the Stones perform last week in LA. They've rebounded nicely from whatever distress that incident may have caused them.
And I thought I was the only one who hates Jude and Satisfaction! Well said.
The movie "Hollywood Knights," sort of a rip-off of both "Animal House" and "American Graffiti," but still very funny, included Humble Harv as "Dr J" of KBLA.
What do I win?
The Beatles are so much part of the cultural wallpaper now that it kind of means nothing to me. I grew up with it on all the time but I didn't ever get to decide to put it on. The music you love, you love because it soundtracks your life, it makes you feel a certain way, it's what was playing when you first fell in love, when you last fell in love, what out a smile on your face that time you were really down, etc, etc. And the Beatles were never there for me. Not their fault. I can appreciate their musical qualities, acknowledge their genius, but their music was never part of my life, so it means nothing to me. Tbh, the same kind of applies to the Stones but they have some tunes I really love and - when my favourite bands/musicians play Beatles tunes, it leaves me cold. When they play Stones tunes, I get into it more. I don't have a single record by either band but I did make a Stones playlist on Spotify.
So, for that reason - the Stones.
The clue is in their longevity. Just look at how pervasive all things Beatles are today. McCartney has his Lyrics book coming out and advance reviews are very good, his last two albums, both made in his very late 70's, have been very good and are critics' favorites. His tours are beyond reproach and he's even stopped dying his hair. Can't say the same for Ringo's hair but the strength of the Beatles alone keeps him in the spotlight and allows HIS new music to get played and him to guest on any number of other people's albums. John and George continue to get the reissue box treatment to great sales and reviews to say nothing of the Beatles' boxed reissues. The documentary Get Back is highly anticipated.
As a non-interrupted group, the Stones continue to lay the framework for how to be a rock and roller all your lives. It is simply amazing to watch Jagger at age 78 run around the stage as if he's 60 years younger. Mind boggling. Sadly, only death can impede them. The relatively cleanest living of the bunch, Charlie Watts, was the first to pass since Brian Jones. I will say I have passed on their tours lately. It's been the same basic set list for quite a long time. That's where McCartney has the edge. He has some staples he plays in his usual three hour, 33 song set, but the rest are well varied. The Stones do 18, maybe 19 songs, but are done within two hours. But still, let's see any other band with an average age of 76 do better. The answer is there's no one band out there that can do better.
As for which band is the favorite, there's room for both. Their musical approaches and styles are different so there's no need to pick one.
I have always been a much bigger fan of the Beatles -- they're one of my all-time favorite groups ever. And I also can't stand "Hey Jude". Sure, there was a time when I liked it, but that time ended about 10,000 radio plays ago. I've heard that song enough already to last me the rest of my life!
Interesting that you mention Humble Harv, whom I assume is Harv Moore. He spent most of his career as a DJ in Buffalo, NY and was still on the air at an oldies station until just recently. A very funny and entertaining DJ. Also I think he was involved with arranging one of The Beatles' first big USA concerts.
As far as the great debate, I liked The Stones' stuff in the 60's, but after about the mid 70's I never liked any of their new songs. In their prime they were one of the top bands, but they never approached the brilliance of The Beatles.
The Stones dug into Country to a point, starting with Beggars Banquet.
What was even more impressive about the Stones performance on the TAMI show was that they followed what has become one of the legendary performances in Rock n' Roll, the hardest working man in show business Mr. James Brown.
By the way I will always be Team Stones
I didn't see the Beatles in concert (I was only 12 when they broke up), but saw Ringo in 2008 and Paul in 2013. Both in outdoor summer concerts in the Seattle area.
To the question at hand, Beatles vs Stones. You really can't have the Stones without the Beatles.
The first description of the Beatles/Stones is accurate. The second might be, too, but I'm a guy.
Both bands played cover versions, but the Stones took a while to find their footing doing original music, while the Beatles did more originals on early albums.
Agree with you on both Hey Jude and Satisfaction, but plenty of high-quality music in the repertoire of both bands.
As examples, I submit Hold Me Tight from the Beatles and Off The Hook by the Stones, among dozens more.
As the story goes, Jagger watched Lennon & McCartney write a song in about 5 minutes, convincing him that they could write their own music. So, one complimented the other in a way.
I saw the Stones at a Day on The Green. We waited 3 hours after Santana was done to finally get them on stage. As I worked a 10P top 2a shift, ! fell asleep during Just My Imagination. It was a cool show, but I came away somewhat unimpressed. I'm more impressed now seeing the energy they bring at their age. By the way, the say I saw them was on Mick's 36th birthday, long ago....
Bryan Simmons
I became a regular buyer of Beatles singles at age 12 (all of them starting with "Hey Jude"; my family had 8-track tapes of the earlier albums so I often heard them in the car) and even made a tape of a bootleg Get Back-era LP that was circulating around my high school, which included "Christmas Time Is Here Again" and some other goofing-around in the studio (at the time I was also a big fan of "You Know My Name," the flip side of "Let It Be"). I liked that aspect of them, which the Stones never exhibited.
I did also buy, when it was fairly new, what I think is the best Stones LP, Exile on Main Street. Still have the postcards if anyone wants them. But I have no other Stones records (or tapes) except the single of "Honky Tonk Women."
Speaking as somewhat younger fan of both groups, but overwhelmingly of The Beatles, I find this statement problematic:
"Then came the ‘70s and the Beatles broke up. But the Stones kept going."
Sure they ceased to work as a band, but they all had gigantic individual careers beyond 1970. I don't think it makes sense to use the measure of a band staying together for record label obligations and touring dollars as any display of artistic integrity.
I love the Beatles, but have never gotten the Stones. Every so often, I open Apple Music and try to listen to one of their supposed classic albums, like "Beggar's Banquet" or "Exile on Main Street." By cut two, I start itching to skip ahead, by cut three I'm skipping, and by cut five, I'm done. I can't stand Jagger's affected voice. They strike me as a competent blues/rock bar band with a really annoying singer who mostly writes dumb, sexist lyrics. And there should be a federal cultural artifacts protection law banning Mick Jagger from ever trying to sing country music.
The Stones are just about the only classic rock act I've never seen live, and I have no inclination. I do see Alice Cooper every time he comes to town. I caught him just last week, and he was great, still singing, moving and putting on a show just like he did in the 70s, and he's 73 himself.
Also, I do love "Satisfaction," but only the Devo version.
Not being much of a rocker, I favor The Beatles for their ballads--"And I Love Her," "If I Fell," "Yesterday," "Here, There, and Everywhere," "Something," etc. But I've always loved "Hey, Jude."
Never been a Stones fan. Other than "Start me Up", I don't like any of their music.
The Beatles for me. Have not gotten tired of "Hey Jude" or "Satisfaction" (though my favorite repeating song on radio will always by Eagles' "Take It Easy"). It's admirable that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are still living even with their health problems. Considering a previous rivalry between Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra, Bing for Christmas music, Frank for overall romantic chemistry...
I watched The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show, as did everyone else in my 3rd grade class. It was the talk of recess the next day. "Meet the Beatles" was the first record album I bought with my own money - in mono, because the stereo version was $1 more, and would have taken me another month to save up. As a pre-teen, I found the bad boy Stones a bit scary. I did see them on their Voodoo Lounge tour, and had a great time (and I'm not remotely tired of "Satisfaction", whereas I could happily live without ever hearing "Hey, Jude" again)...but...Beatles.
Just finished Keith Richards's autobiography which makes clear that the Stones started as a blues cover band. He describes his musical evolution in terms of learning blues licks and variations on blues chords and tunings. He acknowledges they became more pop for commercial reasons and that Jagger was increasingly influenced by disco while he (Richards) dove into Caribbean music. The Beatles always aimed for pop success and were skiffle- and country-influenced. Both genres are strongly influenced by the blues, but the Beatles were not instrumentally copying blues players whereas the Stones tried to sound exactly like the blues originals. Both groups evolved away from their roots as they chased different goals. Loved the Beatles, who were the soundtrack of my teens. Liked the Stones who broke the mold with Satisfaction, much like Dylan did with Like a Rolling Stone. (Tell me Dylan didn't know his title referenced a popular British band!) The Beatles romanticism attracted me more. They gradually got much more into the production and engineering of their sonic output as they pursued a variety of approaches and a more interesting sound. The Stones were more conventional, more of a performing band rather than a "recording unit" like the Beatles became. They also wrote better angry and boastful songs. That the Rolling Stones are still a band and The Beatles separated because their personal musical preferences sent them in different directions says it all.
Beatles
Hey Jude...overplayed to death
Satisfaction...still OK with me.
The Stones song I hate is “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” for what I think is an obvious reason.
This post reminded me of the bit in the movie DINER, where the guys are discussing what music is best for "making out," Sinatra or Mathis. The answer (from the character "Boogie") is Presley ! For me, I will always prefer the Beatles to the Stones. I grew up (in the 60s) with the Fabs music and films, and will love 'em until I die.
THE TAMI SHOW is required viewing for anyone who has any interest in music. Period. It was a raw and deeply entertaining time capsule that has held up over half a century.
It's pretty cool that even to this day, Keith Richards says following that devastating James Brown performance was the biggest mistake in their careers. It was pure insanity, and it may have upped the Stones' game that night.
"the Stones are the guys you want to fuck."
If you are blind.
The joke when I was in high school was, "Have you seen what Mick Jaggar looks like? No wonder he can't get no satisfaction."
I have respect for the sheer endurance of The Rolling Stones, but I have not one recording of theirs, while I have plenty of Beatles recordings (And The Doors and Queen), and I've met all of them except Sir Paul.
First, at one time, YouTube had up part of the Sullivan show, which included one of Frank Gorshin's greatest routines. Best impressionist ever, other than Monet.
I am that rarity, a liberal history professor who is a big fan of country music. Today, the Beatles would be on the country charts. The Stones might not be, except that Keith Richards and Willie Nelson may be interchangeable, or at least separated at birth. Then there's this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwEOZtJm8pU
And he's absolutely right.
"iamr4man said...
The Stones song I hate is 'You Can’t Always Get What You Want' for what I think is an obvious reason."
My life experience tells me that The Stones got it backwards; you can't always get what you need, but if you try, sometimes you just might find, you get what you want.
Depends on the mood I'm in. Or how bad the traffic is. The Stones threatened to descend into a joke around the psychedelic era, but then "Jumpin' Jack Flash" came out and all was forgiven.
Saw what must have been a bootleg of The TAMI Show in the 1970's. The Wrecking Crew's the house band! The 70's crowd shook their heads when Chuck Berry and Gerry & The Pacemakers alternated their numbers. Chuck would do "Nadine" then The Pacemakers would perform "I Like It". I know the TAMI Show was done at the height of the British Invasion, but still, who came up with that idea?
Back in 64, many top 40 radio stations had a strict quota on how many "rhythm and blues" songs would make their playlist (similar quota applied to country songs) so James Brown was
a rumor to us. The only James Brown song from that time I remember was "Papa's Got A Brand New Bag"
Re Rick Hannon's post: I heard a similar who-will-close-the-show story involving Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis. Berry won the toss, so Jerry Lee preceded him with a forty-minute set for the ages, concluding "Great Balls of Fire" by setting the piano ablaze. Berry decided not to try following that.
Can I cast a write-in vote for The Who?
Our local orchestra did an outdoor concert with a Stones tribute band this summer. The Midwestern crowd stood reverently for and sang along with The Star-Spamgled Banner. Then the orchestra segued into "Sympathy for the Devil." I think I'm the only person there who cracked up at the irony.
If you notice, something "new" comes up every 5 years with the Beatles. A re-release, a new book, "newly" discovered tracks, The 321 McCartney, etc. But Paul is right, no album of the Stones compares to later albums from the Beatles. But it is like comparing a nice dinner at an expensive restaurant and a big buffet. Both are good, one more fine and one more hardy.
If the other 2 Beatles were still around, they wouldn't have gotten back together and toured like the Stones is doing.
Ahhhh....The Barbarians! One of my favorite garage rock bands, so to speak. I remember when "Are You a Boy or Are You a Girl" came out late in '65. Only made it as high as #55 and was on the charts for 6 weeks. I remember the Top 40 stations played it for about 3 weeks then dropped it like a hot potato. I played it about once a week when I was in radio [oldies format] and used to play it between halves of soccer games I announce till the "cancel culture" started coming after me.....10 years before it was called cancel culture.
I'm a Beatles near-completist. Boxed set of the white album and Abbey Road, mostly for The Long One that puts Her Majesty in the middle instead of the end.
The Stones' early albums were lackluster up to Aftermath. Then they had a string of good ones.
The trick for both groups is that the US and UK releases were different.
One difference in how to assess/compare the Beatles and Stones is in their approach to recording. The Beatles, virtually from the beginning, were an album-oriented band who also recorded singles. The Rolling Stones were/are (I like "Living in a Ghost Town") a singles band. To my mind, the best singles band ever. So it's kinda apples and oranges.
Anecdote: I was a preteen when the Beatles landed and they were the one rock group I could always recognize (I was a musical theater nerd); to this day there are rock songs I've always liked but can't tell you who did them.
Anyway, around the turn of the century I was at EPCOT and they had an impressive group of Beatle impersonators as a regular attraction in the British-themed area. Done up like the early 60s version, they had wireless mikes and guitars, and on some songs would wander into the crowd and pose for pictures while still singing and playing very credibly.
There were surprisingly few of my age cohort in the crowd that formed. Most seemed to be 30somethings bouncing their happy babies and toddlers to the music. It dawned on my that for these young parents, innocent vintage Beatles was what their own parents played around the house. Consequently it was nursery music for them and evidently their own kids.
I felt elderly.
The Barbarians had the hit single "Are You A Boy, Or Are You A Girl?" in 1965, if you can call peaking at 55 a hit.
The Beatles were also a cover band early on in their career. I once asked Smokey Robinson how he felt when The Beatles covered "You Really Got A Hold On Me", a song he wrote. He answered with one word 'Ka-ching."
I passed up the chance to see The Beatles in Toronto in 1966 when I worked for CHUM, the presenting radio station, saying "I'll see them next time."
They never toured again.
The Beatles are The Beatles and The Stones are The Stones....and never the twain shall meet.
Max, I could swear the argument in Diner is between Mathis and Presley, and Boogie settles it by answering Sinatra! But I probably haven't seen the movie in years. I could be wrong
It's a minor point, but I remember when the original version of AMERICAN IDOL would have "Beatles Night," ALL the singers came off sounding great. It was because the songs were so beautiful and melodic, they just couldn't go wrong. That was always my favorite episode of the series.
I know people - born too late to be boomers - who know EXACTLY the context for McCartney's crack "that the 'Stones (are) a ‘Blues cover band’ "
I'm a "late boomer" - barely conscious at the time - so for me this is a matter of history.
If you ask me what my "favorite Beatles album" is - it's much like asking what my favorite cocktail is (the one in MY HAND). It's the LAST ONE I HEARD - with the proviso that it was Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, White, or Abbey Road.
(and then I hear any of the others, and I reconsider)
Your lady friend who made the "boyfriend comment" - I will lay odds she wasn't on the street - wailing, crying - when Linda "landed" Paul as they emerged, newly married, from the Magistrate's office in London.
If you ask me about my "favorite 'Stones album" - I'd might say Beggar's Banquet, or Sticky Fingers or Some Girls - but the singles from their pre-1970 LP's are far more part of what I like - and I can't readily name those LP's.
(that's how it goes without older brothers, sisters, friends, to properly bestow a rock-n-roll tradition - and man do I FEEL SORRY for "the kids these days")
("whatever boomer" - heard faintly in the distance)
I have a friend who clearly remembers when the Fabs started the "invasion" - the last time he attended a McCartney concert was a return to Chavez Ravine about five years ago.
(which sounds way cooler than Dodger Stadium)
When he came out, he paused and looked around - said it had been fifty years since he last played there - and wanted to reminisce a bit.
OF course no one need subscribe to "loyal" nonsense that excludes either band. There ARE Ford vs. Chevy sentiments - in some cases inherited from Dad and/or Grandpa. Coke vs. Pepsi.
Whatever - my dad drove a rusty Willy's pickup from the forties and also a Ford Falcon van. He replaced the Willy's with a brand new Chevy C-10 (1/2 ton pickup). He was loyal in other more important ways.
Stones. Beatles were faves in my preteens, but I still like Mick's jittery dancing.
Alice Cooper and Groucho Marx were best buds: https://q1057.com/alice-cooper-and-groucho-marx-an-unlikely-friendship/
Re the Diner argument, I don't recall that scene but based on my unofficial polling of girlfriends over the years the correct answer is "Dean Martin."
Well, that's an easy one to answer - The Animals.
Mathis or Sinatra scene from DINER (starts at about 2:20) -
https://youtu.be/N1SNoDYDegI
Buttermilk Sky said...
Can I cast a write-in vote for The Who?
Sometime "recently" (this century) The Rolling Stone Rock and Roll Circus was released.
Story goes that the 'Stones were "tired" and not so happy with their set. They were "intimidated" by The Who's set - so did not relase the film.
My answer to this eternal question, for the past 45 years has been, and remains...The Kinks.
Good point. Ringo Starr's solo career would be the envy of most performers. George? Hell, yeah. John? Maybe three, four people with comparable accomplishments. As for Paul: solo career and Wings each as big as anybody, but there's always that "old band" out there.
I'm with Zola: My favorite band of all time is the Kinks. One of my most prized possessions is a copy of the "Soap Opera" LP that Ray autographed for me after a show.
Off-topic, but Heritage Auctions is having a huge sale of Hollywood memorabilia (I had no idea there was so much stuff associated with "The Munsters," and if you have $5000, you can place an opening bid on Leonard Nimoy's pointy ears from "Star Trek IV.") There was only one thing I saw from "M*A*S*H," but you might want to bid on it, Ken:
https://entertainment.ha.com/itm/entertainment-and-music/harry-morgan-col-potter-screen-used-cast-painting-from-mash-episode-picture-this-tcf-tv-1972-1983-/a/7245-89294.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
The Rolling Stones win only in longevity and combined membership weight.
A band recording together less than ten years outsold a group recording together nearly 60
Check (the confusing) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists
BMI’s Top 100 Most-played songs on American radio and television of the 20th Century
https://www.bmi.com/news/entry/19991214_bmi_announces_top_100_songs_of_the_century
I'm probably Team Beatles, since they always seemed a bit more accessible. To me, the Stones haven't cut a good record since "Emotional Rescue," their 1980 tribute to Ahmet Ertegun and the Atlantic sound.
An anecdote about both bands: I turned 11 in August 1966, about the time John Lennon caused a brief furor with his misquote about the Beatles being more popular than Jesus. As a result, my parents would not buy me the Fab Four's latest LP, substituting an album by those clean, wholesome Rolling Stones (the U.S. version of "Aftermath," somewhat different than its UK counterpart). I liked it, especially the tracks "Paint It Black" (not on the British album), "Lady Jane," "Under My Thumb," the equally misogynistic "Stupid Girl," and the 11 1/2-minute "Goin' Home." Thankfully, that fall the Lennon furor waned and I got the U.S. version of "Revolver."
Five favorite Beatles tracks: "A Hard Day's Night," "Things We Said Today," "I Don't Want To Spoil The Party," "I'm Down," and "Revolution."
Five favorite Stones tracks: "Time Is On My Side" (organ intro version), "It's All Over Now," "Paint It Black," "You Can't Always Get What You Want," "Emotional Rescue."
@Dave Dahl
> The movie "Hollywood Knights," sort of a rip-off of both "Animal House" and "American Graffiti"
This is pretty much how Robert Wuhl describes the movie when being interviewed now.
@Ken
> Today, I can’t imagine CBS getting 76,000,000 people to tune in all year
When Imus In the Morning made fun of NBC television network (at the time he was working for WNBC66) his song parody made fun of the fact that the NBC prime-time lineup was getting an 18 rating and a 14 share. Network executives would be thrilled to get those numbers now. Young Sheldon got a 4.0 its opening night this season.
Zola and Pat (you met RAY? LUCKY!!), I like your style-- I'm a lifelong Kinks fan all the way. The Brothers Davies are criminally underappreciated. I'll take "Waterloo Sunset" or "Celluloid Heroes" over anything else, any day.
GOD SAVE THE KINKS! (And good ol' Mother Riley!)
Storm
Like you Ken I love both bands for different reasons.
To Storm:
We saw Ray Davies a few years ago, performing solo material and Kinks songs at Gilley's Dallas. After the show, a group of us diehard fans waited outside between the dressing room door and the bus, hoping to see him. It was a pretty cold winter night for Dallas, but it was worth it. When it was time to leave, he came over to the waiting crowd of fans and walked down the line, chatting with each of us personally for a moment and signing whatever we held up to him. Really nice guy, and to me, the talent equivalent of Lennon and McCartney all in one human, with a little Oscar Wilde on the side.
I thought the long-ago hotly-debated 'which band is better?' choice was between The Beatles and The Dave Clark Five. I still haven't made up my mind.
To Storm: Don't forget "Who'll Be The Next In Line."
To Kosmo13: One could argue that the DC5's brilliant "Any Way You Want It" (later covered by the Ramones) is the first "power-pop" record.
A baby in the Baby Boom here (59 for the time being).
The late '60s-early '70s was top 40 and easy listening for me. Top 40 won out until disco was my primary interest (the music, not the scene). As a ginormous SNL fan, the Blues Brothers lead me out of disco dependency. During the '70s, I enjoyed songs by Ringo Starr, George Harrison, and Wings (never noticed John's stuff for some reason). I also liked some of the Rolling Stones' hits, particularly Angie and Miss You.
My step siblings had the "Blue Album" by late 1979, and my sister got her own copy as well. I couldn't appreciate the Beatles (I was a hypocrite, judging them by the drug thing while geeking over early SNL), but through 1980, some of the songs started to appeal to me. I liked the weirdness of I Am The Walrus, that lead to Strawberry Fields and A Day In The Life. I was on my way when John was murdered. The marathons already meant something to me and the Beatles were fast-tracked into my favorite group. Only wish the circumstances were different.
That lead to my getting into rock and oldies. Of course the Rolling Stones became my #2. A veru, very close #2! Similar to my preferences in the MST3K Joel vs. Mike kerfuffle (I missed the internet war on that), Joel as favorite, Mike as almost equal to that. My countdown of top 5 favorites in all music go:
#5... Led Zeppelin. #4... The Doors. #3... the Who. #2... the Stones. and.... #1... Beatles! Just below that is a clump of entities including ABBA, the Yardbirds, the Bangles, the Supremes, Santana, Steely Dan, etc.
Kosmo13: I grew up in Montreal and one time the local bubblegum station, CKGM-AM, asked their listeners to vote on which band was greater, the Beatles or the Monkees? The Monkees won.
Ken
Your question about the Beatles or the Stones is impossible for me to answer as I've always been a fan of both. However, your column today reminded me of another question that has been asked that I've also been unable to answer concerning the catastrophic results of climate change.
What kind of world are we going to leave for Keith Richards!
Ringo Starr's solo career is horrific. If he wasn't a beatle people would call him out on how untalented he is at everything other than drumming. He has had a free ride for years because he was a beatle. Pretend the Beatles never happened. No one would have time for him as a celebrity. One of the worst singers ever. He should have been cut off for good after making Caveman. He was a perfect fit for the Beatles but after that....
The advantage The Beatles have is they bowed out before they could suck or make some lame albums which everyone eventually does. They went out on top. They pretty much had a perfect run so I would have to pick them. The Stones have made music I don't like because they have been around a lot longer.
STOOOoooons!
"Chuck Berry and James Brown have enough electricity between them to light Cleveland." Why would you want to light Cleveland? It looks better dark.
Let me preface ths by saying that the Beatles are my favorite group of all time and the Stones baeely make it into my top 20. I enjoy most of the catalog of the Beatles but only like some of the singles of the Stones (have never found an album track that I liked). With that said I was extremely displeased with the musical press for the lack of attenton they gave to the passing of Charlie Watts. I doubt when Ringo Starr passes away he will get such minor attention from reporters covering the music beat.
Case in point -- Goldmine magazine is a mag for record collectors. Last month's issue had about one paragraph on Watts and a statement that his death occurred right when they went to press and they would have a full appreciation of him in the next issue. I just received the next issue and the cover picture is Brian Setzer. Nowhere on the cover, either in photo or words, is Watts mentioned. And in the interior is a two page article about him with about a half page being a photo. Such disrepect for a drummer who stuck with a band for nearly 60 years and who had such a decent private life.
Not sure if this is on-topic. My Dad was a Baltimore CIty Police Officer in the 60's through 80's.
He used to do security at the Civic Center. He ran behind the Beatle's car when they left. He really liked the Beach Boys - especially Brian Wilson. He said they just talked about stuff but was down to earth. His big regret was not meeting Elvis.
I remember having this debate one night in my college dorm, to no conclusion. An hour after we went back to studying, someone ran down the hallway shouting, "Lennon's been shot!" That ended work for the next two or three days.
Post a Comment