The Age Ole Question; Beatles or Stones?

[Rocco]

kinda funny age ole question

[Dana V. Hatch]

Lemmy pointed out that the story is the Beatles were goody goody and the Stones were tough but the opposite was true, Beatles tough determined working class lads, the Stones pampered upper middle class prats. Still I prefer the Stones' overt sex drugs and rock and roll stance over the Beatles' subtler subversion but I love both bands like my own food.

[Rocco]

Totally,Richards talks about it in his book,that the Beatles first tour was pure Sex,Sex,Sex.But the Stones win with my too.

[John Battles]

That's interesting , because Lemmy is a huge Beatles fan , and claimed he used to see them play in Hamburg all the time. It's possible , I would NEVER dispute Lemmy (Who's a very nice guy , BTW.), but he has told stories , like witnessing the Allied intervention of Germany , in 1945 , when he would have still been an infant . That said , he's always marvelled at how tuff The Beatles were , at least , back when.  When I was in Jr. High , High School , before I got into Rockabilly and Garage in earnest , The Beatles and Stones were running neck and neck , for me . Later , The Stones took hold. I guess , because they seemed a LOT more influential on the stuff I like , now , than The Beatles - Who are , of course , totally influential , most people have heard the bulk of their back catalogue over and over, whereas , The Stones , and Elvis , too , for that matter , have a shitload of great songs that only the most hardened geeks , like myself , even know. A Stones tribute band has about 25 songs they can get away with playing , but  , if a Beatles tribute band wants to focus on one era , OR go across the board , it's still P.C.  MY EARLIEST MEMORIES OF THE BEATLES GO BACK TO 1968. I'm sure I heard The Rolling Stones , then , too , but , was'nt conscious of them until the early 70's.

I like some Pop  all right , but , generally , I go in for a grittier sound. The Stones even had some great Pop songs , too , but , you'd have to be a pretty big fan to know more than a few of them .
 
Dana V. Hatch said:

Lemmy pointed out that the story is the Beatles were goody goody and the Stones were tough but the opposite was true, Beatles tough determined working class lads, the Stones pampered upper middle class prats. Still I prefer the Stones' overt sex drugs and rock and roll stance over the Beatles' subtler subversion but I love both bands like my own food.

[RJFait]

It's funny that you ask this. I've always said, there are 2 kinds of people, Beatles and Stones, and they don't mix well. I am definitely Stones, my wife is Beatles. If only I'd asked 11 years ago...

[Mr Yates]

The Who!

[Mike Humsgreen]

Did he ever say it as harsh as that? I know he did kinda say what you said in that film but that sounds a bit of an unfair thing to say about a fellow musician. It's often interesting to hear about a band's background but I often wonder if it really makes any difference to the quality or style of music.

I'm definitely more on the Stones side.

Dana V. Hatch said:

the Stones pampered upper middle class prats.

[Don]

My wife, also a sixties musician (see http://www.60sgaragebands.com/ivkingsaqueen.html ) always viewed herself as a Stones person while I was more into the Beatles.  Then several things occurred. One was my increasing love for the blues roots of rock -- something that the Stones helped white Americans to know. The other was the release of the film Across the Universe which for perhaps the first time helped my dear one hear the Beatles music on its own terms, free of the Beatle schtick.

In any case we are now both Stones and Beatles people.  And lots of other types of music people too!

(Anyone for Bach?) ;-)

-don

RJFait said:

It's funny that you ask this. I've always said, there are 2 kinds of people, Beatles and Stones, and they don't mix well. I am definitely Stones, my wife is Beatles. If only I'd asked 11 years ago...

[Dana V. Hatch]

No he wasn't as harsh as that but I'm not putting them down either. I love the attitude in songs like Salt of the Earth and their decadence. And their best music is tough as nails. It's not like they were loaded. I don't think a life of ease and comfort makes for great musicians but the unease and discomfort can come from within as well as without, regardless of background.

Mike Humsgreen said:

Did he ever say it as harsh as that? I know he did kinda say what you said in that film but that sounds a bit of an unfair thing to say about a fellow musician. It's often interesting to hear about a band's background but I often wonder if it really makes any difference to the quality or style of music.

I'm definitely more on the Stones side.

Dana V. Hatch said:

the Stones pampered upper middle class prats.

[Thane Cesar]

I was brought up on the Stones, so I'd go for them.

I like the Beatles, don't get me wrong, and the Lemmy quote is true. The Beatles in Hamburg!

However I do think the Beatles get a lot more credit for things than they deserve. After all, they had a corporation behind them, so yeah, of course they were going to be big.

The Stones may have been middle class(ish, only really Jagger and Watts), but c'mon, the Beatles were hardly born in a briar patch, were they?

 

The real question is Elvis or Buddy? And I'm a confirm Buddy-ite.

[Don]

To write the Beatles's success off as depending on corporate marketing is to not have been there.  Today one cannot imagine the effect their music had on the minds, souls and loins of a teenager back when they first appeared on the airwaves.

I was such a teenager.  Already a working musician. Not into TV at all. Not into hype.  But let me tell you the effect that hearing She Loves You had on me...

I was with my girlfriend in her bedroom. Her parents were out. We were doing the stuff that curious teenagers do at such times.

This girl was a gorgeous blue-eyed Swedish blond.  My attention was not easily distracted.

Suddenly this sound came on the radio. I simply sat up, frozen in time and space, completely and totally mesmerized. I had never heard such a thing. Never been effected like that by any music. Electrified. I at that time had no idea of who the group was.

Today there is no way to simulate that effect. That of something totally fresh and new. Something that entered one's very soul and spirit.

Others may have been effected by other music like that. Perhaps some reacted that way when they first heard Elvis. That I cannot say.  But never to my knowledge has it happened since. And if you grew up with Beatle influenced RnR as the soundtrack of your life you truly cannot even imagine what it was like to hear that music for the first time.

-Don

PS - Lynn - if perchance you are reading this - I really do apologize! :D~

[RJFait]

I find myself deleting replies because it turns out my wife is right, I am very opinionated. I can't help but think though, that The Beatles rise to fame was much like that of most pop artists before and since. The closest things to "Beatle Mania" in recent history have been New Kids On The Block, The Backstreet Boys, and NSYNC. Today our biggest stars are Carrie Underwood and that horrible tripe called GaGa. I'm not saying The Beatles are on the same level of mediocrity, but there is a pattern here. True, there has not been a Beatle Mania since, well, Beatle Mania, but maybe people just realized how silly they were being.

[Don]

Opinionated? Perhaps. But a better word IMO is passionate and I for one enjoy that. Keep on posting! :)

-Don