DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => Albums => Topic started by: ibanez_ax on August 06, 2015, 07:46:50 PM
-
Umm, okay Keef.
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/interviews/a36899/keith-richards-interview-0915/ (http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/interviews/a36899/keith-richards-interview-0915/)
-
I saw this earlier today but hadn't had time to post the URL yet.
Umm, okay Keef.
That was my reaction, too.
-
(http://)
-
24 pages of discussion about this over at the Hoffman forums in little over 24 hours.
-
The Dos Equis guy is right; it was a stupid thing to say but it was even more stupid to build the title of the article from that one statement.
-
Yea, it's a crappy headline for the article because a) the comment represents just a sliver of the interview; and b) he doesn't actually explain why Sgt. Pepper was rubbish, other than to say they forgot their roots, whatever that means. Just jealousy, I'd say. The Fabs were reinventing music, while the Stones just rehashed it.
:)
-
Yea, it's a crappy headline for the article because a) the comment represents just a sliver of the interview; and b) he doesn't actually explain why Sgt. Pepper was rubbish, other than to say they forgot their roots, whatever that means.
LOL Jim, I was just typing out a very similar post when the forum sent the message that a new reply had been posted, so I checked to see. It is a crappy headline. That's the way major (esp. online) news outlets seem to be going. CNN and MSN seem to be particularly frequent offenders.
-
Great minds...
:)
-
It must be exasperating for Keith I suppose.... the writer decides the only way a Stone can grab a headline is by referencing The Beatles. The Fabs are still constantly held up as The Stones' yardstick which must be quite galling after all this time.
But as John reminded us way back in 1980: The Stones never did learn how to move on.
-
John (the rocker) Lennon would probably agree with him
-
Yeah the headline was "clickbait".
-
John (the rocker) Lennon would probably agree with him
Every time I'm reminded how John criticized 'Sgt. Pepper...' my oyster gets a little further roasted. First off, what's not rockish about the opening and reprise? That's heavy rock, probably invented then and there. 'Good Morning' too, which he reportedly didn't like so much, but it was a blazing little rocker - great guitar solo as well. Then, if he complains about Paul's straying from the roots, as Keef might say, what about 'Lucy...,' '...Mr. Kite,' and 'A Day In The Life'? Compared to most of Paul's pieces, these were from outer space, in terms of conventionality. Did he forget he wrote and performed those songs?
Maybe the comments were part of the silly feud the two had going for a while. Dunno. It's just sad to think he didn't seem to really appreciate what they had accomplished. Something the Stones couldn't even dream of coming near to.
roll:)
-
I love the Stones, the Stones are the 60s and so are the Beatles.....the era is everything.
I get teenage girls in 1964 preferring one over the other, indeed I like it, now it just seems totally naff.
Sadly, the tongue-era Stones is the BRAND in 2015 (i.e. the 1970s) and so it doesn't really suit the BRAND to be linked with the 60s.
I think Keith was just being a bit clumsy but it is quite sad.
Brian Jones, best out of it frankly, must be turning in his grave.
-
I do get Keef's point.if you take away the mystique of the cover and he reprised opening track and you're left with a mash of styles that don't sit all the well together. within you without you to 64 isacase in point.
For me it's the same problem with Revolver. I have no problems with eclestism, but neither album reallyhas a cohesive sound other than that the tracks are so different. To call it rubbish is a bit strong though
Which for me is why rubber soul wins best album award.
-
Keef, who's spent the last 40 years churning out unimaginative Blues/Rock, to put the boot in is a bit cheeky and lacking in awareness to be honest
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11202659_10153628982113313_4698364133313383998_n.jpg?oh=acfb6c000ea92a6dbe1836d93bafb9e3&oe=5650B6B3&__gda__=1446525370_4fa48280b8b26e8540bf923379c121d9)
-
Very lacking in self awareness, given the Stones tried to emulate it with Satanic Majesty's. I'm sure that cover still makes them cringe.
-
In fairness, he alludes to Satanic Majesties in the same paragraph.
-
So he does. At least he's being balanced then. I wouldn't say either were rubbish. I think with the stones Satanic was further from their thing than Pepper was from the Beatles though. But the Beatles had the eclectic thing down pretty well. You never expected as much variety from the Stones.
-
I do get Keef's point.if you take away the mystique of the cover and he reprised opening track and you're left with a mash of styles that don't sit all the well together.
thats a matter of opinion, surely its no more eclectic that Revolver, Abbey Rd or The White album and millions of people are fans of the Beatles because of their eclecticism, there was no typical Beatles style, they did everything, and thats why imo they were head and shoulders above all other bands like the Stones, The Who, Led Zep etc The fabs could write all sorts of music, music hall ? no problem, Childrens singalongs? no problem, Crooner songs? Heavy rock ? no problem, pure Pop? Prog rock? no problem..... I mean what other band put childrens songs on their albums?
I think Pepper is absolutely fantasmagorically brilliant, every track......When Im 64 is a masterful melody any Jazz musician wouldve been proud of, LSD was THE best psych song ever, Rita. The fab title track and of course the fact that it was the worlds first concept album.
Keef is just p*ssed because their imitation is weak and is in fact rubbish. ;D
-
I never thought Satanic was total rubbish. It had She's a Rainbow, Citadel, 2000 light years. All pretty good tunes. She's a Rainbow was pretty close to a Beatles song. Maybe the closest the Stones got. But that said it's nowhere near Pepper in my book. While Pepper isn't my favourite Beatles album there's a lot good going on there to me. Nothing on Satanic came anywhere near the best Pepper songs.
-
I never thought Satanic was total rubbish. It had She's a Rainbow, Citadel, 2000 light years. All pretty good tunes. She's a Rainbow was pretty close to a Beatles song. Maybe the closest the Stones got. But that said it's nowhere near Pepper in my book. While Pepper isn't my favourite Beatles album there's a lot good going on there to me. Nothing on Satanic came anywhere near the best Pepper songs.
LOL
I was just jokingly using his own elucidation (hence the smiley)
-
thats a matter of opinion, surely its no more eclectic that Revolver, Abbey Rd or The White album and millions of people are fans of the Beatles because of their eclecticism, there was no typical Beatles style, they did everything, and thats why imo they were head and shoulders above all other bands like the Stones, The Who, Led Zep etc The fabs could write all sorts of music, music hall ? no problem, Childrens singalongs? no problem, Crooner songs? Heavy rock ? no problem, pure Pop? Prog rock? no problem..... I mean what other band put childrens songs on their albums?
I think Pepper is absolutely fantasmagorically brilliant, every track......When Im 64 is a masterful melody any Jazz musician wouldve been proud of, LSD was THE best psych song ever, Rita. The fab title track and of course the fact that it was the worlds first concept album.
Keef is just p*ssed because their imitation is weak and is in fact rubbish. ;D
Hey, I'm a Beatles fan, so I don't need too much convincing. :) I love their albums, but personally I do find the constant style- shifting distracting, sometimes. Mostly McCartneys fault of course ( who is my favourite Beatle). His ability to seemingly master any style is an awesome thing, just that a lot of folk don't see this as always a good thing.
It's why Revolver doesn't top my list. Each song is great (mostly) but its a bit like someone's sat at the radio and played a song from each station they land on. I understand for some ( nay many) this is a thing of wonder, but I find it sometimes detracts ( and again I'm a Beatles fan, and would play Revolver over any other sixties album by anyone else.)
I guess because of its mantle of "greatest album ever" Pepper comes under more scrutiny than most. But I do think if you take away the cover and the reprise you're left with Revolver 2. A Little Help v Yellow Submarine? Eleanor Rigby v She's Leaving Home? Within you...v Love You To? Tomorrow Never Knows v A Day In The Life? Not a bad thing of course. But it does have the cover and the reprise and the mystique and there you go.
Don't care for Satanic Majesties, but I don't care generally for Brian Jones era Stones. Beatle wannabes. Much prefer The Mick Taylor era and it's pervading sense of menace ( even if it is as contrived as Dylan's Wondering Minsteral or Lennon's Working Class Hero. But rock has always been about smoke and mirrors)
Now I don't know which side I'm arguing for, or what my point is. But nowdays the four tracks on the blue album are enough Pepper for me, but I will happily sit through Rubber Soul. And Revolver. If I owned a copy.
-
How? What? Where?
All irrelevant.
The only question that matters is When?
No 60s, no Beatlemania, it simply couldn't have happened at any other time.
The two groups virtually lived as one in swingin' London.
The Beatles are The Stones, and The Stones are The Beatles. Jimi is The Stones, The Beatles are Jimi. Dylan is Jimi. Jimi is Dylan.
Overwhelmingly (100 per cent?), in 2015, the people who pitch them up against each other, are those who missed the 60s.
-
Hey, I'm a Beatles fan, so I don't need too much convincing. :) I love their albums, but personally I do find the constant style- shifting distracting, sometimes. Mostly McCartneys fault of course ( who is my favourite Beatle). His ability to seemingly master any style is an awesome thing, just that a lot of folk don't see this as always a good thing.
It's why Revolver doesn't top my list. Each song is great (mostly) but its a bit like someone's sat at the radio and played a song from each station they land on. I understand for some ( nay many) this is a thing of wonder, but I find it sometimes detracts ( and again I'm a Beatles fan, and would play Revolver over any other sixties album by anyone else.)
I guess because of its mantle of "greatest album ever" Pepper comes under more scrutiny than most. But I do think if you take away the cover and the reprise you're left with Revolver 2. A Little Help v Yellow Submarine? Eleanor Rigby v She's Leaving Home? Within you...v Love You To? Tomorrow Never Knows v A Day In The Life? Not a bad thing of course. But it does have the cover and the reprise and the mystique and there you go.
Don't care for Satanic Majesties, but I don't care generally for Brian Jones era Stones. Beatle wannabes. Much prefer The Mick Taylor era and it's pervading sense of menace ( even if it is as contrived as Dylan's Wondering Minsteral or Lennon's Working Class Hero. But rock has always been about smoke and mirrors)
Now I don't know which side I'm arguing for, or what my point is. But nowdays the four tracks on the blue album are enough Pepper for me, but I will happily sit through Rubber Soul. And Revolver. If I owned a copy.
tut tut a Beatle fan without Revolver ? ;D
agree about the Strolling Bones though, the only time I briefly thought they were a good band was when Mick Taylor joined, made a few decent albums with his influence, I could hear him knockin ;D
-
LOL
I was just jokingly using his own elucidation (hence the smiley)
I need to brush up on my fluency in emojis ;)
-
Revolver doesn't top my list. Each song is great (mostly) but its a bit like someone's sat at the radio and played a song from each station they land on. I understand for some ( nay many) this is a thing of wonder, but I find it sometimes detracts ( and again I'm a Beatles fan, and would play Revolver over any other sixties album by anyone else.)
I guess because of its mantle of "greatest album ever" Pepper comes under more scrutiny than most.
So very true....
"Revolver", fine album that it unarguably is, suffers because of its yin yang makeup. An eclectic approach works well sprawled over a double album as they proved two years later. But within the brief grooves of "Revolver" we have Paul pulling firmly in one direction with some sublime songwriting and John and George pushing the opposite way with searing,sitar-spangly soundscapes. Even the ever reliable Ringo can't paper over the obvious dichotomy. Most of the tracks are individually great but the whole package is just too disjointed for me.
With the exception of the gloriously humdrum "She's Leaving Home", Pepper by contrast maintains a polished and seamlessly united front. The over-arcing theme of some Victoriana-tinted whirligig dream somehow holds it all together: yes, the cover and the costumes and the whole damn alter-ego carnival mood have a lot to do with it but the end result is a peacock-packaged entity - a jigsaw for sure but a tightly interlocking, multi-coloured jigsaw with no pieces missing, unlike "Revolver".
Inevitably having immaculately committed the zeitgeist onto plastic it has dated badly, and the plaudits it rightly accrued at the time of and in the years following its release have become a stick with which to beat it. It's nonetheless one of their better albums in my opinion: top four at least. But then, even the weakest Beatles album outshines the best Stones LP...
And it's knowing that which makes Keef so churlish of course.
-
John (the rocker) Lennon would probably agree with him
No, first of all there a few very good rock songs on Sgt.pepper,and The Beatles especially John and Paul not only wrote plenty of great rock n roll and rock songs from their early days,and later hard rock,they wrote all different types of music because they were the most creative,prolific,diverse,greatest rock band ever.
And John actually went to an off broadway play in New York based on the Sgt.Pepper album in November 1974!
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/john_lennons_nearly_forgotten_1974_broadway_flop (http://dangerousminds.net/comments/john_lennons_nearly_forgotten_1974_broadway_flop)
-
Not only did The Beatles give The Rolling Stones one of their first hits with their rock n roll song I Wanna Be Your Man as you know,and they wrote it right in front of them and Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were impressed and like wow how can you write a song just like that and it motivated them to start writing their own songs. The Rolling Stones were good friends with and fans of The Beatles.
Mick Jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with him.Also Mick Jagger was such a big Beatles fan that in May 1967 when The Beatles were redording their song Baby You're A Rich Man he came there and stood on the sidelines to watch and listen to them recording it. His name is also on the tape box and he likely sang at the end verses.In Mark Lewishon's great detailed music diary book, The Beatles Recording Sessions there is a big black and white picture of Mick Jagger sitting in between John and Paul in the recording console room during The Beatles Revolver recording sessions too.
The Beatles remastered albums sold much more 40 years after their break up than The Rolling Stones remastered albums and they are still together! The Beatles have the best selling album of the last decade with their CD 1.And soon after thir music went on iTunes,it went to the top.
And Brian Jones played the saxaphone on the strange Beatles song, You Know My Name Look Up The Number and he and Mick Jagger's girlfriend at the time Marriane Faithful contributed sound effects on the song Yellow Submarine.
As this guy Sal66 who is also a musician and has also posted on sites debunking ignorant cr*p about The Beatles has rightfully pointed out, The Beatles wrote,played and recorded I Feel Fine (which The All Music Guide says has brilliant,active ,difficult guitar leads and riffs) in the Fall of 1964 which was the first use of feedback guitar on a pop rock record and it also had a prominent guitar riff throughout this very good song almost a year *before* The Rolling Stones's Satisfaction came out.
And on John's great Norwegian Wood recorded in the Fall of 1965,George Harrison was the first to play a sitar on a pop rock song and it was released on their great album Rubber Soul in December and then in May 1966 The Rolling Stones song Paint It Black came out with Brian Jones playing a sitar.
And in Paul McCartney's authorized biography Many Years From Now, Mick Jagger's former girlfriend singer Marianne Faithful says that she and Mick used to go over to Paul's house a lot and hang out in his music room. She said he never went to see them at their house they always went to visit him because he was Paul McCartney.She also said that Mick was intimidated by Paul but that Paul was totally oblivious to this.
Paul also says in this book that he turned Mick on to pot in his music room and he said which is funny because a lot of people would assume it was the other way around. Mick Jagger was also with The Beatles in Bangor when they got the call that Brian Epstein was found dead because he went on the train with them with his then girl friend singer Marianne Faithful to see the Maharishi to study meditation that weekend.
Also Mick Jagger is quoted on a Rolling Stones fan site,timeisonourside.com saying that Keith Richards liked The Beatles because he was quite interested in their chord sequences and he says he also liked their harmonies which he said were always a slight problem for The Rolling Stones.He said Keith always tried to get the harmonies off the ground but they always seemed messy.Mick then says,that what they never really got together were Keith and Brian singing backup vocals and he said it didn't work because Keith was a better singer and to keep going,oooh,ooh,ooh(he laughs) and he said Brian liked all of those oohs which Keith had to put up with.He also said Keith was capable of much stronger vocals than ooh,ooh,ooh.
On this same fan site Keith Richards is quoted from 1971 saying that The Beatles were perfect for opening doors,when they went to America they left it wide open for them and he said that The Rolling Stones could never have gone to America without them.He also said that The Beatles are so f**king good at what they did.
-
Here Keith Richards talks about how The Beatles and The rolling Stones were good friends from 1962 on! A fan asked Keith a question and Keith posted this back in 2003 on his web site .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvsGmh-rRIM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvsGmh-rRIM)
And here in 1984 on Friday Night videos Keith gets emotional talking about his friendship with John Lennon and his death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma4bIvgnJi4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma4bIvgnJi4)
-
thats a matter of opinion, surely its no more eclectic that Revolver, Abbey Rd or The White album and millions of people are fans of the Beatles because of their eclecticism, there was no typical Beatles style, they did everything, and thats why imo they were head and shoulders above all other bands like the Stones, The Who, Led Zep etc The fabs could write all sorts of music, music hall ? no problem, Childrens singalongs? no problem, Crooner songs? Heavy rock ? no problem, pure Pop? Prog rock? no problem..... I mean what other band put childrens songs on their albums?
I think Pepper is absolutely fantasmagorically brilliant, every track......When Im 64 is a masterful melody any Jazz musician wouldve been proud of, LSD was THE best psych song ever, Rita. The fab title track and of course the fact that it was the worlds first concept album.
Keef is just p*ssed because their imitation is weak and is in fact rubbish. ;D
Very well said and all very true,but you also forgot The Beatles wrote and played great folk rock,and the psychedelic rock on this album which as many people have said over the years The Rolling Stones made a poor copy of.
-
The Rolling Stones also wrote quite a few soft sentimental pop kind of songs,Lady Jane,As Tears Go By,Rubey Tuesday,Angie,Wild Horses,Waiting On A Friend and the 2 dreadful disco imitations,Miss You and Emotional Rescue. At least when Paul McCartney did a disco like song,Good Night tonight it was good interesting sounding music!
Also since Keith Richards made is totally ignorant,stupid comments about Sgt.Pepper,I thought about the fact that in The Beatles anthology video series there is party The Beatles filmed for their brilliant,great song A Day in The Life on Sgt.Pepper and Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were there. They also were at the June 1967 TV broadcast for the show Our World when The Beatles played All You Need Is Love.
-
Unfortunately, after Keith said what he did,all of the usual many morons come out of the woodwork on many online news papers and magazines including Rolling Stone,Fox News,The Daily Mail,where they are saying the extremely ludicrous,ignorant,nonsense that The Beatles were rubbish and an overrated crap ''pop boy band''! icon_mad :(
-
Award winning Indiana University School of music professor Dr.Glen Gass,who has been teaching a course on The Beatles and on rock music in general since 1982,examines the impact of the Sgt.pepper album 45 years later.
http://www.depauw.edu/news-media/latest-news/details/29256/ (http://www.depauw.edu/news-media/latest-news/details/29256/)
-
By way, my first cousin who used to be an accountant and she's been a ''head hunter'' helping people find jobs for over 20 years,used to be a huge Rolling Stones fan in her early 20's,she had The Beatles Revolver on her bedroom rug. I asked her when she was 32 in 1989 when The Rolling Stones had their Steeel Wheels tour,if she still liked The Rolling Stones and she said no.That same year at her wedding shower I was talking with my female and male first cousins about The Beatles and they are all fans too,and she said I love The Beatles.And when I was excited about seeing Paul McCartney live for the first time in 1990,she said OK! I said you said that you love The Beatles too and she said,hey bottom line they were geniuses.
And when I was 11 my music teacher asked us to guess who he was talking about when he said they were music geniuses and they wrote 200 mostly great songs and many great albums in only an 8 year recording career and I already being a big and very educated Beatles fan,said The Beatles and he said that's right! And my mother who was a talented artist with sculptures and drawings and she went to art school for years and even sold some of her sculptures in several local art galleries,used to dislike The Beatles and only liked classical music of Beethoven,Bach and Mozart and owned those records and played them on the piano,said to me after a radio station played all Beatles songs all day,that she now loved all of their music and thought they were brilliant!
-
Now Paul has to call a Rolling Stones album rubbish when he promotes his next solo album,except Paul wouldn't stoop so low! But then getting even would only be justice and not stopping low.
-
This is a great December 2012 about music professor Dr.Glen Gass's lecture about how great and important the Sgt.Pepper album is.In it he says his father a math professor,who was at the lecture used to hate The Beatles but now likes them. Poster 74tiger said their father learned to like The Beatles too! :)
http://www.bannergraphic.com/story/1920057.html (http://www.bannergraphic.com/story/1920057.html)
-
In this film of John Lennon walking in New York including Central Park November 1974,he's also seen going to the Beacon Theatre play based on the Sgt.Pepper's album.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnV9n3co3lk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnV9n3co3lk)
-
([url]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11202659_10153628982113313_4698364133313383998_n.jpg?oh=acfb6c000ea92a6dbe1836d93bafb9e3&oe=5650B6B3&__gda__=1446525370_4fa48280b8b26e8540bf923379c121d9[/url])
Ahhh, Haaa, Haaa!!! I love this!
-
...but I will happily sit through Rubber Soul. And Revolver. If I owned a copy.
Wait! Stop the presses! Kevin, do you seriously not own a copy of Rubber Soul or Revolver? Good gosh, man, I'll send you a legitimate, genuine store bought copy of each if you send me your address!
-
The Beatles are The Stones, and The Stones are The Beatles. Jimi is The Stones, The Beatles are Jimi. Dylan is Jimi. Jimi is Dylan.
So John got it right when he wrote/sang "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."
-
In this film of John Lennon walking in New York including Central Park November 1974,he's also seen going to the Beacon Theatre play based on the Sgt.Pepper's album.
Awesome video! Thanks for posting it!
-
Wait! Stop the presses! Kevin, do you seriously not own a copy of Rubber Soul or Revolver? Good gosh, man, I'll send you a legitimate, genuine store bought copy of each if you send me your address!
Thanks or the offer. I bought my first vinyl Revolver and Rubber Souls way back in about 1977. For 5 years I listened to practically nothing but The Beatles. Several moves from NZ to Uk and back again has seen several vinyl and cd collections disappear.
Now I hardly ever listen to the Beatles except to catch up on a song for a discussion here, and I very occasionally play the Blue album.
But I can still here every album in my head. Frankly listening wise I'm Bealed out, and listen to other stuff now.
-
The Rolling Stones also wrote 2 dreadful disco imitations,Miss You and Emotional Rescue. At least when Paul McCartney did a disco like song,Good Night tonight it was good interesting sounding music!
Oooooh I wish I could agree with you on this, (and I don't like disco), but those 2 Stones songs are classics, but I cannot say the same for Macca's! ;sorry
-
But then, even the weakest Beatles album outshines the best Stones LP...
I do prefer Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers or Exile On Main Street over Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Beatles For Sale or Let It Be (Yellow Submarine shouldn't even be mentioned). But the best Beatles albums certainly outshine the best Stones LPs.
-
Oooooh I wish I could agree with you on this, (and I don't like disco), but those 2 Stones songs are classics, but I cannot say the same for Macca's! ;sorry
??? I can't stand those Rolling Stones songs! Paul's are *much* better!
-
Awesome video! Thanks for posting it!
You're very welcome,yes isn't it great! John looks great too I love what he was wearing,the black hat and long coat.It's just so depressing seeing him young and alive like that. And notice how he had no body gaurd protection and all of the fans came up to him and he was interacting with them and signing autographs.He had done that in New York for years and then in late 1980 he hadn't been in the public eye and hadn't played live in concert for over 5 years and so he thought he would be OK without a body gaurd because nothing had happened all those years when he went without one :'(
-
I do prefer Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers or Exile On Main Street over Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Beatles For Sale or Let It Be (Yellow Submarine shouldn't even be mentioned). But the best Beatles albums certainly outshine the best Stones LPs.
I've no doubt many would share your preferences Hombre. Speaking for myself I honestly stand by my original assertion: even "Yellow Submarine" (I DO count it!), if only on the awesome presence of "Hey Bulldog" alone, beats any of those Stones albums you've listed (all of which I'm familiar with, "Aftermath" probably being my favourite). "Exile On Main Street" will to me always rank as one of the most overrated albums in rock history.
The big difference is that even those early Beatles albums were mostly solid, terrific, energetic stuff: most tracks either hits in their own right, quality B sides, album tracks that could've been singles, great (sometimes better than the original) cover versions or hidden gems. Not much in the way of filler, which is of course what set The Beatles apart from their contemporaries (and don't forget a Beatles "filler" was often better than another group's "hit"). Whereas The Stones albums were usually two or three decent, occasionally very good, tracks padded out with filler the rest of the way. At least that's how I hear them, but each to their own of course. I'd rather listen to a Hollies album than a Rolling Stones one, by and large.
-
I've no doubt many would share your preferences Hombre. Speaking for myself I honestly stand by my original assertion: even "Yellow Submarine" (I DO count it!), if only on the awesome presence of "Hey Bulldog" alone, beats any of those Stones albums you've listed (all of which I'm familiar with, "Aftermath" probably being my favourite). "Exile On Main Street" will to me always rank as one of the most overrated albums in rock history.
The big difference is that even those early Beatles albums were mostly solid, terrific, energetic stuff: most tracks either hits in their own right, quality B sides, album tracks that could've been singles, great (sometimes better than the original) cover versions or hidden gems. Not much in the way of filler, which is of course what set The Beatles apart from their contemporaries (and don't forget a Beatles "filler" was often better than another group's "hit"). Whereas The Stones albums were usually two or three decent, occasionally very good, tracks padded out with filler the rest of the way. At least that's how I hear them, but each to their own of course. I'd rather listen to a Hollies album than a Rolling Stones one, by and large.
The Beatles are my very favorite band, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the Stones and even recognizing when they were better than the Fab Four (in my opinion, of course). I can also hear hidden gems in the Stones albums, it's not hard to find them if one listens to them with an open mind. And I'm sorry, but I won't take you seriously if you say that Yellow Submarine is better than any Stones album, sounds like a blind devoted fan, though that's not a crime!
About Exile On Main Street, I agree that it's highly overrated, even though I like it a lot. I'd also say that Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers are better than A Hard Day's Night, Help! and The White Album; but Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and (maybe) Abbey Road were never surpassed or equaled by the Stones.
-
I love the Stones and prefer some of their albums over some Beatles albums. I like 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' too. I think 'Revolver' flows even with all the different styles too and is easily the Beatles best album. As for Keith saying Peppers is rubbish,,,,who cares. Its just Keith being Keith.
-
I love the Stones and prefer some of their albums over some Beatles albums. I like 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' too. [...] As for Keith saying Peppers is rubbish,,,,who cares. Its just Keith being Keith.
I feel the same way. I also like Their Satanic Majesties Request though I think it's far behind the best albums of 1967. There's about eight Stones albums that I consider as essential; and actually I despise most of their stuff, especially after 1972. But when the Stones were contemporaneous to the Beatles, I think they did quality records and there's a lot to enjoy in those albums.
-
I've no doubt many would share your preferences Hombre. Speaking for myself I honestly stand by my original assertion: even "Yellow Submarine" (I DO count it!), if only on the awesome presence of "Hey Bulldog" alone, beats any of those Stones albums you've listed (all of which I'm familiar with, "Aftermath" probably being my favourite). "Exile On Main Street" will to me always rank as one of the most overrated albums in rock history.
The big difference is that even those early Beatles albums were mostly solid, terrific, energetic stuff: most tracks either hits in their own right, quality B sides, album tracks that could've been singles, great (sometimes better than the original) cover versions or hidden gems. Not much in the way of filler, which is of course what set The Beatles apart from their contemporaries (and don't forget a Beatles "filler" was often better than another group's "hit"). Whereas The Stones albums were usually two or three decent, occasionally very good, tracks padded out with filler the rest of the way. At least that's how I hear them, but each to their own of course. I'd rather listen to a Hollies album than a Rolling Stones one, by and large.
They wrote quite a few good songs but Id rather listen to next doors cat than Mick Jagger, I just dont think he can sing, imagine him trying to do Let It Be or Eight Days A Week?
and if you dont like the singer of a group you tend to bypass them, Im the same with Roger Daltry, horrible voice imo
-
and actually I despise most of their stuff, especially after 1972.
I cant say the same. I like a good bit of their post 72 stuff. Hell, I consider 'A Bigger Bang' as one of their top 5 albums ever. I like it that much. That's just me though.
-
and if you dont like the singer of a group you tend to bypass them, Im the same with Roger Daltry, horrible voice imo
Totally agree with this (well not about Daltry, but your point). Cant do CCR, Springsteen, Dylan, and AC/DC because of the same. Theres even a few Christian bands I cant deal with because of the singing. Third Day and David Crowder. I refused to go to a Third Day concert because of the lead singer and my worship team looked at me like I was an alien. Why subject yourself to something you know your not going to like?
-
My fave 4 Beatles LPs are the first four, my fave 3 Stones LPs are the first three.
1963-1965.
I can barely place a cigarette paper between any of them.
I prefer 'Out of our Heads' to 'With the Beatles', but 'Beatles for Sale' to 'Roling Stones No. 2'.
It's all about the era and, in turn, how beautifully those early British LPs were made (in mono!) and designed.
The Beatles are the Stones. 60s London. They're one and the same. Golden age.
That said, I'd no more invest in any Stones product now than I would any Paul product.
Golden age over.
-
I cant say the same. I like a good bit of their post 72 stuff. Hell, I consider 'A Bigger Bang' as one of their top 5 albums ever. I like it that much. That's just me though.
I can't tolerate the image/sound they adopted after Exile On Main Street, but I admit that I'm a biased 60's fan.
By the way, I think it's time to do some Microscopes of the Rolling Stones. When I get time I'll review some of their LPs.
-
I can't tolerate the image/sound they adopted after Exile On Main Street,
I'm the same. I believe Altamont freaked them out (they are nice middle lass boys after all) and I think they found heir "Sympathy for he devil" image had gotten way out of hand, so they became more of a "comedy" band, heir fate sealed by the departure of Mick Taylor.
But late 60s very early 70's I think they were the Greatest Rock n Roll band in the world
-
They wrote quite a few good songs but Id rather listen to next doors cat than Mick Jagger, I just dont think he can sing, imagine him trying to do Let It Be or Eight Days A Week?
and if you dont like the singer of a group you tend to bypass them, Im the same with Roger Daltry, horrible voice imo
You have absolutely hit the nail on the head. Jagger & Richards were underrated songwriters and I take Hombre's point about listening "with an open mind" but the lead singer is always the focus for me and if the voice ain't there....
I just don't think any of The Stones could sing. Hell, Mick still talks as if his voice is breaking. And he was very limited re musical instruments so papered over it with that always unconvincing if not downright embarrassing prancing, pouting, strutting and clapping. Credit to him for brazening it out I suppose. Most people would have felt like what he looked like. A prat!
I'm the same. I believe Altamont freaked them out (they are nice middle lass boys after all)
It certainly fazed Jagger. To me there was always the smack of sheep in wolves' clothing about those fey, mincing Southern boys... never the dark and dangerous Neanderthals they were marketed as. Conversely the "cuddly moptops" was, as we all know, some way away from the truth. I always felt The Stones would've been scared to play The Cavern and I wouldn't mind betting that The Beatles found The Crawdaddy Club quite posh!
-
The Pretty Things were what the Rolling Stones wished they could be image wise. Hell, musically too if you want to go that far.
-
My fave 4 Beatles LPs are the first four, my fave 3 Stones LPs are the first three.
1963-1965.
I can barely place a cigarette paper between any of them.
I prefer 'Out of our Heads' to 'With the Beatles', but 'Beatles for Sale' to 'Roling Stones No. 2'.
It's all about the era and, in turn, how beautifully those early British LPs were made (in mono!) and designed.
The Beatles are the Stones. 60s London. They're one and the same. Golden age.
That said, I'd no more invest in any Stones product now than I would any Paul product.
Golden age over.
so on the whole would you say that you prefer the 60's to any time after ?
;D
-
I like a lot of the stones stuff. They had lots of good singles and album songs (although not really particularly good albums) til around 1968. Then they had what I thought was a really good run of albums til the early 70s. After that I largely lost interest in their newer stuff with occasional exceptions.
They certainly couldn't carry off a large range of styles like The Beatles. But the Beatles had the advantage of two great pop/rock singers and a number 3 who could carry a tune ok as well. I think that will always help a bands versatility. And the Beatles influences were very wide, while the Stones grew out of that purist Blues scene. I recall a quote from Keith's autobiography that their early member and blues mentor Ian Stewart thought minor chords were for Chinese music.
Still. When the stones did their best stuff in their best style I'm happy to listen to them. Jagger was limited but could carry off certain things ok. It all hung together in a ragged way which I still find appealing. Jagger's become a self parody though.
I think also that they're second only to the Beatles in the number of songs that have entered the cultural consciousness. They could do a whole concert where even non fans could recognise every song. That's not a bad legacy.
I'll have to listen to A Bigger Bang now. Seeing stones fans do give it some wraps.
-
I may be the oddball of the bunch because I actually enjoy a fair amount of the Stones' later work. The Lp Emotional Rescue has quite a few choice cuts in my opinion (not crazy about the title track, though): She's So Cold, Let Me Go, Send It To Me, Summer Romance. Some of my other favorites are Hang Fire from Tattoo You, One Hit (To The Body) from Dirty Work, and Beast of Burden and Shattered from Some Girls.
-
I think I've said it here before, but for me their mid-90's efforts 'Voodoo Lounge' and 'Bridges To Babylon' rival any of The Stones' earlier works. I real revival of sort. Highly recommended.
:)
-
I'll have to listen to A Bigger Bang now. Seeing stones fans do give it some wraps.
I view 'A Bigger Bang' kind of like how I would view McCartneys 'Chaos and Creation'. Theres no masterpieces on it, but its a fine listen from top to bottom.
-
Brand new Mojo interview with Pink Floyd's ( who I never liked) David Gilmore who says he wished he had been in The Beatles and that he learned everything from them, to play bass,and lead guitar and rhythm from them and that they were fantastic! :) 8) Hear that Keith Richards! roll:)
http://www.mojo4music.com/21435/david-gilmour-covers-the-beatles-for-mojo/ (http://www.mojo4music.com/21435/david-gilmour-covers-the-beatles-for-mojo/)
-
http://youtu.be/fqQPKUFSaZ8 (http://youtu.be/fqQPKUFSaZ8)
-
Other than their hits "Hot Rocks" & "More Hot Rocks" (Great LPs), I've ever only bought 1 studio Stones LP: Goats Head Soup!
The Stones would be great if they were The Beatles! ;D
-
I listened to Aftermath today for the first time since gosh, probably he seventies. And it's good, very inventive arrangements.
But how can I put this - I think The Stones sound best when they are closest in sound to the black artists that inspired them. They can pull of white pop okay, but their early r'n'b and later Mickk Taylor period are to me far preferable to any number of Lady Jane's.
-
Other than their hits "Hot Rocks" & "More Hot Rocks" (Great LPs), I've ever only bought 1 studio Stones LP: Goats Head Soup!
The Stones would be great if they were The Beatles! ;D
Bang on Bongo !
The Beatles LP's were full of magic................. invented people (Eleanor Rigby, Bungalow Bill, Polythene Pam. Rita, Maxwell, Sexy Sadie, Rocky Raccoon) songs about creatures (Piggies, Octopus Garden, Martha) songs about things (Submarine, Good News Chocolates, Helter Skelter, ) childrens songs, songs about Doctors, Walrus's, Sun Kings etc etc etc
Stones had some good songs (Paint It Black) but no magic imo
-
The Beatles LP's were full of magic................. invented people (Eleanor Rigby, Bungalow Bill, Polythene Pam. Rita, Maxwell, Sexy Sadie, Rocky Raccoon) songs about creatures (Piggies, Octopus Garden, Martha) songs about things (Submarine, Good News Chocolates, Helter Skelter, ) childrens songs, songs about Doctors, Walrus's, Sun Kings etc etc etc
Indeed Kev! All that and magical sounds too. I'm thinking particularly of Mr. Kite. Of course there's much more. Oh, and a Mystery Tour that was Magical too!
-
Stones had some good songs (Paint It Black) but no magic imo
Yeah, but you could dance to Stones songs...
http://youtu.be/jp3kqMBtEkc (http://youtu.be/jp3kqMBtEkc)
;D
-
It's better, Nimrod, everything after the 60s is just the lesser stuff after the Lord Mayor's Show. The f** end, always were, always will be.
Re: Jagger and his voice being the weakest link.
Wrong, Jagger (post-60s) IS the Rolling Stones, just check out the tongue logo if you don't believe me.
If Jagger isn't the principal image, and sound, of the group, the logo would have been a guitar or an image of Keith.
Keith dies tomorrow and the group will still be touring next year.
Mick dies, that's it.
-
Bang on Bongo !
The Beatles LP's were full of magic................. invented people (Eleanor Rigby, Bungalow Bill, Polythene Pam. Rita, Maxwell, Sexy Sadie, Rocky Raccoon) songs about creatures (Piggies, Octopus Garden, Martha) songs about things (Submarine, Good News Chocolates, Helter Skelter, ) childrens songs, songs about Doctors, Walrus's, Sun Kings etc etc etc
Stones had some good songs (Paint It Black) but no magic imo
Yep. I agree. There was a certain something to the Beatles that no other band could consistently match. The Stones were very good at their best. But I do think the Beatles had something more going on than just being very good.
-
Indeed Kev! All that and magical sounds too. I'm thinking particularly of Mr. Kite. Of course there's much more. Oh, and a Mystery Tour that was Magical too!
Yes thats true Kelley, I cant imagine Mick & Keef coming up with a character like Mr Kite
-
I listened to Aftermath today for the first time since gosh, probably he seventies. And it's good, very inventive arrangements.
But how can I put this - I think The Stones sound best when they are closest in sound to the black artists that inspired them. They can pull of white pop okay, but their early r'n'b and later Mickk Taylor period are to me far preferable to any number of Lady Jane's.
I just erm 'acquired' the entire Stones discography, I might start with this one
-
Oh yeah, I took the test, and yes you can. ;D I muted the youtube video and added "The Ballad Of John And Yoko" to it and it's marvellous. icon_king
Yeah, but you could dance to Stones songs...
[url]http://youtu.be/jp3kqMBtEkc[/url] ([url]http://youtu.be/jp3kqMBtEkc[/url])
;D
-
I think that Aftermath, Between The Buttons and even Their Satanic Majesties Request have some beatlesque songs. But the best of the Stones certainly was the blues rock they did around 1968-1971.
Of course they were not at the height of the Fab Four, but I don't see why a Beatles fan wouldn't enjoy songs like these:
I Am Waiting
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLFo68-L9vI#)
She Smiled Sweetly
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwAsS9qjX7c#)
-
I don't see why a Beatles fan wouldn't enjoy songs like these:
Let me tell you then...
because it's not John and/or Paul singing them.
The songs aren't bad songs but the vocals are atrocious!!!
-
Bang on Bongo !
The Beatles LP's were full of magic................. invented people (Eleanor Rigby, Bungalow Bill, Polythene Pam. Rita, Maxwell, Sexy Sadie, Rocky Raccoon) songs about creatures (Piggies, Octopus Garden, Martha) songs about things (Submarine, Good News Chocolates, Helter Skelter, ) childrens songs, songs about Doctors, Walrus's, Sun Kings etc etc etc
Stones had some good songs (Paint It Black) but no magic imo
If it were possible to nominate a "best post" award I'd nominate the above.
Says it all.
-
Re: Jagger and his voice being the weakest link.
Wrong, Jagger (post-60s) IS the Rolling Stones, just check out the tongue logo if you don't believe me.
If Jagger isn't the principal image, and sound, of the group, the logo would have been a guitar or an image of Keith.
Keith dies tomorrow and the group will still be touring next year.
Mick dies, that's it.
No argument that Mick IS The Stones - the lips/tongue logo does indeed seal that deal. In "iconic"/marketing terms he's head and shoulders above his bandmates.
But he's still a sh*t singer. It's not that his voice is the weakest link so much as (for me personally) the lead vocal is almost always the main thing I judge a group on, and his are poor.
-
Let me tell you then...
because it's not John and/or Paul singing them.
The songs aren't bad songs but the vocals are atrocious!!!
I don't agree that the vocals are atrocious, though it's true that John and Paul are far better singers (your bar is too high). I just think that a rock music fan should appreciate other elements beyond the vocals. This is not the opera, after all.
-
I remember a John Lennon interview where he stated that he thought "the Rolling Stones became a good band when they stopped trying to be us!" I bet Keif is just messing with us all!
-
I actually like the Stones more now than when I was younger. There are a lot worse singers in rock than Jagger. I'm not sure what this magic is that the Stones allegedly don't have. If music moves me, it's magic.
-
I actually like the Stones more now than when I was younger. There are a lot worse singers in rock than Jagger. I'm not sure what this magic is that the Stones allegedly don't have. If music moves me, it's magic.
Same words.
-
I remember a John Lennon interview where he stated that he thought "the Rolling Stones became a good band when they stopped trying to be us!" I bet Keif is just messing with us all!
Maybe he needed some publicity ?
To describe one of the most important albums in the history of music as 'rubbish'.......well, he has lost his mind
Paul or John have/had more talent in their big toe's than he has ever had, he should read what more talented people than him (like Elvis Costello or Neil Young or Neil Diamond) think of Pepper
I remember when Mick Taylor first jammed with The Stones he remarked on how crap they were (just before the Stones in The Park show)
then again its his opinion so that fair enough 8)
-
I don't know. Being pretty harsh on Keith for emitting his opinion. Maybe he doesn't like Peppers. If he doesn't like it, I'm sure it is rubbish to him. I don't like Queen, Dylan, and Springsteen albums. I think they are all rubbish, but that's just me.
As for Keith not having talent compared to John and Paul,,,he can play the guitar better then either one of them (http://advrider.com/styles/advrider_smilies/ne_nau.gif)
-
I don't know. Being pretty harsh on Keith for emitting his opinion. Maybe he doesn't like Peppers. If he doesn't like it, I'm sure it is rubbish to him. I don't like Queen, Dylan, and Springsteen albums. I think they are all rubbish, but that's just me.
As for Keith not having talent compared to John and Paul,,,he can play the guitar better then either one of them ([url]http://advrider.com/styles/advrider_smilies/ne_nau.gif[/url])
read my last sentence
dont agree about the guitar playing, Paul much better
-
I like Keith's rhythm playing a lot more than his lead playing. A lot of people don't remember that he was their lead player early on.
-
No argument that Mick IS The Stones - the lips/tongue logo does indeed seal that deal. In "iconic"/marketing terms he's head and shoulders above his bandmates.
True, if Keith left the Stones , they could still tour, but you couldn't go see the Tour without Mick singing!
-
True, if Keith left the Stones , they could still tour, but you couldn't go see the Tour without Mick singing!
...that's why I'd never go see the Tour!
;) 8)
-
dont agree about the guitar playing, Paul much better
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree here.
-
I actually like the Stones more now than when I was younger. There are a lot worse singers in rock than Jagger. I'm not sure what this magic is that the Stones allegedly don't have. If music moves me, it's magic.
Thats a fair comment mate , I suppose what I meant was that I really like loads of bands that really do move me, I love bands like The Kinks and America and Pink Floyd, but although they all move me they dont have the X factor that the fabs had, each album after RS had what I thought of as magical qualities, all the fictitious people they invented, all the new sounds they invented, The Beatles were pioneers, leaders of the day in style and in music, no-one knew what gems were coming next, each album a cavalcade of invention and idea's.
From music hall to heavy rock, they did it all and it was a brilliant (yes magical) time to be alive.
I remember from Geoff Emericks book, "we recorded Tomorrow Never Knows, then afterwards I had a cup of tean and some nice biscuits"..........like an accountant that had had a normal day at the office. ;D
-
I don't think that the Stones would still tour without Keith Richards; it would be like the Who without Pete Townshend or the Beatles without Lennon or McCartney.
-
Agreed. Mick would be out there with his own band, with the others dropping in occasionally. And then a grand "reunion" once in awhile, a la the Dead's "Fare Thee Well" stunt.
Lots of mileage in those boys yet. "100 And Counting."
:P
-
I don't think that the Stones would still tour without Keith Richards; it would be like the Who without Pete Townshend or the Beatles without Lennon or McCartney.
I know what you mean Hombre but "Queen" still have the cheek to play live (as Queen!) despite the death of Freddie Mercury and the consequent (and creditable, in my opinion) departure of John Deacon. Really, Roger Taylor and Brian May could have the good grace to demote themselves to "Princess" or even "Lady In Waiting" or something but no, they go out there bold as brass as QUEEN. I mean, Queen without Freddie Mercury? Come off it!!
Same with Slade, now touring as Dave Hill (lead guitar) and Don Powell (drums) with a couple of makeweights standing in for lead singer/front man Noddy Holder and co-writer/bassist/multi instrumentalist Jim Lea. It's like George and Ringo having the nerve to tour as "The Beatles".
Ridiculous!!!!
-
Thats a fair comment mate , I suppose what I meant was that I really like loads of bands that really do move me, I love bands like The Kinks and America and Pink Floyd, but although they all move me they dont have the X factor that the fabs had, each album after RS had what I thought of as magical qualities, all the fictitious people they invented, all the new sounds they invented, The Beatles were pioneers, leaders of the day in style and in music, no-one knew what gems were coming next, each album a cavalcade of invention and idea's.
From music hall to heavy rock, they did it all and it was a brilliant (yes magical) time to be alive.
I remember from Geoff Emericks book, "we recorded Tomorrow Never Knows, then afterwards I had a cup of tean and some nice biscuits"..........like an accountant that had had a normal day at the office. ;D
I see what you're saying. One thing I don't do is hold up any band to The Beatles, because they will come up short IMO. I try to let each artist stand on their own merits.
-
I know what you mean Hombre but "Queen" still have the cheek to play live (as Queen!) despite the death of Freddie Mercury and the consequent (and creditable, in my opinion) departure of John Deacon. Really, Roger Taylor and Brian May could have the good grace to demote themselves to "Princess" or even "Lady In Waiting" or something but no, they go out there bold as brass as QUEEN. I mean, Queen without Freddie Mercury? Come off it!!
Same with Slade, now touring as Dave Hill (lead guitar) and Don Powell (drums) with a couple of makeweights standing in for lead singer/front man Noddy Holder and co-writer/bassist/multi instrumentalist Jim Lea. It's like George and Ringo having the nerve to tour as "The Beatles".
Ridiculous!!!!
Of course, Mick Jagger still could take the name of the Stones and tour without Keith Richards, but I think that most fans wouldn't respect that.
There are other examples of secondary members using the name of the band they had been part of. After the break up of Buffalo Springfield, drummer Dewey Martin formed a new group (without Stills, Young and Furay) using the same name. The Yardbirds still exist as a band with drummer Jim McCarty as the only original member (none of the three guitar heroes is there).
Mick Jagger is a main member of the Stones, of course, but the band is too big to be carried just by his name. I don't see him touring as the Stones with other musicians.
-
To absolute love The Beatles and absolutely loathe The Rolling Stones, or vice versa, is to absolutely misunderstand the era that both groups arose from.
I've never encountered a person who actually lived through the era (born 30s/40s) who held such entrenched views.
-
I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who loves one and loathes the other either. What I find most irritating is the tiresome comparison as though they were fairly equal heavyweights from their era. Let's get it crystal clear once and for all: There was a gigantic, immeasurable GULF between The Beatles and EVERY other group from the Sixties. I think it was Tom McGuinness from Manfred Mann who pointed out that The Beatles were emphatically head, shoulders, torso, groin, thighs and knees above ALL their peer groups (who should not have the cheek to dare call themselves "rivals").
So for me, although The Rolling Stones are good(ish) (but not as good as, say, The Kinks or The Hollies) to pretend they were a counterbalance to the fab four as some people do is just plain ridiculous. The Beatles transcended their era - and, indeed, music - by imprinting themselves into the permanent fabric of mainstream cultural life. Only Elvis Presley comes close to their universal, lasting impact.
People like Dylan and Hendrix were touchstones within their field but didn't influence shoe styles, haircuts, the shape of spectacles or vernacular speech like The Beatles did. The Rolling Stones certainly didn't. Ever. Before The Stones figured highly on most people's radar The Beatles were being played off against people like Gerry & The Pacemakers or The Four Seasons or The Dave Clark Five. The Stones were certainly not unique in being held up as the "alternative to The Beatles", just the most famous in a media concocted line of challengers who in reality posed no credible comparison.
-
The Beatles were the most important ingredient in 60's rock music, but they were not the only ingredient. The Beatles influenced other groups, but they were influenced by other contemporaneous artists as well. The air of the time also contributed to the success of a phenomenon like the Beatles. So I don't think that the magic of the Beatles depended only on those four heads.
Anyway, I don't care if the Beatles were absolute geniuses or just the loudest echo of a wonderful era. I just enjoy their music because of what their music is.
-
Mister M, I like your post and you make some very good points, the one point I have issue with is The Hollies being better than The Stones, I think The Stones wrote lots of hits in the 60's and beyond whereas The Hollies were never great writers and tended to release songs written by others like Graham Goldman (even The Beatles), this make them lesser artists in my eyes although I love their harmonies (which were copied by Allan Clarke and Graham Nash from The Everly Brothers) but they were hardly an original band.
The Kinks on the other hand were always original and one could argue that with You Really Got Me they 'invented' heavy distorted rock, they also wrote loads of hits (as many as The Stones) Ray was even a bit Beatleish in his writing, inventing people and places and writing about real places like Waterloo Station (every Friday night :)), It could perhaps be said though that The Stones were a more exciting live act than either of them.
Hombre what you say is also very true. ;)
-
No argument from me regarding the songwriting Kev - I've always maintained that Jagger & Richards are underrated in that department. Not in the same league as Lennon & McCartney of course - and I would rank the inventive Ray Davies above them - but yeah, Mick & Keith were good. I have to say that The Hollies did turn out a few self-penned winners ("Carrie Anne", "Stop Stop Stop", "On A Carousel" all written by Clarke, Hicks & Nash for example) but I'd have to agree they were largely reliant on other songwriters. But you're right about their sublime harmonies and don't forget I'm very much a vocals man, so most of the time I'd prefer to listen to their records than The Stones, who I still reckon couldn't sing!!!
That intangible quality of a crackling live act seems to be, as you say, where The Rolling Stones score - although I've never seen them live, I've watched televised concerts and for me they weren't as exciting on stage as The Who. But that's just me.
-
Yes Im a harmonies guy myself, love listening to The Hollies, America, CSN&Y, Moody Blues, Beach Boys etc and vocally Stones records dont stack up in that dept, I never could like Jaggers whiny voice and thats why Ive never been a Dylan fan.
I always thought the perfect front man for the Stones was Phil May of The Pretty Things, I liked his voice a lot.
Regarding The Who, same feeling as Jagger vocals Im afraid, I couldnt watch them live, I never held with smashing valuable instruments, a bridge too far for me.
-
The Beatles were the most important ingredient in 60's rock music, but they were not the only ingredient.
Ah, so you are saying they were The Main Ingredient? I always thought they were KLAATU!
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZgoS7rz3jI&feature=player_detailpage#)
Sorry, I saw an opening to post one of my favorite '70s era R&B/pop songs and I just couldn't pass it up! :angel:
-
In Britain, and certainly London, I think there's a general sense that the act who have least transcended the 60s are The Beatles.
The comparative invisibility on the shop floor shelf compared to, say, Bowie, Dylan and The Rolling Stones, not really having helped to change this feeling.
-
Sorry, I saw an opening to post one of my favorite '70s era R&B/pop songs and I just couldn't pass it up! :angel:
I'm glad you did! That's a favorite of mine, too, but I'd forgotten about it. I downloaded it as soon as I saw your post. :)
-
I'm glad you did! That's a favorite of mine, too, but I'd forgotten about it. I downloaded it as soon as I saw your post. :)
I'm happy to have assisted with your musical memories! Thanks for letting me know. :)
-
At it again...
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/keith-richards-plenty-plenty-article-1.2346653 (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/keith-richards-plenty-plenty-article-1.2346653)
roll:)
-
At it again...
Sheesh. Go away already, Keith.
-
Sheesh. Go away already, Keith.
He won't leave until every man, woman and child buys his new album. And maybe not even then.
-
At it again...
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/keith-richards-plenty-plenty-article-1.2346653[/url] ([url]http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/keith-richards-plenty-plenty-article-1.2346653[/url])
roll:)
new album publicity, get in the headlines with outlandish statements, mention new solo album
I cant be bothered clicking on that link
-
He won't leave until every man, woman and child buys his new album.
I hope he's not holding his breath. ha2ha
-
I hope he's not holding his breath. ha2ha
My ownership of Keith's solo output extends to Run Run Rudolph. Which I have on a Xmas playlist. I have no desire at all to expand my library. I think Keith is in his element in the Stones. It's where he's best experienced. ;)