Beatles or Stones (or Kinks? Monkees? Herman's Hermits?) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Billville
- Start date
I missed mjp's post before, but find much validity to it. I've often thought of Paul as a broadway show song writer, gifted beyond belief. And Purple, yes, one out of 10, at most. Perhaps none. But who doesn't love, "Blackbird?" That's the one for me. Sappy, beautiful, memorable to a fault, like a tv jingle.
But I'm not sure if you can segregate songwriters and bands. Bands are bands, if they have one, two, ten songwriters. The final product is done by the band. If you're lucky enough to have JL, and a great producer like Martin, well, the stars have aligned. Once in a generation. Maybe once in eternity...
Pax
But I'm not sure if you can segregate songwriters and bands. Bands are bands, if they have one, two, ten songwriters. The final product is done by the band. If you're lucky enough to have JL, and a great producer like Martin, well, the stars have aligned. Once in a generation. Maybe once in eternity...
Pax
mjp
Founding member
I've often wondered if they listened to any rocksteady (the successor to ska and precursor to reggae) in '66, '67. That is when the bass really took to the forefront of Jamaican music, and the bulk of those Jamaican singles were sold in Britain.
Anyway, the Jamaicans were listening. They covered a lot of Beatles songs.
For rock bands maybe, but folk singers (and crossover folk/rock singers like Dylan) had been working those concepts for years.
I'm hoping that enough malt liquor will erase the memories of the billions of times I have heard Beatles songs; setting me up to re-experience them all anew. I remember being weakened by the guitars on "Revolution". And I was a damned kid. And when Penny Lane came on the radio I could not be pulled out of the car by anyone (future welder's grip). Man, to get a load of all those songs fresh. In fact, I might as well go ahead and toast-away all the other songs that came later that WISHED to be Beatles songs. A Beatlabotomy! Yes. So it all can begin again.
To be honest, other than their longevity, I've never really understood why the Stones even have a place in the pantheon of rock music. I mean, they do have some good songs now and then, but I'm not sure I've ever made it through an entire album of theirs in one sitting. There's some real clankers in between the hits. And even the hits seem cliched to me. Maybe it's just a generational thing.
A few years ago, when the Stones were playing halftime at the Super Bowl (how's that for edgy?) I remember that they were introduced as the "Greatest Rock and Roll Band of All Time." All I could think was, "Really? I would barely call them the 3rd greatest British rock band of all time."
In my mind, the Beatles are easily the greatest that ever existed. Not necessarily my favorite, but the greatest. Each of them has been relevent in their own way as an artist outside of the band. (Well, at least 3 of them have relevence outside the band.) Their catalog runs the gamut of styles. I don't think anyone will ever come close.
A few years ago, when the Stones were playing halftime at the Super Bowl (how's that for edgy?) I remember that they were introduced as the "Greatest Rock and Roll Band of All Time." All I could think was, "Really? I would barely call them the 3rd greatest British rock band of all time."
In my mind, the Beatles are easily the greatest that ever existed. Not necessarily my favorite, but the greatest. Each of them has been relevent in their own way as an artist outside of the band. (Well, at least 3 of them have relevence outside the band.) Their catalog runs the gamut of styles. I don't think anyone will ever come close.
I've read quite a bit about the lads, but I've never seen anything about that. McCartney did become friends with one Jimmy Scott, a Nigerian conga player, and his style rubbed off on Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da. Unfortunately, the better version, which is very Ska-sounding to me, was canned in favor of the version on the White Album.
The original is available on Anthology Vol 3, and is one of the best "unreleased" versions of their stuff I've heard. I never really cared for that tune, but when I heard the outtake original, I was floored.
mjp
Founding member
Demos and outtakes are often superior because they are recorded without expectations or aspirations to perfection. One day maybe they will release the hundreds of hours of Lennon's home cassettes. If only for historical reasons.
I dump on McCartney, but only because he had the misfortune (?) of being in a band with an idealistic genius punk like Lennon. You can say the same about the Wailers (yes, I eventually bring everything back to reggae), who with Marley, Tosh and Bunny were the Beatles of their time and place. Each different, each contributing something irreplaceable to a whole that was really breathtaking in its scope and influence.
For what it's worth, I never owned a Rolling Stones record, and I kind of agree with marina del rey. I never understood their elevation to legendary status. They rocked, but so did many others.
I dump on McCartney, but only because he had the misfortune (?) of being in a band with an idealistic genius punk like Lennon. You can say the same about the Wailers (yes, I eventually bring everything back to reggae), who with Marley, Tosh and Bunny were the Beatles of their time and place. Each different, each contributing something irreplaceable to a whole that was really breathtaking in its scope and influence.
For what it's worth, I never owned a Rolling Stones record, and I kind of agree with marina del rey. I never understood their elevation to legendary status. They rocked, but so did many others.
Funny thing about that outtake of Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da is that is was intended to be a final. McCartney had been working on that one for a while and Lennon was getting tired of it. After the "Ska" version was recorded, he figured it was in the can, and was surprised and angered when they next got together to record and it was still being worked on. Apparently, he was a bit "buzzed," as it were, and, fed up, he strode up to the piano and began banging on it hard, yelling "This is how it's supposed to be done!" And so, that's how the White Album version came to pass with that piano intro...
Yes indeed.
Jagger was probably the most astute marketer of his image "” hence, making the Stones relevant to a core audience over all these years. Pure genius. The Warhol of frontmen. (Making my point again, I know.)
Slimedog, calling the Beatles a pop band is either bad manners or ignorance. Put on Sgt. Peppers and tell me that is pop. That's John Lennon flexing his cranium for the benefit of Mr. Kite. Lucy In The Sky with Diamonds = Pop? Come on, bro. That's fucking absurd.
As for reggae, I've stated here already I'm a huge Marley fan. Not so much Tosh or Bunny, as I am not as familiar with their works (outside of the reggae v of Beatles). Marley was another intellect, who's star blacked out too soon, like JL. 36, I believe. There are days when I've listened to nothing but Marley - all day. Same with the Beatles - all day. Doors, too. But never the Stones.
But the Stones have earned their place in R&R immortality. After all, "endurance is more important than truth." - CB :eek:
Pax
(Note: Sympathy for the Devil is not overrated. In context, it was ground-breaking; and as far as a song goes, kicks fucking ass...still. ;))
Slimedog, calling the Beatles a pop band is either bad manners or ignorance. Put on Sgt. Peppers and tell me that is pop. That's John Lennon flexing his cranium for the benefit of Mr. Kite. Lucy In The Sky with Diamonds = Pop? Come on, bro. That's fucking absurd.
As for reggae, I've stated here already I'm a huge Marley fan. Not so much Tosh or Bunny, as I am not as familiar with their works (outside of the reggae v of Beatles). Marley was another intellect, who's star blacked out too soon, like JL. 36, I believe. There are days when I've listened to nothing but Marley - all day. Same with the Beatles - all day. Doors, too. But never the Stones.
But the Stones have earned their place in R&R immortality. After all, "endurance is more important than truth." - CB :eek:
Pax
(Note: Sympathy for the Devil is not overrated. In context, it was ground-breaking; and as far as a song goes, kicks fucking ass...still. ;))
Last edited by a moderator:
mjp
Founding member
I don't know if Jagger was marketing anything - I don't know enough about them. But if he was a genius he hid it well behind a facade of entitlement, detachment and ignorance.
Anyone who loves Bob Marley's music should read this. He had a lot of help becoming the worldwide phenomenon/shaman/brand name "Bob Marley." Talking about him without paying due respect to his musical architect is like writing the history of Bukowski and never mentioning John Martin, or the history of the Beatles without mentioning George Martin.
No one does any of these things alone.
Anyone who loves Bob Marley's music should read this. He had a lot of help becoming the worldwide phenomenon/shaman/brand name "Bob Marley." Talking about him without paying due respect to his musical architect is like writing the history of Bukowski and never mentioning John Martin, or the history of the Beatles without mentioning George Martin.
No one does any of these things alone.
I take it you're not a big Jagger fan?
As for Marley and Family Man, that's a said yarn to read. Insightful. I was unaware...
Bob must be turning in his grave, if what your wrote is correct "” his family did not do the right thing by all those he loved, those who trusted him.
Very, very sad.
Jah is not providing the bread...
As for Marley and Family Man, that's a said yarn to read. Insightful. I was unaware...
Bob must be turning in his grave, if what your wrote is correct "” his family did not do the right thing by all those he loved, those who trusted him.
Very, very sad.
Jah is not providing the bread...
Last edited by a moderator:
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is a pop song, isn't it?
I don't mean to be rude so maybe I am ignorant.
I bought a Rolling Stones album with money from my paper route 40 plus years ago. It was Got Live if you Want it and it was garbage. That and some bad associations and experiences with several Rolling Stones fans through the years I am prejudiced. The Stones have done some good songs and are great in concert- other than the recording I bought- but the Beatles are better. Wings has done some weird stuff, but the Beatles get my vote, they always have.
I don't mean to be rude so maybe I am ignorant.
I bought a Rolling Stones album with money from my paper route 40 plus years ago. It was Got Live if you Want it and it was garbage. That and some bad associations and experiences with several Rolling Stones fans through the years I am prejudiced. The Stones have done some good songs and are great in concert- other than the recording I bought- but the Beatles are better. Wings has done some weird stuff, but the Beatles get my vote, they always have.
It's my position that the Beatles legitimized so many different styles as popular music that today, it's easy to see them as pop in retrospect. But from Revolver through The Beatles, a large amount of what they were doing (read: compositionally, mainly Lennon; but many of Harrison's tunes were so far from pop as to be almost unclassifiable) was very unlike pop music of the day; in no small part (in my opinion) because Lennon didn't want it to be pop.
But it was so damn good that it became "pop" anyway. So, no, I wouldn't consider Lucy... to have been conceived as a pop song, but it could readily been seen that way now.
I don't think it's a legitimate argument to reduce the Beatles to mere "pop (excluding '62-mid '65)" when it was their very brilliance that took "non-pop" and changed the perception of music so much that it became "pop." If you follow me.
That's akin to reducing their significance because they were so significant.
But it was so damn good that it became "pop" anyway. So, no, I wouldn't consider Lucy... to have been conceived as a pop song, but it could readily been seen that way now.
I don't think it's a legitimate argument to reduce the Beatles to mere "pop (excluding '62-mid '65)" when it was their very brilliance that took "non-pop" and changed the perception of music so much that it became "pop." If you follow me.
That's akin to reducing their significance because they were so significant.
Julian Lennon's Sketch turned into song
I am not a judge, nor jury.
(Other people can decide that about your comments.)
And people here have far more musical industry than I, or ever want to obtain.
But here are the facts. Absent of the lyrics.
The song has a complex arrangement typical of later Lennon-McCartney compositions; much of the song is in compound duple metre (6/8 time), except the chorus, where it switches to 4/4 time. The song also shifts between musical keys, using the key of A major for the verse, Bâ™ major for the pre-chorus or bridge section, and G major for the chorus. It consists of a very simple melody (reminiscent of a nursery song), sung by Lennon over an increasingly complicated underlying arrangement which features a tamboura, played by George Harrison, and a counter melody on Lowrey organ played by Paul McCartney being taped with a special organ stop to give it a sound like a celeste.
Sounds like how POP songs are constructed, eh?
<EDIT>
LOVE is all you need...;)
Pax
AND OH, YEAH, WHAT IS ART AGAIN????????
I am not a judge, nor jury.
(Other people can decide that about your comments.)
And people here have far more musical industry than I, or ever want to obtain.
But here are the facts. Absent of the lyrics.
The song has a complex arrangement typical of later Lennon-McCartney compositions; much of the song is in compound duple metre (6/8 time), except the chorus, where it switches to 4/4 time. The song also shifts between musical keys, using the key of A major for the verse, Bâ™ major for the pre-chorus or bridge section, and G major for the chorus. It consists of a very simple melody (reminiscent of a nursery song), sung by Lennon over an increasingly complicated underlying arrangement which features a tamboura, played by George Harrison, and a counter melody on Lowrey organ played by Paul McCartney being taped with a special organ stop to give it a sound like a celeste.
Sounds like how POP songs are constructed, eh?
<EDIT>
LOVE is all you need...;)
Pax
AND OH, YEAH, WHAT IS ART AGAIN????????
that is excellent. truly. and I say that not just because it's the Beatles, but because she cares for music. I just hope she doesn't think music died in 1970. ;)
She loves all kinds of music. She learned to skat in the 4th grade! She fell in love with The Beatles after seeing Across The Universe. I told her I wanted pictures for this thread and helped her finish the wall today, though it was already almost complete. She plans to do the entire room with various musicians,actors and artists. But I must say, the pictures don't do it justice, standing in front of it just makes you smile. We've been geeked about all day!:)
And Prudence just came in through the bathroom window; gotta go; do it in the road is on...oh yeah, the stones wrote songs like this. and the beatles were pop...
M, I find it hard to believe that an enthusiast of your rock n roll understandings never owned a Stones record. Everyone has owned one, even if they hated them.
The reaching distillations that filled-up Stones record contained a lot of GREAT stuff. Though I do not find it stylistically comparable to the Beatles, it was certaintly "punk" enough at times (which should have gotten your attention).
Me, I wont judge any band by their impact...because that reduces them to trifling comparisons. But I will judge a band by personal innovation, exclusion and and by a demonstrated informed recklessness and detachment. The Beatles were driven by and amounted to several unintimidated creative forces (well beyong the triteness of "genius") that made the work, without excuse, that they felt had to get made...responding to no one. Most of it, though oddly "Pop" was built completely unique upon itself (or with a little help from friends).
reasonknot
Founding member
music is music
if you want to play music
you can find people to play music
if you want to play music
you can find people to play music
I want to clarify that I don't mean to put the Beatles down by calling them a pop band. I'd have no trouble calling them the most innovative pop band of all time. I was just saying that in one aspect comparing the two bands is legitimate in that they came from the same time, same country etc. but really, though the Beatles played rock'n'roll at times and the Stones pop, they were two different bands who ended up playing different styles.
Who was more influential, inovative?-sure I'd pick the Beatles. But if I was going to choose who's record to play I'd pick the Stones, just cause I like their style better which I feel is more rock'n'roll.
Pop shouldn't be a bad word-it's a style of music more than just meaning popular. Jimi Hendrix was a rock musician, but he probably was the most creative, inovative one we've had. Bob Marley was a reggae musician, Bob Dylan a folk artist. Obvioulsly we got to look beyond the catergory.
Comparing artists is a little silly unless they work in the same style of music and someone's personal choice is governed (like myself in this situation) by the style of music they prefer not the quality of the musician or music.
Who was more influential, inovative?-sure I'd pick the Beatles. But if I was going to choose who's record to play I'd pick the Stones, just cause I like their style better which I feel is more rock'n'roll.
Pop shouldn't be a bad word-it's a style of music more than just meaning popular. Jimi Hendrix was a rock musician, but he probably was the most creative, inovative one we've had. Bob Marley was a reggae musician, Bob Dylan a folk artist. Obvioulsly we got to look beyond the catergory.
Comparing artists is a little silly unless they work in the same style of music and someone's personal choice is governed (like myself in this situation) by the style of music they prefer not the quality of the musician or music.
Personally I think the Beatles are one of the most hit or miss bands ever. The thing is when they hit, they hit pretty fucking hard which allows me to forgive those misses that appear on all their albums. For me those misses mainly seem to be a lot of the post-Revolver Macca penned songs. A lot of his songs I just cringe listening too.
The Stones are great, but I think they offered a totally different side of things. They were a straight up rock band. The Beatles were in a league of their own and bands like The Stones and the Who could only really pick up the pieces after The Beatles had been there first.
The Stones are great, but I think they offered a totally different side of things. They were a straight up rock band. The Beatles were in a league of their own and bands like The Stones and the Who could only really pick up the pieces after The Beatles had been there first.
Though The Kinks in my humble opinion were better than both, in answer to your question I would say The Rolling Stones.
The Beatles pissed all over their legacy when they broke up. McCartney is a joke, Lennon was a Fraud, Harrison was a pseud and Ringo is.... Ringo. And though you cannot help but sing along to the singles and admire the trio of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, nothing the Beatles released compares to the decadent edge of The Stones. Beggars Banquet, Exile on Main St. and Let It Bleed are immense rock n' rock records. In comparison the beatles have always appeared a little tame.
The Beatles pissed all over their legacy when they broke up. McCartney is a joke, Lennon was a Fraud, Harrison was a pseud and Ringo is.... Ringo. And though you cannot help but sing along to the singles and admire the trio of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, nothing the Beatles released compares to the decadent edge of The Stones. Beggars Banquet, Exile on Main St. and Let It Bleed are immense rock n' rock records. In comparison the beatles have always appeared a little tame.
The Kinks? Really? Cool band. But not the Beatles or Stones.
And why do you consider Lennon a fraud?
mjp
Founding member
Because the Kinks are so authentic and true that their monumental accomplishments and far-reaching influence make everyone else look like a sad strip of asswipe.
Right?
The Kinks. Really. Who can forget their "rock operas"? Oh wait, I can.
I always felt sorry for the one kid I knew who liked the Kinks. I felt kind of protective of him, like you would the slightly retarded kid in class. He didn't know any better. It wasn't his fault.
Lolita Twist
Rose-hustler
If you look at it that way... isn't comparing a "pop band" to a "rock band" impossible in the end, as they're two entirely different things? Like apples and oranges, clichely, both fruit, but totally different.
Ray Davies is a genius.
Perhaps the Kinks were too British. I know they toured the US, but they were probably so relieved to come home that they never really became a part of 'the British Invasion'.
Perhaps the Kinks were too British. I know they toured the US, but they were probably so relieved to come home that they never really became a part of 'the British Invasion'.
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
In 1965 I bought a Kinks album because my older brother and sister had all of the Beatles stuff. Compared to my live Rolling Stones album the Kinks were great. I don't recall any rock opera but I didn't buy another album, at least nothing into the seventies.
number6horse
okyoutwopixiesoutyougo
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Did Bukowski hate the Kinks?
I ask this while I have .
It should be .
I ask this while I have .
It should be .
A great compilation album (sorry if this has been mentioned before but I'm too lazy to read the whole thread) is The Rolling Stones: The London Years. It includes every single they released in their best period (upto about '74 if my memory serves me) and has every B-side too (some singles had a different US and UK B-side and it has both).
The Beatles were great too in my view. I especially like their earlier more pop-orientated sound.
The Beatles were great too in my view. I especially like their earlier more pop-orientated sound.
The Kinks first nine albums are fantastic, but after to that things got very...erm strange indeed:confused:
But from 1960's-early 70's. I think the Kinks were churning out some of the best and most underated rock/pop albums in Britain. It seems most other bands at the time were bum licking the Beatles, but the Kinks had their own sound/concept that stood out from the whole hippie/psychadelia trend. It wasn't as trendy and hip, so I can see why so many of their albums aren't known so well.
I like how they managed to capture a lot of the aspects of normal British life...something many bands at the time has dismissed. Foir this reason I can see why they aren't as popular amongst Americans.
The Small Faces are another amazing band, who beat the hell out of the Stones & The Beatles.
But from 1960's-early 70's. I think the Kinks were churning out some of the best and most underated rock/pop albums in Britain. It seems most other bands at the time were bum licking the Beatles, but the Kinks had their own sound/concept that stood out from the whole hippie/psychadelia trend. It wasn't as trendy and hip, so I can see why so many of their albums aren't known so well.
I like how they managed to capture a lot of the aspects of normal British life...something many bands at the time has dismissed. Foir this reason I can see why they aren't as popular amongst Americans.
The Small Faces are another amazing band, who beat the hell out of the Stones & The Beatles.
Yep, even The Zombies 'Odyssey and Oracle' deserves a mention
Yeah, The Kinks. 'You really got me', one of the most groundbreaking and influential rock songs ever released. Then they got serious and displayed sardonic songwriting over a golden spell of albums. 'Face to Face' an album so full of wit, and clever observation. Then came a whole host of superb releases 'Something Else', 'The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, 'Arthur' and 'Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One' which took a massive swipe at the mechanics of the music business and commercialism.
From what I've read, and seen Lennon was a man full of contradictions. I think he jumped on the PEACE bandwagon and whilst his contemporaries were actively activists, he literally didn't even bother to get out of bed. Today his actions would be seen as ludicrous PR stunts.
mjp
Founding member
What do you base that on, the Van Halen cover version?
Oh, so they made 'You really got me,' determined it was not serious, then started writing more like Lennon always had been. I get it.
Thanks for clearing that up.
The kinks recorded 25 albums, but I can't name five of their songs (I can only think of two, guess which two?), and I am of generation that devoured rock, pop and top 40 music for decades. The very decades the Kinks were making records. I just don't see the "groundbreaking" or "influence." That isn't an insult to you or family. It's an observation.
