Beatles or Stones (or Kinks? Monkees? Herman's Hermits?) (2 Viewers)

I'm amazed that The Kinks are even in the same thread with Lennon and The Beatles.

Forget The Stones for a moment...

Geesh. Hendrix. The Doors. Fercrhisssakes, Led Zep, even. :eek:

But the Kinks?

Makes me want to grab a brush and straighten out my hair...

There is no place for The Kinks next to The Beatles.

Not on my shelf. They belong in the hair care section.

Next to the gel. Or the Mrs.' curling iron...
 
What's that song they always play on the classic rock stations around Christmas time? Father Christmas? ... gimme your money ...

I don't know ... the Kinks are all right. Definitely in the right ball park when you break it down to either coming from the Pat Boone camp or the Elvis camp.
 
mjp said:
Ah, I know those!

That makes four. ;)
Click to expand...

I kind of think you're pulling our legs. Your my age & used to be a musician and you never heard Kink songs? I'm sure you'd know everyone on a greatest hits album. I'd say the Kinks along with Van Morrison's Them were very big in help creating the whole garage rock thing in the sixties which was very big in creating punk (lots of those bands covered Kinks song).

Again not a big fan but "Waterloo Sunset" is a beautiful song.

The Kinks in this thread do make sense because they were one of the top English bands from the mid sixties.
 
didn't the Kinks open for Milli Vanilli?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Slime: Waterloo Sunset sounds as ridiculous as The Soft Parade.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

And B-Ville, DON'T insult Elvis, THE KING, like that. Bad manners....
 
Billville said:
What's that song they always play on the classic rock stations around Christmas time? Father Christmas? ... gimme your money ...
Click to expand...

Christ! I hate that song!(Yes, hate IS a strong word, but it works when you mean it.)

Yet I have no real overall opinion on The Kinks. I'll give them a go because of that reason, and that reason alone. The older bands that I didn't dig as a kid tend to be the ones that I really like now that I am no longer a kid. We'll see what happens.
 
oh my dear lord, Mrs. Robinson just came on the boom box while reading that last quote. YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO GO KINKS ON ME, ARE YOU CRB????

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I've got to go to the pothead thread and piss on those dopes/right-wingers. 'scuse me for a moment, BRB.

pax
 
Well, at least Garfunkle got busted for smoking weed recently. He belongs in the pothead thread. As for Simon, whatever he SAYS.

There goes Rhymin Simon. Remember? Had it on 8-track. The machine ate it. It was an omen.

And didn't the Kinks open for Paul Simon?
 
Good to have you back, my twisted brother. I've switched from blue to black. The economy, the election, whatever. Fuck, next I'll be drinking red, white & blue. :eek:;)

How the fuck have you been? Nice thread, btw....
 
chronic said:
The Kinks are GODLIKE!

Simon & Garfunkel RULE!

There... I think that just about settles that argument.
Click to expand...

Hee Hee!:D I know you peeps aren't much for the old 'boob-tube', as my daddy used to call it-BUT- does anyone watch 'The Flight of The Concords' on HBO? Last weeks episode revolved around Simon$Garfunkle. It was priceless!
I'll only 'check out' The Kinks. I doubt that they'll take me away.:)CRB
 
:eek:

I'm running off to heartbreak hotel!

With my hound dog!

<EDIT> And oh, yeah, Elvis was bigger, still is, than the Kinks will ever be...(size matters).
 
Purple Stickpin said:
Oh, that's just too inviting. I mean, he opened doors and all that, but I'd rather disembowel myself with a dull pencil than listen to Elvis.

He's just so...god, what is it? Horrible! Ahhh, that feels better.
Click to expand...

He's one of the reasons that I still hate Christmas!
He really sounds like he's trying to imitate his-self. Elvis doing Elvis. Yea, I know it's a little bit freaky. But God Bless The KING!:eek:
 
homeless mind said:
:eek:

I'm running off to heartbreak hotel!

With my hound dog!

<EDIT> And oh, yeah, Elvis was bigger, still is, than the Kinks will ever be...(size matters).
Click to expand...

I can't argue that. Elvis is the man! But that's what I'm talking about--there's really only two camps. (not counting the Woody Guthrie camp, i.e Dylan, sorry mjp) and anyone who plays the hard rock is okay in my book--even the Beatles!
 
Dude. I can't explain it without you HEARING it. None the less, ELVIS scares me in the way CLOWNS scare others. This is a personal opinion and YES I know and understand his IMPACT on American music. But shit, you wanna' talk about POP music... we can start with the big E. :)CRB
 
Billville said:
Bubba Ho-Tep // The last one was meant for homeless mind
Click to expand...

Haven't seen it; didn't know what it was; did a quick google and it looks pretty funny...seems like it got a smudge of critical success and a cult following: so what's the deal?
 
slimedog said:
I kind of think you're pulling our legs. Your my age & used to be a musician and you never heard Kink songs? I'm sure you'd know everyone on a greatest hits album. I'd say the Kinks along with Van Morrison's Them were very big in help creating the whole garage rock thing in the sixties which was very big in creating punk (lots of those bands covered Kinks song).
Click to expand...
No, not pulling any legs. Just wasn't a Kinks man. But Van Morrison, now you're talking.

Billville said:
(not counting the Woody Guthrie camp, i.e Dylan, sorry mjp)
Click to expand...
I don't get it...
 
homeless mind said:
That's obvious.

And, having never bought a book or read any news piece about him, I assume you must be quite knowledgeable. But maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...

That and being a complete asshat. Although, that could be me as well.

You are allowed to think he is fraudulent (IMO: dumb-as-a-brick thinking); as we are all allowed opinions.
Click to expand...

I don't, as I said. I wasn't alive at the time (nor for many years thereafter), and as such I really can't say I was watching the news. The notion sounded rather ridiculous, but I suppose I was mistaken.
 
Ninjerk said:
That and being a complete asshat. Although, that could be me as well.
Click to expand...

Somebody here actually makes custom asshats. Due to the shitty economy, they're being sold at a discount. You'll find it in another thread. And if you have a normal size ass, you can probably get one on the cheap. Any color you want...
 
homeless mind said:
Nobody can imitate Elvis. Not even Elvis. Come on, everyone knows that. ;)
Click to expand...

Looking at an older pocket book edited by Charlie Gillett, Rock File, there is a breakdown of top 20 hits in Britain from 1955 to 1969. (I like it when other people do the work. ;))

Beatles had 22 top 20 hits. Stones had 14. Elvis had 56. Cliff Richard, 43. Skiffle pioneer Lonnie Donnegan had 27.

So maybe the thread really should have been about Elvis Presley and Cliff Richard. The Beatles and Rolling Stones climbed up on those shoulders.
 
That's an eye opening list, but kind of an unfair comparison since the older performers had about 14 years to rack up hits, while groups like the Beatles and Stones had only five. Looking at the American top 40 lists is just as weird. But that's the people as a whole, and a good gauge of the times.

The way they segment the lists now is ridiculous. You can have a top ten "hit" in a category that about two dozen people listen to. My band "charted" pretty high (I don't remember exactly how high it got, but it was top 20 for sure) in the late 1980's in Cash Box magazine (in a "World music" ghetto chart), and we sold - at most - a few thousand copies of that record. And of course in Britain it takes a lot fewer sales to make the #1 chart spot than in America (or a lot less $$$ to the people making the chart), so it's all a jumbled bag of useless numbers anyway.
 
homeless mind said:
Somebody here actually makes custom asshats. Due to the shitty economy, they're being sold at a discount. You'll find it in another thread. And if you have a normal size ass, you can probably get one on the cheap. Any color you want...
Click to expand...

I don't think it sticks far enough out to suspend an article of clothing. I would need some way to affix it.
 
mjp said:
That's an eye opening list, but kind of an unfair comparison since the older performers had about 14 years to rack up hits, while groups like the Beatles and Stones had only five. Looking at the American top 40 lists is just as weird. But that's the people as a whole, and a good gauge of the times.
Click to expand...

I know it's unfair, and there are other lists in the Rock File series that have the Stones out front in top ten album sales from the 1967-77 era. 15 for the Stones, 13 for Elvis, 11 for Dylan, Bowie and Tom Jones (!) and the Beatles with 9.

In that same stretch the top 30 singles have Elvis still on top with 32, Cliff Richard with 28, The Beatles (including McCartney/Wings singles) at 15 and the Stones at 10.

I like lists. A 60s U.K. chart site. And a U.S./Canada top 40 site. Great places to buck up arguments. Or start new ones.

What bothers me, or confuses me, is the time frame to assess either The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. The Beatles made the charts in the U.K. in 1962, about 4 or 5 years after they began as a group. Their playing skills honed in Hamburg and Liverpool. Their songwriting skills definitely developed from there, no doubt with the help of George Martin's production. The Stones first charted in 1964, about two years after they formed. Probably the reason their first three hits were covers. Producer Andrew Loog Oldham encouraged Jagger/Richards to write because that was where the money was. So they hit their stride in 1965 or so and peaked (some say) from 1968 through 1972. By 1969/70 the Beatles were gone. So is it fair to compare the two groups if The Stones were hitting their peak about the time The Beatles were falling apart? Two entirely different groups on two entirely different trajectories. (Pompous statements, all of those.)

I like both of them. And I like The Kinks. And I like Them. And, at some point, I'd start to bring in Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Dave Clark Five, The Pretty Things and all manner of pimply white boy groups.
 
Digney, you make valid points, but at the end of it all, we are discussion opinions, not facts. I would submit that the general public is, at best, disappointing in their ability to identify talent. But that's subjective too.

Regarding the Beatles, I would submit this: the one single that most dramatically changed the future of their music; their appraoch to music in general, and therefore music in general (too a degree commensurate with your acceptance of their influence, of course), was Paperback Writer/Rain. It's a watershed mark for sure, but it sold far fewer copies than most of their prior singles, and charted lower. So, influence needn't be (and perhaps can't be) measured only by commercial success.

The number of #1 singles from Elvis strikes me as a very impressive number, but his influence was probably introduced by his second or third major hit; to my ear, they didn't change all that much over the first 10 years or so (military service excluded, of course). The Beatles changed staggeringly from year to year, and even within a year (e.g., Rain, April '66; Strawberry Fields, December '66).

But, I'm really just blowing smoke, because this is all my opinion.

Rock on.
 
I know, I just get tired of opinions really quick. If I want to work out the battle of the bands I go to the I Love Music site, search "beatles v. stones" and come up with threads/opinions galore.

Or go to the Trouser Press message board.

Opinions, yeah, lots of 'em.

Ultimately chalk me up for The Stones. (God help me for actually playing along with the game.:rolleyes:)
 
Digney in Burnaby said:
Producer Andrew Loog Oldham encouraged Jagger/Richards to write because that was where the money was.
Click to expand...
That's probably the same reason Ray Davies wrote You Really Got Me, and definitely the reason Paul Siminon wrote The Guns of Brixton on London Calling. Not really comparable as songwriters, but the motivation was the same. And that motivation is what forced a lot of musicians of that era to start writing their own songs.

The thing about the Kinks - and yes, I have heard much of their music - is Davies always sounded like he recorded his vocals after a nice warm bath. Like a cabaret singer reluctantly drafted into one of those crazy new rock and roll combos. That don't do it for me. Rock and roll shouldn't be a casual thing. In my idiot world, anyway. Even if it is a casual thing, at least make it sound like you're passionate or angry about something (see: any "rocking" Doors song for an example of how it's done).

It's all good, this olde-tymey music we're tussling over. Because a handful of motherfuckers sat in a room somewhere and made music together, in a stone-aged, organic, human way. That rarely happens anymore, so my hat is off to all the old bands. And I look forward to the day (and it is surely coming) that a generation of kids say, "Fuck you and your digital studio and your overdubs," and go steal some Les Pauls and make some rock and roll again.
 
For 6 years my brother ran an ANALOG recording studio...24 track 2" Studor, the whole shabang. He kept his head above water with long alcohol and smoke fueled sessions with the few remaining rock an roll bands in the area that cared about getting the RIGHT sound. But in the end he was done-in by the ease and cheapness of his digital competitors. But man it was fun to hang around those sessions (we shared a warehouse building...welding shop below, rock n roll upstairs). There was some guitar tracking going on that would have killed all organic matter by the volume...had to be played on the other side of several shut doors 60 feet away...only microphones and gear could survive in that room.
 
Ahh ... Analog. I miss it. I think that's the main reason music sucks today--it's all digital. Everything is compressed to death. No highs. No lows. Bland, bland, bland.(god-damned pro-tools!:mad:)
 
I once had an analog Korg synthesizer, you could raise hell soundwise with this instrument. Organic sound is what I like best. I was given a groovebox as a present and sold it... trash.
 
Purple Stickpin said:
Digney, you make valid points, but at the end of it all, we are discussion opinions, not facts. I would submit that the general public is, at best, disappointing in their ability to identify talent. But that's subjective too.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't viddy American Idol? Not into idolatry? :eek:

Purple Stickpin said:
Regarding the Beatles, I would submit this: the one single that most dramatically changed the future of their music; their appraoch to music in general, and therefore music in general (too a degree commensurate with your acceptance of their influence, of course), was Paperback Writer/Rain. It's a watershed mark for sure, but it sold far fewer copies than most of their prior singles, and charted lower. So, influence needn't be (and perhaps can't be) measured only by commercial success.
Click to expand...

That's real interesting.

How the Beatles went from one genre of pop to metaphysical music in just a few short years in mind-boggling. Damn, they were/are good. Make that great. To me, Sgt. Peppers was the turning point.

And YES, it's not just the words/lyrics, but the sound.

It sure did change the sound of music forever. It reminds me of how things shift in art. Think about the births of: impressionism, cubism, expressionism, etc. They were violent (not literally), and met with some resistance. While the Beatles didn't meet the same resistance, your point of commercialism and public acceptance rings true. At least the Beatles had enough traction, and an audience whose mind was continually expanding too, to accommodate their changes...

I am waiting for the next Beatles or Stones or Doors to get up on stage...but I am not holding my breath...as I will certainly wind up in Picasso's blue period.

Pax
 
mjp said:
go steal some Les Pauls and make some rock and roll again.
Click to expand...
Ninjerk said:
Do they have to be stolen?
Click to expand...
Well, preferably, yeah. There's a bit of larceny in all the best music.

Woody Guthrie was staying on Will Geer's couch in California for a time, and when they eventually had enough of him and kicked him out (the first of many times), he left with Herta Geer's guitar.

Bob Marley went to Europe to write songs for Johnny Nash, and things didn't quite work out as planned (though Nash had a few successful recordings of songs Marley wrote). When Marley left to return to Jamaica, Nash noticed that his guitar had left with Bob.

Sometimes people just need your stuff and they have to borrow it without your permission. It's not fun when you're the one being "borrowed" from, I know from bittersweet personal experience, but some things must happen for the greater good, comrade.
 
Does anyone want to talk about Pink Floyd???
In my oh-so teeny tiny opinion- Floyd will be looked at as one of the singular most ingenious musical contributers of the 20th century. Brilliant just isn't the word.CRB:)
 

Similar threads

mjp
Headphones or speakers
Replies
7
Views
2K
mjp
mjp
Ambreen
  • Locked
Iron Maiden, plague or blessing?
2 3
Replies
80
Views
12K
hoochmonkey9
hoochmonkey9
Short Bus
Beatles Tour!
Replies
0
Views
861
Short Bus
Short Bus
d gray
Beatles live!
Replies
13
Views
2K
mjp
mjp
Short Bus
Covid or Go home: Online live music
Replies
1
Views
971
Purple Stickpin
Purple Stickpin

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top