Tell Me :
Talk
ok, i'll bite - what is it in the other sense?
Yeah, I often hear Helter Skelter on the easy listening stations and it warms my heart.
And I love the way Everybody's Got Something To Hide helps with my calming meditation routine, bless those mop tops for giving me so much mellow music to chill out to.
SCL, I don't think you even have to go that far to prove your point.I mean, IMO your lyric example is great, but it's right our front to begin with: "I wanna hold your hand". How can you get deeper than that? What makes a lyric "Mature"? So "Be Bop A Loo La" is what?
Songs like "Love Me Do", or "From Me To You" etc, are deceptive; they are not simple at all. It's similar to Mozart; sounds like the melodies of everyone. Like they have always existed, they're so simple.
Court-jester flips again...
...congrats,mickscarey !
You are so funny...
Pop music both is a wider term (popular music) and a specific genre inside popular music, i.e. easy going commercial silly bubble gum music like The Beatles. Rock music is pop music in the first sense but not in the other.
The thing is, The Beatles never could play american music. While The Stones made natural interpretations of rock and blues music, The Beatles took the format but never understood the meaning. Like jazzplayers who believes that blues equals three chords without at all understanding the ideology och cultural context of the blues. The Beatles are basically a continuation of pure soft commercial pop music without any serious connection to blues and rock'n'roll.
Of course there is the odd exception that shows that they had some brains. Even Lennon said that the end lines in The End was proof that McCartney actually was able to think. But the overall impression of their "poetry" is that it's very superficial.
The great thing with Stones is that the lyrics are as great as the music. They can be interpreted in many ways, and even if you don't have any clue of how to interpret them they still work at a verbal level. Sould Survivor for example. I never knew what to do with it, but it is still beautifully written with the sea theme. Even really early naive lyrics Somethings Just Stick In Their Minds have great depth.
What utter nonsense. What the hell were they playing in Hamburg for years before they ever got a record contract? Chinese tea dance music?
So, to sum up - the Beatles never understood the meaning or feeling behind American music, but, yet, YOU do?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-16 17:57 by Gazza.
I swear: in those two last paragraphs I have seen more utter nonsense than in years on this board.
You don't deserve an answer with that attitude.
I'm not upset, I simply prefer a normal tone.
I know The Beatles played rock'n'roll in Hamburg, I've even taken pictures of a place they played at when in Hamburg. And I know Lennon loved Elvis and made an own rock'n'roll album 1975 (and it sucks btw), etc.
To me the true Beatles are what they did as long as they were a live act - that is as long as they were a real band. (Beatles will eventually be remembered for the beatlemania, not for poor Peppers). I just listened at their first album again and it IS bubble gum music. The difference to The Stones first album is huge. Yes, there are american tunes, but they are very very soft. And the Berry cover sounds like some Shadows demo. Their version of Money is overworked with all the background singing which simply distracts from an obvious lack of musical energy och rawness.
Yes, but they worked together for a long time before they started recording.
Now that is funny>
What is your point in showing this clip?
What about a clip of the Stones singing Lady Jane?!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-17 15:32 by LOGIE.
Incorrect:
a) Money isn't on the Beatles' first album.
b) Roll Over Beethoven (the Berry cover) isn't on the Beatles' first album.
Your opinion:
c) Lennon's Rock n' Roll album "sucks".
d) Peppers is "poor".
e) The likes of Twist and Shout, Please Mr Postman, It Won't Be Long etc are soft.
In response to points a) and b) above, you obviously need to get hold of Please Please Me which is the Beatles' debut album, then you might know a bit more of what you're talking about instead of making it up as you go along.
You must realise too, that taking pictures of an old Hamburg doorway, does NOT suddenly make you an authority on the Beatles, especially when you utter such complete and utter drivel as in points c) to d).
Doxa, the fact is that YOU WERE NOT a teenager back in 1964 or for that matter, in 1963, when the Beatles had already put out their debut album.
They'd have rocked that little world of yours, sideways.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: October 8, 2009 22:40
Quote
BärsQuote
T&A
rock music IS pop music...
In one sense but not in the other.
ok, i'll bite - what is it in the other sense?
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: October 9, 2009 03:28
Quote
Bärs
Beatles is easy going pop music that impossibly could anger someone. It's easier to listen to it from the casual radio listeners point of view than a lot of Stones material.
Yeah, I often hear Helter Skelter on the easy listening stations and it warms my heart.
And I love the way Everybody's Got Something To Hide helps with my calming meditation routine, bless those mop tops for giving me so much mellow music to chill out to.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: October 9, 2009 03:46
> It's the same generation that grew up with the Beales that still writes the official history.
GREY GARDENS deserves its own thread:
GG or GS -- which Maysles film made the bigger mark on today's documentaries?
GREY GARDENS deserves its own thread:
GG or GS -- which Maysles film made the bigger mark on today's documentaries?
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
nanker25
()
Date: October 9, 2009 09:06
Even today, there are bands influenced by the Beatles and Stones, whether they realize it or not.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:03
Quote
sweetcharmedlifeThis does'nt seem immature:Quote
BärsQuote
T&AQuote
Bärs
Beatles is easy going pop music that impossibly could anger someone. It's easier to listen to it from the casual radio listeners point of view than a lot of Stones material.
and it leaves a bigger mark
Perhaps on pop music, but not on rock music.
It's hard to understand that an adult actually could listen through a whole Beatles album in order to get a musical experience. Their lyrics are incredibly immature.
You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright alright
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All i can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright alright
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright alright
SCL, I don't think you even have to go that far to prove your point.I mean, IMO your lyric example is great, but it's right our front to begin with: "I wanna hold your hand". How can you get deeper than that? What makes a lyric "Mature"? So "Be Bop A Loo La" is what?
Songs like "Love Me Do", or "From Me To You" etc, are deceptive; they are not simple at all. It's similar to Mozart; sounds like the melodies of everyone. Like they have always existed, they're so simple.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
mickscarey
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:14
Agree that so many of their (the beetles) lyrics are immature and more intentionally approachable. Sorry, give me "Stupid Girl" or Under My Thumb over "Hold yer hand"
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
adotulipson
()
Date: October 16, 2009 13:20
My son who is 15 has no knowledge of the Beatles what so ever nor do any of his friends.
When the Beatles game came out on computer consoles a few eeks back, some reporters on 5Live radio asked if they knew who was playing and one of them thought it was Oasis and not very good Oasis atb that.
My son only knows about The Rolling Stones through me otherwise he would have no interest or knowledge of them either.
He used to like Chuck Berry who of course influenced both bands , when he was younger but not anymore,
I fear he has been lost to the xfuctor hype.
When the Beatles game came out on computer consoles a few eeks back, some reporters on 5Live radio asked if they knew who was playing and one of them thought it was Oasis and not very good Oasis atb that.
My son only knows about The Rolling Stones through me otherwise he would have no interest or knowledge of them either.
He used to like Chuck Berry who of course influenced both bands , when he was younger but not anymore,
I fear he has been lost to the xfuctor hype.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: October 16, 2009 13:38
Quote
mickscarey
Agree that so many of their (the beetles) lyrics are immature and more intentionally approachable. Sorry, give me "Stupid Girl" or Under My Thumb over "Hold yer hand"
Court-jester flips again...
...congrats,mickscarey !
You are so funny...
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
squando
()
Date: October 16, 2009 16:21
"Yeah, I often hear Helter Skelter on the easy listening stations and it warms my heart.
And I love the way Everybody's Got Something To Hide helps with my calming meditation routine, bless those mop tops for giving me so much mellow music to chill out to."
Hahahaha. Classic stuff Whitem8. Add "Oh Darlin'", "Revolution", "Long Tall Sally" and "I'm down" and you'll be snoozing off to sweetness and softness that no valium could bring you...
And I love the way Everybody's Got Something To Hide helps with my calming meditation routine, bless those mop tops for giving me so much mellow music to chill out to."
Hahahaha. Classic stuff Whitem8. Add "Oh Darlin'", "Revolution", "Long Tall Sally" and "I'm down" and you'll be snoozing off to sweetness and softness that no valium could bring you...
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: October 16, 2009 16:42
Quote
T&AQuote
BärsQuote
T&A
rock music IS pop music...
In one sense but not in the other.
ok, i'll bite - what is it in the other sense?
Pop music both is a wider term (popular music) and a specific genre inside popular music, i.e. easy going commercial silly bubble gum music like The Beatles. Rock music is pop music in the first sense but not in the other.
The thing is, The Beatles never could play american music. While The Stones made natural interpretations of rock and blues music, The Beatles took the format but never understood the meaning. Like jazzplayers who believes that blues equals three chords without at all understanding the ideology och cultural context of the blues. The Beatles are basically a continuation of pure soft commercial pop music without any serious connection to blues and rock'n'roll.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: October 16, 2009 16:46
"Well you know we all want to change the world"
That's the biggest problem, right there, Lennon writing such a line. And even worse, starting with, gee, 'you know'. IDON'TMOTHERFUCKIN'KNOWORCARE!
That's the biggest problem, right there, Lennon writing such a line. And even worse, starting with, gee, 'you know'. IDON'TMOTHERFUCKIN'KNOWORCARE!
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
squando
()
Date: October 16, 2009 17:01
""Well you know we all want to change the world"
That's the biggest problem, right there, Lennon writing such a line. And even worse, starting with, gee, 'you know'. IDON'TMOTHERFUCKIN'KNOWORCARE!"
You really gotta see someone dude. You take this sh*t way too seriously.
And Bars gotta disagree with "The thing is, The Beatles never could play american music.".
And Mickscarey the lyrics to "I'm a loser" and "You've got to hide your love away" and "Yesterday" are anything but immature. They also pre-date "Stupid girl" and "Under my thumb" which are just the same theme to a different tune.
That's the biggest problem, right there, Lennon writing such a line. And even worse, starting with, gee, 'you know'. IDON'TMOTHERFUCKIN'KNOWORCARE!"
You really gotta see someone dude. You take this sh*t way too seriously.
And Bars gotta disagree with "The thing is, The Beatles never could play american music.".
And Mickscarey the lyrics to "I'm a loser" and "You've got to hide your love away" and "Yesterday" are anything but immature. They also pre-date "Stupid girl" and "Under my thumb" which are just the same theme to a different tune.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: October 16, 2009 17:22
Quote
squando
""Well you know we all want to change the world"
That's the biggest problem, right there, Lennon writing such a line. And even worse, starting with, gee, 'you know'. IDON'TMOTHERFUCKIN'KNOWORCARE!"
You really gotta see someone dude. You take this sh*t way too seriously.
And Bars gotta disagree with "The thing is, The Beatles never could play american music.".
And Mickscarey the lyrics to "I'm a loser" and "You've got to hide your love away" and "Yesterday" are anything but immature. They also pre-date "Stupid girl" and "Under my thumb" which are just the same theme to a different tune.
Of course there is the odd exception that shows that they had some brains. Even Lennon said that the end lines in The End was proof that McCartney actually was able to think. But the overall impression of their "poetry" is that it's very superficial.
The great thing with Stones is that the lyrics are as great as the music. They can be interpreted in many ways, and even if you don't have any clue of how to interpret them they still work at a verbal level. Sould Survivor for example. I never knew what to do with it, but it is still beautifully written with the sea theme. Even really early naive lyrics Somethings Just Stick In Their Minds have great depth.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: October 16, 2009 17:57
Quote
Bärs
The thing is, The Beatles never could play american music. While The Stones made natural interpretations of rock and blues music, The Beatles took the format but never understood the meaning..
What utter nonsense. What the hell were they playing in Hamburg for years before they ever got a record contract? Chinese tea dance music?
So, to sum up - the Beatles never understood the meaning or feeling behind American music, but, yet, YOU do?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-16 17:57 by Gazza.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: October 16, 2009 18:24
Quote
BärsQuote
T&AQuote
BärsQuote
T&A
rock music IS pop music...
In one sense but not in the other.
ok, i'll bite - what is it in the other sense?
Pop music both is a wider term (popular music) and a specific genre inside popular music, i.e. easy going commercial silly bubble gum music like The Beatles. Rock music is pop music in the first sense but not in the other.
The thing is, The Beatles never could play american music. While The Stones made natural interpretations of rock and blues music, The Beatles took the format but never understood the meaning. Like jazzplayers who believes that blues equals three chords without at all understanding the ideology och cultural context of the blues. The Beatles are basically a continuation of pure soft commercial pop music without any serious connection to blues and rock'n'roll.
I swear: in those two last paragraphs I have seen more utter nonsense than in years on this board.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: October 16, 2009 18:45
Quote
GazzaQuote
Bärs
The thing is, The Beatles never could play american music. While The Stones made natural interpretations of rock and blues music, The Beatles took the format but never understood the meaning..
What utter nonsense. What the hell were they playing in Hamburg for years before they ever got a record contract? Chinese tea dance music?
So, to sum up - the Beatles never understood the meaning or feeling behind American music, but, yet, YOU do?
You don't deserve an answer with that attitude.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: October 16, 2009 18:54
You mean you just cant think of a good one? I wasnt waiting patiently on an answer so it's OK, really. 
If you think I was harsh, wait till Logie turns up. LOL.
Bit hard to take seriously a summation of their output as dismissive and sweeping as "easy going commercial silly bubble gum music".
If you think I was harsh, wait till Logie turns up. LOL.Bit hard to take seriously a summation of their output as dismissive and sweeping as "easy going commercial silly bubble gum music".
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
mickscarey
()
Date: October 16, 2009 18:57
Gotta agree re:bubble gum pop music. The first true "boy band"
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: October 16, 2009 19:33
Quote
Gazza
You mean you just cant think of a good one? I wasnt waiting patiently on an answer so it's OK, really.
Bit hard to take seriously a summation of their output as dismissive and sweeping as "easy going commercial silly bubble gum music".
I'm not upset, I simply prefer a normal tone.
I know The Beatles played rock'n'roll in Hamburg, I've even taken pictures of a place they played at when in Hamburg. And I know Lennon loved Elvis and made an own rock'n'roll album 1975 (and it sucks btw), etc.
To me the true Beatles are what they did as long as they were a live act - that is as long as they were a real band. (Beatles will eventually be remembered for the beatlemania, not for poor Peppers). I just listened at their first album again and it IS bubble gum music. The difference to The Stones first album is huge. Yes, there are american tunes, but they are very very soft. And the Berry cover sounds like some Shadows demo. Their version of Money is overworked with all the background singing which simply distracts from an obvious lack of musical energy och rawness.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
pgarof
()
Date: October 16, 2009 19:59
The thing is The Beatles wrote all their own music when they started recording and were all (except maybe ringo) very talented musicians and together they jelled well and made some exeptional music. It's not often a group of people get together like they did and write so much music, Jagger and Richard did but not until a couple of years in.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: October 16, 2009 21:00
Quote
pgarof
The thing is The Beatles wrote all their own music when they started recording and were all (except maybe ringo) very talented musicians and together they jelled well and made some exeptional music. It's not often a group of people get together like they did and write so much music, Jagger and Richard did but not until a couple of years in.
Yes, but they worked together for a long time before they started recording.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 16, 2009 21:06
The point is that if I have been a teenager back in 1965 I've said "@#$%& off" to all bubble gum music, no matter what pseudo-mozarts anyone think them being, and instead dig these guys:
and not to forget an anthem any merry round bubble safe and sure gum pop band does find in their belt:
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-16 21:15 by Doxa.
and not to forget an anthem any merry round bubble safe and sure gum pop band does find in their belt:
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-16 21:15 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 16, 2009 21:25
The point of my examples above is that what ever makes the Beatles great and jesus-like they do not have ANYTHING in them that equals to the qualities presented in those clips (that indicate very well the reasons I personally happen to love rock'n'roll). I think those clips in fact justify the very existence of the classical issue "the Beatles or the Stones?". Of course, one can love both (if one has a heart big enough), but there IS a crucial difference there. To say it other words: what makes the Stones great is something beyond the Beatle musical and performative capacity (and of course, vice versa).
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-16 21:29 by Doxa.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-16 21:29 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: October 16, 2009 22:26
Here we have The Beatles rockin' it all out live with the very memorable Till There Was You:
Really, The Beatles and The Stones are so different that it's impossible to compare them. What I don't understand is why you MUST treat The Beatles with more respect than you treat other artists. They were simply four ordinary farts from Liverpool who happened to be in the right place at the right time and had the talent to make a good career out of it, just like every other succesful act. Nothing more, nothing less.
Really, The Beatles and The Stones are so different that it's impossible to compare them. What I don't understand is why you MUST treat The Beatles with more respect than you treat other artists. They were simply four ordinary farts from Liverpool who happened to be in the right place at the right time and had the talent to make a good career out of it, just like every other succesful act. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: October 16, 2009 23:35
Agree Bars: The Beatles were more of a social force than a musical force, but being in the right place at the right time garnered them all the media attention that eclipsed their music. Their music wasn't bad, it was fun and catchy, but then....
Agree Doxa: I was a teenager in the 60's and that was exactly my experience, when the Stones started releasing all those singles and albums, I realized the Beatles
had been a nice intro, but the Stones music is what really hit home.
Agree Doxa: I was a teenager in the 60's and that was exactly my experience, when the Stones started releasing all those singles and albums, I realized the Beatles
had been a nice intro, but the Stones music is what really hit home.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
izzyanderson
()
Date: October 16, 2009 23:43
f-u-c-k both the Stones and Beatles!! It's all about Starship!
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: October 17, 2009 00:02
Quote
@#$%&
f-u-c-k both the Stones and Beatles!! It's all about Starship!
Now that is funny>
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
LOGIE
()
Date: October 17, 2009 14:42
Quote
Bärs
Here we have The Beatles rockin' it all out live with the very memorable Till There Was You:
Really, The Beatles and The Stones are so different that it's impossible to compare them. What I don't understand is why you MUST treat The Beatles with more respect than you treat other artists. They were simply four ordinary farts from Liverpool who happened to be in the right place at the right time and had the talent to make a good career out of it, just like every other succesful act. Nothing more, nothing less.
What is your point in showing this clip?
What about a clip of the Stones singing Lady Jane?!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-17 15:32 by LOGIE.
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
LOGIE
()
Date: October 17, 2009 15:03
Quote
BärsQuote
Gazza
You mean you just cant think of a good one? I wasnt waiting patiently on an answer so it's OK, really.
Bit hard to take seriously a summation of their output as dismissive and sweeping as "easy going commercial silly bubble gum music".
I'm not upset, I simply prefer a normal tone.
I know The Beatles played rock'n'roll in Hamburg, I've even taken pictures of a place they played at when in Hamburg. And I know Lennon loved Elvis and made an own rock'n'roll album 1975 (and it sucks btw), etc.
To me the true Beatles are what they did as long as they were a live act - that is as long as they were a real band. (Beatles will eventually be remembered for the beatlemania, not for poor Peppers). I just listened at their first album again and it IS bubble gum music. The difference to The Stones first album is huge. Yes, there are american tunes, but they are very very soft. And the Berry cover sounds like some Shadows demo. Their version of Money is overworked with all the background singing which simply distracts from an obvious lack of musical energy och rawness.
Incorrect:
a) Money isn't on the Beatles' first album.
b) Roll Over Beethoven (the Berry cover) isn't on the Beatles' first album.
Your opinion:
c) Lennon's Rock n' Roll album "sucks".
d) Peppers is "poor".
e) The likes of Twist and Shout, Please Mr Postman, It Won't Be Long etc are soft.
In response to points a) and b) above, you obviously need to get hold of Please Please Me which is the Beatles' debut album, then you might know a bit more of what you're talking about instead of making it up as you go along.
You must realise too, that taking pictures of an old Hamburg doorway, does NOT suddenly make you an authority on the Beatles, especially when you utter such complete and utter drivel as in points c) to d).
Re: Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?
Posted by:
LOGIE
()
Date: October 17, 2009 15:10
Quote
Doxa
The point is that if I have been a teenager back in 1965 I've said "@#$%& off" to all bubble gum music, no matter what pseudo-mozarts anyone think them being, and instead dig these guys:
and not to forget an anthem any merry round bubble safe and sure gum pop band does find in their belt:
- Doxa
Doxa, the fact is that YOU WERE NOT a teenager back in 1964 or for that matter, in 1963, when the Beatles had already put out their debut album.
They'd have rocked that little world of yours, sideways.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
AGhostTown , Boett , ChrisL , crholmstrom , cyclist , Dan , EddieByword , Idorh , jahisnotdead , keefmick , Quique-stone , resotele , spidey39 , spunky , stonesrick , Tate , tiffanyblu , UGK56 , willprefecture
Guests:
2126
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10