Quote
Doxa
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

In your opinion.

What about the opinion of the many millions who are buying the Beatles remasters today as we speak?

Tell me who the bigger influence still is...

Quote
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).

My opinion is my opinion and it's of course as true any other opinion.

Regarding the clip, are you embarrassed of it? You should not be, George is playing beautifully and Paul is very cute. The point was the stress the difference between Doxa's clips and The Beatles. It also shows how bubble gum commercial and sweet cute soft music they got popular with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-17 15:55 by Bärs.

Quote
LOGIE

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.

I don't doubt it, actually... Because of that I intentionally picked up 1965 when the Stones really happened... But like I think I indicated somewhere along the pages, The Stones practically is 'anti-Beatles', so to grasp the Stones one needs to have a concept of The Beatles... But The Beatles stand without reference to anyone else. They created themelves.

But Logie, I know you were a young kid then: Don't tell me you don't recognize the point in those clips... I am so gaddamn fascinated of the agressive, cool, rebel-like attitude the band had in their image, look and music in 1964-65. That doesn't take anything from The Beatles away, but creates a fascinating musical world of its own. Even John Lennon recognized it...

Even here in northern Europe where freezes like hell I can still hear the 'big boys' talking about telling about the relevance of The Beatles/Stones-debate, and choosing your side defined you and your values... The Stones guys and gals were smaller group, but more cooler one... The best chicks there I heard...

- Doxa

The coolness and aggressivness of The Stones follow naturally from the music played, and so did the cuteness of The Beatles follow from their cute children-friendly music. We must remember that beatlemania was a movement for very young kids going to concerts with their mum and a teddy bear.

The marketing of The Stones as dangerous and "anti-Beatles" was certainly a smart move to identify them to the general public, but as the rebellious band they were they created themselves by simply being themselves and playing their music. I think their attityd was inherent, not created, even though their manager of course did everything he could to stir up things. I mean, it's not possible for any manager to make George, Paul and Ringo appear "dangerous". Lennon though was in a sense dangerous, he sponsored terror groups and all that, but he was nuts anyway.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-17 16:22 by Bärs.

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Doxa
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

In your opinion.

What about the opinion of the many millions who are buying the Beatles remasters today as we speak?

Tell me who the bigger influence still is...

Perhaps my 'message' is somewhere lost along the waves of this thread, but I just wanted to point out the difference between those incredible bands. What makes The Stones great is not what makes The Beatles great. Of course, The Beatles is much more popular - always have been - and that's okay. Seemingly they resonate much better to the taste of the masses. And it is not difficult to like both bands - like I think quite many here do. My aim here is just point out the extraordinarity of the Stones, this time compared to that Liverpool gang.

- Doxa

Quote
Bärs

Quote
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).

My opinion is my opinion and it's of course as true any other opinion.

Regarding the clip, are you embarrassed of it? You should not be, George is playing beautifully and Paul is very cute. The point was the stress the difference between Doxa's clips and The Beatles. It also shows how bubble gum commercial and sweet cute soft music they got popular with.

Of course I'm not embarassed by the clip...why should I be? It's a beautiful rendition of an old chestnut that is sung and played magnificently.

So why call it "bubble gum pop"? It's not even a pop song for chrissakes!

Do you know what bubble gum pop actually is?

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
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).

My opinion is my opinion and it's of course as true any other opinion.

Regarding the clip, are you embarrassed of it? You should not be, George is playing beautifully and Paul is very cute. The point was the stress the difference between Doxa's clips and The Beatles. It also shows how bubble gum commercial and sweet cute soft music they got popular with.

Of course I'm not embarassed by the clip...why should I be? It's a beautiful rendition of an old chestnut that is sung and played magnificently.

So why call it "bubble gum pop"? It's not even a pop song for chrissakes!

Do you know what bubble gum pop actually is?

A lot of semantics going on here I see.

Personally I get bored to death when listening to The Beatles. It's actually hard for me to understand that you can have an emotional relation to both bands, because they are SO different. And the whole controversy Beatles verses Stones is of course stupid. It simply indicates how great they did their marketing in the sextees that it has become one of the great myths in popular culture. They were two products created by experts in music industry, and they can only be compared regarding the amount of money they generated. That's the only thing that matters in the end since we are talking about show biz.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-17 17:52 by Bärs.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
LOGIE

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.

I don't doubt it, actually... Because of that I intentionally picked up 1965 when the Stones really happened... But like I think I indicated somewhere along the pages, The Stones practically is 'anti-Beatles', so to grasp the Stones one needs to have a concept of The Beatles... But The Beatles stand without reference to anyone else. They created themelves.

But Logie, I know you were a young kid then: Don't tell me you don't recognize the point in those clips... I am so gaddamn fascinated of the agressive, cool, rebel-like attitude the band had in their image, look and music in 1964-65. That doesn't take anything from The Beatles away, but creates a fascinating musical world of its own. Even John Lennon recognized it...

Even here in northern Europe where freezes like hell I can still hear the 'big boys' talking about telling about the relevance of The Beatles/Stones-debate, and choosing your side defined you and your values... The Stones guys and gals were smaller group, but more cooler one... The best chicks there I heard...

- Doxa

Sadly, there will always be kids naieve (and stupid) enough to have his/her entire musical world defined by just one band, at the exclusion of every other, and I'm sure that the Stones, the Kinks, or even Motown music, provided sufficient succour to those seeking refuse from the Beatles phenomenon; but that is about the only extent to which the Stones could ever be described as "anti-Beatles".

The fact of the matter is that both the Beatles and Stones were pioneers of rock/pop music in the sixties, each following a similar untrodden path, both building upon strong american influences, and both of them with the personality to stamp their own sound on anything that they did.

Of course, they sounded different, but they were NOT mutually exclusive.

Yes, the Beatles had more variety in their type of delivery, a wider range of material, more harmonies, different vocalists and a very unusual rhythm section, but they could rock harder than ANYONE at the time, when they wanted to.

Try listening to any live version of "You Can't Do That", if you don't believe me.

I don't buy this myth that the Beatles and the Stones were pioneers. They did NOTHING that hadn't been done before.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs

Quote
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).

My opinion is my opinion and it's of course as true any other opinion.

Regarding the clip, are you embarrassed of it? You should not be, George is playing beautifully and Paul is very cute. The point was the stress the difference between Doxa's clips and The Beatles. It also shows how bubble gum commercial and sweet cute soft music they got popular with.

Of course I'm not embarassed by the clip...why should I be? It's a beautiful rendition of an old chestnut that is sung and played magnificently.

So why call it "bubble gum pop"? It's not even a pop song for chrissakes!

Do you know what bubble gum pop actually is?

A lot of semantics going on here I see.

Personally I get bored to death by listening to The Beatles. It's actually hard for me to understand that you can have a emotional relation to both bands, because they are SO different. And the whole controversy Beatles verses Stones is of course stupid. It simply indicates how great they did their marketing in the sextees that it has become one of the great myths in popular culture. They were two products created by experts in music industry, and they can only be compared regarding the amount of money they generated. That's the only thing that matters in the end since we are talking about show biz.

The music of both the Beatles and the Stones did all the talking for them. They didn't need much at all in terms of marketing.

In Russia especially, where there was no marketing of the Beatles whatsover, along with a prolonged anti-Beatles propaganda campaign by the government, the Fab Four became bigger in that country than anywhere else in the world.

And to this day, still are.

Quote
Bärs
I don't buy this myth that the Beatles and the Stones were pioneers. They did NOTHING that hadn't been done before.

Name 10 decent albums before 1963.

Oh and while you're at it, see if you can find any instances where bands played in major tours of stadiums/arenas.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Doxa
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

In your opinion.

What about the opinion of the many millions who are buying the Beatles remasters today as we speak?

Tell me who the bigger influence still is...

Perhaps my 'message' is somewhere lost along the waves of this thread, but I just wanted to point out the difference between those incredible bands. What makes The Stones great is not what makes The Beatles great. Of course, The Beatles is much more popular - always have been - and that's okay. Seemingly they resonate much better to the taste of the masses. And it is not difficult to like both bands - like I think quite many here do. My aim here is just point out the extraordinarity of the Stones, this time compared to that Liverpool gang.

- Doxa

And now look at how commerical the Stones have become!!!

"Till there was you" was not written by them and was slotted in for obvious reasons.

Gentle tracks such as "Michelle", "Love me do" and "As tears go by", "Lady Jane" are a large part of the reason I love these two bands most. Their adaptibility along with their awareness of what was happening around them musically was part of their great talents.

Lyrically the Stones were perhaps heavier when they started penning overall - but let's face it - the Beatles had already released "Rubber Soul" by then and were carrying rock/pop music - whatever you wanna call it by the balls.

The Stones at this point had not even released an album of their own material and had basically released "The last time", "Satisfaction" and "Get off of my cloud" as hit singles worldwide.

I mean compare the lame opening from "Stupid girl" or "Mother's little helper" with the likes of "She said she said" or "Tomorrow never knows" or "Ticket to ride" Or "Rain" with "What to do". Or "Paperback writer" with "Take it or leave it".

And as for musical vision etc, George used sitar on that little brilliant ditti "Norwegian wood" and then six months later guess what shows up on "Paint it black"?.

Songs such as "In my life" are also hardly bubblegum.

As for Beatles not being or sounding American, their version of "Roll of Beethoven" kills the Stones but "Carol" the Stones has it over the Beatles for me. "Dizzy Miss Lizzy", "Rock n roll music" - killer versons. And Holly's "Words of love" is a real smooth eeelectric geetar ride.

Great post Squando!!!!

Part of it is removing emotion and personal taste and evaluating from purely a historical point of view.

And it still boggles the mind why folks can't be fans of both bands. They were certainly fans of each other's music!

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs
I don't buy this myth that the Beatles and the Stones were pioneers. They did NOTHING that hadn't been done before.

Name 10 decent albums before 1963.

Oh and while you're at it, see if you can find any instances where bands played in major tours of stadiums/arenas.

I see the big picture. Popular music, the industry as we know it, has been around since about 1860. The Beatles and the Stones were just the most successful products of their generation, with beatlemania being a sociological phenomenon lasting for a few years in a very special historical context. From an objective point of view there is nothing mindblowing with the music the Beatles played, compared to what have been done i the western tradition since the beginning of polyphony in the early middle ages. Their product, created by a lot of people in the studio, record company, management etc., has one goal, and that is to sell as much as possible. That's why popular music always sells a fashoin, an attitude, or an identity rather than music. It's very telling that the Stones are famous for their looks and attitude (Keith the coolest man on earth etc) but people don't buy their records or know the truly great music they have made. The Beatles are the symbol for the myth of the extremely hyped sixties. Of course they sell, but don't confuse high record sales with musical influence or objective musical value. Who played sitar, cowbell or zither on record first are curiosities without significance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-18 13:14 by Bärs.

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs
I don't buy this myth that the Beatles and the Stones were pioneers. They did NOTHING that hadn't been done before.

Name 10 decent albums before 1963.

Oh and while you're at it, see if you can find any instances where bands played in major tours of stadiums/arenas.

And huge crowds were definitely nothing new when the Beatles toured. I recently read that Caruso made huge outdoor concerts (40 000 in Heaton Park and 50 000 in Central Park) in the beginning of the last century. That's normal numbers for stadium concerts today.

Bars your missing the boat chappie, we are talking about Rock music. Yes, the writers of classical were the rock stars of their times. But Rock music created a new phenomena that was world wide on a scale not seen before. And involved the youth. What was pioneering? Well so many things for rock. And this is why many music scholars look to the Beatles music and postulate that they will undoubtably be classics fifty to a hundred years from now, much like Beethoven. But the other interesting historical perspective is that the entire sixties was a pivotal time in modern history, from both a geopolitical point of view and a cultural. In one way your argument is especially insightful when you compare the trend to ancient greece and the explosion of political awareness and experimentation. History is, after all a spiraling continuum that repeats it self. Hence those who fail to understand history are destined to repeat its mistakes.
Anyhow, The Beatles and many of the other groups had a very large influence of changing the perspective of the youth to question society's rigidity. The sixties was not hype, but a logical post war WW II response to society's evolution. It was messy, scary (Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, rioting, and urban decay) and bright with new thinking about the morals of sexuality, freedom of choice, and political action on a scale not seen before.

Quote
whitem8
Bars your missing the boat chappie, we are talking about Rock music. Yes, the writers of classical were the rock stars of their times. But Rock music created a new phenomena that was world wide on a scale not seen before. And involved the youth. What was pioneering? Well so many things for rock. And this is why many music scholars look to the Beatles music and postulate that they will undoubtably be classics fifty to a hundred years from now, much like Beethoven. But the other interesting historical perspective is that the entire sixties was a pivotal time in modern history, from both a geopolitical point of view and a cultural. In one way your argument is especially insightful when you compare the trend to ancient greece and the explosion of political awareness and experimentation. History is, after all a spiraling continuum that repeats it self. Hence those who fail to understand history are destined to repeat its mistakes.
Anyhow, The Beatles and many of the other groups had a very large influence of changing the perspective of the youth to question society's rigidity. The sixties was not hype, but a logical post war WW II response to society's evolution. It was messy, scary (Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, rioting, and urban decay) and bright with new thinking about the morals of sexuality, freedom of choice, and political action on a scale not seen before.

Uhm, I'm not writing about classical music and I'm not definitely writing a single word about ancient Greece...

I don't believe that sixties popular music changed any minds towards anything. It's harmless unpolitical music about holding hands and having fun, or being a middle class hippie during the summer breaks from university. And all those things you mentioned (freedom of choce, liberal sexual morals etc.) have been around since... ancient Greece actually. People who grew up in the sixties might think that Big Bang happened when they were born and that people didn't know how to @#$%& or get drunk before the sixties, but it's not true. It's a myth that generates money.

Man!!!!!! Bärs the greatest invention is made in the sixties................



__________________________

Well, the old greeks did way better:

I didn't say you were writing about Greece or Classical music. I was making those connections. But what you are missing is that never before was there such a cultural movement on a worldwide scale. And this galvanized the middle class youth like no movement before it. This was the sixties that started by turning the youth onto an innocent message, but as the sixties progressed, and the veil was lifted, the movement became more complex as did the music. An exciting time of post war flowering. Turning from the old order towards an idealistic time of thought and experimentation that came crashing down from its own weight. I likened it to the Greeks, because that was a time very similar, but in a more isolated geographic region. The changes would have happened without the music from the British invasion, but it certainly wouldn't have been as fun! Or as interesting! And yes, as poignant. And it might have played out over a much longer time frame. Think about what changes came about in art and culture in such a short span of time from 1960 to 1970.

From a purely historical perspective I would highly recommend some good reading on the subject:
The Movement and The Sixties (Paperback)
by Terry H. Anderson

and a book that very much supports your hypothesis, and is very compelling reading:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Sixties (The Politically Incorrect Guides) (Paperback)

And I would recommend a slew of great political/history if you are interested.

Quote
mickscarey
Gotta agree re:bubble gum pop music. The first true "boy band"

Sweet baby Jesus. Even by your lofty standards, thats a gem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-18 20:38 by Gazza.

The Beatles were definitely a boy band, but not the first. Cliff Richard and the Shadows springs to mind and I'm sure there are many others.

Boy bands are specifically manufactured or media creations.

Neither of the bands you mention above fall remotely close to that description.

A band who played well over a thousand concerts before they ever got a record contract certainly doesnt.

Heres a wikipedia definition which is basically accurate.


In pop or R&B a boy band is a group of several young male singers. The members are generally expected to perform as dancers as well, often executing highly choreographed sequences to their own music. More often than not, boy band members do not play musical instruments, either in recording sessions or on stage, and only sing and dance. As a result, the term "band" is really a misnomer for this genre. Although there are no distinct traits defining a boy band, one could label a band a "boy band" for following mainstream music trends, changing their appearances to adapt to new fashion trends, having elaborate dance moves, and performing elaborate shows. They can evolve out of church choral or Gospel music groups, but are often put together by talent managers or record producers who audition the groups for appearance, dancing, rapping skills, and singing ability.

The acts are essentially vocal harmony groups, not "bands" as such, though there are some exceptions.


Anyone who puts the Beatles in that category is incredibly ignorant about anything to do with the history of music prior to the last five years or so and cant be taken seriously.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-18 21:44 by Gazza.

Beatles a boy band!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Man!!!!! I did want to react on this topic but I think I don't.

Thanks for the post Gazza

__________________________

Quote
whitem8
I didn't say you were writing about Greece or Classical music. I was making those connections. But what you are missing is that never before was there such a cultural movement on a worldwide scale. And this galvanized the middle class youth like no movement before it. This was the sixties that started by turning the youth onto an innocent message, but as the sixties progressed, and the veil was lifted, the movement became more complex as did the music. An exciting time of post war flowering. Turning from the old order towards an idealistic time of thought and experimentation that came crashing down from its own weight. I likened it to the Greeks, because that was a time very similar, but in a more isolated geographic region. The changes would have happened without the music from the British invasion, but it certainly wouldn't have been as fun! Or as interesting! And yes, as poignant. And it might have played out over a much longer time frame. Think about what changes came about in art and culture in such a short span of time from 1960 to 1970.

The problem is that every generation is rebelling towards an "old order". (The Stones were considered dinosaurs and boring old farts when they were 30 years old.)

The great changes in art and music and morals happened way back in the end of the 19th century. Art and music were as avantgarde as could possible be already in the first decades of to 20th century. The pop music was actually very conservative, and that's because it had to sell to large audiences. The special thing with the post war generation is that they grew up with more money and time to spend on pleasures like music, sex, drugs, education and politics than previous generations, and that is what the pop culture of the sexties reflects. It's that easy.

(The Stones were considered dinosaurs and boring old farts when they were 30 years old.)

?

__________________________

Quote
NICOS
(The Stones were considered dinosaurs and boring old farts when they were 30 years old.)

?

!

Quote
Bärs

Quote
NICOS
(The Stones were considered dinosaurs and boring old farts when they were 30 years old.)

?

!

Now how many times do I have to ask you?

Less of the all historic psychobabble gibberish and name me 10 decent albums put about before 1963.