Quote
Bärs

Quote
Barn Owl
[..then let's see who's embarassed!

In other words you ARE embarrassed. You're so embarrassed by the Beatles being a pop band that you insult people who simply states this obvious and absolutely non-controversial fact. And this theory that they put out all those pop hits because they HAD to do it but in reality somehow disliked them is completely ridiculous. You are insulting the Beatles.

You yourself, should be utterly embarassed by your own ignorance and inability to construct anything like a decent argument aside from making biased, barbed comments about a band that you are no doubt extremely envious of. Your complete lack of knowledge, coupled with an almost parrot-like, childish insistance that the Fab Four are "a boy band" simply give the game away.

So far, you have said absolutely nothing at all, and sadly, have nothing at all to say.

This message board is a wonderful place to debate and argue intelligently and constructively, and it is on that precise premise, that you should be ashamed to call yourself a Stones fan when the only thing that you seem remotely capable of is hurling abuse at other artists in the absence of a single shred of supportive evidence.

The Clue Shop was obviously closed for repair when Gazza asked you to visit it the other day.

...come back another day.

Quote
Barn Owl
coupled with an almost parrot-like, childish insistance that the Fab Four are "a boy band" simply give the game away.

the only thing that you seem remotely capable of is hurling abuse at other artists in the absence of a single shred of supportive evidence.

Boy band? Show me where I did call the Beatles a "boy band", please.


If you call it "hurling abuse" to call the the early Beatles music for soft, easy going commercial pop music, then the problem is yours.

There are actally some people in this thread who can't write a single post without using insults or bad language.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Barn Owl
coupled with an almost parrot-like, childish insistance that the Fab Four are "a boy band" simply give the game away.

the only thing that you seem remotely capable of is hurling abuse at other artists in the absence of a single shred of supportive evidence.

Boy band? Show me where I did call the Beatles a "boy band", please.


If you call it "hurling abuse" to call the the early Beatles music for soft, easy going commercial pop music, then the problem is yours.

There are actally some people in this thread who can't write a single post without using insults or bad language.

Humiliated by Gazza, annihilated by Barn Owl, and laughed at by so many others, and he STILL won't answer my question!

Bars........he should be behind them.

What do you think LOGIE, would it be a good idea to post a you tube clip song by song from, let's say, the first five albums? We could analyse the lyrics, the guitar attack, the rhytmic pattern, rhytmic prominence, vocal expression, general attitude, commercial attraction etc. It would show very clearly that there is considerably less resistence for the listener to overcome when listening to the Beatles than the Stones, and that the Beatles in this very central aspect connect with the traditional pop music tradition in another way than the Stones. This explains the difference in record sales etc., but it does not necessarily imply that the Beatles have had a greater influence. This is what I said in the beginning. It's very simple and uncontroversial.

there's were no girls in Beatles so itwsa boy-band..

2 1 2 0

Discussion still on?

It's still harder for me not to react

__________________________

Quote
Bärs
What do you think LOGIE, would it be a good idea to post a you tube clip song by song from, let's say, the first five albums? We could analyse the lyrics, the guitar attack, the rhytmic pattern, rhytmic prominence, vocal expression, general attitude, commercial attraction etc. It would show very clearly that there is considerably less resistence for the listener to overcome when listening to the Beatles than the Stones, and that the Beatles in this very central aspect connect with the traditional pop music tradition in another way than the Stones. This explains the difference in record sales etc., but it does not necessarily imply that the Beatles have had a greater influence. This is what I said in the beginning. It's very simple and uncontroversial.

As the Stones first album and the Beatles' Hard Day's Night were both released in the summer of 1964, yes, let's put them head-to-head, taking into account of course, that one band wrote all their own material and the other produced a collection of covers, with the exception of one song.

To me, this looks like a real boy band singing hohohohohohoooooo:





How ridiculous - yeah, yeah, yeah..... ))

Quote
NICOS

Sounds like a boy band to me
Sadly I wish this was the version of Revolution from the David Frost show (I think?) with Paul and George's backing vocals.

Quote
Happy Jack

Quote
NICOS

Sounds like a boy band to me
Sadly I wish this was the version of Revolution from the David Frost show (I think?) with Paul and George's backing vocals.

Just look at Macca's face - there you see a happy jolly good fellow with his boy bands smiling face. )

Quote
LOGIE
As the Stones first album and the Beatles' Hard Day's Night were both released in the summer of 1964, yes, let's put them head-to-head, taking into account of course, that one band wrote all their own material and the other produced a collection of covers, with the exception of one song.

I much prefer the Stones record with their covers(one excepted) to the Beatles soundtrack record with the 3 George Martin instrumental numbers.

There are no George Martin instrumentals on the original album as released in the UK. That disc is important in influencing the folk rock movement with the beautiful use of the 12 string Rikenbachker (sp?). Some great writing on this disc with new chord progressions not heard in rock before.

To each to their own - even to great Logie - but I think as far as the history of pop music is concerned one can NOT diss the importance of the first Rolling Stones album. In how many pop records prior that there is a Muddy Waters number? And not just being there, it is played in a fashion nobody ever heard before. I think solely the version of "I Just WAnna Make Love To You", and taking account also its performance in their FIRST American television show (what a kick-ass choice!), is a piece of rock history; a British incarnation of the idea "blues had a baby and they call it rock'n'roll": it's ALL in that particular version. The whole album - actually - expect one funny original ("hey look,we can also make easy-listening pop music, if we like") is a of great journey to American r&b played with fresh, ground-breaking British accent. Bloody hell, that whole little album is a milestone in the history of pop, rock and blues - a sort of cross-roads of each genre. After that album the pop was never the same. As far as originality goes, NOBODY had done this before. Of course, there would be a league of r&B blues bands coming after them, but the Stones were the leaders of the movement (in the sense not being the first blues band in Britain but making it BIG, and thereby open the path for others. If you don't believe me, ask Eric Clapton or Pete Townshead). And if one is going to diss that movement, one is going to diss acts like The Animals, The Yardbirs, The Pretty Things, etc... that would lead to the emergency of such acts like The Who, Cream or Led Zeppelin, etc.

Funnily though, a while ago I just happened to read old SUOSIKKI, a Finnish pop magazine made for teenagers, from 1964. There was a review of the first Rolling Stones album, and the reviewers were amazed but confused of the album. They had heard that is the hottest thing in UK now, but they couldn't "grasp" the music, because they hadn't heard anything similar to it. And of course, it was mostly compared to the Beatles who were a kind of criteria what pop should sound like. I think it didn't sold many copies here, but to quote the infamous cliche of Velvet Underground - each album sold - not to mention the pictures of Brian Jones covering the walls of teenage girls' rooms - would produce at least one garage band...

Shit, let the facts speak:





- Doxa



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-23 11:40 by Doxa.

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Bärs
What do you think LOGIE, would it be a good idea to post a you tube clip song by song from, let's say, the first five albums? We could analyse the lyrics, the guitar attack, the rhytmic pattern, rhytmic prominence, vocal expression, general attitude, commercial attraction etc. It would show very clearly that there is considerably less resistence for the listener to overcome when listening to the Beatles than the Stones, and that the Beatles in this very central aspect connect with the traditional pop music tradition in another way than the Stones. This explains the difference in record sales etc., but it does not necessarily imply that the Beatles have had a greater influence. This is what I said in the beginning. It's very simple and uncontroversial.

As the Stones first album and the Beatles' Hard Day's Night were both released in the summer of 1964, yes, let's put them head-to-head, taking into account of course, that one band wrote all their own material and the other produced a collection of covers, with the exception of one song.

Since that was not the question, I suppose the answer is no. Of course, the question was more of an invitation for certain people to actually listen to what kind of songs there are on those Beatles albums. For every rocker there is a handful of love ballads. And yes, they played som uptempo rock'n'roll standards from the fifties. So what, that was hardly groundbreaking stuff since the rock'n'roll movement was the beginning of modern pop music.

That is what I find disturbing. The Beatles, and every other british band, copied everything from existing primarily black genres and artists. So who were the REAL inventors? The Beatles simply picked the best of everything with a commercial appeal and sold it to a young and inexperienced white audience and got all the fame and success. Later they transformed this music to some sort of art music for pseudo-intellectuals, who deeply and truly believe that everyting they did was a revelation of brilliance that followed a big plan. That's why I think the worship and over-analysing of the Beatles is ridiculous and not in proportion to what they actually did, which of course is not the Beatles' fault.

The Stones and other british bands did the same of course. But the Stones presented stuff that was much more obscure and non-commercial and they played that music with true passion while constantly praising their black blues mentors. In that case I see the Stones as an authentic and important part of the blues tradition. In Shine a Light we could see that this particular part of the Stones' identity is still alive and well.

Thought this thread was concerning "who made the bigger mark on today's music."

I am frequently around today's young artists in Los Angeles and New York and more of them mention The Beatles as an influence or pinnacle in their minds. From the minute they appeared on Ed Sullivan, The Beatles were adored by the MASSES.

I preferred the music of The Rolling Stones then and now. But the fact is The Beatles started it all off. They hit the marketplace FIRST and led "The British Invasion."

Quote
stonesrule
Thought this thread was concerning "who made the bigger mark on today's music."

I am frequently around today's young artists in Los Angeles and New York and more of them mention The Beatles as an influence or pinnacle in their minds. From the minute they appeared on Ed Sullivan, The Beatles were adored by the MASSES.

I preferred the music of The Rolling Stones then and now. But the fact is The Beatles started it all off. They hit the marketplace FIRST and led "The British Invasion."

You are absolutely right if the question is solely by naming the band of bigger influence - which is boring beacuse everybody knows the right answer in a grand scale. But what makes the issue interesting is the different impact made by the bands. These Beatles fans here seem to be some kind of relativists; nothing really matters if the impact in any sense is that matters. But I personally think - and I'm not the only one fortunately - this is not the only truth. It does matter how you impact. In this sense I think The Stones is much 'cooler' band than the Beatles ever was. The Stones were the band who 'matured' - that's a bad word to describe The Stones actually - the whole idea what made rock music as blues-based, aggressive, cool thing. The Stones were the pioneers in the very style of rock music is all about. They rocked their way through the fame. No compromises. And this is the very image The Stones STILL has. You know "sex, drugs and rock'n'roll" - what's the reference we have for that? The Stones.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
You know "sex, drugs and rock'n'roll" - what's the reference we have for that? The Stones.

Hm,right Doxa,but regarding some recent thread removements "iorr"left,even here.
And even here there might be some to doubt this,too...

Sorry to disturb the debate,go ahead...

Quote
Barn Owl


(1) Remember that it was YOU who were making negative comparisons with the Stones material, saying that it was pop music by comparison.

(2) In which case, you've obviously overlooked the fact that the first ELEVEN tracks on that Beatles compilation were released before the Stones had even put out their first album; which would help explain why some of those same tracks lack the maturity that you no doubt crave from your sixties bands.

(3) And whilst we're on the subject of maturity, please note too, that by the time of the Stones' first self-penned single (The Last Time - Feb 1965), the Fab Four were putting out the likes of Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man and In My Life. They were in a different class, sunshine!

(4) Oh, and while you're on your high horse, have a rough count of how many tracks the Stones put on to Forty Licks from that same 1962-66 era.

...then let's see who's embarassed!

The replies:

(1) I do because the Beatles do sound in a grand scale quite easy listening pop music. I would compare them to Simon&Garfunkel, The Eagles and ABBA in their ability found very catchy melodies. Some hard-rocking piece - "Helter Skelter", etc - here and there, is as an oddity in Beatles catalogue as "Lady Jane" is in Rolling Stones catalogue. The bulk of the material made by each band lies in somewhere else - everyone knows that - but some Beatles fans want to relativize this simple fact.

(2) Even the "eleven tracks" is not right (seven actually), but it doesn't matter really. See my post of the significance of The Rolling Stones first album.

(3) There is nothing in "The Last Time" as there is not in, say, "Jumpin' Jack Flash" or "Honky Tonk Women" that implies to myself to think that the Beatles pop songs you mentioned are in a "different class". At least if the latter is meant in qualitywise. I can understand that you like The Beatles more than you do The Stones, but I take that mean that you don't actually grasp what is so GREAT in the music of the Stones. If you want 'mature music', why don't listen to Celine Dion (that was humour, sorry). In fact, the songs you mentioned - even though it doesn't matter really - were released quite after "The Last Time".

(4) I cannot grasp the point. But seemingly, if you make a greatest hits album, a band with a career of 40 years might cover the time of three-four years differenly than a band of 10 years.

- Doxa, a dedicated Rolling Stones fan



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-23 21:01 by Doxa.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Doxa
You know "sex, drugs and rock'n'roll" - what's the reference we have for that? The Stones.

Hm,right Doxa,but regarding some recent thread removements "iorr"left,even here.
And even here there might be some to doubt this,too...

Sorry to disturb the debate,go ahead...

I was just about to write into "Show your Stones creditentials" thread that my creditentials is to defend The Stones in IORR "Beatles vs. Stones influence" thread, but seemingly the thread is gone... Perhaps something related to the theme you..hmmm... referred...

- Doxa

who made the bigger mark on today's music?

Unfortunately, chumps like Nirvana, rappers, pop tarts (Britney and that bunch), boy bands, and electronic disco/house are making this biggest mark on today's "music".

Crank up a guitar to 11, gimme some bad attitude and songs about fast cars, faster women, and partying. That's what I'm lookin' for.

Doxa, your post above is great re sex, drugs and rock and roll. Hooray! Personally, I appreciate the impact of the Beatles but The Stones CDs are what I LISTEN to on a daily basis.

Quote

I was just about to write into "Show your Stones creditentials" thread that my creditentials is to defend The Stones in IORR "Beatles vs. Stones influence" thread, but seemingly the thread is gone... Perhaps something related to the theme you..hmmm... referred...

- Doxa

Doxa, I found the Stones credential thread at this url:
[www.iorr.org]

(3) And whilst we're on the subject of maturity, please note too, that by the time of the Stones' first self-penned single (The Last Time - Feb 1965), the Fab Four were putting out the likes of Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man and In My Life. They were in a different class, sunshine!

Before Beatles put out Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man and In My Life, Stones had put out songs like Satisfaction and Get of My Cloud which are far better than the above mentioned Beatles songs (which in principle are easy going pop songs).

Quote
mtaylor
(3) And whilst we're on the subject of maturity, please note too, that by the time of the Stones' first self-penned single (The Last Time - Feb 1965), the Fab Four were putting out the likes of Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man and In My Life. They were in a different class, sunshine!

Before Beatles put out Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man and In My Life, Stones had put out songs like Satisfaction and Get of My Cloud which are far better than the above mentioned Beatles songs (which in principle are easy going pop songs).

Exactly. It would be funny if someone could argue that any of those songs, starting from "Norwegian Wood" had a bigger impact in the history of modern pop or rock than "Satisfaction"... be my guest, all you "sunshines".

- Doxa

Quote
Bärs

The Stones and other british bands did the same of course. But the Stones presented stuff that was much more obscure and non-commercial and they played that music with true passion while constantly praising their black blues mentors. In that case I see the Stones as an authentic and important part of the blues tradition. In Shine a Light we could see that this particular part of the Stones' identity is still alive and well.

I think what Bärs says here is something of very importance. No matter how much the Beatles is influenced by, say, American black music, that doesn't really come through from their actual music (in the sense of we could really recognize they are giving homage, etc.). The Beatles, if anything, is as an act of its own; all the references just go to the naive idea of "John is a genious", "Paul is a genius", etc. There is no actual reference to anyone else than to themselves. It is typical that when The Beatles covered Chuck Berry, they covered two of his best known songs ("Roll Over Beethoven", "Rock&Roll Music"), while The Stones - actual Berry hardcore fans - covered quite obscure songs that are today famous more because of them than Berry ("Around and Around", "Carol", "Little Queenie", "Down The Road Apiece", etc.) Over-all, The Stones, contrary, always seemed to refer to musical world that is beyond the grasp of their audiences. The Stones opened the world of the blues into pop audiences, while the Beatles were just giving lessons of their own self-importance. It is a plain lie if someone claims that one would "learn" black music through Beatles. No one ever did, and no one will ever do. Just ask Muddy Waters. The Stones have always been a window into great original music; The Beatles, contrary, have always been just goddamn genre pickers - and in the end it is just plainly the ego play of John or Paul or George that really interests the fans. If I'd been a Beatles fan I would have never got to know who Muddy Waters, or Robert Johnson, is. Thanks to the Stones I did.

- Doxa



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-24 13:04 by Doxa.

to paraphrase a certain XBeatle:

"I WON'T be Singing 'She Loves You' when I'm 40"
and I don't think Mick will be singing "Satisfaction" either ...

The rawness, the darkness, the sexappeal already from early on and which is the basic formula in Stones music.
This was Stones biggest impact, which has inspired all non pop groups further on.
This is also the big diference between Stones and Beatles.

Quote
mtaylor
The rawness, the darkness, the sexappeal already from early on and which is the basic formula in Stones music.
This was Stones biggest impact, which has inspired all non pop groups further on.
This is also the big diference between Stones and Beatles.

That's the thing Andrew Loog Oldham discovered when he saw The Stones first time. He, first, tried to transform the band into more standard pop style by "Beatleing" them - look- and musicwise (stupid suits, a poppish, commercial Berry song as a first single, then a crappy pop song which they - fortunately - transformed into raw r&b masterpiece) - but then realized that the power is in their natural rawness; the thing he saw in Richmond. The rest is history.

- Doxa

Quote
LOGIE
As the Stones first album and the Beatles' Hard Day's Night were both released in the summer of 1964, yes, let's put them head-to-head, taking into account of course, that one band wrote all their own material and the other produced a collection of covers, with the exception of one song.

A Hard Day's Night, yes. I think Lennon and McCartney had been writing songs for at least six years when they recorded A Hard Days Night. They came up with stuff like I Should Have Known Better, If I Fell, I Am Happy Just To Dance With You, and And I Love Her. Some lyrics:

"I should have known better with a girl like you,
That I would love everything that you do,
And I do, hey hey, and I do.
Whoa, whoa, I never realised what a kiss could be,
This could only happen to me,
Can't you see, can't you see?
That when I tell you that I love you, oh,
You're gonna say you love me too hoo hoo
Hoo hoo, oh,"

"If I fell in love with you would you promise to be true,
And help me understand?
'Cos I've been in love before, and I found that love was more,
Than just holding hands."

"Before this dance is through,
I think I'll love you too,
I'm so happy when you dance with me.
I don't wanna kiss or hold your hand,
If it's funny, try an' understand.
There is nothing else I'd rather do,
'Cos I'm happy just to dance with you."

"She gives me ev'rything,
And tenderly,
The kiss my lover brings,
She brings to me,
And I love her.

A love like ours,
Could never die,
As long as I,
Have you near me."

Unt so weiter until you get suicidal.

After six years of songwriting the Stones were already working on Let it Bleed. All these comparisons...