John, Paul, George and Ringo: It’s still a Beatles world, all these years later
December 10,2006
MIKE DEWEY
SUN JOURNAL STAFF

The Clash called themselves “The Only Band That Matters.”

For decades, the Rolling Stones have carried the weight of being “The Greatest Rock ‘n’ Roll Band in the World.”

But, you know what?

With all due respect to those master musicians, they could have saved their breath.

It’s still a Beatles world, and we’re all just living in it.

Even now, more than 40 years after they ripped apart the fabric of What Was, the Fabs continue to make history. George Martin — their legendary producer — and his son, Giles, have recently released a digitally remastered compilation of Beatles’ songs.

It’s called “Love” and it’s selling fast.

Of course, the Beatles always had something for the holidays. For several years running, they’d do a radio-only special that included interviews, quips, gossip and Christmas tunes. On eBay, you can find them ... luckily, I have homemade tapes.

But I was a Beatles freak from Day One.

That day being Feb. 9, 1964.

Ed Sullivan and all that noise.

My fiancee and I watched “A Hard Day’s Night” the other night and — with her pitch-perfect voice smoothing over my ragged vocals — we sang every song.

You could say that we’re fossilized remnants of a revolution that never materialized.

Or that the music of our youth has become immaterial.

I’d say, check the stats.

No band had more Top 40 hits.

Not to mention No. 1 singles.

No other group has charted as many double-sided singles.

Beatlemania was pretty incredible.

I’d like to cast your memories back to the Billboard countdown of April 4, 1964, and remind you of this astonishing fact.

All of the top five singles that week were recorded by the same band.

The Beatles.

That’s like Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak.

Never going to happen again.

Here they are (sing along if you want to):

5. “Please Please Me”

4. “I Want to Hold Your Hand”

3. “She Loves You”

2. “Twist and Shout”

1. “Can’t Buy Me Love”

Still and all, it was more than the radio and more than the clothes and more than the hairstyle and more than the attitude and intelligence and more than the sum of all the four members’ genius that sets them apart from every group that’s tried to follow their lead.

It’s something called talent.

When I was a child, I couldn’t understand why nothing ever sounded as good as the Beatles.

Now, even as I resist being called an adult, I think I get it.

It was once in a lifetime.

The Beatles defined and defied everything.

Sure, I have a Stones lolling tongue decal on the back bumper of my 1991 Honda and, true, I listen to them more often than I do any other band.

But they were able to follow in the footsteps of giants, guys who tromped their way through all the snowdrifts on their way to impossible success.

The Beatles, to coin a phrase, wrote the book of love.

And that’s, really, all you need.

Mike Dewey can be reached at mdewey@freedomenc.com or (252) 635-5674

I saw that Hard Days Night was recently voted the best ever 'date' movie of all time. As you elude to this movie still entertains and as the survey pointed out it's just a great clean movie without all of the hollywood trappings.

The Beatles are the greatest grave-robbers* in history.























* - Free as a Bird

Congratulations lazy slob!!!
Have fun in your Beatle world..................

i hear ya dude

"Have fun in your Beatle world.................."

The Beattles changed the world, your living in it now. The Stones made a career out of sucking it dry (now I mean this in a complimentary way).

this reminds me of the scene in Pulp Fiction where Uma Thurman says to John Travololta "There are two types of people, Bealtes and Elvis... You seem more like an Elvis person" or something like that. When I saw that I remember thinking Thats Bullshit! Im a STONES person!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-13 04:35 by ryanpow.

why you're stinkin drunk again......ya old poof

What kind of stupid songs he is referring to: I wanna hold your hand,she loves you and so on.I mean how they ever made it that big I don't get it.I can't even thinking of comparing their songs to stones,their image to stones.Anything.

I guess you had to be there. For me: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It's quite sad that many Stones fans are still so damn arrogant and still don't get it when it comes to The Beatles. They were one of the greatest bands ever, and I think I still prefer them to the Stones. They put out consistently better albums and better music that the Stones in the 60's and it sucks that their career was cut short.

it's_all_wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's quite sad that many Stones fans are still so
> damn arrogant and still don't get it when it comes
> to The Beatles. They were one of the greatest
> bands ever, and I think I still prefer them to the
> Stones.

you're living up to your name

you can't catch me!

Bigbang is correct, you had to be there.

It has nothing to do with the songs and everything to do with the times so I can see the confusion. The Beatles were a movement in style (hair and dress), recording technology and techique. I only own Abby Road in CD and look at re-building that childhood collection of vinal but I just can't balance the money against the desire to hear it that often and yes I will play any stones album if it is not from the sixties. Why? Read some quotes from Mick and Brian Wilson in the sixties, they were in competeion with the Beatles and loosing, Mick even makes the same comments about the Ruttles as a joke. This meant allot of there music was written to mimmic the success of the Beatles. What kept the Stones alive I believe was that they were the anti-Beatles. You mention the I want to hold your hand mush while the Stones knocked out LSTNT, the bad boys. The other point would be they slipped in enough rockers like HTW and JJF that had that rough rock edge over say the polished Get Back.

I'm sorry I know us older folks keep going back to the sixties but there is a reason, we just haven't seen anything like it since and for the younger croud I honestly look at the succesive decades and lament how boring it must have been for you. Think about it, you don't here anything about other decades that comes close to the explosivness of the sixties, trust the review.

didn't the beatles give the stones their first hit?

"i wanna be your man"

right?

Des Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bigbang is correct, you had to be there.
>
> It has nothing to do with the songs and everything
> to do with the times so I can see the confusion.
> The Beatles were a movement in style (hair and
> dress), recording technology and techique.


What a load of shit. "It has nothing to do with the songs"? They were one of the best songwriters and musicians ever to have existed and changed the face of music forever. If it were not for them, people would still be singing only about girl-boy relationships.



> The other point would be they
> slipped in enough rockers like HTW and JJF that
> had that rough rock edge over say the polished Get
> Back.

You can blame Phil Spector for that.

Hey the Beatles were a movement, they were great. Cool songwriters, loved them to death. February 9th 1964 was a night that I will never forget. if it weren't for the Beatles kicking down the door in the States, there wouldn't have been no Stones. But................the Stones swung, listening to king Bee right now and all I can say is damn. BUZZ AWHILE.

While still being a great band with great songs (Top band for sure) I can't really see why an article based on sentimentality and frickin' music charts should be more valid than, for example, an article written the same way about another big act (Stones or something).

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-13 08:55 by JumpingKentFlash.

Go find a Beatles fanclub website

it's_all_wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a load of shit. "It has nothing to do with
> the songs"? They were one of the best songwriters
> and musicians ever to have existed and changed the
> face of music forever. If it were not for them,
> people would still be singing only about girl-boy
> relationships.

great songwriters, for sure - but best musicians? I love Charlie but compared to many other drummers he got his own style to say the best, but Ringo was/is a bad joke, he's as much of a musician as me. Don't even want to argue about the others in the Beatles. I mean listen to Jimmy Page and John Bonham and tell me that John, George and Ringo (LOL) came even close.

When the Stones released songs like Last Time, Satisfaction, Get Off Of My Cloud (just to name a few and I wouldn't say that these are classical girl-boy relationship songs) the Beatles were releasing an LP called "Help" which is full of girlie-boy stories. So what's your point?

I think one thing can't be argued at all - The Beatles had more success and even today sell more records than the Stones. But that's it - what you like more is left to personal taste.

The Stones, to coin a phrase, wrote the book of rock 'n' roll (or at least more chapters than anyone else).

Sorry,but I own the album with the collection of singles and their music is for the good boys and girls.I don't also like albums from the Stones like between the buttons.Too stupid for most of the part of the album.The success the Beatles had and they still got is because they were something different and totally new for that time.Media made them,that big.I think that young people nowadays like much more Stones like Beatles.That story that the Beatles were the greatest blah,blah is continued from the same people who thought that back then.
But to make it clear I don't like the stuff Stones copied from them,and I prefer them when they returned to rock and blues roots.Anyone who wants to show me that Beatles were better just name at least one good song from the collection 1.I have 2 more albums but I haven't listened them that much.

i guess it's a bit difficult finding the right balance: when we feel that the Stones so clearly deserve
a lot more of the mainstream recognition that routinely goes to the Beatles, it makes it harder
to express acknowledgement for what the Beatles accomplished.
or maybe it's true that "you have to have been there", or at least have a grasp of what the pop music scene was like
before they came along, to really get what a hugely powerful thing it was that these two handfuls of skinny English cats did.
as Keith has said: "it was a double act, through most of the 60s", and indeed they did change the world for good.

at the same time ... of course it's obvious who's better :E

Anyone under the age of 50 can't, and will never get it. The Beatles changed my generation's world and the Stones hung on for the ride. It wasn't until the Stones decided to do their own thing in 68 and return to their blues/rock roots that they began to earn the title of World's Greatest R&R Band. We on this site talk about the rush we get when the lights go out and the Stones are about to take the stage. I have experienced this sensation and it is some of the hightlights of my life. The first such experience in my life was hearing Ed Sullivan introduce The Beatles on his show in 64. Before that moment The Beatles were just voices on the radio and b/w pictures in a magazine. For the first time they were real, walking,talking people!!
When I see old footage of that moment years ago I still get cold chills...I'm glad I do...and I hope I always do.
I love and cheris The Stones. They have written and performed some of the greatest rock music of all time. I too have the tounge shirts, and posters, and hats, and bobble-head dolls...but The Beatles were in a class by themselves.

Being 50 years of age myself, I agree with the other "old" posters here. The younger ones here just don't get it (thru no fault of their own)... you really had to be there and live it..just like seeing the Stones back in the day when they were a relevant band...one cannot say that today's Stones are better than the 1964-1972 Stones...there's really no comparison. But the Beatles changed the world AND paved the way for the Stones....FACT.

Keefstheman, you're exactly right. I'm 50 also and lived through the Beatles entire " life" ,so to speak and if you grew up with it there was virtually no way NOT to get caught up in it! THE STONES got caught up n it ! It's unfortunate in some ways that the Stones didn't come first! The facts cannot be changed, however. The Beatles changed the world and I believe for the better! The world was ready for their levity, their talent and their charisma. I'm glad they paved the way for the British Invasion bands, all of my favorite music to this day. It is not being disloyal to say you love the Beatles, not at all. The Stones loved them too.

it's_all_wrong

I usually do not respond to negativity but in your case.

"What a load of shit. "It has nothing to do with the songs"? They were one of the best songwriters and musicians ever to have existed and changed the face of music forever. If it were not for them, people would still be singing only about girl-boy relationships."

First my comment about the songs was in responce to the comparison of Stones songs to Beatle songs not a comment regarding their song writing or their influence, mellow out.

Second educate yourself in music. Most rock bands, yes both of these bands are not nesesarily good musicians. Great ones yes, if you can grasp the difference. Sorry but I was babysat in orchastra pits, late 50's-60's folk clubs and musical rehersal halls. Bands in the sixties were pigeon holed as pop bands not rock bands. It was trivial music at it's best, popular music was not well crafted music. Besides the hip gyrating and lyric content that drove adults crazy was the fact that early pop/rock music offended their ear. Now if you take my kids they love all rock back to the fifties because they don't know better, where my folks had nothing to look back on but clasicaly trained musicians. Sorry but I was raised on Crupa and Rich, Ringo and Watts were never there.

So what's a music critic doing on a Stones site. Lets go back to my comment about being a great musician. To me Keith is probably the greatest musician alive, this has everything to do with experience, oh o, back to talking about sixties experiences. Grasp the concept that he has assemilated a wide range of musical influences (not the case with clasical musicians in general), he lived through, drove and survived all of the biggest shakeup in music history and he wrote his own standard for what a musician can get away with as far as what folks expect in a redition of a popular song. Can he stand up, play five nights a week with a matinee on Saturdays and play a true redition everyday, no.

"If it were not for them, people would still be singing only about girl-boy relationships."

One line - "put your lips on my hips baby and tell me what's on your mind", just what do you think has changed?

The Stones to me are a bunch of half assed (but great remenmber) musicians, that like the Beatles were a product of the day but had the balls and fortitude to ride it out. They are good songwriters (thus the back and forth comments on album sucess) but formost they are the best darn performers (another catagory to consider) in the world. And as a great Canadian songwriter said, "they did it there way", and how.

Just to put this to bed when P. Mac started touring I thought as a baby boomer I better take this opportunity to take in at least one Beatle. But I caught one of the concerts on TV and declined, why. The Stones made their mark in a rounded way, songwriting, albums and performances and you know what to expect from them. Picture this now and remember by their own admission one of the key reasons they quit performing was that they sounded bad live. The only perception of Beattle music with the exception of the few folks that listened to them on the roof was the most manipulated music in history. The begining of sythesized music, well crafted, hard to reproduce live music. All you know of it is note for note, that's the way the song goes. So now I watch Paul knocking of Let It Be with one of the most famous guitar riff's in history and they let the new guy work it his way...sacraligous (yes I know I can't spell). Not to mention I was dissapointed that Paul can not sing to the standard of the recording....or is that realy Paul? If you don't get that last point you have no business responding to the post.

Being 39 years old myself I prefer the Stones of course but maybe the Beatles ARE the most important band of all times. So what?

>> they began to earn the title of World's Greatest R&R Band. <<

smile: if you ask me they were earning that title right from the get-go.
the Rolling Stones ain't fakin - and that has made all the difference.

i don't know anything really about the Beatles' first recording contract,
but that deal Andrew Oldham got for the Stones that guaranteed that they decided for themselves what to record
was brilliantly vital to the whole world-changing avalanche.
that and that little fact that's so easy to take for granted now: that the music they loved is so good.
those young cats had an astonishing ear for music that counts - for music with real long legs -
and they honest-to-God wanted us to hear it too.

They had one of the best producers in the business. I think Beatle worshippers tend to overlook something - where would they have been without George Martin? HE is one of the keys to their enduring success.

>> you really had to be there and live it <<

the books Black & White Blues (by Coral, Rodman and Hinckley) and ALO's Stoned do a pretty good job of clarifying
what the pop music business was like before the Beatles and the Stones came along and blew everything out of the water.

as Des says, the whole business thrived on triviality - trivial hits by disposable stars who didn't play their own instruments
and who depended on the composer/publisher cliques for their material. and then these cats from the wrong side of the tracks
came along and turned out to be self-contained artists who cared about what they were playing - it was an outrage!
and on top of all their talent and tenacity, they were [a] smart and appealing-looking as all get out -
yikes, no wonder the grown-ups freaked!