Of course! Savage is #1 (like the Stones!).

Of course! Savage is #1

Quote
michaelsavage
So silly. Stones were ROCK, Beatles were pop/boy band types

They were both boy bands, as were all the British Invasion bands- barely out of their teens when they became famous. The difference is back then the boy bands played sophisticated music. Later on, boy bands and guys like Justin Bieber gravitated towards silly bubble gum pop.

The Beatles didn't play silly bubble gum pop but there's no denying they were more pop oriented and The Stones were more rock oriented.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

The Beatles were older.
They had a 'head start'. They broke new ground and opened the way.

Their first album, Please Please Me, 1963. Stones' first album 1964.

Please Please Me - over 50% self-penned. Stones had Tell Me and Little By Lettle (Phelge/Spector) - (is Jagger or Richards Phelge?)

But I listened to them both last night and really the Stones' one is a stronger work and works better as an 'album' -rather than collection of sequential songs. Much better choice of covered numbers.

That' just for satrters - will edit this later to include other aural observations.

Funny how there's this idea that The Beatles were the soft, safe group and The Stones were the hardcore bad ass rebels. The Beatles came from Liverpool. They were tough f-uckers (bv, seriously, you need to remove this censorship, this is the internet not church!). In the early days they'd be popping pills, playing for hours, getting into fights, wearing leather jacket and pants. THAT is rock and roll! The Stones were from lovely ol' London, a world apart from dirty Liverpool. The Beatles grew up faster than The Stones. When The Stones were playing rock and roll The Beatles were "been there, done that". They were miles ahead of The Stones. It's called progression. The worst thing an artist can do is get stuck doing the same thing over and over again.

This whole Beatles were soft, Stones were hard, thing is such nonsense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-30 00:48 by GumbootCloggeroo.

Quote
FrankM
The Beatles didn't play silly bubble gum pop but there's no denying they were more pop oriented and The Stones were more rock oriented.

The Beatles could rock when they wanted to. Throughout their entire career they wrote some killer rock numbers. And The Stones wrote some lovely pop songs. But for some strange ideological reason, mickscarey thinks that because The Beatles didn't write or play rock 100% of the time that they should be dismissed as boy band/soft pop and therefore crap.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Funny how there's this idea that The Beatles were the soft, safe group and The Stones were the hardcore bad ass rebels. The Beatles came from Liverpool. They were tough f-uckers (bv, seriously, you need to remove this censorship, this is the internet not church!). In the early days they'd be popping pills, playing for hours, getting into fights, wearing leather jacket and pants. THAT is rock and roll! The Stones were from lovely ol' London, a world apart from dirty Liverpool. The Beatles grew up faster than The Stones. When The Stones were playing rock and roll The Beatles were "been there, done that". They were miles ahead of The Stones. It's called progression. The worst thing an artist can do is get stuck doing the same thing over and over again.

This whole Beatles were soft, Stones were hard, thing is such nonsense.

The Stones apart from Charlie weren't actually from London (despite calling it their hometown these days). Even Dartford was really too far out to be called the outskirts, though Penge just about qualifies, and Brian was from super-genteel Cheltenham.

I should mention though that Liverpool (my fave city, where I went to uni) has its genteel areas too (just as London has its rough ones). However, the Beatles admittedly weren't from any of them.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Funny how there's this idea that The Beatles were the soft, safe group and The Stones were the hardcore bad ass rebels. The Beatles came from Liverpool. They were tough f-uckers (bv, seriously, you need to remove this censorship, this is the internet not church!). In the early days they'd be popping pills, playing for hours, getting into fights, wearing leather jacket and pants. THAT is rock and roll! The Stones were from lovely ol' London, a world apart from dirty Liverpool. The Beatles grew up faster than The Stones. When The Stones were playing rock and roll The Beatles were "been there, done that". They were miles ahead of The Stones. It's called progression. The worst thing an artist can do is get stuck doing the same thing over and over again.

This whole Beatles were soft, Stones were hard, thing is such nonsense.

Lemmy would agree 100%!....about The Beatles, that is. Don't know where he stands on the moderator's language policy.

Here's an excerpt from his autobio, White Line Fever:

And the Beatles were hard men too. Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption, but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia--a hard, sea-farin' town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo's from the Dingle, which is like the f***ing Bronx. The Rolling Stones were the mummy's boys--they were all college students from the outskirts of London. They went to starve in London, but it was by choice, to give themselves some sort of aura of disrespectability. I did like the Stones, but they were never anywhere near the Beatles--not for humour, not for originality, not for songs, not for presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger dancing about. Fair enough, the Stones made great records, but they were always s**t on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.

I remember one gig the Beatles had at the Cavern, It was just after they got Brian Epstein as their manager. Everyone in Liverpool knew that Epstein was gay, and some kid in the audience screamed, 'John Lennon's a f***ing queer!' And John--who never wore his glasses on stage--put his guitar down and went into the crowd, shouting, 'Who said that?' So this kid says, 'I f***ing did.' John went after him and BAM, gave him the Liverpool kiss, sticking the nut on him--twice! And the kid went down in a mass of blood, snot and teeth. Then John got back on the stage.

'Anybody else?' he asked. Silence. 'All right then. "Some Other Guy".'

Also, Lemmy discusses John Lennon:





Also, this interview excerpt:

"I saw the Beatles play the cavern. These chicks had been going on about them and I had to check them out. They were amazing- greatest rock n roll band ever. You could tell something was really happening. They were the real deal, the Stones were too art school, the Beatles were real working class. They were a great rock n roll band. The Beatles kept doing great rock n roll right till the end. 'Back in the USSR' is a great piece of rock n roll, as good as anything I've heard. There was always a rocking song on a Beatles album."

Full interview at: [louderthanwar.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-30 01:24 by stonehearted.

All this Beatles talk is all good and fine, but what the hell is growing on Lemmy's cheek?

Quote
whitem8
All this Beatles talk is all good and fine, but what the hell is growing on Lemmy's cheek?

Whatever it is, it's been there for decades.


Lemmy and "Fast" Eddy Clark backstage at Reading, 1982.


"Lemmy for Pope"

Yeah but it has a twin now! And I think it winked during that interview.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I suggest you begin watching episodes of the 50's television series the Lone Ranger. I am recommending the box set with all 221 episodes. It might teach you a thing or two about respecting those that are much older and wiser than you.

And that has to do with me what, OMightyTrollinRangerJacko?

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
Seriously, if the Stones don't remove that overdub to the intro to SMU at Hyde Park (on the soon to be released DVD) I will be moving on. I have let them know how I feel about it, so lets hope they "do the right thing" and restore the original.

Seriously, no one believes you. Regardless of that, as it has been explained elsewhere SEVERAL times, it's most likely NOT an overdub, just a copy and paste.

So get over yerself. They've done what they've always done - fixed a live release.

And... they don't care how you feel about it.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Funny how there's this idea that The Beatles were the soft, safe group and The Stones were the hardcore bad ass rebels. The Beatles came from Liverpool. They were tough f-uckers (bv, seriously, you need to remove this censorship, this is the internet not church!). In the early days they'd be popping pills, playing for hours, getting into fights, wearing leather jacket and pants. THAT is rock and roll! The Stones were from lovely ol' London, a world apart from dirty Liverpool. The Beatles grew up faster than The Stones. When The Stones were playing rock and roll The Beatles were "been there, done that". They were miles ahead of The Stones. It's called progression. The worst thing an artist can do is get stuck doing the same thing over and over again.

This whole Beatles were soft, Stones were hard, thing is such nonsense.

That's true. The Beatles had done their bad boy stuff, got it out of their system. Not sure that Paul was ever that 'hard', though. But he was from that side of town - more so than John.John was from a VERY middle-class family and went to the best grammar school in town. He had a well-off Aunt with a holiday home in far north of Scotland. But John turned out to be the most 'Roch'n'Roll' of the lot, (attitude - non-conformist). Then they were 'sold' as nice boys in order to malke it commercially. Their first album is a bunch of rather safe poppy numbers in comparison to the stuff they'd got their live reputation with.

The Stones. Wyamn the one bona fide 'working class' member. Jones and Jagger from the most comfortably middle-class homes. Jones from Cheltenham by the way.

Richards the next 'down to earth' background after Wyman. Watts went to art school - was he a working graphic designer before going pro? Jewish on his mother's side I believe, (if that has any bearing?) - but in England at least Jewish families were/are fairly 'high' in the social world im my experience.

The name opf John's high school comes back to me now, Quarrybank. That's why 'his' first band was called the Quarrymen - with fellow members from that school. (Not because their families were quarry workers!) A skiffle group.

Onde of the members (or two?) went to Cambridge University. That school in Liverpool probably provided the highest number of 'Oxbridge' students, (Oxford/Cambridge).

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
FrankM
The Beatles didn't play silly bubble gum pop but there's no denying they were more pop oriented and The Stones were more rock oriented.

The Beatles could rock when they wanted to. Throughout their entire career they wrote some killer rock numbers. And The Stones wrote some lovely pop songs. But for some strange ideological reason, mickscarey thinks that because The Beatles didn't write or play rock 100% of the time that they should be dismissed as boy band/soft pop and therefore crap.

Not sure why anyone complains when the Beatles are often refereed to as a pop band. Its really pretty simple. Most of their songs were not rock songs, and most were considered pop songs. So they should be considered a pop band.

Why is this hard to grasp.

It isn't. That is why they had broad appeal. They were "safer", easy listening.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
FrankM
The Beatles didn't play silly bubble gum pop but there's no denying they were more pop oriented and The Stones were more rock oriented.

The Beatles could rock when they wanted to. Throughout their entire career they wrote some killer rock numbers. And The Stones wrote some lovely pop songs. But for some strange ideological reason, mickscarey thinks that because The Beatles didn't write or play rock 100% of the time that they should be dismissed as boy band/soft pop and therefore crap.

Not sure why anyone complains when the Beatles are often refereed to as a pop band. Its really pretty simple. Most of their songs were not rock songs, and most were considered pop songs. So they should be considered a pop band.

Why is this hard to grasp.

hummm, well even Mick Jagger referred to the Stones in the 60's as a pop band. That was the word used for bands who were "popular". Most of The Beatles songs were not rock songs?? Well that is just silly, and inane.

Wow, it's 1965 again. Those bloody Beatles . .

Quote
whitem8

Quote
stanlove

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
FrankM
The Beatles didn't play silly bubble gum pop but there's no denying they were more pop oriented and The Stones were more rock oriented.

The Beatles could rock when they wanted to. Throughout their entire career they wrote some killer rock numbers. And The Stones wrote some lovely pop songs. But for some strange ideological reason, mickscarey thinks that because The Beatles didn't write or play rock 100% of the time that they should be dismissed as boy band/soft pop and therefore crap.

Not sure why anyone complains when the Beatles are often refereed to as a pop band. Its really pretty simple. Most of their songs were not rock songs, and most were considered pop songs. So they should be considered a pop band.

Why is this hard to grasp.

hummm, well even Mick Jagger referred to the Stones in the 60's as a pop band. That was the word used for bands who were "popular". Most of The Beatles songs were not rock songs?? Well that is just silly, and inane.

Who cares what Mick Jagger referred to the Stones as. Obviously the Stones are a rock band considering most of their songs are rock. Most of the Beatles are pop. I think most would agree with that. Stop being inane.

agreed.

I googled "Were The Beatles a rock band?" and, other than the video game The Beatles: Rock Band (not pop but rock), nothing else seemed to show up as a result. It appears as though it's not really a hot topic amongst journalists or bloggers or proprietors of websites. Could it be that we're the only ones discussing this asinine topic? Maybe nothing is coming up because it's such a stupid question? It's like googling "is the colour blue blue?". edit: by wording the question different, discussions on the topic do appear in google. Thank god.

Get over it. The Beatles were rock (or rock and roll or whatever you want to call it). They were pop. They were lots of things. Much like The Stones were. When you think of the classic Stones rock songs most of them are from an era that is after The Beatles broke up, correct? So, it's not really fair to compare two different bands from two different eras. The Beatles did things first and The Stones followed. Hell, wasn't Lennon even doing heroin before Keith? I'm sure someone here can fact check that for me.

The Beatles were a rock and roll band from the beginning of their career to the end. Their songs rocked harder than The Stones. Their arrangements were more interesting. Their musicianship was more complex. Their palate was much larger than what The Stones had. The Beatles were colour, Stones were black and white. That's how I see it.

Now, if you want to say The Stones were more blues and The Beatles weren't, then that's a fair assessment to make.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-30 19:40 by GumbootCloggeroo.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
Seriously, if the Stones don't remove that overdub to the intro to SMU at Hyde Park (on the soon to be released DVD) I will be moving on. I have let them know how I feel about it, so lets hope they "do the right thing" and restore the original.

Seriously, no one believes you. Regardless of that, as it has been explained elsewhere SEVERAL times, it's most likely NOT an overdub, just a copy and paste.

So get over yerself. They've done what they've always done - fixed a live release.

And... they don't care how you feel about it.

So I should cut them some slack, become a fan again, and continue posting here for as long as I live?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-30 19:33 by JumpinJackOLantern.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I googled "Were The Beatles a rock band?" and, other than the video game The Beatles: Rock Band (not pop but rock), nothing else seemed to show up as a result. It appears as though it's not really a hot topic amongst journalists or bloggers or proprietors of websites. Could it be that we're the only ones discussing this asinine topic? Maybe nothing is coming up because it's such a stupid question? It's like googling "is the colour blue blue?".

Get over it. The Beatles were rock (or rock and roll or whatever you want to call it). They were pop. They were lots of things. Much like The Stones were. When you think of the classic Stones rock songs most of them are from an era that is after The Beatles broke up, correct? So, it's not really fair to compare two different bands from two different eras. The Beatles did things first and The Stones followed. Hell, wasn't Lennon even doing heroin before Keith? I'm sure someone here can fact check that for me.

The Beatles were a rock and roll band from the beginning of their career to the end. Their songs rocked harder than The Stones. Their arrangements were more interesting. Their musicianship was more complex. Their palate was much larger than what The Stones had. The Beatles were colour, Stones were black and white. That's how I see it.

Now, if you want to say The Stones were more blues and The Beatles weren't, then that's a fair assessment to make.

After all is said and done, both the Beatles and the Stones walk under the "umbrella" of rock 'n roll. Case closed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-30 19:39 by JumpinJackOLantern.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I googled "Were The Beatles a rock band?" and, other than the video game The Beatles: Rock Band (not pop but rock), nothing else seemed to show up as a result. It appears as though it's not really a hot topic amongst journalists or bloggers or proprietors of websites. Could it be that we're the only ones discussing this asinine topic? Maybe nothing is coming up because it's such a stupid question? It's like googling "is the colour blue blue?". edit: by wording the question different, discussions on the topic do appear in google. Thank god.

Get over it. The Beatles were rock (or rock and roll or whatever you want to call it). They were pop. They were lots of things. Much like The Stones were. When you think of the classic Stones rock songs most of them are from an era that is after The Beatles broke up, correct? So, it's not really fair to compare two different bands from two different eras. The Beatles did things first and The Stones followed. Hell, wasn't Lennon even doing heroin before Keith? I'm sure someone here can fact check that for me.

The Beatles were a rock and roll band from the beginning of their career to the end. Their songs rocked harder than The Stones. Their arrangements were more interesting. Their musicianship was more complex. Their palate was much larger than what The Stones had. The Beatles were colour, Stones were black and white. That's how I see it.

Now, if you want to say The Stones were more blues and The Beatles weren't, then that's a fair assessment to make.

Disagree. Stones were blues and rock. Beatles were not, were safer. It is what it is. as you say, it's black and white

michaelsavage, how exactly were The Beatles "safer"? can you give me some examples? You've used the word "safe" many times now to describe The Beatles. Care to go a bit deeper than that? I'm not sure what "safer" even means.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-30 21:43 by GumbootCloggeroo.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
michaelsavage, how exactly were The Beatles "safer"? can you give me some examples? You've used the word "safe" many times now to describe The Beatles. Care to go a bit deeper than that?

The Beatles were anything but safe. How can a band that led the way in so many ways be accused of playing it safe? Silly argument.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
michaelsavage, how exactly were The Beatles "safer"? can you give me some examples? You've used the word "safe" many times now to describe The Beatles. Care to go a bit deeper than that? I'm not sure what "safer" even means.

Softer kind of music. " I wanna hold your hand" or "Stupid Girl"/"Under my Thumb? That's why parents were told to lock up their girls when the Stones came to town.

Quote
michaelsavage

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
michaelsavage, how exactly were The Beatles "safer"? can you give me some examples? You've used the word "safe" many times now to describe The Beatles. Care to go a bit deeper than that? I'm not sure what "safer" even means.

Softer kind of music. " I wanna hold your hand" or "Stupid Girl"/"Under my Thumb? That's why parents were told to lock up their girls when the Stones came to town.

John wasn't exactly the softest of softest guys..he probably screwed Eppie but wtf....

Interesting article. Also, interesting that the author also mentions "boy band"..

________________________________

To get things in some sort of perspective, consider, if you will, The Spice Girls; easily one of, if not the, biggest all-girl acts ever, with record sales that dwarf those of eight out of ten other manufactured pop puppets. While I accept that all art is largely a subjective matter, surely we can all agree that “I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna really, really, really, wanna zigga zig ahh” is, frankly, bollocks by any commonly accepted criteria? Mind you, it holds up at least as well as “she loves you yeah, yeah, yeah. She loves you yeah, yeah, yeah, she loves you yeah, yeah, yeah”. The conclusion, by now, should be clear to even the most fundamentalist Beatles disciple; commercial success is not an infallible barometer of artistic merit or credibility.

The other fiercely held conviction among the faithful goes something like this: “Ah, but if it weren’t for The Beatles, you wouldn’t have had [insert name of some incredibly implausible band]”. Again, utter bollocks and infuriating, ill-informed drivel. Now, this may surprise you but they weren’t actually responsible for every great musical event that followed them, you know.

Cream, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Iron Butterfly, The Who, Deep Purple and the Stones owe zero, nada, zilch to those over-rated Scouse conmen and they were all a damn site more innovative, revolutionary and superior in every respect, anyway.

In fact, I reckon the most influential musician of the entire 20th century has surely got to be Robert Johnson. By a huge margin. Modern blues, jazz, rock ‘n’ roll and then, ultimately metal, hard rock and even punk, with its penchant for the hackneyed Three Chord Trick, all stem, to one degree or another, from his legendary, seminal twenty nine songs.

The blues permeates the most vital contemporary music of the last century like a rich seam of platinum. It runs like blood through the beating heart of just about any music of note outside the classical world. Don’t even try and claim a similar legacy for those third-rate, mop-topped hacks. I’ll just laugh. Or poke you in the eye with my pen. As if a case could ever be made for, say, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath or even Simon and Garfunkel being, in any way, defined by some shallow, plastic, pop-tarts from the 60s! Go on; try . Yeah, thought so…


You wanna talk about their legacy? The Osmonds, Westlife, Boyzone and JL bloody S are their natural heirs!
In terms of song writing, Robert Johnson and the pioneering Bluesmen perfected the classic I-IV-V chord progression that everyone, including the bloody Beatles, has done to death. To come from a completely different angle, in terms of melodic understanding, harmonic construction and technically superior composition, even ABBA were working on a level our Merseyside charlatans could only dream about.

In a similar vein, a friend of mine, Deni Lloyd, observed, “when you think about the level of fame and adoration they enjoyed, then think about other bands of the sixties who were forever in their shadow it puts it into perspective. Their song writing was weak (unlike say, The Kinks), their voices were weaker (unlike say, Chris Farlowe or Del Shannon) and their instrumentation lacklustre (unlike say, The Byrds) all of which would be easier to forgive had they not wholeheartedly bought into their own mythology. They were a bunch of preening, jumped up little shits and the ones that remain are ridiculous, vain old men with a God complex. They’re shit. That’s it”.

So that takes care of their early oeuvre but we all know, don’t we, that the White Album, Revolver and Sergeant Pepper’s Dreary Club Band were the works that saw them mature into really great musical visionaries, though, yes? Well, if ill-disciplined, drug-induced, pretentious doodling is your thing, then maybe, yeah. Personally, “semolina dripping from a dead dog’s eye” “I am the walrus, I am the Egg-man” and “you’ve been a naughty girl, you’ve let your knickers down” are not quite the incisive capturing of the zeitgeist that springs to mind when I ponder the post-war artistic and cultural revolutions.

It’s probably the right time to surprise you and say that, unlike Deni, I don’t actually think The Beatles are crap, per se. No, really, I don’t. Yesterday is a fine tune, to give just one example (although even here we can thank George Martin’s inspired addition of a string quartet as the element that lifts the song to, possibly, genius-level) and, to be fair, I think they wrote perfectly acceptable three or four minute packages of shallow, pop-puff that reflected, quite well, the new, breezy, optimistic vibe of the Swinging Sixties. If only they’d left it there. But no; they had to go to India, consort with religious nutters, buy a sitar, get all mystical and start taking seriously the hysteria surrounding them. Horror of horrors, they actually started to believe they were, God help us, Serious Artistes!

As far as individual musical proficiency goes, it’ll take barely a paragraph to pull these fakers from their Ivory Tower and expose the Emperor’s New Clothes (excuse the mixed metaphors; that’s what they do to me, God damn ‘em!). Ringo, you’re first up, my man; as a drummer, Mr Starr, as Lennnon himself famously remarked, was not only not the best drummer in the world, he wasn’t “…even the best drummer in The Beatles”. Sadly, poor old Ringo lacked sufficient talent to even polish John Bonham’s cymbals. Or pour Keith Moon’s booze. Or even chop Ginger Baker’s lines with his sticks.

Lennon, as most are forced to reluctantly acknowledge, could barely play guitar at all and George Harrison’s most elevated Beatles moment arrived courtesy of Clapton’s sublime solo on When My Guitar Gently Weeps. As surely it must’ve done, with relief and gratitude, no doubt, when Eric picked it up; at last! A real musician, pluck me, baby!

Macca? Ironically, probably the most talented of the musically juvenile foursome, he still couldn’t disguise the fact that his mediocre talent was more suited to Broadway and the kitsch world of stage musicals than rock ‘n’ roll. Not that they were ever a rock ‘n’ roll band, of course. The very thought is laughable. No, they were always a pop band. Even your Granny likes ‘em.

The real irritant, though, is that they are easily the most overrated band to have ever entered a recording studio, bar none. Thanks to Epstein, they were marketed, packaged, hyped and sold to an impressionable public, desperately yearning for some escapism following the years of post-war austerity, with the myth enduring to this very day. In fact, it’s here, really, that they made their biggest impact on popular culture; a towering testament to the power of marketing, advertising and hype. The world’s first, and still, its most successful, boy band.