Tell Me :
Talk
I can't help... but the one and only time I saw Ringo live was in London in '98, when his band included Gary Brooker, Jack Bruce, Peter Frampton and Simon Kirke, quite a line-up!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-02 23:09 by Congratulations.
I disagree strongly, though I see where you’re coming from. The Beatles may have performed a popper brand of commercial music, though they crossed paths with much of what they liked: Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc. The Beatles enjoyed rhythm-and-blues, yet were not interested in the Chicago blues that engrossed the Stones’ interest so much. I’m with them on that one, personally. I have a blues compilation or two, but can’t maintain attention for too long. Give me some Elvis and Buddy Holly instead!
Of course, there were artists who they both covered: Chuck Berry is the obvious one, ditto Buddy Holly, but others include The Coasters, Arthur Alexander, Barrett Strong and Larry Williams. My own tastes tend to veer towards these artists too (as well as Elvis, Jerry Lee, Everlys, Little Richard, Fats Domino, etc) rather than pure Blues.
I’m with you completely. Truthfully, I don’t care that much for Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf, etc. It gets a little boring after a while. Elvis, Buddy and Chuck Berry always get attention from me, no matter what my particular music interest of the moment may be. Heck, I far prefer Sinatra over the Chicago and Delta Blues recordings. It resonates with me far more greatly.
I'd prefer to categorize it as Beatles were music and Stones are a way of life.
Yeah, you got my point. It is strange and somehow revisionist how the Beatlemania years are neglected in official 'Beatles Story' and instead if that we hear all kinds of metaphysical stories of how they later 'evolved', be so 'progressive', 'experimental' and whatever. Still their claim to fame, their revolutionary impact exploding pop culture was those early years. And the music then made was and still is simply irrestible, about best pop music ever done. Every time I hear it, or see some black and white footage of those days, it makes me smile. I think it was George Martin who once said that he cannot understand the praisal of their latter-day work by the expanse of the early stuff, since what they already achieved during their early years was simply perfect. It was. Those simple pop recordings like "Love Me Do", "From Me To You", "She Loves You", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", etc. were simply genius. And the band performing was hot as hell, so fresh, energetic and hungry, but still well rehearsed and tight for having performed together for years, and not yet spoiled by artsy studio bullshitting. No wonder they shook up the world.
To me belittlening that stuff is like belittlening the early rock and roll years of Elvis when he exploded the world, and like seeing him basically this post-68 comeback Las Vegas entertainer making over-interpretations of about any given genre.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-03 00:36 by Doxa.
I think you could make the same argument with respect to the Stones in that first period.
Satisfaction, The Last Time, Play With Fire, Heart of Stone, Not Fade Away, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Paint it Black Under My Thumb, Let's Spend The Night Together, Mother's Little Helper, 19th Nervous Breakdown, We Love You, Dandelion, She's A Rainbow, Ruby Tuesday, As Tears Go By, Little Red Rooster...this is pop pop/blues perfection.
How can one say that 'the big four' were the peak?
I can of course, but am just playing devil's advocate. And I'd hold that next to what the Beatles did in the early period, at least as far as the singles were concerned. You can prefer one over the other but that list of songs I just listed are bullet-proof, and there's many more I've forgotten to list I'm sure.
In fact, even the audio for these four tracks from the concert would make a nice bonus extra ..... if anybody can direct me to where to get 'em!
I've just gone through that list. WELL worth spending the time reading the comments of others in the same line of business...
Thanks for the posting.
Captain Corella
Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Don't Pass Me By, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Octopus's Garden... yes, there's some great stuff on The White Album and Abbey Road, but their weakest tracks are far worse than anything on BB, LIT & SF (which, along with BTB, doesn't have a weak moment to my ears!).
My most-played is the 1st Live at the BBC set. I just love those early covers!
Not sure whether they're supposed to be "good" or "bad" tracks (I love 'Run For Your Life', and I'm quite keen on 'Your Mother Should Know' and 'Mr. Kite' too).
The big difference is that the majority of more casual admirers of the Stones (and some real fans, like me!) would regard 1964-1967 as the group's peak. Very few do with The Beatles' recordings up to 'Help!'. It's easy on here to think otherwise, but even moderate 60s hits like 'Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby' and 'We Love You' are far more well-known than (say) 'Can You Hear Me Knocking' and 'All Down The Line'.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-03 14:14 by Congratulations.
I completely agree; although I’d extend it to 1969. For the most casual of Stones fan, it’s those 60’s recordings they are the most revered. All eight of their U.K. No.1’s were in that decade, as well as all the very-most familiar album-cuts: Street Fighting Man, Sympathy for The Devil, Gimme Shelter, You Can’t Always Get What You Want, and so on. I certainly think those 1964-1969 recordings are those most familiar to younger generations, also. Film soundtracks, television adverts and the like.
spot on.
The 'anti-beatles' marketing campaign was very effective and 'stuck' in large part with a lot of people decades on. I would argue that this image and perhaps to your point, hindered them in some terms from even broader popularity as their appeal couldn't be as broad.
I doubt they would ever complain about this though, as they did 'just fine'.
I don't think The Beatles are as universally adored as some like to make out. I know of many people, even in their 50s & 60s, who grew up with Punk and Metal and despise the Beatles, yet they like (or at least tolerate) the Stones.
Excerpt from the late, great Lemmy's memoir White Line Fever from 2002:
“The Beatles were hard men. 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 @#$%& 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 humor, 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 shit on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.” - Lemmy (RIP)
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Ah, The great Lemmy Kilmister, that wise, old sage. He was spot-on... as usual!
The
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 2, 2023 16:18
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Congratulations
()
Date: January 2, 2023 19:48
It beats me why people even discuss The Beatles in the same sentence as The Rolling Stones. Yes, by all means compare The Pretty Things, The Who and (at a push) Led Zeppelin to The Rolling Stones, but not a Pop group like The Beatles!
I say this as a big Beatles fan, just like I'm a big fan of The Hollies, The Dave Clark Five, The Tremeloes and Gerry and The Pacemakers... ALL legendary Pop groups!
I'm also with Doxa, in that I believe The Beatles peaked during the Beatlemania years. The (UK) 'A Hard Day's Night' album is very exciting, and captures them before dope and an over-abundance of sappy Paul McCartney songs took over, even having the advantage of no Ringo vocals (imagine if Bill Wyman had been allowed to sing a song on every album!). I'd even go as far as calling AHDN John Lennon's greatest album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-02 19:49 by Congratulations.
I say this as a big Beatles fan, just like I'm a big fan of The Hollies, The Dave Clark Five, The Tremeloes and Gerry and The Pacemakers... ALL legendary Pop groups!
I'm also with Doxa, in that I believe The Beatles peaked during the Beatlemania years. The (UK) 'A Hard Day's Night' album is very exciting, and captures them before dope and an over-abundance of sappy Paul McCartney songs took over, even having the advantage of no Ringo vocals (imagine if Bill Wyman had been allowed to sing a song on every album!). I'd even go as far as calling AHDN John Lennon's greatest album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-02 19:49 by Congratulations.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Paddy
()
Date: January 2, 2023 22:10
The Beatles were a group and The Stones were a band.
You’d think there would be no difference but there is for me.
You’d think there would be no difference but there is for me.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
stonesman87
()
Date: January 2, 2023 22:23
On another matter, I've found that Ringo's Third All-Starr Band 1995 Tokyo concert has only recently been posted at [www.youtube.com].
It omits Randy Bachman's You Ain't Seen ... and TCOB, John Entwistle's My Wife, and Mark Farner's Some Kind of Wonderful. I've searched for these four tracks without luck. Can anybody come up with the videos for them from this concert? They'd make a cool set of bonus extras to complete the set.
It omits Randy Bachman's You Ain't Seen ... and TCOB, John Entwistle's My Wife, and Mark Farner's Some Kind of Wonderful. I've searched for these four tracks without luck. Can anybody come up with the videos for them from this concert? They'd make a cool set of bonus extras to complete the set.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Congratulations
()
Date: January 2, 2023 22:37
Quote
stonesman87
On another matter, I've found that Ringo's Third All-Starr Band 1995 Tokyo concert has only recently been posted at [www.youtube.com].
It omits Randy Bachman's You Ain't Seen ... and TCOB, John Entwistle's My Wife, and Mark Farner's Some Kind of Wonderful. I've searched for these four tracks without luck. Can anybody come up with the videos for them from this concert? They'd make a cool set of bonus extras to complete the set.
I can't help... but the one and only time I saw Ringo live was in London in '98, when his band included Gary Brooker, Jack Bruce, Peter Frampton and Simon Kirke, quite a line-up!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-02 23:09 by Congratulations.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: January 2, 2023 23:07
1998 Ringo Tour was my favorite. Unfortunately I had to decide between this and The Stones in Bremen same night. Would have loved to have a live record concert I was at but ultimately I'm happy I chose Ringo in Bonn. The band was killer. The only time I saw Jack Bruce and Simon Kirke, thankfully Frampton came back to Germany some years later.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: January 2, 2023 23:13
Quote
Paddy
The Beatles were a group and The Stones were a band.
You’d think there would be no difference but there is for me.
I disagree strongly, though I see where you’re coming from. The Beatles may have performed a popper brand of commercial music, though they crossed paths with much of what they liked: Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc. The Beatles enjoyed rhythm-and-blues, yet were not interested in the Chicago blues that engrossed the Stones’ interest so much. I’m with them on that one, personally. I have a blues compilation or two, but can’t maintain attention for too long. Give me some Elvis and Buddy Holly instead!
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Congratulations
()
Date: January 2, 2023 23:22
Quote
Big AlQuote
Paddy
The Beatles were a group and The Stones were a band.
You’d think there would be no difference but there is for me.
I disagree strongly, though I see where you’re coming from. The Beatles may have performed a popper brand of commercial music, though they crossed paths with much of what they liked: Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc. The Beatles enjoyed rhythm-and-blues, yet were not interested in the Chicago blues that engrossed the Stones’ interest so much. I’m with them on that one, personally. I have a blues compilation or two, but can’t maintain attention for too long. Give me some Elvis and Buddy Holly instead!
Of course, there were artists who they both covered: Chuck Berry is the obvious one, ditto Buddy Holly, but others include The Coasters, Arthur Alexander, Barrett Strong and Larry Williams. My own tastes tend to veer towards these artists too (as well as Elvis, Jerry Lee, Everlys, Little Richard, Fats Domino, etc) rather than pure Blues.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: January 2, 2023 23:24
Quote
Big AlQuote
Paddy
The Beatles were a group and The Stones were a band.
You’d think there would be no difference but there is for me.
I disagree strongly, though I see where you’re coming from. There’s no discernible difference between a ‘group’ and a ‘band’, really. I suppose you could argue that the Beatles were a ‘pop group’ and the Stones were a ‘rock group’. The Beatles may have performed a popper brand of commercial music, though they crossed paths with much of what they liked: Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc. The Beatles enjoyed rhythm-and-blues, yet were not interested in the Chicago blues that engrossed the Stones’ interest so much. I’m with them on that one, personally. I have a blues compilation or two, but can’t maintain attention for too long. Give me some Elvis and Buddy Holly instead!
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: January 2, 2023 23:29
Quote
CongratulationsQuote
Big AlQuote
Paddy
The Beatles were a group and The Stones were a band.
You’d think there would be no difference but there is for me.
I disagree strongly, though I see where you’re coming from. The Beatles may have performed a popper brand of commercial music, though they crossed paths with much of what they liked: Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc. The Beatles enjoyed rhythm-and-blues, yet were not interested in the Chicago blues that engrossed the Stones’ interest so much. I’m with them on that one, personally. I have a blues compilation or two, but can’t maintain attention for too long. Give me some Elvis and Buddy Holly instead!
Of course, there were artists who they both covered: Chuck Berry is the obvious one, ditto Buddy Holly, but others include The Coasters, Arthur Alexander, Barrett Strong and Larry Williams. My own tastes tend to veer towards these artists too (as well as Elvis, Jerry Lee, Everlys, Little Richard, Fats Domino, etc) rather than pure Blues.
I’m with you completely. Truthfully, I don’t care that much for Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf, etc. It gets a little boring after a while. Elvis, Buddy and Chuck Berry always get attention from me, no matter what my particular music interest of the moment may be. Heck, I far prefer Sinatra over the Chicago and Delta Blues recordings. It resonates with me far more greatly.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 3, 2023 00:05
Quote
Paddy
The Beatles were a group and The Stones were a band.
You’d think there would be no difference but there is for me.
I'd prefer to categorize it as Beatles were music and Stones are a way of life.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 3, 2023 00:33
Quote
Congratulations
It beats me why people even discuss The Beatles in the same sentence as The Rolling Stones. Yes, by all means compare The Pretty Things, The Who and (at a push) Led Zeppelin to The Rolling Stones, but not a Pop group like The Beatles!
I say this as a big Beatles fan, just like I'm a big fan of The Hollies, The Dave Clark Five, The Tremeloes and Gerry and The Pacemakers... ALL legendary Pop groups!
I'm also with Doxa, in that I believe The Beatles peaked during the Beatlemania years. The (UK) 'A Hard Day's Night' album is very exciting, and captures them before dope and an over-abundance of sappy Paul McCartney songs took over, even having the advantage of no Ringo vocals (imagine if Bill Wyman had been allowed to sing a song on every album!). I'd even go as far as calling AHDN John Lennon's greatest album.
Yeah, you got my point. It is strange and somehow revisionist how the Beatlemania years are neglected in official 'Beatles Story' and instead if that we hear all kinds of metaphysical stories of how they later 'evolved', be so 'progressive', 'experimental' and whatever. Still their claim to fame, their revolutionary impact exploding pop culture was those early years. And the music then made was and still is simply irrestible, about best pop music ever done. Every time I hear it, or see some black and white footage of those days, it makes me smile. I think it was George Martin who once said that he cannot understand the praisal of their latter-day work by the expanse of the early stuff, since what they already achieved during their early years was simply perfect. It was. Those simple pop recordings like "Love Me Do", "From Me To You", "She Loves You", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", etc. were simply genius. And the band performing was hot as hell, so fresh, energetic and hungry, but still well rehearsed and tight for having performed together for years, and not yet spoiled by artsy studio bullshitting. No wonder they shook up the world.
To me belittlening that stuff is like belittlening the early rock and roll years of Elvis when he exploded the world, and like seeing him basically this post-68 comeback Las Vegas entertainer making over-interpretations of about any given genre.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-03 00:36 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 3, 2023 01:02
Quote
DoxaQuote
Congratulations
It beats me why people even discuss The Beatles in the same sentence as The Rolling Stones. Yes, by all means compare The Pretty Things, The Who and (at a push) Led Zeppelin to The Rolling Stones, but not a Pop group like The Beatles!
I say this as a big Beatles fan, just like I'm a big fan of The Hollies, The Dave Clark Five, The Tremeloes and Gerry and The Pacemakers... ALL legendary Pop groups!
I'm also with Doxa, in that I believe The Beatles peaked during the Beatlemania years. The (UK) 'A Hard Day's Night' album is very exciting, and captures them before dope and an over-abundance of sappy Paul McCartney songs took over, even having the advantage of no Ringo vocals (imagine if Bill Wyman had been allowed to sing a song on every album!). I'd even go as far as calling AHDN John Lennon's greatest album.
Yeah, you got my point. It is strange and somehow revisionist how the Beatlemania years are neglected in official 'Beatles Story' and instead if that we hear all kinds of metaphysical stories of how they later 'evolved', be so 'progressive', 'experimental' and whatever. Still their claim to fame, their revolutionary impact exploding pop culture was those early years. And the music then made was and still is simply irrestible, about best pop music ever done. Every time I hear it, or see some black and white footage of those days, it makes me smile. I think it was George Martin who once said that he cannot understand the praisal of their latter-day work by the expanse of the early stuff, since what they already achieved during their early years was simply perfect. It was. Those simple pop recordings like "Love Me Do", "From Me To You", "She Loves You", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", etc. were simply genius. And the band performing was hot as hell, so fresh, energetic and hungry, but still well rehearsed and tight for having performed together for years, and not yet spoiled by artsy studio bullshitting. No wonder they shook up the world.
To me belittlening that stuff is like belittlening the early rock and roll years of Elvis when he exploded the world, and like seeing him basically this post-68 comeback Las Vegas entertainer making over-interpretations of about any given genre.
- Doxa
I think you could make the same argument with respect to the Stones in that first period.
Satisfaction, The Last Time, Play With Fire, Heart of Stone, Not Fade Away, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Paint it Black Under My Thumb, Let's Spend The Night Together, Mother's Little Helper, 19th Nervous Breakdown, We Love You, Dandelion, She's A Rainbow, Ruby Tuesday, As Tears Go By, Little Red Rooster...this is pop pop/blues perfection.
How can one say that 'the big four' were the peak?
I can of course, but am just playing devil's advocate. And I'd hold that next to what the Beatles did in the early period, at least as far as the singles were concerned. You can prefer one over the other but that list of songs I just listed are bullet-proof, and there's many more I've forgotten to list I'm sure.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
stonesman87
()
Date: January 3, 2023 01:22
Quote
stonesman87
On another matter, I've found that Ringo's Third All-Starr Band 1995 Tokyo concert has only recently been posted at [www.youtube.com].
It omits Randy Bachman's You Ain't Seen ... and TCOB, John Entwistle's My Wife, and Mark Farner's Some Kind of Wonderful. I've searched for these four tracks without luck. Can anybody come up with the videos for them from this concert? They'd make a cool set of bonus extras to complete the set.
In fact, even the audio for these four tracks from the concert would make a nice bonus extra ..... if anybody can direct me to where to get 'em!
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: January 3, 2023 03:14
I agree nothing tops the Please Pleae Me to Hard Days Night for energy great vocals and exuberance.But I also like Abbey Road and the White Album . It’s Revolver to Sgt Pepper and then Let it Be which are today overrated and datedQuote
Congratulations
It beats me why people even discuss The Beatles in the same sentence as The Rolling Stones. Yes, by all means compare The Pretty Things, The Who and (at a push) Led Zeppelin to The Rolling Stones, but not a Pop group like The Beatles!
I say this as a big Beatles fan, just like I'm a big fan of The Hollies, The Dave Clark Five, The Tremeloes and Gerry and The Pacemakers... ALL legendary Pop groups!
I'm also with Doxa, in that I believe The Beatles peaked during the Beatlemania years. The (UK) 'A Hard Day's Night' album is very exciting, and captures them before dope and an over-abundance of sappy Paul McCartney songs took over, even having the advantage of no Ringo vocals (imagine if Bill Wyman had been allowed to sing a song on every album!). I'd even go as far as calling AHDN John Lennon's greatest album.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: January 3, 2023 04:09
From Stereogum:
Just saw this article in praise of Paul McCartney the musician and songwriter - both as a Beatle, and as a solo artist. Lots of interesting stories from a variety of musicians in celebration of Pauls 80th birthday.
Everyone from Elvis Costello, Lyndsey Buckingham, Graham Nash, Steve Earl, and many others....all giving thanks and praise to Paul and some of his greatest songs.
80 Artists Pick Their Favorite Paul McCartney Song For His 80th Birthday
By Ryan Leas
PAUL 80
Every time the Beatles come up, there’s the inevitable danger of hyperbole. But at the same time, it’s sort of hard to be that hyperbolic considering the scope of the group’s impact. Pop music and pop culture as we know it incubated in the ’50s, and then really blossomed in the ’60s — and the Beatles were at the very top of a feverishly, rapidly changing medium in tumultuous, transformative times. All these decades later, they still influence up-and-coming artists; new generations are still falling for them (on TikTok, they’re worshipped as if they were a currently active band); and their songs can still surprise and disorient no matter how long they’ve been in the atmosphere. Nobody really thought pop music was supposed to have a 60-plus year shelf life back then. But the Beatles proved everyone wrong.
The Beatles were, of course, built on the songwriting partnership/rivalry of John Lennon and Paul McCartney. When the band fractured, McCartney embarked on what would become a five-decade post-Beatles career strewn with solo albums, Wings releases, and all manner of experiments and detours. He wrote so many immortal songs after the Beatles. He made classic albums, too, like McCartney II — once a cult oddity, now seized upon as a major inspirational touchstone by younger generations of musicians.
There are a lot of iconic musicians out there, but a very, very tiny handful who could be said to have shifted the entire history of pop music. McCartney did that a few times over, both in the wild left turns of the Beatles’ existence, and in simply writing songs that seemed to beget entire subgenres on their own. Sir Paul turns 80 this Saturday. As we did with Bob Dylan last year, we decided to turn to artists themselves — to discuss their favorite Macca composition, the undying legacy of the Beatles, or even personal anecdotes about McCartney. Happy birthday Paul! —Ryan Leas
And here are the 80 artists giving their thanks and praise to Paul - -> PAUL 80
--------------------------------------------------------
As for me, really hard to pick just one favorite song...nearly impossible...probably Penny Lane, or maybe Let it Be, or Yesterday....maybe Martha My Dear or Eleanor Rigby...or maybe For No One...
or We Can Work It Out...Paperback Writer...Just Another Day...Band on the Run...on and on...so many great tunes. But for every great one, there's at least two or three duds....nobody's perfect!
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-03 04:12 by Hairball.
Just saw this article in praise of Paul McCartney the musician and songwriter - both as a Beatle, and as a solo artist. Lots of interesting stories from a variety of musicians in celebration of Pauls 80th birthday.
Everyone from Elvis Costello, Lyndsey Buckingham, Graham Nash, Steve Earl, and many others....all giving thanks and praise to Paul and some of his greatest songs.
80 Artists Pick Their Favorite Paul McCartney Song For His 80th Birthday
By Ryan Leas
PAUL 80
Every time the Beatles come up, there’s the inevitable danger of hyperbole. But at the same time, it’s sort of hard to be that hyperbolic considering the scope of the group’s impact. Pop music and pop culture as we know it incubated in the ’50s, and then really blossomed in the ’60s — and the Beatles were at the very top of a feverishly, rapidly changing medium in tumultuous, transformative times. All these decades later, they still influence up-and-coming artists; new generations are still falling for them (on TikTok, they’re worshipped as if they were a currently active band); and their songs can still surprise and disorient no matter how long they’ve been in the atmosphere. Nobody really thought pop music was supposed to have a 60-plus year shelf life back then. But the Beatles proved everyone wrong.
The Beatles were, of course, built on the songwriting partnership/rivalry of John Lennon and Paul McCartney. When the band fractured, McCartney embarked on what would become a five-decade post-Beatles career strewn with solo albums, Wings releases, and all manner of experiments and detours. He wrote so many immortal songs after the Beatles. He made classic albums, too, like McCartney II — once a cult oddity, now seized upon as a major inspirational touchstone by younger generations of musicians.
There are a lot of iconic musicians out there, but a very, very tiny handful who could be said to have shifted the entire history of pop music. McCartney did that a few times over, both in the wild left turns of the Beatles’ existence, and in simply writing songs that seemed to beget entire subgenres on their own. Sir Paul turns 80 this Saturday. As we did with Bob Dylan last year, we decided to turn to artists themselves — to discuss their favorite Macca composition, the undying legacy of the Beatles, or even personal anecdotes about McCartney. Happy birthday Paul! —Ryan Leas
And here are the 80 artists giving their thanks and praise to Paul - -> PAUL 80
--------------------------------------------------------
As for me, really hard to pick just one favorite song...nearly impossible...probably Penny Lane, or maybe Let it Be, or Yesterday....maybe Martha My Dear or Eleanor Rigby...or maybe For No One...
or We Can Work It Out...Paperback Writer...Just Another Day...Band on the Run...on and on...so many great tunes. But for every great one, there's at least two or three duds....nobody's perfect!
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-03 04:12 by Hairball.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: January 3, 2023 06:03
Quote
Hairball
From Stereogum:
And here are the 80 artists giving their thanks and praise to Paul - -> PAUL 80
I've just gone through that list. WELL worth spending the time reading the comments of others in the same line of business...
Thanks for the posting.
Captain Corella
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: January 3, 2023 09:38
Just to capitalise on what Doxa and a few others have said regarding the impact of the early Beatles, or ‘Beatlemania’, and how it’s now, perhaps, a little overlooked and not appreciated in the same vein as Revolver onwards. Well, those early years have always been my favourite. The joyousness and excitement within those songs is something else. Past Masters Volume One is probably my most-played Beatles album, overall. I adore all those unique non-album singles and B-sides.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Congratulations
()
Date: January 3, 2023 10:00
Quote
Taylor1
But I also like Abbey Road and the White Album . It’s Revolver to Sgt Pepper and then Let it Be which are today overrated and dated
Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Don't Pass Me By, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Octopus's Garden... yes, there's some great stuff on The White Album and Abbey Road, but their weakest tracks are far worse than anything on BB, LIT & SF (which, along with BTB, doesn't have a weak moment to my ears!).
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Congratulations
()
Date: January 3, 2023 10:02
Quote
Big Al
Just to capitalise on what Doxa and a few others have said regarding the impact of the early Beatles, or ‘Beatlemania’, and how it’s now, perhaps, a little overlooked and not appreciated in the same vein as Revolver onwards. Well, those early years have always been my favourite. The joyousness and excitement within those songs is something else. Past Masters Volume One is probably my most-played Beatles album, overall. I adore all those unique non-album singles and B-sides.
My most-played is the 1st Live at the BBC set. I just love those early covers!
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: January 3, 2023 12:14
Your Mother Should Know, when I’m 64, aThe Benefit of Mr Kite, Piggies, Wild Honey Pie, Honey Pie, Revolution9,Rin Run for Your Life, Bungalow Bill,Quote
CongratulationsQuote
Taylor1
But I also like Abbey Road and the White Album . It’s Revolver to Sgt Pepper and then Let it Be which are today overrated and dated
Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Don't Pass Me By, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Octopus's Garden... yes, there's some great stuff on The White Album and Abbey Road, but their weakest tracks are far worse than anything on BB, LIT & SF (which, along with BTB, doesn't have a weak moment to my ears!).
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Congratulations
()
Date: January 3, 2023 12:58
Quote
Taylor1Your Mother Should Know, when I’m 64, aThe Benefit of Mr Kite, Piggies, Wild Honey Pie, Honey Pie, Revolution9,Rin Run for Your Life, Bungalow Bill,Quote
CongratulationsQuote
Taylor1
But I also like Abbey Road and the White Album . It’s Revolver to Sgt Pepper and then Let it Be which are today overrated and dated
Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Don't Pass Me By, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Octopus's Garden... yes, there's some great stuff on The White Album and Abbey Road, but their weakest tracks are far worse than anything on BB, LIT & SF (which, along with BTB, doesn't have a weak moment to my ears!).
Not sure whether they're supposed to be "good" or "bad" tracks (I love 'Run For Your Life', and I'm quite keen on 'Your Mother Should Know' and 'Mr. Kite' too).
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Congratulations
()
Date: January 3, 2023 13:03
Quote
treaclefingers
Satisfaction, The Last Time, Play With Fire, Heart of Stone, Not Fade Away, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Paint it Black Under My Thumb, Let's Spend The Night Together, Mother's Little Helper, 19th Nervous Breakdown, We Love You, Dandelion, She's A Rainbow, Ruby Tuesday, As Tears Go By, Little Red Rooster...this is pop pop/blues perfection.
How can one say that 'the big four' were the peak?
I can of course, but am just playing devil's advocate. And I'd hold that next to what the Beatles did in the early period, at least as far as the singles were concerned. You can prefer one over the other but that list of songs I just listed are bullet-proof, and there's many more I've forgotten to list I'm sure.
The big difference is that the majority of more casual admirers of the Stones (and some real fans, like me!) would regard 1964-1967 as the group's peak. Very few do with The Beatles' recordings up to 'Help!'. It's easy on here to think otherwise, but even moderate 60s hits like 'Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby' and 'We Love You' are far more well-known than (say) 'Can You Hear Me Knocking' and 'All Down The Line'.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-03 14:14 by Congratulations.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: January 3, 2023 14:05
The real difference is that the Beatles became an almost universally popular entity..
... whereas the Stones have always alienated as many folks as have been drawn to them, both by the music itself and by the perceived image.
The Stones have been and remain very much a love them or hate them phenomenon.
... whereas the Stones have always alienated as many folks as have been drawn to them, both by the music itself and by the perceived image.
The Stones have been and remain very much a love them or hate them phenomenon.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: January 3, 2023 17:56
Quote
CongratulationsQuote
treaclefingers
Satisfaction, The Last Time, Play With Fire, Heart of Stone, Not Fade Away, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Paint it Black Under My Thumb, Let's Spend The Night Together, Mother's Little Helper, 19th Nervous Breakdown, We Love You, Dandelion, She's A Rainbow, Ruby Tuesday, As Tears Go By, Little Red Rooster...this is pop pop/blues perfection.
How can one say that 'the big four' were the peak?
I can of course, but am just playing devil's advocate. And I'd hold that next to what the Beatles did in the early period, at least as far as the singles were concerned. You can prefer one over the other but that list of songs I just listed are bullet-proof, and there's many more I've forgotten to list I'm sure.
The big difference is that the majority of more casual admirers of the Stones (and some real fans, like me!) would regard 1964-1967 as the group's peak. Very few do with The Beatles' recordings up to 'Help!'. It's easy on here to think otherwise, but even moderate 60s hits like 'Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby' and 'We Love You' are far more well-known than (say) 'Can You Hear Me Knocking' and 'All Down The Line'.
I completely agree; although I’d extend it to 1969. For the most casual of Stones fan, it’s those 60’s recordings they are the most revered. All eight of their U.K. No.1’s were in that decade, as well as all the very-most familiar album-cuts: Street Fighting Man, Sympathy for The Devil, Gimme Shelter, You Can’t Always Get What You Want, and so on. I certainly think those 1964-1969 recordings are those most familiar to younger generations, also. Film soundtracks, television adverts and the like.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 3, 2023 18:25
Quote
Spud
The real difference is that the Beatles became an almost universally popular entity..
... whereas the Stones have always alienated as many folks as have been drawn to them, both by the music itself and by the perceived image.
The Stones have been and remain very much a love them or hate them phenomenon.
spot on.
The 'anti-beatles' marketing campaign was very effective and 'stuck' in large part with a lot of people decades on. I would argue that this image and perhaps to your point, hindered them in some terms from even broader popularity as their appeal couldn't be as broad.
I doubt they would ever complain about this though, as they did 'just fine'.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Congratulations
()
Date: January 3, 2023 18:37
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Spud
The real difference is that the Beatles became an almost universally popular entity..
... whereas the Stones have always alienated as many folks as have been drawn to them, both by the music itself and by the perceived image.
The Stones have been and remain very much a love them or hate them phenomenon.
spot on.
The 'anti-beatles' marketing campaign was very effective and 'stuck' in large part with a lot of people decades on. I would argue that this image and perhaps to your point, hindered them in some terms from even broader popularity as their appeal couldn't be as broad.
I doubt they would ever complain about this though, as they did 'just fine'.
I don't think The Beatles are as universally adored as some like to make out. I know of many people, even in their 50s & 60s, who grew up with Punk and Metal and despise the Beatles, yet they like (or at least tolerate) the Stones.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: January 3, 2023 19:57
When making comparisons, it is fair to note that their respective images were purely manufactured by management for marketing purposes. Epstein wanted his act to be well turned-out, smart, uniformed and respectable, whilst Oldham thought he’d create the complete antithesis: scruffy and unruly. It shouldn’t be forgotten that, only a short while before they recorded Love Me Do, they presented themselves as leather-clad rockers, whilst performing in Hamburg nightclubs to an audience consisting of drunken sailors and prostitutes. The Stones’ beginnings? They were performing in leafy, middle-class Surrey, to well-behaved teenagers, ‘rebelling’ against their parents. To summarise: the Beatles were rough and tough northerners; the Stones were from quite a different background; especially that of Mick and Brian.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-03 19:59 by Big Al.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-03 19:59 by Big Al.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: January 3, 2023 20:09
Quote
Big Al
When making comparisons, it is fair to note that their respective images were purely manufactured by management for marketing purposes. Epstein wanted his act to be well turned-out, smart, uniformed and respectable, whilst Oldham thought he’d create the complete antithesis: scruffy and unruly. It shouldn’t be forgotten that, only a short while before they recorded Love Me Do, they presented themselves as leather-clad rockers, whilst performing in Hamburg nightclubs to an audience consisting of drunken sailors and prostitutes. The Stones’ beginnings? They were performing in leafy, middle-class Surrey, to well-behaved teenagers, ‘rebelling’ against their parents. To summarise: the Beatles were rough and tough northerners; the Stones were from quite a different background; especially that of Mick and Brian.
Excerpt from the late, great Lemmy's memoir White Line Fever from 2002:
“The Beatles were hard men. 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 @#$%& 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 humor, 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 shit on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.” - Lemmy (RIP)
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: January 3, 2023 20:12
Quote
HairballQuote
Big Al
When making comparisons, it is fair to note that their respective images were purely manufactured by management for marketing purposes. Epstein wanted his act to be well turned-out, smart, uniformed and respectable, whilst Oldham thought he’d create the complete antithesis: scruffy and unruly. It shouldn’t be forgotten that, only a short while before they recorded Love Me Do, they presented themselves as leather-clad rockers, whilst performing in Hamburg nightclubs to an audience consisting of drunken sailors and prostitutes. The Stones’ beginnings? They were performing in leafy, middle-class Surrey, to well-behaved teenagers, ‘rebelling’ against their parents. To summarise: the Beatles were rough and tough northerners; the Stones were from quite a different background; especially that of Mick and Brian.
Excerpt from the late, great Lemmy's memoir White Line Fever from 2002:
“The Beatles were hard men. 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 @#$%& 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 humor, 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 shit on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.” - Lemmy (RIP)
Ah, The great Lemmy Kilmister, that wise, old sage. He was spot-on... as usual!
The
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
69firebird , BOW2007 , Domonkos , jp.M , JumpinJeppeFlash , makustone , More Hot Rocks , Nellcote1971 , Purplevienna1 , Shott , SoulSurvivor1990
Guests:
1229
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10