Quote
Congratulations

Quote
treaclefingers

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'.

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.

Well, relatively speaking I would say the appeal was/is universal. There's always some naysayers for sure, you're never going to get 100% of people thinking the same way on anything. But in the big scheme the Beatles success was universal.

Try to name another act with more universal appeal...it's difficult if not impossible.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Hairball

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)

Ah, The great Lemmy Kilmister, that wise, old sage. He was spot-on... as usual!

The

Well, I'd say that the last comment was significantly less than spot-on. You might even say completely off the mark!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Hairball

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)

Ah, The great Lemmy Kilmister, that wise, old sage. He was spot-on... as usual!

The

Well, I'd say that the last comment was significantly less than spot-on. You might even say completely off the mark!

Well, yes!

Anyway, my thoughts are valid and true, I think. The Stones are my favourite group, but let’s not pretend the outlaw image of old is, in any way, a weapon to beat the Beatles with. The latter dressed more neatly and had a preference for a less grittier, pop-sound. They were no less authentic; and as I stated in my post, their genuine beginnings were far more ‘rock n’ roll’ than the Stones’ ever were.

Quote
Big Al
Anyway, my thoughts are valid and true, I think. The Stones are my favourite group, but let’s not pretend the outlaw image of old is, in any way, a weapon to beat the Beatles with. The latter dressed more neatly and had a preference for a less grittier, pop-sound. They were no less authentic; and as I stated in my post, their genuine beginnings were far more ‘rock n’ roll’ than the Stones’ ever were.

As a fellow Brit, I've always found it interesting that British musicians who grew up in respectable suburbs and/or went to art college came up with the toughest sounds, whereas a working class Northerner like Gerry Marsden was far closer in style to George Formby than he was to Little Richard! Even The Beatles were influenced more by white pop-rockers like Buddy Holly and the Everly Brothers than they were by the rhythm 'n' blues of Bo Diddley, Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed, with Paul McCartney in particular being open to Music Hall influences.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-03 20:35 by Congratulations.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Hairball

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)

Ah, The great Lemmy Kilmister, that wise, old sage. He was spot-on... as usual!

The

Well, I'd say that the last comment was significantly less than spot-on. You might even say completely off the mark!

Well, yes!

Anyway, my thoughts are valid and true, I think. The Stones are my favourite group, but let’s not pretend the outlaw image of old is, in any way, a weapon to beat the Beatles with. The latter dressed more neatly and had a preference for a less grittier, pop-sound. They were no less authentic; and as I stated in my post, their genuine beginnings were far more ‘rock n’ roll’ than the Stones’ ever were.

I think we are in agreement in all the other respects!

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-04 02:36 by Doxa.

Quote
Congratulations

Quote
Big Al
Anyway, my thoughts are valid and true, I think. The Stones are my favourite group, but let’s not pretend the outlaw image of old is, in any way, a weapon to beat the Beatles with. The latter dressed more neatly and had a preference for a less grittier, pop-sound. They were no less authentic; and as I stated in my post, their genuine beginnings were far more ‘rock n’ roll’ than the Stones’ ever were.

As a fellow Brit, I've always found it interesting that British musicians who grew up in respectable suburbs and/or went to art college came up with the toughest sounds, whereas a working class Northerner like Gerry Marsden was far closer in style to George Formby than he was to Little Richard! Even The Beatles were influenced more by white pop-rockers like Buddy Holly and the Everly Brothers than they were by the rhythm 'n' blues of Bo Diddley, Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed, with Paul McCartney in particular being open to Music Hall influences.

This is a good observation. And if we just forget the image bullshit and concentrate on music, I think that of the the whole blues interest that took over especially in London was a product of art schools, university students, the 'hip' people and the kids from suburbs with a bit better premises. That is, more a middle class thing than that of a working class. It is pretty close to a jazz interest, and anti-thesis of anything 'pop' (a synonym in England to 'rock and roll' initially), the easy-listening stuff played on the radio for the masses. The sort of 'purism', having a bit of snobbish flavor there, arises in circles like that. That their admiration is purely aesthetic without any personal relationship or connection to the world and circumstances that brought this raw-sounding and exotic music fits to the picture. (I think due this distance in culture - white British middle-class teenager boys trying to play exciting-sounding adult's music from Black America - the movement brought not any new blues masters, but, with a happy co-incidence, a generation of excellent rock musicians to redefine the direction and nature of pop music.)

Someone like Brian Jones, a middle class boy stemming from a classical music and jazz and hating pop, could be a poster boy for that attitude. Or another middle-class boy from Dartford, a nerd-like ordering rare blues records ditectly from Chess Records in Chicago, while having studies in London School of Economics in mind. A jazz fanatic like Charlie Watts, who also had a cozy daytime job that had nothing to do with mills and factories, could never had joined a pop group.

The people having true working class credentials Lemmy admires, people like Bill Wyman, a typical teddy-boy rocker speaking true Cockney, was a total outsider to these circles, as Bill noticed when he joined the Stones. Bill surely had been musically more home with the Beatles, even having a German connection (probably they could have shared stories of German hookers). Keith probably too, had he not attended art school and started hanging with people like Dick Taylor and Mike Jagger, and cultivated his taste.

But back to 'image'. I guess Lemmy's talk of 'hard men' and 'sissies' and all that working-class romanticism works for some people - and seemingly especially the Beatles apologists seem always to stress it when they have an issue with their image (and usually in regard to the cool one by Stones) - but I personally find that naive and childish. Let's take Lemmy's argument further: How 'cool' and 'rock and roll' and 'street credible' had they've been if behind their sweet image they've been some true badasses, say, murderers and rapists or something?

Working class, middle class, upper class, high class or whatever - very soon all these dudes were buying Bentleys and castles and would have not slightest idea what a bottle of milk or a bus ticket would cost.

- Doxa



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-04 03:25 by Doxa.

say, murderers and rapists or something?


Sid Vicious, anyone? Phil Spector? Jim Gordon? Gary Glitter?

And what REALLY happened to Brian Jones?


Underage sex (statutory rape) - all of 'em. Just saying.

Quote
CaptainCorella

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.

Paul (and his music) is loved, admired, and appreciated by many to this day.
Not bad for an 80 year old, and he's still cranking out new albums and performing live to millions of his adoring fans around the world.
Can only imagine what an impact John Lennon might have continued to make on the world had he lived to be 80 years old...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-04 05:05 by Hairball.

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 or even audio for them from this concert? They'd make a cool set of bonus extras to complete the set.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-05 06:55 by stonesman87.

Quote
stonesman87

Can anybody come up with the videos or even audio for them from this concert?

Ringo Starr & His All Starr Band: Tokyo Budokan, 27-Jun-1995 (2nd Night)

You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet (Randy Bachman), Takin’ Care Of Business (Randy Bachman), My Wife (John Entwistle), Some Kind Of Wonderful (Mark Farner)

CDs: [www.GiGinJapan.com] , [TheCDvault.com] , [www.Amazon.com] .



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-06 23:25 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
stonesman87

Can anybody come up with the videos or even audio for them from this concert?

Ringo Starr & His All Starr Band: Tokyo Bay NK Hall, 24-Jun-1995 - [www.DiscJapan.com] .

Thanks for the mention. However, that's for 24.6.95, whereas the video I linked to is for 27.6.95, so it's not the same performance. I'll keep searching or maybe get other replies.

Ringo & His All Starr Band: Live at Nippon Budokan Hall, Tokyo, 27-Jun-1995, BluRay - [www.Jagamart.com] , DVD - [Monotone-Extra.co.jp] .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-05 11:30 by Irix.

Can anybody come up with the audio for just the 4 tracks - Randy Bachman's You Ain't Seen ... and TCOB, John Entwistle's My Wife, and Mark Farner's Some Kind of Wonderful - from Ringo's All-Starr 27.6.95 Tokyo concert?

stonesman87. I looked all over the place and can't find anything. I think there is the full concert on a Japanese Label CD but I don't have it and there's no links that I know of. It's frustrationg because I'd love to hear these tracks as well. There are 2 didfffernt videos of My Wife on YouTube, both are audience, one is fairly decent but not good enough in my opinion. Good luck!

Quote
frankotero
stonesman87. I looked all over the place and can't find anything. I think there is the full concert on a Japanese Label CD but I don't have it and there's no links that I know of. It's frustrationg because I'd love to hear these tracks as well. There are 2 didfffernt videos of My Wife on YouTube, both are audience, one is fairly decent but not good enough in my opinion. Good luck!

Yeah, I know what you mean. I just can't find them either. I guess they were excluded back then for space reasons, but it's really difficult to think why both the near-iconic BTO ones were excluded.

Can you post links to the two My Wife videos? I'll check them out.

John Entwistle's My Wife (New Jersey, 18-Jul-1995) - [www.YouTube.com] , (Merrillville, 8-Jul-1995) - [www.YouTube.com] , (Milwaukee, 3-Jul-1995) - [www.YouTube.com] .


You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet (Randy Bachman) - Nippon Budokan Hall, 27-Jun-1995:



[www.Youtube.com]

Quote
Irix
John Entwistle's My Wife (New Jersey, 18-Jul-1995) - [www.YouTube.com] , (Merrillville, 8-Jul-1995) - [www.YouTube.com] , (Milwaukee, 3-Jul-1995) - [www.YouTube.com] .


You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet (Randy Bachman) - Nippon Budokan Hall, 27-Jun-1995:



[www.Youtube.com]

Cool, that's one of them. Good spot

The search goes on for the other three from 27.6.95

Quote
stonesman87

The search goes on for the other three from 27.6.95

Maybe better ask in Beatles forums - here's an overview.

Last year, I did something where I put Stones albums up against Beatles albums. Now, I will put the Stones UK Singles up against the Beatles UK Singles. Today we start with The Beatles first single, Love Me Do vs the Stones' first single, Come On. Which song do you think is better?

Love Me Do / P.S. I Love You released on 5 Oct 1962
Come On / I Want To Be Loved released 7 Jun 1963






Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-21 02:24 by JordyLicks96.

'Come On' is far, far superior, in every way,

But then again, that's why I'm on a Rolling Stones forum, and not a Beat-less one.

well, at least the Beatles wrote their song while the Stones covered Chuck Berry

Quote
slewan
well, at least the Beatles wrote their song while the Stones covered Chuck Berry

Chuck Berry was a much better songwriter than Lennon-McCartney, at least up until 1962.

Quote
slewan
well, at least the Beatles wrote their song while the Stones covered Chuck Berry

It's impossible to overemphasise how important the above point actually is.

Up until then it was 100% assumed that the artists would be the puppets of the A&R folk in the record company. The chance combination of Lennon/McCartney and the maverick George Martin (for all of his assumed posh appearance) was the key for this.

It's astonishing that a band's FIRST release was allowed to be their own composition. It's astonishing that they stood their ground and refused to properly record the next song that was offered, and went with "Please Please Me".

The vast importance of the fact of the breakthrough that The Beatles were central to far outweighs any subjective discussion of which was the better single. (And I write that as someone who has posted here before that Chuck Berry is the true GodFather of most of what we know as pop and rock music today).

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

No match. Love Me Do far outshines Come On. It's not even a great cover, although I do like the harmonica.

Quote
slewan
well, at least the Beatles wrote their song while the Stones covered Chuck Berry

The Beatles' original creativity was already shining with a small glimpse of the genius and massive greatness that was to follow, while the Stones hadn't even begun to find their way.
With the help of the Beatles who were leading by example, the Stones were given the blueprint to succesful songwriting which they eventually figured out.
And of course many other bands also benefited from the Beatles trailblazing...in fact just about every band post '62 owes them thanks and gratitude.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
slewan
well, at least the Beatles wrote their song while the Stones covered Chuck Berry

The Beatles' original creativity was already shining with a small glimpse of the genius and massive greatness that was to follow, while the Stones hadn't even begun to find their way.
With the help of the Beatles who were leading by example, the Stones were given the blueprint to succesful songwriting which they eventually figured out.
And of course many other bands also benefited from the Beatles trailblazing...in fact just about every band post '62 owes them thanks and gratitude.

Them refers to The Everly Brothers.

I like both, but Love Me Do edges it.

It should be noted, that the original U.K. single of Love Me Do is a different take to the U.S. single that also featured on Please Please Me. This latter-mentioned version features Andy White on drums and Ringo on tambourine. It’s more jaunty and performed at a slightly faster tempo.

Them refers to The Everly Brothers.

...and Buddy Holly .....



ROCKMAN

ROCKMAN