Tell Me :
Talk
Does anyone remember Keith's comments (way before Wikipedia):
We (the Rolling Stones) were playing Rock n Roll when they (the Beatles) were still in their cradles....
The Stones version may only be available on bootleg but "It Should Be You" was part of the first ever single released with a Jagger - Richards 'A' and 'B' side.
It was the 'B' side to "Will You Be My Lover Tonight" by George Bean, produced by Andrew Oldham and released by Decca in January 1964.
[www.45cat.com]
[www.youtube.com]
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Yes and thanks for your info
incredible post
Especially the observation that Mick &Keith were forced to write their own songs*, compared to Lennon & McCartney who composed their songs in a automatic way, which result that a lot of pre '65 songs basically sounds the same.....*because of this, the songwriting of Keith was very divers which results in songs like Tell Me, Stoned, 2120 Sth Michigan Avenue, Congratulations, Heart of Stone, What A Shame, The Last Time, Play With Fire, Satisfaction, The Under-West Coast Promotion Man, Get Off of My Cloud, The Singer Not The Song, As Tears Go By, ...............................2000 Light Years From Home.........JJF, Soul Survival....and I could go on and on
By the way I'm a also a Beatle fan.......................
__________________________
A bit confused sorry, but are you saying a lot of pre-'65 Beatles songs basically sound the same?
And if so, you then say Keith's writing is very diverse, but then you go on to list several songs from '65 and after?
Not sure if that's a fair comparison - we might as well throw in Help (like Satisfaction from 1965), A Day in the Life (like 2000 Light Years - 1967), Yer Blues, Dear Prudence, I'm So Tired, etc. (like JJF from 1968).
It's a matter of opinion of what's better than the other, but at least there's a level a level playing field to make proper comparisons.
Also, as great as they are, I'm not so sure your examples Stoned, The Under-West Coast Promotion Man, and What a Shame are prime examples of great original songwriting as they're basically reworked blues tunes. And a couple others - The Singer Not the Song, and Congratulations - are simply not great original songwriting no matter how you look at it imo. Decent yes, but not up to par with some of their best.
I also could go on and on, but perhaps this would be the proper thread for that:Beatles vs. Stones
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Oh dear. Same old Beatle-bashing. Get a life...
Since original songwriting/diversity (or lack thereof) has been brought up, here is a short list of just some of the original tunes the Beatles wrote pre - '65.
Love Me do
All My Loving
A Hard Day's Night
Don't Bother Me
P.S. I Love You
It Won't Be Long
I Wanna Be Your Man
You Can't Do That
I'm Happy Just to Dance with You
Can't Buy Me Love
Things We Said Today
Tell Me Why
If I Fell
No Reply
I'm a Loser
Baby's in Black
I'll Follow the Sun
Eight Days a Week
How or why someone would say a lot of these sound the same is a mystery.
The one thing they truly have in common is they are all originals written by the Beatles pre '65.
Other than that, a wide array of diversity in styles and sounds imo.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 02:54 by Hairball.
His post perhaps did contain some unnecessary 'Beatles-bashing' but I am for the most part in agreement with him. I'm not sure how a Stones fan could feel otherwise.
The soundtrack to the film ‘The Sound of Music’ was the best-selling album in the UK in 1965 and 1966. It’s truly brilliant...so too are many of the songs written by the Beatles around the same period. The Stones at that time don’t even merit comparison to Rodgers & Hammerstein or Julie Andrews. In fact it would be a laughable and pointless comparison at any time. The Stones have always been a different beast – their approach to music is animalistic. That’s why we like it and continue to listen to it (if you’ll allow me to speak for all of us). I like the Beatles – I would never describe their songs as rubbish - but their genius was in being able to write commercial fluff (Julie Andrews could’ve had a number of hits had she decided to cover Beatles songs). They’re undeniably brilliant but I listen to them only about twice as often as The Monkees and I’ve never even seen ‘The Sound of Music.’
Interesting how you compare She Loves You (a Beatles original from '63) to Route 66 (a Stones cover from '64).
I suppose that emphasizes who was writing better quality original material at the time.
If you take Beatles I Saw Her Standing There (also an original), and compare it with the Stones cover of Route 66, I'd say it swings just as much, if not more so.
As for Yesterday, it's a mighty fine tune however it's labeled (call it soft, pop, soft pop, whatever), and goes to show how much diversity The Beatles had in their arsenal.
According to the Guiness Book of World Records, there's been over 2,200 cover versions of it.
And it received high praise from none other than Chuck Berry who claimed he wish he would have written it.
He briefly talks about it here at the 2:22 mark of this video:
Chuck Berry
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
From 1958 to 1963 it wasn't really evolving much, was it.
Elvis was in the army, Chuck was in jail, Little Richard was in church and Buddy Holly was dead.
I'm glad you see my point, though, which is that if anyone's going to compare,
they should compare the Beatles' 1964 work with what the Stones were doing five years after they got together -
but since that five years *was* a gigantic leap, we can compromise:
How about comparing the Beatles' first album with Out of Our Heads
I sort of expected a Beatle defence... I am tahnkful of that since that offers me a means to clarify some of my earlier points.
No way any Beatle nor a Rolling Stone invented an idea of guitar riff having a role in a rock and roll song, nor more than any of these English lads invented the phenomenon of a beat song with a nice melody, The question is more like what they did with those ideas, and what kind of impact they had with them. Yeah, there were guitar riffs in many Beatles songs prior "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction" (I say both because for Europeans, and especially English folks "The Last Time" made the kind of impact "Satisfaction" did for Americans and rest of the world. Still today "The Last time, for example, is their biggest selling single in UK). But the important thing, especially if we look at the future and how a rock music scene would evolve, is that in none of the Beatles songs you mentioned guitar riffs do play such a distinctive role to the whole effect of a song as they do in those Stones songs. I mean, if you think about the songs, what are the features that comes first to mind. With Beatles songs, I would claim that for most of the people it is still the songs themselves, those catchy melodies and their beautiful deliveries. Those are the features which make those songs so distinctive, memorable (and this applies to almost anything the Beatles did, if we count why they were and are so incredibly popular.) But if one thinks of "The Last Time" or "Satisfaction" I don't think is far-reached to say that the feature that first comes to mind is the striking riff which simply captures one's attention the very second the song starts. They are constutive part of the song themselves in the way I don't think any mentioned Beatles song is. Even though the songs are not (yet) build on those riffs, the effect they are used within the songs is actually stronger than just adding an arrangementive part there. Part of the effect and use of these riffs in "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction" is simply the sound - and this, if anything, is a nod to future - countless rock songs would be build on the idea of a strong, great sounding guitar riff. At its own time, the guitar was about to achieve its almost iconical status in pop/rock and roll music, and just before people like Clapton or Hendrix would explode the scene, it was the effect of songs like "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction" showing the way how the guitar can be used very effectively, and thereby inspiring many upconing young guitarists and rock bands. I would say that the way guitar riffs were used in songs like "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction" would have even their contribution when people started seeing a conceptual difference between pop music and rock music, that is, "rock music" was conceptually born (The Beatles would also very much contribute to that, but not by means of guitar riffs, but by their very ambitious and genius song-writing). (Even though the firt pure 'rock song' ever, and showing the whole artistic potentiality a good old beat music song has, was released just after "Satisfaction" by Bob Dylan, but that is another issue...)
The theme of aggression and sex can of course traced even to 50's rock and roll songs - usually there are some hidden meanings, clever use of words or things like that, and I guess many kids of the day were able to catch those meanings. I think the Beatlelogists typically use same kind of method in studying teh early Beatles songs.
But I suggest a use of good old common sense here. If one sees "Please Please Me" and "Satisfaction" having an equal effect in expressing sexual content and aggression, well... I think, once again, when exploring those huge Stones early classics, it is important to notice how much teh very performance afffects to the expression the whole song does. "The Singer Not The Song", as they say... The get the point of "Satisfaction" it is not just the lyrics and teh song - it is the way these lads, especially the singer and that riff guitarist, sound. Funny thing about "Satisfaction" is that if the lyrics are studied carefully ,or if we listen its creators, it isn't sexual almost at all, but still the song as a listened experience is... The sex and aggression is build very much into constitution of the Stones' music, and "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction" were the first instances they were able to express that in the means of their own original music.
Which actually bring the issue into their influences and the differences they have in that sense in compared to the Beatles. I think you interpreted too hastily my - and Keith's - division between "black" and "white" side of Chuck Berry. It doesn't mean that the Beatles only listened to white music from America and the Stones black music. Hell no, surely the Beatles had a lot of inspiration from black american music; not just early rock and rollers such as Berry or Little Richard, but all those newer R&B girl groups with their beautiful harmonies, which surely had a clear effect to their typical sound. And surely much more, And the teenagers Mick and Keith surely were as impressed by Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran, Elvis Presley, The Everly Brothers, etc as John and Paul were. In many areas the interests of The Stones and the Beatles over-lapped, both being a members of the same first rock and roll generation.
But you hinted at the crucial difference: that of the blues. And that exactly is the "black side of Berry". Surely the Beatles guys were familar of that kind of stuff, but no way that had such an effect to their music as it was for the Stones. I think the mentioned five years gap in this thread has much to do with that. The Beatles guys were are already rockin' hard and had their shit together when the blues interest hit the Britian, especially its capital. Mick, Keith and Brian all were deep and dedicated students of this almost anti-thesis music to anything manifested in the pop charts of the day. Especially Brian was almost a purist, watching the blues more from a point of view of jazz than that of rock and roll (Berry), and I think we can not underestimate Brian's influence to the way to the Stones would sound. Even though if we read Keith's LIFE, Keith's approach wasn't far from Brian's, if not at all (though I think he might a bit exaggarate there). And a young Jagger sounded a blues snob as well, ordering all those records from Chicago and all..
This is to say that the early Stones the blues had such a constitutive and inspirational role the Beatles never had. I guess the 'purism' Mick, Keith and Brian had, would have been as odd to John and Paul as it was for Bill Wyman - whose taste, him being older, might more resemble the taste of John and Paul in rock and roll - when he entered to their rehersals for the first time - his impression was something like 'how you guys can think of playing some damn slow twelve-bar blues for the whole evening?
Then we have to remember that when the Stones made their break-through in England, they were the first band from the London club circuit to do that. So they were seen as the leader of the whole rhythm'n'blues movement of Britain, followed soon by many other bands, and to be contrasted to the Mersey-Beat movement, inspired by The Beatles.
So my point was to emphasize the significance of the blues for the Stones. That influence can be hear in their music. Surely, when they had a recording contract, their toughest purism vanished, made many compromises, adding numbers to their repertuare that might have a bigger comercial appeal (not as much as the Beatles though), and when visited America and all that, they get to know more better of the latest currents in black American music, do their version of that, etc. But despite of that, the blues had such a huge effect on their DNA, that it still can be heard in Jagger's vocals or in Keith's guitar in almost anything they do. If anything, the blues offered a means of expression that in order to achieve its 'feel' and 'groove', it could, with a justification, abondon the normal boundaries and forms of Western music - the notes and melodies didn't need to be perfect or anything extraordinary or clever, just fitting to serve the purpose. Also the kind of feelings the blues emphasizies - usually going to more dark sides of human life - both musically and lyrically, is something the Stones would, even in during their 'pop era', use to put their typical stamp on things, their edge and controversality (The Big Four, things like "Gimme Shelter" and "Sympathy For The Devil", are of course, a final, mature manifestation of all that). This is not to say that the Beatles didn't express as much 'feeling' in their music - they surely did but the feelings and the kind of musical means they used were much more sublime and traditional compared to the Stones. The Stones were masters of the low register in humanity. If the Beatles used melody as a kind of means to express feelings, for the Stones it was the sound the notes make, usually by the force of the whole band. Listening to THe BEST OF MUDDY WATERS - as Keith recently adviced us - one can hear from where the Stones got the idea from the famous Stones sound and idea of music stems from. That holistic, dirty, raw, a bit sloppy and chaotic groove, in which contributor just serves the common goal, the wholeness being bigger than its parts.... The Blues had a baby, indeed, and they named rock and roll. Or they could call it simply The Rolling Stones.
A personal observation: usually when people choice between that big issue - The Beatles or The Stones - most of them, of course, say the first one, and if asked further why, the reasons tend to be such as The Beatles are more musical, better melodies, more diverse, adventurous, and, of course, 'innovative'... and the reasons why the Stones doesn't actually appeal to them are seemingly because the Stones music somehow neglects those features, but which actually can be translated into: they actually don't appreciate those very blues-based non-traditional features in Stones music I talked about above ('but. hey, "Ruby Tuesday" and "Paint Black" are surprisingly good!). The Stones people, of course, say that the Beatles are too "poppish", too clean, no groove, too easy-listening, etc. A matter of taste, obviously. In best case, one can cherish both of them, and also cherish the difference between them, both being damn good in what they do.
Okay, back to "Satisfaction", as a song it is a kind of a Dylan folk song by constitution, but when it is put through their blues-trained filter, the whole effect of the song changes. It still from the 'black side of Berry', now finally manisfested in a commercial sounding pop song.
What goes for those 1968 examples, and over-all the good old 'hey, it's not all about "Yesterday", remember "Helter Skelter"' -argument the Beatles section seems to throw in when for some reason the rocking nature of The Beatles is questioned... Frankly, I don't find that very interesting issue at all, and it is a bit hard for me to understand what there actually are tried to say or prove. Probably it stems from the fact that the Stones are remembered from a bit more edgy songs than the Beatles. The collective memory is more interested in hits than of deep album cuts - and because of those hits, both bands are as big as they are. "Yesterday" might be the most well-known Beatles song ever - as is "Satisfaction" for the Stones. The same goes for the typical claim of Beatle apologists that 'man, The Beatles was much dirtier, rawer and rock and roll and everything in Hamburg the Stones nerd boys ever would be'. Might be true, but The Beatles turned out to be the biggest phenomeneon in popular music ever not because of what they were like in Hamburg, but what they actually did to achieve "Beatlemania" - the biggest singular reason being the catchy, clever, great pop songs John and Paul were able to write to back up with a cleverly manufactured charming image to appeal to millions.
Lastly, I want to thank you, turner68, to inspire me to write all this shit! It is always funny to think aloud. And a virtual drink to anyone who was able to read it through... (I need a real one now...)
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 14:43 by Doxa.
Did I say something about quantity? Didn't mean to - the quantity is only a side effect.
Someone who's been working at songwriting for 5 years is likely to either get better at it or give up, don't you think?
Yeah you did - "Of course they had more original songs by 1964. They'd been working at it five years longer" - but no biggie, I think our wires have been crossed several times in this thread.
Along with more quantity, it seems you're also saying the Beatles had more quality songs because they had more development and experience.
Again, I understand what you're saying, but with that line of thinking there would be an asterisk after The Beatles name in the history books, (*more popular, prolific, and talented only because they had more time to prepare and develop). Not sure I've ever heard this justification (or defense) of the Stones - basically giving them a handicap. As a matter of fact, I've never heard that rationale when comparing any artists of any type - especially ones that were contemporaries and releasing work nearly simultaneously Based on that thinking, maybe we should just consider the Stones as The Beatles' little brothers always trying to catch up ....or add an asterisk to clarify it all.
Just read through your entire post Doxa, and this sentence is what it really comes down to for me.
But people being people will always pick a side, or have a favorite, or cherish one more than the other for a variety of reasons.
As long as the argument is civil, then it's always interesting to wade through - live and let live...
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 18:08 by Hairball.
Your right Hairball I should't have added 2000 Light Years From Home.........JJF, Soul Survival.... I wasn't in control of my enthousiasme about the great songs they has written
__________________________
by and large I agree except Tell Me is awful. The real break through for Mick and Keith was The Last Time even though they sort of nicked it. It's a fantastic record and a fantastic Stones record - it's got the lot (except a middle 8 but it doesn't need one). After that, apart from the written under pressure fillers they've got their act sorted out. Come 1968 they're absolutely on it on a regular basis.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: December 9, 2015 19:00
Quote
HairballQuote
with sssoulQuote
Hairball
I retract my previous comment regarding the Beatles being "light years ahead".
Good retract! It wasn't light years - it was five years.
The Beatles got together nearly five years before the Stones did,
and if they had had a record contract a year after they started it would've been mostly covers as well.
And I still love this track in every way.
OK, but given the context and the fast pace that rock and roll was evolving back then, five years = light years
But I understand your point, and I also still love this track - nothing has changed since I wrote my initial comment two days ago.
Does anyone remember Keith's comments (way before Wikipedia):
We (the Rolling Stones) were playing Rock n Roll when they (the Beatles) were still in their cradles....
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: December 9, 2015 19:02
Keith must have been 'under the influence' when he said that.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Shantipole
()
Date: December 9, 2015 19:03
Love this song just for the way that Jagger pronounces "seersucker suit."
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: December 9, 2015 19:10
UAWCPM has all kinds of potential as a cover song. In one of my bands we played a slowed down version of this song and it came off quite nicely. Our drummer thought this was an original song that our bass player wrote.....but I guess that doesn't say much because he also thought the Byrds were from England.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Deltics
()
Date: December 9, 2015 20:35
Quote
runaway
It Should Be You was their very first attempt in 1963 "Bootleg Only".
Tell Me was their very first hit single "Jagger Richards", it was 3 months in the charts and reached nr 4 in the Dutch top charts in 1964.
The Stones version may only be available on bootleg but "It Should Be You" was part of the first ever single released with a Jagger - Richards 'A' and 'B' side.
It was the 'B' side to "Will You Be My Lover Tonight" by George Bean, produced by Andrew Oldham and released by Decca in January 1964.
[www.45cat.com]
[www.youtube.com]
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: December 9, 2015 20:42
Quote
DelticsQuote
runaway
It Should Be You was their very first attempt in 1963 "Bootleg Only".
Tell Me was their very first hit single "Jagger Richards", it was 3 months in the charts and reached nr 4 in the Dutch top charts in 1964.
The Stones version may only be available on bootleg but "It Should Be You" was part of the first ever single released with a Jagger - Richards 'A' and 'B' side.
It was the 'B' side to "Will You Be My Lover Tonight" by George Bean, produced by Andrew Oldham and released by Decca in January 1964.
[www.45cat.com]
[www.youtube.com]
Yes and thanks for your info
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: December 10, 2015 00:02
Quote
Silver DaggerQuote
Doxa
Interesting thoughts here in regards to Lennon-MCcartney vs. Jagger-Richard 'rivalry' at the time. I guess the standard interpretation of music history is, of course, that The Beatles guys were, if not light years, but very much ahead of the Stones team, or anyone (except Dylan) in 1965, and for many they always would be. No doubt there is some truth in that, but let's say I don't quite buy it. The interpretation is too standard, too boring, and too much written from a Beatles's point of view; what is understood as creativity, originality, progress, and good music. The incredible popularity of the Beatles seems to guide too much the whole idea and criterion what was happening at the time. The winner takes it all, like they say...
........................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................
But then again, a new chapter started for the Stones when they decided discover their old blues roots.... and this time Mick and Keih were developed so much as song-writers that they could be damn original even within that old regime of theirs.
- Doxa
Doxa - I'm going to call you Socrates from now on. Your insights and thinking are a thing of wonder.
incredible postEspecially the observation that Mick &Keith were forced to write their own songs*, compared to Lennon & McCartney who composed their songs in a automatic way, which result that a lot of pre '65 songs basically sounds the same.....*because of this, the songwriting of Keith was very divers which results in songs like Tell Me, Stoned, 2120 Sth Michigan Avenue, Congratulations, Heart of Stone, What A Shame, The Last Time, Play With Fire, Satisfaction, The Under-West Coast Promotion Man, Get Off of My Cloud, The Singer Not The Song, As Tears Go By, ...............................2000 Light Years From Home.........JJF, Soul Survival....and I could go on and on
By the way I'm a also a Beatle fan.......................
__________________________
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: December 10, 2015 01:04
Quote
Nicos
the observation that Mick &Keith were forced to write their own songs*, compared to Lennon & McCartney who composed their songs in a automatic way, which result that a lot of pre '65 songs basically sounds the same.....*because of this, the songwriting of Keith was very divers which results in songs like Tell Me, Stoned, 2120 Sth Michigan Avenue, Congratulations, Heart of Stone, What A Shame, The Last Time, Play With Fire, Satisfaction, The Under-West Coast Promotion Man, Get Off of My Cloud, The Singer Not The Song, As Tears Go By, ...............................2000 Light Years From Home.........JJF, Soul Survival....and I could go on and on
By the way I'm a also a Beatle fan.......................
A bit confused sorry, but are you saying a lot of pre-'65 Beatles songs basically sound the same?
And if so, you then say Keith's writing is very diverse, but then you go on to list several songs from '65 and after?
Not sure if that's a fair comparison - we might as well throw in Help (like Satisfaction from 1965), A Day in the Life (like 2000 Light Years - 1967), Yer Blues, Dear Prudence, I'm So Tired, etc. (like JJF from 1968).
It's a matter of opinion of what's better than the other, but at least there's a level a level playing field to make proper comparisons.
Also, as great as they are, I'm not so sure your examples Stoned, The Under-West Coast Promotion Man, and What a Shame are prime examples of great original songwriting as they're basically reworked blues tunes. And a couple others - The Singer Not the Song, and Congratulations - are simply not great original songwriting no matter how you look at it imo. Decent yes, but not up to par with some of their best.
I also could go on and on, but perhaps this would be the proper thread for that:Beatles vs. Stones
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Blueranger
()
Date: December 10, 2015 01:23
The Stones were simply not prepared enough to write great tunes before at least mid/late 1965. I know there are a few exceptions: Tell Me, Heart Of Stone, Play With Fire, but for every decent original tune they did in the first two years, we got loads of cover-versions or re-worked blues songs to fill out the lack of original material.
As a live-act it was another story, though...
As a live-act it was another story, though...
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
buttons67
()
Date: December 10, 2015 01:45
under assistant west coast promotion man is a great example of the talent the stones had from the early stages.
as for the beatles v stones old argument.
the beatles tended to when at thier best make very catchy tunes, at other times, plenty other times they made overated boring rubbish that had little energy or imagination.
the stones while not great in the early days at writing a lot of good material did grow into being a very versatile band when it came to not only writing but performing live and in the studio, songs with great energy and rythmn that makes so many of thier songs so much better than anything the beatles could come up with.
cool,calm collected would have been a classic if it was a beatles song, it wasnt, and hence is never considered a classic, but it is in my opinion.
paint it black, could the beatles ever have come close to this, no way.
when at thier best, the stones songs were driven with a superb beat, energy and aggression combined with melody, the beatles made great songs but they never had the same passion as the stones at thier best. songs like get back and love me do were a load of overrated rubbish.
as for the beatles v stones old argument.
the beatles tended to when at thier best make very catchy tunes, at other times, plenty other times they made overated boring rubbish that had little energy or imagination.
the stones while not great in the early days at writing a lot of good material did grow into being a very versatile band when it came to not only writing but performing live and in the studio, songs with great energy and rythmn that makes so many of thier songs so much better than anything the beatles could come up with.
cool,calm collected would have been a classic if it was a beatles song, it wasnt, and hence is never considered a classic, but it is in my opinion.
paint it black, could the beatles ever have come close to this, no way.
when at thier best, the stones songs were driven with a superb beat, energy and aggression combined with melody, the beatles made great songs but they never had the same passion as the stones at thier best. songs like get back and love me do were a load of overrated rubbish.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Blueranger
()
Date: December 10, 2015 02:19
Quote
buttons67
under assistant west coast promotion man is a great example of the talent the stones had from the early stages.
as for the beatles v stones old argument.
the beatles tended to when at thier best make very catchy tunes, at other times, plenty other times they made overated boring rubbish that had little energy or imagination.
the stones while not great in the early days at writing a lot of good material did grow into being a very versatile band when it came to not only writing but performing live and in the studio, songs with great energy and rythmn that makes so many of thier songs so much better than anything the beatles could come up with.
cool,calm collected would have been a classic if it was a beatles song, it wasnt, and hence is never considered a classic, but it is in my opinion.
paint it black, could the beatles ever have come close to this, no way.
when at thier best, the stones songs were driven with a superb beat, energy and aggression combined with melody, the beatles made great songs but they never had the same passion as the stones at thier best. songs like get back and love me do were a load of overrated rubbish.
Oh dear. Same old Beatle-bashing. Get a life...
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: December 10, 2015 02:53
Quote
Blueranger
The Stones were simply not prepared enough to write great tunes before at least mid/late 1965. I know there are a few exceptions: Tell Me, Heart Of Stone, Play With Fire, but for every decent original tune they did in the first two years, we got loads of cover-versions or re-worked blues songs to fill out the lack of original material.
As a live-act it was another story, though...
Since original songwriting/diversity (or lack thereof) has been brought up, here is a short list of just some of the original tunes the Beatles wrote pre - '65.
Love Me do
All My Loving
A Hard Day's Night
Don't Bother Me
P.S. I Love You
It Won't Be Long
I Wanna Be Your Man
You Can't Do That
I'm Happy Just to Dance with You
Can't Buy Me Love
Things We Said Today
Tell Me Why
If I Fell
No Reply
I'm a Loser
Baby's in Black
I'll Follow the Sun
Eight Days a Week
How or why someone would say a lot of these sound the same is a mystery.
The one thing they truly have in common is they are all originals written by the Beatles pre '65.
Other than that, a wide array of diversity in styles and sounds imo.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 02:54 by Hairball.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: December 10, 2015 07:47
I don't think The Beatles had anything equal to the greatness of, say, "The Last Time" or "Satisfaction" (songs, which among other features like aggression and sex, established a guitar riff as an essential part of a rock song),
Greatness of songs is of course subjective, but what isn't is that the Beatles had created a number of songs with the guitar riff as the essential element prior to and in the same year as "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction," and topped the charts with them. It wouldn't be accurate to say that it was the Stones who established the guitar riff as an essential part of a rock song (not really the Beatles either - it was pretty common in the 1950s already.)
Indeed a Beatles' early hit in the UK, composed in 1962 and released in 1963 has a guitar riff as the essential part of the song - Please Please Me. (as far as sex and aggression go, the topic of 'please please me' can be summarized as 'i have been good to you so now i expect you to give me sexual pleasure' - it doesn't come much more blatant than that.. )
Some others include:
- Ticket to Ride
- I feel Fine
- Day Tripper
- "I saw her standing there"
- "She's a Woman"
- Dizzy Miss Lizzy (a cover of course)
I don't believe the Beatles were more "white", even though Keith said it. They were however influenced by some different artists. Little Richard, for example, can be heard heavily in the Beatles music and less so the Stones.
What's accurate is to say the Stones were more influenced by the Blues.
Because the Beatles were so broad in the music they produced, it's easy to cherry pick songs (particularly Paul's) like "Yesterday" and use them to paint the band as pop or soft, but they rocked just as hard as the Stones, even in the Stones "golden era". Using harmonies doesn't mean you don't rock and roll (ask Van Halen)
For example, if you look at 1968 and take the Beatles rockers off the white album, it's a list just as long as the entire track list of Beggar's Banquet:
Birthday, Back in the USSR, Glass Onion, Yer Blues, Helter Skelter, Revolution, Savoy Truffle, Happiness is a Warm Gun, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey.
Indeed, if these tracks were released as an album on there own, it would probably be one of the if not the hardest rocking album of the year, and also considered one of the greatest of the year. (Of course in that year the Beatles also released "Hey Jude" and all of the softer songs on the white album.)
As referenced above, one of the Beatles' first big UK hits, released in early 1963, with a guitar riff as the central element of the song
[www.youtube.com]
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 08:11 by Turner68.
Greatness of songs is of course subjective, but what isn't is that the Beatles had created a number of songs with the guitar riff as the essential element prior to and in the same year as "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction," and topped the charts with them. It wouldn't be accurate to say that it was the Stones who established the guitar riff as an essential part of a rock song (not really the Beatles either - it was pretty common in the 1950s already.)
Indeed a Beatles' early hit in the UK, composed in 1962 and released in 1963 has a guitar riff as the essential part of the song - Please Please Me. (as far as sex and aggression go, the topic of 'please please me' can be summarized as 'i have been good to you so now i expect you to give me sexual pleasure' - it doesn't come much more blatant than that.. )
Some others include:
- Ticket to Ride
- I feel Fine
- Day Tripper
- "I saw her standing there"
- "She's a Woman"
- Dizzy Miss Lizzy (a cover of course)
I don't believe the Beatles were more "white", even though Keith said it. They were however influenced by some different artists. Little Richard, for example, can be heard heavily in the Beatles music and less so the Stones.
What's accurate is to say the Stones were more influenced by the Blues.
Because the Beatles were so broad in the music they produced, it's easy to cherry pick songs (particularly Paul's) like "Yesterday" and use them to paint the band as pop or soft, but they rocked just as hard as the Stones, even in the Stones "golden era". Using harmonies doesn't mean you don't rock and roll (ask Van Halen)
For example, if you look at 1968 and take the Beatles rockers off the white album, it's a list just as long as the entire track list of Beggar's Banquet:
Birthday, Back in the USSR, Glass Onion, Yer Blues, Helter Skelter, Revolution, Savoy Truffle, Happiness is a Warm Gun, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey.
Indeed, if these tracks were released as an album on there own, it would probably be one of the if not the hardest rocking album of the year, and also considered one of the greatest of the year. (Of course in that year the Beatles also released "Hey Jude" and all of the softer songs on the white album.)
As referenced above, one of the Beatles' first big UK hits, released in early 1963, with a guitar riff as the central element of the song
[www.youtube.com]
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 08:11 by Turner68.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: December 10, 2015 08:38
Stones could never play as tight as the Beatles, for example, ' She Loves you ', but the Beatles couldn't swing like Stones such as on' Route 66 '.
That's why I were a Stones-fan back then and now
If you ain't got the swing you ain't got a thing..
Congratulations and Singer not the song is excellent songs...
2 1 2 0
That's why I were a Stones-fan back then and now
If you ain't got the swing you ain't got a thing..
Congratulations and Singer not the song is excellent songs...
2 1 2 0
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: December 10, 2015 08:49
i agree about the swing! also interesting to compare how each band did buddy holly - "not fade away" / "words of love"
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Swayed1967
()
Date: December 10, 2015 09:18
Quote
BluerangerQuote
buttons67
under assistant west coast promotion man is a great example of the talent the stones had from the early stages.
as for the beatles v stones old argument.
the beatles tended to when at thier best make very catchy tunes, at other times, plenty other times they made overated boring rubbish that had little energy or imagination.
the stones while not great in the early days at writing a lot of good material did grow into being a very versatile band when it came to not only writing but performing live and in the studio, songs with great energy and rythmn that makes so many of thier songs so much better than anything the beatles could come up with.
cool,calm collected would have been a classic if it was a beatles song, it wasnt, and hence is never considered a classic, but it is in my opinion.
paint it black, could the beatles ever have come close to this, no way.
when at thier best, the stones songs were driven with a superb beat, energy and aggression combined with melody, the beatles made great songs but they never had the same passion as the stones at thier best. songs like get back and love me do were a load of overrated rubbish.
Oh dear. Same old Beatle-bashing. Get a life...
His post perhaps did contain some unnecessary 'Beatles-bashing' but I am for the most part in agreement with him. I'm not sure how a Stones fan could feel otherwise.
The soundtrack to the film ‘The Sound of Music’ was the best-selling album in the UK in 1965 and 1966. It’s truly brilliant...so too are many of the songs written by the Beatles around the same period. The Stones at that time don’t even merit comparison to Rodgers & Hammerstein or Julie Andrews. In fact it would be a laughable and pointless comparison at any time. The Stones have always been a different beast – their approach to music is animalistic. That’s why we like it and continue to listen to it (if you’ll allow me to speak for all of us). I like the Beatles – I would never describe their songs as rubbish - but their genius was in being able to write commercial fluff (Julie Andrews could’ve had a number of hits had she decided to cover Beatles songs). They’re undeniably brilliant but I listen to them only about twice as often as The Monkees and I’ve never even seen ‘The Sound of Music.’
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: December 10, 2015 09:31
Quote
Come On
Stones could never play as tight as the Beatles, for example, ' She Loves you ', but the Beatles couldn't swing like Stones such as on' Route 66 '.
Interesting how you compare She Loves You (a Beatles original from '63) to Route 66 (a Stones cover from '64).
I suppose that emphasizes who was writing better quality original material at the time.
If you take Beatles I Saw Her Standing There (also an original), and compare it with the Stones cover of Route 66, I'd say it swings just as much, if not more so.
As for Yesterday, it's a mighty fine tune however it's labeled (call it soft, pop, soft pop, whatever), and goes to show how much diversity The Beatles had in their arsenal.
According to the Guiness Book of World Records, there's been over 2,200 cover versions of it.
And it received high praise from none other than Chuck Berry who claimed he wish he would have written it.
He briefly talks about it here at the 2:22 mark of this video:
Chuck Berry
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: December 10, 2015 09:38
Quote
Hairball
OK, but given the context and the fast pace that rock and roll was evolving back then, five years = light years
From 1958 to 1963 it wasn't really evolving much, was it.
Elvis was in the army, Chuck was in jail, Little Richard was in church and Buddy Holly was dead.
I'm glad you see my point, though, which is that if anyone's going to compare,
they should compare the Beatles' 1964 work with what the Stones were doing five years after they got together -
but since that five years *was* a gigantic leap, we can compromise:
How about comparing the Beatles' first album with Out of Our Heads
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: December 10, 2015 09:50
I'm not sure that's very logical with sssoul, but if you think the Stones need that kind of handicap then maybe it does...
*And for the record, I said I understood your point, not that I necessarily agreed with it.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 09:54 by Hairball.
*And for the record, I said I understood your point, not that I necessarily agreed with it.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 09:54 by Hairball.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: December 10, 2015 10:04
LoFL, Hairball honey, whether you agree or disagree, the facts remain facts:
The Beatles had been together for about five years before they got a record contract
so their first album represents a completely different point in their development
than the Stones' first album does. Of course they had more original songs by 1964.
They'd been working at it five years longer.
The Beatles had been together for about five years before they got a record contract
so their first album represents a completely different point in their development
than the Stones' first album does. Of course they had more original songs by 1964.
They'd been working at it five years longer.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: December 10, 2015 11:09
The original post by Blueranger was talking about the quality of the songs written - not the quantity.
I understand you're saying that The Beatles had more time to develop and were more experienced therefore having more songs,
but the fact is they were contemporaries releasing albums almost simultaneously, and that's whats being compared.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 11:11 by Hairball.
I understand you're saying that The Beatles had more time to develop and were more experienced therefore having more songs,
but the fact is they were contemporaries releasing albums almost simultaneously, and that's whats being compared.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 11:11 by Hairball.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 10, 2015 13:21
Quote
Turner68
I don't think The Beatles had anything equal to the greatness of, say, "The Last Time" or "Satisfaction" (songs, which among other features like aggression and sex, established a guitar riff as an essential part of a rock song),
Greatness of songs is of course subjective, but what isn't is that the Beatles had created a number of songs with the guitar riff as the essential element prior to and in the same year as "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction," and topped the charts with them. It wouldn't be accurate to say that it was the Stones who established the guitar riff as an essential part of a rock song (not really the Beatles either - it was pretty common in the 1950s already.)
Indeed a Beatles' early hit in the UK, composed in 1962 and released in 1963 has a guitar riff as the essential part of the song - Please Please Me. (as far as sex and aggression go, the topic of 'please please me' can be summarized as 'i have been good to you so now i expect you to give me sexual pleasure' - it doesn't come much more blatant than that.. )
Some others include:
- Ticket to Ride
- I feel Fine
- Day Tripper
- "I saw her standing there"
- "She's a Woman"
- Dizzy Miss Lizzy (a cover of course)
I don't believe the Beatles were more "white", even though Keith said it. They were however influenced by some different artists. Little Richard, for example, can be heard heavily in the Beatles music and less so the Stones.
What's accurate is to say the Stones were more influenced by the Blues.
Because the Beatles were so broad in the music they produced, it's easy to cherry pick songs (particularly Paul's) like "Yesterday" and use them to paint the band as pop or soft, but they rocked just as hard as the Stones, even in the Stones "golden era". Using harmonies doesn't mean you don't rock and roll (ask Van Halen)
For example, if you look at 1968 and take the Beatles rockers off the white album, it's a list just as long as the entire track list of Beggar's Banquet:
Birthday, Back in the USSR, Glass Onion, Yer Blues, Helter Skelter, Revolution, Savoy Truffle, Happiness is a Warm Gun, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey.
Indeed, if these tracks were released as an album on there own, it would probably be one of the if not the hardest rocking album of the year, and also considered one of the greatest of the year. (Of course in that year the Beatles also released "Hey Jude" and all of the softer songs on the white album.)
As referenced above, one of the Beatles' first big UK hits, released in early 1963, with a guitar riff as the central element of the song
[www.youtube.com]
I sort of expected a Beatle defence... I am tahnkful of that since that offers me a means to clarify some of my earlier points.
No way any Beatle nor a Rolling Stone invented an idea of guitar riff having a role in a rock and roll song, nor more than any of these English lads invented the phenomenon of a beat song with a nice melody, The question is more like what they did with those ideas, and what kind of impact they had with them. Yeah, there were guitar riffs in many Beatles songs prior "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction" (I say both because for Europeans, and especially English folks "The Last Time" made the kind of impact "Satisfaction" did for Americans and rest of the world. Still today "The Last time, for example, is their biggest selling single in UK). But the important thing, especially if we look at the future and how a rock music scene would evolve, is that in none of the Beatles songs you mentioned guitar riffs do play such a distinctive role to the whole effect of a song as they do in those Stones songs. I mean, if you think about the songs, what are the features that comes first to mind. With Beatles songs, I would claim that for most of the people it is still the songs themselves, those catchy melodies and their beautiful deliveries. Those are the features which make those songs so distinctive, memorable (and this applies to almost anything the Beatles did, if we count why they were and are so incredibly popular.) But if one thinks of "The Last Time" or "Satisfaction" I don't think is far-reached to say that the feature that first comes to mind is the striking riff which simply captures one's attention the very second the song starts. They are constutive part of the song themselves in the way I don't think any mentioned Beatles song is. Even though the songs are not (yet) build on those riffs, the effect they are used within the songs is actually stronger than just adding an arrangementive part there. Part of the effect and use of these riffs in "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction" is simply the sound - and this, if anything, is a nod to future - countless rock songs would be build on the idea of a strong, great sounding guitar riff. At its own time, the guitar was about to achieve its almost iconical status in pop/rock and roll music, and just before people like Clapton or Hendrix would explode the scene, it was the effect of songs like "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction" showing the way how the guitar can be used very effectively, and thereby inspiring many upconing young guitarists and rock bands. I would say that the way guitar riffs were used in songs like "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction" would have even their contribution when people started seeing a conceptual difference between pop music and rock music, that is, "rock music" was conceptually born (The Beatles would also very much contribute to that, but not by means of guitar riffs, but by their very ambitious and genius song-writing). (Even though the firt pure 'rock song' ever, and showing the whole artistic potentiality a good old beat music song has, was released just after "Satisfaction" by Bob Dylan, but that is another issue...)
The theme of aggression and sex can of course traced even to 50's rock and roll songs - usually there are some hidden meanings, clever use of words or things like that, and I guess many kids of the day were able to catch those meanings. I think the Beatlelogists typically use same kind of method in studying teh early Beatles songs.
But I suggest a use of good old common sense here. If one sees "Please Please Me" and "Satisfaction" having an equal effect in expressing sexual content and aggression, well... I think, once again, when exploring those huge Stones early classics, it is important to notice how much teh very performance afffects to the expression the whole song does. "The Singer Not The Song", as they say... The get the point of "Satisfaction" it is not just the lyrics and teh song - it is the way these lads, especially the singer and that riff guitarist, sound. Funny thing about "Satisfaction" is that if the lyrics are studied carefully ,or if we listen its creators, it isn't sexual almost at all, but still the song as a listened experience is... The sex and aggression is build very much into constitution of the Stones' music, and "The Last Time" and "Satisfaction" were the first instances they were able to express that in the means of their own original music.
Which actually bring the issue into their influences and the differences they have in that sense in compared to the Beatles. I think you interpreted too hastily my - and Keith's - division between "black" and "white" side of Chuck Berry. It doesn't mean that the Beatles only listened to white music from America and the Stones black music. Hell no, surely the Beatles had a lot of inspiration from black american music; not just early rock and rollers such as Berry or Little Richard, but all those newer R&B girl groups with their beautiful harmonies, which surely had a clear effect to their typical sound. And surely much more, And the teenagers Mick and Keith surely were as impressed by Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran, Elvis Presley, The Everly Brothers, etc as John and Paul were. In many areas the interests of The Stones and the Beatles over-lapped, both being a members of the same first rock and roll generation.
But you hinted at the crucial difference: that of the blues. And that exactly is the "black side of Berry". Surely the Beatles guys were familar of that kind of stuff, but no way that had such an effect to their music as it was for the Stones. I think the mentioned five years gap in this thread has much to do with that. The Beatles guys were are already rockin' hard and had their shit together when the blues interest hit the Britian, especially its capital. Mick, Keith and Brian all were deep and dedicated students of this almost anti-thesis music to anything manifested in the pop charts of the day. Especially Brian was almost a purist, watching the blues more from a point of view of jazz than that of rock and roll (Berry), and I think we can not underestimate Brian's influence to the way to the Stones would sound. Even though if we read Keith's LIFE, Keith's approach wasn't far from Brian's, if not at all (though I think he might a bit exaggarate there). And a young Jagger sounded a blues snob as well, ordering all those records from Chicago and all..
This is to say that the early Stones the blues had such a constitutive and inspirational role the Beatles never had. I guess the 'purism' Mick, Keith and Brian had, would have been as odd to John and Paul as it was for Bill Wyman - whose taste, him being older, might more resemble the taste of John and Paul in rock and roll - when he entered to their rehersals for the first time - his impression was something like 'how you guys can think of playing some damn slow twelve-bar blues for the whole evening?
Then we have to remember that when the Stones made their break-through in England, they were the first band from the London club circuit to do that. So they were seen as the leader of the whole rhythm'n'blues movement of Britain, followed soon by many other bands, and to be contrasted to the Mersey-Beat movement, inspired by The Beatles.
So my point was to emphasize the significance of the blues for the Stones. That influence can be hear in their music. Surely, when they had a recording contract, their toughest purism vanished, made many compromises, adding numbers to their repertuare that might have a bigger comercial appeal (not as much as the Beatles though), and when visited America and all that, they get to know more better of the latest currents in black American music, do their version of that, etc. But despite of that, the blues had such a huge effect on their DNA, that it still can be heard in Jagger's vocals or in Keith's guitar in almost anything they do. If anything, the blues offered a means of expression that in order to achieve its 'feel' and 'groove', it could, with a justification, abondon the normal boundaries and forms of Western music - the notes and melodies didn't need to be perfect or anything extraordinary or clever, just fitting to serve the purpose. Also the kind of feelings the blues emphasizies - usually going to more dark sides of human life - both musically and lyrically, is something the Stones would, even in during their 'pop era', use to put their typical stamp on things, their edge and controversality (The Big Four, things like "Gimme Shelter" and "Sympathy For The Devil", are of course, a final, mature manifestation of all that). This is not to say that the Beatles didn't express as much 'feeling' in their music - they surely did but the feelings and the kind of musical means they used were much more sublime and traditional compared to the Stones. The Stones were masters of the low register in humanity. If the Beatles used melody as a kind of means to express feelings, for the Stones it was the sound the notes make, usually by the force of the whole band. Listening to THe BEST OF MUDDY WATERS - as Keith recently adviced us - one can hear from where the Stones got the idea from the famous Stones sound and idea of music stems from. That holistic, dirty, raw, a bit sloppy and chaotic groove, in which contributor just serves the common goal, the wholeness being bigger than its parts.... The Blues had a baby, indeed, and they named rock and roll. Or they could call it simply The Rolling Stones.
A personal observation: usually when people choice between that big issue - The Beatles or The Stones - most of them, of course, say the first one, and if asked further why, the reasons tend to be such as The Beatles are more musical, better melodies, more diverse, adventurous, and, of course, 'innovative'... and the reasons why the Stones doesn't actually appeal to them are seemingly because the Stones music somehow neglects those features, but which actually can be translated into: they actually don't appreciate those very blues-based non-traditional features in Stones music I talked about above ('but. hey, "Ruby Tuesday" and "Paint Black" are surprisingly good!). The Stones people, of course, say that the Beatles are too "poppish", too clean, no groove, too easy-listening, etc. A matter of taste, obviously. In best case, one can cherish both of them, and also cherish the difference between them, both being damn good in what they do.
Okay, back to "Satisfaction", as a song it is a kind of a Dylan folk song by constitution, but when it is put through their blues-trained filter, the whole effect of the song changes. It still from the 'black side of Berry', now finally manisfested in a commercial sounding pop song.
What goes for those 1968 examples, and over-all the good old 'hey, it's not all about "Yesterday", remember "Helter Skelter"' -argument the Beatles section seems to throw in when for some reason the rocking nature of The Beatles is questioned... Frankly, I don't find that very interesting issue at all, and it is a bit hard for me to understand what there actually are tried to say or prove. Probably it stems from the fact that the Stones are remembered from a bit more edgy songs than the Beatles. The collective memory is more interested in hits than of deep album cuts - and because of those hits, both bands are as big as they are. "Yesterday" might be the most well-known Beatles song ever - as is "Satisfaction" for the Stones. The same goes for the typical claim of Beatle apologists that 'man, The Beatles was much dirtier, rawer and rock and roll and everything in Hamburg the Stones nerd boys ever would be'. Might be true, but The Beatles turned out to be the biggest phenomeneon in popular music ever not because of what they were like in Hamburg, but what they actually did to achieve "Beatlemania" - the biggest singular reason being the catchy, clever, great pop songs John and Paul were able to write to back up with a cleverly manufactured charming image to appeal to millions.
Lastly, I want to thank you, turner68, to inspire me to write all this shit! It is always funny to think aloud. And a virtual drink to anyone who was able to read it through... (I need a real one now...)
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 14:43 by Doxa.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: December 10, 2015 14:17
Quote
Hairball
The original post by Blueranger was talking about the quality of the songs written - not the quantity.
I understand you're saying that The Beatles had more time to develop and were more experienced therefore having more songs,
but the fact is they were contemporaries releasing albums almost simultaneously, and that's whats being compared.
Did I say something about quantity? Didn't mean to - the quantity is only a side effect.
Someone who's been working at songwriting for 5 years is likely to either get better at it or give up, don't you think?
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: December 10, 2015 17:54
Quote
with sssoulQuote
Hairball
The original post by Blueranger was talking about the quality of the songs written - not the quantity.
I understand you're saying that The Beatles had more time to develop and were more experienced therefore having more songs,
but the fact is they were contemporaries releasing albums almost simultaneously, and that's whats being compared.
Did I say something about quantity? Didn't mean to - the quantity is only a side effect.
Someone who's been working at songwriting for 5 years is likely to either get better at it or give up, don't you think?
Yeah you did - "Of course they had more original songs by 1964. They'd been working at it five years longer" - but no biggie, I think our wires have been crossed several times in this thread.
Along with more quantity, it seems you're also saying the Beatles had more quality songs because they had more development and experience.
Again, I understand what you're saying, but with that line of thinking there would be an asterisk after The Beatles name in the history books, (*more popular, prolific, and talented only because they had more time to prepare and develop). Not sure I've ever heard this justification (or defense) of the Stones - basically giving them a handicap. As a matter of fact, I've never heard that rationale when comparing any artists of any type - especially ones that were contemporaries and releasing work nearly simultaneously Based on that thinking, maybe we should just consider the Stones as The Beatles' little brothers always trying to catch up ....or add an asterisk to clarify it all.
Quote
Doxa
In best case, one can cherish both of them, and also cherish the difference between them, both being damn good in what they do.
Just read through your entire post Doxa, and this sentence is what it really comes down to for me.
But people being people will always pick a side, or have a favorite, or cherish one more than the other for a variety of reasons.
As long as the argument is civil, then it's always interesting to wade through - live and let live...
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-10 18:08 by Hairball.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: December 10, 2015 18:32
I think that as stones fans we don't need to be so defensive, which is one reason I wrote about the Beatles - we can give credit where credit is due rather than dismissing the Beatles as pop or fluff (hairball I also don't get the argument about timing - sounds like a big and little sibling fighting).
In any case, under assistant is a fine early stones track - the closest glimmer of greatness to come IMO is Jagger's clever lyrics, musically the arrangement and the performance is not the best of their early period.
In any case, under assistant is a fine early stones track - the closest glimmer of greatness to come IMO is Jagger's clever lyrics, musically the arrangement and the performance is not the best of their early period.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: December 10, 2015 20:53
Quote
HairballQuote
Nicos
the observation that Mick &Keith were forced to write their own songs*, compared to Lennon & McCartney who composed their songs in a automatic way, which result that a lot of pre '65 songs basically sounds the same.....*because of this, the songwriting of Keith was very divers which results in songs like Tell Me, Stoned, 2120 Sth Michigan Avenue, Congratulations, Heart of Stone, What A Shame, The Last Time, Play With Fire, Satisfaction, The Under-West Coast Promotion Man, Get Off of My Cloud, The Singer Not The Song, As Tears Go By, ...............................2000 Light Years From Home.........JJF, Soul Survival....and I could go on and on
By the way I'm a also a Beatle fan.......................
A bit confused sorry, but are you saying a lot of pre-'65 Beatles songs basically sound the same?
And if so, you then say Keith's writing is very diverse, but then you go on to list several songs from '65 and after?
Not sure if that's a fair comparison - we might as well throw in Help (like Satisfaction from 1965), A Day in the Life (like 2000 Light Years - 1967), Yer Blues, Dear Prudence, I'm So Tired, etc. (like JJF from 1968).
It's a matter of opinion of what's better than the other, but at least there's a level a level playing field to make proper comparisons.
Also, as great as they are, I'm not so sure your examples Stoned, The Under-West Coast Promotion Man, and What a Shame are prime examples of great original songwriting as they're basically reworked blues tunes. And a couple others - The Singer Not the Song, and Congratulations - are simply not great original songwriting no matter how you look at it imo. Decent yes, but not up to par with some of their best.
I also could go on and on, but perhaps this would be the proper thread for that:Beatles vs. Stones
Your right Hairball I should't have added 2000 Light Years From Home.........JJF, Soul Survival.... I wasn't in control of my enthousiasme about the great songs they has written
__________________________
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 11, 2015 17:50
Funny song. It's memorable. A good one in a way that's a commentary on what they were doing with a bit of a wink.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: December 11, 2015 18:16
Well lets give the credit where it is due....to Buster Brown. I always though Jagger was trying to take a page out of Dylan's songbook with his title to this one.
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: December 11, 2015 22:21
You're all daft!
Stones was a blues band formed by a Jazzpurist and musicologist and the band explored rock n roll thanks to the other guitarist. Fame made their manager demand they had to compete with Lennon/McCartney. That's one of the reasons they never credited others in the band (when one feel they should have - and probably would have today). And of course Lennon/McCartney never split the credits either.
Lennon/McCartney started out as songwriters even before they met. That became their thing: a songwriting partnership. Write your own material.
Stones was a blues band formed by a Jazzpurist and musicologist and the band explored rock n roll thanks to the other guitarist. Fame made their manager demand they had to compete with Lennon/McCartney. That's one of the reasons they never credited others in the band (when one feel they should have - and probably would have today). And of course Lennon/McCartney never split the credits either.
Lennon/McCartney started out as songwriters even before they met. That became their thing: a songwriting partnership. Write your own material.
Re: Track Talk: Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man, The
Posted by:
ash
()
Date: December 11, 2015 22:52
Quote
Blueranger
The Stones were simply not prepared enough to write great tunes before at least mid/late 1965. I know there are a few exceptions: Tell Me, Heart Of Stone, Play With Fire, but for every decent original tune they did in the first two years, we got loads of cover-versions or re-worked blues songs to fill out the lack of original material.
As a live-act it was another story, though...
by and large I agree except Tell Me is awful. The real break through for Mick and Keith was The Last Time even though they sort of nicked it. It's a fantastic record and a fantastic Stones record - it's got the lot (except a middle 8 but it doesn't need one). After that, apart from the written under pressure fillers they've got their act sorted out. Come 1968 they're absolutely on it on a regular basis.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
chrisvw , FeelslikeaGhost , Fletchesus , frankotero , georgelicks , gimme_shelter , JN99 , Sir Mick , Taylor1 , thijs1981 , TumblinDice76 , wickerman
Guests:
1528
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10