-
Which is better, the Rolling Stones or the Beatles, and why?
-
Thanks for the video access Jung. I don’t know if it’s one I’ve seen but I’ll have a look when I get the time. Yes, record labels and promoters really ripped off both bands in the end, but unfortunately, this has been par for the course for most bands over the years. There is a fair amount of discussion around this in a very early MLT Club post, particularly in regard to Badfinger and the tragedy that was their experience with management. I have also just replied to David Herrick’s Topic ’60’s Sound-Alike Songs’ on this issue and in particular, regarding former Rolling Stones manager Allen Klein, (who owns the copyrights to the band’s pre-1970 songs because of aggressive business practices).
We are fortunate that Mona and Lisa are independent and have the experience of Rudolf and Michaela behind them.
-
Once again an excellent video Jung. We had three Beatles raised in council homes and only Lennon in a private home, in contrast to the mainly middle-class life of The Stones.
I know the Beatles and anti-Beatles story well, as being a young teenager at the time I lived the hype. I was a working-class kid who was a rebel Stones fan while my best friend at school was a middle-class kid who was a passionate Beatles and Simon and Garfunkel fan and not only had all their records but could also sing and play the guitar. Life just doesn’t seem fair sometimes!
It wasn’t until around 1970 and the end of the hysteria and hype, that I was able to start appreciating the Beatles more.
Yes, Tariq Ali marched in the anti-war demonstrations in 1968, along with Mick Jagger. “Street Fighting Man” (from Beggars Banquet), is a product of those times. I am a fan of Tariq’s writing, both fiction and non-fiction. For anyone who hasn’t read him, I can highly recommend his fiction novels (stories woven through history), especially for Anglo Saxons (like me) for a non-western perspective on European history and culture.
The video portrays the very sad story of Brian Epstein’s life and to an extent that of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones through self-serving promoters, managers and record companies.
-
I really like the bond that the Beatles and the Stones had from the very beginning, which was hidden from the public, and how they sort of watched each others back and even collaborated around the timing of album releases so they didn’t overlap with each other, kind of how some box office movies are done, timed so that one movie released in the summer, does not impede on the popularity and sales of another released later in the fall or winter. Mick Jagger was so well spoken when asked what he thought about the Beatles during the height of their fame, speaking so carefully so as not to to say anything bad about them and pointing out they are merely different. Spoken like someone with a lot of admiration and respect for the Beatles, the same as the Beatles were about the Rolling Stones.
-
The following article is taken from the ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Commission), updated 27 Sep 2019,
Abbey Road tells a story of deep divisions within the Beatles, 50 years on from its release
-
A Hard Day’s Night: Solving a Beatles mystery with mathematics.
The Real Opening Chord to A Hard Days Night (Randy Bachman’s Guitarology).
-
That’s great Howard. True, ask Giles Martin for the real story, he knows better than anybody as to what is recorded in Beatles tapes. I tried it and recorded something very close, almost what Randy Bachman is describing, but maybe different shapes to the chords. One thing I realized is that it’s not just the notes played, but the instruments and amps used and the recording technique. Those things drastically change the sound too.
As to AI, those promoting it as the new tech to deconstruct songs, write hit songs, or write the next “Beatles” song, well, they may be scientists, but they must also be deaf. -
Now to the subject of the thread. I’ve confirmed some info that I had in the back of my head. People usually put down Paul McCartney’s solo career because it is less than the Beatles, but it’s an incredible one. For example The Rolling Stones had -8- #1 hits in the US over their entire career. Paul in his solo career had -9- #1 hits.
-
Lol… I’m sorry that I can’t fully engage in this particular posting as my knowledge lacks to the point that I feel lost in the realm here on this posting… Lol… Though I will say, I do enjoy the solo stuff by Paul/John/George /Ringo… As for Stones solo stuff… Not really…
My same feelings of feeling lost also applies to the Guitar postings… Lol… As I’m not a seasoned musician of sorts or at least to the caliber of most participating in that particular posting as well… Though I do enjoy reading and if I feel the notion to put in my 2 cents worth, though, I will… Lol…
-
Ah Tomás, are you falling back on that “I may not know much about art, but I know what I like” defence. As previously discussed, is commercial success necessarily an indicator of quality.
What were your fellow music consumers listening to in the classical music period? I have selected the following contribution from the internet for an example.
“What we think of as “classical music” was not exactly the pop music of its day, but at that time all types of music were a lot closer to each other in style. The most serious kind of music was church music, then opera. A lot of instrumental music was written for amateurs to play at home (of course there was no other way to hear music since there was no recording technology). The more “popular” music was folk music, music for dancing, songs sung on the streets or in taverns – but the musical language of all genres was basically the same. A folk song or dance tune could be incorporated into a more “serious” work quite easily, even into church music.
One of the qualities that made something “popular” was simplicity. The “classical” composers that tended to be the most popular were those who wrote in a very simple, tuneful style that did not rely very much on contrapuntal techniques, complex forms and overly rich harmonies. But these are some of the very qualities that we now value so much in the great composers, whereas the thousands of simple, tuneful pieces churned out by their now-forgotten contemporaries may be charming but now can seem trite, insipid and uninspired.
But much music then was not necessarily consumed for inspiration, but for entertainment – to be consumed, discarded and forgotten. People mostly wanted something new – our idea of going back over and over to “masterpieces” written hundreds of years ago would have been ridiculous to them. What they mostly wanted was something brand new, but easily digested. Kind of like watching TV.
There were an enormous number of composers who were very popular in their day but have now faded into obscurity. I don’t know that they were necessarily “one hit wonders,” because that is something that mostly seems to apply to recorded music. These were mostly people who churned out lots and lots of music for popular consumption, but their music has not stood the test of time. On the other hand, a number of composers that we recognize as geniuses were not universally acclaimed in their own time. They may have been acknowledged as great composers by other musicians and respected by the public, but often their music was considered too difficult and complex for the average listener. This sort of criticism was leveled at Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and many others.”
As you state, Paul McCartney’s solo career is an incredible one and I would love the opportunity to see him live in a small venue concert. However, I don’t think you are going to find too many people who would consider his solo career to be on the same level as the Beatles.
As for the Stones, there were many British bands who had significant hit singles, Herman’s Hermits, The Searchers, Manfred Mann, The Hollies, The Kinks, The Dave Clarke Five etcetera, but none of them had anywhere near the significant album output and quality of the Rolling Stones, whose best albums sold in the multi-millions.
On that subject, one of my brothers (and all three are Rolling Stones fans and not into the Beatles like me), held a party where he played a song by the Rolling Stones for each year of the sixties from 1964 to 1970 and challenged them to play a Beatles song for comparison. He had all his Rolling Stones vinyl albums and his guests Beatles vinyl albums lined up. Would you like to play?
-
The Beatles: Has evolutionary biology proved the Fab Four’s early work wasn’t ‘musically important’?
The following article (First posted 18 December 2017), taken from the ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Commission), deserves consideration.
What were the other major revolutions in popular music?
“Everybody thinks they know when the music changed. And when the music changed … was usually when they were about 17 years old,” Professor Leroi said.“The belief in the importance of the music of your youth and the arbitrariness of revolutions and change and so forth, and the journalistic nonsense that has been written about it, all conspire I think to make the history of pop deeply opaque and deeply subjective.”
-
Hi Howard,
I don’t think I was defending anything. I do like the Beatles, you like the Stones, and that’s great. I’m not imposing my views on anybody. Like I’ve said there are a handful of amazing Stones songs that move me. “Angie” being one of them. My sister came to visit with her family for 10 days recently and she’s a big Rolling Stones fan, the first day here she was wearing her Stones shirt (I’m always wearing a Beatles shirt). We had great banter. You may be underestimating my knowledge in music, I don’t think you want to put the Beatles up to the Stones side by side in an objective way, preferences aside.
I don’t think Paul’s career was as great as the Beatles, but he did some amazing solo work. “Maybe I’m Amazed”, Band on the Run, Ebony and Ivory, are all as good as the Beatles period. Plus, it’s Paul all along, he was doing Hey Jude, Let it Be, Yesterday. His career includes the Beatles, as a songwriter an performer, there hasn’t been anyone more successful in at least 100 years. I understand that music is subjective. Sales and rankings are manipulated, especially nowadays.
As to the article you quoted, I had read it some time ago, and I noted the publication date. I’m sorry to say that in my humble opinion it’s pure garbage. He substantiates his wild claims with vague convoluted opinions, nothing else. I’m afraid Professor Leroi doesn’t get out much. I feel for his students if he still has any. Saying that the Beatles music is irrelevant, really? Count me out of the list of those who think that at 17 there was a musical revolution going on. At 17 (1984) I thought the music was crap. I’ve always been a Beatles fan and I know what I’m talking about. We talk about the 60’s revolution (Stones included), not the 70s or 80s or 90s. None of his arguments make any sense to me. How can you say the Beatles music is irrelevant when it transcends generations. Beatles music is at the top of the charts today, 50 years on.
When someone puts a title before their name, especially when the article is in a field unrelated to the specialty of the author, it raises a red flag for me. This makes me look closer at the claims they are making, and more often than not, they are nothing but nonsense or manipulations. I’m not one for titles. I know someone that managed the fortunes of many celebrities and she was a high school dropout. I understand that to build a house you need an engineer, to ensure soundness, but a title doesn’t give wisdom, only knowledge. Leroi mentions the amount of nonsense written, while clearly contributing to it.
Just my opinion.
Tomás -
Yeah I still think the Beatles are in a league of their own. Led Zeppelin would be a closer competitor to the Rolling Stones for that #2 position. If you open it up to all artists, then #2 would be a close match between Elvis, Dylan, Stones, and Led Zeppelin IMHO. If the world ended in 1967, then I would put the Beach Boys in the #2 running as well. 🙂
Here is a Skyline of Taipei. If that real tall building is the Beatles, #2 would be one of the many smaller ones scattered around it.
-
Jung, you are in the right club to think the Beatles are in a league of their own. Members of other clubs may think otherwise of course. As we are discussing groups, Dylan and Elvis aren’t a consideration, particularly Elvis who wasn’t known as a musician (although he could play guitar) and he wasn’t a songwriter/composer.
We need to establish criteria to determine how we can compare groups rather than just simply popularity or personal likes. For example, up until at least 1967, the Beatles played the great majority of instruments on their studio recordings, and early on, all of them with occasional assistance from the fifth Beatle, George Martin.
It was the same with the Rolling Stones, with occasional assistance from the sixth Stone, Ian Stewart on piano (who also played in some live tour performances when Brian was sick). On their albums from 1965 until Brian Jones’s departure in 1969, they played nearly all the instruments required with Brian Jones contributing, from 1965, the dulcimer, sitar, harpsichord, mellotron, trumpet, trombone, marimbas, recorder, flute and pretty well any other instruments required. You can find many of these instruments on their albums “Aftermath”, “Between The Buttons” and “Flowers”.
Some more instruments would have been included in their experimental “Satanic Majesties’ Request” whose recording sessions were greatly disrupted due to Mick, Keith and Brian’s many court cases over various drug busts.
In comparison, during the same period, The Beach Boys’ greatest achievement, “Pet Sounds”, was hardly a Beach Boys production. The album was mostly a collaboration between Brian Wilson and lyricist Tony Asher. Wilson produced several backing tracks over a period lasting several months, using professional Hollywood recording studios and an ensemble that included the classically trained session musicians nicknamed “the Wrecking Crew”, also known as the musicians frequently employed on Phil Spector’s records. There is far too much material on this subject for one post so I’ll save more for another post.
-
“In comparison, during the same period, The Beach Boys’ greatest achievement, “Pet Sounds”, was hardly a Beach Boys production. The album was mostly a collaboration between Brian Wilson and lyricist Tony Asher.”
I think your assertion here Howard is inaccurate and overstates Tony Asher’s involvement in the album.
Here is what Tony Asher actually said about his involvement with Brian Wilson on Pet Sounds per Wikipedia:
On his role (Tony Asher) as co-lyricist, he said, “The general tenor of the lyrics was always his (Brian)…and the actual choice of words was usually mine (Tony). I was really just his interpreter. “
It was all Brian Wilson’s creation and artistic control, Tony Asher was solicited for help with the choice of words in the lyrics. The Wrecking crew provided their musicianship skills under the direction of Brian Wilson like any orchestra would. I think Brian was very generous in the amount of credit he gave Tony Asher on the album, as anyone would be grateful to someone for any small amount of help when you are creating one of your greatest works.
-
-
“You may be underestimating my knowledge in music, I don’t think you want to put the Beatles up to the Stones side by side in an objective way, preferences aside.”
Not at all Tomás. I have no doubt you have far more musical ability and probably have far more knowledge of particular music than me. However, I have no reservations whatsoever about putting a Stones song alongside a Beatles song for comparison, whether objective, subjective or simply beecause “it’s only Rock and Roll but I like it”! I’ll start the comparison in another post, and welcome you to play the game.
As for your, “Count me out of the list of those who think that at 17 there was a musical revolution going on. At 17 (1984) I thought the music was crap. I’ve always been a Beatles fan and I know what I’m talking about.” I think you are misrepresenting Professor Leroi here. What he actually states is “Everybody thinks they know when the music changed. And when the music changed … was usually when they were about 17 years old”. He doesn’t mention anything about a music revolution here.
You have actually just corroborated Leroi’s view. Your favourite music at 17 was the Beatles and it still is today. Leroi didn’t mean with his comment that the popular music of your teens was your revolution, but rather your favourite music at the age of 17 was your music revolution. There’s a huge difference there Tomás. If you read him more carefully, you’ll see that the music revolutions happened by 1964, 1982 and 1991. 1982 stemming from the introduction of drum machines and synthesizers and 1991 when hip hop and rap took over the charts.
Professor Leroi said the data shows a 1964 revolution that was all about music becoming more “aggressive”. But The Beatles did not contribute to that change in the music.
He said that change in musical style was largely driven by other bands, playing louder rock and roll. “When the [Rolling] Stones, the Kinks and the Who were transforming the face of popular music, Lennon and McCartney were writing ditties for prepubescent girls,” he said.
“That’s not saying the Beatles didn’t have nice tunes, it’s not to say they didn’t have nice haircuts, or that they weren’t nice boys, but in terms of driving the music ahead, they just weren’t that important.”
You state, “I know someone that managed the fortunes of many celebrities and she was a high school dropout. I understand that to build a house you need an engineer, to ensure soundness, but a title doesn’t give wisdom, only knowledge.” Exactly Tomás! The knowledge that comes with years of peer critical study and assessment that is not based on hearsay, anecdotes, and personal feelings.
Managing the fortunes of celebrities, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily require years of a specific study, just the same as being a competent, capable musician/performer doesn’t, as the MLT have shown! For people like me though, it would take years of study to become even a mediocre musician! I don’t see any benefit in devaluing the achievements of others, and I’m sure that wasn’t your intention. I too am not intimidated by titles and consider any contributions dispassionately.
-
Hi Howard. The Beach Boys Pet Sounds is considered one of the greatest albums of all time by the experts.
According to Rolling Stones Magazine, the 10 Best Albums of ALL TIME:
1..Sargent Peppers – Beatles
2..Pet Sounds – Beach Boys
3..Revolver – Beatles
4..Hwy 61 Revisted – Dylan
5..Rubber Soul – Beatles
6..What’s Going On – Marvin Gaye
7..Exile On Main St – Rolling Stones
8..London Calling – Clash
9..Blonde on Blonde – Dylan
10..White Album – Beatles
Of course there are many lists, and the standings will vary, and some lists may have a Stones album rated higher than Pet Sounds, but the Beach Boys is pretty high up there. Before 1967 it was Beach Boys in contention with the Beatles in the USA. Rolling Stones gained traction after 1966 and Pet Sounds in the USA, after Brian Wilson was no longer in contention and began his downward spiral.
Edited to add:
According to Wikipedia, in 2004, Pet Sounds was preserved in the National Recording Registry by the Library of Congress for being culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.
Log in to reply.
