Log In
Register
11.56pm
26 March 2012
Offline
I love Gimme Shelter and She’s A Rainbow, but most other Stones tracks I can take or leave, and it’s not just because of Beatles favouritism; I’ve listened thoroughly to their “classic period” records plenty of times but they don’t grow on me much. The bluesy roots-rock thing gets old quickly, and Jagger’s not the best singer (hugely iconic and influential frontman though). For all the publicity the Stones got as the “bad boys”, and their music supposedly being dirtier and heavier, they certainly never pushed the boat out as far as Revolution , Helter Skelter or I Want You (She’s So Heavy) did.
SHUT UP - Paulie's talkin'
7.23pm
18 November 2011
Offline Don’t those high harmonies sound awfully familiar?
12.42am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Stones, but they were always in the wake of The Beatles. The Stones only really came into their own as The Beatles started to break apart in ’68. One of my favourite Stones stories is the meeting between Dylan and Jagger at the Ad Lib in the mid-sixties (Bobby’s ’65 or ’66 tour). Bobby obviously didn’t have a very high opinion, looked at Jagger and said, something like, “The difference between us is I could have written ‘Satisfaction’. You could never have written ‘Like a Rolling Stone’.”
Few facts.
1) George got them signed to Decca.
2) They first make the UK Top 20 with a Lennon/McCartney throwaway.
3) Jagger and Richard(s) are locked in a room by Andrew Loog Oldham and told if John and Paul can write songs they’ve got to as well, and they ain’t coming out until they do.
4) “I’m Free” lifts Lennon and McCartney’s “Love me, hold me,” from “Eight Days A Week “. You can’t find any instance of The Beatles directly quoting the Stones.
5) The first Stones album generally mentioned is “Satanic Majesties…” and that’s only to say what a failure and mis-step it was. None of their early albums get much beyond the singles and filler that existed before The Beatles (only possible exception being “Aftermath”, and then barely).
The Stones were a great band, deserving much love for a great run of 60s singles, and who hit a great run of albums between ’68 and ’73, but they were no Beatles. To my mind The Who snapped at The Beatles heels creatively far more than the Stones.
Ooo… 6) “Street Fighting Man”, fantastic pose. “Revolution “, a – I really ain’t sure about all this fighting on the streets. A show of fitting in with the ’68 riots is the much easier option than questioning where they’re going.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
vonbontee"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
4.56am
19 April 2010
Offline To me it’s this simple – every band gets compared to The Beatles – there’s a reason – they are the standard. It doesn’t take anything away from those other bands – they just are not in a class near The Beatles. – no other band even comes close. No objective measurement can even put any other band in their league. History continues to prove this. Their supremacy is no longer opinion. it’s fact.
"She looks more like him than I do."
3.54pm
17 December 2012
Offline mja6758 said
The first Stones album generally mentioned is “Satanic Majesties…” and that’s only to say what a failure and mis-step it was.
Yes, but have you listened to it? It’s got a bunch of fantastic songs (“Citadel”, “2000 Man”, “The Lantern”, “2000 Light Years From Home”, the aforementioned “She’s a Rainbow”, also “In Another Land” if you can get past Bill Wyman singing through his nose) and isn’t that much of a “Sgt Pepper ” rip-off really, musically at least… It’s much darker (also lyrically), and there’s quite a lot of weird improvised-sounding stuff (“See What Happens”, “Gomper”, parts of “2000 Light Years”)… In fact I think that its aimlessness is what makes “Satanic Majesties” so different from what the Beatles did at the time.
5.47pm
14 December 2009
Offline
Yeah, that long improv bit and the overall darkness is something that the meticulously arranged Sgt. Pepper never had any time for.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
8.05pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Velvet Hand said
mja6758 said
The first Stones album generally mentioned is “Satanic Majesties…” and that’s only to say what a failure and mis-step it was.Yes, but have you listened to it? It’s got a bunch of fantastic songs (“Citadel”, “2000 Man”, “The Lantern”, “2000 Light Years From Home”, the aforementioned “She’s a Rainbow”, also “In Another Land” if you can get past Bill Wyman singing through his nose) and isn’t that much of a “Sgt Pepper ” rip-off really, musically at least… It’s much darker (also lyrically), and there’s quite a lot of weird improvised-sounding stuff (“See What Happens”, “Gomper”, parts of “2000 Light Years”)… In fact I think that its aimlessness is what makes “Satanic Majesties” so different from what the Beatles did at the time.
Yes, I have listened to it, and I don’t think it’s a bad album (“Sing This All Together…” is my favourite track, but the others you mention go from great to good to not without interest). I wasn’t commenting on its worth as an album, just talking about how it became the first Stones album to be treated as a whole, rather than a collection of singles and filler, and that the commentary on it was largely “the psychedelic Stones didn’t really work”. A good example being Jon Landau’s review for Rolling Stone, which wasn’t exactly complimentary. In many ways it’s their “White Album /Get Back –Let It Be ” given what was going on around, and within, the band during 1967, ending with Andrew Loog Oldham quitting as their producer. Unlike The Beatles, they did manage to “get back” and, with the drafting in of Jimmy Miller, went on to produce the run of albums – from “Beggars Banquet” through to “Exile…” – that are accepted as their classics.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
6.46am
19 September 2012
Offline Ben Ramon said
I love Gimme Shelter and She’s A Rainbow, but most other Stones tracks I can take or leave, and it’s not just because of Beatles favouritism; I’ve listened thoroughly to their “classic period” records plenty of times but they don’t grow on me much. The bluesy roots-rock thing gets old quickly, and Jagger’s not the best singer (hugely iconic and influential frontman though). For all the publicity the Stones got as the “bad boys”, and their music supposedly being dirtier and heavier, they certainly never pushed the boat out as far as Revolution , Helter Skelter or I Want You (She’s So Heavy) did.
I just listened to She’s a Rainbow and I thought it was great, and Mick Jagger sang this really well. Personally the one thing I don’t like much about the Stones is that Mick Jagger is not a very good singer (I pretty much only like their tracks where he sings well: Gimme Shelter, Satisfaction etc..) which is where I think the Beatles are heads and shoulders above the Stones. Part of why the Beatles never gets old is because they had two of the best lead singers to ever make records, in addition to them being the greatest songwriting team ever (this is all my opinion of course).
2.37pm
8 November 2012
Offline BTW, The Examiner mentioned that yesterday was the 50th anniversary of The Beatles meeting The Rolling Stones for the first time at the Crawdaddy Club.
parlance
4.45pm
14 January 2013
Offline toryst said
McLennonSon said:
That is one good post, man.
Thanks
I never really bought into the whole debate because it’s like comparing apples to oranges. One thing that has always got my goat tho is when the Beatles are called a pop band.
I never really bought into the whole debate because it’s like comparing apples to oranges. One thing that has always got my goat tho is when the Beatles are called a pop band. 
People (in real life) always, ALWAYS bring this up. They always call The Beatles a pop band and the Stones a rock band, but they can never justifiable back the argument when I give them such facts as this:
mja6758 said
1) George got them signed to Decca.
2) They first make the UK Top 20 with a Lennon/McCartney throwaway.
3) Jagger and Richard(s) are locked in a room by Andrew Loog Oldham and told if John and Paul can write songs they’ve got to as well, and they ain’t coming out until they do.
Or when I bring up The Beatles later stuff.
The Beatles did put out “pop” songs, but they also put out rock songs. Most people only point out songs like I Want To Hold Your Hand . Well what about Helter Skelter ? Oh, wait that wasn’t a single.
The other thing they bring up is The Beatles fan girls/groupies, particularly the people who were not alive then. What do they think the Stones were not going to getting laid? Course they had fan girls! Maybe they didn’t have the Beatlesmaina screams, but they had screaming fan girls.
Either way, they are both great bands in different ways. I do love The Beatles more, but I also love the Stones. I give The Beatles credit for leaving on top, but give the Stones credit for longevity.
5.42pm
3 May 2012
Offline The thing about calling The Beatles a pop band gets on my nerves a lot. Not because I try to deny that they did put out pop songs, but because that term has changed over the years IMO. A pop group now is, for example, One Direction. No talent, songs written for them and, apparently, no idea at all on making half-decent music. If that floats your boat then fine, music is there to be enjoyed, but you can’t call both The Beatles and One Direction pop bands because there is no comparison between the two.
Do I think the Stones (whom I quite like, btw) are a bit more Rock and a little less pop than The Beatles? Yes, slightly. But, in my eyes, the latter were a rock band. This is something that I haven’t quite convinced my parents of yet, unfortunately.
Moving along in our God given ways, safety is sat by the fire/Sanctuary from these feverish smiles, left with a mark on the door.
(Passover - I. Curtis)
5.45pm
8 November 2012
Offline fabfouremily said
Do I think the Stones (whom I quite like, btw) are a bit more Rock and a little less pop than The Beatles? Yes, slightly. But, in my eyes, the latter were a rock band. This is something that I haven’t quite convinced my parents of yet, unfortunately.
I just don’t know how you listen to the White Album or Abbey Road and come away calling them a pop band.
parlance
5.54pm
3 May 2012
Offline parlance said
fabfouremily said
Do I think the Stones (whom I quite like, btw) are a bit more Rock and a little less pop than The Beatles? Yes, slightly. But, in my eyes, the latter were a rock band. This is something that I haven’t quite convinced my parents of yet, unfortunately.I just don’t know how you listen to the White Album or Abbey Road and come away calling them a pop band.
parlance
Exactly.
Moving along in our God given ways, safety is sat by the fire/Sanctuary from these feverish smiles, left with a mark on the door.
(Passover - I. Curtis)
6.00pm
14 December 2009
Offline Because there many great pop songs on both of those albums?
As you already said, the main problem is that the meaning of the term has changed.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
6.04pm
3 May 2012
Offline Von Bontee said
Because there many great pop songs on both of those albums?As you already said, the main problem is that the meaning of the term has changed.
Yes, there are ”pop” songs on those albums but there are mainly songs on there that I think are better put under the category of ‘rock’.
Moving along in our God given ways, safety is sat by the fire/Sanctuary from these feverish smiles, left with a mark on the door.
(Passover - I. Curtis)
6.05pm
14 January 2013
Offline fabfouremily said
The thing about calling The Beatles a pop band gets on my nerves a lot. Not because I try to deny that they did put out pop songs, but because that term has changed over the years IMO. A pop group now is, for example, One Direction. No talent, songs written for them and, apparently, no idea at all on making half-decent music. If that floats your boat then fine, music is there to be enjoyed, but you can’t call both The Beatles and One Direction pop bands because there is no comparison between the two.
This I wish people would get that through their heads.
8.11pm
8 November 2012
Offline fabfouremily said
Von Bontee said
Because there many great pop songs on both of those albums?As you already said, the main problem is that the meaning of the term has changed.
Yes, there are ”pop” songs on those albums but there are mainly songs on there that I think are better put under the category of ‘rock’.
Yes, that’s my thinking too. Even by 1960’s definitions, I don’t think overall they would have been considered pop albums.
parlance
11.05pm
14 December 2009
Offline But that’s not really the case. At least in the UK, if you read all the old ’60s press clippings and whatnot, you’ll invariably see ’em described as a “pop combo”. The terms “rock and roll” (much less just “rock”) only show up very infrequently. But, again, that just goes to show how the terms have changed.
I get the general impression that ’60s music writers seemed to reserve the term “rock & roll” for stuff that dated back to the ’50s – giving the impression that “pop” overtook “rock” sometime around the turn of the decade.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
11.52pm
8 November 2012
Offline ^^ I won’t argue with that as I haven’t read too many music reviews from the period. I’m just confused how someone nowadays like Emily’s parents would still want to categorize them strictly as a pop band by any standards.
parlance
12.13am
14 December 2009
Offline Yeah, and I have my reservations about classifying ’em as either one, since they were spectacular at both. And then there’s the question of whether pop can encompass rock, or vice verse, blah blah blah…
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
1 Guest(s)