Friday, January 30, 2009

Beatles v Stones



Remember Oasis v Blur. Well in the 60s it was The Beatles v The Rolling Stones. I was working through some pretty heavy shit when I was a kid, so naturally I was a Stones fan. I liked the Beatles, but for what I needed saying I needed Mick and Keith to say it.

As time went, I guess round about 67/68, the philosophies and images of the the two bands kind of came together. That would be roughly around the time of the albums Sergeant Pepper and Satanic Majesties. Glorious days!

Youtube has this feature that I recently discovered, where they present you with a random selection of songs, compiled depending on your previous requests (yes Vicus, technically not random ok). My list is made up of 80% Beatles tracks, and for some reason quite a few Jethro Tull songs. I have never requested one of those that I remember but I did get a bit into The Soft Machine a while ago - I think Jethro must qualify as Prog rock.

Now as I get older I spend most time listening to The Beatles. I just love the simple words and emotions of the early Beatles songs, and then of course when the psychedelia kicks in, well, I'm like a pig in shit!

Love and Peace brothers and sisters.

13 comments:

  1. Love and peace, Tom.
    I can't see the vid right now -I'm at work, during a break- but I bet Big Cheese would love it.

    When I was little, my brothers -6 and 3 years older than me- got 2 albums of the Beatles for Xmas. Just one week later and we had learned all the songs. The rest of albums followed, and so many songs too. No trace of the Stones.

    When I grew older i discovered them myself -Undercover- and went back to their oldest hits. It was an amazing trip. Then I saw them live in Madrid, and it was so great.

    I love them both, just like Oasis and Blur -I have all their albums, these controversies are not so bad after all!-

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom, I really don't think that this kind of post is helpful, as it encourages divisiveness and contention. For those of us who spent the 60s squandering all of our talents in pursuit of harmony and peace (well, dope and acid then), this stirring up of differences seems like a kick in the teeth for our ideals.
    Added to which, it will provide a platform for all those soft-in-the-head, sentimental twassocks who thought the Beatles were better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Beatles were better.

    That was a very unsettling video. Where was Boy George?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Apples and Oranges.

    As I listen to my favorite Stones' song Monkey Man I am reminded that the Stones were free from the trappings of the Pop Media Machine that enslaved the Fab Four.
    This allowed the Stones to explore the dark side and crafted tunes with gravitas that surpassed the Beatles.

    I will give the Beatles credit for churning out countless catchy ditties about the arrested development of young lads in pursuit of les girls. It wasn't until the Sergeant Pepper White album era that they finally caught up and latched on to what the Stones were about. Plus without the aid of George Martin it would have been a completely different ball of wax.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Beatles sucked up to the Baby Boomer zeitgeist of Eisenhowerian/Leave It To Beaverism and were the nice lads..although they did have that long hair..the rascals.

    The demographic tsunami of teenagers coming of age and demanding their own music catapulted the Beatles into the stratosphere. Without the millions of children entering their teens the whole episode would have been vastly different.

    When the Stones realised that they offered a real rebellion against the MAN they hardened and had enough resolve to make a statement with their music. When the final blow was delivered in 68 and Bobby and MLK were assassinated the door was kicked wide open for the Stones. They marched right in.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I guess what I'm saying in a very roundabout way is that the Beatles were the gateway band..Sinatra was the first Pop idol and Elvis needs to be acknowledged for introducing white..really white America to black rhythm and blues from the south..upon which both the Beatles and the Stones dipped their buckets to drink.

    Apples and Oranges. It would have been great to see what McCartney and Lennon could have accomplished if they were able to control and keep their monstrous egos in check.

    What the hell do I know anyway, my favorite Beatles are George and Ringo so my opinion should prolly be completely discounted...and I've obviously surpassed my quota of caffeine this morning for which I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  7. WOW... what do you have for breakfast, H-E? I want a little bit too! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Leni - I've just read Donn's thesis on the subject and am left speechless by my rather shallow approach to this. Suffice to say, that like you, I love both bands almost equally. Who's to say, in a few years as I become even more grumpy I may swing back to listening to The Stones again. Right now I'm enjoying listening to 'countless catchy ditties about the arrested development of young lads in pursuit of les girls'.

    Vicus - Sorry to highlight one of the most devastating philosophical differences of the 1960s, but I am thinking maybe it's time we faced up to it, and hopefully by so doing, we will come out stronger for it.

    Geoff - hehehe, yes, at last a gathering of pop stars without Boy George!

    Donn - Thank you for your very clear and powerful treatise on this important subject. Do you know, i think you are right, and I'm wondering if me embracing early Beatles songs is in some way linked to me becoming a little more mellow in my advancing years. They are very sweet songs Donn, even though they are 'catchy ditties about the arrested development of young lads in pursuit of les girls'. Love that line - you should patent that!
    Don't you think that 'monstrous egos' are a necessary ingredient for success on the scale achieved by these two great bands. Hats off to them I say!

    Leni - I think Donn needs to eat a bit more toast to help soak up some of that coffee!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I used to hate The Beatles in my teens and early twenties because I'd been surrounded by their music when I was a kid and I was fed up with them. I think you rebel against "establishment" music from a previous generation (or what you see as the establishment at the time).

    Started to like them again in my mid twenties and still love them to this day. Same with The Stones. I'm not really sentimental about the '60's though, or the bands who were supposed to overthrow that establishment in the late '70's. It's all part of a continuum ...

    ... er, sorry. I'm not very convincing when I try to analyse things. Best left to the people who've commented before me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Beatles changed my life for ever.
    But I sort of got fed up with them after the sixties.
    Now when I hear them on the radio I feel a real thrill of recognition.
    The one album I play over and over is 'Rubber Soul'.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Me, too. Stones first, Beatels now. (No idea how I found your blog but I bookmarked it so I must like it.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Donn - You got me thinking last night. Actually I'm wondering if the Beatles wee right all along - simple songs about girls is it really - we maybe just wanted it to be a bit more!

    Betty - I didn't keep up with the continuum, but I agree it is there, but there are some ages when it is just shit, dont you think!

    Kas - People always bang on about Rubber Soul being the best album. Actually, I must take another listen to it - I always just assume the later stuff is the best.

    Andrea - Welcome to me blog. I just took a look at your artwork - it's fabulous!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Are you looking for free Google+ Circles?
    Did you know that you can get these AUTOMATICALLY & ABSOLUTELY FREE by using Like 4 Like?

    ReplyDelete