|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Beatles? or the Rolling Stones? |
| Beatles |
|
66% |
[ 28 ] |
| Rolling Stones |
|
33% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 42 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
 Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 2:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
My contention: Beatlemania was a creation of the media. It was maintained by the guys' skill as writers and performers. That they became a cultural phenomena is due to the media. |
I dissagree strongly. The media helped to spread the word, to increase thier popularity, and make sure the seats at concerts were filled. But the actual reaction of the crowds at concerts simply could not be created by anything, and was totally unique at that time and even now. The reaction was physical, palpable, hysterical, particularly from the women. There are stories of janitors having to mop up tons of wet seats after concerts, women screaming and feinting all over the place. If you have seen the footage you know the stories are not concocted. People were literally breaking down in states that can only be described as hysterical and cathartic. This was a chemical thing between the band and the early live audiences that eclipses the responces to Elvis, The Stones, and anyone ever sinse. Part of it may be been due to the fact that the 50s were so conservative and stifling, as tends to happen after a war, and the Beatles represented a breaking away and an alternative to that, they represented a return to wild teenaged excitement, and they reprasented the entire breaking through into modernity that was happening in the 60's. Sure they were there at the right time, but no other band was able to gather up the zeitgeist of an entire era, and a culturally explosive era at that, and wrap it up in some sexy spangly guitar chords and ripping vocal harmonies, and simple evocative lyrics that hinted at much more than indicated on the literal level. And the Beatles were deceptive in one regard. The Stones have the image as the bad boys, with the much more dangerous and sexually predatory an provocative image. But dont be fooled by surface impressions, the early Beatles were undoubtably sexually charismatic and dangerous to the estrablishment. And thier music contained strong undercurrents of sexuality, longing, and explosive breaking away from repression that was to ocurr and continue to grow through the 60s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Well, considering all the great performing artists - representing many different genres of pop music - you've listed from the pre-Beatles American music scene I don't think it's fair to imply (by "fresh air") that what preceded their arrival was stale or musically stagnent. |
Well, this idea that the Beatles were breaking into a scene that had stagnated is one shared by many prominant rock critics. I mean, Bobby Vinton having number one hits? Come on! By that stage Elvis had gone soft, Sam Cooke had strayed from his soul roots into syrupy string backed ballads, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis were no longer recording vital material ( but still touring ), Stevie Wonder had yet to fully develop into the powerhouse he was later to become, The Beachboys were good, but still very homely and whitebread at that time, Nat King Cole? Smooth, but hardly dangerous or exciting. Peter Paul and Mary? Come on! The early sixties saw the rise of these highly groomed, safe, white male solo pop artists. The only exciting thing on the scene was the Motown sound. I can very much see how the Beatles were seen a turning point, and the vanguard of the huge changes that were to happen in the rock sound during the decade.
The Beatles were able to combine the driving RnB guitar of Chuck Berry and early Elvis, with the shining tight male vocal harmonies of the Everly Brothers, with an all together new melodic and harmonic pop sensibility and a rawness born of working class life on the tough back streets of the grimy port town of Liverpool. There were also filtering thier strong american influences through a profoundly English cultural perspective. Thier apprenticeship in Hamburg, which was gruelling, honed and sharpened them into a very tight, raw, driving rock ensemble. They would regularly play two joints a night, totally 6 or more hours on stage, night after night, to tough, rawkus, demanding audiences. This was thier crucible, and gave them a big edge later in the studio. And if ever there were two voice made by go to go together it was Paul and John. Up there with the Everly Brothers, the Beach Boys, and Simon and Garfunkel as far as matches made in heaven go, they had the tightness of the others, but also a raw toughness that set them apart. Paul slightly sweeter, but tough as you like if he wanted ( See "Oh Darling" if you dont think he could belt with the best, he positively shredded that thing up ), with John providing the lemon to Paul tonic.
Then there was the music, expanding the harmonic possibilities of guitar rock. Prior, the hits of the day were typically three, four, or at most five chord workouts. The Beatles regularly logged hits with 10 or more chords, and pioneered the harmonic modulation into new keys for bridge sections, and they did it while keeping the music unified and natural enough to make it highly accessible, never just clever for the sake of it. Add to this the preternaturally indellible melodies, innovative vocal harmonies that bend the ear yet somehow seem like they are perfectly natural, lyrics that offer fresh perspectives, hope, joy, anger, rebellion, desire, and with an immediacy and honesty that was definitely new. Everything about the Beatles was a new precedent, and seemed expansive, joyful, hopeful, explosively exciting, and forward looking.
Then there was the way they grew and experimented at such a stunning rate. You cant count the amount of studio innovations they brought forward that are now standard practice. They basically rewrote the guitar rock vocalbulary, and took the pop pallette from black and white to glorious technicolor. And later thier lyrical contect expanded to take on a huge range, from social commentary, deep philosophy, humour, cynicism, complaint, whimsy, psychedelic playfullness, poignancy, sentiment, pathos, you name it, its there.
They tower head and shoulder above the Rolling Stones in terms of legacy, achievement, influence, sales ( including sales that continue today at a staggering rate well after thier cultural ear has passed ), range, musical invention, popularity, importance, and meaning.
Due to changes in the music industry and in the world, there will never be anything like them ever again. They are, quite simply, the greatest there ever was, and the greatest there ever will be. And as long as there is music, people will acknowledge, remember, talk, and write about four young working class scruffs from the mean streets of Liverpool that took thier passion for rock and roll, beat the odds, and rocked the world... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Beatles certainly could play live.
Lennon always said the Beatles were at their live best in the Hamburg and early Cavern days. They played hard-hitting Rock and Roll for literally 8 hours per day in the Hamburg clubs.
It would take a bunch of talentless retards to not get good with that much live experience and practice put in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Gately
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Location: In a basement taking a severe beating
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
Nowhere man (the person who listed that as a weak track is nuts!)
|
Maybe, but he doesn't consider "Monkey Man," "We Can Work It Out," or "I'll Follow the Sun" as lesser-known Beatles/Stones tracks. Because that's not nuts, it just kind of reeks of going for street-cred and self-checking on the rim.
Oooohhh. You were *this* close, bro.
Last edited by Don Gately on Mon May 08, 2006 4:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Gately
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Location: In a basement taking a severe beating
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| identity wrote: |
| you have no idea what you're talking about. |
In the words of Reggie, "whateva man." If you think Hendrix's artistic accomplishment is comparable to that of the Beatles and the Stones, well, some sins trail their own penance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tiger fancini
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Location: Testicles for Eyes
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
The Beatles certainly could play live.
Lennon always said the Beatles were at their live best in the Hamburg and early Cavern days. They played hard-hitting Rock and Roll for literally 8 hours per day in the Hamburg clubs.
|
Granted, but do you think the fact that they were off their t*ts on speed all the while helped them along? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tiger fancini wrote: |
| eamo wrote: |
The Beatles certainly could play live.
Lennon always said the Beatles were at their live best in the Hamburg and early Cavern days. They played hard-hitting Rock and Roll for literally 8 hours per day in the Hamburg clubs.
|
Granted, but do you think the fact that they were off their t*ts on speed all the while helped them along? |
Speed doesnt reduce your co ordination or perception of reality, it just keeps you awake and pumped, which with thier schedule was quite required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just came across this thread. It's like deja vu all over again. 
I remember in high school it was necessary to identify with one or the other of the Stones or Beatles- only a few of us weirdos hung with both. In Southern California high schools your were a surfer or greaser, mod or rocker, Beatles or Stones. Choose your side. Oh yeah, there were the low riders and the cruisers, and so on.
I swam like a surfer, rode with the greasers, dressed mod, and undressed for the rockers. A pipeful with my head between a pair of speakers was spent with the White Album, and I rocked my ass off to Satisfaction.
That is why they call me Desultude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Keith Richards undergoes brain surgery: media
Sun May 7, 11:18 PM ET
WELLINGTON (Reuters) - Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards had surgery to relieve a blood clot on his brain caused by an accident while holidaying in Fiji, local media reported on Monday.
The 62-year-old rocker was recovering in New Zealand after "brain surgery," Australian and New Zealand media reported.
A spokeswoman for the band said last week that Richards only suffered a mild concussion from an accident in Fiji in late April and would not require surgery.
The New Zealand Herald reported that Richards underwent brain surgery to relieve a subdural haematoma or blood clot on the brain. The operation normally involves drilling a hole through the skull to drain the clot.
Subdural haematoma can be caused by mild knocks to the head.
"The Herald understands the 62-year-old's condition was much more serious than previously reported," said the newspaper, but did not quote any hospital or medical officials.
Australian Broadcasting Corp radio also reported that Richards had undergone surgery and remained in New Zealand under observation.
Auckland's Ascot Hospital told Reuters on Monday that Richards had been discharged but would give no further details.
"I can confirm that he was discharged ... but other than that I can't make any comment. The hospital's policy is quite clear that we don't discuss any patients' past, present or future," said the spokesman.
Richards was flown to Auckland, New Zealand, in late April after an accident while holidaying in Fiji following the end of the Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand leg of a world tour.
A band spokeswoman said last week that Richards had been discharged and was in "good spirits" and adamant he would join the rest of the Stones in Barcelona for the kick-off of the European leg of their tour on May 27.
Along with lead singer Mick Jagger, Richards has been the backbone of the Rolling Stones since the 1960s.
His history of arrests and drug abuse in younger years has given him the reputation as rock 'n' roll's ultimate survivor. He pokes fun at his checkered past by greeting concert audiences with the catchphrase, "Good to be here, good to be anywhere."
He has suffered his fair share of freak accidents.
In 1998, he broke three ribs and punctured a lung after falling from a ladder while reaching for a book in his library.
In 1990, one of his fingers got infected after he punctured it on a guitar string. In both cases, the Stones were forced to postpone concerts. |
Damn, I wonder what that life of drugs and rock and roll does to a brain- his would be the paradigmatic "brain on drugs". I'm seriously curious if there is a visible effect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, with drugs (like everything in this world) what goes way up comes way down and sometimes crashes - Allen Ginsberg advised acidheads to chant mantras to soften their re-entries ... (Of course, heroin is usually the drug of choice of blues guitarists...)
I'm probably the only guy on this forum who not only was in high school in 1964, but also owned the "greatest hits" albums of both Gene Pitney (Rock Music Hall of Famer) and Trini Lopez (Latin Music Hall of Famer...) There were also all the studio-centered "Spector Sound" groups including the Righteous Brothers and the plethora of girl groups led by the Ronnettes and the Crystals. Roy Orbison and Herb Alpert were major talents... Jackie Wilson was "Mr. Excitement" - a great performer (who sadly ended up on skid row) who is still imitated by American Idol contestants...
The Beatles elevated rock and pop to another level, and the other British invasion groups led by the Rolling Stones, Animals and Kinks and bands like Gerry and the Pacemakers, Dave Clark Five, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, the Searchers, Herman's Hermits, Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders, the Zombies, Hollies (and so on and so forth...) pretty much erased all the American groups from the charts overnight - with the exception of the Beach Boys, some Motown groups, and the Four Seasons. I just found a fairly comprehensive essay on 60s music to refresh my memory:
http://www.spectropop.com/hmadanibrief.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
That was a fun read. However, the guy classed "The Band" and "Creedence Clearwater Revival" as "electric folk" which kind of lowered his cred with me a bit... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| However, the guy classed "The Band" and "Creedence Clearwater Revival" as "electric folk" which kind of lowered his cred with me a bit... |
He was probably struggling to find some sort of PC alternative to Southern Rock?
What did he classify Lynard Skynard as? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 9:05 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
The Band is exactly what I'd call Electric Folk, outside of the Dead, who are the seminal examples.
If you read the article, he also cites CCR as "roots rock".
Outside of Fortunate Son, they sound pretty country to me, but they're from California.
Put them next to Zeppelin as contemporaries and they seem pretty folky to me.
I think they straddle lines.
While we're on the topic, see Tony Joe White. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of bands sound folky next to Led Zep.
I would call The Band roots rock, but even that is not totally fair. The term "folk" implies a certain feyness, a lack of rhythmic sophistication and drive, a kind of simplicity in music and pallette, that just isnt fair to The Band. They had elements of folk music, also country, also white boy soul, RnB,proto funk ( see Up On Cripple Creek, Across The Great Divide ), swamp boogie, blues, creole and hill billy music. The mish mash they created was WAY too colorful and musically advanced and rhythmically intricate and complexly arranged to call it folk. The same, but to a lesser extent, goes for CCR. They were a driving white boy RnB band in a way, with strong country flavours, and southern boogie, and blues, as well as, ok, some folk influences. Both bands are not Led Zep, but they rocked far too hard to be tagged with the limited term folk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...And I got to hear and see both The Band and Credence Clearwater Revival up close as I was literally leaning against the stage at the original Woodstock Festival...The hypnotic guitar rhythms of "Born on the Bayou" was especially impressive... By 1969 there were so many great music acts that even without the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Dylan and Doors it was like four days of music heaven in upstate New York. (Of course, I was so stoned that even Country Joe and the Fish sounded great, and my favorite act (except maybe the Jefferson Airplane, who started their set before the crack of dawn amidst fans in deep slumber...) was Ten Year After featuring Alvin Lee's superfast blues riffs on "I'm Comin' Home".(Unfortunately, I was on the outskirts of the venue trying to hitch a ride "home" when Jimi Hendrix was applying his guitar pyrotechnics to the "Star-Spangled Banner"...) A concise, organized summary of the acts and songs they performed there is available here:
http://www.woodstock69.com/Woodstock_songs.htm#top |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
