# beatles vs Rollings stones



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

Ockay here the thing i kinda like Rolling stones but the beatles there is something in there music that turn me of.So im a Rolling stones kinda guy

This is my verdict Rolling stones r better , they are still around, but the beatles was somesort of boys band when it started 'love love do you know i love you'' how corny is this,very corny...than they evolve in experimental pop rock sensation.

Therefore beatles are about familly value and Rolling stones are about sex drug and rock n rolls,anyone share my view on this.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

The Beatles did get edgier, but the Stones have always been dirtier. I remember someone back in the '60s writing to Teen Screen magazine and asking why they didn't cover the Stones. Their reply, "Rolling Stones gather no Teen Screen." 

Yeah, that put Mick Jagger in his place.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Stones are supposed to be the greatest rock band ever, and that may be so. I do think they are a great band but I stay away from them because too much of their music is lascivious, which is supposed to be what rock music is all about, but not for me.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

deprofundis said:


> This is my verdict Rolling stones r better , *they are still around,*


This is an argument AGAINST the Stones. The Beatles were wise not to hang around too long.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I think Revolution is the greatest rock song of all time.

Beatles


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I probably like both equally, and we were fortunate that just as the Beatles were losing their collective will to live by early 1969 the Stones were 12 months into a four/five year purple patch which saw them produce a hefty percentage of their greatest music. 

Getting Mick Taylor in to replace Brian Jones was probably the best decision that the Stones made, even if he wasn't their first choice - Keith Richard(s) had a musical chemistry with Taylor that hasn't been there half as much with Ronnie Wood.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I like both The Rolling Stones and The Beatles.

But Arcade Fire is my fav.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Beatles for me 
I think they were far more inventive than the Stones


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Haydn man said:


> Beatles for me
> I think they were far more inventive than the Stones


Inventive yes but philosophical... subject to debate. This tome reveals all:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Rolling-Stones-Philosophy-Thought/dp/0812697588


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

The Stones certainly had more attitude than The Beatles, but the latter were more musically skilled and disciplined. The Stones were not an albums band—there was a lot of filler even in their best work. The Velvet Underground would serve as a more suitable comparison with The Beatles, in terms musical accomplishment, talent, and influence.

Another band that would challenge The Stones' alleged supremacy in rock — Led Zeppelin.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Morimur said:


> The Stones certainly had more attitude than The Beatles, but the latter were more musically skilled and disciplined. The Stones were not an albums band-there was a lot of filler even in their best work. The Velvet Underground would serve as a more suitable comparison with The Beatles, in terms musical accomplishment, talent, and influence.
> 
> Another band that would challenge The Stones' alleged supremacy in rock - Led Zeppelin.


I definitely agree with that apart from the Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers albums - I just can't hear a weak track on any of those three.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> I definitely agree with that apart from the Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers albums - I just can't hear a weak track on any of those three.


Which pretty much proves you're the same age I am! :lol:


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Which pretty much proves you're the same age I am! :lol:


Let's put it this way, Ken - if I want to see 50 again then I'm looking in the wrong direction. :lol:


----------



## phlrdfd (Jan 18, 2015)

The Stones put on a better live show because of Mick Jagger, but The Beatles are my favorite by a fairly wide margin just going on the music. The Beatles put out album after album with hardly any bad songs at all except for stuff on the White Album that wasn't really serious. And they were putting out two albums per year. That's remarkable consistency. No. They didn't keep it up as long. But the legacy they left from that six year period still holds up strong in my opinion. I guess I can see preferring the Stones if you like more hard core or edgier rock music, but I just think Lennon and McCartney (and even Harrison during their late albums) were the better song writers.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I prefer the Beatles, they are more to my taste.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Even though I didn't listen TRS albums, I prefer The Beatles from Rubber Soul album to Let It Be. I don't care much for their early stuff.
But TRS has some interesting songs too.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I like a lot of The Rolling Stones music, but they are not in the same league as bands like The Beatles or Zeppelin. I don't even enjoy much of The Beatles music, but it seems to me they were clearly a _lot_ better. I don't know why people think the bands are really even comparable other than the fact they were contemporaries and both very popular. Popularity has nothing to do with musical quality. The Stones may have been as popular as The Beatles, but they were no where near as consistent, innovative or sophisticated.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Mmmmph.

Occasionally I'll load up some random Rolling Stones tracks, just hoping to find some excitement over them and/or their music.

Still hasn't happened. Sure, there's a handful of neat tunes they do, but overall I just find them to be so wantonly sloppy. Very loose. Jagger never did it for me. 

BTW, my brother loved them because they were sloppy and loose.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I like both the Stones and the Beatles. The Stones' junkyard band sound, for me, is part of their appeal. Plus the Stones gave me one of my Top Ten favorite songs with _Gimme Shelter_ , whereas no Beatles song makes it all the way to the top. But the Beatles were the more creative group and I especially love their druggy/psychedelic oeuvre. Two indispensable bands.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

pianozach said:


> BTW, my brother loved them because they were sloppy and loose.


Did he ever date a cheerleader?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

_Satisfaction
19th Nervous Breakdown
Last Time
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Brown Sugar
Not Fade Away
Paint It Black_
etc
etc

Some great rockin' tracks!

I own none of them, or any of their LPs, but had no trouble dancing to the odd one on the dancefloor or humming along to them on the radio. But the band's 'personality' simply didn't click with me in the way The Beatles' did.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

I love them both.
I prefer The Beatles though, with a quite decisive margin. Awesome band, my favourite band actually.

When I think of The Beatles, I think of great albums.
When I think of The Rolling Stones, I think of great songs.

Despite my preference for The Fab4, I will never forget getting completely wild and loose on the dance floor on f.i. _Paint It Black_, _Sympathy For The Devil_, _Honky Tonk Women_, _Gimme Shelter_, _Miss You_, _Too Much Blood_ and _Mixed Emotions_.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Two totally different bands therefore not an apt comparison. The Stones were about pure, unadulterated rock & roll. The Beatles were more whimsical and I daresay, precious. Nothing in their catalogue has the instinctually raw appeal of Exile on Main St.

Comparing the Stones and VU would make more sense.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I used to like the Beatles. Now, I still like a few songs, but I can tolerate most of their catalog. 

The Stones... never liked them. Now, I can barely tolerate them.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

@Red. You can't compare them...yet you do. Please explain 'precious'.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Forster said:


> @Red. You can't compare them...yet you do. Please explain 'precious'.


Both bands started out as rock 'n roll bands. The Beatles evolved into an art-rock band (for lack of a better term).

The Stones did not.

In my opinion.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

NoCoPilot said:


> Both bands started out as rock 'n roll bands. The Beatles evolved into an art-rock band (for lack of a better term).
> 
> The Stones did not.
> 
> In my opinion.


Precious - as in excessively sensitive and/or droll.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

The Beatles were creative artists who transcended their influences and thus shifted the popular music paradigm.

The Stones were skilled artisans who worked within an established tradition modified by contemporary technology and commercial imperatives.

I'm more likely to reach for the Stones (late 60s/early 70s) than the Beatles, though I acknowledge the transformative achievement of the latter.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> I like both the Stones and the Beatles. The Stones' junkyard band sound, for me, is part of their appeal. Plus the Stones gave me one of my Top Ten favorite songs with _Gimme Shelter_ , whereas no Beatles song makes it all the way to the top. But the Beatles were the more creative group and I especially love their druggy/psychedelic oeuvre. Two indispensable bands.





NoCoPilot said:


> Both bands started out as rock 'n roll bands. The Beatles evolved into an art-rock band (for lack of a better term).
> 
> The Stones did not.
> 
> In my opinion.


I can claim quite a collection of albums by both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, and I enjoy both, still, after all these years, though I prefer The Beatles.

I've long thought of The Beatles in terms of "song crafting" and the Stones in terms of "performance". Early Beatles and early Stones have a similar sonic texture. The Beatles got past this when they started recording albums of their own material; they seem to have spent creative energy to craft each song as a unique gem. The "song" becomes "the thing", and it is more than just the progression of notes, the tune, and the lyrics; it is also a matter of the orchestration. The Stones are rarely subtle in their orchestration; it remains generally unchanged from song to song, so that their sound is strongly identifiable. One thinks immediately upon hearing the Stones: "That's the Rolling Stones playing". One thinks upon hearing the Beatles: "That's a Beatle's song."

Many cover Beatles' songs, yet those covers always seem somewhat lame compared to the original, because each Beatles song is carefully designed, as a fine object of art is, and any change of any part makes for a marring of the original. One can cover a Stones song, and the object is to get the _sound_ of the Stones, not so much the sound of the song, since there isn't one.

I suspect that if the Stones recorded an album of Beatles songs, it would sound like a Stones album, with the textures of every song having a homogeneity. I suspect that if the Beatles recorded an album of Stones songs, we would finally have opportunity to hear what each song has to offer individually, in its own universe of sound.

By my measure, I can likely conclude that the Stones is the stronger "band". But I prefer hearing songs to bands, and thus follow first the path of the Beatles. Again, I turn to the Beatles when I want to hear Beatles songs; I turn to the Stones when I want to hear the band play. It's been that way for me for years; I don't expect much to change.

On my Discogs database, the term "Beatles" gives me 74 hits, which includes several complete album box sets and many rarities. 
"Rolling Stones" provides for 17 hits, but includes two large multi vinyl disc collections of their albums.

In my collection.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

I suppose I am just weary of the seemingly eternal marketing effort to shove The Beatles down the throat of every man, woman, and child on earth. It's downright satanic.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SONNET CLV said:


> each Beatles song is carefully designed, as a fine object of art is, and any change of any part makes for a marring of the original. [...]


That might well be true of the songs on SPLHCB and AR, but both earlier songs (on PPM , for example) and the later (especially LIB) were much more loosely composed and produced. Having watched _Get Back _(Peter Jackson's edit of the footage shot during the rehearsal and recording of LIB) it's clear they wanted to get away from crafting each song and revert to just playing and recording in one.

Oddly enough, my favourite cover is Elton John's LITSWD.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

As I observed my slightly older friends in the early 60s, race music was being co-opted by the white guys. And seeing them react was my introduction to popular music. It's big subject, but a fascinating one. 

Jagger and Richards wanted to use what was effective from Black music, but they had to be careful (and smile and look fashionable (early on)) and introduce lyrics which were more relevant to the whitebread existence. The Beatles could appeal to the excitable girls and the music students, while the Stones could succeed as a world-savvy boy band for the cool-er kids and the older girls who wanted the 'bad' boys. White kids had much more money to spend!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I asked my wife this question yesterday she said, "If I want to dance then I prefer the Stones. If I want to listen to great songs and records I prefer The Beatles."

That sums it up for me as well.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> I suppose I am just weary of the seemingly eternal marketing effort to shove The Beatles down the throat of every man, woman, and child on earth. It's downright satanic.


In the last decades I've noticed that it's easiest to make profits from the hyped-view of the Beatles as those times become more and more poorly remembered (and hyped and mistaken and exaggerated). The Beatles phenomenon is endearing to so many types of people (and so many age groups) for all the various reasons. Paul was concerned about lasting 5 years, ha.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> I suppose I am just weary of the seemingly eternal marketing effort to shove The Beatles down the throat of every man, woman, and child on earth. It's downright satanic.





Luchesi said:


> In the last decades I've noticed that it's easiest to make profits from the hyped-view of the Beatles as those times become more and more poorly remembered (and hyped and mistaken and exaggerated). The Beatles phenomenon is endearing to so many types of people (and so many age groups) for all the various reasons. Paul was concerned about lasting 5 years, ha.


If you can't appreciate The Beatles were a great band, with some of the best songs ever produced by a Popular act - then it's your loss. There is no hype, IMO, all the praise is well-deserved.

For sure, you may have other bands you like more, but to deny the achievement of The Beatles is foolhardy.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Our car MP3 stick has 48 Beatles songs and 22 Stones songs. My list of about 550 favourite albums has 5 Beatles albums and 0 Stones albums.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> If you can't appreciate The Beatles were a great band, with some of the best songs ever produced by a Popular act - then it's your loss. There is no hype, IMO, all the praise is well-deserved.
> 
> For sure, you may have other bands you like more, but to deny the achievement of The Beatles is foolhardy.


I've never talked about that. You're projecting, because I agree with what I know of your opinions about how tight the bands were or how interesting the song sheets are.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> In the last decades I've noticed that it's easiest to make profits from the *hyped-view *of the Beatles as those times become more and more *poorly remembered (and hyped and mistaken and exaggerated). *The Beatles phenomenon is endearing to so many types of people (and so many age groups) for all the various reasons. Paul was concerned about lasting 5 years, ha.


We've discussed this before, but I've never clearly understood where your evidence for this comes from.

Of course, as we all age, our memories become less reliable, but that's no reason to assume that there is a general "exaggerated and mistaken" view of The Beatles.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Luchesi said:


> Jagger and Richards wanted to use what was effective from Black music, but they had to be careful (and smile and look fashionable (early on) and introduce lyrics which were more relevant to the whitebread existence.


One would be hard-pressed to find them smiling on those early LP jackets, and Jagger wore a sweatshirt(!) on their first appearance on Ed Sullivan, a sartorial _faux pas_ (actually, a sartorial "f***k you!") according to the norms of acceptable public attire then.

The Stones weren't white-washing black music in the manner of Pat Boone and other blue-eyed appropriators; on the contrary, they were attempting to sound as "black" as their skinny white asses could manage, a stylistic choice that did not necessarily guarantee success in the white America of those years (as the likes of Pat Boone knew only too well). Luckily for the Stones, the times were a-changin,' however slowly and haltingly.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> I've never talked about that. You're projecting, because I agree with what I know of your opinions about how tight the bands were or how interesting the song sheets are.


These were your words:

"the hyped-view of the Beatles as those times become more and more poorly remembered (and hyped and mistaken and exaggerated)"

I don't think there is "hype" (i.e. inflated praise) nor that the period is poorly remembered, hyped, and mistaken, and exaggerated.

Now you say you agree with my appraisal of the band and songs, but iin the post I quoted, it sure sounds like you think they have been overrated.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Red Terror said:


> I suppose I am just weary of the seemingly eternal marketing effort to shove The Beatles down the throat of every man, woman, and child on earth. It's downright satanic.


I'm tired of the seemingly eternal marketing effort to shove Kanye West down the throat of every man, woman, and child on earth. It's downright satanic.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

pianozach said:


> I'm tired of the seemingly eternal marketing effort to shove Kanye West down the throat of every man, woman, and child on earth. It's downright satanic.


No argument there.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

I prefer The Beatles, but I'm not too familiar with Rolling Stones music. They also have some very interesting stuff.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

I was a child in the sixties. I had two elder brothers. One, twelve years older than me, was in to The Beatles and The Shadows. The other, ten years older than me, was in to Dylan and the Stones. 

Which do I prefer? Hard to tell. We Can Work It Out, Can't Buy Me Love, Hello, Goodbye, Ask Me Why, are part of the soundtrack of my early life and pleasantly evocative of that time. These days though, I'm much more likely to play Brown Sugar, Jumping Jack Flash, Sympathy for the Devil, or Paint It Black.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The Beatles, in my opinion, never produced a song describing angry/bitter/tragic loss as did the Stones in _Paint It Black_. That was one of only a handful of songs that Leonard Bernstein singled out to discuss during his brief attempt to "explain" Rock and Roll to his usual audience. The Stones can be seen as retreating from this compressed expression of anguish by adopting from then on a shell of weary cynicism in their music, with occasional flashes and glimpses of the old sensitivity. The Beatles' gift lay elsewhere, in inventiveness and novelty of expression.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> The Beatles, in my opinion, never produced a song describing angry/bitter/tragic loss as did the Stones in _Paint It Black_. That was one of only a handful of songs that Leonard Bernstein singled out to discuss during his brief attempt to "explain" Rock and Roll to his usual audience. The Stones can be seen as retreating from this compressed expression of anguish by adopting from then on a shell of weary cynicism in their music, with occasional flashes and glimpses of the old sensitivity. The Beatles' gift lay elsewhere, in inventiveness and novelty of expression.


Indeed, the Beatles weren't as "dark" a band as the Stones, but why is that relevant? Is a band only good if they have a song that describes angry/bitter/tragic loss? If so, there's an awful lot of Rap artists that are "relevant".

No, the Beatles didn't really roll that way, although they often touched on loss and misery (_*Eleanor Rigby, Misery, A Day In the Life, Baby's In Black, I Don't Want To Spoil the Party, I'm a Loser, Help!, Run For Your Life, Nowhere Man*_, etc)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

pianozach said:


> Indeed, the Beatles weren't as "dark" a band as the Stones, but why is that relevant? Is a band only good if they have a song that describes angry/bitter/tragic loss? If so, there's an awful lot of Rap artists that are "relevant".
> 
> No, the Beatles didn't really roll that way, although they often touched on loss and misery (_*Eleanor Rigby, Misery, A Day In the Life, Baby's In Black, I Don't Want To Spoil the Party, I'm a Loser, Help!, Run For Your Life, Nowhere Man*_, etc)


Who was talking about goodness or badness? I like the Beatles and the Stones equally. I was (merely?) making an observation on the disparate nature of the music of the two bands. It seems that you largely agree with me.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

pianozach said:


> Indeed, the Beatles weren't as "dark" a band as the Stones, but why is that relevant? Is a band only good if they have a song that describes angry/bitter/tragic loss? If so, there's an awful lot of Rap artists that are "relevant".
> 
> No, the Beatles didn't really roll that way, although they often touched on loss and misery (_*Eleanor Rigby, Misery, A Day In the Life, Baby's In Black, I Don't Want To Spoil the Party, I'm a Loser, Help!, Run For Your Life, Nowhere Man*_, etc)


I have two friends (maybe others) who would not have started to get into the music, at that age, if not for the Stones.

They didn't want crooning, or novelty songs or songs that girls would scream along with.

They did want guitar 'power' and dark power. It was whitewashed blues that they apparently wanted. Or maybe there was nothing else close to what they wanted? ...They've always wanted metal and grunge, but it was years away?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Stones…………………………….


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

For youngsters with their first guitar (which seemed to be an everywhere phenomenon during the British Invasion) there was less to learn in order to perform a Stones' hit song. :lol: Simpler, strumming (Stones' arrangements) a little bit easier to figure out and imitate.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)




----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> For youngsters with their first guitar (which seemed to be an everywhere phenomenon during the British Invasion) there was less to learn in order to perform a Stones' hit song. :lol: Simpler, strumming (Stones' arrangements) a little bit easier to figure out and imitate.


If the Stones are so easy to figure out and imitate, why have so few bands been successful at it? There hasn't been a rock & roll band nearly as good in decades.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> If the Stones are so easy to figure out and imitate, why have so few bands been successful at it? There hasn't been a rock & roll band nearly as good in decades.


As I remember it, they were marketed effectively to my peers and me. Remember, all we had was album art and stills from fan magazines to go by.. The Beatles photos were off-putting.
I don't know why fans think they're so good as a band. But, they probably weren't trying to sound tight. And it depends upon what's 'good' for their attempt at expression, because all those bands grew a unique sound for themselves.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> As I remember it, they were marketed effectively to my peers and me. Remember, all we had was album art and stills from fan magazines to go by.. The Beatles photos were off-putting.
> I don't know why fans think they're so good as a band. But, they probably weren't trying to sound tight. And it depends upon what's 'good' for their attempt at expression, because all those bands grew a unique sound for themselves.


I may be the exception, but no music is marketed to me (unless it's all subliminal). If I hear it and I like it, then I get it. The Stones junkyard sound fit in perfectly with their junkyard persona and lyrics--_Street Fighting Man_ is a perfect example.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> As I remember it, they were marketed effectively to my peers and me. Remember, all we had was album art and stills from fan magazines to go by.. The Beatles photos were off-putting.
> I don't know why fans think they're so good as a band. But, *they probably weren't trying to sound tight*. And it depends upon what's 'good' for their attempt at expression, because all those bands grew a unique sound for themselves.





Strange Magic said:


> I may be the exception, but no music is marketed to me (unless it's all subliminal). If I hear it and I like it, then I get it. The Stones junkyard sound fit in perfectly with their junkyard persona and lyrics--_Street Fighting Man_ is a perfect example.


Yeah, I think that may be the ultimate truth.

*they probably weren't trying to sound tight*. That's a stylistic choice, and one that people used to enjoy a lot. My late brother liked "sloppy" bands like The Stones, as opposed to "tight" bands like The Beatles.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Red Terror said:


> If the Stones are so easy to figure out and imitate, why have so few bands been successful at it? There hasn't been a rock & roll band nearly as good in decades.


It's probably that not many are as unique as Mick Jagger, his voice as a musical instrument is tough for others to approach. IMHO.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

I have 16 Beatles albums currently in my digital collection, 2 Rolling Stones albums. It's probably the outcome of the marketing efforts I was exposed to in the '60s. 

I lost track of the Rolling Stones in the '70's, but I continued on with Paul, John, and George for another decade. John's death was cathartic, and I lost interest in Paul after Linda died.

Beatles vs. Stones was marketing hype. Both are pop/rock & both are good, but they are not the same flavor at all. IMHO.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

They were obviously chalk and cheese stylistically but I think in 1966 the Beatles and the Rolling Stones got at close together as they ever would - the Beatles with the _Revolver_ album and the _Paperback Writer/Rain_ single were shrugging off the zesty _yeah yeah yeah_ innocence of the early years and the Rolling Stones were leaving their r & b roots behind (at least in the studio) and broadening their horizons with some great art-pop of their own - _Paint it Black_, _Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow?_, _Lady Jane_ and the _Between the Buttons_ album. In fact, the Who and the Kinks were at it as well. 1966 was a GREAT year!


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

elgars ghost said:


> They were obviously chalk and cheese stylistically but I think in 1966 the Beatles and the Rolling Stones got at close together as they ever would - the Beatles with the _Revolver_ album and the _Paperback Writer/Rain_ single were shrugging off the zesty _yeah yeah yeah_ innocence of the early years and the Rolling Stones were leaving their r & b roots behind (at least in the studio) and broadening their horizons with some great art-pop of their own - _Paint it Black_, _Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow?_, _Lady Jane_ and the _Between the Buttons_ album. In fact, the Who and the Kinks were at it as well. 1966 was a GREAT year!


I'm surprised you didn't name-drop *Their Satanic Majesties Request*; _The Stones_' baldfaced attempt to prove they could do what the _Beatles_ do. Of course, that album doesn't really compare all that well with *Sgt. Pepper*, but it's an entertaining album. It was probably wise of them to abandon that path. Didn't they do a disco album as well later?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

pianozach said:


> I'm surprised you didn't name-drop *Their Satanic Majesties Request*; _The Stones_' baldfaced attempt to prove they could do what the _Beatles_ do. Of course, that album doesn't really compare all that well with *Sgt. Pepper*, but it's an entertaining album. It was probably wise of them to abandon that path. Didn't they do a disco album as well later?


Yes, I wanted to give the Stones a Get Out of Jail Free card! Whereas in 1966 both groups achieved an equal, if parallel, level of brilliance the _TSMR_ album of 1967 was (in my own opinion) the Stones trying almost desperately trying to keep abreast of the Beatles psychedelic questing but I think they missed the call in terms of quality of (most of) the material and their unsuitability to the genre in general. And their timing was also off - _TSMR_ took them a heck of a long time to record and by the time the album appeared the Beatles had reached the end of the road with psychedelia via _The Magical Mystery Tour_ and Paul McCartney was only a couple of months away from unceremoniously torching the paisley and crushed velvet for good with the barrelhouse thump of _Lady Madonna_. The Stones deserve some real credit, though, by shrugging off what had been a fraught year with a triumphant return in 1968 to their previous libidinous form.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

pianozach said:


> Didn't they do a disco album as well later?


I'm guessing you are referring to 1978's _Some Girls_? The _Miss You_ single from it was a clever tilt at the disco market, and there were disco-ish elements elsewhere on the album but not to the point where it over-egged the pudding. The Stones tried the same trick with the next album, _Emotional Rescue_, but that album wasn't anything like as strong as its predecessor. _Some Girls_ was, for me, the last really satisfying album they ever did which featured original material. 1981's _Tattoo You_ was also strong, but that was made up from different sessions spread over nearly ten years.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

pianozach said:


> I'm surprised you didn't name-drop *Their Satanic Majesties Request*; _The Stones_' baldfaced attempt to prove they could do what the _Beatles_ do. Of course, that album doesn't really compare all that well with *Sgt. Pepper*, but it's an entertaining album. * It was probably wise of them to abandon that path.* Didn't they do a disco album as well later?


And then we got the rockstar theatrics of the 1970s and 80s. I don't think the two are related directly, but it's the same impulse in those two generations of the male buying fans. Blues has everything that the appetites need, but if you're from a different culture it takes a while, and you need to be gently introduced, as the early rock bands were doing -- going bluesy and then back again.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> And then we got the rockstar theatrics of the 1970s and 80s. I don't think the two are related directly, but it's the same impulse in those two generations of the male buying fans. Blues has everything that the appetites need, but if you're from a different culture it takes a while, and you need to be gently introduced, as the early rock bands we doing -- going bluesy and then back again.


*The Stones* generally did best when they simply did what they did best; garage-type rock and roll. They weren't an Art Rock band like *The Beatles*, and that's fine.

It is funny though that *The Beatles* themselves pretty much put the fork into their psychedelic Art Rock forays, and went folk and experimental and blues and everything else in 1968, with the _*Lady Madonna*_ single and *The White Album*.

*The Stones*, after *Satanic Majesties* in December 1967, went back to their roots with the blues rock *Beggar's Banquet* in December 1968, and *Let It Bleed* in 1969, which included some gospel, country blues and country rock along with the blues rock.

The *Beatles' Yellow Submarine* soundtrack, a very psychedelic offering, had been completed prior to *The White Album*, and early in 1969 they attempted to get back to their roots themselves with the *Get Back* sessions.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Famous Stones songs came from two very good friends working music out together.

But famous Beatles songs came from two very good friends competing against each other, and then deciding to help with a song.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

There are days where Exile on Main Street is my favorite album ever made. It takes a while to adjust to it, but that album has such an unforgettable atmosphere.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

^
^

Every time I play it I can't get Mick Taylor's comment about their rented Nellcôte mansion out of my mind:

_"The place was damp - everybody got boils. Most unpleasant..."_ :lol:


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> Every time I play it I can't get Mick Taylor's comment about their rented Nellcôte mansion out of my mind:
> ...


poor little rich kids..


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> poor little rich kids..


Wounded lover/million-dollar sad

(to an extent, they have to be rich because the genuine feel of slovenly decadence is a part of EOMS's appeal)


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

To be fair, Mick Taylor's comments were supposed to be self-deprecatory to a degree - here were the Stones in tax exile and yet one of their greatest albums ended up being recorded in a skanky basement in Keith Richards's rented villa because no-one could decide which studio to use.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

elgars ghost said:


> To be fair, Mick Taylor's comments were supposed to be self-deprecatory to a degree - here were the Stones in tax exile and yet one of their greatest albums ended up being recorded in a skanky basement in Keith Richards's rented villa because no-one could decide which studio to use.


Occasionally adversity spurs creativity.

Witness *Paul McCartney*'s *Band On the Run *album. Two of his bandmates quit the band the day they were set to fly off to Lagos to record. Paul, Linda, and Denny were robbed, losing all their their demos. The studio was - ahem - "rudimentary", compared to the conditions in which Paul was used to working in.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

This guy is awesome!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

_Occasionally adversity spurs creativity.

Witness Paul McCartney's Band On the Run album. Two of his bandmates quit the band the day they were set to fly off to Lagos to record. Paul, Linda, and Denny were robbed, losing all their their demos. The studio was - ahem - "rudimentary", compared to the conditions in which Paul was used to working in._

Reminds me of Joe Strummer's experiences in Kingston, which he chronicled in _Safe European Home_:

'I went to the place where every white face is an invitation to robbery...'


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Just an afterthought: Tho I love George Harrison's *Beatles* works, I love his *The Traveling Wilbury* stuff the most. A number of his other solo releases are worthy as well. IMHO.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Deleted post... Not worth the time, not worth the effort...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Eruption covers are a dime a dozen these days and besides, this is a Beatles / Stones thread. The guy playing Gimme Shelter is performing his own arrangement with a beautiful tone.


----------



## John Pisani (7 mo ago)

deprofundis said:


> Ockay here the thing i kinda like Rolling stones but the beatles there is something in there music that turn me of.So im a Rolling stones kinda guy
> 
> This is my verdict Rolling stones r better , they are still around, but the beatles was somesort of boys band when it started 'love love do you know i love you'' how corny is this,very corny...than they evolve in experimental pop rock sensation.
> 
> Therefore beatles are about familly value and Rolling stones are about sex drug and rock n rolls,anyone share my view on this.


Tech the stones are a much tighter band and superior band whilst the Beatles music was much more advanced for their age. Beatles music was a lot more experimental.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

John Pisani said:


> Tech the stones are a much tighter band and superior band whilst the Beatles music was much more advanced for their age. Beatles music was a lot more experimental.



My thought's exactly, besides that, welcome to the forum .


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

John Pisani said:


> Tech the stones are a much tighter band and superior band whilst the Beatles music was much more advanced for their age. Beatles music was a lot more experimental.


In what way "tighter" and "superior"? "Longer-lasting" certainly.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

It's not a level playing field - The Beatles had two first-tier lyricists with a third who gradually became a fairly solid second-tier.

The Stones had one first-tier lyricist - Mick Jagger.

That 3 to 1 ratio is too significant a metric to overlook.

I've often wondered what might have occurred in some alternate universe in which Ray Davies or Pete Townshend joined the Stones in '63 instead of forming their own groups.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

For me, The Stones are a great Rock band where the complete performance of whatever song they played was the thing; not the writing, which was functional and well-done but competent and average. No, they invested those songs with raw energy and charisma in a way that transcended the quality of the writing. Although they wrote at least one truly great song, "Wild Horses."

Ray Davies is one of the best songwriters from that period, but The Kinks were not a quintessential Rock band so much as a vehicle for his songs. In this I see a similarity with The Beatles, who also were not really a classic Rock band; not like The Stones.

Those three bands, IMO, are the best (for different reasons) of the British Invasion.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

I would respectfully disagree - Gimme Shelter, (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, Sympathy for the Devil, Street Fighting Man, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Wild Horses (as mentioned), and Honky Tonk Woman, while in many (if not most) cases are egregiously misogynistic, they are, nonetheless first-rate examples of songcraft - lyrics which are more than mere rhymes coupled with melodies that are as readily identifiable 60 years later as they were when first released.

No one did what they did better than they did, which is not the same thing as being the best of what was being done at the time. No one was better at being "The Rolling Stones" but when they found themselves following rather than leading or, at the very least, continuing to pursue their own path, the results were never less than a disappointing pastiche.

Lyrically, in the sense of having a unique writer's "voice", Ray Davies had more that was worth saying and worth hearing (as did Pete Townshend) than Jagger ever did.

Also, in my fantasy alternate universe, John Lennon would have met Ray Davies rather than Paul McCartney when forming the Beatles - although with both being wildly temperamental, easily provoked, quick to anger, and known for holding a grudge forever (evidence of Irish lineage somewhere in the family tree) I'm not entirely certain just how much would have ever actually been recorded.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Wiki has a history of As Tears Go By

the boys thought it was tripe (because they were so cool, heh heh).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Tears_Go_By_(song)



added;
When we first heard/saw the Beatles it reinforced our stereotypes about English boys. The vocal antics and the humor in their acts and suits and haircuts. We wanted the Kinks and the Animals and the Stones. We wanted to be able to relate.
McCartney had been exposed over and over to the silliness in pop, and the other three members didn't really want to be associated with it.
All the defensiveness at the age of 13 into the early 20s is all so natural. Being cool and dangerous and haughty was so important (and is today, perhaps more-so).


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> For me, The Stones are a great Rock band where the complete performance of whatever song they played was the thing; not the writing, which was functional and well-done but competent and average. No, they invested those songs with raw energy and charisma in a way that transcended the quality of the writing. Although they wrote at least one truly great song, "Wild Horses."


I think the comparision between the two groups' great double albums (The Beatles/Exile on Main St) does as good a job as anything expressing the difference between the two bands at the peak of their powers. The Beatles is bursting with creativity from a diverse group of artistic voices with their own, often wildly divergent ideas on pop songs, while Exile is a dense, almost sludgy masterpiece of rock atmosphere where the lyrics are often utterly unintelligible. There's a reason the one lyrics everyone pulls out from EOMS is "Oh, what a beautiful buzz" (I remember hearing that radio stations would run contests to anyone who could figure out what the lyrics of "Tumblin' Dice" actually were).

The Beatles is immaculately produced by a group who were masters of pop production - Exile is almost amateurishly produced with the vocals being drowned in the mix, turning into another instrument rather than a vehicle to deliver lyrics, and is all the better for it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> I think the comparision between the two groups' great double albums (The Beatles/Exile on Main St) does as good a job as anything expressing the difference between the two bands at the peak of their powers. The Beatles is bursting with creativity from a diverse group of artistic voices with their own, often wildly divergent ideas on pop songs, while Exile is a dense, almost sludgy masterpiece of rock atmosphere where the lyrics are often utterly unintelligible.* There's a reason the one lyrics everyone pulls out from EOMS is "Oh, what a beautiful buzz" (I remember hearing that radio stations would run contests to anyone who could figure out what the lyrics of "Tumblin' Dice" actually were).*
> 
> The Beatles is immaculately produced by a group who were masters of pop production - Exile is almost amateurishly produced with the vocals being drowned in the mix, turning into another instrument rather than a vehicle to deliver lyrics, and is all the better for it.


I can remember getting together with friends for the main purpose of figuring out lyrics to our favorite songs -- and of the songs we were going to have to perform. I wonder if the singers and producers were slightly pushing harder to hear the lyrics (which were usually worth the effort) for sales. When many albums later came with lyrics (we wished they came with chords) it determined some of my purchases. Back then you had to make choices.

added:
As I was saying above, the singers seemed to be saying - we think we've come up with some nice lyrics but we're not going to sing them so that you can hear them right away. That would spoil the prize, so try to figure them out from your own lives.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I do remember hearing that for a while Mick Jagger disliked Exile on Main St because the vocals were often unintelligible. 

For me the greatness of that albums vocals is entirely in timbre and texture. It's like the type of poetry where the appeal is more in the aesthetics of the spoken text, and how it feels in one's mouth as it were. And the strangeness of the vocal timbres of Jagger/Richards singing together in songs like "Rocks Off" (one of my favorite rock tracks ever) is just so bizarre, and so wonderful. It barely matters what the lyrics of Tumblin' Dice actually are because the point is more how wonderful it sounds to hear Jagger chew each syllable and spit them out.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Art Rock said:


> Our car MP3 stick has 48 Beatles songs and 22 Stones songs. My list of about 550 favourite albums has 5 Beatles albums and 0 Stones albums.


Not even Exile on Main St.? You're nuts!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> I do remember hearing that for a while Mick Jagger disliked Exile on Main St because the vocals were often unintelligible.
> 
> For me the greatness of that albums vocals is entirely in timbre and texture. It's like the type of poetry where the appeal is more in the aesthetics of the spoken text, and how it feels in one's mouth as it were. And the strangeness of the vocal timbres of Jagger/Richards singing together in songs like "Rocks Off" (one of my favorite rock tracks ever) is just so bizarre, and so wonderful. It barely matters what the lyrics of Tumblin' Dice actually are because the point is more how wonderful it sounds to hear Jagger chew each syllable and spit them out.


In conversations with engineers during interminable mixing sessions various philosophies about mixing vocals came up, more than once. It is a widely held belief that Rock songs put the vocal back in the mix just under the level of being clearly understood. I've heard different reasons for this: makes people listen to the song over and over trying to figure out the words; or that a true Rock song is not about the lyrics so much as attitude and groove.

In Nashville, producing Country, the lyrics were considered the most important element of a song, and consequently the vocal was mixed up front. Or used to be.

Song demos are still mixed in order to hear the vocal clearly and up front, for obvious reasons. There used to be the idea that demos be under produced in order to excite a producer to get his hands on the song and really show how it should have been done.  Lots of gamesmanship at work when pitching songs.


----------



## ericshreiber1005 (7 mo ago)

Thank goodness both existed. Always like the Beatles esp. Rubber Soul onwards. The Stones are great esp. Beggars, Let it Bleed and Sticky Fingers. Never really liked all of Exile though. 
Saw Paul with Wings around Wings Over America tour, it was something but was way in the back. Saw the Stones last during 40 Licks tour slightly behind the stage on Keef's side. Man did they rock! 
Love them both.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> I do remember hearing that for a while Mick Jagger disliked Exile on Main St because the vocals were often unintelligible.
> 
> For me the greatness of that albums vocals is entirely in timbre and texture. It's like the type of poetry where the appeal is more in the aesthetics of the spoken text, and how it feels in one's mouth as it were. And the strangeness of the vocal timbres of Jagger/Richards singing together in songs like "Rocks Off" (one of my favorite rock tracks ever) is just so bizarre, and so wonderful. It barely matters what the lyrics of Tumblin' Dice actually are because the point is more how wonderful it sounds to hear Jagger chew each syllable and spit them out.


Talking to my friends I hear that the kids of five or 10 who grew up with the Stones etc. adopt a much more artistic view of it all. The kids who were in already in puberty take all the music as being driven by emotion, and the feelings became part of their emotional reactions for later on. 
Of course it wasn't a perfect poll of my friends.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

One funny thing I saw in a site that looked at old rock reviews is that it wasn't an uncommon opinion in the late 60s that the best Beatles and Rolling Stones work was their early work and that they lost their appeal by going into art-rock/roots-rock respectively, which was fun because virtually nobody alive holds that opinion nowadays.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> *In Nashville, producing Country, the lyrics were considered the most important element of a song*, and consequently the vocal was mixed up front. Or used to be.


I remember this seismic shift in listening habits in the early to mid-80's - when, almost overnight, everyone I knew - everyone - family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, strangers, dogs, cats, rabbits, whatever - became country music fans to the exclusion of everything else - No other music - not even that of their past - existed.

They had listened to rock and pop previously - like everyone else - for decades - It was a time when one could associate a tune with every memorable event from the first kiss to the first, but not last, broken-heart. But then, one day, they just stopped - None of the pre-sets on the radio was playing anything worth hearing and they were rotating the dial from one end of the spectrum to the other until, of course, they broke it. They could no longer identify with what was being produced and presented - Somehow, in some strange indefinable way - this was no longer their music and these were no longer their songs.

And then, seemingly out of nowhere, country music stepped in and filled that void and everyone I knew was suddenly listening 24/7 and speaking with a soft drawl and saying "y'all" and taking line-dancing lessons and wearing cowboy boots and then crying like girls because blisters hurt like hell when you lack the sense to break the boots in before trying to learn line-dancing and not after - but they all said the same thing - They loved the music because it actually was about something - The lyrics had a sense of meaning - of purpose - that was lacking in everything else that they had been hearing.

I'm not entirely certain if what they were listening to would have actually been considered "country" by the people who had been playing it when country wasn't cool (to borrow a phrase) but whatever it may or may not have been, it certainly filled an emptiness and resonated profoundly with those who were listening.

At the time, I was digging deeper into traditional Irish music and attempting to ride the Celtic music wave which was just appearing faintly on the horizon and wouldn't crest until the mid 90s but I liked everything that I heard - and I instinctively understood the one constant - There was no hiding in country music - Everyone had to really be able to sing and to really be able to play and really be able to write something worth saying and worth hearing.

But the coda is that this love affair with country lasted for roughly a 20 year period - I don't know what might have happened around the turn of the century but something changed - Something was lost - and they just stopped listening to new releases and went back to listening to 60s and 70s pop/rock and 80s and 90s country.

I asked someone once what might have happened and they replied - "Once they stopped wearing cowboy hats, it just wasn't the same".


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Screw the 70 and the 80s, and even the so-called 60s - we can bring everything down to one year: 1966 where everything happened - The Beatles, The Kinks, The Beach Boys, The Byrds, The Who, The Rolling Stones...every single one produced great art pop.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

elgar's ghost said:


> Screw the 70 and the 80s, and even the so-called 60s - we can bring everything down to one year: 1966 where everything happened - The Beatles, The Kinks, The Beach Boys, The Byrds, The Who, The Rolling Stones...every single one produced great art pop.


July 31, 1966 – The "supergroup" Cream, a trio featuring Eric Clapton (guitar), Ginger Baker (drums) and Jack Bruce (bass guitar, lead vocals) performs its first official concert at the Windsor (UK) Jazz & Blues Festival.

September 23, 1966 – The Yardbirds debut their twin lead guitar lineup, featuring Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page, at the Royal Albert Hall in London.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_in_music


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Shaughnessy said:


> July 31, 1966 – The "supergroup" Cream, a trio featuring Eric Clapton (guitar), Ginger Baker (drums) and Jack Bruce (bass guitar, lead vocals) performs its first official concert at the Windsor (UK) Jazz & Blues Festival.
> 
> September 23, 1966 – The Yardbirds debut their twin lead guitar lineup, featuring Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page, at the Royal Albert Hall in London.
> 
> ...


Man, we should have been there, then gone to the rugger after (Harlequins or Rosslyn Park). Then work, unfortunately...


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Shaughnessy said:


> I remember this seismic shift in listening habits in the early to mid-80's - when, almost overnight, everyone I knew - everyone - family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, strangers, dogs, cats, rabbits, whatever - became country music fans to the exclusion of everything else - No other music - not even that of their past - existed.
> 
> They had listened to rock and pop previously - like everyone else - for decades - It was a time when one could associate a tune with every memorable event from the first kiss to the first, but not last, broken-heart. But then, one day, they just stopped - None of the pre-sets on the radio was playing anything worth hearing and they were rotating the dial from one end of the spectrum to the other until, of course, they broke it. They could no longer identify with what was being produced and presented - Somehow, in some strange indefinable way - this was no longer their music and these were no longer their songs.
> 
> ...


Yes, it seemed more pronounced in the 80s (more money in everyone's hands?) but I see the generations doing this, in a recognizable pattern. The young people feel disenchanted with the fare from before their time of growing up. Generally speaking, the older folks, 40 and above would never be into the new kid's stuff (too extreme). 

There's always 3 generations of preferences, at least since the Great Depression. Funny how it works out that way. For the Beatles' (late Beatles) sales, they were lucky that they could pull in a sizeable number of paying people from all 3 groups, as I see it.


----------



## ericshreiber1005 (7 mo ago)

Funny, that you mention shifts in taste, because in the 80s doing post-graduate work in Wyoming and Nebraska I got more into Classical, the Blues, Reggae and Jazz.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

ericshreiber1005 said:


> Funny, that you mention shifts in taste, because in the 80s doing post-graduate work in Wyoming and Nebraska I got more into Classical, the Blues, Reggae and Jazz.


The signature hook of the kid's stuff listened to at the age of 13 girls, 14 boys, seemingly resonates (primally) in a complex positive manner with their developing amygdalas, researchers say. Later on, the music doesn't do this (because the music is different or because the development is complete). Of course, it's not that simple. Kids exposed very early have a different experience.
Welcome to the forum.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Shaughnessy said:


> I remember this seismic shift in listening habits in the early to mid-80's - when, almost overnight, everyone I knew - everyone - family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, strangers, dogs, cats, rabbits, whatever - became country music fans to the exclusion of everything else - No other music - not even that of their past - existed.
> 
> They loved the music because it actually was about something - The lyrics had a sense of meaning - of purpose - that was lacking in everything else that they had been hearing.
> 
> At the time, I was digging deeper into traditional Irish music and attempting to ride the Celtic music wave which was just appearing faintly on the horizon and wouldn't crest until the mid 90s but I liked everything that I heard - and I instinctively understood the one constant - There was no hiding in country music - Everyone had to really be able to sing and to really be able to play and really be able to write something worth saying and worth hearing.


During the '80s there was a "new traditionalist" trend with Randy Travis, Keith Whitley, and others going back to the basics of the style. Country's roots have always been in story songs, and focused on real social issues, both of demanded lyrics that "said something. It also has a close kinship with Celtic music, the fiddle style, and song tradition much of which came over with the early Scots-Irish settlers to Appalachia, which when married to Blues and other African-American styles created Bluegrass and eventually the early modern Country style.

In the '90s Garth Brooks had a huge impact and got a lot of attention outside of the Country market. And the technology Soundscan tracked sales data and uncovered something that had been significantly under reported reported previously, i.e. Country was a lot more popular than anyone had ever thought. This had a ripple effect.

In the last twenty years Country production has become more Pop and Rock oriented, and traditional instruments like the pedal steel and fiddle essentially disappeared from the sound. Coincidentally, the movie _O Brother Where Art Thou_ and the music featured in it caused a tidal wave of interest in Old Time and Bluegrass which saw a resurgence which is still going strong. I consider this the actual Country music today.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

elgar's ghost said:


> Screw the 70 and the 80s, and even the so-called 60s - we can bring everything down to one year: 1966 where everything happened - The Beatles, The Kinks, The Beach Boys, The Byrds, The Who, The Rolling Stones...every single one produced great art pop.


Well, '77 saw both about a zillion iconic punk recordings including things as diverse as Wire's art-punk "Pink Flag" and on a completely different note, one of the most important records released in "Trans Europe Express", it's always been maybe my favorite year in that era of pop.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

The thread title always bothers me when I see it in the list of threads. I wonder if the Moderators would capitalize Beatles in the title?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

fbjim said:


> Well, '77 saw both about a zillion iconic punk recordings including things as diverse as Wire's art-punk "Pink Flag" and on a completely different note, one of the most important records released in "Trans Europe Express", it's always been maybe my favorite year in that era of pop.


No, you are totally correct. My comment was far too arbitrary. Post-punk was a godsend, and Wire's three albums were, I think, central to all that. 1978 itself was an embarrassment of riches - Pere Ubu, PIL, Talking Heads, Gang of Four, Devo, Magazine, Siouxsie...


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

elgar's ghost said:


> No, you are totally correct. My comment was far too arbitrary. Post-punk was a godsend, and Wire's three albums were, I think, central to all that. 1978 itself was an embarrassment of riches - Pere Ubu, PIL, Talking Heads, Gang of Four, Devo, Magazine, Siouxsie...


Then again, from a personal perspective, it's the year of encounter that's important, rather than the year of release. Whilst I saw Devo live in '78, I didn't like them - I was at Knebworth to see Genesis and Brand X. I didn't catch up with the best of Punk and Post-Punk until 1980, by which time I'd gone off the rock dinosaurs and the jazz-rock, and was embracing Joy Division, Gang of Four, Magazine, Siouxsie...


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Forster said:


> Then again, from a personal perspective, it's the year of encounter that's important, rather than the year of release. Whilst I saw Devo live in '78, I didn't like them - I was at Knebworth to see Genesis and Brand X. I didn't catch up with the best of Punk and Post-Punk until 1980, by which time I'd gone off the rock dinosaurs and the jazz-rock, and was embracing Joy Division, Gang of Four, Magazine, Siouxsie...


Yes, that's a similar trajectory to mine with respect to some of those acts. I had the chance to see Joy Division at Malvern in April 1980. Before that I spent a cold night queuing outside Birmingham Odeon waiting for the box office to open first thing so I could get a long-awaited ticket for Genesis. I wanted a ticket for the first of two nights so I could get to see both them and JD the night after but I wasn't early enough in the queue so I had to settle for the night which clashed or none at all. Didn't bother me too much as Joy Division seemed to be permanently on the road so I simply assumed they would rock up somewhere near before too long. Then, of course, we know what happened a few weeks after that. Still one of my biggest regrets.


----------

