# Beatles vs Stones!



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A tough one. My wife, who hails from China, is listening to Wild Horses, regardless that she has the entire Beatles library at hand. Go figure.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Beatles, and not even close for me. My top10 songs for them combined would be 90% Beatles. I think of them both as "songs" rather than "albums" band, probably because I got interested in albums only at a later stage (mid 70s).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

With this pairing, one must decide whether vigorous eclecticism and invention (Beatles) outweighs the capability of achieving a perceived emotional intensity (Stones). I rate the Beatles very highly, especially their body of druggy, "psychedelic", or quasi-Eastern songs: Tomorrow Never Knows, etc. But the authenticity--real or imagined--of things like _Paint It Black_ by the Stones, is formidable. Plus, the Stones created one of my all-time Top Ten songs--_Gimme Shelter_: thrills and chills--whereas the Beatles never did. So I give the Stones a small edge, though both are colossi of rock and pop.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Stones, but early 70s stones - Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St

For great 60s songwriting would rather listen to Jobim or Burt Bacharach


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

My top10 songs for them combined would be 100% Beatles


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Never could get into the Stones

so it would be the Beatles again


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2019)

Although there are many Stones songs that I really like, it isn't even close for me - Beatles by a mile.


----------



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

I like the Rolling Stones a lot, especially the albums from 68-72 which for me represented their creative peak, but they are still behind The Beatles, The Kinks and The Who in my affections overall.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

I've played the music of both from early on and for me I don't think anyone has done a better job of it than the Beatles. Remove the Stones music from the 60's and you have a rock and roll hole. Remove the Beatles music from the 60's and you have a cultural hole. 

BTW, the Beatles.......best Irish band EVER!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I suppose The Beatles are more artsy, but if I want some great rock n roll it's the Stones. Although Rubber Soul is some of the best British pop/rock ever made, it never gets down and dirty like the Stones.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Longevity Report Card 

The Beatles = B 
The Stones = A 

Bob Dylan = A+ 

Before the Beatles and after the Beatles there was Dylan... and 
he will probably outlast the Stones too whom he also preceded.

The Monkeys = C-


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> ...The Monkeys = C-


The Monkees are GEAR!!!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Johnny Cash!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Room2201974 said:


> I've played the music of both from early on and for me I don't think anyone has done a better job of it than the Beatles. Remove the Stones music from the 60's and you have a rock and roll hole. Remove the Beatles music from the 60's and you have a cultural hole.
> 
> BTW, the Beatles.......*best Irish band EVER!*


what do you base that on? Lennon's father was of Irish descent, ok Mccartney sounds like it has Irish roots but neither Lennon nor McCartney have ever presented themselves as anything but English musicians. Harrison and Ringo?


----------



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

McCartney is of Irish descent on both sides. George Harrison was also of Irish descent on his mother's side. A particularly large percentage of Liverpool's population can trace its origins back across the Irish Sea. This probably also explains why the Scouse accent is so distinctive - the traditional Lancashire accent melding with various Irish ones over time. Still, claiming that the Beatles were an Irish band was a bit (tongue in) cheeky!


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

stomanek said:


> what do you base that on? Lennon's father was of Irish descent, ok Mccartney sounds like it has Irish roots but neither Lennon nor McCartney have ever presented themselves as anything but English musicians. Harrison and Ringo?







Oh, and I had to have an Irishman explain to me the cultural background for the man on the train bit in _A Hard Days Night_. Most Americans never got it, they don't have the cultural frame of reference.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I guess it depends on the criterion. If you mean sound/ability to rock, the Stones had the moves, the riffs, the sound, and the overall rock persona. The Beatles were always borrowing or reinventing themselves, so they never had a sui generis sound, at least to my ears. 

The Beatles songbook will last a lot longer than that of the Stones.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

The Beatles, and it's not really close for me. I always enjoy The Stones, but they rarely move me beyond anything more than enjoyment. With them, I tend to appreciate their contemporaries (The Kinks, eg) and predecessors (Zeppelin, eg) far more than them. The Beatles are entirely different as I can easily view them as one of the pinnacles of music, and though I also appreciate many of their successors nearly as much, unlike with The Stones I can't outright say that I think any subsequent band clearly bettered them. A large part of that is because The Beatles were so eclectic that while many later bands bettered their early attempts at certain genres, none ever quite matched their kaleidoscopic range of sounds and styles while still writing a handful of the best songs and albums ever in the process.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

The Beatles were artists, the Stones artisans; where the Beatles transcended their influences, the Stones revered and curated theirs. Where the Stones play a timeless music, the Beatles' music aspires to timelessness but, for me, remains time-bound. So, the Beatles get my vote, but the Stones get my ears.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2019)

elgars ghost said:


> McCartney is of Irish descent on both sides. George Harrison was also of Irish descent on his mother's side. A particularly large percentage of Liverpool's population can trace its origins back across the Irish Sea. This probably also explains why the Scouse accent is so distinctive - the traditional Lancashire accent melding with various Irish ones over time. Still, claiming that the Beatles were an Irish band was a bit (tongue in) cheeky!


By that logic, the Beach Boys are a British band (assuming English heritage). Or do we go still back further? Germanic/French based on Norman and Anglo-Saxon ancestry, with some Celtic and Roman thrown in for good measure?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The Beatles, and it's not really close for me. I always enjoy The Stones, but they rarely move me beyond anything more than enjoyment. With them, I tend to appreciate their contemporaries (The Kinks, eg) and predecessors (Zeppelin, eg) far more than them. The Beatles are entirely different as I can easily view them as one of the pinnacles of music, and though I also appreciate many of their successors nearly as much, unlike with The Stones I can't outright say that I think any subsequent band clearly bettered them. A large part of that is because The Beatles were so eclectic that while many later bands bettered their early attempts at certain genres, none ever quite matched their kaleidoscopic range of sounds and styles while still writing a handful of the best songs and albums ever in the process.


A quote I have appreciated for years, by the actor William Hurt, says he chose to study acting in America over England "because I preferred the passion that seeks the form rather than the form that seeks the passion". As I stated previously, the reason I give the Stones the slight edge is due to their (perceived) greater emotional involvement or authenticity, as evidenced in such songs as _Paint It Black, Let's Spend the Night Together, Sister Morphine, Moonlight Mile_, etc. Perhaps all in the ear/mind of the beholder, but I sense the Stones to be in Hurt's passion seeking the form category, and the Beatles in the form seeking the passion: I happen to respond more strongly in this individual pairing to the former rather than the latter; others will differ. But, again, both bands were about as good as popular music gets.

Led Zeppelin lies halfway between.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2019)

Manxfeeder said:


> I guess it depends on the criterion. If you mean sound/ability to rock, the Stones had the moves, the riffs, the sound, and the overall rock persona. The Beatles were always borrowing or reinventing themselves, so they never had a sui generis sound, at least to my ears.
> 
> The Beatles songbook will last a lot longer than that of the Stones.


The Stones have much more albums and have lasted longer, and yet for that additional output and longevity, I think I can find more Beatles songs that I love in their much smaller discography.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Tangent but Zeppelin is a has not aged well, it’s excruciating to listen to Robert Plant and Jimmy Page play at being bluesmen (The acoustic folk stuff has held up well though). The stones could do blues and, to their credit, the Beatles never tried


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

These are five of the finest LPs of the rock/pop era IMO (both the UK and US release of Aftermath) and five of the LPs (now CDs) that I listen to most. But... again IMO... the Beatles are better. In 7 short years they produced an unrivaled array of invention and innovation within the pop/rock genre. Songs like _In My Life, Yesterday, Tomorrow Never Knows, Nowhere Man, A Day in the Life_, etc... are why Leonard Bernstein deemed them the "greatest songwriters since Schubert".


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Well, I certainly listen more often to the Stones. Most of my classic rock listening occurs while I'm exercising, and the Stones are better for keeping the energy up (although they pale next to the (early) J. Geils Band - live Springsteen's pretty good too).

Certainly the Beatles are better songwriters - in fact very good pop songwriters - but I grew up in a household where the Great American Songbook was on regular rotation. I think any of Porter, Berlin, Kern, Arlen, Gershwin, Rodgers, Bernstein, Loesser and Sondheim (and their respective lyricists) surpass John, Paul George and Ringo. (Maybe not Meredith Willson, though.)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

jegreenwood said:


> But I grew up in a household where the Great American Songbook was on regular rotation. I think any of Porter, Berlin, Kern, Arlen, Gershwin, Rodgers, Bernstein, Loesser and Sondheim (and their respective lyricists) surpass John, Paul George and Ringo. (Maybe not Meredith Willson, though.)


I agree. The Great American lyricists could sure turn a phrase, and I'm a sucker for a good lyric. Also, when they wanted to, they could write a melody that is both tuneful, sophisticated, and rhythmically interesting.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

jegreenwood said:


> Certainly the Beatles are better songwriters - in fact very good pop songwriters - but I grew up in a household where the Great American Songbook was on regular rotation. I think any of Porter, Berlin, Kern, Arlen, Gershwin, Rodgers, Bernstein, Loesser and Sondheim (and their respective lyricists) surpass John, Paul George and Ringo. (Maybe not Meredith Willson, though.)


The Beatles were the first to match that level of songwriting in the new rock/folk style. All that songbook music (and would add Jobim and Bacharach to that list) was jazz-based with a lot of extended harmony. The Beatles (and George Martin) mashed Rick&roll with folk, eschewed the extended chords in favor of more simple vertical harmonies but with some sophisticated classical modulations. They later added the Indian influence.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Tangent but Zeppelin is a has not aged well, it's excruciating to listen to Robert Plant and Jimmy Page play at being bluesmen (The acoustic folk stuff has held up well though). The stones could do blues and, to their credit, the Beatles never tried


That, I believe, is a matter of opinion. Led Zeppelin "Zeppelinized" the blues into something new and different (as well as "Zeppelinizing" several other genres), with quite remarkable results that still intrigue these ancient ears after all these years. Like every aspect of music, one either likes it or one doesn't; it's all (just) opinion.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The Stones seemed to have a raw, rebellious, I-don’t-care outsiders’ attitude from the beginning, at least on the surface; the Beatles had all the acceptance in the world as insiders and even when John started hating Paul, they were really never that primitive and raw. The groups seemed like polar opposites to each other — the nice ones versus the troublemakers — and I think it made the music scene more interesting at the time. I prefer the Beatles for their musicianship, but I kind of admired the Stones’ sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll rebellion — and they were getting plenty of all three. I admired Charles Watts the most because he was doing other things besides rock ‘n’ roll such as working with a big band. I greatly admire the Stones longevity as a group and that they are still above ground after the self-abuse by some of them. It seems like a miracle that some of them are still alive.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Larkenfield said:


> I prefer the Beatles for their musicianship, but I kind of admired the Stones sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll rebellion, and they were getting plenty of it.


I remember someone asked the editors of Teen Screen magazine why they didn't cover the Stones. Their reply: Rolling Stones gather no Teen Screen. It was a clever response, and we all knew why.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> The Stones seemed to have a raw, rebellious, I-don't-care outsiders' attitude from the beginning, at least on the surface...


Not to mention that they were total degenerates, always a popular thing if done well. Here's Stray Cat Blues in a live performance. If you listen carefully, you'll hear the words have been changed to be even more objectionable!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Ok The Stones wrote a lot of very good songs, I like them and think they are a good Rock n' Roll band, but the constant comparisons with The Beatles in my opinion need to stop. These bands are not at all alike and The Stones are simply not in the same category of songwriting, and its not even close. They shouldn't even be directly compared to Zeppelin and Floyd, they lack the sophistication of these bands. For the kind of music they wrote they should be categorized and compared with bands like CCR. Comparing them to The Beatles is ridiculous.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^When speaking of songwriting, are we talking music, or lyrics, or both? Dylan was mentioned earlier in the thread as (accurately) being a level or two above either Beatles or Stones, and Joni is up there also.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> Ok The Stones wrote a lot of very good songs, I like them and think they are a good Rock n' Roll band, but the constant comparisons with The Beatles in my opinion need to stop. These bands are not at all alike and The Stones are simply not in the same category of songwriting, and its not even close. They shouldn't even be directly compared to Zeppelin and Floyd, they lack the sophistication of these bands. For the kind of music they wrote they should be categorized and compared with bands like CCR. Comparing them to The Beatles is ridiculous.


Comparing Brahms with Wagner is ridiculous too, but people seem to like doing that sort of thing! :tiphat:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^When speaking of songwriting, are we talking music, or lyrics, or both? Dylan was mentioned earlier in the thread as (accurately) being a level or two above either Beatles or Stones, and Joni is up there also.


When speaking of songwriting I refer to both. I don't usually compare singer songwriters like Dylan and Joni to bands like The Beatles, but if I was to attempt to I would suggest that Dylan is the strongest of the 3 lyrically, but less sophisticated than both the Beatles and Joni Mitchell from a musical perspective. I disagree either are above The Beatles, perhaps they are close though.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Comparing Brahms with Wagner is ridiculous too, but people seem to like doing that sort of thing! :tiphat:


Yes, I suppose. No offense intended to you personally as the starter of this thread by the way, I was just venting and speaking generally.

For the record Brahms and Wagner composed very different forms of music, so from that perspective they are hard to compare, however in general terms of 'greatness' I don't find the comparison ridiculous.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> A quote I have appreciated for years, by the actor William Hurt, says he chose to study acting in America over England "because I preferred the passion that seeks the form rather than the form that seeks the passion". As I stated previously, the reason I give the Stones the slight edge is due to their (perceived) greater emotional involvement or authenticity, as evidenced in such songs as _Paint It Black, Let's Spend the Night Together, Sister Morphine, Moonlight Mile_, etc. Perhaps all in the ear/mind of the beholder, but I sense the Stones to be in Hurt's passion seeking the form category, and the Beatles in the form seeking the passion: I happen to respond more strongly in this individual pairing to the former rather than the latter; others will differ. But, again, both bands were about as good as popular music gets.
> 
> Led Zeppelin lies halfway between.


I can completely understand that perspective. For me it just really depends. There are a lot of artists where I appreciate both sides of the coin; it just comes down to how passionately I feel the passionates and how, errr, formally I feel the formalists, if that makes any sense. There are potential positives and negatives to both approaches. Too much passion without form becomes more about attitude, music as attire, rather than art. I think this is why I don't get along well with punk, because too much punk tries to get by on its anarchic attitude rather than anything musical. On the other hand, too much form and you end up with art that's cold, lifeless, and lacking humanity. I think this what many dislike about a band like Dream Theater (even though I think it's only sometimes applicable to them).

While I indeed don't hear the passion of The Stones in The Beatles, I think they were such tremendous "formalists" that I don't miss it, and whatever they lack in passion they make up for in imagination. Likewise, I wish The Stones had more of the imaginative prowess of The Beatles, more that genuinely surprised me with something new and original rather than just good ol' rock n' roll (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I would agree Zeppelin is a good middle ground, as was The Kinks (though perhaps closer towards The Beatles' formalism for the most part, they could rock as hard as The Stones when they wanted, and I do get the sense that The Davies were more personal songwriters than the Fab Four most of the time).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Tangent but Zeppelin is a has not aged well, it's excruciating to listen to Robert Plant and Jimmy Page play at being bluesmen (The acoustic folk stuff has held up well though). The stones could do blues and, to their credit, the Beatles never tried


I agree with Strange Magic. Even when Zeppelin were at their bluesiest it was a very, as he said, Zeppelin-ized version of the blues. Perhaps painful if you're trying to listen to it as just blues, but I don't think that's what it was or was intended to be. It was rather closer to what would become hard rock and metal, and that's mostly how I hear Zeppelin, as the first true hard rock band (and a key progenitor of what would be heavy metal). On that level I think they've aged fantastically, as you can basically trace back all of contemporary rock and metal to what they started, so they still sound relevant and, certainly in the context of the early-mid 70s, utterly original.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

tdc said:


> When speaking of songwriting I refer to both. I don't usually compare singer songwriters like Dylan and Joni to bands like The Beatles, but if I was to attempt to I would suggest that Dylan is the strongest of the 3 lyrically, but less sophisticated than both the Beatles and Joni Mitchell from a musical perspective. I disagree either are above The Beatles, perhaps they are close though.


Dylan's musical sophistication is almost entirely tied to how he dramatically perceives his lyrics and probably don't make nearly the impact outside that. That said, he was still at the pioneering forefront of several future genres, including folk rock, country rock, psychedelia, and eventually the Americana genre. Most of the stuff after has been dictated as much by who he was playing with at the time or what producers he was working with, and it's fascinating to hear how protean his music is/can be over time with different bands. His songs can sound completely different from one performance to the next and the contrasts in tone and meaning are often fascinating, which I think is just as big a testament to his artistic genius as the purely-musical sophistication of The Beatles is to theirs. Perhaps Joni is a nice mix of the two.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The last few days I've been revamping the car USB stick (all pop/rock), removing songs that did not work well on the road, and adding lots of "new" ones. It's now at over 3100 songs, of which 48 are by the Beatles, and 22 by the Stones.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> The last few days I've been revamping the car USB stick (all pop/rock), removing songs that did not work well on the road, and adding lots of "new" ones. It's now at over 3100 songs, of which 48 are by the Beatles, and 22 by the Stones.


Nice. I bet you made some great choices.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Stones were simpler, and groovier: Jumpin' Jack Flash, Honky Tonk Women, Bi*ch. They mainly sucked at psychedelia or anything above conventional chord rock: Lady Jane, Sing All This Together
Beatles were more convincingly eclectic: I'm Only Sleeping, Strawberry Fields, I Am the Walrus.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Stones were simpler, and groovier: Jumpin' Jack Flash, Honky Tonk Women, Bi*ch. They mainly sucked at psychedelia or anything above conventional chord rock: Lady Jane, Sing All This Together
> Beatles were more convincingly eclectic: I'm Only Sleeping, Strawberry Fields, I Am the Walrus.


All true, but as far as the Beatles being "more convincingly" eclectic than the Stones, are we sure that eclecticism was even a goal for which the Stones strived? Or masters of psychedelia? The Stones, I think, knew what they were about, early, and stuck with it--have stuck with it--for scores of years. It is an apples/oranges thing, this comparison.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

tdc said:


> Ok The Stones wrote a lot of very good songs, I like them and think they are a good Rock n' Roll band, but the constant comparisons with The Beatles in my opinion need to stop. These bands are not at all alike and The Stones are simply not in the same category of songwriting, and its not even close. They shouldn't even be directly compared to Zeppelin and Floyd, they lack the sophistication of these bands. For the kind of music they wrote they should be categorized and compared with bands like CCR. Comparing them to The Beatles is ridiculous.


who are CCR? .........................


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2019)

stomanek said:


> who are CCR? .........................


ahhh! Really? Credence Clearwater Revival. Which, to be quite honest, is my favorite every day listening band. I love CCR. I love Lodi, Wrote a Song For Everyone, and Midnight Special, along with all the well known Classics.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The CCR digipack re-issues sound great! I've picked up five albums. Their debut, although it features several covers is a great record. And they did such great versions of these songs they made them their own.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

stomanek said:


> who are CCR? .........................


Here is how they were described at their induction to the Rock n Roll hall of fame:

"Creedence Clearwater Revival, which disbanded in 1972, were progressive and anachronistic at the same time. An unapologetic throwback to the golden era of rock and roll, they broke ranks with their peers on the progressive, psychedelic San Francisco scene. Their approach was basic and uncompromising, holding true to the band members' working-class origins. The term 'roots rock' had not yet been invented when Creedence came along, but in essence, they defined it, drawing inspiration from the likes of Little Richard, Hank Williams, Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, and the artisans of soul at Motown and Stax. In so doing, Creedence Clearwater Revival became the standard bearers and foremost celebrants of homegrown American music."
-Rock and Roll Hall of Fame


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> All true, but as far as the Beatles being "more convincingly" eclectic than the Stones, are we sure that eclecticism was even a goal for which the Stones strived? Or masters of psychedelia? The Stones, I think, knew what they were about, early, and stuck with it--have stuck with it--for scores of years. It is an apples/oranges thing, this comparison.


During the height of flower power, they released Flowers and Their Satanic Majesties Request. The later album is typically not well favoured at least. It's only 2000 Miles from Home and She's a Rainbow that rose above the drudge. The ending of She's a Rainbow was unsuccessful stab at turning it more avant garde, completely out of place, unlike the Beatles psychedelic music.


----------



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

Phil loves classical said:


> During the height of flower power, they released Flowers and Their Satanic Majesties Request. The later album is typically not well favoured at least. It's only 2000 Miles from Home and She's a Rainbow that rose above the drudge. The ending of She's a Rainbow was unsuccessful stab at turning it more avant garde, completely out of place, unlike the Beatles psychedelic music.


I agree - _Their Satanic Majesties Request_ was unconvincing as a whole. And it was released too late - not only was it to flounder in the wake of _Sgt. Pepper_ but within three months Paul McCartney unceremoniously kicked psychedelia into touch by writing _Lady Madonna_. The Stones responded really well, though - _Beggars Banquet_ and the non-album single _Jumpin' Jack Flash_ proved that they had regained their mojo while taking them onto another level.

1968 was a pivotal year for both bands - despite problems of their own the Stones were to enjoy a sustained period of creativity while the Beatles were destined to be bedevilled with both inter-group tensions and business pressures which eventually eroded their collective will to live.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

CCR are indeed great too, but much like The Stones I wish they had more tracks that "wow"ed me as opposed to just being great rock n' roll. They were an indelible part of my childhood as they were a favorite of both my parents, and I grew up listening to my dad drum to many of their songs. I had Bad Moon Rising, Green River, Run Through the Jungle, and Born on the Bayou burned into my brain very early, so much so that it became hard to hear and appreciate them from a new perspective when I fell in love with music in my teens because I still associated them with my childhood.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

tdc said:


> Here is how they were described at their induction to the Rock n Roll hall of fame:
> 
> "Creedence Clearwater Revival, which disbanded in 1972, were progressive and anachronistic at the same time. An unapologetic throwback to the golden era of rock and roll, they broke ranks with their peers on the progressive, psychedelic San Francisco scene. Their approach was basic and uncompromising, holding true to the band members' working-class origins. The term 'roots rock' had not yet been invented when Creedence came along, but in essence, they defined it, drawing inspiration from the likes of Little Richard, Hank Williams, Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, and the artisans of soul at Motown and Stax. In so doing, Creedence Clearwater Revival became the standard bearers and foremost celebrants of homegrown American music."
> -Rock and Roll Hall of Fame


Thanks - that's a new one for me - history really must have buried them as never heard of them.


----------



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

stomanek said:


> Thanks - that's a new one for me - history really must have buried them as never heard of them.


Perhaps it could also be argued that John Fogerty has protected CCR's legacy in the best possible way by steadfastly refusing to reform the group, despite various offers/rumours down the years - I would have hated it if a band as fine as CCR ended up becoming its own tribute act. They were both prolific and hard-working throughout their relatively brief career but their final couple years weren't happy, and, despite various barbs aimed at him for being obstinate and selfish, I can't blame John Fogerty for wanting to draw a line under that particular chapter in his life.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I also appreciate a number of songs by Creedence, and understand why they are loved by those who love them. Yet I always rankle a little when I reflect that--through no fault or act of their own--they were inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame three years before Jefferson Airplane, a more Protean and impactful (and slightly earlier, in first album release) band. But that's just me.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

It seems to me that for a short while (69 arguably into 71) CCR was the most popular American band. During that period they had 9 top 10 singles in the U.S. and 4 top 5 albums. Two of those went to number 1. They also played Woodstock.

I also believe that John Fogerty's post-CCR song "Centerfield" needs to replace "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." For that matter, maybe our national anthem.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> I also appreciate a number of songs by Creedence, and understand why they are loved by those who love them. Yet I always rankle a little when I reflect that--through no fault or act of their own--they were inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame three years before Jefferson Airplane, a more Protean and impactful (and slightly earlier, in first album release) band. But that's just me.


Can anybody name any Jefferson Airplane songs beyond Somebody to Love or White Rabbit? And then there was their morphing into Starship and giving us that horrendous We Built This City on Rock and Roll. CCR has had a much more substantial and lasting impact on music. And they quit before they truly embarrassed themselves.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Can anybody name any Jefferson Airplane songs beyond Somebody to Love or White Rabbit? And then there was their morphing into Starship and giving us *that horrendous We Built This City on Rock and Roll*. CCR has had a much more substantial and lasting impact on music. And they quit before they truly embarrassed themselves.


Probably explains the three year delay.


----------



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

I personally wish that Jefferson Airplane would have knocked it on the head after _Volunteers_ but on the other hand I thought that the first three Jefferson Starship albums were actually rather good, even though they were unwitting precursors for the MOR horrors which followed.


----------



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

jegreenwood said:


> Probably explains the three year delay.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I also appreciate a number of songs by Creedence, and understand why they are loved by those who love them. Yet I always rankle a little when I reflect that--through no fault or act of their own--they were inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame three years before Jefferson Airplane, a more Protean and impactful (and slightly earlier, in first album release) band. But that's just me.


I don't want to say the R&R HOF is a joke, but there are still dozens of ludicrous omissions and bands/artists for whom it took way too long to get in. Sabbath should've been in first year of eligibility, yet it took far longer. Priest, Maiden, Crimson, Kraftwerk, The Smiths, Pixies, New York Dolls, and so many others still aren't in. I wouldn't put much stock in them when it comes to that stuff.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Just out of curiosity, with a catalog as big as the Stones', what albums do people rank highly? Let's stipulate the greatness of Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, and Exile on Main Street. Which albums stand out to you beyond those (or maybe you rank some higher than these?)? Best period?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

The Stones are one of the few truly major artists whose discography I've yet to hear in full, but, beyond those you mentioned, Sticky Fingers and Some Girls are probably the obvious mentions.


----------



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

I agree with Eva - _Sticky Fingers_ is right in the middle of the Stones' purple patch and _Some Girls_ was their last consistently good album. For the pre-_Beggars Banquet_ stuff I've contented myself with a three-disc comp called _The London Years_ which includes every single from 1963 up until 1971, plus all the b-sides whether UK or US. I should at some point supplement this with the first three albums, but the UK versions rather than the US ones (not out of bias, but because the US albums from 1964-65 part company from the UK track listings too much).


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

elgars ghost said:


> I agree with Eva - _Sticky Fingers_ is right in the middle of the Stones' purple patch and _Some Girls_ was their last consistently good album. For the pre-_Beggars Banquet_ stuff I've contented myself with a three-disc comp called _The London Years_ which includes every single from 1963 up until 1971, plus all the b-sides whether UK or US. I should at some point supplement this with the first three albums, but the UK versions rather than the US ones (not out of bias, but because the US albums from 1964-65 part company from the UK track listings too much).


I have the UK Aftermath and UK No. 2. I like the early, heavily blues influenced Stones (also a big fan of Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson). While I wish Aftermath had Paint It Black, the others included on the UK version make up for it.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm not a super fan of either (I used to be somewhat of a Beatles fan), but like others have said, it's not even close.

I never liked the Stones, except for a few random songs, probably the least blues based.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

DrMike said:


> Just out of curiosity, with a catalog as big as the Stones', what albums do people rank highly? Let's stipulate the greatness of Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, and Exile on Main Street. Which albums stand out to you beyond those (or maybe you rank some higher than these?)? Best period?


_Aftermath_ is a culmination and distillation of their earliest style and I believe is absolutely essential to a Stones "greatest" discography.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Can anybody name any Jefferson Airplane songs beyond Somebody to Love or White Rabbit? And then there was their morphing into Starship and giving us that horrendous We Built This City on Rock and Roll. CCR has had a much more substantial and lasting impact on music. And they quit before they truly embarrassed themselves.


Those rhetorical questions! Any and all Airplane fans obviously can name dozens of great songs; it's curious that the question is even asked.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

This was the foundation after which San Fran hippie bands stopped sucking (but Airplane missed the boat) and was a huge influence on the Stones as well


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> Those rhetorical questions! Any and all Airplane fans obviously can name dozens of great songs; it's curious that the question is even asked.


You talked about them in terms of getting into the Hall of Fame. Obviously that goes beyond just the fan base. So I am asking who had the bigger and more lasting impact on music. Given that, I think it is quite obvious why CCR got in earlier.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

DrMike said:


> Can anybody name any Jefferson Airplane songs beyond Somebody to Love or White Rabbit? And then there was their morphing into Starship and giving us that horrendous We Built This City on Rock and Roll. CCR has had a much more substantial and lasting impact on music. And they quit before they truly embarrassed themselves.


If someone were to hand in a history paper on the story of the "West Coast Sound" of the late 60's and failed to mention the significant contributions by the Airplane on their own albums and the album's of others in that large group......I'd give them an "F"!


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Room2201974 said:


> If someone were to hand in a history paper on the story of the "West Coast Sound" of the late 60's and failed to mention the significant contributions by the Airplane on their own albums and the album's of others in that large group......I'd give them an "F"!


We aren't talking about their absolute value, or whether they had any impact, but rather their relative impact as compared to CCR.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> You talked about them in terms of getting into the Hall of Fame. Obviously that goes beyond just the fan base. So I am asking who had the bigger and more lasting impact on music. Given that, I think it is quite obvious why CCR got in earlier.


It is. Any number of observers have noted the importance of being associated with the "right" labels and critics. Creedence, a fine band, was far better wired into the mechanism than were the Airplane. The Airplane certainly had the greater influence and impact on music, whether one was a fan or not. I have spoken..


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

DrMike said:


> We aren't talking about their absolute value, or whether they had any impact, but rather their relative impact as compared to CCR.


That question can't be answered except by personal antidote. The Airplane was 10 times more influential to me than CCR ever was. I believe that you had to live through the time with your gas on the line to see the difference but I'm certain that many didn't walk in those shoes and so they don't have a frame of reference. CCR, great top 40 band. But the Airplane made me think. Bands that get nominated for a Hugo Award can do that.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

BTW, I love it when in a Rolling Stones vs Beatles thread a Jefferson Airplane argument breaks out.

What?..No discussion of _Aftermath_?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

The Byrds were the most important west coast band, look at all the talent that group spun out - Crosby, Gram Parsons etc

As others have said, JA only gave us Starship and that crappy 80s song


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bwv 1080 said:


> The Byrds were the most important west coast band, look at all the talent that group spun out - Crosby, Gram Parsons etc
> 
> As others have said, JA only gave us Starship and that crappy 80s song


Among dozens of other great songs, the Airplane gave us _The House at Pooneil Corners_ and their version of _Wooden Ships_. If these songs don't give you chills, as Morimur was find of saying, "You must be dead!"


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2019)

Room2201974 said:


> BTW, I love it when in a Rolling Stones vs Beatles thread a Jefferson Airplane argument breaks out.
> 
> What?..No discussion of _Aftermath_?


Tried to get some discussion of albums started. I really like Aftermath - as I mentioned, I have the UK version. Would have preferred it with Paint It Black, but it still is superior to the US version. So many great songs - Mother's Little Helper, Under My Thumb (I first heard it covered by Social Distortion), Out of Time - I don't even mind the lengthy Going Home.

But as I said, pre-Let It Bleed, I still think I like No. 2 the best.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Did somebody mention the Airplane? 1966, pre-Grace Slick.






Paul Kantner and Signe Toly Anderson died on the same day in 2016. Both were 74.


----------



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

Room2201974 said:


> If someone were to hand in a history paper on the story of the "West Coast Sound" of the late 60's and failed to mention the significant contributions by the Airplane on their own albums and the album's of others in that large group......*I'd give them an "F"!*


A Country Joe and the Fish reference, perhaps? :lol:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

On the CCR vs JA debate, I'd say I prefer CCR but I'm not terribly familiar with JA, probably not enough to judge. I will say many are underselling the influence of CCR. Along with The Allman Brothers and The Band they were one of the original roots/southern rock bands, and a key influence on what would eventually be country rock. One can argue Dylan properly kicked off that movement with John Wesley Harding and The Basement Tapes, but after that it was CCR, Allmans, and The Band carrying that torch. Of those three, CCR strikes me as most representative of where the genre would go, perhaps because the Allmans were big on many elements (like the blues-jazz touches and long jams) that were eventually dropped, and The Band seemed to keep their rock and country elements a bit more discrete. With CCR the southern/country elements and rock elements were a perfect hybrid from the beginning.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> On the CCR vs JA debate, I'd say I prefer CCR but I'm not terribly familiar with JA, probably not enough to judge. I will say many are underselling the influence of CCR. Along with The Allman Brothers and The Band they were one of the original roots/southern rock bands, and a key influence on what would eventually be country rock. One can argue Dylan properly kicked off that movement with John Wesley Harding and The Basement Tapes, but after that it was CCR, Allmans, and The Band carrying that torch. Of those three, CCR strikes me as most representative of where the genre would go, perhaps because the Allmans were big on many elements (like the blues-jazz touches and long jams) that were eventually dropped, and The Band seemed to keep their rock and country elements a bit more discrete. With CCR the southern/country elements and rock elements were a perfect hybrid from the beginning.


Which is all the more amazing when you consider they were from California.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> On the CCR vs JA debate, I'd say I prefer CCR but I'm not terribly familiar with JA, probably not enough to judge. I will say many are underselling the influence of CCR. Along with The Allman Brothers and The Band they were one of the original roots/southern rock bands, and a key influence on what would eventually be country rock. One can argue Dylan properly kicked off that movement with John Wesley Harding and The Basement Tapes, but after that it was CCR, Allmans, and The Band carrying that torch. Of those three, CCR strikes me as most representative of where the genre would go, perhaps because the Allmans were big on many elements (like the blues-jazz touches and long jams) that were eventually dropped, and The Band seemed to keep their rock and country elements a bit more discrete. With CCR the southern/country elements and rock elements were a perfect hybrid from the beginning.


Returning to William Hurt's dualism, perhaps we can say that Creedence was the form seeking the passion and sometimes finding it, while the Airplane was the passion creating (or helping create) the form. I will again offer _The House at Pooneil Corners_ as a single piece of evidence of the latter.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

CCR was the Vietnam War in a nutshell. It was monumental and embraced by those who fought there. The music was on their side and helped get them through.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

The Beatles sang of illusions
The Stones sang of depravity
The Airplane sang of anger
The Kinks sang of nostalgia
The Band sang of hard living

CCR... was pretty happy stuff


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

philoctetes said:


> CCR... was pretty happy stuff


Yes, Run Through the Jungle, Fortunate Son...


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2019)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Yes, Run Through the Jungle, Fortunate Son...


Effigy, Fortunate Son. All happy and uplifting! And that super cheerful Lodi. Bad Moon Rising. Really nothing but sunshine and roses.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

philoctetes said:


> The Beatles sang of illusions
> The Stones sang of depravity
> The Airplane sang of anger
> The Kinks sang of nostalgia
> ...


If I could go back in time and attend a live show it would be the Band followed by the Kinks.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

CCR. I felt that it really fit the political mood of the country at the time in 1969. For me the band had an edge. They were pointing out certain truths and picking up a certain mood that their fans could relate to. Some undercurrents going on in the States that weren't good. I never saw it as a happy band but a truthful band because it had a certain honest rawness, an edge that spoke to the individual in turbulent times. I believe that's why the band was popular in Vietnam though they weren't directly writing war songs.


----------



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

As an old American acquaintance (a peacenik who in the late 60s moved to the UK in fear of the draft) once said to me: 

'Vietnam - $**T war, great soundtrack...'


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Jefferson Airplane - I felt that it really fit the political mood of the country at the time in 1969. For me the band had an edge. They were pointing out certain truths and picking up a certain mood that their fans could relate to. Some undercurrents going on in the States that weren't good. I never saw it as a happy band but a truthful band because it had a certain honest rawness, an edge that spoke to the individual in turbulent times. I believe that's why the band was popular in America because they *were *directly writing anti-war songs.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Room2201974 said:


> Jefferson Airplane - I felt that it really fit the political mood of the country at the time in 1969. For me the band had an edge. They were pointing out certain truths and picking up a certain mood that their fans could relate to. Some undercurrents going on in the States that weren't good. I never saw it as a happy band but a truthful band because it had a certain honest rawness, an edge that spoke to the individual in turbulent times. I believe that's why the band was popular in America because they *were *directly writing anti-war songs.


All true. And, importantly, they expressed themselves in a plethora of musical styles and sounds that sets them somewhat apart from many of their contemporaries (Creedence, Grateful Dead, Janis & Big Brother _et al_). Contrast _Good Shepherd_ with _Lather_ with _Eskimo Blue Day_, etc. Constant eclecticism and experimentation.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2019)

I feel that JA was much more an idiomatic band, highly relevant in situ but lacking in the ability to transcend that time and place. Those who lived through it will have their fond memories, but they no longer speak to newer generations the way Credence, the Beatles, or the Stones continue to. A perfectly good band, but less interesting outside of their 60s niche. Kind of like so many classical composers of centuries past that had huge popularity at the time, but have been lost since.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't listen to any of these bands for the politics. I picked up a couple of Airplane albums in the past few years. They aren't the best recorded records but the music is fairly interesting. I have After Bathing At Baxter's, and Volunteers. I dig the rawness and the fact that they do have something to say. A bit more than the pure hedonism of the Stones.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

starthrower said:


> I don't listen to any of these bands for the politics. I picked up a couple of Airplane albums in the past few years. They aren't the best recorded records but the music is fairly interesting. I have After Bathing At Baxter's, and Volunteers. I dig the rawness and the fact that they do have something to say. A bit more than the pure hedonism of the Stones.


Let me suggest you also acquire _Surrealistic Pillow, Crown of Creation_ and _Bless Its Pointed Little Head_ for a much fuller spectrum of Airplane classics. The latter catches the volatile near-frenzy of the Airplane live in concert, with Marty and Grace fighting each to upstage the other.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I actually do have Pillow but I'm not sure where it is among my disorganized collection. And I've been meaning to pick up the other studio album you mentioned. But all the bands discussed here are great. I just don't listen to them much. I have a nice studio compilation of The Band, and The Last Waltz. I was on a Kinks binge last year and I bought at least 6 or 7 albums plus a comp for the singles.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The Airplane wasn't _all _drugs in its Surrealistic Pillow days.






Marty Balin, who wrote this song and sang it on the album, passed away last year.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The Airplane actually were not all that much about drugs in their songs; certainly no more so than the Fab Four or any number of other groups. Maybe their fanbase though often experienced them through a "purple haze"? But the Airplane did become increasingly under the influence of Aliens and began to see saucers as the transition into any of several forms of the Jefferson Starship loomed......


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> All true. And, importantly, they expressed themselves in a plethora of musical styles and sounds that sets them somewhat apart from many of their contemporaries (Creedence, Grateful Dead, Janis & Big Brother _et al_). Contrast _Good Shepherd_ with _Lather_ with _Eskimo Blue Day_, etc. Constant eclecticism and experimentation.


Exactly. Take _ Chushingura _ for instance. That sounds more like a work from a 20th Century composer than a rock band. You mentioned _ Good Shepard_. A wonderful traditional Gospel tune in an album with acid rock songs and a country rock send up with _The Farm_. That's a variety and eclecticism not found in many rock bands. And for me, when you look at JA's literary connections from Wyndham to their own Hugo Award nomination that speaks to a broader cultural milieu!

The Jefferson Airplane wasn't afraid to speak out. But CCR, by being a great Top 40 band, was far more middle of the road in what they could say. And you know that famous quote by Bernard Shakey about being in the middle of the road? "Traveling there soon became a bore, so I headed for the ditch. A rougher ride but I saw more interesting people there."

For CCR, the hits pretty much all come from that country-blues-rock vein. In fact, when Fogerty went solo he was sued for sounding too much like CCR......because he WAS the sound of CCR. _The Old Man Down The Road_ sounds not too distant from _Run Through The Jungle_, yet they are decades apart....where is the stretch, where is the growth? With Fogerty's music I always wondered a question that I could not put into words before this year: Hey, John, what's West of Westeros?

OTOH, JA showed real artistic growth. The JA of _Surrealistic Pillow_ is not the same JA as _Volunteers_ and not the same band as _Thirty Seconds Over Winterland_ and certainly not the same band as _Dragon Fly_. Speaking of _Dragon Fly_, what guitarist 's ears didn't pick up the second he heard Craig Chaquico's scorching guitar solo in _Ride The Tiger_? Shredding before folks knew what shredding was.


----------



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

Well, here we are - we started with the Beatles and the Stones and then it went to CCR etc and now the whole thing might be starting to descend into a counter-cultural free-for-all - not that I'm complaining (man).

[video]https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=chambers+brothers+time+has+come+today+you tube&&view=detail&mid=55B64D488A6229F1E44E55B64D488A6229F1E44E&&FORM=VRDGAR[/video]


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

elgars ghost said:


> Well, here we are - we started with the Beatles and the Stones and then it went to CCR etc and now the whole thing might be starting to descend into a counter-cultural free-for-all - not that I'm complaining (man).
> 
> [video]https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=chambers+brothers+time+has+come+today+you tube&&view=detail&mid=55B64D488A6229F1E44E55B64D488A6229F1E44E&&FORM=VRDGAR[/video]


The question now is if one is counter-cultural to counter culture, does that even things out and make one normal? (Probably not  )


----------



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

Larkenfield said:


> The question now is if one is counter-cultural to counter culture, does that even things out and make one normal? (Probably not  )


Perhaps it does - but then I've never been very good at deep puzzles


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Following up on Room's post above, #97, I am an unabashed, unfazed, undaunted, proud Jefferson Starship fan (please note: not Starship). Craig Chaquico's playing has much to do with that. He wasn't Jorma (who besides Jorma could be Jorma?), but his sinuous, ophidian guitar on a song like _St. Charles_ still blows me away--a Top Ten all-time song for me. And the Starship has left behind their own string of classics, even their MOR later albums, because I really like well-done MOR.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

elgars ghost said:


> Perhaps it does - but then I've never been very good at deep puzzles


Here, I can help you out with this one. The difference between the two "counter culture" bands is really simple: more JA fans read _Stranger in a Strange Land_ than CCR fans. You're welcome.:tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2019)

CCR v JA?

I thought this was about TB v TRS?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> CCR v JA?
> 
> I thought this was about TB v TRS?


Weren't we talking about The Smiths versus R.E.M.? :lol:


----------



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

As the late Viv Stanshall once said - 'give me a subject to write about and I will deviate from it with great speed'. I have found this thread, and the deviation from it, to be quite enjoyable.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2019)

elgars ghost said:


> As the late Viv Stanshall once said - 'give me a subject to write about and I will deviate from it with great speed'. I have found this thread, and the deviation from it, to be quite enjoyable.


I hesitate to say this, but you'd be hopeless, I repeat hopeless at Just A Minute. 

I don't object to deviation, but I've little to offer on CCR or JA (though I did see JS at Knebworth in 1976).


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> CCR v JA?
> 
> I thought this was about TB v TRS?


We in this forum are amateur astronomers, each with a bad case of scope creep due to the gravitational forces of our favorite stars. And, as Einstein predicted, the bigger the star, the greater the deviation in the space time continuum.


----------



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

MacLeod said:


> I hesitate to say this, but you'd be hopeless, I repeat hopeless at Just A Minute.
> 
> I don't object to deviation, but I've little to offer on CCR or JA (though I did see JS at Knebworth in 1976).


Can't argue with that.

Wasn't it 1978 when they were on the same bill as Genesis?


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Someone PM me when we get to "Boomtown Rats (Geldof) vs. Sham 69 (Pursey)"...


----------



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

That for me would be a no-score tie.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

elgars ghost said:


> That for me would be a no-score tie.


:lol::lol::lol:

Right then... Someone PM me when we get to either "Pearl Jam vs. Nirvana" or "Oasis vs. Blur"...


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2019)

elgars ghost said:


> Can't argue with that.
> 
> Wasn't it 1978 when they were on the same bill as Genesis?


Yes, you're right - just spotted my gaffe which I can't edit.

If you look really carefully at the photo of the crowd at Knebworth which is on the cover of Brand X's _Masques _(the best band to appear there, I thought at the time, though I wish I'd been alive to Devo's post-modern satirical outlook)...

...you can't see me.

View attachment 121922


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Mollie John said:


> Right then... Someone PM me when we get to either "Pearl Jam vs. Nirvana" or "Oasis vs. Blur"...


They all suck. [/thread]

(In truth, not really; but they're all cases of where their reputations far outweigh the quality of the music.)


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> They all suck. [/thread]
> 
> (In truth, not really; but they're all cases of where their reputations far outweigh the quality of the music.)


:lol::lol::lol:

Right then... Someone PM me when we get to "Cockney Rebel" vs. "Steve Harley and Cockney Rebel" vs. "Steve Harley"...


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

On the hysteria of "Beatlemania":
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/29/beatlemania-screamers-fandom-teenagers-hysteria
It was comparable to "Lisztomania" that took place with the famous pianist.


----------

