Jer
Beagle Scout
Posts: 1,182
|
RRHOF
May 14, 2018 12:54:40 GMT -5
Post by Jer on May 14, 2018 12:54:40 GMT -5
Any list that has the Beatles in front of the Stones is fundamentally flawed. It indicates that the writer has serious judgment issues and probably eats yellow matter custard. I did like seeing Chuck Berry at #1 though. Well, that's at the very least debatable. I personally find Beatle-bashing so passé. They were such a diverse, evolutionary band, not to mention revolutionary. The Stones (who I actually like more) had them in longevity and rebelliousness for sure, but when both were active the Stones followed the Beatles almost every step of the way. For that reason alone, The Beatles were in front of the stones, and probably belong there on this list. (Ironic too that the author goes by Bill Wyman.) Arguing the order of the list is one thing, but it's statements like "When popularity is factored in, Queen is the most overrated band in the history of pop music." and "But seriously: [Joan] Jett never recorded a better-than-not-unlistenable album, much less a great one; .... and live the Blackhearts were what? Decent?" are just proof that this is a jaded, confrontational article looking to get people barking. A better author would have presented a more objective narrative.
|
|
|
Post by raccoon on May 14, 2018 15:57:27 GMT -5
Any list that has the Beatles in front of the Stones is fundamentally flawed. It indicates that the writer has serious judgment issues and probably eats yellow matter custard. I did like seeing Chuck Berry at #1 though. Well, that's at the very least debatable. I personally find Beatle-bashing so passé. They were such a diverse, evolutionary band, not to mention revolutionary. The Stones (who I actually like more) had them in longevity and rebelliousness for sure, but when both were active the Stones followed the Beatles almost every step of the way. For that reason alone, The Beatles were in front of the stones, and probably belong there on this list. (Ironic too that the author goes by Bill Wyman.) Arguing the order of the list is one thing, but it's statements like "When popularity is factored in, Queen is the most overrated band in the history of pop music." and "But seriously: [Joan] Jett never recorded a better-than-not-unlistenable album, much less a great one; .... and live the Blackhearts were what? Decent?" are just proof that this is a jaded, confrontational article looking to get people barking. A better author would have presented a more objective narrative. Beatle-bashing is passe? Maybe I missed something but I never hear ANY negative comments where the Beatles are concerned. I too like them very much. I just think the Stones are better. My comment was only half-serious at any rate, hence, the 'yellow matter custard' reference. Aside from the Stones getting 'I wanna be your man' from the Beatles and the ill-fated 'Satanic Majesties' record I have to disagree that they 'followed (them) almost every step along the way.' I totally agree that the article itself is jaded and confrontational. Joni Mitchell ahead of Neil Young and Bob Marley? Ridiculous.
|
|
Jer
Beagle Scout
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by Jer on May 14, 2018 17:57:34 GMT -5
Beatle-bashing is passe? Maybe I missed something but I never hear ANY negative comments where the Beatles are concerned. I too like them very much. I just think the Stones are better. My comment was only half-serious at any rate, hence, the 'yellow matter custard' reference. Aside from the Stones getting 'I wanna be your man' from the Beatles and the ill-fated 'Satanic Majesties' record I have to disagree that they 'followed (them) almost every step along the way.' I totally agree that the article itself is jaded and confrontational. Joni Mitchell ahead of Neil Young and Bob Marley? Ridiculous. Yeah, I think it is passe, and I got that it was partially in jest, but I have seen this attitude become more prevalent over time that there's so much love for The Beatles that it's cool to be the guy who doesn't love them, to cast them as over-rated, and general bashing. Kinda like the backlash against Nirvana, but less common and makes even less sense. I'm not saying you're that guy or doing it to be cool, not trying to stir up any shit, - just that I've seem more and more of it. I'm a Stones guy too, for sure, and like you, I also love the Beatles. The Stones 68-72 is some of my favorite music ever made. But looking at it objectively, they were first when it came to most things. Satanic Majesties for sure was a half-assed, drugged out take on Sgt. Pepper (though still has some great moments), but there's more. The Beatles were generally doing the Chuck Berry thing before the Stones even formed. They did a couple movies before the Stones did Gimme Shelter and (the ill-fated) Rock and Roll Circus. Aftermath and Between the Buttons were perceived as the Stones answers to Rubber Soul/Revolver. It just seemed like they could never quite reach the heights that The Beatles got to first, like they were chasing The Beatles. And I love Joni, but not ahead of Bob or Neil.
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on May 15, 2018 9:03:59 GMT -5
.... They did a couple movies before the Stones did Gimme Shelter and (the ill-fated) Rock and Roll Circus. the best thing out of the Rock and Roll Circus was The Who's performance. If I were the Stones, I'd have been disappointed too compared to how The Who tore thru an impressive set and stole the show! Agreed!
|
|
|
RRHOF
May 15, 2018 9:47:49 GMT -5
Post by raccoon on May 15, 2018 9:47:49 GMT -5
Thanks for mentioning Between the Buttons! Perhaps the most overlooked Stones album ever.
|
|
Jer
Beagle Scout
Posts: 1,182
|
RRHOF
May 15, 2018 13:13:31 GMT -5
Post by Jer on May 15, 2018 13:13:31 GMT -5
.... They did a couple movies before the Stones did Gimme Shelter and (the ill-fated) Rock and Roll Circus. the best thing out of the Rock and Roll Circus was The Who's performance. If I were the Stones, I'd have been disappointed too compared to how The Who tore thru an impressive set and stole the show! I believe that it was The Who's performance alone that intimidated The Stones from releasing it. That might have been The Who at their absolute best, so great. By the time The Stones played, everyone had been filming and partying hard for like 2 days. They were good, but not that good. That version of A Quick One.. was released on The Kids are Alright.
|
|
Freddy
First Class Scout
Posts: 200
|
RRHOF
May 15, 2018 16:45:38 GMT -5
Post by Freddy on May 15, 2018 16:45:38 GMT -5
I hate when people dismiss the Beatles influence and importance, it just doesn't match up to reality. Like Jer alluded to, it seems to be one of those things that people who want to go against popular opinion latch on to, like if someone says, Elvis, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or The Godfather are overrated. The Beatles don't even require defending. The influence on culture and most of the musicians we all love tells that tale. I love the Stones, The Who, The Band, Pink Floyd etc......that era from 65 to 75 was so tremendous and most of that was possible because of what the Beatles did.
To be clear, I'm not ripping anyone on this forums opinion, just pitching my pennies into the conversation.
|
|
Freddy
First Class Scout
Posts: 200
|
RRHOF
May 15, 2018 16:51:15 GMT -5
Post by Freddy on May 15, 2018 16:51:15 GMT -5
Well, that's at the very least debatable. I personally find Beatle-bashing so passé. They were such a diverse, evolutionary band, not to mention revolutionary. The Stones (who I actually like more) had them in longevity and rebelliousness for sure, but when both were active the Stones followed the Beatles almost every step of the way. For that reason alone, The Beatles were in front of the stones, and probably belong there on this list. (Ironic too that the author goes by Bill Wyman.) Arguing the order of the list is one thing, but it's statements like "When popularity is factored in, Queen is the most overrated band in the history of pop music." and "But seriously: [Joan] Jett never recorded a better-than-not-unlistenable album, much less a great one; .... and live the Blackhearts were what? Decent?" are just proof that this is a jaded, confrontational article looking to get people barking. A better author would have presented a more objective narrative. Beatle-bashing is passe? Maybe I missed something but I never hear ANY negative comments where the Beatles are concerned. I too like them very much. I just think the Stones are better. My comment was only half-serious at any rate, hence, the 'yellow matter custard' reference. Aside from the Stones getting 'I wanna be your man' from the Beatles and the ill-fated 'Satanic Majesties' record I have to disagree that they 'followed (them) almost every step along the way.' I totally agree that the article itself is jaded and confrontational. Joni Mitchell ahead of Neil Young and Bob Marley? Ridiculous.The love of music is certainly subjective, but there is a bigger reality that transcends compartmentalized opinion and taste and your last line about Mitchell, Young, and Marley hit at the heart of that. I'd bet my house even Joni Mitchell wouldn't say that she has had more of an impact on music than Young and Marley. By the way, I love reading this conversation. You guys are awesome.
|
|
|
Post by curmudgeonman on May 15, 2018 23:33:53 GMT -5
I hate when people dismiss the Beatles influence and importance, it just doesn't match up to reality. Like Jer alluded to, it seems to be one of those things that people who want to go against popular opinion latch on to, like if someone says, Elvis, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or The Godfather are overrated. The Beatles don't even require defending. The influence on culture and most of the musicians we all love tells that tale. I love the Stones, The Who, The Band, Pink Floyd etc......that era from 65 to 75 was so tremendous and most of that was possible because of what the Beatles did. To be clear, I'm not ripping anyone on this forums opinion, just pitching my pennies into the conversation. I remember an interview with Jagger in the 80s and he was still astounded by the Beatles and their impact; even comparing Michael Jackson's success at the time paled in comparison. They were huge, nobody today could even compare in the combination of entertainment, artistic innovation and sheer popularity. I believe they literally made a deal with the devil for type of run they had. They really had the entire world at their feet for 7 years. Almost every single person on the planet knew of the Beatles. I love the Stones, but I still have them on a plateau also occupied by the Who and the Kinks. The Beatles were above them on top of the mountain creatively and commercially. Think about it; they basically hit and run from 1963 to 1969, seven short, but amazing years of productivity. I can't think of anyone else that has had a run like that.
|
|
|
Post by raccoon on May 16, 2018 14:59:45 GMT -5
Because I can't resist keeping this going...which group has had a bigger influence on the SOUND of bands over the last 40 odd years? I posit that the Stones sound has dominated rather than the Beatles. This observation is a slam dunk where punk was concerned (Dead Boys, Pistols, Heartbreakers)and Alt Country too. Also the confrontational nature of the Stones lyrics has been highly influential as well as their garage/bar band sound. Certainly the Mats have more in common musically and lyrically with the Stones than the Beatles. It's true that bands like Pink Floyd, Oasis, and Hitchcock/Egyptians are in a direct line from the Beatles but far more bands (try) to echo the Stones. The White Album or Exile - which sound have you heard copied more often over that last decades of rock music?
Gimme shelter from the comments to come! lol
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on May 16, 2018 15:46:53 GMT -5
I always credit The Beatles with being the first visible, commercial rock band to mainstream the traditional two guitars, bass, and drums lineup. Also the first to really include the drummer as a face and a personality within the band, rather than just some guy nobody paid attention to back there.
|
|
Freddy
First Class Scout
Posts: 200
|
Post by Freddy on May 16, 2018 15:58:28 GMT -5
Because I can't resist keeping this going...which group has had a bigger influence on the SOUND of bands over the last 40 odd years? I posit that the Stones sound has dominated rather than the Beatles. This observation is a slam dunk where punk was concerned (Dead Boys, Pistols, Heartbreakers)and Alt Country too. Also the confrontational nature of the Stones lyrics has been highly influential as well as their garage/bar band sound. Certainly the Mats have more in common musically and lyrically with the Stones than the Beatles. It's true that bands like Pink Floyd, Oasis, and Hitchcock/Egyptians are in a direct line from the Beatles but far more bands (try) to echo the Stones. The White Album or Exile - which sound have you heard copied more often over that last decades of rock music? Gimme shelter from the comments to come! lol I think you bring a solid argument and overall, the progression of music has been in flux from time period to time period. Mainstream rock in the 80's? Beatles. The emergence of alt-rock in the 90's? Stones. I think if I were a musician, it would probably be easier for me to connect with the Stones, but the last couple of Beatles records (with the exception of a few songs) were an effort to back off from all the exotic instrumentation and just play rock n roll. They had been there and done that and really, other than taking the path of an ELO, Pink Floyd, Chicago, etc.....the only choice was to play the rock n roll they loved for call it quits. Either way, the bands of the last 40 or so years still stand on the shoulders of the giants of the 60's when rock n roll was emerging as not just entertainment, but as art. Even arguing the Stones vs Beatles vs Floyd vs The Who vs Dylan.....etc....feels strange. They all drew on many of the same influences and I think they probably had a large impact on each other as well. I think the White Album might be a bad comparison for your point though Raccoon. I believe you can listen to Helter Skelter, Why Don't We Do It In the Road and think of them as pretty close to being hard rock/metal and punk, not only in delivery and sound, but lyrically. That's a very eclectic album and the songs range from operatic to hard to standards to blues to pop, etc. The Rolling Stones and Beatles will still be talked about and listened to a hundred years from now. LOL! Probably the same conversations will be going on!
|
|
|
RRHOF
May 16, 2018 17:57:08 GMT -5
Post by con on May 16, 2018 17:57:08 GMT -5
Judging by the quality of Top 40 music today (the last 30 years?) I'm inclined to give Wild Man Fischer a lot of credit:
|
|
|
Post by raccoon on May 27, 2018 19:39:37 GMT -5
Anybody seen my mojo filter? I would look but I got feet below my knee.
|
|
|
RRHOF
May 28, 2018 0:07:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by rich1 on May 28, 2018 0:07:19 GMT -5
Just been reading through the Beatles-Stones legacy...influence...etc. I see the Mats pulling equally from both...with another HOF group, The Faces, being most pronounced of all...
|
|
|
RRHOF
May 29, 2018 11:05:43 GMT -5
Post by raccoon on May 29, 2018 11:05:43 GMT -5
Just been reading through the Beatles-Stones legacy...influence...etc. I see the Mats pulling equally from both...with another HOF group, The Faces, being most pronounced of all... Ahh but The Faces are most clearly influenced by The Stones, yes?
|
|
|
RRHOF
Dec 13, 2018 18:54:27 GMT -5
Post by raccoon on Dec 13, 2018 18:54:27 GMT -5
Radiohead is being inducted into the Hall this year. Bloody hell. And Janet Jackson. Because we all know what a skilled musician she is. In happier news...Keef is putting down the bottle.
|
|
|
RRHOF
Dec 13, 2018 20:39:24 GMT -5
Post by holeinthedrapes on Dec 13, 2018 20:39:24 GMT -5
Tough to tell which is more embarrassing: This years RRHOP class or Harold Baines being inducted into the baseball HOF.
|
|
|
RRHOF
Dec 14, 2018 13:51:16 GMT -5
Post by anarkissed on Dec 14, 2018 13:51:16 GMT -5
Just for grins, here are the full class of inductees:
Stevie Nicks Janet Jackson Def Leppard Radiohead The Cure Roxy Music The Zombies
I'm pretty happy about The Cure and Roxy Music, and if you're gonna put Bon Jovi in there, I think you have to have Def Leppard...
|
|
|
RRHOF
Dec 14, 2018 15:07:18 GMT -5
Post by anarkissed on Dec 14, 2018 15:07:18 GMT -5
Oh, this morning, on one segment of one of the television news shows I work on, they reported The Cranberries as one of the announced inductees...I don't know where they got that...
|
|