re: Rolling Stones or Beatles?

Beatles

quote:

---

The idea -- and it's not original with me -- is that the Beatles popularized the concept of a band/collective as an end in itself, rather than a temporary way station for an individual performer. Thus the Stones ended up staying together forever, rather than Jagger leaving for a solo career as soon as his contract ran out, as happened with numerous big band figures like Sinatra, Buddy Rich, Harry James, etc...

---

This is the reason (an example, at least) for the proliferation of "Are Beatles Overrated' threads. Because they are.

quote:

---

This is the reason (an example, at least) for the proliferation of "Are Beatles Overrated' threads

---

Well, it's also the fact the Beatles are considered by consensus to be the greatest band of all time. That means, by definition, they can't be underrated. there's nowhere higher for them to be placed in the pantheon. If you do not agree they are the greatest band ever, which let's face it, is pretty likely, it means you think they are overrated. Also, no one has ever gone broke trying to topple idols. It's a rite of passage.

I still say the Stones are better, and now I need to read that book, but also, the two bands were doing something a little different. They weren't exactly direct competitors.

quote:

---

Actually it's not only true, it's inarguable

Before the Beatles, successful band singers couldn't wait to get out of their contracts and go solo ("And if your boss wants to try any rough stuff, I ain't no bandleader!"). You still see this in early R&R, when Holly split with the Crickets and Dion left the Belmonts.

Something similar was happening in jazz with acts like The Modern Jazz Quartet, but The Beatles brought it into pop music.

Alabama is credited with bringing it into country.

---

You don't know what inarguable means.

From Beatles vs Stones:

quote:

---

from the outset, they acted and behaved just as they saw themselves—as a tightly knit group. Previously, in both England and America, most successful pop and rock acts emphasized individuals: either those who performed solo, like Elvis Presley, or who fronted a well-known backing band, like, Buddy Holly and the Crickets or Bill Haley and the Comets. British pop, especially, seemed beholden to a formula where a lead singer with a flashy stage name, such as Billy Fury or Marty Wilde, performed in front of a generic backup group.

When the band we now know as the Beatles was first getting going, they easily could have put Lennon up front, and in fact they very briefly styled themselves as Johnny and the Moondogs. But they never seriously pursued that approach. Lennon later remarked that the day he first laid eyes on Paul—who at age fifteen already owned his guitar, on which he could perform a stellar rendition of Eddie Cochran’s “Twenty Flight Rock”—he realized he’d stumbled into a dilemma. “I had a group [the Quarry Men],” Lennon said. “I was the singer and the leader; then I met Paul, and I had to make a decision: Was it better to have a guy who was better than the guy I had in? To let the group be stronger, or to let me be stronger?”

Lennon chose what was best for the group

---

quote:

---

when the Beatles launched their recording career at EMI, producer George Martin came perilously close to insisting that they follow the custom and designate one of themselves the front man: either John or Paul. As he mulled over which of the two should become the leader, however, he also considered how well the Beatles got along together and how much he enjoyed their collective charisma. They “had that quality that makes you feel good when you are with them and diminished when they leave,” he once said. Finally, he decided he wasn’t prepared to force the issue if it might upset the group’s lovely alchemy.

---

I much prefer the Beatles. That said, "Satisfaction" created a societal shift back in the day, IMHO.

quote:

---

the beatles wanted to be the stones

---

You sure about that, mon?

quote:

---

On July 26, 1968, Mick Jagger flew from Los Angeles to London for a birthday party thrown in his honor at a hip new Moroccan-style bar called the Vesuvio Club—“one of the best clubs London has ever seen,” remembered proprietor Tony Sanchez. Under black lights and beautiful tapestries, some of London’s trendiest models, artists, and pop singers lounged on huge cushions and took pulls from Turkish hookahs, while a decorative, helium-filled dirigible floated aimlessly about the room. As a special treat, Mick brought along an advance pressing of the Stones’ forthcoming album, Beggars Banquet, to play over the club’s speakers. Just as the crowd was “leaping around” and celebrating the record—which would soon win accolades as the best Stones album to date—Paul McCartney strolled in, and passed Sanchez a copy of the forthcoming Beatles single “Hey Jude/Revolution,” which had never before been heard by anyone outside of Abbey Road Studios. Sanchez recalled how the “slow, thundering buildup of ‘Hey Jude’ shook the club”; the crowd demanded that the seven-minute song be played again and again. Finally, the club’s disc jockey played the flip side, and everyone heard “John Lennon’s nasal voice pumping out ‘Revolution.’” “When it was over,” Sanchez said, “Mick looked peeved. The Beatles had upstaged him.”

---

Like.A.Baus.

quote:

---

Like.A.Baus.

---

macca is the man

Paul McCartney is basically Mick Jagger's nerd older brother that just wants to be as cool as the younger one.

Similar to heady/dave actually.

Stones