Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 03-23-2008, 05:01 AM   #67 (permalink)
ADELE
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 466
Default

yeah that's true. They were also worried about attcks on their lives as they made powerfull enemies.
I also think that lsd and psychedelia and spiritual thinking was more long standing with the beatles when the stones went right back to rock after Brian died.
It is possible to do live shows with conceptual albums like Floyd but in the main live concerts are about more rock n roll pub type numbers and the stones wrote them.
On a purely personal level I think the beatles are like spots and shakespeare to a teenager who is into music or making a band. Like me listening to love me do and falling in love for the first time and later generations do the same and all tell each other the anecdote about the movement you need is on your shoulder with Lennon saying to Paul, "no that is the best line."
But as an adult I find the beatles a bit depressing now and I am a bit too old to enjoy love me do the same way.
Where as the Stones early stuff does kind of stay fresh and makes me want to roll one and knock back you know.
There is something about some of the beatles work that has become to my mind like seaside trips in the UK. Like Blackpool pleasure beach kiss me quick hats in the eighties if you get me. Like Morrissey's Every day's like Sunday (I love that song) portrays.
A bit like Elvis it makes you think of old men who have pictures of him on their walls and still gel their hair back and it reminds me of old retired peoples social bingo days out listening to The wonder of you.
The beatles have that same effect on me and lots of other people I speak to.
Where as the Stones still sound like fresh, sexy, sassy and cool.
But you are right Richard. I do remember reading that. In some ways when you think about it the beatles were very good live if you ever listened to their bbc recordings when they first started recording rock n roll.
I think that marketing of them for mass appeal was what Lennon hated himself. He said he felt a prick in the same suit like that.
I'd say the stones are better if I'm going to decide.
Oh yeah, one other thing about the stones, they were so fresh and unique when they came out. They were not original as they loved R&B and the blacks in the states were doing what they did but to the UK they were so new, sexy and sassy whereas the Beatles kind of came from a genre and the Beach Boys had already done the same stuff a couple of years earlier and so were other Epstein bands.
This may be a bit sweeping but perhaps the stones introduced the UK to R&B and then the Who followed.
The stones were more inovative in the UK for that reason I think.

Last edited by ADELE; 03-23-2008 at 05:56 AM.
ADELE is offline   Reply With Quote