Howard the Duck

pointless.......

(trolls some more)

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Neapolitan

What? The Rolling Stones started off as Blues when they first started off as a band and that had nothing to do with being influenced by The Beatles. And it's the other way around where The Beatels were influence by The Rolling Stones especially the album 12X5.

The song is "Ida Red" it's a tradtional song that was done by Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys.


Both Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys and Chuck Berry could play the pants off The Beatles.

__________________

NYSPORTSFAN

The Rolling Stones besides the Beatles are my favorite band. Like I don't know the Rolling Stones were a blues band to start as their whole first album is basically covers of blues and early rock and roll songs except their only original on the album is the Beatlesque "Tell Me" and then went pretty much pop rock from 1965-1967.

Really never heard the Beatles were influenced by the album 12X5 and I don't hear it either. Everyone knew the Rolling Stones were influenced by the Beatles and it wasn't just Sgt. Pepper or "Hey Jude" which was an influence on Mic. The Beatles were the main reason the Rolling Stones were writing their own songs to start with. There is no way around it they both influenced each other but like with Brian Wilson and hearing Rubber Soul which inspired Pet Sounds the Rolling Stones were playing catchup with the Beatles for the majority of the 1960's until basically when they retreated back to rootsy rock and roll in 1968.

An excerpt from John Lennon Rolling Stone Interview from 1971 By Jann S. Wenner

What do you think of the Stones today?

I think it's a lot of hype. I like ``Honky Tonk Women,'' but I think Mick's a joke with all that *** dancing; I always did. I enjoy it; I'll probably go and see his films and all like everybody else, but really, I think it's a joke.

Do you see him much now?

No, I never do see him. We saw a bit of each other when Allen [Klein, Beatles' late-period manager] was first coming in - I think Mick got jealous. I was always very respectful of Mick and the Stones, but he said a lot of sort of tarty things about the Beatles, which I am hurt by because, you know, I can knock the Beatles, but don't let Mick Jagger knock them. I would like to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on every ' album. Every thing we did, Mick does exactly the same - he imitates us. And I would like one of you ****in' underground people to point it out. You know, Satanic Majesties is Pepper; ``We Love You,'' it's the most bull****, that's ``All You Need Is Love.'' I resent the implication that the Stones are like revolutionaries and that the Beatles weren't. If the Stones were or are, the Beatles really were, too. But they are not in the same class, musicwise or powerwise, never were. I never said anything, I always admired them, because I like their funky music, and I like their style. I like rock & roll and the direction they took after they got over trying to imitate us. He's obviously so upset by how big the Beatles are compared with him, he never got over it. Now he's in his old age, and he is beginning to knock us, you know, and he keeps knocking. I resent it, because even his second record, we wrote it for him. Mick said, ``Peace made money.'' We didn't make any money from peace.

NYSPORTSFAN

I guess you knew what I meant about the double fade-out ending that ends "Strawberry Fields Forever"

I am talking about "Strawberry Fields Forever" unusual song form called a double-fade with a fade in which is different than just fading in sounds during a track. I how they used it as a psychedelic effect. I like how the song fades out initially to silence and and then fades backs in with this dissonant out sounds backward music & and then fades out with odd vocal noises.

Many musicians fade in sounds in during a track the Beatles did it countless times but it's a different technique than the double fade-out ending of "Strawberry Fields Forever".

blastingas10

The Stones weren't influenced by the Beatles, really? What about the song "I wanna be your man"?

I'm not so sure that chuck could play the pants off of the Beatles, and even if he could, the Beatles had a lot more versatile "pants" than chuck did.

NYSPORTSFAN

I agree with you and Neopolitan can have his opinion.

People like Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Leopold Stokowski, and Ned Rorem praised their music, and it was unheard of for classical composers of that stature to say anything good about rock music.

Pretty much every jazz musician can play rings around the majority of rock musicians. Does that make jazz music "better" than rock music? Not if you're not a fan of jazz. There are no absolute standards in music, only relative ones. The best music is the music you like the best.

The Beatles, to a man, played with a remarkable level of "feel", which is the sort of skill that non-musicians have difficulty grasping, let alone quantifying. They were extraordinarily attuned to playing (and singing) as a unit. They played together as a group, not as four individual musicians, and unless you've spent a fair bit of time playing in musical groups, you have no idea how rare and precious a skill that is.

laga

When I was young I used to go to a Bach for christmas and my cousin put these headphones on me playing this music - it was a mystical experience this party goin on - The song was Barbara Ann by the beach boys and was so incredible it had me a comitted fan for 30 years. The love and beauty in their songs never fail to please, beatles are good but not that good.

Surell

There! Now we have a winner!

__________________

Neapolitan

I wasn't saying "The Stones weren't influenced by The Beatles," if you're trying to make out that was what I was saying then that would be an Aunt Sally. I was trying to say was that The Beatles were also influenced by The Rolling Stones. What I should had said was 'And it's the other way around [too] where The Beatels were influence by The Rolling Stones especially the album 12X5.'
You right their debut album was a little more than just Blues album, but I wasn't only going by what songs they put on their first album but what they were interested in then and what brought them together and what they played in clubs, which was R&B and Blues. R&B has a slightly different meaning in the UK. I am more use to refering to artist who are African-American artist as R&B. So I called the Stones a Blues band. The early Rolling Stones even the band Blues Incorperated where some of the member come from were considered a R&B band in the UK. The reason for saying The Rolling Stones started off as Blues (and R&B) outfit was basically point that the band sole existence wasn't due to The Beatles. The had their own reasons (seperate from The Beatles) for starting up a band. You can mentioned they were discovered because after The Beatles were signed they were looking for the next big thing. It might be true for other bands younger than The Beatles, but the Stones and The Beatles were contemparies - imo pretty much equal all things considered.

Besides all of that, is it so hard to fathom that The Beatles are not as all powerful as they are made out to be, that they weren't the impetus for every single band forming in the 60s and then-after?


I don't buy that. I mean both The Bealtles and the Stones then were new bands (then) doing covers song, and I know by today standard bands that only do their own material are a dime a dozen, but back then it was exceptable to do cover songs. It was a way for them to earn thier flight wings, until they could write their own material. So just because The Beatles came first and then helped them out I wouldn't spin it that it was the main reason the Stones would go on to write their own songs. The whole point to Rock and Roll was to write your own songs, right? I mean yeah The Beatles helped them but they were eventual go own to right their own material, because that was the reason for Rock n Roll.

In a way that shows you how The Beatles and The Stones comes from two different worlds. Mick Jagger (and even Elvis) took thier cue from R&B performers. I don't know how fimiliar you are with them but as the years went by Mick's dancing progressed and he did more and more. I don't know when the interveiw took place so I don't know what kind of thing Mick was doing. But it was always about showmanship, Mick the frontman and their are times he's not singing, so he was only “mach schau” so John understand that.


I laughed all through that part, it was if The Rolling Stones were "trolling" John Lennon and The Beatles.

To me it's more than opinions, I feel what I was trying to do is to show more respect and admiration for other artist other than The Beatles - I think that should be noted. Our understanding of the history of Rock n Roll is just different, that's all.

__________________

blastingas10

There's definitely nothing wrong with noting the accomplishment of other artists. There wa a time when I didn't even like the Beatles.