The old argument still being fought today, “which band is better, The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?” In my opinion this is an outdated stupid argument that has little relevance what-so-ever. Both bands are incredible, both came out in the early “60’s, and appealed to the younger more liberal socially progressive crowd. That being said it is unfair to call one band better than the other because of their different musical styles.
The Beatles, four working class guys from Liverpool, England, would lead the charge in what in the history of rock is often referred to as “The British Invasion”. They are truly the first indie group and would set the standard for the future of progressive rock. The duel song writing of John Lennon and Paul McCartney is simply genius. So many styles were produced by a single band in less than ten years, these range from complete harmony like George Harrison’s, “While my guitar gently weeps”, to psychedelic anthems embraced by the counter Culture like “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”. This was also one of the first “groups” and not artists like Elvis Presselly or Johnny Cash, who were artists who wrote music but never had a constant group, but a studio band who would record and tour with them.
Over the brief but pivotal career of the Beatles, they evolved multiple times. They started as a small band from England, and ended as one of the biggest bands of all time selling more records than almost anyone. But in between those years the Beatles had many different looks. At the start of their career they were seen as nice English boys who started out performing on the “Ed Sullivan Show”. But when Bob Dillon introduced them to hashish, the band quickly and swiftly embraced the Hippie movement, and became outspoken spokesmen for the cause. They regularly indulged themselves in recreational drugs, and took up practices like meditation. They even took a break in 1966 and went to India and spent an entire weekend meditating. George Harrison even converted to Hinduism. The band’s message became extremely political, spreading messages of world peace and anti-war, as seen in the song “Revolution”. Conflicting egos and interests would eventually break up the band, although Yoko Ono does deserve some of the blame for this, she was only a small factor in the Beatles disbandment.
The Rolling Stones defined the lifestyles of all future rock styles. Sex, drugs, and Rock ‘n Roll. They had a message of anti-conformity and screw the establishment no matter who it is. They are even to this day true anarchists. Mick Jagger’s notorious womanizing, and Keith Richards’s inordinate amount of drug abuse not only broke but changed all of the rules in the book.
The Rolling Stones actually started out as an all blues band that simply played old blues songs. In fact the band name derives from an old Muddy Watters blues song. It wasn’t until their record producer literally locked Mick and Keith into a room that they began writing their own material. From the early albums like “Beggar’s Banquet” and sticky fingers to 2004’s “A bigger bang”, the group has consistently had a blues undertone with their subject matter, even as the sound changed little by litter over 40 years this is evident. Songs like “Angie”, and “Dear Doctor” describe loves lost with true sorrow and emotion. My favorite song by the Stones, “Sympathy for the Devil”, is a true anti-conformity oxymoronic tune that revolves around the initial opening drum beat. The scandals and controversies over the years have made them true rock stars, not just on stage, but also off. After 40 years the group still tours and records new material even as they approach their mid-sixties. I saw them with my dad in Dallas. It was my 16th birthday present and my first concert and I was blown away.
Both bands were English, both were advocated the use of recreational drugs, and both came out at the same time. But even with these similarities they had fundamental differences. The Beatles music was predominantly political and sang about and eventual goal, world peace. The Stones had little interest in such subject matters and they sang from the heart. To them emotion was more important than subject matter.
The Beatles broke up and the Rolling Stones didn’t. Even though all of the Beatles had very successful solo careers, nothing they did individual could top what they did as a group. I think that their disbandment was a good thing, I would hate to see the optimism they sang about in the 60’s turn into hopeless depression in the 70’s after the realization that Viet Nam was still going on and that the counter culture had virtually disintegrated into small isolated pockets hippie communes throughout the country. A few members of the Rolling Stones launched solo and collaborative projects with other artists on the side but none of them replace the group all together.
These groups are to different musical entities they cannot and should not be compared to each other. This is just ridiculous because of their different auras and style. I am probably the most judgmental person in my family when it comes to music. There are entire genres I cannot stand and artists I despise. But that being said when I get into something I will slowly dissect entire albums in a couple of days, in what becomes somewhat of an up session to me. So when I like an artist or band one does not out way another, and are listened to in rotations. The Stones and Beatles are different, but both have appealing unique styles that should not over ride one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment