Beatles or Stones (or Kinks? Monkees? Herman's Hermits?)

[scribbler]

Demos and outtakes are often superior because they are recorded without expectations or aspirations to perfection. One day maybe they will release the hundreds of hours of Lennon's home cassettes. If only for historical reasons.

I dump on McCartney, but only because he had the misfortune (?) of being in a band with an idealistic genius punk like Lennon. You can say the same about the Wailers (yes, I eventually bring everything back to reggae), who with Marley, Tosh and Bunny were the Beatles of their time and place. Each different, each contributing something irreplaceable to a whole that was really breathtaking in its scope and influence.

For what it's worth, I never owned a Rolling Stones record, and I kind of agree with marina del rey. I never understood their elevation to legendary status. They rocked, but so did many others.

M, I find it hard to believe that an enthusiast of your rock n roll understandings never owned a Stones record. Everyone has owned one, even if they hated them.
The reaching distillations that filled-up Stones record contained a lot of GREAT stuff. Though I do not find it stylistically comparable to the Beatles, it was certaintly "punk" enough at times (which should have gotten your attention).
Me, I wont judge any band by their impact...because that reduces them to trifling comparisons. But I will judge a band by personal innovation, exclusion and and by a demonstrated informed recklessness and detachment. The Beatles were driven by and amounted to several unintimidated creative forces (well beyong the triteness of "genius") that made the work, without excuse, that they felt had to get made...responding to no one. Most of it, though oddly "Pop" was built completely unique upon itself (or with a little help from friends).

 

[reasonknot]

music is music
if you want to play music
you can find people to play music

 

[slimedog]

I want to clarify that I don't mean to put the Beatles down by calling them a pop band. I'd have no trouble calling them the most innovative pop band of all time. I was just saying that in one aspect comparing the two bands is legitimate in that they came from the same time, same country etc. but really, though the Beatles played rock'n'roll at times and the Stones pop, they were two different bands who ended up playing different styles.

Who was more influential, inovative?-sure I'd pick the Beatles. But if I was going to choose who's record to play I'd pick the Stones, just cause I like their style better which I feel is more rock'n'roll.

Pop shouldn't be a bad word-it's a style of music more than just meaning popular. Jimi Hendrix was a rock musician, but he probably was the most creative, inovative one we've had. Bob Marley was a reggae musician, Bob Dylan a folk artist. Obvioulsly we got to look beyond the catergory.

Comparing artists is a little silly unless they work in the same style of music and someone's personal choice is governed (like myself in this situation) by the style of music they prefer not the quality of the musician or music.

 

[HiddenFormula]

Personally I think the Beatles are one of the most hit or miss bands ever. The thing is when they hit, they hit pretty fucking hard which allows me to forgive those misses that appear on all their albums. For me those misses mainly seem to be a lot of the post-Revolver Macca penned songs. A lot of his songs I just cringe listening too.


The Stones are great, but I think they offered a totally different side of things. They were a straight up rock band. The Beatles were in a league of their own and bands like The Stones and the Who could only really pick up the pieces after The Beatles had been there first.

 

[rjwink666]

Though The Kinks in my humble opinion were better than both, in answer to your question I would say The Rolling Stones.

The Beatles pissed all over their legacy when they broke up. McCartney is a joke, Lennon was a Fraud, Harrison was a pseud and Ringo is.... Ringo. And though you cannot help but sing along to the singles and admire the trio of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, nothing the Beatles released compares to the decadent edge of The Stones. Beggars Banquet, Exile on Main St. and Let It Bleed are immense rock n' rock records. In comparison the beatles have always appeared a little tame.

 

[mjp]

(I broke the musicals discussion off into a separate thread.)

 

[homeless mind]

Though The Kinks in my humble opinion were better than both, in answer to your question I would say The Rolling Stones.

The Kinks? Really? Cool band. But not the Beatles or Stones.

And why do you consider Lennon a fraud?

 

[mjp]

And why do you consider Lennon a fraud?

Because the Kinks are so authentic and true that their monumental accomplishments and far-reaching influence make everyone else look like a sad strip of asswipe.

Right?

The Kinks. Really. Who can forget their "rock operas"? Oh wait, I can.

I always felt sorry for the one kid I knew who liked the Kinks. I felt kind of protective of him, like you would the slightly retarded kid in class. He didn't know any better. It wasn't his fault.

 

[Lolita Twist]

If you look at it that way... isn't comparing a "pop band" to a "rock band" impossible in the end, as they're two entirely different things? Like apples and oranges, clichely, both fruit, but totally different.

 

[homeless mind]

Because the Kinks are so authentic and true that their monumental accomplishments and far-reaching influence make everyone else look like a sad strip of asswipe.

Right?

The Kinks. Really. Who can forget their "rock operas"? Oh wait, I can.

I always felt sorry for the one kid I knew who liked the Kinks. I felt kind of protective of him, like you would the slightly retarded kid in class. He didn't know any better. It wasn't his fault.

That's just plain cold. And how I like my steak: bloody as hell.

 

[hank solo]

Ray Davies is a genius.

Perhaps the Kinks were too British. I know they toured the US, but they were probably so relieved to come home that they never really became a part of 'the British Invasion'.

 

[Gerard K H Love]

In 1965 I bought a Kinks album because my older brother and sister had all of the Beatles stuff. Compared to my live Rolling Stones album the Kinks were great. I don't recall any rock opera but I didn't buy another album, at least nothing into the seventies.

 

[slimedog]

I like the Kinks & was just thinking the other day how underrated they are.

 

[chronic]

I agree with those who think Beatles and Stones = Apples and Oranges. No real comparison. I like them both.

Oh, and Lola versus Powerman and the Money-go-round is a classic. Kinks is cool.

 

[number6horse]

The Kinks. Really.
Who can forget their "rock operas"? Oh wait, I can.

Don't you mean The Who ? Or did The Kinks do some rock opera also, and I missed out...?

 

[Gerard K H Love]

Did Bukowski hate the Kinks?

I ask this while I have .

It should be .

 

[Bruno Dante]

A great compilation album (sorry if this has been mentioned before but I'm too lazy to read the whole thread) is The Rolling Stones: The London Years. It includes every single they released in their best period (upto about '74 if my memory serves me) and has every B-side too (some singles had a different US and UK B-side and it has both).
The Beatles were great too in my view. I especially like their earlier more pop-orientated sound.

 

[HiddenFormula]

The Kinks first nine albums are fantastic, but after to that things got very...erm strange indeed:confused:

But from 1960's-early 70's. I think the Kinks were churning out some of the best and most underated rock/pop albums in Britain. It seems most other bands at the time were bum licking the Beatles, but the Kinks had their own sound/concept that stood out from the whole hippie/psychadelia trend. It wasn't as trendy and hip, so I can see why so many of their albums aren't known so well.

I like how they managed to capture a lot of the aspects of normal British life...something many bands at the time has dismissed. Foir this reason I can see why they aren't as popular amongst Americans.

The Small Faces are another amazing band, who beat the hell out of the Stones & The Beatles.

 

[rjwink666]

The Small Faces are another amazing band, who beat the hell out of the Stones & The Beatles.

Yep, even The Zombies 'Odyssey and Oracle' deserves a mention

Because the Kinks are so authentic and true that their monumental accomplishments and far-reaching influence make everyone else look like a sad strip of asswipe.

Right?

Yeah, The Kinks. 'You really got me', one of the most groundbreaking and influential rock songs ever released. Then they got serious and displayed sardonic songwriting over a golden spell of albums. 'Face to Face' an album so full of wit, and clever observation. Then came a whole host of superb releases 'Something Else', 'The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, 'Arthur' and 'Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One' which took a massive swipe at the mechanics of the music business and commercialism.

And why do you consider Lennon a fraud?

From what I've read, and seen Lennon was a man full of contradictions. I think he jumped on the PEACE bandwagon and whilst his contemporaries were actively activists, he literally didn't even bother to get out of bed. Today his actions would be seen as ludicrous PR stunts.

 

[mjp]

'You really got me', one of the most groundbreaking and influential rock songs ever released.

What do you base that on, the Van Halen cover version?

Then they got serious and displayed sardonic songwriting...

Oh, so they made 'You really got me,' determined it was not serious, then started writing more like Lennon always had been. I get it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The kinks recorded 25 albums, but I can't name five of their songs (I can only think of two, guess which two?), and I am of generation that devoured rock, pop and top 40 music for decades. The very decades the Kinks were making records. I just don't see the "groundbreaking" or "influence." That isn't an insult to you or family. It's an observation.

 

[d gray]

i don't know about groundbreaking but they were hugely influential. i've heard alot of musicians talk about them and ray davies in particular regarding that. oh ya, i like the kinks too;)

Today his actions would be seen as ludicrous PR stunts.

i think they were back then too...:D

 

[homeless mind]

Yeah, The Kinks. 'You really got me', one of the most groundbreaking and influential rock songs ever released.


From what I've read, and seen Lennon was a man full of contradictions. I think he jumped on the PEACE bandwagon and whilst his contemporaries were actively activists, he literally didn't even bother to get out of bed. Today his actions would be seen as ludicrous PR stunts.

"You Really Got Me" is a solid song. I wouldn't consider it at a level with the best. In fact, as far as the Kinks go, I would rather listen to (same era) the Beach Boys. "Help Me Rhonda" and "California Girls" are better pop songs, with the same subject matter: Girls.

As far as Lennon and contradictions, so what? He was human, not a demigod. But you don't make your point; you don't back up that statement.

And, his "bed protest" was ground-breaking at the time; calling attention to something that was important to him. Peace. Dissing that is rather "W" of you.

Lennon was probably a very complex and conflicted man. But so what? I don't buy his music because of him, I buy his music because I like many things about it. And it's a long fucking list. That grows every time I listen.

I'm also amazed at how many people from the UK aren't huge JL fans. Why? Let's take an American band: every single person in the USA loves the Doors, save for one: mjp. ;)

Pax

 

[HiddenFormula]

What do you base that on, the Van Halen cover version?

Oh, so they made 'You really got me,' determined it was not serious, then started writing more like Lennon always had been. I get it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The kinks recorded 25 albums, but I can't name five of their songs (I can only think of two, guess which two?), and I am of generation that devoured rock, pop and top 40 music for decades. The very decades the Kinks were making records. I just don't see the "groundbreaking" or "influence." That isn't an insult to you or family. It's an observation.

Erm, well at least pretty much every British rock band since. Particulary bands like The Specials, Blur, The Stranglers, Stone Roses, The Smiths, Pulp, Suede, Elvis Costello, The Jam, Ian Dury, The Clash, The Cure, The Coral and every single modern Brit band (yes, a lot of them suck)...basically any band who don't feel they have to sing like Americans.

 

[homeless mind]

So every rock band (post Kinks) from the UK has its roots in the Kinks?

That may explain the buying habits of most rock & roll fans today.

 

[Gerard K H Love]

I can only name two or three Kinks songs, now that you mention it. I do know the tune of a few others. I could name more Monkees songs.

 

[homeless mind]

G-Love: Hope You're Having A Pleasant Valley Sunday. On Wednesday.

From the St. Pete Times today: Monkee-Mania continues!!!!

It's an interview with Mickey Dolenz. And yes, he does mention that they once had Jimi Hendrix open for them; and he was invited to the Sgt Peppers recording session...and also talks about the movie, "Head."

http://www.tampabay.com/features/music/article980976.ece

Pax

 

[rjwink666]

And, his "bed protest" was ground-breaking at the time; calling attention to something that was important to him. Peace. Dissing that is rather "W" of you.

I'm not dissing Peace, I'm dissing the stunt. Unlike, I don't know somebody like Bono I don't honestly believe Lennon used his fame to actively make changes and promote worldwide awareness. Hell, wasn't Lennon late to the party anyway with the intense anti-war protests of the nineteen sixties already in full flow, millions of people were already politically aware and politically active. I'm not sure the bed-in benefitted anybody other then Lennon and Ono themselves.

I'm also amazed at how many people from the UK aren't huge JL fans. Why?

He's a marmite man like Morrissey, you either love him or hate him. I really don't think its possible to be ambivalent about John Lennon.

 

[hank solo]

Okay I learned something new today: the Kinks were banned from performing in the US in the late 60's. So obviously they were never properly exposed over there when they were really at their peak creatively.

But I'm guessing that we aren't changing anyone's opinion here.

 

[Ninjerk]

And, his "bed protest" was ground-breaking at the time; calling attention to something that was important to him. Peace. Dissing that is rather "W" of you.

What is it usually called when you talk about how passionate you are about something and then doing nothing about it? I don't think "ground-breaking" is the term...

 

[Purple Stickpin]

I would think that a musician who has the ears of millions of people and produces songs that promote peace, love and power to the people has not "done nothing" about it. His message reached many, many people. If they choose to listen to it, follow it, ignore it, mock it, or do the opposite, which of these choices can be attributed to John Lennon?

Out of curiosity, what requirements do you put upon a person who espouses an ethic? At what point have they "done something about it?"