PDA

View Full Version : the beatles vs The rolling stones



Pages : [1] 2

betsy
Nov-07-2005, 20:35
which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same. https://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tiphat.gif

Frederik Magle
Nov-07-2005, 21:37
I have to disagree with you on your view on The Beetles. In fact I think they were very much diverse, blending elements of rock, pop, and even some classical, and then more.

But personally I think it's difficult to compare with the stones. It's a little like apples and organges to me. Anyhow, it's an interesting dicsussion https://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Christine Callisen
Nov-07-2005, 23:02
I´m also on The Beatles side!

They have made a lot of great songs. We use a lot of Beatles, in my musiclessons and that´s really cool! https://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif

I don´t know much about The rolling stones....

Lotus80
Nov-07-2005, 23:20
I prefer the Beatles as well.
As Christine, I know zillions of Beatles' songs, and just a couple of Stones' songs.

I don't agree that all the Beatles songs sound the same. If you compare She loves you (yeah yeah yeah) to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, I don't think anyone would confuse the two https://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

rojo
Nov-08-2005, 07:59
I really like many songs by both groups.

I agree with Frederik Magle; that it`s hard to compare the two groups, they`re too different.

One thing they have in common however is their longevity. You`ve got to respect any group or artist that manages to come out with hit after hit over such a long period of time - definitely not one-hit-wonders! https://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif https://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Simone
Nov-08-2005, 08:37
It's hard but I think I go for the Beatles, but only because I don't know very much about the rolling stones..

Simone https://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Neil
Nov-20-2005, 02:01
I prefer the Beatles but I have just listened to some digitally remastered old Rolling Stones Albums and suddenly I remembered some very good songs - in my opinion e. g. "Tumblin' dice", "Paint it black", "Beast of Burdon".

Marjorie
Nov-20-2005, 05:45
I would say the Beatles by far. I've never enjoyed the harder sound of the Rolling Stones. To me, it's the Rolling Stones' music that all sounds the same. The Beatles have many diverse tunes - from beautiful ballads to songs with fantastic rock beats.

I give credit to the singers of both bands for being top entertainers for as long as they have. I just saw a concert that Paul McCartney did in St. Petersburg - he can still rock with the best of them. When the Beatles first started, some people said that the Beatles would never last and could anyone imagine a 40-year-old Beatle - well, Paul's in his 60's and he's still got it!!

Marjorie

Jette
Nov-20-2005, 20:30
I would say The Beatles, I have never been that fond of The Rolling stones, even though they made some great songs

Jette https://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

ApeXX
Nov-21-2005, 04:52
If you can name one song by the Beatles that was deemed a "Dud", please let me know. I honestly cannot think of one song off the top of my head that wasn't innovative and diverse. Now I also am slightly swayed by the fact that I dislike The Rolling Stones.

sondance
Nov-21-2005, 08:05
In my garage band of the late sixties (Jr. High and High School) we did 2 Stones songs and a handful or more of the the Beatles.
Satisfaction was one of the first songs to use a "fuzz" box (distortion) so we all had to go out and buy a fuzz box and figure out how to use it. Paint It Black became our banner psychedelic song (from our arrangement). Keith Richards would ocassionally hit a guitar riff and sound that lit things up. But it was the Beatles who were song writers and had the breadth to take a philosophical view on things. That is why I like them better.

ApeXX
Nov-24-2005, 04:50
I honestly just don't know how you can compare the two. The Beatles have to be one of THE greatest bands of all time. I am sure that many people would agree with me. Although the Rolling Stones got very popular at the climax of their career, their success was way short to that of the Beatles.

Kelly
Nov-28-2005, 11:25
Saw Paul McCartney last weekend here in Houston and wouldn't ya know it The Rolling Stones are in the house Thursday. Wow!!!.But in reply to your post. I never cared much for the Stones..Seen them in 1977 and left after a few songs. They dont do anything for me personally. After seeing Paul live and play the songs I grew up with for the most part, was a moving experience indeed..When Paul played "Helter Skelter"...never thought I would hear that..I was so close to the stage I had to see what Paul would do..I yelled" I got blisters on my fingers" ..He looked right at me and smiled big as a chesshire cat he did..Made my DAY!!! The Beatles rule!!! (also I don't recall anyone ever being stabbed or beaten to death at a Beatles concert)

erikbartley
Apr-25-2006, 02:02
Normaly I would choose the band that got the least votes just to be a rebal, but this time I have to go with the Beatles. Don't get me wrong, the stones is a great band, but I find myself listening to the Beatles more.

ViolinCyndee
May-12-2006, 05:30
Beatles!! They are actually my favorite band ever!! Stones are great too, but the Beatles changed everything! I never get sick of their music. I have recorded a cover of "The Inner Light" on my electric violin..

Cyndee

Cherry
May-15-2006, 07:24
I also think these are 2 bands you can not compare.
They are 2 totally different styles of music.

I love both, but I can not compare Keith Richards to John Lennon.. it just doesn't work.

arianna
May-28-2006, 04:56
As others have mentioned, there is nothing common to compare the two, so the question doesn't work.

However, my personal preference is The Beatles by far! I like a few of the Stones' songs, but for the most part, I can't get into them. With The Beatles, it's just the opposite. I don't think I could ever get sick of their music. There are, of course, a handful of acclaimed Beatles' songs that just don't do it for me (it's like that with every band), but in general, I love them.

In fact, I am listening to "If I Fell" right now. :)

Izabella
Jun-01-2006, 15:01
Stones...Although the Beatles are good too but I prefer the Stones

sparky
Jun-01-2006, 15:34
I also have to go with the Beatles although both the Beat;es and the Stones have a lot to answer for I think it was them that killed good old Rock and Roll on a musical front the Beatles are way out in front just listen to their Sgt Pepper Album some of the melodies and chord configurations are very complex although easier on the guitar that on keyboards still both bands are great

JohnM
Aug-12-2006, 21:46
Beatles for me.

Unless I'm burning rubber in my car, when it's the Stones!!

SecondBass
Aug-18-2006, 22:13
The time honoured debate. There are attributes on both sides. The Stones were more raunchy and bluesy, the Beatles were more diverse and probably better song-writers. On the down-side Paul McCartney is irritating beyond belief and Keith Richards has been a zombie since 1966.

So, on balance I'm choosing the Kinks.

Poddygood
Aug-24-2006, 01:59
I like your cunning SecondBass. Much as I'm a long time Beatles AND Stones fan (I remember the Stones back from when I saw them at the Royal Albert Hall in November 1963..), I often feel that a choice between the real true greats should be wider. There were some better equals out there who get sadly overlooked in comparative terms.. The Kinks, The Who, The Move......:grin:

SecondBass
Aug-24-2006, 12:51
Yeah - the Move. Can't really imagine either the Stones or Beatles doing Brontosaurus.

Welcome to the boards Poddygood - I think you can have some fun around here. Anybody that rates the Move has my backing.

traveller
Aug-24-2006, 23:32
I found myself opting for one and then the other as I read through this thread. Its not that I can't make my mind up but that they are both good in their own way. Basically I agree with those who say they can't be compared but if I had to choose one, then it would be the Stones. They have a raw edge that the Beatles don't.

Maney
Aug-27-2006, 22:59
The beatles don't even come close! Its the stones all the way for me, personally I can't stand the beatles, but the stones, well I could listen to them all day every day.

Museo
Sep-29-2006, 16:22
What a tricky choice to make as both bands have contributed so much to the music scene.

Personally I would have to say the Beatles especially in their later period when George Harrison became more confident about writing and penned such hits as ""Something" and "Here comes the sun". Perhaps I have hippy tendencies :)

SecondBass
Sep-29-2006, 16:42
OK, if I really have to choose I would probably go for the Beatles, even though it is against my louder tendencies. The variety of songs coming from Lennon, McCartney, and as Museo rightly points out, Harrison, really give it to them.

M.T. STYLE
Nov-29-2006, 04:07
which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same. https://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tiphat.gif

Lol, Beatles are probably the most diverse(music) musician ever.

Just listen to:
She loves you
Tomorow never knows
a day in the life
strawberry fields forever
helter skelter
blackbird
birthday
revolution 9
golden slumber/carry that weight/the end
across the universe
let it be

then try to compare

M.T. STYLE
Nov-29-2006, 04:35
Beatles(1962-70)
20 US No.1 SINGLES
17 UK No.1 SINGLES
19 US No.1 ALBUMS
15 UK No.1 ALBUMS


Rolling Stones (1963-Present)
8 US No.1 SINGLES
8 UK No.1 SINGLES
9 US No.1 ALBUMS
10 UK No.1 ALBUMS

M.T. STYLE
Nov-29-2006, 04:36
Beat That!

JLS
Dec-08-2006, 06:20
I have to agree with the majority of posters here and go with The Beatles; and echo the sentiment that it isn't even close. Musically, The Beatles were far, far superior to the Stones. Their music was so universally acknowledged that it touched the whole world. My friend's parents once told me about how they would, as children in their home country of Egypt, gather the neighborhood into the one home with a radio just to collectively listen to The Beatles being broadcast. I discovered this when my friend and I walked into his house to find his mother, who only listens to Egyptian music, singing along to Yesterday. My friend, as surprised as I, asked where she learned that song...

To be honest, I've never understood the popularity of the Stones. They're a decent band, but quite unoriginal in my estimation. They pretty much just play straight-ahead blues rock. I don't see any real innovation there at all. Their musicianship is passable, but also nothing particularly special(I've honestly seen more talented musicians playing jazz at the local coffee house). The songwriting is a bit bland and complexity is not to be found.:smirk:

OGE1
Jan-16-2007, 05:24
i see these questions all the time...my opinion tends to differ from time to time...ill go for the beatles this time...revolutionary.

Art Rock
Jan-31-2007, 18:06
Beatles by far.

oboegirl
Feb-02-2007, 15:14
Personally i like the Beatles better. I also found them more diverse than the Rolling Stones and found the lyrics to be better as well. I think John Lennon was a genius with some of his music. Imagine , in my opinion is the best Beatles song they ever released. How profound and meaningful. It is honestly a song that touches and moves people. I just never got the same feelings from the Rolling Stones.
oboegirl

jnbammer
Feb-11-2007, 16:10
If the Stones would have retired 10 years ago, I might have picked them. Having said that, I think the Beatles music is diverse and very significant in history. The Stones are good, but the Beatles are better.:rolleyes:

oid
May-07-2007, 13:24
hi every body i'm a italian girl and I must pass the trinity exam next week, do you know it?
I've chosen like principal topic "beatles vs rolling stones", but my english isn't so good.....so can you help me to do a paragraph abaut the competition they have in 60s????......please..... I love you.....

sparky
May-08-2007, 12:34
Hello oid:tiphat: I do not know if it is the same exam but I took my 1st Trinity Exam at the age of 10 at Trinity College of Music London on the 17th June 1952 at 11:37 in the morning and I still remember it, I actually passed with Merit that was a score of 83% although I am sure the whole thing has changed now. I hope you do well and do not give up just remember Practice makes Perfect. As far as your English goes it is much better that my Italian :clap: Cheers Sparky
hi every body i'm a italian girl and I must pass the trinity exam next week, do you know it?
I've chosen like principal topic "beatles vs rolling stones", but my english isn't so good.....so can you help me to do a paragraph abaut the competition they have in 60s????......please..... I love you.....

Sybarite
May-15-2007, 17:46
I like – and listen to – both, although I have only really got into the Stones in the last few years.

As has already been said, it's difficult to compare since they're so different. But if you actually want rock 'n' roll, then it has to be the Stones. There's something far more rebellious about the music – ironic really, that, in 1960s England, a middle-class band could be viewed as so much more subversive than a working-class one.

In my opinion, of course. ;)

Sympathy for the Devil and Paint it Black are two of my all-time favourite tracks.

ses
May-16-2007, 21:57
In the 60-70-80 I prefer Beatles, now I more in the mood for the Stones.
I owe the Beatles a lot, when they started their hits I begin to get tired of 2-3 minutes music – and skipped pop music for many years to learn to listen to classical music.
So I missed the golden age of pop 60-70, but I have never regret my choice.
Now I can listen to pop again and I like both bands. I think it is important to learn that because one like this sort of music and musicians, it don’t mean that one need dislike the other(s).

ArcticMonkeys
May-21-2007, 08:29
Hands down, The Beatles. Rolling Stones' songs are boring and uninviting. I wonder why a lot of people and critics are recognizing the group as the greatest rock band ever. Beatles are gods!


___________________
Lizzy
Volkswagen Parts and Accessories (http://www.who-sells-it.com/c/automotive-volkswagen-813.html)

nati-nati
May-21-2007, 08:56
On mine Beatles always was popular and for today they also are favourite group for many people. They in due time have made enough much and it is simply impossible to forget them. Floor McCartney and John Lennon were and remain one of the most unique rock-vocalists and original rock-composers.

nati-nati
May-22-2007, 08:56
On mine it is simply impossible to forget all those songs which they have created:
"A Day In The Life"
"Good Morning Good Morning"
"Everybody S Trying To Be My Ba"
And certainly a lot of others :)

Moon Dog
May-24-2007, 06:34
Both are great bands, but I tend to see the Stones as almost a fluke. There popularity may of been a matter of timing. While it is not uncommon for a 60's/70's British rock band's lead vocalist to sound somewhat black, given many of the old blues covers they've often done, I think Jagger tried to take it a step beyond. As a result, a very odd and awkward sound had come forth. And the irony is, it worked.

I'd have to give the slight edge to The Beatles. I've always liked their very 'English' sound, and I just can't relate to a lot of the 'New York City' references in many of the Stones' songs.

Krummhorn
May-25-2007, 07:13
IMHO, the Beatles have always had an edge over the Stones ... although both groups are great in their own right, but my preference leans heavily towards the Beatles. :cheers:

nati-nati
Jun-26-2007, 09:33
Group "The Beatles", it is possible to listen to their songs all the day, I hope you will agree with me that it is one of the finest groups!!!!
http://www.musicwebtown.com/nati/48375

toejamfootball
Jul-12-2007, 19:07
The Beatles easy, they are what got me into music.

The Stones are a bore in my opinion. I agree with some people on here who say they are very overated.

Nigua
Aug-08-2007, 22:29
which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same. https://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tiphat.gif

Two very different bands!
Maybe you only know The Beatles first albums, which were more R&R, but even in these albums you can find very varied stuff, later they were really Masters in doing different things, listen to the White Album or Abbey Road as a couple of examples!!!

almauro
Oct-03-2007, 02:10
The Beatles peaked for me on Revolver in 66', while the Stones hit their stride in 67' w/ Beggar Banquet and continued to put out great music up until Tattoo You in 78'. Sgt. Pepper may have been the Beatles commercial peak, but I think it's over-rated.

abhishek_desai
Dec-18-2007, 21:22
I love Beatles and there is no one to beat it...But to hear the arguments of both the side there is a better way now. There is one rivalry created on

http://www.rivals4ever.com/view_rivalry.php?r_id=398

We will be able to upload videos to justify our stand and will be able to continue our talk in Passion talk. Its a great tool for any rivalry and its fans, I love it.

intet_at_tabe
Jan-01-2008, 16:05
I honestly just don't know how you can compare the two. The Beatles have to be one of THE greatest bands of all time. I am sure that many people would agree with me. Although the Rolling Stones got very popular at the climax of their career, their success was way short to that of the Beatles.

To Apexx

I am with you. I can´t find any level whatsoever of comparison, though I´ve been to one Stones concert in Copenhagen 1970 at the Forum, but unfortunately never attended The Beatles. The pepper-album by The Beatles (Parlophone 1967) has been my favourite album for fourty years. Every lyrics to every song has been sculptured in my mind, and I often sing any of the songs from the album (though only when I´m alone).
IMHO "Sgt. Pepper´s lonely hearts club band" still innovative in it´s compositions and new every time I listen to it. What Stones album could possibly match that?

Grace
Feb-05-2008, 18:11
the beatles with my head.
the rolling stones with my heart. :cool:

intet_at_tabe
Feb-06-2008, 07:52
the beatles with my head.
the rolling stones with my heart. :cool:

Hi Grace,

Good of you to visit this thread. Could you please elaborate on your statement: the beatles with my head - the rolling stones with my heart. :cool:

Grace
Feb-06-2008, 15:09
Hi Grace,

Good of you to visit this thread. Could you please elaborate on your statement: the beatles with my head - the rolling stones with my heart. :cool:

I try to explain, but it's not easy...

in my opinion (with my head), beatles music is better than rolling stone music. the beatles upset music, they were precursors of psychedelic music, but the rolling stones hurt my heart with their rock blues.
it's like when you see a beautiful, intelligent and fascinating Top Model.. is'not automatic you will fall in love with her, maybe you will fall in love with your nice and passionate neighbour. It's love. do you agree?

C5Says
Feb-06-2008, 23:58
I try to explain, but it's not easy...

in my opinion (with my head), beatles music is better than rolling stone music. the beatles upset music, they were precursors of psychedelic music, but the rolling stones hurt my heart with their rock blues.
it's like when you see a beautiful, intelligent and fascinating Top Model.. is'not automatic you will fall in love with her, maybe you will fall in love with your nice and passionate neighbour. It's love. do you agree?

So you mean to say that the Beatles is the hot beauty model while the Stones is the neighbor. Do I get it right what you mean?

intet_at_tabe
Feb-07-2008, 09:45
I try to explain, but it's not easy...

in my opinion (with my head), beatles music is better than rolling stone music. the beatles upset music, they were precursors of psychedelic music, but the rolling stones hurt my heart with their rock blues.
it's like when you see a beautiful, intelligent and fascinating Top Model.. is'not automatic you will fall in love with her, maybe you will fall in love with your nice and passionate neighbour. It's love. do you agree?

Hi Grace ;)

Thank you for the explanation. I do understand what you mean and to a certain amount I agree on The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones.

Only one arguement though against your reference to my neighbour. If you had seen my neighbour, you would not even use the expressions "nice" or "passionate" :lol::lol::lol::lol:

C5Says
Feb-07-2008, 10:22
I never liked Rolling Stones :P
I can bear to listen for a few minutes, though, as I can listen to any metallica. I just don't like it.

intet_at_tabe
Feb-07-2008, 10:39
I never liked Rolling Stones :P
I can bear to listen for a few minutes, though, as I can listen to any metallica. I just don't like it.

C5Says and Grace

I am with you C5Says mostly on the Stones. However the music from albums like "You Can´t Always Get What You Want" and "´Get Ya Ya Ya´s´s Out" are great for dancing. I attended the Stones at the Forum in 1970 in Copenhagen, could hardly see the stage for smoke of elegal "laughing tobacco", so to speak. :grin::grin: also titled Mari....

"Lucy In The Skies With Diamonds" by The Beatles from the Pepper album (my all time favourite The Beatles album) made some reviewers talk about LSD since some of the first letters in the "Lucy" song would indicate this.

Both bands were into drugs in the late 1960´s. The lead guitarist from the Stones, Brian Jones died from an o.d. The Beatles turned to India and guruism, indian philosophy and George Harrison was taught in playing the zitar by the indian master Ravi Shankar. The same Ravi Shankar, who is the biological father to Norah Jones (piano, vocals), while teaching indian musical composition at the University of San Francisco, California, USA.

John Lennon and Yoko Ono invited the world press to Denmark, while they had their honeymoon - naked, never leaving the bed (why didn´t I think of this while being married?). The first time in the history of the world, Denmark became known throughout the world.

Years ago in 1984, I met an american in N.Y.C., who thought Denmark was a surburband to Stockholm, Sweden.

Grace
Feb-07-2008, 18:14
So you mean to say that the Beatles is the hot beauty model while the Stones is the neighbor. Do I get it right what you mean?

maybe the example of the neighbour is not perfect... also because if you have a neighbour like the intet-at-tabe one, you can't understand. :grin:

i like the beatles very much, i listen them many time and i think they are the band who definitly changed the music. so they are the best.
i was just talking about emotion and rolling stones, in my opinion are very hot.
i was explaining two different point of view.
i'm like doc. jekyll and mr hide. :grin:

intet_at_tabe
Feb-07-2008, 20:41
maybe the example of the neighbour is not perfect... also because if you have a neighbour like the intet-at-tabe one, you can't understand. :grin:

i like the beatles very much, i listen them many time and i think they are the band who definitly changed the music. so they are the best.
i was just talking about emotion and rolling stones, in my opinion are very hot.
i was explaining two different point of view.
i'm like doc. jekyll and mr hide. :grin:

Dear Grace

There is nothing at all wrong with your answer, you came straight through to me - emotional, no problem, cool :cool::cool:. You speak of The Rolling Stones emotionaly, I can easely follow you. The Beatles were sort of small gentlemen in nice suits (the same). The Stones - rockin. Mick Jagger´s sensual movements on the stage, his voice (he could actualy sing) and the music itself with much longer songs and the stage performance quite different from the Beatles (from what I´ve seen many years later in various programs of memory of The Beatles).

The Stones could play much better rock music based on the blues, than the Beatles. Keith Richards was a much better solo guitarist than Goerge Harrison. They did extended concerts and their songs, the lyrics was not only about She Loves You Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. They had a deeper meaning. Both bands were popular, but The Stones were known, like The Who, to keep wild after-concerts-parties with hookers, alcohol, drugs and acid trips. Their relations to the Hells Angels often used as body gards at concerts, where everything ended up in huge fist fights and people driven for hospitalisation.

Most people in Denmark and I guess the world found The Beatles and The Rolling Stones side by side in the 1960´s - AWESOME, but the audience were different according to, who you favoured. The whole wide world loved both of the groups, until John Lennon made some stupid remarks about God and Jesus Christ in a Johnny Carson show in the USA, because it was new almost like a fiction, a dream, it was new that young people demonstrated peacefully through the idea of playing music instead of violent demonstrations against the Police. It was new that all you had to do was to find a guitar, learn to play a few chords, then you were in a band. The newspapers made the image of The Rolling Stones in the 1960-70´s, what Guns & Roses became years later in the USA.

Personaly, I loved The Beatles more than The Rolling Stones, but also my friends pressed me a bit, you know like groups of teen-boys do, I even had one of those grey Beatles jackets. Ringo Star and The Beatles was the reason for my years long extended career in practising air-drums :grin: The Beatles taught me more english, than I learned in public school. The Pepper album changed my life, I can sing it all through, while at sleep.

Remember Grace we don´t disagree, and if we did it would be great to agree to disagree. Music is about taste, and you can´t discuss memories, nostalgia and emotions about, what you felt about both bands. But it´s still great from time to time to talk about it openly like here, where we´re all winners. I can still laugh or feel fear, remembering some of the crazy things, I did with friends in those days often life threatening, but boys are boys and somehow everything during the 1960´s were AWSOME and related to rock music.

Sometimes, I almost wish myself back in time.

C5Says
Feb-07-2008, 23:49
*singing*

"Memories.......like the corners of my mind....."

marval
Feb-08-2008, 00:08
Well I can't say I was a mad fan of either and I was around in the swinging sixties, (my swiging days are over.)

But I did prefer the Beatles, I do actually have the Sgt.Pepper album, The Rolling Stones never did it for me, I went to school with a girl who loved The Rolling Stones, she had everyone of their records. Now for the confession I was more intoThe Monkeys.


Margaret

Grace
Feb-08-2008, 02:46
unfortunatly i was born too late and i couldn't see the (young!!) beatles or rolling stones live concert but i think that it would be a wonderful experience.
it's impossibile to give an objective preference 'cause they've both opened people minds and each group has his peculiarities..that is the reason why i have two different opinions..

intet_at_tabe
Feb-09-2008, 12:08
Well I can't say I was a mad fan of either and I was around in the swinging sixties, (my swiging days are over.)

But I did prefer the Beatles, I do actually have the Sgt.Pepper album, The Rolling Stones never did it for me, I went to school with a girl who loved The Rolling Stones, she had everyone of their records. Now for the confession I was more intoThe Monkeys.


Margaret

Miss Margaret - Hey, Hey with the Monkees ;). Let´s swing.

For those of you who did not live in the swinging sixties, The Monkees was a group of four guys, who first appeared on an USA TV show, but soon rose to stardom close to The Beatles and The Rolling Stones - in the USA.

Funny thing is The Monkees had a huge hit in the late 1960´s, with a song they did not write themselves (they couldn´t) called "Last Train To Clarksville".

On one of my 16 Cassandra Wilson albums, the one titled "New Moon Daughter" she sings this song in a very different editon from the same by The Monkees, and yet the first time I heard it on this album, I could easely remember The Monkees when they sang it.

Goes like this, now all together with one voice:

Monkees Song Lyrics

Last Train to Clarksville. Words and Music by Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart

Take the last train to Clarksville, And I'll meet you at the station.
You can be be there by four thirty, 'Cause I made your reservation.
Don't be slow, oh, no, no, no! Oh, no, no, no!'

Cause I'm leavin' in the morning And I must see you again
We'll have one more night together 'Til the morning brings my train.
And I must go, oh, no, no, no! Oh, no, no, no!A

And I don't know if I'm ever coming home. Take the last train to Clarksville.
I'll be waiting at the station. We'll have time for coffee flavored kisses
And a bit of conversation. Oh... Oh, no, no, no!Oh, no, no, no!

Take the last train to Clarksville, Now I must hang up the phone.
I can't hear you in this noisy Railroad station all alone.
I'm feelin' low. Oh, no, no, no!Oh, no, no, no!

And I don't know if I'm ever coming home. Take the last train to Clarksville,
Take the last train to Clarksville,[repeat and fade]

For you and me Miss Margaret from a time of our lives, when we were in "Swinging London" and made all the dance floors unsafe. :grin::grin:

marval
Feb-09-2008, 12:25
Hi Intet

Of course we made the dance floors unsafe.

Well I had to sing along to the song didn't I, unfotunately it was with a cup of coffee in my hand. I used to be a Davy Jones fan.

Mind you they do say that if you can remember the sixties you were not there, not enough pot smoking to make you forget.


Well I am a believer.


Margaret

intet_at_tabe
Feb-09-2008, 13:33
Hi Intet

Of course we made the dance floors unsafe.

Well I had to sing along to the song didn't I, unfotunately it was with a cup of coffee in my hand. I used to be a Davy Jones fan.

Mind you they do say that if you can remember the sixties you were not there, not enough pot smoking to make you forget.

Well I am a believer.

Margaret

Me to Miss Margeret - I am a believer. So to bring it all back to you from www.Wikipedia (http://www.Wikipedia) about the Monkees:


The television show first broadcast on September 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_12), 1966 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966) on the NBC television network and lasted for two seasons (58 episodes). The final primetime episode ran on September 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_9), 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968) (see List of The Monkees episodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Monkees_episodes)). Modeled on The Beatles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles)' theatrical films A Hard Day's Night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hard_Day%27s_Night_%28film%29) and Help! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help%21_%28film%29), The Monkees featured the antics and music of a fictional pop-rock group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_music_groups). Due to the massive success of the records, and the public's expectations, the four Monkees became a real pop group. The series was sponsored by Kellogg's Cereals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelloggs) and Yardley Cosmetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yardley_Cosmetics&action=edit) of London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London).

The four young men who became The Monkees were British-born David Thomas ("Davy") Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Jones_%28actor%29) (vocals/percussion/guitar/{drums-live only}), Hollywood native George Michael ("Micky") Dolenz Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micky_Dolenz) (vocals/drums/keyboards/guitar), Texan Robert Michael ("Mike"/"Wool Hat") Nesmith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Nesmith) (guitars/vocals), and Peter Halsten ("Peter Tork") Thorkelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tork) (bass/keyboards/banjo/guitar/trombone/vocals), who had lived with his family in both the eastern United States and Canada.

Let´s dance Miss Margeret!!

robinahood
Mar-16-2008, 14:29
The Stones for me every time, 'cause when they go into the studio to record, they record more or less 'live' as they really sound which perfectly catches their raw rock energy. They have no need to faf around with studio effects to enhance their sound, in a zenny way they JUST ARE.
The only real and good thing about the Beatles was JL, no wonder PM was crap after him and without him, ie the sickly poppy stuff like 'Band on the run', and the cheesier 'Mull of f*in Kintire' and 'Frog chorus'. And yet I believe 'Mull of Kintire' was his biggest seller around the world which really tells of the the bland tastes of most people.
JL was the only real rebel and 'rocker' in the band who wore his heart on his sleeve and said things that needed to be said.
Keith Richards is the ultimate guitar riff god, you just no what's comin' when you here... bapba bababa baba ba bapba and 'satisfaction' is guaranteed! The simple statement taken to the level of genius in that he can reproduce classic recognizable riffs like that day after day, for him it's like breathing, for the rest of us its just bloody hard work coming up with even a decent catchy one.

methodistgirl
Mar-16-2008, 14:41
I know that one band is as contraversial as the other but I like the Beatles
they were popular when I was just a little girl. I was about four years old
when I first heard Yesturday.
judy tooley

intet_at_tabe
Mar-17-2008, 10:04
The Stones for me every time, 'cause when they go into the studio to record, they record more or less 'live' as they really sound which perfectly catches their raw rock energy. They have no need to faf around with studio effects to enhance their sound, in a zenny way they JUST ARE.
The only real and good thing about the Beatles was JL, no wonder PM was crap after him and without him, ie the sickly poppy stuff like 'Band on the run', and the cheesier 'Mull of f*in Kintire' and 'Frog chorus'. And yet I believe 'Mull of Kintire' was his biggest seller around the world which really tells of the the bland tastes of most people.
JL was the only real rebel and 'rocker' in the band who wore his heart on his sleeve and said things that needed to be said.
Keith Richards is the ultimate guitar riff god, you just no what's comin' when you here... bapba bababa baba ba bapba and 'satisfaction' is guaranteed! The simple statement taken to the level of genius in that he can reproduce classic recognizable riffs like that day after day, for him it's like breathing, for the rest of us its just bloody hard work coming up with even a decent catchy one.

robinahood

Great to have a true The Rolling Stones supporter here.

robinahood
Mar-22-2008, 17:10
Thanks intet-at-tabe, I guess you can tell I'm passionate about the stones and especially Keith's just heavcenly groovi' riffs.

intet_at_tabe
Mar-22-2008, 18:25
Thanks intet-at-tabe, I guess you can tell I'm passionate about the stones and especially Keith's just heavcenly groovi' riffs.

robinahood :tiphat:

Keith Richards in the Stones could actually play the guitar very well. He was a much better guitarist than creditted for, and he has done some solos, which is still in my mind all these years. He and Mick Jagger were both the anchor in the band from the beginning back in the 1960´s. Keith Richards also was the "director" on the stage. He decided what to play and when to finsih the songs and the gig itself. If there should be an encore and what they would play.

Obviously Mick Jagger always got the most attention as the singer and for his sencual body-work while singing, and then of course for having been born with the biggest mouth in rock, also outside the studios in the yellow papers and for having prostitutues planned for on any venue.

Bill Wyman (el. bass) was more or less anonymus, on the stage too.

Charlie Watts, sorry to say - not the best drummer in the world, not even in England, not my favourite drummer at all. But he definitely knew how to use the high-hat and the snare drum.

Brian Jones, who passed away early on because he OD´ed from drugs, not anything like the later lead guitarist Mick Taylor, damn good guitarist MT of course with the blues in his blood. MT, who replaced Brian Jones, was excactly what the Stones needed at that time to get over the loss of Brian Jones - a great new guitarist. Reviewers in the papers actually at that time spoke of Mick Taylor as the new Eric "slow-hand" Clapton.

I remember, they gave a concert in Hyde Park in honor of Brian Jones. The park was growded with people and the concert was televised throughout Europe, very emotional but at the same time an extremely good concert in fact one of the very best, giving Mick Taylor, who was still a teenager as far as I remember, the very best conditions and launch in his new band.

Mick Jagger unlike the rest of the band, quitted his drugs and alcohol abuse years ago. Keith Richards unfortunately didn´t manage, not for alcohol neither. His latest scandale trying to climb a palm tree, which changed the next Europe Tour to begin six months later than programmed. Bill Wyman left the group years ago, and Charlie Watts began playing drums, like he used to do prior to the Stones - in various jazz groups, like Ginger Baker (The Cream) had done it for years.

The new guitarist/el. bassist Ron Wood post Mick Taylor had and has an incredible lust/addiction for English beer, so notorius that it has brought him to rehab. centres for years anywhere on the planet, not being so lucky to quit.

However, The Stones belong to a certain part of my youth, when rock was hip and new post rock and roll, like The Beatles did and The Stones are still rockin´, so I am pleased that you robinahood has the Rolling Stones as the best band.

We mostly played The Stones when having school parties, because they as a band were much better to dance to, and the girls seemed more free and open for private stuff later on, having heard and danced to The Midnight Rambler or Honky Tonk Woman.

beaver
Apr-03-2008, 17:20
i have to say that even the rolling stones themselves would say BEATLES!

methodistgirl
Apr-03-2008, 19:57
The Beatles were a big influnce on a lot of the other brittish rock bands
like the one I'm listening to now Electric Light Orchestra and even Pink
Floyd and these two are really great bands. Right now I'm
playing Living Thing along with ELO with my guitar.
judy tooley

intet_at_tabe
Apr-06-2008, 08:49
Sorry off topic:

PINK FLOYD, a chapter of it´s own in Brittish rock in the 1960-70´s - The Dark Side Of The Moon for instance.

I can recollect my exact emotions, where I was, who I was with, what the room looked like, when listening to the beginning of this AWESOME album the very first time in 1973. Beside The Beatles it was the Floyd for me for many years, especially the concerts and the psychedelic light show.

Funny thing is, they first became known to the world in 1965, playing music to someone elses psychedelic light show in London, England at clubs like The Marquee, the London Roundhouse and the UFO Club.

David Gilmour (vocals, guitars, composer) was not a member then. The group in 1965 was Syd Barrett (vocals, el. guitar, composer), Roger Waters (vocals, el. bass, composer), Richard Wright (piano, organ, synthezisers, vocals, composer) and Nick Mason (drums, percussion, vocals).

Piper At The Gates Of Dawn - A milestone in the experimenting music from 1967 was the first album by the Floyd, a real borderliner breaker in the Brittish underground Rock movement in the late 1960´s , while the Beatles and The Stones sold millions of albums in Europe on the traditional rock & roll scene.

Unfortunately for Mr. Barrett, he had to leave the group in 1967, because he was addicted to the drugs and one acid-trip to many, according to Nick Mason at the time, Syd vanished from the face of the earth mentally, his eyes had the same look as a shark - empty, like there was no Syd anymore.

David Gilmour replaced Syd Barrett and from then on the group was identical to the group PINK FLOYD the world of music loved, because they were always different from anyone else.

I still have the old vinyl records - all of them. The albums Meddle - Obscurred by Clouds - The Dark Side Of The Moon and Wish You Were Here still rank higher than most other albums IMHO. Unlike most people around the planet, I was never very excited with the music from The Wall, though this album and the film they made partly as a cartoon realy got wings to fly by, when the Berlin Wall which had parted the two Germany´s in two for so many years, was broken down in 1989 by citizens from both sides of Germany. But then Roger Waters had not been a part of the group for years after a heavy court dispute between Roger Waters and the remaining Pink Floyd members about who had the right to use the name PINK FLOYD, when Roger Waters went solo after the last PINK FLOYD album The Final Cut.

robinahood
Apr-11-2008, 13:19
Like you intet-at-tabe, I loved all of PFs records until The Wall. I just didn't get why people went mad over it. I found its lack lustre monotoned delivery with simpler repetative rythmic structure of music and lyrics more like a theatre play than the more inspirational and creative stuff up to then.

And Beaver, I don't think the Stones themselves would say that the Beatles were better, I really think they're above that. The Stones have remained true to their art form of blues inspired soulful rock, which in fact is the essence of real rock derived from rock 'n' roll which in its simplest form is speeded-up blues. I love it when Mick plays the harmonica, sucking bend notes from an A to compliment a Keith's blues based guitar riff in E, it's simply a marriage made in heaven. Also when Lennon sang, he sparked and he meant it, that's ROCK n ROLL! Whenever you hear Paul singing, even now, it doesn't sound like he's ripping his heart out and throwing it on the floor for you all to see as was the case when Lennon sang.

Anyway, that's enough from me. But if you want to hear a real rock voice that's unpretentious or cliched today then there is still Jagger of course, but also Dave Grohl (Foo Fighters), Thom York (Radiohead), Mark lanegan (Screeming Trees) and my favourite voice of all at the moment Roman Kozlowski (Symptom). It does'nt matter what style of rock these guys play, you just know when you here them singing, the hairs stand up and you know they bloody mean it and have lived it whatever it is they are ttrying to express in their song.

Interesting debate
Be well
Robinahood

jerry condrey
Jun-28-2008, 23:24
hey folks
my name is jerry and i'm new here.i grew up in the sixties,and being the son of a dj,was exposed to all the new stuff that came down the pipe at an early age.believe me ,although the stones were a great band,the beatles were more innovative,better singers,songwriters,the whole nine yards!sales? not even close.to my ears,the beatles were more like a celestial choir,while the stones were more gutteral.so, in my humble opinion,this debate is really no debate at all.thanks and i apreciate your time.
jerry in nc
sports radio host