Stones v. Beatles breakup?

Yes I agree. John had a horrid childhood, lived a lower middle class life, got in fist fights, and the press is calling this prissy upper class Economics student a tough guy? A bad boy? If I was John I would be really annoyed to say the least. "Hey, you're calling this poof a hard man when I've cracked ribs. Really?"

 

and again I pretty much agree with you except the background, aside from John ( albeit by default ) the Beatles were solid working class, John was from working class stock but was brought up in a lower middle class environment, in that way his upbringing was closer to Mick & Keef, and of course Brian came across as more middle class than the rest of them put together. The Beatles had Liverpool accents ( although Mimi always said John over did his for effect ) Mick and Keef spoke a form of estuary English but you could cut glass with Brian's accent. There is not a lot in it as many of both of them were art school boys but the Stones were slightly closer to the middle classes than the Beatles ever were.

 

I'd imagine Lennon had other things to worry about than Micks image.

 

I think you are essentially correct, however Mick was never Upper class, he was as lower middle class as John but as much as Mick was posing as a hard man so was John, but when push ever came to shove i suspect John would not back down but i am not so sure about Mick.

 

True but I mean in terms of Brian being an all-around bad boy what with fathering numerous children with many different women even before he was a rockstar and such and his violent temper (which was akin to Lennon's) and his mental illnesses and insecurities. I've never read much into any of their childhoods but it always seemed like Jagger and Keith grew up better off than John and Paul did.

As far as Keith's accent, his accent actually changed in a few years. Listen to how different he sounds here in 1965 than how he's often remembered to sound. Drug use and hanging around Gram Parson's changed his entire accent very rapidly:


I think a lot of Keith's later accent, detached vibe, and toughness was a put on. This here in 1965 is a sweet, slightly dorky British boy. This is not a man here who had the confidence to be a natural star. It had to be cultivated and learned for Keith.

Brian and Mick came across as both highly intelligent, very astute and clever with big egos who both wanted fame, which made them natural rivals, in a way similar to John and Paul except Paul got writing credits. Two alpha males in one band is never a good thing.

 

Ludicrous assertion. John helped kick the door in for the Stones and get them started. I think it more likely that Mick was in awe of the Beatles doing things like A Day In The Life.

 

Yeah but towards '68, '69, he had to be aware that the Stones were simply more FUN than his band.

 

The Stones were influenced by trends in rock and roll in the 66-67 period, and the Beatles were the beacon. Between the Buttons and especially Satanic Majesties reflect that influence. But the infatuation was brief. “Jumping Jack Flash” brought them back to their bluesy roots and they never looked back.

Their next four albums all had
ancient blues standards side by side with modern compositions, but nothing felt out of place. The Beatles, for all their musical brilliance, would never have been able to pull off “Prodigal Son” or “Love in Vain”. It just wasn’t in their vocabulary (“12 Bar Original” May be the stiffest, “whitest” blues track ever put to tape by a major rock act).

But blues based rock and roll was what the Stones have always done a bit better than anyone else, and to their credit, they’ve basically stuck with it for the better part of the last five decades. So in 2017, when the Stones release a song with roots that go back 80 years, it doesn’t sound old or gimmicky - it just sounds like the Stones doing what they do best. I remember hearing it at Coachella and thinking it flowed naturally with the rest of the set. That’s been the key, as longevity alone doesn’t establish greatness.

 

I'll never, ever understand people who compare Satanic Majesties to anything The Beatles did. Because outside of being in the same genre they're nothing alike musically. I mean, there are no two tracks on either album that are alike. They're two very different takes on Psychedelia. If Satanic Majesties is inspired by anyone, it's more Piper at the Gates of Dawn than Sgt. Pepper.

Also, The Beatles had a different sense of humor than the Stones. The Stones were more tongue in cheek stoner American humor. The Beatles were bitterly sarcastic, dry British humor. Which is yet another thing that separates them.

 

I didn’t actually compare it to anything the Beatles did; what I said was that the Stones were most influenced by then current trends in rock during the 66-67 period, and the Beatles were the beacon. I agree that TSMR sounds nothing like Pepper. But it doesn’t sound much like Out of Our Heads either.

 

Let It Bleed and Beggars are the closest in sounding alike, but Let it Bleed, outside of Midnight Rambler and Monkey Man, doesn't have that bluesy eeriness. Sticky Fingers and on is just very one dimensional rock. Even their attempts at country on Exile and future records sound more like parodies than genuine attempts as on Beggar's. As much as the Sticky Fingers through Exile period is considered a golden age, I consider it to be the Stones just replaying the tropes of Beggars and Let it Bleed just in new ways. Mick Taylor's guitar work and songwriting contributions elevate those records beyond being what they are at heart: Just Beggars & Let it Bleed with twists.

But when you get to Some Girls through Undercover, it gets interesting again. Those records for me are like the 60s experimentalism revisited.

 

Speaking of bands being inspired by other bands, for as much as I love Morrison Hotel, I feel like that album is The Doors doing their best Stones impression.

 

L.A. Woman (the album) as well.

 

That one for me is them doing The Band.

 

Perhaps on some but correct re. Rubber Soul and especially Revolver being head and shoulders above any Stones album. Stones albums are lots of fun but musically speaking rather primitive compared to The Beatles more sophisticated art pop. The Stones tried hard but were never in their league.

Also agree that Let It Bleed is a satire of Let It Be(the title not the album)- Stones would have known about the song title by early '69

 

Stones would have been massively envious of the Beatles incredible talent and how easy it was for them to write hit after hit. They had to work twice as hard to be a quarter as good.

 

The Beatles know which band is more interesting.

 

The Beatles are the band the superficial cool kids like, and the Stones are the band the outcasts with more soul enjoy.

 

That comparison sorta falls in line with my whole "Are you a Beatles person or a Stones person?" concept. Not saying that "Beatles people" are all superficial and "Stones people" have been outcasts all their lives (see what I did there?), mind you.

 

I think Stones fans take themselves and music a bit less seriously. Also, I in all honesty prefer the Beatles as solo artists. Too many egos in one basket in the band.

 

No reason to hide. I agree. The Rolling Stones were introduced as, "THE GREATEST ROCK 'N ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD!" when they toured in 1969, because they were. JPG&R stopped performing in '66 because their personal appearances were severely hampered by the mania surrounding the group. And I, for one, agree with Robert Christgau in saying that they stumbled off the stage with Let It Be and Abbey Road... they're my least favorite albums in their catalog.

 

Yes both bands had an interesting dynamic which changed for the Stones from 65 when Brian was sidelined and for the Beatles from 67 when Paul effectively took Epsteins place. Estuary English accent can change, you can get those that speak with a full on estuary almost working class London accent and those that are a bit more able to vary between slightly more working class London to closer to a more RP accent depending on the occasion, Mick and Keith certainly started off more the latter but have sinced moved more towards the former, " Keeeef Keeeef, we've run out of powdered egg again " type accent. In a way both speaks could be for show depending on circumstances.

Brian on the other had - despite being a bad boy - was much more RP full on middle class in the way he spoke, which just goes to show upbringing does not always equate to behavior !!!

And like I said in background John - who despite having a mother and father who effectively abandoned him but was lucky enough to have an upwardly mobile auntite to bring him up - and to a lesser extent Paul were both pretty much akin to Mick and Keef on the British social scale, but may lose half a notch to them purely because of the more northern accents.

Ringo i believe was brought up solid working class, I'm not sure of the others but from Charlie's accent which would be regarded as far more full on common i suspect was also from a similar social scale. Must be a drummer thing, Ginger Baker sounds pretty much the same as Charlie " awright maate ! "

It's funny how the bands equate

Mick/Paul
John/Keef
Ringo/Charlie
George/Brian - Bill

George is the odd one out here as musically he is more akin to Brian but social probably closer to Charlie

 

It’s interesting how people hear such different things on albums. On Let it Bleed, I love the way the dense instrumentation of “Gimme Shelter” gives way to the simple instrumentation of Robert Johnson’s “Love in Vain”, from decades earlier, and yet it seems as if they were written with one pen, both desperate and desolate.

I bought Exile when I was 12 years old, the same year I saw the Stones for the first time. I never tire of Exile. I love the way "Rocks Off" a classic Stones rocker, is followed by "Rip This Joint", a fast jump blues number that then transitions to Slim Harpo's "Shake Your Hips", and your foot is tapping the whole time. Or the way Robert Johnson's "Stop Breaking Down" fits so seamlessly between the classic blues rock of "All Down the Line" and the gospel blues of "Shine a Light." "I Just Want to See His Face", a song I never understood until I heard the Blind Boys version, is pretty astonishing when you think about it. A lot of work went into the track. Basic track done in Paris or London. Overdubs were done in LA, with background vocalists, acoustic bass and maybe keyboards (?) given charts and lyrics. And, it sounds like it could be an old recording made in some Southern church with a hand held mike.

It's funny. You hear "one dimensional rock". In a sense, that reflects the fact that Side 2, with its emphasis on country blues, doesn't feel any more "out of place", than the gospel blues tracks that close side 3, and a song from the 1930's on Side 4 fits so well, it doesn't even sound like a cover. So maybe we're saying the same thing. To me, it all sounds like the Stones, and it all sounds timeless, much like Between the Buttons sounds rooted in the 60's.

 

And which version is the better mix!

 

You seem to take it all pretty seriously, no? I haven't read all 20 or 30 of your posts in this thread, but the ones I did read were interesting.