Stones v. Beatles breakup?

I thought it was about the dentist who gave John & George acid for the first time?

 

no. apparently a real dr. in new york city, everyone knew and went to him. i think his name was even roberts, or robbins?..i don't know exactly tho. the guy who gave J and G plus wives the acid was their dentist friend. they never wrote a song about him, as far as i know

 

Interesting... some friend though! It worked out well for the music, but they went through hell on that first trip ,not knowing what was wrong

 

It was funny the Harrison story about driving 10 miles an hour. I'll be honest, the way Harrison told that story in 'Anthology', he seemed to really enjoy looking back on it. He was more animated in his interview when that subject came up. I think they were scared that night cause they didn't know what was happening, but once they figured it out or were told, they continued doing acid but intentionally the following times.

 

Yeah there were some funny elements to it -it's just that they could have..well died. Thankfully they made it through and we got all the great psych music. Wonder if the wives ever again took acid?

 

Layla probably did.

 

Because the Stones came after the Beatles had already broken down the doors and created the environment for others to follow, the Stones can never be considered more than "no.2" (as said earlier on in the thread). If just for that reason; although there are others. If the Stones had split up in 1972, there would still be no way it would have had the same impression as the Beatles going their own ways. I must say that I LOVE the Stones too but the Beatles were both a cultural force and incomparable songwriters of the first order. The Stones have written many many great songs but they can only write within a narrower palette; everything is within blues style to some degree or other. Therefore their music didn't have the same social impact as the Beatles as it didn't change the form - it merely worked within it; there is no Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day In The Life or Norwegian Wood etc. etc. There is no form-changing innovation of that order, which influenced everything that came afterwards to an unprecedented degree. The Stones are only a blues band (albeit one of the very best) but it means that their influence could only be more limited. That isn't to put them down. It's merely stating the facts. Also, there is the fact that, apart from the Beatles, there were other songwriters / groups around in the '60s who were also candidates for consideration as "no.2" in one way or another, even if not purely in popularity terms (such as the Kinks / Ray Davies, who - although the Stones were far bigger - with their huge catalogue of great songwriting, you could argue that they offered far more in social comment, innovation and experimentation within the pop / rock form than the Stones did, who merely adopted the posture of outrage, as opposed to offering something genuinely new).

 

Getting back to the question in the original post, I saw an article this morning that reaffirmed my belief that their legacy is only helped by continiung on post-Exile. Blue and Lonesome debuted at #4 on the Billboard Album Charts. That gives them a total of 37 Albums to have peaked in the top 5 on Billboard, the most by any artist. It definitely helps the legacy to be able to say that.

To me, what is more impressive is the 24 consecutive new studio albums to peak in the Top 5 (every new album except their debut in 1964). That's over 50 years without ever missing the Top 5. It's significant because, although it is easier to have a highly ranked album now (when very few people are buying new albums), the Stones maintained their popularity with the general public even during the 80's and 90's, when album sales were at their historical peak, but most 60's acts were having a difficult time competing with younger acts. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone that has been able to match that consistent appeal over the course of their career.

 

Things like that go in cycles. Doing the math a girl in the 9th grade in 1981 probably had parents who were already out of high school by the time The Beatles came to the US. Maybe even older than that. In short she would have been of an age where she would not have heard her parents playing The Beatles, and so since as you point out the Stones were still a going concern at that time, she was more aware of them. So no, that does not say it all. It only speaks to a particular demographic twist.

The fact is that most people who went to high school in the fifties did not become Beatles fans. Some did, but not many. The experience of one of their offspring not knowing the Beatles is a limited one.

 

Yes, the US Rubber Soul collection is perfect. I of course have the cd which follows the English order, and What Goes On follows Michelle???? What were those people thinking? I always think of Michelle coming at the end of side one. Even if you just flipped it over, It's Only Love is a far better follow to Michelle. What Goes On not so much.

 

Make a US playlist or buy the cd.
It's available since 2014

 

This was my point earlier.
The Stones maintaining all these years is what keeps them as high as #2 on most lists.
Had they split after Exile then Zeppelin and The Who or some others would be more in the conversation than they already are.
All the years the Stones toured I think lots of Beatles fans who always liked the Stones too, bought a lot of tickets.
If we can't see The Beatles at least we still have the Stones is the way many casual fans may have felt.
They both were the biggest of the 60s.
One split the other continued.
They are forever linked becsuse of that decade.

 

I like all three of Keith's solo albums, and Crosseyed Heart is a great example of an active senior.

 

I don't think it's been old Beatles fans, but younger generations. I remember attending seven or eight shows on their 2012-2013 US arena tour, and thinking that the crowd was quite posh and very, very senior.

Then, on their world tour in 2014-2016, they played exclusively massive stadiums, and I was amazed at how different the crowd was. With average ticket prices that were much lower than their previous tour (where a "tongue pit" seat had cost $1200 - $1800 depending on the venue), younger generations turned out for the show, and not just kids with their parents. I saw many young couples, and groups of young guys or girls at the shows.

The difference was noticeable in the US, where tix could be had for less than $100, although seats near the stage were still expensive ($250 - $450). But, it was downright shocking in Europe, where they still utilize an "all standing" field at most stadium shows. Those 2014 shows in Europe had some of the youngest and most enthusiastic field (pitch) crowds I had seen in maybe 20 years. It pissed off old timers when younger fans didn't recognize Mick Taylor. I was fine with that. The champagne-in-a-plastic-flute-drinking-politely-applauding-VIP-lanyard-wearing crowd was seemingly replaced by younger but real fans and it made those shows amazing. Ask anyone else who was there - I'm sure they'd agree.

 

The next best thing for old Beatles fans would be a Paul show...or even Ringo. Then The Stones. I agree though - lots of Beatles fans are also Stones fans and visa versa.

 

By all means but I didn't say old Beatles fans I just said lots of Beatles fans.
I meant that plenty of later and first generation Beatles fans are also Stones fans and feel that Beatles connection because of the original era.
I think if your a later generation Beatles fan you tend to gain a respect for the 60s in general.

 

Agree on Paul but he didn't tour nearly as much as the Stones.

 

Thinking about this topic, just thought of an odd thing. Keith Richards, one of the hardest partiers in rock, notorious user of various recreational pharmaceuticals, a guy who would stay up for days at a time, etc., looks disheveled in most pics, but I don't recall ever seeing a pic of Keith Richards where he wasn't clean shaven. Very odd! Just about all bands sported beards at various points between 1967 to 1981. Especially when they were binging on drugs and alcohol. (The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, the Doors, the Who, the Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, etc.)

Jagger sported a couple beards, but seldom in group shots. His Emotional Rescue beard is obscured by the weird photography. Watts had a mustache on an album pic circa 1966. But for the most part, the Stones stayed clean shaven except for long hair.

 

That is interesting.
The Stones must have had that unwritten agreement.

 

Watts had a mustache on various photos on the cover of the US Got Live If You Want It LP (1966).

Interesting for me personally because it was the only Stones LP I saw for about 10 years until I had the money (and the desire) to buy one of my own, and so I didn't know Watts any differently. For the same reason I did not know that the 1966 album cover also showed someone )Brian Jones) who was dead at the time I first saw it.

 

Aside from one jacket, the Jones items were from the bands own instrument collection (eg the electric dulcimer), Wyman (gold top), and collectors.

The only part exception was the houndstooth jacket which came from Linda Lawrence/Donovan/Julian.

 

They sure do. Look no further than Mick Jagger's solo career. I think he wanted to be solo on a Michael Jackson/McCartney level and when She's the Boss and Primitive Cool weren't all that well received, it was back to the band for Mick. Smart guy.

 

I agree with what someone said on the first page. Had the Stones broken up after Tattoo You with that huge tour, they might've had unquestionable legendary status by now, maybe even a mythos surrounding them just like The Beatles. I mean, they're really hasn't been a band to challenge that number 2 status since the 70's. I could even imagine them being seen bigger than the Beatles at some point. With some given thought, they would've kept pace with the Beatles in the 60's, reach a massive peak in the early 70's and put out consistent(albeit of lesser quality) albums throughout the decade and end on a high note in 1981. I could see people thinking the 60's as phase one and the 70's as phase two of the band(with the Beatles having had only one "phase".) Think of the Stones now, and although they are legendary, it's for totally different reasons; being second only to the Beatles and their bands longevity. Their work doesn't speak for them, like The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, the Doors etc. Most people just think they had a good run in the early 70's as opposed to they were a consistently great band. In my opinion, had they broken up some 35 years ago, they definitely would've cemented their legendary status. They would've had one decade on top of the Beatles with some better than average records.

 

In the post above, you were responding to my post. Obviously I was also a 9th grader in 1981. I believe the girl in question did have older siblings (not sure how much older). I did, that is where I learned of the Beatles. My parents were ages 42 and 36 in 1964. I did NOT learn of the Beatles from them.

The example I gave was consistent with other experiences I had in high school. The high school had a raffle for the new Stones album Tattoo You in the fall of 1981. At various times, I remember talking to people about Led Zeppelin, Ozzy Osbourne, the Doors, ELP, and all the current music of the day (early '80s), but not so much the Beatles, the only time that happened was with a different girl. (I'm a guy, that probably plays into this as well -- the early Beatles, with their love songs, seemed to be much more of a girl thing, at least for my peer group. But note also that my earlier example referenced Abbey Road).

I can only speak from my experiences, which admittedly is a limited sample size (there's my math background popping up). We would need other people of my age -- and other ages -- speaking up for this discussion to go anywhere substantive.