scottmc asks:
Paul McCartney recently referred to The Rolling Stones as a ‘Blues cover band’. Which side of The Beatles/Stones debate do you come down on?
It is the great debate of our time. I like them both but for different reasons. They have two very different approaches.
A woman I know once described the contrast as this: The Beatles are the boyfriends you want; the Stones are the guys you want to fuck.
Like every Boomer in America in February 1964 I was blown away by the Beatles when I first saw them on THE ED SULLIVAN SHOW. 76,000,000 people watched that night. (Today, I can’t imagine CBS getting 76,000,000 people to tune in all year.) It was all-Beatles all the time.
The fact that we couldn’t get enough Beatles led to the British Invasion. Billy J. Kramer & the Dakotas, Gerry & the Pacemakers, the Searchers, Freddie & the Dreamers (heaven help us!), and the Dave Clark Five were the first wave.
Also sneaking into that category were the Rolling Stones. They did have, as Paul suggested, a somewhat bluesy sound. I liked it. All white boys from the San Fernando Valley identify with the blues. But they were just one in the pack.
Then I saw a movie called THE TAMI SHOW. This was a filmed super concert at the Santa Monica Auditorium. It featured the Beach Boys, James Brown, Jan & Dean, Lesley Gore, Marvin Gaye, the Miracles, the Barbarians (who???), Billy J. Kramer, the Supremes, Chuck Berry, and the Rolling Stones. Now within that lineup you had some pretty exciting performers. Chuck Berry and James Brown have enough electricity between them to light Cleveland.
But when the Stones performed and I saw Mick Jagger command the stage, I thought “we have a new king of rock n’ roll.” So I became a Stones fan — but never at the expense of loving the Beatles.
A couple of years later the Beatles would go on to make groundbreaking music like SGT. PEPPER and MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR. The Stones would put aside cover versions, do more original content and some longer cuts. A local radio station in the valley, KBLA, started a Sunday night show just featuring the Stones. Hosted by Humble Harv, it was the show for all his “Stone Agers,” of which I was one.
Then came the ‘70s and the Beatles broke up. But the Stones kept going. So I treasure Beatles music as timeless, but I look forward to new cuts by the Rolling Stones. And that’s where I am today.
I never saw the Beatles in concert. I did see the Stones. Mick Jagger was way more impressive in Dodger Stadium than the Dodgers were last week.
I have many albums from both and listen about equally. But I will say this in closing. I can’t stand “Hey Jude” and I am sick to death of “Satisfaction.” Which do I hate more? The debate continues.
from By Ken Levine
Comments
Post a Comment