Beatles vs Rolling Stones

[JACkory]

Point one: i mean, why would you as a music fan even demand such a thing from your rockstars? Its entertainment in the end, not meant to take a world on itself.. that's just arrogance and ego talking.

Point two:IMO, ultimately, if you pay a serious compliment to a song by saying that merely it's melody and music moved you to rapturous heights, then you are not demanding enough. I don't want some surface agreeability from some creep who happens to channel the right vibes at me.

Am I the only one who sees the contradictions here?

[JACkory]

The music of Sigur Ros consistantly moves me to rapturous heights on the strength of melody and music alone...that's all they really have to work with in regards to me, seeing as how I don't understand the language.
Same can be said about the Cocteau Twins, who don't even use "real" language.
What, do I need to insist that they start writing English lyrics that connect with what I happen to be going through at this stage in my journey or else I'm "not demanding enough"?

[Rit]

Jac, Point One was drenched in irony. the next line after that paragraph, i say that it was the wrong idea to hold. Point Two is, indeed, what i believe, and is irony free.

[RocDoc]

Interesting..
I don't want some surface agreeability from some creep who happens to channel the right vibes at me. I instinctively recoil at any artist who hides his persona behind "glorious pop music".

When is it that you can be rock solid 'sure' that there's an act of 'hiding' from you going on?

When Brian Wilson wrote/writes his 'glorious pop music'?

When George Gershwin/Hoagy Carmichael/Goffin-King wrote their 'glorious pop music'?

...and those of us who enjoy their work 'don't demand enough'?

You've got professional musicians and somgwriters who are making their daily bread from music who sometimes hit something inspired seemingly from out of the blue...but most of them work at it, doing the moon-spoon-June thing until they put together something that sounds like a song. And for 'their' audience, if this song is something they wish to sell.

'Channeling the right vibes' is an interesting expression, especially used with the derision you sure seemed to have infused it with (the 'creep' who does this) right there.
That your BS-meter has 90% (Obviously I'm guessing) of the Beatles' (and of many other 'creeps' apparently) material as ringing somehow false to you sounds so very horribly exclusionary in a very hit-and-miss way.

What passes this test for you? Who?

I honestly think the Stones themselves were just faking their way through the blues as well(as opposed to say Mayall)...to make a buck. And Keef definitely IS one among many players who can get a blues feel down pretty accurately. So?

'Craft' is what makes a hook ring true more often than this illusory and 'pure' purely inpired sort of pop you seem to demand as something that works for you.

[Rit]

but Jac, your comment using Sigur Ros was good. I can't really argue that, except to say that it must work as a kind of ambient music if it's totally adrift of relevant associations for you.

and also, you imply that Sigor Ros is making music unfettered by passing phases in life's way.... that's not necessarily true. They're a niche in indie music, afterall, gaining strength only in context to the modern music scene as a whole. It's one kind of assertion, to make achingly beautiful sounding music as a contrast to post-punk or garage rock or dance-punk or what have you. It isn't, however, anything "transcendant", not by a long shot.

[Rit]

RocDoc, i do stand by what i said.

and my tastes are pretty narrow, unfortunately. I idolize Bob Dylan, for example, and see the worth in people like Tom Waits, because they seem to be operating on a very individualistic basis, making music that's highly ubiquitous.

Another idol for me is Captain Beefheart, and i mention this because it serves as a clearer contrast of what i mean. I like Syd Barrett for much the same reason.

[Rit]

i like these self-contained artist types, who don't seem to have any connection to a larger scheme.

and then i like artists who seem to have a sincere devotion/relationship to their music. like Keith Richards.

John Lennon is infinitely acceptable as a worthwhile musical figure, by the way. I just don't like the Beatles' music. I like Lennon moments here and there in the Beatles, moments where i think i'm seeing something authentic shine through, but that's about it.

[JACkory]

ritalinpants said:

but Jac, your comment using Sigur Ros was good. I can't really argue that, except to say that it must work as a kind of ambient music if it's totally adrift of relevant associations for you.

and also, you imply that Sigor Ros is making music unfettered by passing phases in life's way.... that's not necessarily true. They're a niche in indie music, afterall, gaining strength only in context to the modern music scene as a whole. It's one kind of assertion, to make achingly beautiful sounding music as a contrast to post-punk or garage rock or dance-punk or what have you. It isn't, however, anything "transcendant", not by a long shot.

Come on, now, that's presumptuous to suggest that Sigur Ros' music is "a niche in indie music, gaining strength only in context to the modern music scene as a whole". That may certainly be the perception you have of them, but that does not mean that's what they are.
I doubt the guys in Sigur Ros are all that hip to "the indie scene", or that they create their music as some sort of contrast to what's currently trendy (they live in Iceland, for crying out loud).
But what does that have to do with how their music effects me?
Transcendent, I suppose, is in the eyes and ears of the beholder.

Perhaps you were going for "irony" with your first point, okay, fine. But you really should point it out, because there's absolutely nothing wrong with the mindset that expects nothing more from art and it's creators than entertainment.
I'm not of that mindset, as you are not and as most folks who would participate in these discussions likely are not...at least I'm not MOST of the time.
But I can empathize with those who just want to be entertained, because there are plenty of times when that's all I want.

[JACkory]

ritalinpants said:

John Lennon is infinitely acceptable as a worthwhile musical figure, by the way. I just don't like the Beatles' music. I like Lennon moments here and there in the Beatles, moments where i think i'm seeing something authentic shine through, but that's about it.

But is your "authenticity meter" set to "Universal Standards of Authenticity" or "Ritalin's Conception of What Might Possibly Be Authentic"?

BTw, I love ALL of the artists you've cited...from Waits to Beefheart...Dylan to Keef...

[Rit]

there is no such thing as a Universal Standard of Authenticity
it would be a trap to get into that mindset.

i can only respond with passion to what i think is good and worthwhile, and authentic. I've always held on doggedly to that word "authentic"... dunno why, and it will probably always stay with me.

so, you're right, it's my own peculiar tastes that's guiding what i'm championing and denoucing.

Captain Beefheart is the shizzle, fo real. ;D
i even love his "Mirror Man" album.

[bowiglou]

Now, this is what I call a great stream of e-threads!!!..........I really don't have much to say, as my mind is a bit stultified right now (trying too hard to figure out the denominator in the asymptotic distribution free estimator......that being said, in regards to JAC, Mary, Rit, RN, Phil, etc:

(1) Mary, intriguing juxtaposition/classification/bi-polarization of hope, despair, etc..never quite thought of it in such a vein; I suspect the Beatles "All You Need is Love" may be perceived as treacly, sentimental, and contrived even.....but taken in context at that time, the song (as phil did indeed correctly state the impetus for the song) was overwhelming in its universal message, naive it may seen. Now, even as a kid I didn't quite buy into the "love and peace" veneer, though on a conceptual basis of course I believed (and still do)in the tenets of such. But, really the song, is just the A-side of Costello's more virulent "What so funny about peace love and understanding"..and no one calls that treacly?!!!!............also, Mary, I remember a few years ago on Beatles vs Stones board you commented that the Beatles, even in their darker moments, always sound a bit too light/bouncy for your taste.......maybe if Nick Cave sang back up on All you Need is Love that might have helped!!!!!!!!!

(2) Just like I have no problems with hope and optimism in my songs I equally don't mind the occasional gasp of desperation/exasperation such as Somebody got Murdered by the Clash or See How we Are by X or virtually any song by Midnight Oil.............but then there's Nsync!!!!!!

(3) I'm not a blues aficianado (so of course I defer to RN, Phil, etc.) and hence I can't capably cite Keiths' roots (i.e, I really wouldn't know the difference between Willie Dixon and Muddy Waters, though I've heard them both)..........and I really don't know how original the Stones were in meshing the blues with rock...does anyone on these boards now if the Yardbirds were also just as capably doing the same during this era?........however, though of course the Beatles had a deep influence from such rock artist as Chuck Berry and Elvis to some extent, they really seemed to mine a style that was uniquely their own.........I think Ken said it well previously...though the Stones had some singularly great Lps (e.g. let it bleed) they were more of a singles band whereas the Beatles LP's really seemed to cohere as a whole....

[Rit]

The Stones put out great albums though...

Let It Bleed comes to mind as a stone cold masterpiece from top to bottom. It's better than the White Album or Sgt Pepper, it's artful inventive blues-rock. It strikes an ominous note at beginning ("Gimme Shelter"), then slouches towards Bethlehem on two ramshackle country blues tunes, before tearing through to the apocalyptic end ("You Can't Always Get What You Want") in a series of near-perfect explorations of the blues form -- the refined, elegant yet robust rockers that make up the middle of the album.

To me, the album as a whole transcends rock and roll. It's a kind of art-rock... Art-Rock as it should be done, and is rarely done, because most bands go all prog or jazz- fusionistic if they want to go "arty".... It takes a band of the self-assuredness and confidence of the Rolling Stones to go arty in possibly the most exquiste manifestation of "arty" yet --> intelligent transformed use of basic musical materials to fashion a powerful and elegant version of rock music, never self-conscisouly over-complicated, with a real-world understanding of rhythm in rock music, earthy, sexy, and even raunchy... there's not a single moment of stilted songcraft on the whole album.

Truly, peeps, Let It Bleed is as arty as rock EVER needs to get. It's their masterpiece, and it's one of the three or four real masterpieces ever put out in rock.

and The Stones got there first

[Rit]

for the sake of argument, i'll list 3 or 4 albums that i consider to be the untouchable masterclass Rock albums of all time.

- Let It Bleed (Stones) - 1969
- The Velvet Underground and Nico (VU) - 1967
- Bringing It All Back Home (Bob Dylan) - 1965

these are, IMO, endless sources of inspiration, ever since they were put out, their appeal is undiminishable because they're fully self-contained and natural definitive statemtents, simple yet elegant, the bedrock for future impassioned bands by the thousands.

basically, they bring the awesome ;D

[RocDoc]

"...they're fully self-contained and natural definitive statemtents, simple yet elegant, the bedrock for future impassioned bands by the thousands."

Shady Grove - Quicksilver Messenger Service (1969)
In The Court Of The Crimson King - King Crimson (1969)
Procol Harum - Procol Harum (1967)
Electric Ladyland - Jimi Hendrix (1969)

[Rit]

In The Court Of The Crimson King - King Crimson (1969)
Electric Ladyland - Jimi Hendrix (1969)


these two are simple and elegant? you'll have to explain that one, RocDoc.