Today's Birthdays: Rock'n'Roll (50)

  • Thread starter Thread starter kuengb
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the influence and legacy of iconic rock bands, particularly focusing on The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, in the context of their historical significance and cultural impact. Participants share personal experiences, preferences, and opinions about these bands, as well as their contributions to rock music.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express a strong preference for The Rolling Stones over The Beatles, suggesting that The Beatles represent more of a teen pop phenomenon.
  • Others argue that while The Beatles may have been popular among younger audiences, their musical contributions were significant and innovative.
  • A participant mentions their lukewarm feelings towards The Beatles' later work, preferring underground music instead.
  • There is a discussion about the longevity and health of Keith Richards, with some noting his resilience despite a history of substance use.
  • Some participants reflect on the early dynamics of The Rolling Stones, attributing leadership to Brian Jones while acknowledging Mick Jagger and Keith Richards' songwriting contributions.
  • Concerns are raised about the current state of The Rolling Stones' music, with some suggesting they rely on nostalgia rather than innovation.
  • One participant humorously notes the extreme lifestyle of Keith Richards, speculating on his health and longevity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express differing views on the merits of The Beatles versus The Rolling Stones, with no clear consensus reached. Some appreciate both bands for different reasons, while others firmly align with one over the other.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference personal experiences and cultural memories, which may influence their perspectives. The discussion includes subjective interpretations of musical significance and the evolution of rock music over time.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in the history of rock music, cultural discussions surrounding iconic bands, and personal anecdotes related to music fandom may find this thread engaging.

I am a...

  • Elvis man, Elvis woman

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • Beatles man, Beatles woman

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • Sorry, never heard of them.

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Total voters
    8
kuengb
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Happy Birthday! On April 12th 1954 Bill Haleys released his unresistably cool song "Rock Around the Clock", that makes good ol' Rock'n'Roll almost thirty years ol'er than me. All I witnessed was it's reincarnation: Hail to the Strokes (at least until their second album).

So? Any Woodstock veterans or Rolling Stones groupies on this forum?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Gotta be the stones, beatles didnt do rock n roll.
 
I didn't go to Woodstock ( I was too young), but I knew a couple of people that did. I have the original Life magazine edition devoted to Woodstock.

The Beatles were the group I grew up with in the mid 60's. Everyone loved Sgt Pepper's, but I never got more than lukewarm to it. I didn't care much for anything they did after that, I was more into underground music.

The 60's saw a lot of incredible bands.

Not an Elvis fan.
 
The Stones rocked. The Beatles were ok, but weren't a patch on Mick n Keef
 
To start with the Beatles were pretty much teeny popper music. All the 10-14 yr old girls were a tizzy about it. Being a sophisticated 14 yr old male I could not reduce myself to it. It was not until much later that I came to appreciate it. Meanwhile there were the Doors.
 
Integral said:
To start with the Beatles were pretty much teeny popper music. All the 10-14 yr old girls were a tizzy about it.
Lots of people say that (...so it has to be true :smile:). I do like a good bit of their songs, but I think it's not the way they were the non plus ultra when it comes to "beaty music" or guitar pop - and many people treat them just like that, like gods. The fact that they probably made the most important music does not mean they made the best.

And the Stones: I would respect them if they still would create new (and good!) music; instead they're just touring and making money with nostalgia and not with innovation. On the other hand: If one looks at Keef one must be happy the guy is still alive :biggrin: .
 
it's amazing, Keef has probably done more drugs, for longer than Ozzy Osbourne, but he still talks properly and seems to be in quite a good state. It must be cos Keef is double-hard.
 
jimmy p said:
it's amazing, Keef has probably done more drugs, for longer than Ozzy Osbourne, but he still talks properly and seems to be in quite a good state. It must be cos Keef is double-hard.

He just looks like a walking corpse
 
jimmy p said:
it's amazing, Keef has probably done more drugs, for longer than Ozzy Osbourne, but he still talks properly and seems to be in quite a good state. It must be cos Keef is double-hard.

I've heard that he actually gets/had gotten blood transfusions from fans just so he cold keep doing drugs.

As for me, I like The Beatles. The Stones undeniably rocked, but the beatles did everything.
 
  • #10
jimmy p said:
The Stones rocked. The Beatles were ok, but weren't a patch on Mick n Keef

early stones were brian jones's band, he was the leader
mick was just the singer

young girls were beatles fans, and totally nuts about them
the guys like the stones

rock and roll will be gone by june, 1954 prediction by music trade mag variety

I knew mike lang,the woodstock promoter, would have gone but the pigs had other plans for my summer in 1969
 
  • #11
early stones were brian jones's band, he was the leader
mick was just the singer

Yea the stones where brians jones's band but Mick and Keith wrote all of their classic songs.

And as for them not writing any innovative stuff anymore, are you really surprised? If you check their back catalogue of songs they don't really need to write new stuff.