Beatles vs. Stones
Which do you prefer?
I'd have to go with the Rolling Stones although I do love Revolver.
And you?
I’m not so much into provenance, originality or other scholarly aspects of art & music as I am with the sheer emotional involvement a goodly piece of art or music can send my way. Yeah, it’s always nice to have your cerebral cortex tickled, but baser instincts have always ruled the day for me. Then again, how many repetitions of the One-Four-Five chord progression can a fella’ take? |
He and I made a pilgrimage to Brian’s Bel-Air mansion in the summer of 1975, demo in hand (engineered by yours truly), to ask if he would produce us in a pro studio. It didn’t work out ;-)
Gee, that’s bad luck, or bad timing. By most accounts Brian was not in a good place by the mid 1970s. 1975 was also the year he began his involvement with the controversial celebrity psychologist Eugene Landy.
By most accounts the Beatles have outsold the Stones by a factor of more than 10 to 1. Not too bad for a band that only recorded for 7 years. |
@larsman The way I see it, I can't be sure the Stones were inspired enough by Sgt. Pepper to do Satanic Majesties, were doing it as a friendly tit-for-tat, or were given just a tiny bit of pressure from their record company. In any case, the Stones were pretty obviously out of their element with Satanic Majesties. It had its stretches of fun and a few moments of good music but it is certainly one of their less successful efforts. |
@edcyn - I'd guess that it was more a friendly tit-for-tat. There were some wonderful songs on there, though - 'Citadel', '2000 Man', '2000 Light Years From Home', 'She's A Rainbow', 'Sing This All Together', even Bill Wyman's 'In Another Land'.... |
