People often ask, 'who do you like the best - the Beatles or the Stones?', to which my reply is always 'the Stones', which is then met (nine times out of 10) with horror or disbelief. But I do. The rock and still do. The Beatles rarely rocked, though they've obviously a canon of great tunes. So that's that.
That rock rivals thing, eh? Why do you have to like one over the other? No one asks if anyone prefers Dylan over Donovan (probably because it's a silly question, but I atually prefer Donovan's accessible folk pop and sinister autumnal feel to Dylan's cheese grater vocals and teeth-jarring harmonicas).
Is it not alright to like two bands the same once you're of a certain age? When you're a teen you always take sides, but you don't have to carry on doing that. Not in public anyway.
So who do you prefer? Flintlock or the Rollers? Duran or Spandau? N'Sync or the Backstreet Boys? Or both?
8 comments:
For what it's worth (very little, I know...) I agree wholeheartedly about the Beatles not rocking. I believe Bo Diddley once said of them, "Them boys just don't rock" (no, seriously, he did) and I totally agree with him and you. Anaemic. (And please don't anyone try to claim Helter Skelter or Taxman are rockers – I'll get angry.) Like you say, though, nice melodies.
Well, I prefer the Beatles, but at my age, it doesn't matter anyway. One of the great things about Old Father Time creeping on is that you can like what you like without having to justify it to anyone else.
When I was a kid, the big schism in the junior school playground was between Slade and Sweet. I came down firmly on the Sweet side - possibly because I was a priggish boy who disapproved of the way Slade's song titles were all misspelt.
It's odd really, because I grew up firmly on the lumpen rock side of the divide and generally steer clear of any acts who lean too heavily on campery or make-up.
Still and all, Hellraiser and Ballroom blitz are cracking rock songs, if you can just get the image of Steve Priest in make-up and spandex out of your head.
Oh, and it's The Beatles for me, but of course it's not a competition. It only really was for about four years in the 60s when they were genuinely competing for the number one spot in the singles charts.
I'm very fond of the Stones as well, though as far as I'm concerned they might as well have stopped making music in 1972. To borrow a phrase I read somewhere, if they were playing at the bottom of my garden, I wouldn't bother opening the window.
True TT. I saw then in 1990 and they were good, but I've not rushed back.
Well The Beatles did give The Rolling Stones a bit of a leg up in the early days.
And as for not rocking, have you heard any of their early live recordings? Lennon and McCartney both had great rock 'n' roll howls.
Oasis over Blur
Metallica over Megadeth
Lily Allen over Amy Winehouse
Can I just use this blog to point out that I detest Toyah? Thank you.
You may, BA. I'm of the same opinion. She's ghastly.
Flintlock, obviously.
Post a Comment