To say that the Stones chased the Beatles really only works insofar as the Stones tried to make it as popular as The Beatles but I wouldn't say much of their music stylistically chased the Beatles.
Check out the following...
No Beatles and none of these would have existed. The Stones would have still been covering Muddy Waters...
Three whole albums out of 23 albums the Stones released up through 1981...whoopdee-doo. For one year the Stones tried to ride some of the Beatles bandwagon. Hell, it was 1967 and the Beatles were the biggest thing going. But then 1968 hit and the Stones started doing their own thing. So, I think to say that the Beatles had a huge stylistic influence on the Stones in regards to their entire career is quite misleading and calling the Stones the "Diet Beatles" is completely wrong. If you wanna say they were jocking the Beatles in 1967, cool, I have no problem, but there's 20 other albums that prove otherwise. For instance, "Beggars Banquet" came out after "Their Satanic Majesties Request" and I find no Beatles influence in that at all.
Go back and re-read. I never said anything like this:
So, I think to say that the Beatles had a huge stylistic influence on the Stones in regards to their entire career[/b] is quite misleading and calling the Stones the "Diet Beatles" is completely wrong.[/b]
The Beatles influenced all of rock music for most of the 60's. The Stones did in fact jump the bandwagon and then jumped right off again with 'Beggars Banquet'. The entire British psychedelic movement wouldn't exist without the Beatles (nor would a lot of the best rock and pop music of that era).
BTW I wouldn't be crowing about anything the Stones have done since 'Some Girls'. They are currently among the tiredest of hacks and should have retired decades ago.
I remember arguing the validity of the beatles with someone and he thought the beatles were unoriginal. I then asked whom he thought was completely "original" and he said Elvis. The conversation ended there.
BTW I wouldn't be crowing about anything the Stones have done since 'Some Girls'. They are currently among the tiredest of hacks and should have retired decades ago.
And just who was doing that? I certainly wasn't. I personally don't have much need for anything by the Stones post-"Tattoo You". Should they have retired decades ago? I dunno. They maybe should've given up making new music but considering they still sell out their live gigs certainly a demand is there for them as a live band.
BTW I wouldn't be crowing about anything the Stones have done since 'Some Girls'. They are currently among the tiredest of hacks and should have retired decades ago.
And just who was doing that? I certainly wasn't. I personally don't have much need for anything by the Stones post-"Tattoo You". Should they have retired decades ago? I dunno. They maybe should've given up making new music but considering they still sell out their live gigs certainly a demand is there for them as a live band.
There is also currently "a demand"[/b] for America Idol, the Olive Garden, George Bush and light beer....
BTW I wouldn't be crowing about anything the Stones have done since 'Some Girls'. They are currently among the tiredest of hacks and should have retired decades ago.
And just who was doing that? I certainly wasn't. I personally don't have much need for anything by the Stones post-"Tattoo You". Should they have retired decades ago? I dunno. They maybe should've given up making new music but considering they still sell out their live gigs certainly a demand is there for them as a live band.
There is also currently "a demand"[/b] for America Idol, the Olive Garden, George Bush and light beer....
Olive Garden is now part of the Conservative Cabal!
There is also currently "a demand" for America Idol, the Olive Garden, George Bush and light beer....
C'mon, man! No hatin' on the endless breadsticks and bottomless salad!
On topic, once the third wave of watered down Radiohead arrived, with bands like Keane and the like, we pretty much hit the O'Doul's of the Brit Pop trend. The music is worse than bad- it is completely irrelevent.
I love this song from Tribeca where he flips the Coldplaypiano, that's dope! What about Timberland producing the next Coldplayalbum? Does anyone even care? Better get 16 Bars of Magoo on that one....
Within the context of both bands movements through that phase.
Almost every move the Stones (and just about any other rock band you can name) made from 1965 to 1967 was copped from the Beatles, who in the end were not only stylistic trailblazers but also superior songwriters.
did they even write a song on the first four LPs, and when they did werent they just biting chuck berry.
There is also currently "a demand" for America Idol, the Olive Garden, George Bush and light beer....
C'mon, man! No hatin' on the endless breadsticks and bottomless salad!
Edit: grammar
The worst TV ad of all time is when the Italian guy comes to the U.S. from the "Old Country" and digs The Olive Garden.....Olive Garden is to Italian Food what Golden Corral is to Steak
Within the context of both bands movements through that phase.
Almost every move the Stones (and just about any other rock band you can name) made from 1965 to 1967 was copped from the Beatles, who in the end were not only stylistic trailblazers but also superior songwriters.
did they even write a song on the first four LPs, and when they did werent they just biting chuck berry.
and that could be said for the both of them.
Actually, the Beatles had original material on their earliest LPs, just not ALL originals, and their influences were far more diverse than the Stones, in the sense that you can actually HEAR those influences beyond Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters,etc. Motown and more pop-oriented soul was far more pronounced in the Beatles choices of covers and in their early songwriting.
Within the context of both bands movements through that phase.
Almost every move the Stones (and just about any other rock band you can name) made from 1965 to 1967 was copped from the Beatles, who in the end were not only stylistic trailblazers but also superior songwriters.
did they even write a song on the first four LPs, and when they did werent they just biting chuck berry.
and that could be said for the both of them.
Actually, the Beatles had original material on their earliest LPs, just not ALL originals, and their influences were far more diverse than the Stones, in the sense that you can actually HEAR those influences beyond Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters,etc. Motown and more pop-oriented soul was far more pronounced in the Beatles choices of covers and in their early songwriting.
What's even more noteworthy is that all the hits were originals. That was undeard of at the time. While I like the Stones' late 60s-early 70s music more than most of the Beatles work, it is pretty clear that the Beatles were the more revolutionary group lyrically, sonically, artisitically and culturally.
Comments
Go back and re-read. I never said anything like this:
The Beatles influenced all of rock music for most of the 60's. The Stones did in fact jump the bandwagon and then jumped right off again with 'Beggars Banquet'. The entire British psychedelic movement wouldn't exist without the Beatles (nor would a lot of the best rock and pop music of that era).
BTW I wouldn't be crowing about anything the Stones have done since 'Some Girls'. They are currently among the tiredest of hacks and should have retired decades ago.
You sound like a retart.
dude arent you late for your jazzercise class
And just who was doing that? I certainly wasn't. I personally don't have much need for anything by the Stones post-"Tattoo You". Should they have retired decades ago? I dunno. They maybe should've given up making new music but considering they still sell out their live gigs certainly a demand is there for them as a live band.
There is also currently "a demand"[/b] for America Idol, the Olive Garden, George Bush and light beer....
Olive Garden is now part of the Conservative Cabal!
"Don't eat those Gestapo bread sticks!"[/b]
C'mon, man! No hatin' on the endless breadsticks and bottomless salad!
On topic, once the third wave of watered down Radiohead arrived, with bands like Keane and the like, we pretty much hit the O'Doul's of the Brit Pop trend. The music is worse than bad- it is completely irrelevent.
Edit: grammar
In terms of the stones:
+ add a little bit of the Incredible String Band
did they even write a song on the first four LPs, and when they did werent they just biting chuck berry.
and that could be said for the both of them.
The worst TV ad of all time is when the Italian guy comes to the U.S. from the "Old Country" and digs The Olive Garden.....Olive Garden is to Italian Food what Golden Corral is to Steak
Actually, the Beatles had original material on their earliest LPs, just not ALL originals, and their influences were far more diverse than the Stones, in the sense that you can actually HEAR those influences beyond Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters,etc. Motown and more pop-oriented soul was far more pronounced in the Beatles choices of covers and in their early songwriting.
What's even more noteworthy is that all the hits were originals. That was undeard of at the time. While I like the Stones' late 60s-early 70s music more than most of the Beatles work, it is pretty clear that the Beatles were the more revolutionary group lyrically, sonically, artisitically and culturally.