BeatleLinks Fab Forum

BeatleLinks Fab Forum (http://www.beatlelinks.net/forums/index.php)
-   I Read The News Today (http://www.beatlelinks.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones (http://www.beatlelinks.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8278)

Sgt.McCartney Jun 03, 2002 10:00 AM

The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
The Beatles Challenge The Rolling Stones to A Duel
- by William D. DuBois

It's a fight to the finish with no holds barred; and only you - their loyal teen fans - can decide the winner.

The scene: a deserted field on the provincial outskirts of London, England.
The event: a duel to the death.

The protagonists are ready for whatever the outcome will be. There is no other way. They are the bitterest of opponents, the most fearsome of enemies. This meeting, this challenge between life-and-death is but the final contest in a long series of skirmishes, the final and, by far, the most decisive.

It had to come sooner or later, this bloody duel, this fateful encounter.
Seconds pass. Then... Shots are fired.
Swiftly, the outcome has been decided.
You ask yourselves who are the winners.
You ask...
The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

This is admittedly an imaginary description. It never happened. It never will. Instead of pistols and bullets, the weapons are different, more subtle, but no less decisive. The duel is for life-or-death or another sort, the life-or-death of staying alive at the top of the show business ladder of success or dying at the bottom, in a black pit of anonymity.

It is a contest being waged at this very second. For most singers today find that they are battling every second, battling to get just one hit record, hoping they can follow it up with another and then another.

...most singers.
But not the Beatles--or the Rolling Stones.

Both groups are in that rare position of having nearly every song they do become a smash hit. With them, the flop is the exception, not the rule. Last year The Beatles had three gold records for discs that sold over a million copies each. The Stones were not far behind, with two such hits. Even Elvis Presley in his hey day did not do so well. However, along the way to success, the two groups have sharply divided their teenage fans between them. Speak to one group of teenagers, and you find that loyalties lie with The Beatles. Speak with another, and you discover the The Rolling Stones are their idols. This would not be so significant if the Beatles and Rolling Stones were not such diametrically opposed types. Comparing the two in any way other than in terms of their contrasts is like putting Tom Sawyer beside a leather-jacketed juvenile delinquent.

For one thing, Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts, Brian Jones, Keith Richard and Bill Wyman continually behave in a sullen, moody and distasteful manner. They have little or no respect for any form of authority, and seem to go out of their way to be as obnoxious and destructive as possible.On the other hand, The Beatles have been know to do many uncalled for acts of kindness. Derek Taylor, their former publicity manager, once told me that they make a point of doing charity benefits back in England.

So, at least one facet of The Beatles-Rolling Stones duel is between the way the conduct themselves. Now let's compare them via a couple of real-life incidents. I know a very attractive 19-year-old girl who interviews most of the celebrities who come to New York City--if she is permitted near them. She tried her usual sweet, friendly approach with The Stones and was completely rebuffed. Here is what she told me: "They were terrible. I tried to ask some sensible questions, but they just wouldn't be sensible. They made it very tough for me, and were downright rude, vulgar and, to be frank, obscene. I have a very bad opinion of them, And I can tell you that any normal girl would feel the same as I do after the way they behaved."

The Beatles aren't like that. They behave intelligently and are generally cooperative. They try to be helpful--particularly if the interviewer is young and obviously nervous. While they may be a bit hard to get to, the result is always well worth the effort. Believe me, I don't say any of this without the benefit of personal experience and contact with both groups. I have met the Beatles. I have met the Rolling Stones. And I have studied the lives and careers of members of each group. I can offer you some valid opinions, though they may cause me to be the object of hundreds of poison pen letters. And before I go into my meetings with the Beatles and The Stones, let me point out that their fans react to criticism in much the same way that each group reacts to life. A Rolling Stone fan will say, "You creep, you! How dare you insult them? I H-A-T-E your guts!" I know because I have just such a letter in my files. However, a Beatle fan will invariably say, "I think criticism of The Beatles is wrong. They have a right to be nonconformists and their music really is good! Their first movie was liked by many adults and their second was also very successful. I defend them because I think they are what teenagers need as symbols in the kind of world we have today."

See the difference?
Now to my meeting with The Stones (ugh!)...

It was at the Civic Center auditorium in Philadelphia. Outside the immense building a long line of anxious fans waited, milling about as, one by one, those with tickets were admitted inside. Night had fallen and a cold wind was blowing. Straightening my collar about my neck, I turned my head for a moment and saw a big black limousine drive up toward the auditorium's side stage entrance. Five straggly-looking monsters got out and hurried inside. Gritting my teeth bravely, I walked up the same way and showed my pass to a guard. His nose was wrinkled up in a gesture of distaste. I soon found out why. Though The Stones were several yards away, the odor was unmistakable. Obviously, none of them had been near a tub in quite some time. Brushing past the guard who quickly went outside to get some fresh air, I tried to introduce myself to Andrew Oldham, The Stones' manager. Just before I approached him, he'd been talking to two teenage girls, waving his big, smelly cigar. The mixture of Rolling Stones, Oldham and cigar smoke was unbelievable. The two girls were, by now, turning alternately green and red, the latter color because of the foul language and dirty jokes Oldham sprung on them. Shortly, though, after displaying his own brand of misspent chivalry, Oldham waved goodbye by saying, "See you soon, Chickies" and turned his attention (a double ugh for this!) to me.I presented my credentials, including a copy of the magazine I was writing for at the time, a copy which, by the way, had a huge picture of The Stones on the cover. Oldham dismissed me with a contemptuous wave of his cigar and said, "I must get paid for my trouble. You pay--them you get the interview!" I turned promptly and left him standing there, cigar and all. Just before the show began, I managed to corner Charlie Watts, who was standing in one corner, looking at the world through blood-shot eyes. Digging what was probably a flea out of his hair, he said, "Go see Oldham." Then he grunted, mumbling something incoherently and walked away.

Now I'll tell you about my meeting with The Beatles. It was at a press conference in the Warwick Hotel in New York City. I remember Paul most of all. Entering the packed room, he turned to face the savages and grinned confidently. ("Savages" is the only word to describe the jostling, scrambling, shouting, flash-bulb-popping, sweating, cursing newsmen who came suddenly to chaotic life as soon as The Beatles entered the room.) Ringo tried to be cheerful, George looked uncomfortable and John seemed totally bored. But it was Paul, the best looking, who seemed to take the jungle-like conglomeration perfectly in stride. A nice little touch of his was a friendly handshake and smile which he gave to everyone nearby in the little hallway directly adjoining the press conference room. However, the main point that should be made is that The Beatles at least made an attempt to be polite and helpful, and Tony Barrow, their harried publicity manager, did his best to have as many questions as possible answered, though most were barely audible in the constant murmur that swallowed them up and made them incomprehensible. Afterward, the Mop-Top Four talked to individual members of the press and, despite the persistent din, they conducted themselves in a gentlemanly, dignified and thoroughly courteous manner.

So, you see, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are as different from each other as (pardon the cliché) night and day. If you still aren't convinced, let me relate the experience of an English friend of mine. He spent a weekend covering The Stones for one of the most respected newspapers in Britain: (After which, he had to consume several Bromos, a bottle of aspirins and assorted brands of mouthwash to conquer the nausea, headache and bad taste the whole dreadful nightmare left him with) and emerged a shaken man! He was a witness to an appalling number in incidents that showed The Stones to be quick with obscenities and atrocious manners and to be crude and offensive. Finally, unable to stomach them any longer, my friend left--right after planting a well-aimed fist in the middle of Mick Jagger's already repulsive-looking face! I have talked to other individuals with similar stories to relate about The Stones. There is no doubt in my mind that they are indeed what they seem to be--slobs of the first order, inconsiderate morons whose respect for their elders, for members of the opposite sex and for reporters interested in according them some favorable publicity, is simply nonexistent. Nor is this an artificial facade erected for the sake of making headlines. It is the way The Stones really are! They act the way they feel, and the way they feel is generally rebellious, inclined toward being vulgar in the most obnoxious way possible, and altogether disgusting.

The Stones represent the legendary Bad Guys, and The Beatles are the Good Guys. As such, they despise on another and the competition between them is indeed fierce. I can say, with some degree of assurance, that they are the bitterest of rivals. Personally, I side with the Good Guys. I side with them because of what people have told me about their behavior, and because of the cultivated, intelligent, well-dressed appearance they generally present in public. I remain 100% in their corner because of the way their organization is conducted, the way Ringo bends over backwards to help the unfortunate, crippled children who often attend Beatle performances, and because of Paul's charm. George's quietness and John's wit. What can any of The Rolling Stones possibly offer in return? They are strictly young men capitalizing upon a slovenly and uncouth appearance in order to make a fast buck while they contribute absolutely nothing expect bad taste to the entertainment world. The music of The Beatles is an original expression of youth striving for understanding in and adult-oriented world. It is an honest form of an honest search for meaning, purpose and --hope. The Rolling Stones' music, on the other hand, is a cheap imitation of authentic Negro blues, without any of their meaning. It jokes, as in Satisfaction, of implied intimate relations between a boy and a girl, and does so in the crudest way imaginable. --which is the greatest hypocrisy of all.

So, the duel between The Beatles and Rolling Stones is not the pistols-at-ten-paces kind. It goes much deeper than that and involves personal conduct and musical morality. Sides and loyalties must be chosen. Either the clean-cut wholesomeness of The Beatles. Or the filthy, crude, insolent appeal of The Rolling Stones. It's up to you, the teens who buy their records. What will your decision be?



------------------
"If Hitler were alive today, the German girls wouldn't let him bomb London if the Beatles were there."
- Anonymous, date unknown

SF4-EVER Jun 03, 2002 12:00 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
The irony of this article is that the Beatles and the Stones were good friends and played on each others' songs.

------------------


Contributing Editor for Rooftop Sessions
Lennon's Line--A science fiction series about John's descendants--Updated 5/16/02

Sgt. Pepper Jun 03, 2002 11:38 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
It's amazing that they got away with that myth of "good boys vs bad boys" back in the day.

Imagine the music industry trying to give N'SUCK a "dark image" to counteract the Backdoor Boys

------------------
"Those of you in the cheap seats clap your hands.....

The rest of you can just rattle your jewelry..."

Clark Kent Jun 24, 2002 10:06 AM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
The Beatles are streets ahead of The Stones. The Stones came to Lennon and McCartney for "I Wanna Be Your Man" when their career needed a kickstart. Most of their stuff was just reactionary(The Satan album, was a mess) and Jagger's wasting his time carrying on the group. You'll never beat The Beatles, just give up. The Beatles were already out the door before the Stones had gotten their boots on.

------------------

beatlebangs1964 Jun 24, 2002 02:07 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
Beatles won. No contest.

------------------
Then we will remember things we said today. Yeah.
-- Beatles, 1964

Read www.rooftopsessions.com for high caliber Beatles fan fiction.

BB1964

Sgt.McCartney Jun 24, 2002 02:08 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
Yeah!

------------------
"I am alive and well and unconcerned about the rumors of my death. But if I were dead, I would be the last to know."

-Paul McCartney, 1969

BeatlesFan1972 Jun 24, 2002 02:30 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By Sgt. Pepper:
It's amazing that they got away with that myth of "good boys vs bad boys" back in the day.

Imagine the music industry trying to give N'SUCK a "dark image" to counteract the Backdoor Boys

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's great! 'N Suck and the Backdoor Boys! They're just New Kids on the Block wanna-be's anyway!

My choice is definitely the Beatles, although I do like some songs by the Stones (older stuff, not the new). It doesn't really surprise me that Jagger is keeping it going, but it DOES surprise me that Keith Richards is still around to go with them!

By the way, did anyone else when "Sir" Mick was knighted?! I sure did. Oh please!



------------------
"I read the news today, oh boy....."

biglou114 Jun 25, 2002 01:02 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
Beatles!!!

You know what's funny Keith Richards is a Huge Beatles Fan

------------------
I am the Eggman

69 days until the rerelease of AHDN on DVD

jtal909 Jun 25, 2002 04:41 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
How could any musician not be a Beatles fan?

------------------
"Why don't you say it in your famous James Mason impersonation?" www.billyshearsband.com

darkhorse Jun 25, 2002 06:57 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
Of the good ones, at least 95% are huge Beatle fans, that's for sure.

Of the other ones... they are a lot, unfortunately...

------------------
"Take my smile and my heart, they were yours from the start
The pieces to omit are mine" ~ George, 1987

ChrisG134 Jun 25, 2002 07:00 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
I thought it was a law you had to be a Beatles fan to be a musician.

------------------
R.I.P-John & George

Erik65 Jun 26, 2002 07:35 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
the beatles are better than the stones



------------------
Beatles forever and ever!

Wonderwall Jul 22, 2002 06:26 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
I dig the Stones.Especially the early period 64/66.Songs like "Satisfaction","Get Off Of My Cloud","The Last Time" etc. are truly masterpieces.The "good guys/bad guys" image is purely a myth.Mick admitted that The Beatles were just as cynical as the Stones and that they were just dressed up properly for the media.Derek Taylor also mentioned that whatever city The Beatles were playing in there were to be orgies in every hotel after the gigs.
And anyone who thinks that John Lennon is a good symbol for the teenagers should read his file one more time.John Lennon was "without any doubt one of the biggest arseholes to strap on a guitar!".He was a self righteous bastard who maltreated his wife and ignored his child.Back home in Liverpool he strolled around drunk and smashed up phoneboxes and got into fights.Plus he took heroin!

quote:Noel Gallagher

------------------
Free as a bird...it's the nearest thing to be.

Jerry Jul 22, 2002 11:00 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
Gee, if Noel Gallagher said it, then of course it must all be true then. And just how many hard drugs was Noel on when he actually said this? Oasis is not an authority on The Beatles in any way. They only know how to sound like them.

------------------
Fearless Leader - BeatleLinks.net

beatlebangs1964 Jul 23, 2002 09:01 AM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
Yeah, but they don't sound as good as the real Beatles.

------------------
Then we will remember things we said today. Yeah.
-- Beatles, 1964

Read www.rooftopsessions.com for high caliber Beatles fan fiction.

BB1964

Clark Kent Jul 23, 2002 03:16 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
The Beatles are the greatest rock group of all time.

------------------

LivingInTheMaterialWorld Jul 24, 2002 07:43 AM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By Clark Kent:
The Beatles are streets ahead of The Stones. The Stones came to Lennon and McCartney for "I Wanna Be Your Man" when their career needed a kickstart. Most of their stuff was just reactionary(The Satan album, was a mess) and Jagger's wasting his time carrying on the group. You'll never beat The Beatles, just give up. The Beatles were already out the door before the Stones had gotten their boots on.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is very true, and while the article is inflammatory and sensational, I think The Beatles will always win. Hands down, they were first.



------------------
________________________
"Without going out of my door, I could know all things"

LivingInTheMaterialWorld Jul 24, 2002 07:50 AM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By Wonderwall:
I dig the Stones.Especially the early period 64/66.Songs like "Satisfaction","Get Off Of My Cloud","The Last Time" etc. are truly masterpieces.The "good guys/bad guys" image is purely a myth.Mick admitted that The Beatles were just as cynical as the Stones and that they were just dressed up properly for the media.Derek Taylor also mentioned that whatever city The Beatles were playing in there were to be orgies in every hotel after the gigs.
And anyone who thinks that John Lennon is a good symbol for the teenagers should read his file one more time.John Lennon was "without any doubt one of the biggest arseholes to strap on a guitar!".He was a self righteous bastard who maltreated his wife and ignored his child.Back home in Liverpool he strolled around drunk and smashed up phoneboxes and got into fights.Plus he took heroin!

quote:Noel Gallagher

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look who's talking!!!

(Can any1 confirm the orgies bit?)



------------------
________________________
"Without going out of my door, I could know all things"

beatlebangs1964 Jul 24, 2002 09:38 AM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
1964-67 were my favorite Stones years. "Ruby Tuesday," their 1967 classic is one of my all time favorite songs.

And yeah, the Beatles were out the door and down the street before the Stones had even put one boot on!

------------------
Then we will remember things we said today. Yeah.
-- Beatles, 1964

Read www.rooftopsessions.com for high caliber Beatles fan fiction.

BB1964

MithrilGuitar Jul 25, 2002 07:05 PM

Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones
 
Well, wouldn't William D. DuBois be shocked with music today! Anything the most "innocent" seeming pop "artists" (I use the term loosely) sing is filled with innuendo, and it is far more graphic than Satisfaction! And the Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones, but the Stones aren't bad.

------------------
~Peace and Love~
*MithrilGuitar*


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.