Did the Rolling Stones copy the Beatles??
Rozanski
>
> I read in a quote by John Lennon that he felt that 'We Love You' by
> the Stones was an immitation of 'All You Need is Love' and 'Satanic
> Majesties' copied 'Seargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'.
> Anyone have any thoughts or information about this?
>
> -Whammo
I don't think that it's just a coincidence that the Stones style at
that time changed drastically. The Stones hung out with the Beatles,
which is evident in the tape of the 'All You Need is Love' broadcast
which shows Jagger in it. IMHO the Stones were just going with the
evident flow created by the Beatles.
Phil
Whammo
Richard Looney
>> I don't think that it's just a coincidence that the Stones style at
>> that time changed drastically. The Stones hung out with the Beatles,
>> which is evident in the tape of the 'All You Need is Love' broadcast
>> which shows Jagger in it. IMHO the Stones were just going with the
>> evident flow created by the Beatles.
This "flow" was not created by the Beatles, although they certainly
enhanced it. Psychedellia was the "spirit of the times" (or to use
the German word, the "Zeitgeist").
--
"It's getting very near the end"
bob gill
together a lot at the time. (Once the Beatles quit touring almost
constantly, they seemed to become a focal point for musicians in London
-- as well they should. Donovan was another one who showed up at various
recording sessions, and even helped with the words to "Yellow Submarine,"
as John Lennon said in the Playboy interview.) Anyway, the Beatles were
obviously breaking into uncharted territory in 1966 and '67, and it's not
surprising that their good buddies followed.
Actually, though, it's hard to hear the similarity. "We Love You" sounds
nothing like "All You Need Is Love," for instance (despite the presence
of John and Paul on backing vocals). I think the Rolling Stones stuff
that most resembles the Beatles is on "Aftermath," which seems somewhat
related to "Rubber Soul." For another, "Ruby Tuesday" sounds quite a bit
like a Beatles song -- no particular song, but just the style. I
surprised someone where I work recently when I told her that was the
Stones; she thought it was the Fabs.
But as for Satanic Majesties, although its cover bears an obvious
resemblance to "Sgt. Pepper," I can't see it in the music. Actually, the
record it most resembles (to me, anyway) is Pink Floyd's first album,
"The Piper at the Gates of Dawn," which was released at almost the same
time (fall of 1967, I think). Both include a lot of references to outer
space, and both are based on GUITAR playing. "Sgt. Pepper" is not. If you
have both, listen to them back-to-back and see what I mean.
-- Bob G.
Bruce Mcintyre
>Whammo wrote:
>>
>> I read in a quote by John Lennon that he felt that 'We Love You' by
>> the Stones was an immitation of 'All You Need is Love' and 'Satanic
>> Majesties' copied 'Seargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'.
>> Anyone have any thoughts or information about this?
>>
>> -Whammo
>
>that time changed drastically. The Stones hung out with the Beatles,
>which is evident in the tape of the 'All You Need is Love' broadcast
>which shows Jagger in it. IMHO the Stones were just going with the
>evident flow created by the Beatles.
>
There is nobody to compare to the import of the beatles today, they were
huge and jagger and the stones followed (happily) along. With every
stones song there was a beatles song that preceded. That's all there is
to it! Nothing against the stones i think they were great, i love their
stuff!
bruce
Jim Cim
>> I read in a quote by John Lennon that he felt that 'We Love You' by
>> the Stones was an immitation of 'All You Need is Love' and 'Satanic
>> Majesties' copied 'Seargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'.
>> Anyone have any thoughts or information about this?
>>
>> -Whammo
A lot of us thought so at the time.
Regards,
Jim Cim
http://www.infobahnos.com/~jimcim/
era...@delphi.com
>There is nobody to compare to the import of the beatles today, they were
>huge and jagger and the stones followed (happily) along. With every
>stones song there was a beatles song that preceded. That's all there is
>to it! Nothing against the stones i think they were great, i love their
>stuff!
>
>
>bruce
- Eric
Robert Sutherland
writes:
>Rozanski (roza...@execpc.com) wrote:
>
>>> I don't think that it's just a coincidence that the Stones style at
>>> that time changed drastically. The Stones hung out with the
Beatles,
>>> which is evident in the tape of the 'All You Need is Love'
broadcast
>>> which shows Jagger in it. IMHO the Stones were just going with the
>>> evident flow created by the Beatles.
>
>This "flow" was not created by the Beatles, although they certainly
>enhanced it. Psychedellia was the "spirit of the times" (or to use
>the German word, the "Zeitgeist").
>--
>"It's getting very near the end"
In the film 12 by 25, Jagger admitted that the Satanic Majesties album
was influenced by Pepper.
Rick Antonoff
>
>>> I don't think that it's just a coincidence that the Stones style at
>>> that time changed drastically. The Stones hung out with the Beatles,
>>> which is evident in the tape of the 'All You Need is Love' broadcast
>>> which shows Jagger in it. IMHO the Stones were just going with the
>>> evident flow created by the Beatles.
>
that it was a direct reference to and ripoff of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts
Club Band.
--
ri...@pipeline.com
paul
>Bruce Mcintyre <bru...@idirect.com> writes:
>
>>There is nobody to compare to the import of the beatles today, they were >huge and jagger and the stones followed (happily) along.=
With every >stones song there was a beatles song that preceded. That's all there is >to it! Nothing against the stones i think they=
were great, i love their >stuff!
>>
I prefer the Beatles too because of their sound, but lets face it,
they didn't really write "serious" material until the Revolver sessions.
In 1965 the Beatles had nothing to compare with "Satisfaction"
PAUL CASE
1965?? Obviously, you've never heard their "Rubber Soul" album. Get
with it, man. The reality is that the Stones had nothing equal to
"In My Life" in 1965. Hell, they STILL don't.
Free as a bird,
Paul
Joshy R.
>In <4b9rtj$n...@explorer.csc.com> rlo...@csc.com (Richard Looney)
>writes:
>>
>>
>>>> I don't think that it's just a coincidence that the Stones style at
>
>>>> that time changed drastically. The Stones hung out with the
>Beatles,
>>>> which is evident in the tape of the 'All You Need is Love'
>broadcast
>>>> which shows Jagger in it. IMHO the Stones were just going with the
>>>> evident flow created by the Beatles.
>>
>>enhanced it. Psychedellia was the "spirit of the times" (or to use
>>the German word, the "Zeitgeist").
>>--
>>"It's getting very near the end"
>In the film 12 by 25, Jagger admitted that the Satanic Majesties album
>was influenced by Pepper.
I think the Stones did a fine job creating there own identity, but just
about every British Rock group in the invasion in some way borrowed from
the Beatles. It is a fact that the Stones did decide to write their own
songs after the Beatles gave them "I Wanna Be Your Man."
--JLR
Lizz Braver
Most of those of us who were around at the time thought the Stones were
taking the Beatles' lead on things.
d.
> The Beatles had nothing to compare withompare with "Satisfaction" in
> 1965?? Obviously, you've never heard their "Rubber Soul" album. Get
> with it, man. The reality is that the Stones had nothing equal to
> "In My Life" in 1965. Hell, they STILL don't.
IMO, "I Saw Her Standing There", "I Feel Fine", "She's A Woman", "Ticket
To Ride" and "Help!" are all equal to, and in one or two cases better
than, "Satisfaction"...and "Satisfaction" is definitely one of the great r
'n r songs ever made.
Of course, to me comparing the two bands is somewhat silly, as the only
thing they had in common was they both were from Britain and they were
somewhat the same age. The Stones played a gritty, raunchy sort of rock
derived almost exclusively from a love of hard blues; the Beatles
incorporated many different influences into their mix, and consequently
their output was much more varied stylistically and lyrically, especially
after the "Help!" period. This is not putting down the Stones at
all...the Stones' 60's music still rocks like a mother, leaping out of the
speaker and grabbing tightly hold when some DJ decides to play one of
their songs amid all the crap that passes for rock these days. As does
the Beatles' music.
--
nort...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~northcut/no-thing.html
the one you wanted to be is now the one you see
Andy Roman
Brian Fried
were they released in 1967, they were recorded at the same time. Waters,
Barrett, Wright and Mason met the Beatles, and in numerous biographies the
Beatles are all said to have been impressed with the band's accomplishments.
Incidently, this isn't the only time they shared Abbey Road. It even goes
so far as Paul contributing to DARK SIDE OF THE MOON (his contribution was
rejected but Wings' drummer wasn't).
As for the Stones copying the Beatles -- - -
OF COURSE THEY DID! So did the Beach Boys! This is most evident in the
fact that after the Beatles break up in 1970, both the Stones and the
Beach Boys stop inventing and stick with the same old schtick that got
them to the top! The Beatles were trend setters, plain and simple. That
members of the Stones and the Beach Boys were (and are still) friends with
the remaining Beatles has never been denied, but then again, the Monkees
and Donovan were also good friends at the time.
Brian
bfr...@chat.carleton.ca
gordon thompson
: > The Beatles had nothing to compare withompare with "Satisfaction" in
: > 1965?? Obviously, you've never heard their "Rubber Soul" album. Get
: > with it, man. The reality is that the Stones had nothing equal to
: > "In My Life" in 1965. Hell, they STILL don't.
: IMO, "I Saw Her Standing There", "I Feel Fine", "She's A Woman", "Ticket
: To Ride" and "Help!" are all equal to, and in one or two cases better
: than, "Satisfaction"...and "Satisfaction" is definitely one of the great r
: 'n r songs ever made.
I've been on the road and missed the beginning of this thread, but
I'll wade in any way. If my memory serves me well, Keith Richards
didn't think much of "Satisfaction." He said it wasn't finished . . .
, and you can see why. Where's the bridge? Sure. You could argue
that in a blues idiom you don't need a bridge, or even much of a chord
progression (look at Muddy Waters' "Rollin' Stone," coincidentally
enough). However, that was not the effect KR was trying to achieve
with the song. He knew he had an interesting hook, but he felt he
needed more. However, they needed a release. Anybody who has played
the song can tell you too, there ain't much there.
: Of course, to me comparing the two bands is somewhat silly, as the only
: thing they had in common was they both were from Britain and they were
: somewhat the same age. The Stones played a gritty, raunchy sort of rock
: derived almost exclusively from a love of hard blues; the Beatles
: incorporated many different influences into their mix, and consequently
: their output was much more varied stylistically and lyrically, especially
: after the "Help!" period. This is not putting down the Stones at
: all...the Stones' 60's music still rocks like a mother, leaping out of the
: speaker and grabbing tightly hold when some DJ decides to play one of
: their songs amid all the crap that passes for rock these days. As does
: the Beatles' music.
: --
: nort...@mindspring.com
: http://www.mindspring.com/~northcut/no-thing.html
: the one you wanted to be is now the one you see
I admit that in the mid 60s, I was a Stones fan. Part of it was
simply practical. I played in bands that had minimal equipment and
skill and r&b was easier to pull off than the Beatles. [Another side
of that was that duplicating the sound of the Beatles was impossible.]
However, Stones style r&b was great to play. Nevertheless, the
sophistication of Beatles recordings and music definitely appealed to
me as a listener.
Gordon
--
===================================================================
Gordon Thompson gtho...@skidmore.edu
Dept of Music, Skidmore College phone 518-584-5000 x2611
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866-1632 fax 518-584-3023
===================================================================
d.
(gordon thompson) wrote:
> d. (nort...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : IMO, "I Saw Her Standing There", "I Feel Fine", "She's A Woman", "Ticket
> : To Ride" and "Help!" are all equal to, and in one or two cases better
> : than, "Satisfaction"...and "Satisfaction" is definitely one of the great r
> : 'n r songs ever made.
[snip]
> You could argue
> that in a blues idiom you don't need a bridge, or even much of a chord
> progression (look at Muddy Waters' "Rollin' Stone," coincidentally
> enough). However, that was not the effect KR was trying to achieve
> with the song. He knew he had an interesting hook, but he felt he
> needed more. However, they needed a release. Anybody who has played
> the song can tell you too, there ain't much there.
I've been in several bands, and I've played "Satisfaction" and Neil
Young's great parody "Mr. Soul" as well.
I think the very fact that there ain't much there in "Satisfaction", makes
it a cool song. It's simple, basic rock, something that is harder to pull
off than most people imagine.
William Just
In a previous article, roza...@execpc.com (Rozanski) says:
>Whammo wrote:
>>
>> I read in a quote by John Lennon that he felt that 'We Love You' by
>> the Stones was an immitation of 'All You Need is Love' and 'Satanic
>> Majesties' copied 'Seargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'.
>> Anyone have any thoughts or information about this?
>>
>> -Whammo
>
>I don't think that it's just a coincidence that the Stones style at
>that time changed drastically. The Stones hung out with the Beatles,
>which is evident in the tape of the 'All You Need is Love' broadcast
>which shows Jagger in it. IMHO the Stones were just going with the
>evident flow created by the Beatles.
>
>Phil
>
but it WAS a coincidence that right after the beatles released let it be,
the stones released let it BLEED!!!
:-)
nudge nudge wink wink etc
--
one love
rasta4I
jah bill
paul
> The Beatles had nothing to compare withompare with "Satisfaction" in 1965?? Obviously, you've never heard their "Rubber Soul" albu=
m. Get> with it, man. The reality is that the Stones had nothing equal to"In My Life" in 1965. Hell, they STILL don't.
>IMO, "I Saw Her Standing There", "I Feel Fine", "She's A Woman", "Ticket To Ride" and "Help!" are all equal to, and in one or two c=
ases better than, "Satisfaction"...and "Satisfaction" is definitely one of the great r'n r songs ever made.
>Keith Richards didn't think much of "Satisfaction." He said it wasn't finished, and you can see why. Where's the bridge? Sure. =
You could argue that in a blues idiom you don't need a bridge, or even much of a chord progression (look at Muddy Waters' "Rollin' S=
tone," coincidentally
>enough). However, that was not the effect KR was trying to achieve
>with the song. He knew he had an interesting hook, but he felt he
>needed more. However, they needed a release. Anybody who has played
>the song can tell you too, there ain't much there.
>
I respond: I stand by my original statement that the Beatles had
nothing to compare with "Satisfaction" in 1965. Or with "My Generation"
for that matter. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, because the above
posters seem to have missed my point. I wasn't talking about the
musicality of the songs. I was speaking strictly about the lyrical
content. I agree that musically, "there ain't much there" in either
"Satisfaction" or "My Generation", but those songs have a force, impact,
worldliness, and spirit of rebellion that the Beatles didn't get to
until the "Revolver" period with songs like "Taxman", "Eleanor Rigby",
"She Said She Said", and "Tomorrow Never Knows". Up until then they
wrote almost exclusively pop love songs. Of course they sounded
great and we all love to sing along to those songs, but lyrically,
although the writing is clever, it just doesn't have the importance
of "Satisfaction" or "My Generation". Ask yourself, which songs really
defined the spirit of the 60s--those two or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand".
IMO only after the Beatles starting doing drugs (may not be a good thing
depending on your point of view) did their vision expand and they
started writing songs that addressed issues beyond their immediate
concerns. Hell, Bob Dylan was John's hero, but how long was it before
John wrote songs with the scope of Dylan's? Of the song's listed by
the posters above, only "In My Life" or "Help" could possibly
fall into that category. They rest just sound good. Heck, so did
"Good Vibrations" but it really doesn't have much to say, does it?
I love the Beatles, but they are not the only rock band that wrote
great songs and everything they did is not better than anything
everyone else did.
And concerning "copying" another's musical style--the Beatles did
plenty of that in their early years, but much more. Any composer
from Mozart to Beethoven to the Beatles will be influenced by those who
went before. Early Beethoven sounds a lot like Mozart and early
Brahms sound a lot like Beethoven and early Beatles sounds a lot like
Gene Vincent or the Everly Brothers. But the great composers will
progress beyond that, incorporating the sound of their influences and
expanding upon that to create their own unique sound. That is what
both Beethoven and the Beatles did.
paul
PAUL CASE
of "Satisfaction" or "My Generation" is obviously a bit off in the head.
Quite frankly, "Satisfaction" is a pretty moronic song lyric-wise. It
really doesn't stray that far from the typical Stones song theme. As
far as lyrics with social import go, aren't you forgetting "The Word"
from Rubber Soul (1965)? This is a direct precursor to "All You Need Is
Love". I think you need to do more research before you start claiming
that the Beatles had no lyrically important songs in 1965.
Also, let's not forget that if it weren't for the Beatles, the Stones
never would have started writing their own songs. Both Jagger and
Richards have discussed this, though I get the feeling that Jagger's ego
suffers when he has to admit it. But, as Marianne Faithful said, Mick
Jagger always wanted to be John Lennon...
Free as a bird,
Paul
PS: "Nowhere Man" is another lyrically important song off of Rubber Soul.
You really missed the mark on this one...
Bradley Wells
>> The Beatles had nothing to compare withompare with "Satisfaction" in
1965?? Obviously, you've never heard their "Rubber Soul" albu=
>m. Get> with it, man. The reality is that the Stones had nothing equal
to"In My Life" in 1965. Hell, they STILL don't.
>
>>IMO, "I Saw Her Standing There", "I Feel Fine", "She's A Woman",
"Ticket To Ride" and "Help!" are all equal to, and in one or two c=
>ases better than, "Satisfaction"...and "Satisfaction" is definitely one
of the great r'n r songs ever made.
>
hand". The Rolling Stones were playing "Lets spend the night together"
the Beatles were a great band, but they NEVER had that out law image.
Brad
d.
(Bradley Wells) wrote:
[quoting me]
> >>IMO, "I Saw Her Standing There", "I Feel Fine", "She's A Woman",
> "Ticket To Ride" and "Help!" are all equal to, and in one or two c=
> >ases better than, "Satisfaction"...and "Satisfaction" is definitely one
> of the great r'n r songs ever made.
> >
> Lets Face some facts, when the beatles were playing "I want to hold your
> hand". The Rolling Stones were playing "Lets spend the night together"
Um, sorry, that's not true. You've got your dates mixed up, big time.
When the Beatles were playing "I Want To Hold Your Hand" the Stones were
playing "I Wanna Be Your Man", actually a Lennon/McCartney song. This is
late 1963/early 1964.
When the Stones were playing "Let's Spend the Night Together" the Beatles
were playing "Strawberry Fields" and making "Sgt. Pepper." (1967) Both
bands were doing wild, groundbreaking things at this time, but in their
own different ways.
Diversity is the spice of life, you know. Or something to that effect. I
love the Stones' 60's music, and a lot of their 70's music. If they'd
just hung it up after "Some Girls", I'd like 'em even more.
PAUL CASE
the outlaw image that the Stones had. This is true, but unfortunately has
nothing to do with this thread. This thread was started by somebody claiming
that the Beatles had nothing with the lyrical depth of "Satisfaction",
which is about as moronic a statement as anybody can make.
As for the Stones having the "outlaw" image, who cares? If the Stones were
REALLY so rebellious, then why did they spend the 60's copying the Beatles'
every move? The only thing the Stones did was sing about sex in a frank
fashion, and they were merely imitating the original blues singers when they did
this. I prefer quality music over image anyday. The Stones were busy trying
to shock the world as outlaws, while the Beatles conquered the world as ARTISTS. :)
Now don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the Stones' work up until '72
(I don't include Satanic Majesties, because that was a joke). I've just
always thought it was idiotic to compare the Stones to the Beatles as if
they were equals. The Beatles were light years ahead of everybody...
-Paul
Allabaster
>Anybody who thinks that "In My Life" doesn't have the lyrical content
>of "Satisfaction" or "My Generation" is obviously a bit off in the head.
>Quite frankly, "Satisfaction" is a pretty moronic song lyric-wise. It
>really doesn't stray that far from the typical Stones song theme. As
>far as lyrics with social import go, aren't you forgetting "The Word"
>from Rubber Soul (1965)? This is a direct precursor to "All You Need Is
>Love". I think you need to do more research before you start claiming
>that the Beatles had no lyrically important songs in 1965.
Some of their best lyrics were on Rubber Soul. What about "Norwegian Wood"?
Don't forget that it was placed in an English book of poetry.
Allabaster
Rann Rudisill
>Some of their best lyrics were on Rubber Soul. What about "Norwegian Wood"?
>Don't forget that it was placed in an English book of poetry.
I prefer the Beatles left and right over the Stones. My friends who feel
otherwise invariably defend their tastes with luddite arguments such as,
"Not all music needs to be
well-written/well-played/serious/cerebral/etc..."
Of course the Ss copied the Bs...at least they WANTED TO! Most art is
made through attempted copy-cat behavior...
I did like Satanic Majesties...their most derivative effort, IMHO.
C.S.
established. The great Stones song, "As Tears Go By" even had a
chamber quartet backing ala "Yesterday." And of course the Their
Satanic Majesties Request album was always considered their attempt
to do a Sgt. Pepper.
--
N/A
OCEAN DIG
REALLY so rebellious, then why did they spend the 60's copying the
Beatles'
every move? "
Since when is rebellious a virtue? That's such a childish attitude...it's
the attitude that says "Wow...neat...look...that guy's hair is GREEN!
Man!". It has nothing to do with music. I agree with you.....and by the
way....if the Stones were REALLY such a bunch of tough guys, why did they
succomb to Sullivan's request to change the lyric to "Lets Spend Some Time
Together"....oooh....tough guys.
OCEAN DIG.@aol.com
(T Hartman)
era...@delphi.com
> Lets Face some facts, when the beatles were playing "I want to hold your
>hand". The Rolling Stones were playing "Lets spend the night together"
were playing I wanna be your man. I think Let's spend the night together was a
couple of years later.
- eric
Paul & Victoria Heisner
<4c46o0$4...@news1.ucsd.edu>, paul <jeeves.ucsd.edu> would say...
>I respond: I stand by my original statement that the Beatles had
>nothing to compare with "Satisfaction" in 1965. Or with "My Generation"
>for that matter. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, because the above
>posters seem to have missed my point. I wasn't talking about the
>musicality of the songs. I was speaking strictly about the lyrical
>content. I agree that musically, "there ain't much there" in either
>"Satisfaction" or "My Generation", but those songs have a force, impact,
>worldliness, and spirit of rebellion that the Beatles didn't get to
>until the "Revolver" period with songs like "Taxman", "Eleanor Rigby",
>"She Said She Said", and "Tomorrow Never Knows". Up until then they
>wrote almost exclusively pop love songs. Of course they sounded
>great and we all love to sing along to those songs, but lyrically,
>although the writing is clever, it just doesn't have the importance
>of "Satisfaction" or "My Generation". Ask yourself, which songs really
>defined the spirit of the 60s--those two or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand".
>IMO only after the Beatles starting doing drugs (may not be a good thing
>depending on your point of view) did their vision expand and they
>started writing songs that addressed issues beyond their immediate
>concerns. Hell, Bob Dylan was John's hero, but how long was it before
>John wrote songs with the scope of Dylan's? Of the song's listed by
>the posters above, only "In My Life" or "Help" could possibly
>fall into that category. They rest just sound good. Heck, so did
>"Good Vibrations" but it really doesn't have much to say, does it?
First beer then, eh????
Vicki
Vicki Heisner
vhei...@ainet.com
LUNAR #365
MSTie #59274
John Blythe
: Over 400 years ago, Nostradamus predicted that in article
: >I respond: I stand by my original statement that the Beatles had
: >nothing to compare with "Satisfaction" in 1965. Or with "My Generation"
: >for that matter. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, because the above
: >posters seem to have missed my point. I wasn't talking about the
: >musicality of the songs. I was speaking strictly about the lyrical
: >content. I agree that musically, "there ain't much there" in either
: >"Satisfaction" or "My Generation", but those songs have a force, impact,
: >worldliness, and spirit of rebellion that the Beatles didn't get to
: >until the "Revolver" period with songs like "Taxman", "Eleanor Rigby",
: >"She Said She Said", and "Tomorrow Never Knows". Up until then they
I think you could make a case for some of the songs that appeared before
the Revolver album. Help and Rubber Soul had some songs that could be
considered for their 'worldliness', to borrow your term. I believe songs
like 'Hide Your Love Away' 'The Word' 'Nowhere Man' certainly were not
just musically pleasing love songs. They have far reaching impact that is
not lost even today. And you could go further back as well. 'There's A
Place' is an early song that fits this category as well.
: >wrote almost exclusively pop love songs. Of course they sounded
: >great and we all love to sing along to those songs, but lyrically,
: >although the writing is clever, it just doesn't have the importance
: >of "Satisfaction" or "My Generation". Ask yourself, which songs really
I fail to see the lyrical importance of 'Satisfaction'.
: >defined the spirit of the 60s--those two or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand".
'I Want To Hold Your Hand' was just the beginning. The body of work put
together by the Beatles is awesome, and stands compared to anyone, from
their time period or since. This is what defined the Beatles, the 60's
and music as it manifests itself today.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-<ay...@torfree.net John Blythe>- There's nowhere you can be
That isn't where you're meant to be
J.L.
gordon thompson
: Various people wrote:
: > The Beatles had nothing to compare withompare with "Satisfaction" in 1965?? Obviously, you've never heard their "Rubber Soul" albu=
stuff deleted
: I respond: I stand by my original statement that the Beatles had
: nothing to compare with "Satisfaction" in 1965. Or with "My Generation"
: for that matter. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, because the above
: posters seem to have missed my point. I wasn't talking about the
: musicality of the songs. I was speaking strictly about the lyrical
: content. I agree that musically, "there ain't much there" in either
: "Satisfaction" or "My Generation", but those songs have a force, impact,
: worldliness, and spirit of rebellion that the Beatles didn't get to
: until the "Revolver" period with songs like "Taxman", "Eleanor Rigby",
: "She Said She Said", and "Tomorrow Never Knows". Up until then they
: wrote almost exclusively pop love songs. Of course they sounded
: great and we all love to sing along to those songs, but lyrically,
: although the writing is clever, it just doesn't have the importance
: of "Satisfaction" or "My Generation". Ask yourself, which songs really
: defined the spirit of the 60s--those two or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand".
I think we have a couple of different ideas revolving here. One has
to do with the lyrics (sorry, I came to the thread after your original
post had disappeared into the mists of ram). The second has to do
with the music itself. And the third has to do more with performance.
Well, at different times you can say different things about the music
of L-Mc and of the Glimmer Twins. I've always appreciated the
sentiments and approaches of Beatle songs. It's so much more
difficult to be tender and non-than lusty and aggressive. One you do
with sincerity, the other when you're drunk. As for sophistication of
the music, IMHO there is no comparison: L&Mc rule. But as for the
third, there is a drive in "Satisfaction" and "Street Fightin' Man"
(and the Who's "My Generation" is a better example) is an aspect of
the performance, not the music being performed. As someone commented
above, simple songs like "Satisfaction" are made in performance, not
on the page. "My Generation" (apart from the Ox's bass solo) is also
a vehicle for performance that requires more adreneline than chops.
So, call me an equivicator . . . , depends what you're talking about
if you want to compare these two bands.
Bradley Wells
>succomb to Sullivan's request to change the lyric to "Lets Spend Some
Time
>Together"....oooh....tough guys.
Ed wanted Mick to sing "lets spend some time together" But Mick sang
"lets spend the night together"
Douglas VanWieren
: Lets Face some facts, when the beatles were playing "I want to hold your
: hand". The Rolling Stones were playing "Lets spend the night together"
: the Beatles were a great band, but they NEVER had that out law image.
: Brad
Let's just face this one most important fact. The Beatles were a more
brilliant band than the Stones. As for the outlaw image, the Stones had
to thank Oldham for his marketing genius. Even Keith and Mick admit that
the Beatles were, in reality, the real bad boys of r'n'r.
Dougie
**************************
* And in the end, *
* the love you take *
* is equal to the love *
* you make. *
* -Lennon/McCartney *
**************************
d.
(Bradley Wells) wrote:
No, he didn't. He caved in to ol' Ed's wishes, although he did roll his
eyes and call attention to the fact that the lyrics were changed. I've
got it on video.
PAUL CASE
wrong! This is the third straight time in a row! Mick Jagger sang
LET'S SPEND SOME TIME TOGETHER, as Ed Sullivan requested. He gave in,
confining his rebelliousness to rolling his eyes when he sang it. You're
thinking of Jim Morrison, who was asked asked not to sing the line
"Girl we couldn't get much higher" from "Light My Fire" when the Doors
made their debut appearance on the Sullivan show. Jim defied Sullivan's
wishes and sang the line anyway. The Doors were subsequently banned
from the Ed Sullivan show, and never made another appearance. Mick Jagger,
however, gave in and sang what Sullivan wanted him to sing. So much for
Jagger's big outlaw image...what a load of crap.
TOM CRANFIELD
>if the Stones were REALLY such a bunch of tough guys, why did they
>>succomb to Sullivan's request to change the lyric to "Lets Spend Some
>Time
>>Together"....oooh....tough guys.
>
>Ed wanted Mick to sing "lets spend some time together" But Mick sang
>"lets spend the night together"
>
performance of Light My Fire. Censors forbade Jim Morrison from saying
"girl we couldn't get much HIGHER", but Morrison sang it anyway.
Afterwards, they told him the Doors would never do the Ed Sullivan show
again. Morrison responded: "Man, we just DID the Sullivan show." - Tom
TOM CRANFIELD
Whoa, dude!! Lighten up, man. So he was wrong. No need to try to further
embarrass him. Let's keep things civil here. - Tom
OCEAN DIG
"lets spend the night together"
I don't know where you get that, because I watched the show, and the whole
group sings "Lets Spend Some Time Together"....if Mick sneaked one in,
fine, but the whole group was singing Sullivan's line....I remember
laughing at it at the time.....
OCEAN DIG.@aol.com
(T Hartman)
Paul & Victoria Heisner
would say...
>Paul & Victoria Heisner (vhei...@ainet.com) wrote:
[big snip]
Hi John,
While I agree with everything you've said in your post, and am
delighted to meet other John Lennon fans, I feel a strong desire to
clarify the fact that nothing you quoted or responded to was written
by me. Unless, of course, you count:
>: Over 400 years ago, Nostradamus predicted that in article
>: <4c46o0$4...@news1.ucsd.edu>, paul <jeeves.ucsd.edu> would say...
but I didn't see any mention of Nostradamus in your post.....
John Blythe
: Hi John,
: Vicki
: Vicki Heisner
: vhei...@ainet.com
: LUNAR #365
: MSTie #59274
I am sorry Vicki, I guess somewhere along the line the original poster's
name got deleted. I'll be more careful when replying that I quote the
proper person, next time.
John Blythe
: Lets Face some facts, when the beatles were playing "I want to hold your
: hand". The Rolling Stones were playing "Lets spend the night together"
: the Beatles were a great band, but they NEVER had that out law image.
They did in fact have an outlaw image. If you go back to their Hamburg
days. Leather jackets, played the strip bars, did crazy stuff on stage.
It was Brian Epstein that cleaned up there image in order to market them
big time. Put them in suits. I don't believe the two songs you mention
charted in the same year. Yes, the Beatles were singing 'I want to hold
your hand' in 64, but the year before they were singing 'Please, please
me'. Did you ever stop and listen to those lyrics and really understand
what they meeant? And this was long before 'Let's spend the night
together'.
David Marsan
>I think "copy" is probably a bit strong.
>I remember being knocked out by "Come On" but I don't think it did too well
>sales-wise. Then came "Wanna Be Your Man" (L & M) which seemed a blatant
>attempt to cash-in on the Beatle hit-machine. Then much later in the "All
>You Need Is Love" era, the Stones came out with "We Love You" which I thought
>was completely out of character and somehow cheapened them. (I think some
>Beatles provided vocals on that.)
>To summarise: I think any "copying" had more to do with financial gain than
>with artistic emulation.
>
The "all you need is love" era corresponds much more in my opinion to
the "Sgt Pepper" era, when even the Stones tried to "copy" the Beatles;
"her satanic majesty request" is clearly an attempt to follow the trend
designed and fashioned through all the Beatles' production in 1967.
David.
Tony Wright
Alan Seeger
Together"....oooh....tough guys.
"lets spend the night together"
>
>eyes and call attention to the fact that the lyrics were changed. I've
>got it on video.
performing "Light My Fire" when they were asked to change the lyric "girl,
we couldn't get much higher" to "girl, it couldn't get much better," which
they agreed to do, after which Jim Morrison proceeded to not only sing the
original, "offending" lyric, but strongly emphasize it to the camera. What
a wild and crazy guy ol' Jim was.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled subject.
"Her majesty, she's a pretty nice girl,
But she doesn't have a lot to say.
Her majesty, she's a pretty nice girl,
But she change from day to day.
I wanna tell her that I love her a lot,
But I gotta get a belly full of wine,
Her majesty, she's a pretty nice girl,
Someday I'm gonna make her mine, oh yeah,
Someday I'm gonna make her mine."
-=Alan=-
Oyvind Solheim
in article <4c9r0r$n...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>:
>if the Stones were REALLY such a bunch of tough guys, why did they
>>succomb to Sullivan's request to change the lyric to "Lets Spend Some
>Time
>>Together"....oooh....tough guys.
>Ed wanted Mick to sing "lets spend some time together" But Mick sang
>"lets spend the night together"
No, no. Mick did not sing that, but he mumbeled like "Let's spend
..mmmmm... together...". He din't look much happy, though.
Don't know if you're thinking of The Doors at Sullivan's show when Jim
sang "Girl, we couldn't get much higher".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP ID: 1024/3359788D 1994/06/16 Oyvind Solheim <su...@telepost.no>
PGP Fingerprint: 74 7E F0 C4 ED BF F6 79 - 54 4C D3 4B 6D BA 31 62
===================================================================
C1max1F
psychedelia to anything they've recorded since "Some Girls." Who cares if
they were "ripping off" the Beatles or anyone else? The music the Stones
truly cannibalized was R&B. End product: now we have wondeful R&B "and"
great Rolling Stones music to help us get through this messy trip. I call
that progress.
Jagger has, however, always struck me as kind of a geek.
---------------------------------------------------
"An egg a week is plenty."
-- W. Caldwell
Rick Antonoff
Satisfaction," lyrically or otherwise. The Beatles early on wrote
lyrically and textually deep songs, not only "pop love songs" but songs
that provoke obscure images, play with words and meaning and give the
listener's mind things to engage in. To the songs mentioned in John
Blyth's post, I would add such songs as Dr. Robert, I'm Only Sleeping,
Girl, Norwegian Wood, She Said She Said and In My Life. As far as having
"force, impact, worldliness and spirit of rebelion," several earlier
Beatles songs have at least as much or more of those qualities as
Satisfaction and are lyrically superior, including You Can't Do That, I
Feel Fine, It Won't Be Long, A Hard Day's Night, Can't Buy Me Love and
Ticket to Ride. As far as My Generation, true, the Beatles didn't write
similar types of protest songs or anthems like that until much later (All
You Need is Love, Revolution, Come Together) but don't give Satisfaction a
ride on the coattails of true rebel rock. The Stones image was that of the
bad boys of rock, but that's all. They didn't say anything socially
important.
--
ri...@pipeline.com
aco...@calstatela.edu
The Rolling Stones did rip-off "Sgt. Pepper's" for their album "Satanic
Majesties." However, the Rolling Stones has many important songs that went beyond
the Beatles. Violence ("Street Fighting Man"), Relationships ("Stupid Girl", "Under
My Thumb"), End of the Sixties ("You Can't Always Get What You Want", "Gimme
Shelter"), Dissatisfaction ("Paint It Black", "Satisfaction", "Some Girls",
"Moonlight Mile", Torn and Frayed"), etc.
Thanks,
Aaron
Steve Ranta
<aco...@calstatela.edu> wrote:
--
Look at the self-centred, childish sentiments portrayed in the Stones
songs you list.
I think Phil Spector had it right when he said that the Beatles progressed
to making adult music, but the Stones got stuck along the way.
--
Steve Ranta