The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? It's a debate older than, well, me anyway (which makes it pretty damn old). I've always been firmly in the pro-Beatles camp, but last night, a documentary by Martin Scorsese (the best pitchman Amex has ever had) may have maybe swayed me towards the Stones...or towards recognizing the equal genius of both bands, at the very least.
Shine a Light is a concert film at it's purest. Scorsese filmed the Stones over two nights at the Beacon theater in NYC. Interspersed with the live performance (and the film is 75% live performance) is archival footage of the Stones looking young and dashing (well, Mick looks hot, anyway. Aging has not been kind to these fellas) and showcasing various moments in their 40+ year career. The concert scenes rock pretty hard (with Buddy Guy, Jack White and Christina Aguilera popping by to duet throughout) and the old footage is funny and revealing. Hearing Mick Jagger say, at 20-something, "I think we have another year in us before we disband" is pretty hilarious in hindsight. I think that's what impresses me the most about the Rolling Stones...they are obviously talented, but their longevity is truly remarkable and, in the end, maybe that makes them better than The Beatles. I dunno. It's worthy of discussion...which is what we will do now in the comments.
So, spill it, people. The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Add This to Your Queue: Shine A Light
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Neither.
I WOULD like to see live footage of Mick Jagger picking up Brazilian ladies though! Not the inseminating part though, that'd be wrong.
I am probably one of the few who likes both the Beatles and the Stones. However, if it really came down to it, my choice would be Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr. Their body of work is all the more impressive when one considers that they did it in under 10 years.
Gotta go Beatles. The Stones have some awesome songs, but they have a lot of crap too. There is little to no crap in the Beatles' catalogue.
And actually, I think the fact that the Stones are still around diminishes their legacy. The Beatles went out of top, and more or less stayed out.
Beatles.
Though I do enjoy the joke about Mick and the Scotsman. "Hey, McLeod, get off of my ewe!"
My answer to that question has always been, and will always be, Led Zeppelin.
Now go watch "The Song Remains the Same."
The Beatles all the way. Even though I'm dying to see this movie.
I'm going with BeckEye - Led Zeppelin.
This was never a tough question for me, since I never liked the Beatles. The Stones have no end of crap, but their dozen or so good songs are far better than anything I've ever heard from the Beatles (usually in Nike commercials and the like).
The Stones is an easy answer for me, even if an IMAX glance at Mick Jagger's teeth makes him look every one of his 65 years. Not because the Beatles aren't very good...I love them, too. But the Stones are much more representative of the kind of bands I like - bluesy guitar rock with a preening lead singer.
And I think their longevity is a definite plus, because they don't suck like so many bands that hang on too long. If you've seen them as many times as I have (or even if you just watch this movie) you'll see that they still put 99% of the bands half their age to shame. Keith might be losing it a little, but Mick and Charlie are still the best in the business at their respective posts. And I give them points for Mick being possibly the smartest guy to ever run a rock band.
If the basis for comparison is being rock stars then it's Rolling Stones.
If the basis for comparison is being musicians then it's easily The Beatles.
Post a Comment