And we've got a few of them to think about this morning ...
Kicking off with this ...
We touched on McCartney placing the blame for the break-up of The Beatles squarely on John Lennon’s shoulders earlier this week.
In an interview last week with BBC Radio 4 (and then published in “The
Guardian”), Paul explained, “I didn’t instigate the split. That was our Johnny
coming in one day and saying, ‘I’m leaving the group’.
“This was my
band, this was my job, this was my life, so I wanted it to continue.” (McCartney explained that he felt that the
Beatles were still making “pretty good stuff” around the time of their breakup. As disclosed through audio tapes released
earlier this year, plans were already being discussed for the follow-up album
to “Abbey Road,” even to the point of divvying up the track list between five
of John’s, five of Paul’s, three of George’s and one of Ringo’s, with John even
leading the charge to a degree before suddenly walking into a band meeting one
day and stating, “I am leaving the Beatles.
I want a divorce.”
Now in all
fairness, it WAS McCartney who took full advantage of announcing the split,
some would say (and many did!) as a means of promoting his own first solo
album. It was ALSO Paul who sued The
Beatles in order to gain his freedom and break free of the clutches of new
Manager Allen Klein, someone that McCartney never accepted as HIS manager,
preferring instead to align with his new father-in-law, John Eastman. (Ironically, it was Klein who persuaded the
band to keep mum about Lennon’s decision for a few months in order to buy him some
time to make some more lucrative business deals on behalf of the band, royalty
improvements and such that Paul DID take advantage of despite his personal
disdain for Klein.)
Paul’s played
the bad guy, while Yoko has taken the bulk of the blame, ever since. (By the way, I’ve been reading the new “Get
Back” book and I’ve gotta say that I’ve been blown away by how well Paul and
Yoko are getting along here … lots of discussion and business perspective on any number of
issues … and virtually always in agreement.
Reading this, which is all based on actual dialog and conversation recorded at the time, I
wonder how and where John got the impression that Paul was anti-Yoko at the
time. They seemed to agree on virtually
everything that came up during these sessions!) kk
Be prepared
to be Let It Be’d and Get Back’d to death over the next seven weeks or so. Between the release of the “Get Back” book,
the 50th Anniversary Box Set Edition of The Beatles’ “Let It Be”
album and (FINALLY!) the unveiling of the new six hour Peter Jackson film
premiering on Disney+ on Thanksgiving Day (and running for three consecutive
nights in two hour increments), we are going to be overdosing on Beatles Let It
Be music. (Of course, I’m already doing much
the same at home and in the car right now myself, devouring the new deluxe
package … and anxiously awaiting the rerelease of the original “Let It Be” film
along with Jackson’s new footage early next year.)
The Beatles
Channel was all over this on Friday (as you’d expect them to be!) and my guess
is that this music will be the principle focus point for the next several weeks
to come. (Having owned bootleg copies of
nearly all of this material since 1970, I’m already familiar with virtually
everything the new box set has to offer … but it SURE is nice to hear these
songs in pristine condition after all these years!!!)
More focus on
the set and film here … (which also includes a nice mention of FH’s Asia piece
from last week!)
The Glorious Corner –
Times Square Chronicles (t2conline.com)
And this from
Billboard …
What to Expect From The Beatles' 'Let It Be' Reissue (And
'Get Back' Documentary)
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9645326/beatles-let-it-be-deluxe-get-back-giles-martin/
Kent,
You
were in a band once. I don't recall if
you were the lead singer or not. Do you think your voice is as strong as it was
40+ years ago?
You
have criticized Burton Cummings, Brian Wilson and Paul McCartney, 73, 79 and 79
year old men, for having a less than robust voice than they did 50 years ago.
If
you were to put YOUR band back together, do you think you, or anyone else, would
still have the same voice? I think not.
Some
vocalists have to change the key to better suit their vocal range now. However, that may mean losing something on
the high or low notes, as well as the instrumentation you are used to hearing.
I've certainly seen my share of singers whose voices were gone.
There's
something to be said about hanging it up early rather than performing as a
ghost of yourself. More artists should do that.
At
age 71, I'm still out there singing, as I did 50 years ago. Can I still sing as
well as I did?
No.
The
perfect example is I Saw Her Standing There. As Paul does his Little Richard
impression just before the tag line, of “I saw her standing there,” I can no
longer hit that note, although I can still reach the falsetto note on the word “mine.”
You
are right … their best days are behind them. So are mine, so are yours.
However,
I kinda like the idea of a Brian and Paul tour. It would be a great way for
each to be spurred on for a final burst of energy. Same goes for Bruce and
John. Go out on tour, alternate as headliners, have the time of your life and
hang it up.
There
should be a few more double bills like that. How about Styx and the Rolling
Stones? The Styx and Stones tour.
Jack
I’ve gotta tell ya that
I LOVE the idea of a Styx and Stones tour!
(lol)
Hey, since they’re not
doing “Brown Sugar” anymore, maybe they could perform their complete “Black And
Blue” album as a promotional tie-in!!!
To be honest, I can’t
even stand to listen to myself sing now, much less subject anyone else to the
prospect of hearing it. (And, truth be
told, my voice wasn’t all that great 40-50 years ago either!!!)
And that's precisely the point I was trying to
make ... if the artist himself is satisfied with his performance … and that he's out there giving the best that he’s got every night … and, as we can see, he’s still packing them in, leaving fans
satisfied and cheering for more, then I guess I say “Go For It.” I just PERSONALLY don’t want to hear it. I want the memories I already have to
outweigh any new disappointments a show like that might create. I've seen Brian and Paul live in concert at a time when both artists were much more "on their game." I choose NOT to see them now, because I know that, exciting as it might be, I would come away disappointed. That being said, would I go see a Brian and Paul tour? Absolutely! (Assuming I could even get a
ticket to such an event!)
Listen to Elton John …
his voice has been shot for DECADES now!
Yet on that new duet he cut with Stevie Wonder, Stevie’s voice still
sounds great. (And I guarantee you that
isn’t because Elton went in there and tweaked it … not on his own record!!!)
There are several
oldies artists we’ve seen recently who’ve still got their voices. (Tommy James IMMEDIATELY comes to mind …
you’d swear you were stepping back into 1969 when he takes the stage!) And there are many, many others who have
managed to keep theirs up to snuff. (Tommy
Roe and the recently departed BJ Thomas are two others that I would rank in that category.)
And Burton Cummings
always did, too … but his Canadian performance with Randy Bachman was as
shocking as it was disappointing, mainly because Burton has told me personally
many times that he thought he still had a few good years left … and that as
long as his voice held out, he’d continue to do live shows. I was curious if that Canadian show measured
up to his own high standard that he sets for himself. The fact that he posted the concert on his
Facebook page tells me that he was satisfied with it … and that’s good enough
for me. (But again, I’m kinda glad I
didn’t shell out $340 to hear his voice cracking and straining for an hour and
a half!) kk
In an interview sent in
by FH Reader Tom Cuddy, Smokey Robinson talks about his battle with Covid-19 …
and losing HIS voice …
The legendary Motown singer, 81, said it was "touch and
go" after contracting the virus in December and being hospitalized. The
illness also "took my voice," he said, leaving the Grammy winner and
Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductee fearful he'd never sing again.
"I am a COVID survivor," the Miracles singer told Daily Mail. "I got it severely and I was hospitalized
for 11 days — and four or five of those I do not even remember. It really was
touch and go and a terribly debilitating ailment."
Full story here:
Smokey
Robinson, 81, details scary COVID battle: ‘I could’ve died’ (yahoo.com)
The Rolling Stones have
added a date to their No Filter Tour.
Instead of closing in Austin, Texas, on November 20th, The
Stones will now travel down to Hollywood, Florida, to perform an “intimate show”
at The Hard Rock Hotel and Casino on November 23rd. (They’re billing it as The Rolling Stones’ “most
intimate show in more than a decade.”) The
venue only has 7000 seats. (What … The
Arcada Theatre wasn’t available?!?! C’mon,
Ron!!!)
It also provides the
perfect bookends to this year’s tour …
Other than all of the
planned stadium stops, The Stones first broke in their act by doing a private
show for New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft for about 300 friends and
family. Closing the show at The Hard
Rock for a small, intimate group of fans makes for the perfect ending to this
year’s story. (Ironically, the last time
The Stones played Florida was on August 30th, 2019, at Hard Rock
Stadium just outside Miami, which ended the 2019 leg of their No Filter Tour at
the time. Although no one could have
possibly predicted it then, thanks to the worldwide pandemic, this concert proved to be their last live show with
Drummer Charlie Watts. I cannot help but
wonder if THAT helped to influence the location of the venue for the 2021
finale.) kk
The playful sparring
between Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger continued this week when The Rolling
Stones hit L.A. for a couple of shows at So-Fi Stadium in Inglewood,
California.
Pointing out some of
the celebrities in the audience that night (Lady GaGa, Leonardo DiCaprio and
Megan Fox were among those that were there), Jagger said, “Paul
McCartney is here … he's going to help us … he's going to join us in the blues
cover later on.”
The
two have been exchanging jabs for a while now, comparing the merits of both
bands, both in the ‘60’s and beyond.
(While Mick is absolutely right that The Beatles never did stadium tours
around the globe the way The Rolling Stones have, Paul McCartney most certainly
has, drawing record-breaking crowds on numerous occasions. That’s probably the
FAIRER comparison … although AT THE TIME, The Beatles selling out Shea Stadium
was an attendance record that nobody thought would ever be broken ... by 1965 standards
anyway. Who would have ever dreamed that
artists would be performing in front of half a million people plus just a few
years later!!!)
You
can catch Jagger’s dig at McCartney here:
https://mol.im/a/10097355
A read a review of the show, which is posted
here: Rolling
Stones Sound Just as Necessary as Ever at SoFi Stadium: Review - Variety
Kent,
I am a friend of Tom Cuddy's. As I was discussing what I think are Paul
McCartney's silly remarks about the Beatles and The Stones, Tom recommended
your site. I have enjoyed reading from it.
Tom and I met years ago while I was the
Director of Rye Playland and he was at WPLJ. We produced and promoted
many concerts together at the park. And, for the sake of full disclosure, I am
a serious Stones Fan. However, I do think the following assessment is
honest and fair.
McCartney's recent comments about the Stones,
calling them a Blues Cover Band, was seemingly mean-spirited and uncalled for,
especially at this late juncture. Making a bad situation worse, he
goes on to say the Beatles were "better" and had "more reach."
I can't imagine a good reason for this kind of
comparison to be made by an artist who certainly knows better. These
comparisons have been made over the years by fans of either band, all too often
with individual preferences and limited knowledge of music.
McCartney's motivation here is very curious.
As a kid growing up in Brooklyn I regularly
participated in arguments over who was the better baseball player; Mickey
Mantle or Willie Mays.
The comparison was appropriate. They
were both baseball players and outfielders as well as exciting hitters.
There was only one way to play baseball. It was a true comparison of like
actors. The comparison of the Beatles
and the Stones fails this test. While it is true they are all artists and
create music, the comparison ends there.
There are many ways to write, create and
play music. Music has many genres, each distinctively different, even while
sometimes borrowing from each other. These
two bands were distinctively different overall in the kinds of music
played as well as the manner in which it was often created. This
comparison argument is best not had at all or at least should never have
been elevated by a member of the Beatles or the Stones.
There certainly is no argument about the
significance of the Beatles and their music. When Paul talks about
their "reach," it is a most credible statement. They did
stretch the bounds of Rock Music and did take it to new places. They did this probably more significantly
than anyone else (Don't want to start a time period argument about them and
Elvis or anyone else in this regard.)
What exactly is their music? Certainly
in the beginning, they played Rock ‘n’ Roll. As time went on, their music
became somewhat cute and could be called Pop. Eventually, the
music became transformative as it took Rock (usually without much of the roll)
into new places and with new influences.
This is where they staked their ground as innovators and made their
stake of greatness. So, when Paul talks about "reach" he has a
point. However, it is insignificant to his statement as to which
band is better.
The Beatles were a studio band more so than
anything else. We all saw, and enjoyed, brief performances on the Ed
Sullivan Show, other television opportunities and even at Shea Stadium. They
were ever present in the press, mainstream and music. They were entertaining
and later controversial and thought provoking in interviews. Individually
and as a group, they commanded an influential place in the newly claimed
freedom and culture of their generation. Does that make them musically
better than the Stones or anyone else? No.
True, Rock ‘n’ Roll is derived from the blues
and country music. The Stones are rock ‘n’ roll purists paying homage to
blues artists in their music as well as by promoting these artists whenever
possible. The Blues and Rock ‘n’ Roll are native American Art forms. The
Stones have taken these roots and influences and weaved them together into
their own brand of hard driving music. They are not called The
Greatest Rock ‘n’ Roll Band for nothing. Although now I'm not
trying to start any other arguments concerning any opinions about other bands
wanting to claim that crown, while I am inclined to believe it has the
potential to be yet another silly argument.
McCartney's characterization of the
Stones being a blues cover band was needlessly
provocative while ignoring the roots of Rock ‘n’ Roll. In fact,
it's ignorant, if he actually believes it.
I don't think he is ignorant, so one must wonder what this is all
about.
In contrast to the Beatles, the Stones have
always been a touring band. They have always been a Rock ‘n’ Roll
band. Even now, at their advanced ages, they continue to pack stadiums
and excite crowds across the world. They, too, commanded a unique place among their generation
as symbols of rebellion and newly claimed political and sexual freedoms.
They, too, were influential, interesting and provocative in interviews.
Like the Beatles, their music has made a lasting impression on
American culture. However, they aren't the same as the Beatles just as the
Beatles aren't the same as the Stones.
This is not Mantle and Mays.
My point in all of this is that
comparisons of both bands with the purpose of crowning one as superior to
the other were never made on a level playing field. While both are culturally
important then and even now, the bands are fundamentally different.
While their music is equally enjoyed, it is different. Their approach to creating and presenting
their music is not the same. These
arguments and discussions should be left to casual coffee table conversation.
People will entertain themselves. This discussion is just
inappropriate in a public space and surprisingly ugly when
between artists. Above all I believe that any comparison of art or artist
in any form with the ultimate aim to decide which is better, is simply a
false comparison. Comparisons of this type between the Stones and the
Beatles are old, tired and never had merit.
By the way, if you're wondering ... my money
was on The Mick!
Thanks for your patience in reading this!
Joe
Joe Montalto, President
High Mountain
Enterprises, LLC
Sounds to me like you were betting on “The Mick” in both examples!!! (lol)
The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles argument has been a Fans Battle
since the beginning of time … but the simple truth is that other than hailing
from Great Britain and being heavily influenced by the American Rock And Roll Scene
of the ‘50’s, the two bands have very little in common. (Wasn’t the whole concept and marketing strategy from the very
beginning for The Rolling Stones to be the Anti-Beatles??? Brian Epstein put The Fab Four in suits and
had them playing ballrooms while The Stones deliberately dressed grubby and
unkempt and concentrated on a grittier, bluesier sound.)
The Beatles may have started out as a rock and roll band … and even
done exceptionally well in this regard when performing in Hamburg … but even
then it wasn’t at all unusual for them to slip in a show tune like Paul singing
“Till There Was You” between their passion for Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry and
Elvis Presley tunes.
The Rolling Stones were big Chuck Berry fans, too … and probably
better exemplified Berry’s intentions … everything The Beatles did just sounded
so “cleaned up.” (Don’t get me wrong …
in response to your full disclosure, I will admit to being much more of a
Beatles fan than a Stones fan … and believe that a big part of their appeal was
due to some pretty sophisticated marketing.)
That being said, there really is no comparison in the diversity of
either band’s songwriting capability.
You knew from the first three notes that you were hearing a Rolling
Stones song … while with The Beatles, it could have been any style or genre that
they were interpreting or inventing that made each song sound so new, fresh and unique. (The Rolling Stones were much more of a
riff-oriented band … and man, they had some GREAT ones … in most cases, Keith’s
guitar part defined and dictated the song. Now The Beatles came up with some great opening guitar bits as well … “I
Feel Fine,” “Ticket To Ride,” “Day Tripper,” “Paperback Writer” … but nothing
quite as revolutionary and attention grabbing as things like “Satisfaction,” “Brown
Sugar,” “Start Me Up,” “Honky Tonk Women” and “Jumpin’ Jack Flash.”)
The Beatles seemed to be able to write in any style, incorporating
strings and horns where needed, courtesy of the tuneful ear of their producer,
George Martin. The Stones seemed to find
a niche that worked for them and then stuck with it (very successfully, I might
add!) for the next six decades. Even today,
when you go to these stadium shows, you know that Richards and the rest of the
band are going to keep things movin’ and groovin’ throughout their two hour
set.
And let’s not forget that it was The Beatles (well, Lennon and
McCartney anyway) that gave The Stones their first British hit when they
recorded what The Beatles also recorded as a Ringo tune, “I Wanna Be Your Man.” Once that happened, producer / manager Andrew
Loog Oldham locked Mick and Keith in a room and told them they weren’t coming
out until they had written their first song.
(Incredibly, the strategy worked … they emerged several hours later with
“As Tears Go By,” a tune they first gave to Marianne Faithfull before recording
it themselves as a rare, early career ballad.)
There’ve been debates after debates … even a traveling stage show
where they debate the merits of both bands on stage … and now that Paul’s doing
a bit of Stones-bashing (all in good fun, ‘tho, I would imagine), Mick’s firing
back. And Mick’s right … The Beatles
weren’t around long enough to do a stadium tour, much less keep up that pace
for another fifty years! But McCartney
has … and I’ve got to rank him right up there with Mick and the rest of the
boys in that regard … which kinda makes the whole thing a moot point anyway,
doesn’t it?
Back in the day, John Lennon accused The Stones of doing everything
The Beatles did, a few months later … and there was a certain degree of truth
to that. The Beatles used a sitar on “Norwegian
Wood” so The Stones quickly built “Paint It, Black” around a sitar riff. The Beatles went to India so The Rolling
Stones went to India. The Beatles recorded
“All You Need Is Love” so The Stones recorded “We Love You.” The Fabs included a nod to The Rolling Stones
on their “Sgt. Pepper” album cover so the Stones put those flashing Beatles-face
buttons on their “On Their Satanic Majesties Request” LP. The Beatles started their own record company
and, a couple of years later, The Rolling Stones started THEIR own record company
… and I am sure there are several others that could be brought up in the
context of this argument. (About the
only thing The Rolling Stones did first was to make their way thru the Allen
Klein curve before three of the Fab Four were sucked into his clutches.)
But I’m not here to argue … nor do I want to. It’s Apples (ooo … another Beatles
reference!) and Oranges as far as I’m concerned. The Rolling Stones have LONG been considered
to be The World’s Greatest Rock And Roll Band … and it’s a distinction that is
well deserved. (Thanks to the constant,
repeated airplay of “Miss You,” even some 43 years later, they’re probably most likely The World’s Greatest Disco Band, too!!!)
Both bands stand alone on their own merits … different enough not
to warrant any further comparisons as far as I’m concern. (But people SURE do like to argue about
this!!!)
That being said, I would have to agree with Paul that The Beatles
have the much stronger catalog … virtually every track they ever released on
every album and every single was A-List material … and is familiar to MILLIONS
around the world. With The Stones, you
know the instantly recognizable hits … and at least a couple dozen of the most famous and obvious album tracks … but beyond that, there simply isn’t enough strength and
substance to warrant a comparison. (Let’s
face it … how many artists covered … and are still covering … Jagger and Richards
Rolling Stones songs??? In this category
alone, The Beatles blow them away.)
Rolling Stones songs are written for The Rolling Stones to sing … period
… while Beatles songs have been successfully interpreted into every style of
music known to man … so again, this point has to go to The Beatles.
Did anybody EVER think that Mick Jagger would still be prancing
around the stage at the age of 80? (Or
even 50 for that matter!!!) Crashing
bachelorette parties and singing karaoke at a country bar? Or still selling out HUGE venues in a matter
of minutes? Of course not.
