Ian Anderson and the Beatles |
Post Reply | Page <1234 7> |
Author | |||
questionsneverknown
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 22 2009 Location: Ultima Thule Status: Offline Points: 602 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
To echo what others have already said, this isn't a surprise to me at all. My sisters were 'of age' in the 1960s, and were utter Stones fans, and indifferent at best to The Beatles. For them, part of that might have been due them being able to see the Stones a number of times at the Ricky-Tick in Windsor.
In that period, it really was a question of which are you: a Stones fan or a Beatles fan? In our era of everything being available and somewhat equal, this seems bizarre. However, even as a teen in the 1980s, I remember being hassled constantly about liking punk and prog. Punk friends made fun of my 'hippy' records and my hippy friends made fun of my punk records. Which side are you on?! For what it's worth, one of my sisters said it wasn't until the 1980s or even later that she realised that the Beatles were a good band, and not just the vapid teenyboppers she assumed at the time.
|
|||
The damage that we do is just so powerfully strong we call it love
The damage that we do just goes on and on and on but not long enough. --Robyn Hitchcock |
|||
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20477 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
CCR was a great band (on my list of excellent bands) but by the by the time they recorded their first LP in 68 both the Beatles and Stones had been in the studio making great music for over 4 years. To say they weren't somewhat influenced by the Beatles and Stones would probably not be true..... and to say that LP was 'way ahead' of anything by the other 2 famous bands is exaggeration at it's finest. ;)
|
|||
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||
Rednight
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 18 2014 Location: Mar Vista, CA Status: Offline Points: 4807 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Yeah, John Lennon started to make it known that he didn't like the Beatles around 1966. Pete Townshend once said that he and his bandmates found the Beatles laughable.
|
|||
"It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno
|
|||
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20477 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Regarding Anderson...that doesn't surprise me either .....the first 3 Tull Lp's were gritty and rocked out at times with plenty of blues influence.
I watched that interview when it came out....sadly I can't even recall that.....it's hell to get old. ;)
|
|||
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20477 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
That might be true but Townsend also said he never really liked Led Zep either......really? Zep certainly wasn't laughable. Seems to me Pete had some ego problems that he couldn't resolve even with his dabbling in eastern religions. ;) btw...I'm a Who fan.
|
|||
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||
Squonk19
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 03 2015 Location: Darlington, UK Status: Offline Points: 4712 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Any mention of old Rory gets my respect! Back on the subject - I always preferred The Beatles over the Stones when I was younger, but I now appreciate both in different ways. Still have a problem with old Rubber Lips prancing around a stage to this day - but that says more about me, I suppose! |
|||
“Living in their pools, they soon forget about the sea.”
|
|||
YESESIS
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 26 2017 Location: Maine Status: Offline Points: 2215 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
The Beatles are definitely one of my favorite bands. Abbey Road is my favorite album by them, all time classic without question. Never been a huge Tull fan.
|
|||
silverpot
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: March 19 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 841 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Right, I forgot about that one. He's also a lovely guy to listen to.
|
|||
moshkito
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 16175 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Hi,
I thought that his comment on "everything that can be done in rock music has been done" (might be paraphrased some!), is probably a lot more important than the comment about the Beatles and the Stones. I went from Portugal and Brazil and then to America in 1965, and both of those were great for me, and we had the LP's, but when I got here and listened to Bob Dylan, Paul Butterfield, Peter Paul and Mary, Simon and Garfunkel, the taste for the two big ones went down a lot. I got it back in the White Album and Abbey Road, but I was also missing the fine Brazilian folk/jazz scene at the time. By 1969, I already had been into Hendrix, Janis, Jim M, Procol Harum, Moody Blues ... and many others, at which time/place the importance of the Beatles and Stones went to the toilet ... they were no longer the most important material out there and there were many folks that spoke out a lot better for many of us and what we were all about in Madison, WI. For me the Beatles died when they showed their ugly moments and faces in one of the most valuable films EVER done ... LET IT BE ... where the title song, even asks you to forget it and let it die, so to speak. I love the film, and its importance as a document, but most of all because it demystified the Beatles, which was needed and important. Ian, lived though all that, and I think that he got tired of the road, all the shows, and eventual break down in communication with various band members, which did not exactly hurt the band, but for me it was over after MINSTREL IN THE GALLERY, which the audience did not like, and immediately went back to play his first "hit". At that point, it is no surprise to me, if Ian does say something that appears cross with most rock music, but I think his criticisms, were mostly "asides" to the music business than they were about rock music ... since he still had a rock band at the time, and was still doing music with it. That part never went.
|
|||
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|||
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17501 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Wow....every time I have mention my dislike of the fab four for pretty much all the reasons stated here, as well as other reasons, I was labeled a musical lunatic.
Well.....welcome to my club, the best one in PA!!!!
|
|||
|
|||
Progosopher
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 12 2009 Location: Coolwood Status: Offline Points: 6394 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
There was a time during my earlier teens years when I disliked the Beatles. That changed by the time I was 19 and I have been a big fan ever since. It has only been in the last few years that I have gotten into the Stones. I also used to disparage the Blues a lot but now I totally dig it and it is a significant part of my overall music collection. Maybe it was an appreciation of the Blues that led to an appreciation for the Stones. Every band and artist can be laughed at one way or another, at one time or another. And yeah, Rory Gallagher really rocks. The Blues turns out to be quite flexible, but then it has always been more about individual interpretation than technical skill (although that helps, too).
|
|||
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"
|
|||
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 17 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2601 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Always thought The Beatles were a product of their time. They were
accepted as being "white clean and neat" playing country music and had
nothing to do with "race" records, payola and what was the disappearance
of rock and roll. They were safe (culturally) for a world that had yet
to get the Pill, pot and porn in suitable payloads. The Stones
went older, blues - and heaven knows what would have happened had it
been them playing Shea Stadium instead; if they had been first to
America rather than the Beatles. As it was they were booed for playing
blues but still ploughed on. They both
made pretty good albums from '67 onward (although the White Album for me
was maybe 4 tracks and a shed load of B sides). Beggar's Banquet had a
cohesion and consistency (being largely acoustic all the way) and only
having Jack Flash versus Hey Jude. And Let It Bleed is stunning where
let It Be can't even keep it's best song (Don't Bring me Down) on every
edition. Thankfully Abbey Road was their final attempt and a successful
one at making a rock album in more modern terms. The
Beatles had lost direction. They needed their mentors Epstein to
control their business and Martin to control the audio production. Mick
and Keith might be a couple of hard evil beggars but they were mentally a
lot stronger and drove their band well. Still, they both fell foul of
Allen Klein, someone really nasty in a world of nasty people. The
Stones got themselves superstar guitarist Mick Taylor who was their
Beck / Clapton / Page and somehow muddled their way into making a series
of great albums a that late 60s early 70s crucial time in rock. The Stones returned to playing - technology gave rock bands the PA system. The
Beatles were old school pop and probably did themselves a favour by not
appearing along with the nascent heavy and prog scenes. The Stones
could go off track live and did in later years but they had enough great
songs (their 60s forte) and great albums (late 60s 70s forte) and ...
still tour... |
|||
SteveG
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
^ I think that labeling the fabs as old school pop does them a disservice as the Beatles were always changing and evolving. Darker themed albums like White Album and Let it Be certainly don't fit that description and Abbey Road runs the spectrum from pop to heavy to prog.
|
|||
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|||
Jeffro
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 29 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 2040 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Exactly. You can't easily categorize the Beatles.
|
|||
The.Crimson.King
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 29 2013 Location: WA Status: Offline Points: 4591 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||
I've found most people that minimize the Beatles impact weren't there to experience it first hand. Even if you hated the Beatles, you couldn't deny their influence if you lived through the 60's. Sure, they were hardly the only innovative 60's band, but they literally changed the world kicking down too many doors to count
|
|||
Fischman
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 21 2018 Location: Colorado, USA Status: Offline Points: 1600 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
This only confirms what I’ve always suspected; that Ian Anderson is a man of great taste and
integrity. |
|||
dr prog
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 25 2010 Location: Melbourne Status: Offline Points: 2448 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Beatles weren’t that good and Stones were crap
|
|||
All I like is prog related bands beginning late 60's/early 70's. Their music from 1968 - 83 has the composition and sound which will never be beaten. Perfect blend of jazz, classical, folk and rock.
|
|||
Tero1
Forum Groupie Joined: August 24 2018 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 64 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Well I can see how the genres were worlds apart. The Stones had some blues type of songs, but The Beatles by 1970 was pretty much pop, whereas the first Tull album was blues jazz and all kinds of things rolled in.
Tull was also more connected to some English folky stuff. I think, though, Anderson and McCartney were both quite similar in approach to music, intuitive. The Beatles were not really much in the progressive era, and McCartney went exactly the opposite direction in his solo career. None of this prevents me from liking Thick as A Brick and Ram...well, not equally, but both are favorites. Ram follows the simple times of the Beatles.
|
|||
Dellinger
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: June 18 2009 Location: Mexico Status: Offline Points: 12608 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I do like the Beatles... much more than the Stones, actually. But they are far from being my favourite band, and it's been difficult for me to understand their mythic reputation. Now I guess I understand it better.
|
|||
Mortte
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 11 2016 Location: Finland Status: Offline Points: 5538 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
Post Reply | Page <1234 7> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |