Biggest Debate in Rock N Roll History ?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Goats Head Soup has Silver Train...Wild Honey has Here Comes the Night....Wild Honey has Let the Wind Blow (which is awesome) and Goats Head Soup has Dancing with Mr. D (one of the greatest stones songs ever)
So Goats Head Soup totally takes the cake on this one.

I'm glad you like it. Personally, I'd put Wild Honey in with the 20 greatest albums of the 20th Century. I don't think Goats would fall into the top 100. But again, that's just my personal opinion.

[pixletwin]

I love Wild Honey and Smiley Smile but referring to them as masterworks is pretty funny  

If Their Satanic Majesties and Goat's Head Soup are masterworks than Wild Honey is the f***ing Sistine Chapel of music.

Amen...

Really though I think it's a much fairer fight to pit The Stones against The Beach Boys. That being said, TBB still win by a long run.

By a long run? WTF! That's not accurate at all!
You're being so biased!

Biased? I grew up loving the stones. I still love their 64-68 period. But the Beach Boys at their peak totally kill any claim the Stones could have. For every 1 awesome Stones track you can pin 3 or 4 Beach Boys track which best them from the same period. But in the end it's just a matter of opinion, rather than bias. It's a distinction I have noticed you have some difficulty with.

[Newguy562]

Goats Head Soup has Silver Train...Wild Honey has Here Comes the Night....Wild Honey has Let the Wind Blow (which is awesome) and Goats Head Soup has Dancing with Mr. D (one of the greatest stones songs ever)
So Goats Head Soup totally takes the cake on this one.

I'm glad you like it. Personally, I'd put Wild Honey in with the 20 greatest albums of the 20th Century. I don't think Goats would fall into the top 100. But again, that's just my personal opinion.

What I like about Wild Honey is it's the Beach Boys Motown album (full of soul) and it has a specific sound that distinguishes it from all the other 60's BB albums..
I love the cover art too..its definitely in my top 5 BB albums...

[Ron]

The biggest debate in Rock n Roll history is  ..Who's the best Beatles or Rolling Stones?
Well for me that's like picking your father or mother but out of these albums which do you prefer?


Rubber Soul vs. Aftermath
Revolver vs. Between the Buttons
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band vs. Their Satanic Majesties Request
Magical Mystery Tour vs. Beggars Banquet
White Album vs. Let it Bleed
Abbey Road vs. Sticky Fingers
Let It Be vs. Exile on Main St.

It's all subjective, I would choose the Beach Boys but I think a popular poll would choose the Beatles over and over again, over any other band.  The Stones aren't even close in most people's eyes.  I think many polls would actually chose the Beach Boys over the Stones, but that's just me.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I think you'd consistantly see bands like AC/DC and even Led Zeppelin chosen over the Stones as well.  I think they're great, but popular opinion?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

What I like about Wild Honey is it's the Beach Boys Motown album (full of soul) and it has a specific sound that distinguishes it from all the other 60's BB albums..
I love the cover art too..its definitely in my top 5 BB albums...

It is certainly different. I've heard the "Motown" description and I get it, but I'm not sure I'm totally on board. As a huge Motown enthusiast, I don't see the similarity in sound. Motown got their sounds down to an art. You can tell right away when you're hearing something by Holland-Dozier-Holland or a track written by Smokey, or a Stevie song. I really don't see Wild Honey tapping into that at all - nor do they tap into the Atlantic/Stax sound for that matter. There is some soul influence though, which to me, puts this album more in line with stuff like Midnight Confessions by The Grass Roots, Baby Now That I Found You by the Foundations, Judy in Disguise, which came out around the same time.

[Newguy562]

I love Wild Honey and Smiley Smile but referring to them as masterworks is pretty funny  

If Their Satanic Majesties and Goat's Head Soup are masterworks than Wild Honey is the f***ing Sistine Chapel of music.

Amen...

Really though I think it's a much fairer fight to pit The Stones against The Beach Boys. That being said, TBB still win by a long run.

By a long run? WTF! That's not accurate at all!
You're being so biased!

Biased? I grew up loving the stones. I still love their 64-68 period. But the Beach Boys at their peak totally kill any claim the Stones could have. For every 1 awesome Stones track you can pin 3 or 4 Beach Boys track which best them from the same period. But in the end it's just a matter of opinion, rather than bias. It's a distinction I have noticed you have some difficulty with.

The stones were great from 1966-1981 the beach boys at their peak are better than any other group at their peak and that's the truth. The horrible thing about it all was the boys had no longevity once Brian lost it :/ their music started becoming worse as the years went by.

[Ron]

RockandRoll, I think those comparisons are accurate.  It's not Motown, and not even what i'd call "Blue eyed Soul"... it's kind of an A.M. radio sound that grooves, maybe we should invent a term for it?  

BTW when I was a kid 'Midnight Confessions' was one of my favorite songs.  I'm talking about the 80's!  I found a bunch of records in a house we moved into, and that was my favorite of all of them.  I listened to it over and over again, really had no idea what the song was about though... but the soul in it was attractive to me.  So maybe there is a term for all that.  

[pixletwin]

The stones were great from 1966-1981 the beach boys at their peak are better than any other group at their peak and that's the truth. The horrible thing about it all was the boys had no longevity once Brian lost it :/ their music started becoming worse as the years went by.

I agree with the middle of your statement. If it were an Oreo cookie, I would devour the frosting and toss the cookie away.  

[Newguy562]

The stones were great from 1966-1981 the beach boys at their peak are better than any other group at their peak and that's the truth. The horrible thing about it all was the boys had no longevity once Brian lost it :/ their music started becoming worse as the years went by.

I agree with the middler of your statement. If it were an Orea cookie, I would devour the frosting and toss the cookie away.   

haaaaaaaaa ..the 2nd half of it is true too right?

[Newguy562]

Goats Head Soup has Silver Train...Wild Honey has Here Comes the Night....Wild Honey has Let the Wind Blow (which is awesome) and Goats Head Soup has Dancing with Mr. D (one of the greatest stones songs ever)
So Goats Head Soup totally takes the cake on this one.

I'm glad you like it. Personally, I'd put Wild Honey in with the 20 greatest albums of the 20th Century. I don't think Goats would fall into the top 100. But again, that's just my personal opinion.

Well Daft Punk loves Wild Honey too their earlier name was "Darlin" because of the beach boys song

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It's all subjective, I would choose the Beach Boys but I think a popular poll would choose the Beatles over and over again, over any other band.  The Stones aren't even close in most people's eyes.  I think many polls would actually chose the Beach Boys over the Stones, but that's just me.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I think you'd consistantly see bands like AC/DC and even Led Zeppelin chosen over the Stones as well.  I think they're great, but popular opinion?

Yeah. I remember a few years ago when a whole room full of people were astounded that I preferred the Stones over Queen.

The reason why this Beatles v. Stones thing persists is because they were the two biggest Brit bands in the 60s, when taking account of success both in England and America. It was a rivalry between fans more than anything - The Beatles were positioned as good boys while the Stones were positioned as bad boys. The rivalry was not really a pairing of singles or albums (though there was some of that) but also a pairing of aesthetic, style, behavior, mannerism, class, etc. One did comedy movies while the others were staunch adherents to the Muddy Waters/John Lee Hooker mythology.

And in fact, we're well beyond that now. The Beatles went on to become something in the public imagination that they weren't in the 60s, and same with the Stones. But for some reason people still latch onto the debate, giving it a meaning now that it never had when it was first created.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

RockandRoll, I think those comparisons are accurate.  It's not Motown, and not even what i'd call "Blue eyed Soul"... it's kind of an A.M. radio sound that grooves, maybe we should invent a term for it?  

I think your description suggests we're onto something - Groove Pop? Sunshine Soul? I'll let you have a second go at it.

BTW when I was a kid 'Midnight Confessions' was one of my favorite songs.  I'm talking about the 80's!  I found a bunch of records in a house we moved into, and that was my favorite of all of them.  I listened to it over and over again, really had no idea what the song was about though... but the soul in it was attractive to me.  So maybe there is a term for all that.  

Me too! Same time period. I think it was on a compilation cassette that my dad got at a gas station. It had a lot of pop stuff from the late 60s on it - Marvin Gaye's I Heard it Through the Grapevine, Diana Ross's Ain't No Mountain, Steppenwolf's Magic Carpet Ride, etc.

[Ron]

To risk sounding racist, the songs are great but the reason they're not soul is that they're not 'dark' enough.  When a soul singer like Aretha or Sam Cooke or whatever sings, you FEEL it.  I mean you know that they're singing about things that started before they were even born.  Aretha sings about loving a man, she's singing about the way she feels, and the way her ancestors feel somehow.  Hard to explain.  I'm white, maybe I can't. 

It's not necessarily a race thing, I've seen plenty of white people who sing with soul and would give ReRe a run for her money.   

Midnight Confessions, "Wild Honey", "Judy In Disguise", ... it has soul, but it's just not as deep.  It's hard to explain but you can hear it, it's not that they're faking it. 

I'd LOVE to ask Aretha Franklin her opinion on that. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

To risk sounding racist, the songs are great but the reason they're not soul is that they're not 'dark' enough.  When a soul singer like Aretha or Sam Cooke or whatever sings, you FEEL it.  I mean you know that they're singing about things that started before they were even born.  Aretha sings about loving a man, she's singing about the way she feels, and the way her ancestors feel somehow.  Hard to explain.  I'm white, maybe I can't. 

It's not necessarily a race thing, I've seen plenty of white people who sing with soul and would give ReRe a run for her money.   

Midnight Confessions, "Wild Honey", "Judy In Disguise", ... it has soul, but it's just not as deep.  It's hard to explain but you can hear it, it's not that they're faking it. 

I'd LOVE to ask Aretha Franklin her opinion on that. 

Haha - I may not have put it EXACTLY that way but I do agree with you. Some people came close to achieving that sound. Not sure if you've heard much of their stuff but I thought that Zoot Money's Big Roll Band from the 60s did a not bad job of getting that feeling. I can't find a full version of their cover of James Brown's I'll Go Crazy for some reason but here's a slice of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XcNqaYe8xc

In fact, I think there's something to the fact that the people who really understood the feel of old blues and soul were impoverished working class British boys rather than their counterparts in the States, which at that same time was going through a period of unparalleled prosperity.

Music is, of course, a key component of any culture and cultural identity and I think it also informs your sensibilities from a very young age. People like Aretha Franklin and Sam Cooke were inevitably inundated with things like the early 1920s and 1930s blues and, of course, Gospel, that people like the Wilsons and The Grass Roots, etc weren't exposed to to such a degree.  And, as a result, it would be impossible for them to capture that sound in any authentic way - it just wasn't in their bones.

Fortunately, you're right, things like Darlin' and Midnight Confessions aren't fake because there's almost an awareness that they can't do what Otis Redding does and so they bring their own sensibilities to it.

[Ron]

Yes.  Carl Wilson had his own bullshit in his childhood, so he knows ups and downs too... but still, he grew up in Hawthorne.  He's likely as soulfull as it gets in Hawthorne.  Aretha was born in a 1 room shack... and half the people she met in her childhood thought she was inferior because of it.  When she sings about something that hurts her, or something that inspires her, it's likely coming from a whole different place than Carl's ever visited.   It doesn't make Carl's soul any less valid.

I agree with the british comparison too.  It's similar to the gangsta rap phenomenon, 90% of NWA/Dr.Dre fans were white kids living in the suburbs!  The british/soul connection was much more natural, but it's strange how music can speak to different groups of people depending on how and where they were raised.


I'll check out the Zoot Money stuff. 

[I. Spaceman]

The stones were great from 1966-1981 the beach boys at their peak are better than any other group at their peak and that's the truth. The horrible thing about it all was the boys had no longevity once Brian lost it :/ their music started becoming worse as the years went by.

The Rolling Stones were great well before 1966. They did blankety-blank SATISFACTION before that, fer cripes sakes.

[MyGlove]

Newguy, at what point would you say Brian lost it?

[Newguy562]

The stones were great from 1966-1981 the beach boys at their peak are better than any other group at their peak and that's the truth. The horrible thing about it all was the boys had no longevity once Brian lost it :/ their music started becoming worse as the years went by.

The Rolling Stones were great well before 1966. They did blankety-blank SATISFACTION before that, fer cripes sakes.

I'm speaking as far as albums go

[Newguy562]

Newguy, at what point would you say Brian lost it?

well he never lost his talent but sanity i would say around smile era(obvious) he started to really crack but in his music it really seemed like he was straight. it's weird how he could be so strange personality wise but musically gifted..that's a god given gift..

[Ron]

I'm getting to the point where I want to blame it more on bad management and decisions, than "Brian's Crazy".  I mean sh*t the stones had a guy die and went on to bigger and better things. 

That the entire world doesn't cherish "I Can Hear Music" and songs like that is a failure of management, not of creativity or artistic direction... which was what Brian would have brought to the table if he was around more. 

[Newguy562]

I'm getting to the point where I want to blame it more on bad management and decisions, than "Brian's Crazy".  I mean sh*t the stones had a guy die and went on to bigger and better things. 

That the entire world doesn't cherish "I Can Hear Music" and songs like that is a failure of management, not of creativity or artistic direction... which was what Brian would have brought to the table if he was around more. 

there are so many gems after pet sounds that were amazing! that showed the boys still had it in them...
til i die,do it again,i can hear music(great cover),let the wind blow,passing by,busy doin nothin,be with me,this whole world...(man there is so many i can name!)

[Chocolate Shake Man]

well he never lost his talent but sanity i would say around smile era(obvious) he started to really crack

Here's my counter-argument: around the smile era, Brian didn't lose single iota of his sanity and I don't find any suggestion that he did to be obvious in the slightest.

[I. Spaceman]

The stones were great from 1966-1981 the beach boys at their peak are better than any other group at their peak and that's the truth. The horrible thing about it all was the boys had no longevity once Brian lost it :/ their music started becoming worse as the years went by.

The Rolling Stones were great well before 1966. They did blankety-blank SATISFACTION before that, fer cripes sakes.

I'm speaking as far as albums go

Albums aren't the be-all and end-all of rock and roll. And even then, The Rolling Stones Now! is one of the greatest rock albums ever.

[Newguy562]

The stones were great from 1966-1981 the beach boys at their peak are better than any other group at their peak and that's the truth. The horrible thing about it all was the boys had no longevity once Brian lost it :/ their music started becoming worse as the years went by.

The Rolling Stones were great well before 1966. They did blankety-blank SATISFACTION before that, fer cripes sakes.

I'm speaking as far as albums go

Albums aren't the be-all and end-all of rock and roll. And even then, The Rolling Stones Now! is one of the greatest rock albums ever.

that's true ...there's too many covers on that album

[Ron]

I never was an album guy.  I think it's because I generally prefer to listen to music in my car; and still enjoy listening to the radio.  So I guess I was conditioned (from a young age) to hear a mix of songs, not to hear 10 or 12 songs in a row by the same band.  A nice single is much more impressive to me than what album it's on (with notable exceptions).  "Beast of Burden" transcends whatever album it was on, I would have no clue... but would argue all night long on how great that song is.