tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post8826735247344982188..comments2024-03-28T10:37:48.564-04:00Comments on PowerPop: Some Girls Week: Monday Battle of the BandsNYMaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10863355110457910935noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-51056572279902007132011-12-03T12:28:39.977-05:002011-12-03T12:28:39.977-05:00I never thought about breaking it down like this u...I never thought about breaking it down like this until Dave's comment about the rhythm section, but here goes:<br /><br />Charlie and Ringo are pretty evenly matched as excellent timekeepers with style, but Ringo sings, and writes songs, and is a star in his own right.<br /><br />Bill is a perfectly good bass player, but Paul sings, writes, and never had his bass taken away and played by Keith ("Live With Me").<br /><br />John and Brian were both competent rhythm players, and even though Brian played lots of instruments (including sax on "You Know My name Look Up The Number"), John sang, wrote, and never got fired.<br /><br />George and Keith are kind of a draw. <br /><br />Mick prances and plays harp better than any of the Beatles.<br /><br />Beatles win.buzzbabyjesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09375127662096374324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-20778882443544905152011-12-02T10:22:51.150-05:002011-12-02T10:22:51.150-05:00Didn't I see this exact post a few days before...Didn't I see this exact post a few days before yours on Willard Wormholes ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-85514737096722066372011-11-29T01:29:24.358-05:002011-11-29T01:29:24.358-05:00I lurve both bands naturally, The Beatles foremost...I lurve both bands naturally, The Beatles foremost. The Beatles were smooth and The Stones gritty. Both bands chose their covers somewhat unwisely. They had to have filler until they came into their own as good (or great) songwriters.<br /><br />As for the cover of Carol, as Sal said, it's just a Chuck Berry song which the stones tended to cover all the way through their career, mostly Live. My personal fave version is the Live version from Ya Ya's. That one cooks.FD13NYChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14964671671960423199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-10225299432803321902011-11-28T18:45:37.635-05:002011-11-28T18:45:37.635-05:00"The barbers are starving..." Those Roll..."The barbers are starving..." Those Rolling Stones could have played the borscht belt.<br /><br />This is like asking which 1940s bluegrass act did the best version of a Carter Family tune. Seems like every Brit Invasion band <i>had</i> to do the Chuck Berry bit to be in the corps. Prefer the Beatles 'cause they sound like they want me to enjoy the song as much as they do. That nasal throaty voice of Lennon seals the deal for me.<br /><br />APAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-72179178656982004532011-11-28T18:13:45.384-05:002011-11-28T18:13:45.384-05:00Honestly, neither version is great. Lennon sounds ...Honestly, neither version is great. Lennon sounds like he's forcing the vocals, unlike say, the balls he shows on "Leave My Kitten Alone." And the Stones version is just your standard Chuck Berry cover. Neither really shows what either band could do.<br /><br />Overall, I take The Beatles. There are just too many lousy songs on the first 4-5 Stones records.Sal Nunziatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09221629293545204260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-191747467607413072011-11-28T16:52:05.146-05:002011-11-28T16:52:05.146-05:00I prefer the sound of the Beatle version, but I lo...I prefer the sound of the Beatle version, but I love the video of the Stones on the Mike Douglas show with the old guy guests sitting with Douglas, the conversation about hair, the front row of screaming girls...especially the one in the mod hat.<br /><br />Of course, most of the "old" guys were probably younger then than I am now...Elroynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-82865424843463728282011-11-28T16:11:46.882-05:002011-11-28T16:11:46.882-05:00The problem with the Stones version is that the wa...<i>The problem with the Stones version is that the way it's miked,</i><br /><br />Respectfully, the problem with the Stones version is the way it's <b>Mick-ed</b>.<br /><br /><br />One man's <i>sly</i> is another man's "obvious, overblown, artless."<br /><br /><br /><br />Gimme Liverpool o'er London this time around. . . .mister muleboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14367123802128879318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-34508896680181184542011-11-28T14:50:48.815-05:002011-11-28T14:50:48.815-05:00The problem with the Stones version is that the wa...The problem with the Stones version is that the way it's miked, all you can hear is Brian's rhythm guitar.steve simelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13247393763004076992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-24151988749266085612011-11-28T13:36:47.683-05:002011-11-28T13:36:47.683-05:00apparently, the beatles/stones debate is not resol...apparently, the beatles/stones debate is not resolvable within the first 50 years, as to my ears, the stones version is obviously superior. i think mick's not dorky at all, but quite sly; lennon is a better vocalist overall, but i'm not sure he's a better vocalist for chuck berry tunes.big bad wolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-54316786973521942942011-11-28T12:11:18.144-05:002011-11-28T12:11:18.144-05:00Fabs. People forget that before John Lennon was a ...Fabs. People forget that before John Lennon was a hippie burnout he was England's first great white R&B singer. So much color and subtlety. At this point Jagger's a dorky imitation.petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-64722011825196414072011-11-28T09:42:02.153-05:002011-11-28T09:42:02.153-05:00I go with the Fabs, too, 'cept that Mick's...I go with the Fabs, too, 'cept that Mick's dance moves remind me of the great Pete Fleischman! And the bonus "Tell Me" made me sigh....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-84345962298214033892011-11-28T09:31:34.940-05:002011-11-28T09:31:34.940-05:00Forget who's better, how about that promo of &...Forget who's better, how about that promo of "England's Newest Hitmakers" that Mike Douglas is holding?Sal Nunziatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09221629293545204260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-27579322945698563402011-11-28T07:44:52.963-05:002011-11-28T07:44:52.963-05:00Fabs. No contest.Fabs. No contest.Tommy Thttp://www.first-draft.com/tommy-t/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-42889584347076822152011-11-28T07:25:46.573-05:002011-11-28T07:25:46.573-05:00I'm opting for the Stones in this case, but so...I'm opting for the Stones in this case, but solely beause Bill Wyman is playing through the same model pre-CBS Fender Bassman amp that I have used since 1980.steve simelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13247393763004076992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8921382.post-26928596748967756532011-11-28T01:57:41.000-05:002011-11-28T01:57:41.000-05:00Team Beatles here.
We can debate the relative str...Team Beatles here.<br /><br />We can debate the relative strengths of the rhythm sections, but I can't get past the fact that Mick Jagger is not one of my top 500 lead singers in Pop history. And it might be unfair, but he bothers me more on covers than on his own material.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743825684303825072noreply@blogger.com