now I love the Bee Gees they are my favorite Band from England ever and to me Barry Gibb is One of the Greatest songwriters and Producers ever.

to me the Bee Gees never get old.

they are more versatile and covered a wide range of styles,etc.. so i wonder why they aren't held as high as the Rolling stones who to me are alright, but didn't age as well musically as the Bee Gees.

I mean the Bee Gees got better songs

better Production

Better sanging

more versatility

where you stand?

even though they haven't had an album that mattered since 1982 they still had a twenty-year run before that point & a few flashes afterwards.

If you prefer one to the other it's probably more of an individual genre preference than anything else, the Bee Gees appeal to more pop/r&b tastes while the Stones appeal more to rock & roll fans (even though both acts dipped into just about every musical style they could at different points).

both turned it up another notch in the 70's

both incorperated a more groove based thing to there sound in the 70's

both had a country feel to alot of there songs

this ain't exactly far fetched at all.

both had fans in pop, R&B and in between

both lead singers of said bands did a duet with Michael Jackson

Dog...No disrespect...u need to stop posting about rock...

Stones were not Beatles clones...At all....

Like ever...

out of mick jagger's own mouth and he could say it and you still don't wanna believe it.

That's why.

~Austin

Donate:
http://bit.ly/14IDA7Q

Latest 'choon: "roads"
http://bit.ly/YBRkxH

eBay auctions:
http://bit.ly/WBdmxH

"Look for the ridiculous in everything and you will find it."
—Jules Renard

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2776991&mesg_id=2776991&page=2#2777211
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2776991&mesg_id=2776991&page=2#2777178

~Austin

Donate:
http://bit.ly/14IDA7Q

Latest 'choon: "roads"
http://bit.ly/YBRkxH

eBay auctions:
http://bit.ly/WBdmxH

"Look for the ridiculous in everything and you will find it."
—Jules Renard

Slow down...doing too much....

..

Just take the L

dude, thats like asking "why aren't the Fu-Schnickens held in the same regard as A Tribe Called Quest?"

I'm dying

bringing billy preston in during there later 70's era on " hot stuff" through "miss you" wasn't by accident. they wanted some of that bee gees money and groove.

led zepplin was a rock act, the rolling stones were a pop act like the bee gees

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And I even kinda agree with maxxx's statement that the Stones are/were not really a "rock" band even though in a lot of people's minds they are THE iconic rock band.

For a time in the 1960s, they defined and set the standards for hard rock and originated the "rock attitude" that everybody else follows to the present day.

But they got away from that, or were outpaced... they spent most of the 70s coasting on ballads and bootleg funk, just like the Bee Gees.

EDIT: Come to think of it, the "attitude" thing answers the original question, doesn't it?

lol....

>the Stones are/were not really a "rock" band even though in a lot of
>people's minds they are THE iconic rock band.


if the stones aren't rock,
what is?

>i mean yeah, they had that.
>but for a while mick was an incredible vocalist,
>keith richards is always an incredible guitar player,
>and their songs were really that good.

But it's a fact that the Stones invented almost everything we know today about how rock stars are supposed to look and act.

Before the Stones, rock & roll bands were generally well-scrubbed, nicely groomed boys in matching jackets who smiled and gave the thumbs-up in photos.

The Stones (or rather, Andrew Loog Oldham) were the first ones to come up with the concept of a group that was surly and antisocial. They wore mismatching clothes, they always looked like they had just rolled out of bed, they were rude and dirty and they reveled in ugliness and violence and destruction. THEY started all that shit.

And that early attitude carried them a long way even when their music occasionally got kinda fruity. By the late 60s, the Stones were no longer the hardest thing going as far as rock was concerned... and they would slip even further in the 70s, but they were still THE STONES and that rep kept them going.

Which is not to say that their songs were not good. The Bee Gees songs were good too, though.

>Before the Stones, rock & roll bands were generally
>well-scrubbed, nicely groomed boys in matching jackets who
>smiled and gave the thumbs-up in photos.

http://www.b103.com/Pics/Artists/little-richard-%20veraxane%20blogspotcom.jpg

http://thoughtontracks.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/screaming-jay.jpg

http://www.nepr.net/sites/default/files/chuck-berry1.jpg

http://blogs.tennessean.com/tunein/files/2013/01/Jerry-Lee-Lewis-1.JPG.jpg

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/33480609.jpg

Like hell they were.

they weren't really the same thing.
rock and roll influence rock heavily.

but i'd never mistake one for the other.
i listen to the Beatles and the Stones more than
i listen to chuck berry or little richard.

and by the time you got to albums like "revolver" and "aftermath,"
the music is more than just a ripoff of rock and roll.




>>Before the Stones, rock & roll bands were generally
>>well-scrubbed, nicely groomed boys in matching jackets who
>>smiled and gave the thumbs-up in photos.
>
>http://www.b103.com/Pics/Artists/little-richard-%20veraxane%20blogspotcom.jpg
>
>http://thoughtontracks.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/screaming-jay.jpg
>
>http://www.nepr.net/sites/default/files/chuck-berry1.jpg
>
>http://blogs.tennessean.com/tunein/files/2013/01/Jerry-Lee-Lewis-1.JPG.jpg
>
>http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/33480609.jpg
>
>Like hell they were.
>

>they weren't really the same thing.

No, but neither are they separate. What distinction is important here?

>rock and roll influence rock heavily.

No shit. Whose songs do you think the Stones played? Who did they emulate?

>but i'd never mistake one for the other.
>i listen to the Beatles and the Stones more than
>i listen to chuck berry or little richard.

So?

>and by the time you got to albums like "revolver" and
>"aftermath,"
>the music is more than just a ripoff of rock and roll.

What do you mean by "ripoff?"

>>>Before the Stones, rock & roll bands were generally
>>>well-scrubbed, nicely groomed boys in matching jackets who
>>>smiled and gave the thumbs-up in photos.

>>they weren't really the same thing.
>
>No, but neither are they separate. What distinction is
>important here?
>
>>rock and roll influence rock heavily.
>
>No shit. Whose songs do you think the Stones played? Who did
>they emulate?
>


Motown, blues artists, etc.
but that was early on in their career.

and it's not what most people think of when they
think of the stones.



>
>>and by the time you got to albums like "revolver" and
>>"aftermath,"
>>the music is more than just a ripoff of rock and roll.
>
>What do you mean by "ripoff?"
>


I am saying that when people think of the stones,
they generally think about the stuff that came after "satisfaction."

the stones in the era we're talking about occupied
a different musical space than the artists you linked.








>>>>Before the Stones, rock & roll bands were generally
>>>>well-scrubbed, nicely groomed boys in matching jackets who
>>>>smiled and gave the thumbs-up in photos.

>Motown, blues artists, etc.
>but that was early on in their career.

But not Chuck Berry-style rock and roll?

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=keith+richards+influence+chuck+berry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

And for some reason they insisted on covering a lot of Chuck Berry tunes in that early career, despite not emulating him?

>and it's not what most people think of when they
>think of the stones.
>
>I am saying that when people think of the stones,
>they generally think about the stuff that came after
>"satisfaction."

I can't speak to what most people think, but I'm pretty sure "Satisfaction," and the seven or so top-10 singles they charted before "Satisfaction," are somewhere in most peoples' minds.

>the stones in the era we're talking about occupied
>a different musical space than the artists you linked.

So just late-'60s and beyond.

The 50's R&B/rock'n'roll style gave way to soul in the 60's and the artists playing that type of music were by then either nostalgia-acts (Chuck, Diddley, Little Richard) or had updated their styles (Isleys, James Brown etc.).

Meanwhile, music more along the lines with the 50's rock'n'roll R6B style in terms of rhythms, riffs, instrumentation etc. were by the mid-60's primarily played by white brits and the music went in different directions by then while still rooted in 50's rock'n'roll and chicago blues and old R&B. I think Rolling Stones is kind of the quintessential example of this transition and those musical ideas were by then largely removed from its R&B context and had become a rock-thing more-or-less because of a combination of the music being played by people from a different cultural milieu with everything that implies and the music being surpassed in popularity by soul (and later funk) in a more ''black'' R&B context...

And yeah, I know all that stuff you just typed. What baffles me in this post is the insistence that there is some clear demarcation between pre-Stones and after-Stones, or even between "December's Children" and "Aftermath." Like everything that came before just vanished, and the Stones invented their 1968 sound out of thin air. Baffling.

It was their first album without covers and also the first record where they started to go beyond Blues and rock'n'roll stylistically; December's children has some moments like that but is actually not a real album but a record-company product that was not released in europe.

I know that "Out of our heads" are sometimes viewed as some breakthrough of sorts too but it's the same thing there:the album the Stones were behind themselves for the british market was largely R&B covers; the US-version replaced some of those songs with singles like Last time and Satisfaction and thus, it sounds a bit more like later Stones.

However, Aftermath was the *album* which Stones created themselves with the intention to make an original album that went beyond covers and music *purely* rooted in blues and rock'n'roll (songs like Lady Jane, Mother's little helper, Under my thumb and of course Paint it Black on the US version)...

>However, Aftermath was the *album* which Stones created
>themselves with the intention to make an original album that
>went beyond covers and music *purely* rooted in blues and
>rock'n'roll (songs like Lady Jane, Mother's little helper,
>Under my thumb and of course Paint it Black on the US
>version)...

I don't dispute any of this, except to say that "Under My Thumb" is really just a blues with the VI substituting for the I in the verses, and likewise "Paint it Black" varies the standard blues by moving I-V in the first two lines of the verse instead of I-IV, then IV-V at the end of the last line.

They aren't quite blues tunes, but the connection is pretty damned obvious. Again: there is no clear line of demarcation. They moved away from the "purely" blues, but it's an evolution, not a revolution.

>But not Chuck Berry-style rock and roll?
>
>https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=keith+richards+influence+chuck+berry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
>

>
>I can't speak to what most people think, but I'm pretty sure
>"Satisfaction," and the seven or so top-10 singles they
>charted before "Satisfaction," are somewhere in most peoples'
>minds.
>
>>the stones in the era we're talking about occupied
>>a different musical space than the artists you linked.
>
>So just late-'60s and beyond.


see Jakob's reply. he summed it up.

yes. it's true.
the Rolling Stones themselves would tell you it's true.

everybody that posts here in the lesson knows that.
so does everybody else that has studied rock music.


that wasn't really my point.

the music from the stones that's most heavily influenced by
chuck berry isn't what made it into the rock cannon, though.

the myth of the stones isn't based on their early albums
where they were covering Motown songs and doing chuck berry rock and roll.
by the mid-sixties, they were on some other shit.

that's all i'm saying.

Were there already cats who were intense performers? Sure.
Were there acts that dressed up in Halloween costumes onstage? Yes.
Were there artists whose acts were fueled by flashy gimmicks? Hell yeah.

However, did they glory in willfully antisocial stances and behaviors?

>But it's a fact that the Stones invented almost everything we know >today about how rock stars are supposed to look and act.

So, we should ignore the "look" part, and just focus on...

>Before the Stones, rock & roll bands were generally well-scrubbed, >nicely groomed boys in matching jackets who smiled and gave the >thumbs-up in photos.

We're still on "look."

The Stones (or rather, Andrew Loog Oldham) were the first ones to come up with the concept of a group that was surly and antisocial. They wore mismatching clothes, they always looked like they had just rolled out of bed, they were rude and dirty and they reveled in ugliness and violence and destruction. THEY started all that shit.

"Surly and antisocial." Your position is that the Stones invented surly and antisocial?

>"Surly and antisocial." Your position is that the Stones
>invented surly and antisocial?

Sure, I mentioned "clean and well-scrubbed" and "smiling with the thumbs up" and you countered by showing me pics of rock & rollers who are portrayed to be intense, disheveled or not smiling.

Fair enough. If you want to be really literal about the shit. But I would have thought it clear that all those references were made to talk about the general antisocial attitude.

I ask because ol' Chuck set a pretty high bar.

But when it came time to do interviews and stuff, he at least *tried" to clean up and put on a showbiz face.

He didn't revel in antisocial behavior like the Stones did. He didn't use it as a means of promoting himself as being threatening, dangerous, sexy. He was a black man in 1950s America, for Christ's sake.

He didn't market himself with slogans like "Would You Let Your Sister Go With Chuck Berry?"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/khiltscher/3471500454/in/set-72157617265145148

because most white Americans would not have wanted their sisters to go with ANY spade, period. He worked to make those people like him, he didn't turn his nose up and spit on them.

(That is, except for when his nature got the best of him)

>He didn't market himself with slogans like "Would You Let Your
>Sister Go With Chuck Berry?"
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/khiltscher/3471500454/in/set-72157617265145148

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/chuck-berry-is-arrested-on-mann-act-charges-in-st-louis-missouri

Then of course there's Jerry Lee Lewis...

>because most white Americans would not have wanted their
>sisters to go with ANY spade, period. He worked to make those
>people like him, he didn't turn his nose up and spit on them.

And then there's Elvis. is your position that Elvis never used his sexuality as a marketing device? That the Stones invented that?

>And then there's Elvis. is your position that Elvis never used
>his sexuality as a marketing device? That the Stones invented
>that?

Dude... You are confusing the hell out of me the way you continue to bring up things I never talked about while doggedly avoiding the point I am making.

I didn't say that rock n' roll was all Pat Boone and Neil Sedaka before the Stones. I said it was all showbiz before the Stones introduced the now-cliched bored, above-it-all, "Anti-" attitude to such trappings.

You linked that, and upon reading it I assumed that the reason one wouldn't want one's sister to go with a Rolling Stone is because of their supposed sexual immorality/deviancy. Are you saying that picture you linked isn't actually about sexuality? For what other reasons wouldn't you want your sister to go with a Rolling Stone?

So yeah, you brought it up.

I refuse to believe you are truly this obtuse.

I REFUSE.

If my interpretation of that picture is wrong, just say so.

>>i mean yeah, they had that.
>>but for a while mick was an incredible vocalist,
>>keith richards is always an incredible guitar player,
>>and their songs were really that good.
>
>But it's a fact that the Stones invented almost everything we
>know today about how rock stars are supposed to look and act.
>
>Before the Stones, rock & roll bands were generally
>well-scrubbed, nicely groomed boys in matching jackets who
>smiled and gave the thumbs-up in photos.
>
>The Stones (or rather, Andrew Loog Oldham) were the first ones
>to come up with the concept of a group that was surly and
>antisocial. They wore mismatching clothes, they always looked
>like they had just rolled out of bed, they were rude and dirty
>and they reveled in ugliness and violence and destruction.
>THEY started all that shit.
>
>And that early attitude carried them a long way even when
>their music occasionally got kinda fruity. By the late 60s,
>the Stones were no longer the hardest thing going as far as
>rock was concerned... and they would slip even further in the
>70s, but they were still THE STONES and that rep kept them
>going.
>
>Which is not to say that their songs were not good. The Bee
>Gees songs were good too, though.

which of course could have as evidenced by replies to you, made for a more interesting topic.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

The post would stand on it's own without the 'just like the Bee Gees' and you know it.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

oh shit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Too many people only know their Saturday Night Fever sound (just like too many people only know surfin-era Beach Boys).

But despite their massive sales the Bee Gees moved with the times, they didn't define the times.

Can you imagine the Stones starring in a movie featuring nothing but Beatles songs (Sgt. Pepper's)? Not likely.

How can that be bad?

http://www.ericdsnider.com/images/pepperpreston.jpg