David Holmberg If you cannot find
Holmberg in his basement room with a needle and spoon and another
girl to take the pain away, try emailing him at [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by David Holmberg
For many of you, the following may be a shocking revelation: The
Beatles are not the “Greatest Rock and Roll Band of All
Time.” Alright, I’ve said it,but please read on before
you start assaulting me with all of your copies of The
Beatles’ collection of commercialized favorites on
“1,” or your parents scratchy LP of the “White
Album.” The best rock band in history was, however, also
founded in early 1960s Britain, and it is The Rolling Stones.
Please, take a deep breath and relax. Do not come with
rage-filled eyes and crowbar in hand until you have heard me
out. I am going to go through this step by step to show exactly why
the Stones are better, and how The Beatles have come to bask in the
overrated glory of critics and fans alike.
To begin with, the term “rock ‘n’ roll
band” needs to be fully defined. Although ironically both of
the bands in contention are European-based, rock ‘n’
roll is a decidedly American institution. While many cite Elvis
Presley as “King,” that is of rock, he did not invent
the musical form, but merely brought it into the mainstream white
culture.
The roots of rock are strong in the blues, a form which many
speculate rose from the hollers and field songs of African slaves.
Famed blues musician Muddy Waters even once sang that it was blues
that gave birth to rock ‘n’ roll. Additionally,
the country music of the South and growing popularity of jazz
played a large influence in the origins of rock.
But what is rock ‘n’ roll? One could argue
historically that it is the American synthesis of blues, country,
and jazz into a new musical form that began in the 1950s. Or, from
a purely musical theory standpoint, it is a style without rules or
standards, separating if from practically all other forms of music
that do adhere to certain conventions.
For the majority of the rock ‘n’ roll-loving public,
however, it is the music that makes you want to get down, shake
your moneymaker and do all that boogie-woogie jive to which our
parents’ parents so vehemently objected.
Regardless of the implications of rock being an American-born
style, both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are prime examples
of the technique at its finest. Anyone who has ever turned on a
classic rock radio station has undoubtedly heard one of the catchy
Beatles harmonies wafting out in songs like “I Wanna Hold
Your Hand” or their more radical “Hey Jude” or
“Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.”
Likewise, the gritty Stones can be heard daily, letting it all
loose on “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” or
delving deep into their hellish persona with “Sympathy for
the Devil.” Both bands are regularly found in the top two
spots on “Greatest Rock Bands of All Time” lists that
pop up from time to time on MTV, the radio and anywhere else people
delight in making hopelessly uniformed lists.
Despite a long-time rivalry, in recent years it has become
matter-of-factly accepted that The Beatles are better than The
Rolling Stones. Now, I will not debate the influential merit of the
Fab Four on all pop music since their debut. With the exception of
Bob Dylan, The Beatles as a single band revolutionized music more
than any other. For that they deserve credit, but they have
probably received more than their fair share.
When comparing the bands, it is impossible not to note their
strikingly opposite images. The Beatles, especially during their
early years, were the epitome of clean-cut and pretty British boys
who sung as tightly as they played. Young girls fawned over them as
today’s adolescents cry over the comparably inferior
Backstreet Boys and *NSYNC. Eventually, they became representatives
for the growing hippie masses, with their long hair and psychedelic
affront to convention.
If The Beatles were the kind of boys you wouldn’t mind
bringing home to mom, The Rolling Stones were the guys you sneak
out of the window to meet in a dark alley or deserted fairgrounds
for a certainly forbidden rendezvous.
Mick Jagger is the definitive prototypical rock star. His widely
known sexual liaisons with well, everyone, and numerous
out-of-wedlock children, combined with Keith Richards’
notorious drug addiction, make the Stones the polar opposite of our
other favorite British band.
Finally, on the highly abstract religious imagery level, The
Beatles were due to Lennon’s own statement, compared in their
popularity to that of Jesus Christ, whereas The Rolling Stones and
particularly Jagger fell into the role of the anti-Christ or Satan.
Again, they met in opposition.
It is now time to dive into the dangerous waters of musical
comparison. I have already acknowledged the talent of The Beatles,
so let this not be taken as a bashing of them but instead as a
revelation of the Stone’s prowess.
It is valuable to look at The Rolling Stones through the lens of
the previously given definition of rock ‘n’ roll. As
with The Beatles, the Stones underwent a variety of style shifts
over the years, but all within the context of the given rock ideal
since their inception in 1963.
For example, on their 1971Â album, “Sticky
Fingers,” they shift effortlessly from an inspired jazz jam
in “Can’t You Hear Me Knockin'” to the
blues heavy “You Got To Move” and finally on to a
country rockabilly track with “Dead Flowers.” All of
this within a single album. This feat followed 1969’s
landmark “Let It Bleed” and preceded perhaps one of
their best sets, “Exile on Main St.” in 1972.
The Rolling Stones have been together for nearly 40 years,
playing rock ‘n’ roll with unmatched integrity and
skill. The Beatles were a bright flame but one that burned out
quickly, given their short seven years together. Trips into the
world of psychedelic music brought fame to Lennon, McCartney and
company and certainly changed music, but it was not the best rock
ever played.
There is a good portion of you out there who have never even
listened to a Rolling Stones album, but would still claim The
Beatles are superior because they have a three-part documentary and
a massive marketing campaign behind them. I just hope in another
few decades some kid isn’t trying to decide whether it is the
Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC that holds the title as the
“Greatest Rock and Roll Band of All Time.”