The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: side_show on September 19, 2009, 02:23:07 pm
-
So our favorite Beatle (http://touamb.com/index.php/topic,5054.30.html) poll made me think of the question posed by Metric in their song Gimme Sympathy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyoWEGpSNe4).
I can honestly say it's a question I've been pondering since I first heard this song several months ago.
When you think about the lives of each band, the adventures, the differing impacts on culture and music, the creative process itself, the quality of the work (in the short and long term), the fact that one band is still playing, while the other is irreparably broken up and no longer ever able to play together again... it's a hard question to answer.
What kind of band would you want to be? What kind of artist would you want to be? On the surface it seems like a question of the type of music you want to create, but on further examination, it turns into more profound question about the life you want to live, and the type of legacy and impact you want to make.
Even though I'm putting up the poll, I remain undecided. I'm in a space right now where I'm grappling very deeply with redefining my artistic practice, and in the end, these questions are the most important ones I'm examining. Maybe I'll eventually come to some decisions about my own work that will allow me to make a choice.
I could wax poetic on the virtues of either band, but I thought I'd start the conversation and go from there.
-
I, uh.
Hurm.
That's a hard one actually. I think it might have to be the Stones, but maybe that's just because I'm more aware of the Beatle's history? I'm sure the Stones had their equivalent of an embarasing Maharishi/Yoko ono phase but I don't know about it. Also the still being alive and playing. I might sleep on it though.
-
In my mind, I have what is probably an extremely simplified view of what this question amounts to, compared to what Smells is thinking. It's A, do you want to be the good boys or the bad boys? And B, do you want to burn brightly and burn out young, or hang in there for the long haul? But of course some combinations of answers to those two questions don't add up to being able to click a box on that poll.
-
My first thought was "I wonder if whoever started this thread knows that Metric song."
Anyway. Stones because I like their music better and they're still around. This also reminds me of Cracked's origin story of Satisfaction which sounds too awesome to be true. http://www.cracked.com/article_17268_5-massive-hit-songs-that-almost-didnt-get-released.html
-
The Rolling Stones have the widest chasm in rock between their best and their worst songs. It's probably partially a function of growing older in a genre like rock and roll (and not knowing how to handle it gracefully like Tom Waits) but it's also because they quit being musicians and became businessmen. Good for them, bad for us. I chose the Rolling Stones because still, Keith Richards kicks fuck*ng ass.
Are you Elvis people or Beatles people?
-
as I think I have said before on this board, I have never liked or listened to very much Rolling Stones.
And there is something to be said for knowing when to call it quits.
-
Are you Elvis people or Beatles people?
I still wonder why Quentin cut that scene. I guess he didn't want to play into the cliche of the attractive female lead with the video camera that was used in other movies of the day.
-
I'd have to go with Rolling Stones even though the Beatles made better music on the whole. Who wouldn't want to do monstrous amounts of drugs and fuck thousands of women AND live to tell the tale.
And there is something to be said for knowing when to call it quits.
That's a young man's conceit. You'll feel differently when you are older. I say more power to the Stones, I hope they keep rocking right into the grave. They're not making great music these days, but God bless 'em for continuing to do what they love.
But I'd rather be Neil Young. He never stopped making great music, he lived a wild youth, but then settled down and became a family man, but didn't let family life soften his music. And he's always been loyal to those around him.
-
The Stones, because you're less likely to be dead.
-
I keep wanting to take this question really literally, and be like, I would be the rolling stones, but I would be less bluesy, and then in the mid 70s I would quit the band and start a side project, etc.
or have really in-depth knowledge and talk about specific events which I would have handled differently.
-
So am I supposed to be everyone in the band at once, or some kind of amalgamation of all band members, or a kind of incarnate spirit of the band's tone?
-
please don't yell at me, but lets again remember the best stone is dead. I would rather be the beatles. If the stones had all died in a van crash right after Beggars Banquet came out I would be them.
-
The good ones use their early greatness as an excuse to do the same thing again and again.
The great ones use their early greatness as an excuse to take the mainstream to all kinds of crazy new places.
Point: Beatles.
-
finally something i can agree with mike on
-
That said, I'm still gonna be trying to outlive ever one of you and be following whatever passion I got hooked in me the whole way.
you were born before i was, so you already did that thing...
-
In asking "who would you rather be," to me the question is, if you were to form a band that was to become your life's work, what creative path would you prefer to take?
I love the Beatles, and although I definitely also greatly enjoy the Stones, artistically, I think the Beatles have had a more significant impact artistically. In the end their work resounds more with me - it gets into my heart every time and has changed me in a way the Stones music has never done.
That said, there's a major difference between having done something remarkable with a team of artists, and leaving it at that, vs having done something remarkable and continuing on with the same group of artists. Just getting along with the same band members over the long haul is a major accomplishment. Beyond that, even when I've tried to stop being an artist, I can't. I don't necessarily have any desire to chase after my past successes, but I also don't plan to stop creating. If you're an artist, it's a life-long occupation, so I "get" the Stones on that level.
Hrm. I don't know. I'm still totally undecided.
-
The thing is, though, if you are Keith Richards, you could still be a musician and not be in the rolling stones and make gabs of money.
Paul McCartney is no longer in the Beatles, and is still a musician. he did not give up his craft.
The difference is whether you move on to new things, or... don't.
-
The thing is, though, if you are Keith Richards, you could still be a musician and not be in the rolling stones and make gabs of money.
Paul McCartney is no longer in the Beatles, and is still a musician. he did not give up his craft.
The difference is whether you move on to new things, or... don't.
I think the main difference between Lennon/McCartney and Jagger/Richards is Lennon and McCartney grew apart as song writers while Jagger and Richards grew together.
The last 2-3 years of their partnership Lennon and McCartney were collaborators in name only, they wrote separately. They continued to collaborate on the creation of the recordings, but the days of sitting across from one another on the sette in the living room of McCartney's fathers house were long past. This is most likely due to the fact that they were both strong song writers in their own right, but also because they grew apart as friends.
Jagger and Richards on the other hand always each relied heavily on the other. Jagger being the primary lyricist and Richards the main music writer. Crucially they both knew enough about their partner to edit and make suggestions which is what made them such a great team.
-
having done something remarkable and continuing on with the same group of artists. Just getting along with the same band members over the long haul is a major accomplishment.
Again, the person who shaped the early Stones died in 1969*. A running joke is that Mick Jagger had him killed. Please, stop with this. Also, not so much when you aren't really creating anymore. They just have been doing the same thing since like 71. That is a group of artists deciding not to create, really. I guess it is probably a surprise a legitimately good band didn't have one member to know when to stop, at least until later when they needed money. That is rare maybe. Oh yeah, also they did, but Mick Jagger killed him.
* they were all good musicians, but he made them different, without him they would have just been The Pretty Things or something, not legendary basically. He brought a lot to the basic blues of richards/jagger, plus him and richards together on guitar, oh man (though obviously richards gets some credit there too). Those are all the things that make the Stones more than just a band.
-
I picked the Stones, but for a different reason: I liked playing live too much.
-
So okay, looking it over.
Either way, you get a good early head of steam and release some of the best and most influential popular rock of your period, possibly of the century. One of your bandmates will die, and a lot of people will claim that he was the reason you were any good. Eventually either (a) your band breaks up and people say you haven't done anything really memorable since your days in the band or (b) your band does not break up and people say you haven't done anything really memorable since your band's golden days.
However Mick Jagger is rumored to have boned David Bowie, and if there's any dude who a gay affair with is a plus for living that life it's early-70s David Bowie. So point to the Stones, I guess.
-
Somehow, having gay sex with David Bowie might spin the needle around and actually be one of the straightest things of all time.
Through the power of Bowie, gay sex with him might involve him turning into two ladies that you then have double-straight sex with.
Math/theorethical science is not my forte but I think it has something to do with Schrodinger's Cat and the Everett Many-Worlds Theory resolution thereupon.
-
Somehow, having gay sex with David Bowie might spin the needle around and actually be one of the straightest things of all time.
Through the power of Bowie, gay sex with him might involve him turning into two ladies that you then have double-straight sex with.
Math/theorethical science is not my forte but I think it has something to do with Schrodinger's Cat and the Everett Many-Worlds Theory resolution thereupon.
Fag.
-
Best thread rebirth ever.
See if this board weren't so guy oriented, I would have asked, who would you rather fuck? Also a tough one to answer. I bet the Beatles would take you out for a nice breakfast the next morning. With the Stones, you'd wake up alone, and the hotel room would be trashed but you'd have tried out some pretty wild styles.
Also, I would do David Bowie, but definitely not two girls. I don't imagine David Bowie would be all that much work actually. He'd be a dynamo though.
-
I would SO do David Bowie. Absolutely.
John Lennon, not so much. Mick Jagger? Uh, no. Paul McCartney?
Hells yes. Then or now, or any stage in between.
Also, Micky Dolenz.
-
Also, Micky Dolenz.
Careful. If he googles himself he might show up at your front door...
-
Did I miss a news flash? Is this a thing that happens?
If so, I just have two words:
Antonio Banderas.
-
Paul McCartney? Hells yes.
As for the Beatles, George Harrison FTW. As to all other bands, 1980-vintage Sting. Man oh man.
Edited to add: 1990-vintage Eddie Vedder. **drool**
-
I read a book about high-end prostitutes once and the only story I remember was the George Harrison story.
That he paid the girl for a blowjob, was playing a ukelele the whole time and when he came he... strummed really fast, like the end of an old vaudeville song.
Gave her a generous tip and then left, not saying another word.
-
I read a book about high-end prostitutes once and the only story I remember was the George Harrison story.
That he paid the girl for a blowjob, was playing a ukelele the whole time and when he came he... strummed really fast, like the end of an old vaudeville song.
Gave her a generous tip and then left, not saying another word.
Class act, that guy.
Yeah, I'd take George if I couldn't get Paul. But Paul is nerdy, which is an automatic win for me.
-
Paul McCartney is nerdy? What?
-
Nerdy for a rock star. I mean, it's all relative.
-
Nerdy for a rock star. I mean, it's all relative.
Dude is the coolest mother fucker on the planet. He smoked pot with Bob Dylan for Christ Sakes.
-
Dude is the coolest mother fucker on the planet. He smoked pot with Bob Dylan for Christ Sakes.
sorry to change the subject, but:
i heard snoop said that willy nelson could smoke him(snoop) under the table.
-
wait, that is not at all true. Paul McCartney? He is not the coolest anything. he is nerdy. come on.
he is at the very least dorky.
I mean, by definition, if an example of why he is cool is that he smoked pot with Bob Dylan, why isn't bob dylan the coolest?
-
i heard snoop said that willy nelson could smoke him(snoop) under the table.
He's been doing it longer.
-
whereas snoop has likely smoked the GDP of a small nation, willie has smoked the GDP of a medium-sized continent
-
whereas snoop has likely smoked the GDP of a small nation, willie has smoked the GDP of a medium-sized continent
Nah, pot's not that expensive.
-
the good shit is, how long's it been since you bought weed dude $150/quarter
-
the good shit is, how long's it been since you bought weed dude $150/quarter
Not if you grow your own, like Willie probably does.
-
Not if you grow your own, like Willie probably does.
I seriously doubt Willie grows his own, but Willie doesn't have to pay anyhow.