Anyone who's read this blog for 10 minutes knows which side I fall on. The Beatles' canon is perfectly packaged, from 1962-1969, with nary a misstep, or even coming close to a misstep.
Meanwhile I love the Stones but they've become a victim of decades of shitty albums and jokes about being 100 years old. They've never done anything the Beatles didn't do first, and while sex is a big part of rock 'n' roll messaging they've never truly grown out of talking about it and not really anything else. That's why I've always liked the Kinks more than the Stones - their own canon is unassailable, and lyrically encapsulates what it means to be both human and, even more so, British.
Also, did Paul end this debate a few weeks ago?
That said, Klosterman (whose judgement should always be questioned because he loves heavy metal) and Chris Ryen know their shit and the episode was a pleasure to listen to (even if nobody said anything someone like me didn't already know.) Props to Klosterman for acquiescing that while the Stones couldn't have become the Stones without The Beatles, The Beatles would've still become The Beatles without the Stones.
UPDATE: Klosterman is now trying to make the case that Van Halen is better than The Clash so I’m sorry but we’re gonna hafta stop this nonsense right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment