Something I read in passing on Scott's blog caught my eye:
1) Yeah, some of the early Rolling Stones material sounds a lot like the Corvids. Let's not forget that the limie bastards (who I love very much, and who I think should have the stooopid Beatles shining their boots and bringing them their Geritol cocktails, but that's another rant for another day) were inspired by America -- not the other way around.
I don't know from the Corvids, but the Stones-Beatles thing got me thinking: who would've guessed back in the late '60s/early '70s that the Rolling Stones would still be alive and touring in the year 2003 and half the Beatles would be dead (and therefore unable to fulfill their boot-shining/Geritol fetching duties)?
Ex-Beatle Stu Sutcliffe got things started when he died of a brain hemorrhage in 1962. neither band had much cause to fear the Reaper until 1969, when ex-Stone Brian Jones shuffled off his mortal coil in quintessential rock star fashion: drowning in his mansion's swimming pool after too many chemicals.
As far as the Stones' starting lineup goes (though like Sutcliffe, Jones also had the decency to quit the band before croaking), that's really it. Ian Stewart died of a heart attack in 1985, but he was the road manager and piano player - the "sixth Stone." Credit him with a half point, I guess.
What shakes my faith in the inherent order of the cosmos more than anything, of course, is the fact that Keith Richards still walks the earth. It seems odd that vegetarian/ex-smoker George Harrison dies of cancer while Richards, still a multi-pack a day kinda guy, continues his demi-lich existence.
The Beatles, after Sutcliffe's departure and the ouster of Pete Best, were always a four-man group. Now down to two (and not counting manager Brian Epstein's death in 1967). The Stones, on the other hand, have counted eight members through their various incarnations (including Daryl Jones), and only one of them has punched his ticket. This from a band with a fine history of bad boy excess.
There's really no point to all this. Just thought it was curious.
I saw the Stones in 1989 on their "Steel Wheels" show in Dallas. This was back when the common concern expressed was, "Man, we better check out the Stones. This might be their last tour." Guess they showed us.
Interesting irony about the Stones-Beatles thing, hadn't really thought of it like that.
I think Keith Richards will only die when and if his phylactery is ever found and destroyed!
I saw the Steel Wheels tour as well. In Texas Stadium. While in normal circumstances the hole was in the roof of Texas Stadium to allow God to watch His Team play, during that show, it acted as a chimney.
This just in from Hell:
After 40 years Satan has finally taken down the "WELCOME BACK KEITH" banner from the entrance hall of Hades.
Personally, I think it was good for the Beatles to break up when they did. The Stones are still limping along, and it's been what, 25 years since they've made a good album?
Shitty solo careers aside, the Beatles' breakup in the early 70's guaranteed that we didn't have to see a slew of horrible albums with the Beatles moniker on them. Same goes for Hendrix, Janis and Nirvana.
How dare you not express an opinion about which of the two bands was better and more important? Simply pursuing a value-neutral study of their respective morbidity/mortality is simply not bloggerly. We, your loyal readers, demand frank, inflammatory opinioneering on this controversial subject.
I expect you to correct this failure instanter.