Price Increases on New Gibson Guitars Across the Board

[bobouz]

Growing up with the Stones & Beatles first three albums, to my ears the Stones were a musically sophisticated & superior blues-based band.  By comparison, the Beatles, on their earliest albums, were a bubble-gum-teeny-bopper band (I Want To Hold Your Hand just about made me puke!).  How much of that might perhaps have involved studio magic, I don't know, but the Beatles simply sounded childish by comparison.  The Stones wrote a number of their own tunes on those albums, and they were typically darn good (if not credited to Jaggar/Richards, than Nanker Phelge).

Now of course that all changed.  The Stones started losing me after their third album, while the Beatles grew & thrived.  What the Beatles could do that others could not, is sing those wonderful harmonies.  Rubber Soul was a gigantic turning point, and the rest as they say, is history.

Edited October 18, 2021 by bobouz

[j45nick]

1 hour ago, bobouz said:

Growing up with the Stones & Beatles first three albums, to my ears the Stones were a musically sophisticated & superior blues-based band.  By comparison, the Beatles, on their earliest albums, were a bubble-gum-teeny-bopper band (I Want To Hold Your Hand just about made me puke!).  How much of that might perhaps have involved studio magic, I don't know, but the Beatles simply sounded childish by comparison.  The Stones wrote a number of their own tunes on those albums, and they were typically darn good (if not credited to Jaggar/Richards, than Nanker Phelge).

Now of course that all changed.  The Stones started losing me after their third album, while the Beatles grew & thrived.  What the Beatles could do that others could not, is sing those wonderful harmonies.  Rubber Soul was a gigantic turning point, and the rest as they say, is history.

That's a pretty good summary. The early Beatles stuff really is just pure pop, even though it was pleasant enough. Rubber Soul was a major turning point.

I loved the early Stones blues covers, things like Little Red Rooster and Matchbox.

Then came "Satisfaction." That was the summer I graduated high school, and it became the anthem of that summer for many of us.

Where I live then (Scottsdale, Arizona) there were a whole lot of summer teen dance venues with both live bands and recordings. At least in my mind, the music of the Stones sort of dominated things: hard-driving,  slightly nasty, danceable blues as opposed to the Beatles largely pop-style music that was more for listening (and screaming, if you were a teen girl).

All in all, however, I just loved music, and loved to dance. Still do.

As a friend of mine says, "got ants in my pants,  gotta dance."

[QuestionMark]

I hear a lot of music genius in the early Beatles.  Original songs like “I’ll Follow the Sun”, “Please Don’t Wear Red Tonight”,  the complex musical ending of “ She Loves You”, “This Boy Wants You Back Again” and, the list goes on is musical genius stuff.   And, that’s besides the phenomenal early harmonies on covers like “Words of Love”,  “Mr. Moonlight” “”You Really Got a Hold on Me” and the pure rock n’ roll of “Twist & Shout”, “Roll Over Beethoven”. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, the Beatles certainly tremendously grew with Rubber Soul.  But, there was genius in the early Beatles, too.  
 

Regarding the Stones, and  were monumental in bringing blues to main stream white youth, myself included, to further explore Muddy Waters, Son House for sure.  And, when they took the leap to Jagger-Richards originals, their great creativity and potential took the giant leap that the mainstream appreciates, today.

Just my perspective.

It’s all great music!

QM aka “Jazzman” Jeff

Edited October 18, 2021 by QuestionMark

[Larsongs]

The Beatles & The Stones are my two favorite Groups. That said, The Stones we’re mostly a Cover Band on their early Albums.. One their first big Hits was, “I Wanna Be Your Man” by Lennon & Mc Cartney.. 

Both are incredibly accomplished.. The Beatles were a Genius Pop Group in the beginning.. But, they were marketing to teen age girls… Not Boys. Thankfully they evolved as time went on.. A teen age guy playing those early Bubble Gum Pop Songs in a Rock Band in those early days was definitely the ticket to getting Lucky! Especially if you had long hair!

The Stones were the Bad Boys from day one… Parents! Don’t let your daughters near them!  The girls went anyway!

The Stones Covered tons of Songs. The Beatles not so much… Check out the list…

https://gerardslinkert.nl/RS.html

Edited October 18, 2021 by Larsongs

[BoSoxBiker]

Reading your perspectives on music from back in the day is always fun. Sometimes the timing of an act coming out surprises to know they came out when they did. Cream is one such act. This is what, 1-2 years after Ray Davies' brother sliced a speaker in his amp to get distortion and 2-3 years after Meet the Beatles? Do you guys remember what your reaction to them was way back then? Disreali Gears, especially. That had some Hard Rock classics on that one that only the tough kids listened to 10-15 years later. Jimi Hendrix and Janice Joplin a year later.

Back on the Beatles for a second - That bubble-pop music and the Sgt Pepper's album was what, 4 years apart at the most? That's a significant change in musical direction in a very short amount of time. I listen to it nowadays and it sounds like it's 10 years apart. Still, like QM suggested, sometimes I hear a Beatles track and am surprised that it was on an early album of theirs. 

Another way of putting it. We got blown over by the new thing that was the  "Meet the Beatles" album at the beginning of 1964 and closed out the decade with the first Led Zeppelin album 5 years later.  Y'all's head must have been spinning to keep up.

[Larsongs]

It was the 60’s & the times were a changin’. I think The Beatles, John Lennon in particular, meeting Bob Dylan had a huge impact on their shift from Straight Pop to Heavier Music….

[j45nick]

36 minutes ago, Larsongs said:

It was the 60’s & the times were a changin’. I think The Beatles, John Lennon in particular, meeting Bob Dylan had a huge impact on their shift from Straight Pop to Heavier Music….

The years from 1963 to 1969 or so seemed to cram about three decades or more of musical development into about 7 years. Realistically, maybe it  seems that way because I was 16 in 1963, and 22 in 1969. That was  a period of meteoric change for society, as well as for me personally.

My 22 year old self would probably have been unrecognizable by--and intolerable to-- my 16-year-old self.

Smack dab in the middle of that period, I bought a worn 1950 J-45 for $50. That was a personal watershed for me as well, and I still have that guitar.

Edited October 18, 2021 by j45nick
correction

[Larsongs]

13 hours ago, j45nick said:

The years from 1963 to 1969 or so seemed to cram about three decades or more of musical development into about 7 years. Realistically, maybe it  seems that way because I was 16 in 1963, and 22 in 1969. That was  a period of meteoric change for society, as well as for me personally.

My 22 year old self would probably have been unrecognizable by--and intolerable to-- my 16-year-old self.

Smack dab in the middle of that period, I bought a worn 1950 J-45 for $50. That was a personal watershed for me as well, and I still have that guitar.

We must be about the same age… The World was traveling at the speed of Sound back then! Every day some amazing new thing was happening! Things that had never been done before! Things that never existed before! Music was traveling at the speed of light!!! New Bands with a new Hit Record every day it seemed like.. New Styles! The most amazing Cars! And on & on & on….

My Band mates & I walked in to a Pawn Shop in Wash. D.C. & I bought my first good Electric Guitar.. I had no idea what I was doing.. It was a mid ‘50’s Les Paul Jr. for $67.00 or $76.00.. What an amazing Guitar! I wish I still had it but sold it to our Lead Guitarist so I could buy a Vox Phantom Guitar which was cool but not as cool as that LP..