Sic Semper Tyrannis

Either/Or (No, not the Elliott Smith album)

I’m going to take a break from the prog-rock section of my musical development to talk about an ongoing musical argument: the either/or scenario of music appreciation. The most famous example is the popular belief that you can only have love for either The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, not both. People’s personalities are supposedly such that they love one or the other. Would it surprise anyone for me to say I’m a Beatles man?. Even when I try to be contrary and say that I like The Stones too, I betray myself. For it really comes down to whether you like your rock music with art or with sweat and I like the Stones’ songs that are artsy: “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” “Wild Horses,” and “Angie.” “Satisfaction” never did anything for me, even though it’s got one of the most memorable, recognizable guitar riffs of all time. In essence, the more The Stones sound like The Beatles, the more likely I am to appreciate them.

And so, this common musical discussion has led me to try to come up with some other dichotomous pairs. However, this is proving to be kind of difficult, since it’s not really a matter of finding mere opposites. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are not opposites. In fact, they’re really kind of similar in the grand scheme of things. They hit it big around the same time. They’re English and, supposedly, low-to-middle-class, (although there is some question about Lennon and McCartney’s breeding.) But like I said, the way I see it, The Stones are rock and The Beatles are pop. It’s “visceral” versus “cerebral.” Street musicians versus chamber musicians.

Anyway, let me know if you come up with some others, especially some modern ones.

Led Zeppelin vs. The Who
Lynyrd Skynyrd vs. Neil Young
Dolly Parton vs. Celine Dion
The Eagles vs. Crosby, Stills, and Nash
Early Bob Dylan vs. Electric Bob Dylan
Jackson 5 vs. Michael Jackson

posted by Mike @ 12:42 PM