A Relatively Lazy Post About The Rolling Stones

I call this a lazy post because I wrote most of it before posting it to this here blog-a-roo. It all started when I did a drive-by past fellow On Time!er The Far North End, and found him having an existential dilemma regarding one of my favorite bands, the Rolling Stones. Besides asking for Stones album recommendations, FNE's question was: why does anyone consider the Stones to be equals to, if not better than, the Beatles? The rest of tonight's post is my reply to that question, spiced up with some stolen pictures. Enjoy!

* * *

For me, the answer to “Beatles or Stones?” will always be “Stones.” Almost exclusively because of the song “Sympathy for the Devil.” But I don’t see the Stones as being more innovative or influential as the Beatles. More talented? I’d call that a draw. Ultimately, I think it’s kind of like, whether a person believes in [INSERT PREFERRED CREATOR NAME HERE] or [INSERT PREFERRED CREATOR-OPPONENT NAME HERE], chances are they still believe that the creator is more powerful and influential than (and may have in fact created) the opponent.

I didn't live through the '60s, so I can't speak for the hippies, but that's how I've always viewed their rivalry: the Beatles were yang, and the Stones were yin. People just kind of go with whatever vibe they like the most. And yes, the Beatles were probably a more groundbreaking group than the Stones... but you’d be hard-pressed to prove they were cooler.

* * *

Two other things I just now thought to add -- first, the Stones gain a lot of props due to the fact the core members have been working together for 40-some-odd years, whereas the Beatles only lasted about a decade.

On a more superficial level, the Beatles couldn't boast anyone as awesome as Keith Richards, and the Stones weren't hampered by anyone as toolish as Paul McCartney (though arguments could be made in Mick Jagger's favor on that point). Discuss.

Awesome Album Covers #3

Here's the thing: the topic of the long-overdue third installment of Awesome Album Covers was going to come from the Rolling Stones' canon. Then I said to myself, "Self -- the first two AACs came from Dylan and the Pink Floyd, respectively. Go with the Stones tonight, and you'll be labeled a hippie!"

"Can't argue with that," I replied. "And as you well know, there are few things I detest more than being labeled!" So with that in mind, myself and I went back to the album cupboard and came up with tonight's decidedly-not-hippie-music Awesome Album Cover selection...

Iron Maiden's
Somewhere in Time!

Click for larger version!

I'll be honest: I'm not a real big Iron Maiden fan. I do like a number of their tunes -- at least two off of each of their first seven albums -- but they don't get a lot of five-star ratings on my iPod ("Running Free" being a very notable exception that probably deserves six or more stars). That said, I love their album covers, and tonight's selection is no exception.

Like all Iron Maiden cover art, this piece prominently features the band's mascot, Eddie, front and center. More importantly, it marks the culmination* of a series of ever-more-complex cover images from artist Derek Riggs, beginning with the band's eponymous debut in 1980. In fact, this one's so detailed that I decided to post both the front and back images -- an unprecedented move for Awesome Album Covers!

If you're familiar with Iron Maiden history you'll see a lot of nods to their previous albums, not to mention a cameo by the band itself. But why waste further words on this awesome illustration when you can viddy it with thine own eyes? Click the above image for a much larger version, and feast on what may very well be the greatest sci-fi-influenced album cover of all time! Bon scottetite!

UPDATE: For a MUCH larger version of Riggs' original SiT album art, go here. And while you're at it, why not groove on everything www.derekriggs.com has to offer? That dude rules.

----------
* Yes, I know Iron Maiden put out a bunch more albums after this one, some of which also had interesting album covers, but none that followed came close to matching SiT for its detail and overall coolness. And when they dropped Riggs after 1990's No Prayer for the Dying, the covers weren't even worth looking at anymore. That's not opinion, that's scientific fact.

Interesting Numbers

Morning kids. Have you ever checked out the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) website? There's some interesting data available there. For example, I just found out that only 22 music groups/solo artists are in the "50 Mil" club -- meaning, have sold more than 50 million units in the U.S. (I'm sure the number goes up worldwide, but I didn't find that chart yet).

You can find the whole list of top U.S. artists here. Strange stuff, no? Nice to see my boys Pink Floyd and AC/DC representing in the Top 10, but I didn't realize they were both bigger sellers than the Rolling Stones at #11. Other highlights:

• U2 and Kenny Rogers have the exact same levels of consumer appeal. Take that, Bono!

• Why is Michael Jackson ever referred to by his self-appointed "King of Pop" title when Billy Joel and Elton John also sing pop and have sold more records than him?

• How is it that Garth Brooks outsells George Strait by a 2-to-1 margin, and how is he the #3 best-selling artist of all time? And why hasn't Johnny Cash outsold them both combined? What the hell is wrong with you mainstream country fans?

Also of note are groups that didn't make the chart at all, especially considering that the cut-off is 10.5 million albums. You're telling me there aren't at least 10.5 million Americans (in a country of nearly 290 million) who have bought at least one Ramones album in the past 30 years? Preposterous!