•
Versione 1
Rating: Can you get through this last week occupied by the national-popular festival of Sanremo unscathed? Of course, the methods are endless, and there's no need to worry about being accused of being a radical-chic snob. As for me, just to avoid sinking into the couch after a hard day's work in front of the TV tuned to the event (and maybe end up asleep after a few minutes), I tried in every possible way to keep my mind busy and trained. Among other activities, I picked up this book titled "Beatles and Rolling Stones, Apollonian and Dionysian" by Gino Castaldo, a true expert in the field of music analysis and criticism (rock and beyond) for some decades now. The book, published by Einaudi, I devoured with utmost calm and intense pleasure, like a fine liqueur. Perhaps the topic is outdated by a few decades (and my library doesn't lack texts dedicated to the two groups), but undoubtedly Castaldo knows how to capture the reader’s attention with a linear and clear prose over just 136 pages, stimulating reflection on events handed down to history and yet always fascinating.
The premise is clear: but for what bizarre reason would a music lover (rock and beyond) like Castaldo (and with him many other young people in the '60s and even in subsequent decades) have to choose sides? Beatles or Rolling Stones? It is an absurd question, as if one had to choose between mom and dad. Indeed, the author of the essay proposes an effective key to interpreting the entire historical debate centered on Beatles versus Rolling Stones.
In essence, beyond certain superficial differences between the two bands, it makes no sense to think of a radical difference. Rather, one could resort to certain precedents in Greek mythology and see in the Beatles the descendants of the god Apollo and in the Rolling Stones the emissaries of the god Dionysus. With all that that entails, since you can be elegant and brilliant, polished and ataraxic like Apollo, but by being wild and sulfurous, perhaps engaging in some Bacchic orgy, you switch to the side of Dionysus. And anyway, it remains true that, however measured "comme il faut," even Apollo will end up indulging sporadically in passions ("semel in anno licet insanire," as Cicero would say). And the same Dionysus, often and willingly dazed by pleasures, will occasionally have to regain his mental faculties, just to avoid unpleasant and fatal consequences. Assuming Castaldo's interpretative hypothesis is valid, the entire matter of the duel between the two English bands takes on a very particular aspect (and the specific events of their career confirm this, there’s no need to recall them here).
But if it appears evident from Castaldo's essay that saying Beatles and Rolling Stones is like talking about the yin and yang of rock from the '60s onwards (or positive and negative pole), some side notes on what the author exposed arise spontaneously.
In the meantime, the dichotomy between the two bands is undoubtedly academic (and is occasionally revived), but it needs to be framed in that incredible historical period for music (and more) represented by the '60s. Because just in 1970, it was announced that the Beatles had disbanded, and the individual members had opted to create music separately. For what purpose, I wonder, continue asking the question "better the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?" From that date, there was no need to compare one group against 4 individual musicians who were now ex-Beatles. Each of them went on musically well on their own but with inconsistent output (while together, they never faltered). And anyway, trying to imagine them still together in the following years seems difficult to me. Would they still have been able to set the musical trend for the entire world while new styles like prog rock, glam rock, heavy metal, punk, disco music were spreading? It's reasonable to doubt it.
On the contrary, the Rolling Stones (and Castaldo implies this) immersed themselves in the role of "greatest rock and roll band in the world," while the surrounding sonic landscape was constantly changing. In short, even for the bad boys Rolling, it was not easy to keep up with certain new trends from a certain point onwards. They then became somewhat a monument to themselves.
I would add another aspect. Castaldo notes that the alterity between the two groups was fundamentally a clever marketing move. The Beatles appeared a bit like lively boys, yes, but still impeccably mannered, while the Rolling had a scruffy, non-reassuring appearance. It's all true, but it makes me think that in both cases, the appearance was deceptive. For instance, the Liverpool lads presented themselves well because their manager, Brian Epstein, had thought of giving a nice appearance to 4 boys from a working-class background. And the 5 Rolling, under the input of their manager Andrew Loog Oldham, posed to have a maudit air even though they came from middle-class environments. In short, the effectiveness of certain skillful marketing maneuvers should be duly considered (nothing new under the sun..).
One last consideration. Reading this easy book by Castaldo dedicated to the aforementioned theme, I couldn't help but notice that, in 2022, one is debating a topic from so long ago. Of that luminous season (the '60s), some survivors are still active and occasionally release records still worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, however, time is not on their side (and this goes not only for the surviving Beatles and Stones but also for other lively musicians). Reporting the arthritic woes of these former boys saddens me. So, it is worthwhile not only to read a book like the one I've pointed out and reviewed but also to go back to listening to the official discography of many groups and soloists still in the race. Certainly, it is not wasted time.
Loading comments slowly
