Who'd you rather be; The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

December 5, 2009 6:50 AM

The song Gimme Sympathy by Metric has a line: "After all of this is gone, who'd you rather be; the Beatles or the Rolling Stones." What would you interpret that to mean?

What characteristic of those bands is being contrasted here? Googling suggests that there was some Beatles/Stones dichotomy, but I'm not 100% clear on how it relates to that lyric.

I've sussed that the later lyric "play me something like Here Comes The Sun" is a reference to that Beatles song, so are The Beatles the "right" choice? Maybe?

Sorry for overthinking a plate of beans, but you know how when one line of a song sticks in your mind?

Full lyrics for the song are in the linked vid's description.

posted by Lorc to Media & Arts (25 answers total)

Best answer: Well, as a start I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Metric isn't exactly renowned for their deep and meaningful lyrics -- it may be a simple of case of something 'sounding right' rather than something to ponder too much (and I say that as a fan of their music).

But, one interpretation might be: "would you rather have concentrated utter brilliance for a short period (The Beatles) or longer-term level of success but with steadily declining relevance (the Stones)?"

However, I don't think they necessarily mean that, given that the following lyric is "oh seriously you know you're gonna make mistakes you know", which I think suggests the overall meaning is "it doesn't matter who you model yourself after, just be who you are".

Again though, I wouldn't put too much stock in Emily Haines' lyrical content, catchy as it is.
posted by modernnomad at 6:59 AM on December 5, 2009

Best answer: Would you rather be the cute ones, or the naughty ones?
posted by the bricabrac man at 7:00 AM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]

"Would you rather be the cute ones, or the naughty ugly ones?"

That said... I agree with mondernnomad, I would suspect that the lyrics don't have any deep meaning, more "chatfilter" in a song than anything...
posted by HuronBob at 7:04 AM on December 5, 2009

There is a scene cut from Pulp Fiction where Uma Thurman poses the same question to Travolta. It's available in the script, I think.
posted by chrillsicka at 7:10 AM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]

chrillsicka, it's Elvis vs. Beatles.

Basically, are you a rocker or are you a lover?
posted by ashaw at 7:13 AM on December 5, 2009

The Beatles / Stones dichotomy, I believe, is about image. The Stones come across as wild, naughty, carefree. The Beatles were all about control. The Stones love to perform. They love the crowds. The Beatles hated performing in public, because they cared about the music, not the crowd, and they couldn't hear themselves play for all the screaming.

The Beatles also blew pop music wide open, and are arguably the most influential band in the history of rock'n'roll. The Stones tend to perform within whatever musical mode is going on at the time. But I think the Beatles/Stones thing is about wild vs. controlled, not innovative/consummate.
posted by musofire at 7:18 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

I too thought of it in terms of The Beatles = burn fast and brilliantly, quickly extinguished, The Rolling Stones = Burned brightly, smolder and fizzle for several decades.

However, I don't think they necessarily mean that, given that the following lyric is "oh seriously you know you're gonna make mistakes you know", which I think suggests the overall meaning is "it doesn't matter who you model yourself after, just be who you are".


"You're gonna make mistakes, you're young."
So, do whatever you do, you'll make mistakes and eventually learn through them. Whether you pick the Beatles or the Stones, you'll prob get over it at some point anyway. That's my take.
posted by arcticwoman at 7:25 AM on December 5, 2009

My mother says that, socially, you could be a fan of one or the other but not both. The "good" kids liked the Beatles, the "bad" kids liked the Stones. It got more complicated after the early days, but it was something to identify with and fight with your siblings about.
posted by Lyn Never at 8:00 AM on December 5, 2009 [3 favorites]

What Lyn Never said. When my mum used to tell her story of The Time Paul McCartney Held My Hand At Darwin Airport, she would finish with the ironic twist that although her jealous best friend was a huge Beatles fan , she herself was "more of a Rolling Stones girl". In the late 60s British Invasion era, there was a supposed teen culture divide between Beatles vs Stones / clean cut vs counter-culture / pop vs rock'n'roll.
posted by hot soup girl at 8:29 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

I just found this site today and I'm really excited about it!
posted by ropeladder at 9:07 AM on December 5, 2009

Before this question, I had interpreted it the same way as Bricabrac, Huron Bob and Lyn Never's mom: it's a naughty-or-nice question.

Every decision is either Stones or Beatles, at its heart.

Everyone chooses between Betty and Veronica.
posted by rokusan at 9:20 AM on December 5, 2009

Ropeladder, I would trust AskMe or my own gut before relying on that site much.

Some of those "meanings" reach an Ask Yahoo! level of clueless-but-typing-anyway.
posted by rokusan at 9:21 AM on December 5, 2009

If you can't answer this yourself we can't tell you what it means.
posted by ZaneJ. at 10:57 AM on December 5, 2009

Best answer: A SongMeanings poster references a Drowned in Sound feature where Emily discusses each song on the album. Regarding "Gimme Sympathy" she says:

We opened for The Rolling Stones two nights at Madison Square Garden in NYC and since then analyzing what they represent has become a favorite theme of band conversations. In this song we ask the age-old question, "Who would you rather be: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?" Here's Jimmy's answer: "Neither. One is dead and the other is corporate!"

posted by serathen at 11:01 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

Rokusan: True, but on the other hand, other responses I have found thoughtful and thought-provoking. Often users will mention band interviews and such things.

Don't mean to derail. Just wanted to point out that it's out there if y'all were unaware (like I was).
posted by ropeladder at 11:06 AM on December 5, 2009

Response by poster: I wasn't looking for any profound insight; I'm not too music-literate so pretty much every interpretation posted here had escaped me.

Thanks for giving me a handle on my earworm.
posted by Lorc at 12:01 PM on December 5, 2009

Thanks for asking this question—I'd wondered the same thing not long ago.
posted by limeonaire at 12:47 PM on December 5, 2009

We saw them in concert recently and the set-dressing/lights was what I would describe as quasi-arena rock, and Emily talked about how "our generation needs heroes" - which she later elaborated to mean, really great bands "like Jimi Hendrix" and those guys. "We neeeed that shit"...then she talked about how Metric doesn't want to "just be Blondie, we have bigger ambitions than that". I.e., they don't want to be just a pop band, but want to be... something more? Or they don't want to be a short-lived band? Or a novelty band with a pretty singer? I'm not sure; I have been musing over this and the lyric you quote.

Weirdly, to me Gimme Sympathy is one of their most catchy poppy songs, without the usual more weird or dark elements that some of their songs have. At the show we went to, they played it in the middle of the set list, not as a capper or an encore as you might expect if they think of it as a huge pop anthem. And it's not the single they're playing as they go around to talk shows - eg on Letterman they played Help I'm Alive which is darker and weirder.

It has lyrics from both Beatles and Stones. Just from the lyrics, if I had to pick I would have said they're plumping for the Beatles because it says "play me something like Here Comes the Sun", maybe saying play me something fun and sweet - pop is an ok goal? Although the tone of the song is "let's not worry about getting everything right the first time, let's just be wild and experimental".

So she wants to be more like Hendrix, less like Blondie. What's the difference she's pointing to? Does that difference map to the Beatles/Stones thing? Basically I'm not sure, but it's a question I've been thinking about.
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:04 PM on December 5, 2009

Or it's easily possible that the question is meant to be words from a character, not from Haines et al themselves. The whole song could be all in the head of a kid starting out, or could be an imaginary conversation between Haines et al and some teenagers thinking about starting their own band, where the teenagers misguidedly ask each other "who'd you rather be", and Haines et al tell them to just go for it.
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:13 PM on December 5, 2009

I don't know the band or the song, but taken together with the following line, imo it means it doesn't matter what choice you make, just make a choice. You're gonna make mistakes, so get on with it without spending too much time thinking about which is the "right" answer.

This whole thread makes me want to go listen to this band's stuff now.
posted by SuperSquirrel at 4:47 PM on December 5, 2009

Metric doesn't want to "just be Blondie, we have bigger ambitions than that". I.e., they don't want to be just a pop band, but want to be... something more? Or they don't want to be a short-lived band? Or a novelty band with a pretty singer?

Apostasy! Blondie was neither just pop, nor short-lived, and least of all a novelty band with a pretty singer. I am intrigued what she could have meant by that, as there are very few bands that are as well-remembered three decades on.

But you know, today I heard a Beatles song ("In My Life") done on ... harpsichord, I think, on A Prairie Home Companion, all folked up and personal. Somebody said on one of the threads around here recently that in 200 years the Beatles will have become folk standards -- we're already there.

And much as I love Metric, they really should aspire to be another Blondie. But. They're a great band, but even Blondie changed music, whereas the Beatles and Rolling Stones became timeless. I don't know that there has ever been a band competition in history that has been as creatively rewarding (e.g. Let It Be, Let It Bleed).

This whole thread makes me want to go listen to this band's stuff now.

You'll probably like other stuff in the Broken Social Scene collective, especially Stars and Feist.
posted by dhartung at 11:16 PM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

The naughty-or-nice dichotomy is interesting because The Beatles were actually pretty rough and wild in their Hamburg days, while the Rolling Stones were in art school. In some respects the Stones' bad-boy image is a response to the Beatles' cleaned-up professional image that Brian Epstein introduced.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:30 AM on December 6, 2009 [1 favorite]

Blondie was neither just pop, nor short-lived, and least of all a novelty band with a pretty singer. I am intrigued what she could have meant by that, as there are very few bands that are as well-remembered three decades on.

Yeah, that was our reaction too. I take it that they are often compared to Blondie in interviews or something and it gets on their nerves. She definitely said it sort of derisively.
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:00 PM on December 6, 2009

"Subquestion: Is it better to burn out or to fade away?"
posted by timdicator at 12:28 PM on December 7, 2009

Are you a mod, or a rocker? We know what Ringo would say.
posted by Sallyfur at 10:04 AM on December 9, 2009