So, who did you vote for? It was pretty intense back in 1964, or maybe it was '65. AM Radio's finest.
Asked by
msh (
4270
)
December 30th, 2015
from iPhone
There never really was a chance for anyone else. When our local AM radio station 1230: WCOL, sent a message out that there was a voting battle on, we jumped up and headed for the phone. The Beatles. It was The Beatles in our household. The Rolling Stones never really had a chance here. It probably had something to do with those cute little faces on the Ed Sullivan show that Sunday night.( they were little because it was a smaller black-and-white television! ) My oldest sister chose Paul, you see John was married! My next oldest sister well, she got George. They gave me Ringo. I still loved John though…and Ringo. Back then.
It was always a close contest. One week one group would win the battle- the next week the other. We always jumped up and we always went to call when it happened…Until our parents told us to get the hell off the phone and quit tying up the line with stupid stuff. We went to the upstairs extension.
So- who did you choose of the two? Sorry. These two bands only, please. Think about what songs were out on the AM- wavelengths at That time.
////////////////////////
I had a great laugh when I watched this- The making of….
and saw all of the members of different bands that showed up. Even some Rolling Stones. See if you can pick out all of the bands present for the party. Enjoy! :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GM&sns=em
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
12 Answers
Oh, Beatles all the way. The Stones were too scary for me (I was 10) and I was perceiving darkness in the world (my cousin and the brothers of my friends were off to Nam). I didn’t want my music and fantasies to be that dark as well.
Besides, I found George to be eminently swoon-worthy. <sigh>
I didn’t vote but would surely have. I was living in NYC at the time and had recently fallen in love with the Beatles. I remember calling my folks back home they were in their early 40s) and telling them there was a new rock group whose music was unlike anything I’d had ever heard (this from a guy who was both a Sinatra and Elvis fanatic). They were unimpressed.
It took me decades to appreciate the Stones and still do, but the Liverpool lads are still my top choice.
Since the Stones were travelling on a path broken by the Beatles (Satisfaction was a hit in July of ‘65), there really was no contest until the late 60s. And then it was more weed and LSD (Beatles) versus heroin and amphetamines (Stones).
I was 3 in ‘64.
By the time I became aware, the Beatles were falling apart and not really ‘fresh’ anymore. The Stones were still a vibrant act.
Put another way, I shared a room with my brother, who was 6 years older. By the time I was 10 in 1971, he was driving and had long left the Beatles behind. I doubt heroin, but, as @zenvelo describes, amphetamines, LSD and weed were certainly heavy influences. I grew up with the Stones.
The Beatles.
I still remember going to the movie A Hard Days Night with my sisters. Nothing but screaming.
The Beatles.
IMO, and I even thought this as a teen, the Rolling Stones were the biggest hoax ever played on the rock and roll scene. They couldn’t sing, and they couldn’t play instruments and Mick J was U-GLY.
@filmfann I saw Yellow Submarine at a movie theater. One of the things I remember distinctly was the smell of vomited wine. I think I was 12 or so.
@Dutchess_III Mick is ugly, and the singing is certainly rough, they can belt out a rock song better than almost any other band.
: looks at giant shelving unit full of vinyl albums by amazing bands, none of which are the Rolling Stones:
Better than who, exactly?
Well, I just don’t agree with you @filmfann. The singing is not only rough, it’s off key.
They sure as hell can’t beat Aerosmith and any number of other bands. Led Zep, for example.
Or AC/DC, or Deep Purple, or The Doors, or The Who, or literally anyone else…
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
