Beatles vs. Stones

[Argeable]

This was inspired by the "Stones" thread. I've gotta wonder, could the stones really kick the beatles' ass? I mean the Beatles were pretty damn awesome...so what do the teeming millions think?

[Kilgore Trout]

fisticuffs? of course the stones would win. mick would bite.


any other contest would be ridiculous. apples and oranges.

[voguevixen]

I prefer the Beatles myself, but I think comparing the two is like apples and oranges. They're too dissimilar, like when people compare the Beatles and Elvis. Whole 'nother species almost. I think a more accurate comparison is Rolling Stones vs. the Who. Don't know why though. Hmmm.

(posted while drinking, like I need to point that out!)

[pepperlandgirl]

Kick their ass physically or musically?
Physically-yes. Lennon was the "bad" boy of Liverpool, and was constantly fighting until he became a "star"--he rarely lost a fight.
Musically-yes. To quote another member, the Stones have been turning out blues based rock and roll for decades. Impressive, true. However, the Beatles were constantly progressing.
They started with "Love Me Do" Simple song, with simple lyrics, but catchy.
Their entire "Please Please Me" album was very good, but full of short, catchy tunes. While their musical genius was evident, it was not overtly obvious.
By the time "A Hard Day's Night" came, one year later, their writing style changed significantly, and their songs were more mature marking their first attempt at original "love songs" with "And I Love Her" and "If I Fell". Also, "A Hard Day's Night", "You Can't Do That" and various other songs on the album were hailed as the epitome of rock and roll (Remember, this was 1964)
One year later they released "Help!" album. It contained instant rock classics such as "Help!" and "Ticket To Ride", again, even more advanced than "AHDN" However, it also marked a maturity in another way. That was the album that contained "Yesterday". All of a sudden, the Beatles were hailed as REAL musicians for the first time. "Help!" was the a good blend of rock and 'real' music. But The Beatles had only just begun.
Later in 65 they released "Rubber Soul". This album was so huge and momentous in so many ways, I cannot even list them. They experimented with different types of musical styles, instruments, and songs. "Norweigon Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" was ground breaking.
I could go on like this, for "Revolver", "Sgt. Peppers" "Beatles (AKA The White Album)" "Let It Be" and "Abbey Road" but I think you can get the general gist for what's already been said. Each album marked another stage of progression and maturity. They also had the good grace to bow out while they were at their prime, leaving behind only good memories.

[ThisYearsGirl]

I prefer the Beatles myself, but I think comparing the two is like apples and oranges. They're too dissimilar, like when people compare the Beatles and Elvis. Whole 'nother species almost. I think a more accurate comparison is Rolling Stones vs. the Who.


I vote for the Who.
In the other argument, I gotta go for the Beatles.

Rolling Stone magazine's website has little competitions like this (once a week, I think). Usually comtemporary vs. classic. Pretty neat to go through.

[RealityChuck]

I agree with Pepperlandgirl, with the addition that the Beatles performed more styles of music than the Stones ever did, from hard rock, to ballads, to Broadway show tunes (well, one at least), British music hall, soft rock, Indian influenced, country influence, to wildly experimental. The Beatles were also better lyrically (John Lennon especially) and wrote about many more subjects than the Stones (whose songs usually revolved solely around sex and relationships).

The Beatles were so influential on popular music that it's hard to see it nowadays. They also pioneered music video.

I'd take the Who over the Stones mostly because Peter Townsend's greater intelligence and ambition.

[Nacho4Sara]

Beatles. For all the reasons everyone else said. Basically, if you listen to ten Stone's albums, sure there is some progression. But the music is pretty much the same thing every time. Exceptions like Wild Horses are there, but that is unusual.

The Beatles completely innovated rock music. Music videos? The Beatles. 4-6 minutes songs? The Beatles. Layering/"wall of sound" effect? The Beatles. Mix of love songs and and rock on each album? The Beatles. Complete originality in musical styles/expirimentation? The Beatles. Finally, drug-inspired rock? The Beatles. No question.

I really love both, but I gotta kick for my Beatles.

Hijack: Do ya think if I sent in a FANatic for Paul McC., I would get to meet him?

[pepperlandgirl]

Hijack: Do ya think if I sent in a FANatic for Paul McC., I would get to meet him?
At first glance, I would say no. But then, I remember that Paul is VERY accessible to his fans, and has always been. He knows that he would be nothing without his fan base. So I say, go for it. Except if you get to meet my hero, and I don't, I'll be devastated. =(

[Milossarian]

Mick Jagger is the coolest lead singer ever.

John Lennon got a little too full of himself for my taste.

The Beatles, with notable exceptions, had a lighter, poppier feel to their music.

From the late '60s to the early '70s, the Stones were the baddest. Their music was darker, edgier, a little more dangerous. All good things when you're talking about rock and roll.

Mick's woman was Marianne Faithful, one of the most beautiful creatures of the '60s.

John's was Yoko Ono.

Nuff said.

[pepperlandgirl]

Mick Jagger is the coolest lead singer ever
Not a good arguement to bring up in this thread, since the Beatles DIDN'T HAVE A LEAD SINGER! John was just as important as Paul, Paul was just as important as John, and nobody can forget George.

John Lennon got a little too full of himself for my taste.
Maybe at some point he was, but that never affected his music.

From the late '60s to the early '70s, the Stones were the baddest. Their music was darker, edgier, a little more
dangerous. All good things when you're talking about rock and roll
That's what? 3 years? Woohoo! The Stones have three years! Hey, that's the same shelf life as The Backstreet Boys! Besides, you wanna bring up darker edgier etc etc, then The Doors win hand down. Jagger never had the intensity of Jim Morrison (but that's a completely different debate).

Mick's woman was Marianne Faithful, one of the most beautiful creatures of the '60s.

John's was Yoko Ono.
You have only seen Yoko Ono in her long haired white dress phase. What you may not know is when she wasn't doing "bed in" she was very stunning. She has a great figure, even to this day. Plus Yoko is very very intelligent. I would dare say that Yoko has more positive qualities than Marianne Faithful ever did.

[voguevixen]

Go Pepper! Go Pepper!

::does the cabbage patch::

[Milossarian]

But her singing kills lab rats in seconds!

Yes, I know. What does this have to do with the Beatles-Stones debate? Nothing. vv is right. It's apples and oranges.

Still, they are the two big British invasion bands that sort of became icons.

[pepperlandgirl]

Milossarian, I know it's comparing apples and oranges. But it's so much fun!
Seriously though, I love the Stones, and it's hard to compare them to The Beatles, when they weren't The Beatles. But the Beatles are still the best. =)

[voguevixen]

Thanks Milo...great sig BTW

[London_Calling]

Liverpool vs. London, no contest !

I don't think you can compare them, either. My fist thought was also "apples and oranges". IMHO, The Stones were probably the archetypal ‘rock and roll’ band. They’ve always pretty much lived within the confines of conventional rock music. Yep, they had great bluesy roots and, at their best, combined that with real edge. But by the mid 60’s The Beatles were just out there. It’s difficult for me to grasp just how far they took contemporary music in such a short time span.

Hell of a long way from ‘Rock around the Clock’ to ‘A Day in the Life’ – not sure if the distance to ‘Sympathy for the Devil’ and/or ‘Gimme Shelter’ is as great.

Also, I wonder if the Stones naturally dovetail into Led Zep whereas The Beatles can lead any bloody place you want.

For rock, The Stones. For influence, sheer quality and breadth of composition and for innovation, Liverpool

[Spoke]

The Beatles were full of crap. "Love, love, love..." Yeah, right. Gosh, Paul and John sure showed a lot of love for each other in those last few years, didn't they? Face it. They talked the talk, but they didn't walk the walk.

John was an unabashed communist in later years, yet I didn't see him giving his money away. At best he was naive, at worst, he was a hypocrite. But let's talk about the music:

Paul wrote pop songs. With a couple of exceptions, you can't even call what he did "rock".

Pauls lyrics were trite and treacly. John was by far the better lyricist. Jagger is a better lyricist than either. The best of the Beatles lyrics were weak imitations of their lyrical idol, Bob Dylan.

Let's talk musicianship. Ringo as a drummer? Don't make me laugh! George Harrison was the only great instrumentalist in the group. His talent, I will grant you. The Stones, on the other hand, are responsible for approximately half of the great guitar riffs in the history of rock and roll. Keith Richards is a guitar genius.

The Stones were true to rock and roll's history as an edgy, blues-based, slightly dangerous, parent-scaring genre. The Beatles, on the other hand, were writing orchestral love songs. :rolleyes: You can call that "growth" if you want to. I call it losing sight of what rock and roll is all about.

As for the Beatles' vaunted studio innovations, I credit their producer George Martin with most of that. He has been gracious enough not to take all the credit he deserves. The proof? The post-Beatles work of John, Paul, George and Ringo is glaringly inferior, production-wise (and content-wise, for that matter) to their output while Martin was producing them.

Let's talk live performances. Oh wait, that's right, the Beatles quit performing live. Way to stay in touch with your fans, guys. The Stones, meanwhile, are one of the greatest (if not the greatest), live bands in the history of rock and roll.

The Stones have made great rock and roll for decades. The Beatles got into a pouting match and called it quits after just a few years.

The Beatles made some wonderful music, don't get me wrong. But the greatest band ever? Don't buy that hype.

[NothingMan]

Ummmmmmm, O.K.

Led Zepplin.

Period. Over. Done.

Sheesh, it's like - Duh.

[TwistofFate]

Sure, they were great but Jimmy Paiges voice was worse than Yoko's!! Plus, they never knew how to end a song.

for the definitive lesson on song ending, sign up for A Day In The Life, 101



and yes, the Beatles would win against the Stones...
for every Sympathy for the Devil, the Beatles had Tomorrow Never Knows

[Spoke]

Nacho4Sara wrote:
The Beatles completely innovated rock music. Music videos? The Beatles. 4-6 minutes songs? The Beatles. Layering/"wall of sound" effect? The Beatles. Mix of love songs and and rock on each album? The Beatles. Complete originality in musical styles/expirimentation? The Beatles.
Finally, drug-inspired rock? The Beatles. No question.

Well....

"wall of sound"- Originated by Phil Spector, early 60's. (Before the Beatles used it.)
Mix of love songs and rock on albums- Standing tradition. See Elvis, Buddy Holly, any number of others before the Beatles.
drug-inspired rock- The Beatles' lyrical idol Bob Dylan did it first, and the Beatles hopped on the train.(And that's not counting the numerous earlier R&B songs with veiled references to drugs.)
Originality in musical styles- Well, everybody talks about the Beatles' use of orchestral arrangements in their music as if that were some huge breakthrough, but Buddy Holly had done that years before. People talk about the fact that the Beatles were involved in producing their own music. Again, Buddy Holly was way ahead of 'em. The Beatles get credit for the first use of backmasking, I believe. :rolleyes:
4-6 minute songs- I demur. Can't think of any earlier examples, but I don't see this as an earth-shattering innovation.
music videos- The Beatles do get some props for "Strawberry Fields." Don't know who's idea that was, though. It might have come from some anonymous record company executive rather than the Beatles themselves, in which case, the Beatles shouldn't get credit for it. Also, film clips had been used to promote music for a long time. There were even old juke boxes which played clips of musicians performing back in the 50's. (Can't remember what those were called.) The Beatles' putative contribution was the idea of doing a film clip where they weren't simply standing around lip-synching the song.



(Man, I love provoking Beatles fans. ;) All in good fun, y'all.)

[Nacho4Sara]

OH damn. I got stuff to do but I can't let this go:

The Beatles were full of crap. "Love, love, love..." Yeah, right. Gosh, Paul and John sure showed a lot of love for each other in those last few years, didn't they? Face it. They talked the talk, but they didn't walk the walk.

Ummm, they were talking about loving other girls, not each other. With the exception of "All You Need Is Love" to which I believe you were referring. Well, if you listen to the lyrics, it is also about a woman. And their comments and efforts at peace (i.e. John's war protest) have nothing to do with the fact that their musical styles went in different directions (John wanted to expiriment and Paul wanted to get back to his roots).

John was an unabashed communist in later years, yet I didn't see him giving his money away. At best he was naive, at worst, he was a hypocrite.

Nothing to do with their music, as you said. And he actually did contribute a sizable portion of his income to charity, as detailed in a book (forgot the name) by his former personal assistant. Yoko bought a cow, sold it for $10,000, and donated the money to charity.

Paul wrote pop songs. With a couple of exceptions, you can't even call what he did "rock".

Pauls lyrics were trite and treacly. John was by far the better lyricist. Jagger is a better lyricist than either. The best of the Beatles lyrics were weak imitations of their lyrical idol, Bob Dylan.

I guess it depends on your taste. Personally,

"She walks in colors everywhere. She combs her hair. She's a rainbow"

is FAR inferior to:

"In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make"

OR:

"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see. It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out, it doesn't matter much to me."

They mimicked Dylan in their lyric style, true. But Jagger didn't? He named his freaking band after a Dylan song, which leads me to assume Dylan was their idol, or at least an influence. And yet, the Beatles lyrics come closer to Dylan (as evidenced above) than Jagger. IMHO, you can't compare Dylan to either.

Yes, Paul was pop-influenced. But have you heard Revolution? Or Don't Let Me Down? He the best bassist of his time - his bass line moved. He was a superior guitar player without a doubt.

Let's talk musicianship. Ringo as a drummer? Don't make me laugh! George Harrison was the only great instrumentalist in the group. His talent, I will grant you. The Stones, on the other hand, are responsible for approximately half of the great guitar riffs in the history of rock and roll. Keith Richards is a guitar genius.

This leads me to think you don't actually listen to the Beatles. Have you heard ANY of their rock songs? Like Revolution, A Hard Day's Night, I Feel Fine, Help, Come Together, Back In The USSR, Get Back. Harrison was talented, but so were Paul and John. Seriously, listen to "The End". The guitar solo part is Paul, George and John doing three solos each, revolving in that order. Listen to Paul's guitar, then George's shimmering Clapton-esque Blues solo, then John when he slams it home.

Then comes Ringo's only drum solo. Breathtaking. And "Rain" is clearly indicative of Ringo's drum skills.

Anyone who has heard "I Feel Fine" or "A Hard Day's Night" will argue that the Beatles certainly contribute to some of the greatest guitar riffs.

The Stones were true to rock and roll's history as an edgy, blues-based, slightly dangerous, parent-scaring genre. The Beatles, on the other hand, were writing orchestral love songs. You can call that "growth" if you want to. I call it losing sight of what rock and roll is all about.

The Beatles's origins were in rock. All of their early stuff up till A Hard Day's Night was pure rock, even the love songs. From Rubber Soul on, thier rock evolved but was still rock. Just because they made beautiful love songs, and their rock become more complex, does not mean they were not pure rock.

As for the Beatles' vaunted studio innovations, I credit their producer George Martin with most of that. He has been gracious enough not to take all the credit he deserves. The proof? The post-Beatles work of John, Paul, George and Ringo is glaringly inferior, production-wise (and content-wise, for that matter) to their output while Martin was producing them.

George Martin said in his book, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" that the Beatles came up with their innovations, Martin just made them happen. Every Beatles landmark (i.e. SFF's changing tempo, the reverb on I Feel Fine, A Day In The Life's orchestra, came from the Beatles.

I disagree with the statement that they suck alone. Paul is incredible. BUT all of them have acknowledged (in interviews and quotes I can find later if you want) that they were better together than apart. When they worked together, something clicked (I am paraphrasing a quote from "A Day In The Life") and they were much more talented as a group than as solo artists. I am not aware of whether the Stones seperately realeased solo albums, but if they did, I bet Paul or George outsold them. And if they didn't, then you can't argue with that point because there is no proof that the same fate would not happen to the Stones.

Let's talk live performances. Oh wait, that's right, the Beatles quit performing live. Way to stay in touch with your fans, guys. The Stones, meanwhile, are one of the greatest (if not the greatest), live bands in the history of rock and roll.

I agree that Stones are awesome live, but I have never seen the Beatles. So what if they stopped touring? Their music still rocks, and is timeless today as it was in 1965.

The Stones have made great rock and roll for decades. The Beatles got into a pouting match and called it quits after just a few years.

No, that's not what happened. They broke up. No pouting match. Yoko was a small part of what happened, not the reason why.

At least they knew how to go out in style.

The Beatles made some wonderful music, don't get me wrong. But the greatest band ever? Don't buy that hype.

It's not hype.:)

[quote]"wall of sound"- Originated by Phil Spector, early 60's. (Before the Beatles used it.)[.quote]

Well, the Beatles popularized it.

I love debating with people who are too ignorant to know what they are talking about. :)

[Stephe96]

The Beatles. In a heartbeat.

While there's no accounting for personal preference of either band, I think a compelling argument can be made for the superior talent of the lovable moptops from Liverpool.

Consider this logic: Both Lennon and McCartney during their solo careers each wrote and performed at least one song which is generally considered to be a "classic": "Imagine" and "Band On The Run", respectively. As far as I know no member of the Rolling Stones has ever achieved this kind of solo success. (Did Mick even write the only solo song of his I can recall: "Lucky in Love"?)

Simply on the basis of their solo careers one could argue that EITHER Lennon or McCartney would probably be the most talented person in ANY band they were in. The fact that they were in The Beatles together gives them quite an edge over the Rolling Stones, IMHO. Also, this isn't even mentioning the considerable musical contributions by Harrison and Starr.

[GreenEyes]

OOo Can't you just see it now..
First of all the Beatles were not exactly the most buffed up manly-men in the world. <I'm assuming here that we are talking about the Beatles of the 60's> The Stones are so drugged up and drunk they can barely remember the words to their own songs. So, I basically see the Beatles running in terror from the Stones until they dropped. The Stones would forget why they were there in the first place and simply just wander off..
:D

[London_Calling]

Hey Green Eyes - you can't say that about Keef. He still goes to Geneva to get his blood changed at least once a year. The man takes good care of himself !

[RealityChuck]

While I hate to nitpick such a well-informed and cogent argument, Nacho:

They mimicked Dylan in their lyric style, true. But Jagger didn't? He named his freaking band after a Dylan song, which leads me to assume Dylan was their idol, or at least an influence.

The Rolling Stones were named after a Muddy Waters song (I think the title was "Rolling Stone Blues.") They started using the name in early 1962; Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone" was released in 1965.

Actually, the Beatles and the Stones themselves didn't look upon each other as rivals. They knew each other from British TV appearances and would hang out together. The Beatles' faces could be seen on the original album cover for "Their Satanic Majesties Request" (it was originally done using that sort of "magic motion" prism, so you saw changes as you looked at it from different angles), and that album was influenced by Sgt. Pepper. OTOH, the cover of Sgt. Pepper mentions the Stones.

Still, the Beatles have my vote because they were more eclectic, because there's nothing wrong with writing good love songs (something the Stones never really mastered), and because the Beatles were better lyricists by far.

[chief]

My vote is for the Stones, since I just like them better..

the Beatles probably were more diverse, but I loved the Stones style!

[Yankee Blue]

Now who'd have guessed that someone called pepperland girl would be well versed in Beatles lore :D
Musically the Stones have, let's see, three good songs in thirty years. So that catagory goes to the Beatles.
Impact: Beatles.
Innovation: Beatles.
Composition: Beatles
Producer: Beatles
Rumble [assuming it's back in time and all are at their peak]: Beatles. Once they get Mick on the ground John would put the boot in and that it'd be the end of it.
Knowing when to quit: Beatles. Go out at the top and you're remembered forever. Keep charging $65 for second tier seats at the colosseum and it's 'who the f*** do they think they are?'
Pathetically porking any young thing who'll let them in a futile attempt to stave off encroaching age: Stones... okay, specifically Mick.

"Break the glass."
"We can't."
"It's Beatle proof."
"Nothing is Beatle proof."

[Nacho4Sara]

The Rolling Stones were named after a Muddy Waters song (I think the title was "Rolling Stone Blues.") They started using the name in early 1962; Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone" was released in 1965.

Obviously, I know much more about the Beatles than the Stones. :)

[pepperlandgirl]

Now who'd have guessed that someone called pepperland girl would be well versed in Beatles lore
LOL, =)

Ok, some of this has already been covered, however, I have been away for like 2 days, so I'm going over it again =)
Let's talk musicianship. Ringo as a drummer? Don't make me laugh! George Harrison was the only great
instrumentalist in the group. His talent, I will grant you. The Stones, on the other hand, are responsible for
approximately half of the great guitar riffs in the history of rock and roll. Keith Richards is a guitar genius
Yes, let's talk musicianship. We'll discuss instruments they can play.
John Lennon=lead guitar, rhythm guitar, piano
Paul McCartney=lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass guitar, drums, bass, trumpet, flute, (there's more.)
George Harrison=lead guitar, rhythm guitar, a plethora of Indian instruments, including the sitar.
Ring Starr=Various percussion instruments.
All four were self taught, and none of them know how to read music. Well, for four lads from Liverpool with no education in music, they didn't do too badly for themselves, huh? They must have had some talent.

Let's talk live performances. Oh wait, that's right, the Beatles quit performing live. Way to stay in touch with your
fans, guys.
They quit because their music was more important than money. It got to a point they couldn't hear themselves play, and they couldn't hear anything. There's footage of them when they are NOT SINGING, and nobody notices! Sometimes they wouldn't even play their instruments. They were also touring nonstop. Often they would schedules that resembled 42 shows in 30 days. When were they going to write songs? When were they going to record new albums? The four lads were amazing, but they weren't Gods. They needed a break. They needed time.
Besides, they didn't WANT fans who wasn't ready to mature and progress with them as musicians. They were making music for the sheer joy of it, not to please their fans. That was an added bonus.

The Beatles, on the other hand, were writing orchestral love songs.
Ok, let's think about that one.
Orchestral love songs:
All You Need Is Love
Yesterday
Eleanor Rigby
Here, There, and Everywhere
For No One

Rock Songs:
Hmmm, well there's a lot more than five.

The Stones have made great rock and roll for decades. The Beatles got into a pouting match and called it quits
after just a few years.
The Stones have not been making reat rock and roll for decades. As previously mentioned, they've had about 5 really good ones. The rest were the same songs with slightly different lyrics...lyrics that were pretty bad to begin with.
The Beatles did NOT go into a pouting match. They were four distinct personalities, all needing their own space. I could write an entire thesis paper and why their band did not last longer. But like I've said before, they were ready to mature, grow, and experience life without each other.

The Beatles completely innovated rock music. Music videos? The Beatles. 4-6 minutes songs? The
Beatles. Layering/"wall of sound" effect? The Beatles. Mix of love songs and and rock on each
album? The Beatles. Complete originality in musical styles/expirimentation? The Beatles.
Finally, drug-inspired rock? The Beatles. No question.
Wall of Sound...not The Beatles. Sorry, but it was Phil Spector. As a matter of fact, Paul HATE Spector with a passion because he completely butchered "The Long and Winding Road" with his wall of sound.
Music Videos. Definately the Beatles. And contrary to popular belief, their first videos were NOT Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane. The first in IIRC 1965, and it was We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper, followed by Rain/Paperback Writer. They used them as promo films, because they could not be everywhere at once.
4-6 Minute Songs. Actually, this is an important shift from the standard "2 minute pop" song. They opened the door for the 70's rock.
Love songs and Rock on one album. Buddy Holly was mentioned as the person who did this before. That's true to a certain extent, but Holly didn't have too many slow love songs. His rock songs WERE love songs. Besides, he influenced the Beatles a lot, especially in the early years, so if they did borrow from him, it shouldn't be too surprising.

The Stones and The Beatles were actually pretty good friends. Mick was at the "All You Need is Love" recording, and he was at the "A Day in the Life" video too. All The Beatles went to his and Marianne Faithful's wedding Brian Jones played saxaphone on "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)". But the Stones mimicked the Beatles in the beginning. Anybody remember the early footage? They had Beatles hair cuts. Does anybody remember their first top 10 song? I do. It was the Lennon-McCartney song "I Wanna Be Your Man". Even the Stones were influenced by The Beatles.

Rumble [assuming it's back in time and all are at their peak]: Beatles. Once they get Mick on the ground John
would put the boot in and that it'd be the end of it
Especially if the fight took place back in the Liverpool days. John was fairly sure he was going to end up in prison anyway, he had no direction, and he didn't care. He would do whatever it took to win. He was a very ruthless guy when he wanted to be.

[Spoke]

George Martin said in his book, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" that the Beatles came up with their innovations, Martin just made them happen.

Like I said, George Martin is a very modest man. Query: who gets credit for the Sistine Chapel? The guy who said "Let's paint something on the ceiling?" Or Michaelangelo, who actually did the work? George Martin was a Michaelangelo in the studio.

They quit because their music was more important than money. It got to a point they couldn't hear themselves play, and they couldn't hear anything.

For guys who didn't much care about money, they sure were an awfully litigious bunch. Also, why do you suppose McCartney sold the song catalog to Michael Jackson? To preserve artisitic integrity? (*snicker*)

Mick Jagger actually tried to convince the Beatles to return to live performances, but the boys from Liverpoole just couldn't be bothered.

The Beatles did NOT go into a pouting match.

If you don't think the Beatles were in a pouting match at the end, then you're not as well-versed in Beatles history as I had supposed. ;) Query: How many simple conversations did Paul and John have after the breakup? Sorry, but they were grown men acting like children.

Even the Stones were influenced by The Beatles.

And vice-versa. Besides, the Beatles were also influenced by The Beach Boys. Does that make the Beach Boys the greatest rock band of all time?

(On Johns communism...)
Nothing to do with their music, as you said.

Well, I guess it did have something to do with their music. I mean, listen to the lyrics of Imagine, John's "masterpiece." It is essentially the Communist Manifesto set to music.

...[T]here's nothing wrong with writing good love songs (something the Stones never really mastered)...

[expletive deleted]

OK, here's a partial list, just off the top of my head:

Angie
Miss You
Moonlight Mile
Ruby Tuesday
Wild Horses
Waiting on a Friend



Now, as for those of you picking the Beatles to win a brawl, I leave you with this image:

Keith Richards wielding a broken bottle of Jack Daniels...

:p

[pepperlandgirl]

Like I said, George Martin is a very modest man. Query: who gets credit for the Sistine Chapel? The guy who said
"Let's paint something on the ceiling?" Or Michaelangelo, who actually did the work? George Martin was a
Michaelangelo in the studio.

G. Martin deserves credit for making it happen, but he DOES NOT deserve credit for the innovations. Every neat lil thing the Beatles did, they thought of themselves. If George Martin had to engineer the idea, fine. But he didn't think of it. And if G.Martin did something the Beatles didn't like, they let him know. He didn't have any control in the band at all. He had their respect, and that was all.
r guys who didn't much care about money, they sure were an awfully litigious bunch. Also, why do you
suppose McCartney sold the song catalog to Michael Jackson? To preserve artisitic integrity? (*snicker*)
I cannot believe you could be so ignorant. I'm going to say this once, slowly. None of the Beatles EVER EVER owned their own songs. THEY NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO SELL TO ANYBODY. Paul McCartney did not sell to Mike Jackson.
Paul wants nothing more than to have his songs back. However, he cannot even afford to buy them from Sony, who bought from Jackson a few years ago. If you want to know the whole sorid details of how that came to be, then I will go dig up some research and quotes, because it is a LONG story, beginning in 1963 with the establishment of Northern Songs Limited.

For guys who didn't much care about money, they sure were an awfully litigious bunch.
Paul was forced to sue "the Beatles" so that they could have some control over their lives. At the time (70-71) Alan Klein (The Stones' Manager) had them under contract for five years. That was a contributing factor to the breakup actually. The other 3 wanted Klein to manage them, Paul did not trust him. They got into huge fights over that. They couldn't break away without a lawsuit.

And vice-versa. Besides, the Beatles were also influenced by The Beach Boys. Does that make the Beach Boys
the greatest rock band of all time?
The thing is, The Beatles influenced the Stones first, and the Beatles influenced the Beach Boys first. It was always a game of one-upmanship, and the Beatles always won.

Well, I guess it did have something to do with their music. I mean, listen to the lyrics of Imagine, John's
"masterpiece." It is essentially the Communist Manifesto set to music.
And it has a beautiful melody. And if you can only point to one song that has that type of message, than it's not much of a point. Of course, I don't know too many of songs of John's after the Beatles broke up. I'm more of Macca girl myself.

[SteelToes]

For old guys, the BG's

[Spoke]

Now don't get all het up pepperlandgirl, I'm just needling you. ;)

Not sure you have your facts straight on McCartney. I believe that at one point he did own much (if not all) of the Beatles catalog, and that he sold it to Jackson. If I'm mistaken in this, please lay out the facts as you understand them. From whom did Jackson buy the songs? Did Paul sign over his rights to Jackson?

[Spoke]

I should have known The Master would have the answer:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/951027.html

Looks like I was wrong about MCartney owning the Beatles songs. I knew he had made a fortune buying publishing rights, and for some reason, I had thought the Beatles songs were among them.

On the other hand, none of this detracts from my original point, which is that the Beatles were not a bunch of selfless artistes who didn't care about money. They were money grubbers the same as everybody else. So to say that (paraphrasing) "the Beatles didn't care about money, they just cared about the art," is just plain wrong.

[pepperlandgirl]

If I'm mistaken in this, please lay out the facts as you understand
them. From whom did Jackson buy the songs? Did Paul sign over his rights to Jackson?
It's a long story. But you asked for it...

Brian Epstein was the Beatles manager. He was very good at what he did...except he did not understand business to a certain extent. He didn't understand how someone could 'own' a song. The Beatles didn't either. They were young, and not very educated in business matters. So, in 1963 Northern Song Limited was established by Dick James. He wanted to set up a publishing company that dealt solely with Lennon-McCartney to give them better rewards and incentives for writing hits. Lennon, McCartney, and Epstein owned 50% and James owned the other 50% "All their existing copyrights would be vested in the company, all future compositions would be published by Northern Songs...Dick James Music Ltd was appointed manager of Northern Songs Ltd for a ten year peiod, expiring on 10 February 1973..."* A new agreement was reached in 1966 Northern Songs was assigned full copyright to all compositions written by Lennon and McCartney, whether together or individual. The royalties made by L&M were distributed to a privately founded company called Lenmac Enterprises. So far, so good. Notice, Harrison and Starr were not included in the agreement. They currently own the songs they wrote while with the Beatles.
Then in 1969, Dick James sold his shares in Northern Songs to ATV. By 1969, there were 3000 other shareholders, The Beatles only owned 29. 7 per cent of Northern Songs. Financially, they couldn't afford to buy the shares back from ATV. ATV was able to buy enough shares from the other 3000 shareholders to gain 51 per cent of the company and control in 1969. ATV bought out John and Paul shares at the same price it had paid to other fromer shareholdres, the company gave The Beatles 3.5million and owned 99 percent of the company in 1970.

This is of course the much abridged version. The reader might be left to ask himself,"Why did John and Paul sell?!?!"
Well, that wasn't the only thing going on. Apple Corp was falling apart rapidly, they were losing about 50,000 pounds or more a year. They did not have a manager, Allan Klein was moving in. However, Paul did not trust him. The problems and legal wars that ensued is a whole other story. And believe it or not, The Beatles were still pretty naive at that point. There is evidence that they were not completely aware of what they were doing.
Later Mike Jackson bought the catalogue from ATV, and later Sony bought the songs from Jackson. When ATV was putting them up for sale, McCartney tried to buy them, but he made the mistake of offering Yoko the option to buy John's half. She pussyfooted around so long that Jackson swooped in under Paul's nose. Paul was understandably upset. When Jackson sold to Sony, he didn't even give Macca the option of buying.

Again, much abridged version. But this is the gist of the whole affair. So while Paul and John owned the songs to a certain extent in the 60's, they lost all their rights in the 70's. Not too long after that, Paul founded his own publishing company, and has a very impressive collection of songs.

Hmmm, Spoke posted his last message right after I typed all of this. So now you get another side of things. I'm not going to all this work and then not post. =)

On the other hand, none of this detracts from my original point, which is that the Beatles were not a bunch of
selfless artistes who didn't care about money. They were money grubbers the same as everybody else. So to say
that (paraphrasing) "the Beatles didn't care about money, they just cared about the art," is just plain wrong.
I said they quit touring because the money wasn't worth it to them, making music was more important. I didn't say they didn't care about money period.


McCartney: Yesterday and Today Ray Coleman

[Ringo]

For the highpoints, I'd give it to the Liverpuddlians, but when it gets down to the shake..., definitely Stones.

[Ukulele Ike]

I like 'em both.

Got to say the image of all those boys mixing it up like a bunch of street-fighting men is pretty disturbing. Brian Jones and Paul McCartney doing a Moe/Curly thing and all. I'd be standing on the sidelines wringing my hands and saying "Watch the FINGERS...don't mess up your FINGERS!"

[Sam Stone]

I've harped on this before, but George Martin deserves a lot more credit than he's gotten for his contributions to the Beatles. He was a genuine innovator, and a lot of the new techniques credited to the Beatles were his invention. Not only that, but he played instruments on a lot of the songs (including writing and playing the Elizabethan piano solo at the end of "In My Life", without any input from the Beatles. He was alone in the studio listening to the mixes, decided what the song needed, wrote the part, played it and recorded it without the Beatles' knowledge. They loved it, and it became part of the song).

Martin also suggested the use of strings in "Yesterday", and wrote and scored the whole string part. He scored much of the Beatles' music, and much of it was original to him. For an example of how the Beatles worked with Martin, John came up to him when he was writing "For the Benefit of Mr. Kite" and said, "I want some kind of circus music in this song." That's it. George Martin wrote it all.

Anyway, getting back to the comparison between the Beatles and the Stones - I don't think there really is one. The Stones wrote great music, and are great performers, but Rock N' Roll would be essentially the same today if they had never existed. The Beatles transformed popular music. If you track the history of popular music in the 20th century, a few artists stand out - Robert Johnson, Frank Sinatra, Elvis, Dylan, The Beatles, maybe Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly, and a couple of others. These artists changed the direction of popular music and elevated it to another level. Many, many others have contributed bits and pieces here and there (the Sex Pistols introducing punk, etc), but these guys were the prime movers and shakers.

Oh, one more thing - The most under-rated musician in the band was Ringo. He is a great rock drummer. One of the best. The Beatles originally added him to the group because he had an awesome reputation back in Liverpool, and if you took a poll of rock drummers today, most of them would put Ringo pretty high on the list of the greats.

[pepperlandgirl]

I feel that Ringo got short-changed when The Beatles toured because all he could do is was keep a steady beat. He couldn't do anything neat or impressive because they couldn't hear themselves over the crowd. When they started doing studio playing completely, he really began to stand out, but in a subtle way.

[Nacho4Sara]

Ringo sure did get shortchnaged. Listen closely to rain - that is the most incredible, inspired drumming I have ever heard.

[PunditLisa]

Re: the All Important "Babe" factor:
Sure, the Beatles weren't the *manliest* of men, but at least they didn't wear blue eyeshadow. The only man able to carry off THAT look and still look like a babe is Adam Ant IMO. But I digress.

What was my topic? Oh yeah, sex appeal.

Mick Jagger has NO ass. I suppose one could argue that John Lennon has a smaller ass, but I think we should stick to when they were alive. {groan}

The drug czar should can the "Just Say No" campaign and just show posters of Keith Richards. Usually men IMPROVE with age.

I don't believe the drummer (Charlie) has had a pulse in twenty years. Does the man EVER change expressions?

On the contrary, George, Ringo and Paul have held up remarkably well. They were cute back then, though Ringo desperately needed a few more carbs and protein shakes, and they are still relatively handsome men, esp. George. John, given some shampoo and a decent barber, would have always been cute, IMO, had he lived to see his 50's.

Soooo, I give the Beatles 3 out of 4 sex appeal points. The Stones get 1 out of 3, and that's only because Mick Jagger has rhythm.

[Edwardina]

But, Mick Jagger alone has twice the sex appeal of all three of the "sexy" Beatles.

Stones win. I don't see how this even requires thought.

[PunditLisa]

But, Mick Jagger alone has twice the sex appeal of
all three of the "sexy" Beatles.

And I'll bet you get orgasmic just *looking* at Barney Fife....

[HomeSlice]

The Beatles are the best. I always thought that the Stones were the 2nd most overated band of all time, followed closely by Nirvana. ::Getting into my asbestos suit::

[pepperlandgirl]

Wow Homeslice, I like you already :)
BTW John was sexier than any of the Stone, and the other three began as simply cute, but then matured into handsome men. Something the Stones never, ever successfully accomplished. They are not handsome nor 'men'

[barton]

The Beatles had about ten times the range of the Stones. Take John or Paul out of the band and you still have more raw talent than Mick or Keith. The Beatles made fantastic, artful pop songs about love and various other cool emotions - the Stones were low-down and dirty and sang about getting laid. Interesting how they came out of virtually the same mold, playing the same teenybopper blues.

The Stones probably rocked harder. Going through '60's-70's Stones albums is like a primer in how to play rock guitar in open tunings. But their songs were often either banal or insulting. 'Brown Sugar' has a near-perfect groove to it, but the subject leaves much to be desired.

Frankly, I think the Who or Hendrix's band win the hardest-rocking test, though Hendrix deserves his own damn catagory.