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.
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…
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 !
While I hate to nitpick such a well-informed and cogent argument, Nacho:
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.
Now who’d have guessed that someone called pepperland girl would be well versed in Beatles lore
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.”
Ok, some of this has already been covered, however, I have been away for like 2 days, so I’m going over it again =)
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
[expletive deleted]
OK, here’s a partial list, just off the top of my head:
[ul]
[li]Angie[/li][li]Miss You[/li][li]Moonlight Mile[/li][li]Ruby Tuesday[/li][li]Wild Horses[/li][li]Waiting on a Friend[/li][/ul]
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. =)
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
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!”
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.
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.
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.
Query: How many simple conversations did Paul and John have after the breakup? Sorry, but they were grown men acting like children.