Death Match: Beatles Vs Stones

Cafe Society
1

This has probably been done before but I thought I’d stir it up again anyway.

My English ex-boss once contended that, when he was growing up (back in the 60s), it was inconceivable that you could be a fan of both the Beatles and the Stones. Like the two bands were, in some way, polar and karmic opposites. Now I am not English, and by the time I was born, the Beatles had already finished recording all of their albums and the Stones had recorded Exile on Main Street. However, I consider these two bands to be two of my favourite bands of all time and also the two greatest and most important bands in the history of modern popular music.

To kickoff the debate, I will just bring some general points on the why I believe one band to be better than the other but I will reserve the right to come back, when time and energy permit, to embellish my points.

Why The Beatles are greater than the Stones

The average Beatles song and indeed album is much better than the average Stones song and album.
Obviously, this is subjective but I can listen to virtually any Beatles song but some of the stuff the Stones has done makes me instantaneously reach for the volume dial/skip button/handgun.

You can sing along to The Beatles whereas no one even has a clue what Mick is singing.
I count this as a plus simply because being able to sing with a band makes you experience the song better. Others (especially people who may have heard me sing) might think differently.

The Beatles were/are more generally popular
I’m no conformist and I have not bothered to back this claim up with statistics on number one albums and singles but it would appear that the difference in fan base and critical opinion is largely (see Rolling Stone magazines recent list of the greatest albums of all time) tilted towards the Beatles. If they were that much more popular, there must be something in that.

The Beatles had more diversity in their music
From Love Me Do to Norwegian Wood to Got To Get You Into My Life to A Day in The Life to While My Guitar Gently Weeps to Helter Skelter to Let It Be; the Beatles showed remarkable range, innovation and evolution.

The Beatles had so many great singer-songwriters
Well, three out of four ain’t bad. Lennon, McCartney and Harrison each had great solo careers and proved that they could produce a great standard of music outside of the Beatles. Indeed, they proved, perhaps, that they didn’t really need the Beatles at all.

Why the Stones are better than the Beatles

The best Stones songs/albums are better than the best Beatles albums
I’m already lubing up the back passage in anticipation of the pile on I’m gonna cop over this. This is entirely subjective but I believe if you take Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street and It’s Only Rock and Roll and you take the best 10 songs from these 5 albums and you stack them up against, say, 10 songs from Rubber Soul, Revolver, St Peppers, Abbey Road and the White Album; the Stones win. It wouldn’t be a blowout but I reckon the Stones would edge the Beatles. On an album by album thing, just using the 5 on 5 comparison, it would be close again but I’d need to think about it some more to come up with a decision. It’d be like an Ali-Frazier type of thing.

The Stones rock harder than the Beatles
I don’t think there is any doubt about this one. Listening to Brown Sugar or Bitch or Monkey Man or It’s Only Rock and Roll makes me want to turn the volume up to eleven and jump around in my undies, nodding my head like “yes, yes, yes!!!” (apologies to Spinal Tap, Tom Cruise and Homer Simpson). Sorry, but Revolution; Helter Skelter and Taxman don’t match up in the rock my socks off stakes. This is where the Beatles can’t come close to the Stones, in my opinion, and it really boils down to how important this is as an issue.

The Stones have enjoyed far more longevity
The Stones have released over 30 albums over the course of 40+ years. Yes, I think some of them are pretty crappy but they have still released them and people have bought them. The have continued to tour and make (and sell) albums despite the death of Brian Jones and the departures of Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman (and whatever they have to do to Keef every year in Switzerland to keep him alive). Even though they now look like Spitting Image puppets, you can or could until very recently still enjoy the Stones performing their music live or releasing new material (or making albums/DVDs with old material). This keeps them somehow alive for their fans, who can also drag their disgruntled children to a concert or make them listen to some song while trying in vain to explain why they are still so great.

The Beatles, on the other hand, have suffered the death of half their number and have been dead in terms of new material and fresh performances for the better part of 30 years (not including previously recorded and digitally spliced stuff like Free as a Bird).

The Stones are badasses
Despite the fact that they are/were so popular in the mainstream and sold so many albums, and even overlooking that they have soldout with the commercialism, Mick’s Knighthood and all the embarassing attempts to keep up with the eighties with efforts like Emotional Rescue and Steel Wheels; the Stones have remained quintessentially cool because they were so much the archetypal bad boys of rock. Keef’s drug adventures, Mick’s sex adventures and Bill’s thing for little girls have kept them on edge. So have the satanic references and the run-ins with the law, but what really does it for a lot of people is the plain ugliness of the band members. My bud, Miller, has a theory about this that the Stones have deliberately played to this. Brian was the best looking one so he had to die. When Mick Taylor left, they looked for the ugliest man they could find to replace him, succeeding with Ronnie Wood. I heard once that the Stones didn’t allow Ian Stewart to join them as a member because he was too ugly. Obviously, if this was said, it was said in jest but it is plausible that the opposite was, in fact, true.

That’s all the stuff I can come up with for now. It would be nice if a musician (or completely insufferable snob) could come in and tell us why one was better purely from a technical musical viewpoint. At any rate, please share your opinion and maybe I’ll make up my mind on which one I think is the final victor for now. Either way, I’m sure that I’ll change my mind next time I listen to a Beatles or Stones song and fall deeply and completely in love with the music all over again.

2

I’d have to go with the Stones, although there’s plenty of cases to be made both ways. A lot of what the Beatles did could scarcely be called “Rock & Roll.” For live performances, the Beatles were by far the weaker band, which is why they only toured for two or three years. Their stuff was undanceable, and prior to Sgt. Pepper, they had a real candy-ass/boy band stink to them that made them inaccessable to males and adults.

“I Wanna Hold Your Hand” and “Let’s Spend the Night Together” were on the charts at the same time, which says an awful lot about how rockin’ they were when they went head to head. The Stones had Brian Jones and Keith Richards, serious musicians with solid Blues chops, in the early years and Ronny Wood in the later ones; the Beatles (who were on record as not being able to read music, though Paul could later on) had to farm out their better album work to Clapton, Klaus Voorman and others.

On the other hand, the Stones spent a lot of time trailing in the Beatles’ wake. Satanic Majesties was a direct response to Sgt. Pepper, and the Stones had no grasp of psychedelia; I can’t imagine the Beatles doing anything as a response to the Stones. Also, McCartney recently claimed to have given Mick Jagger his first joint, saying “From our reputaions, you’d think it was the other way around.”

The Beatles got out of the game before they could seriously suck. The Stones are still in the game and haven’t had a truly great album since Some Girls. But I got sick of re-listening to Beatles albums decades ago; Prime Stones albums still stand up.

3

Ultimately this is an apples and oranges debate. The Beatles were pop, the Stones were Rock. The Beatles never really were a Rock and Roll band – they were pop, pure and simple. They were generally better musicians, more likeable, and deeper people than the stones.

The Stones on the other hand set the mold for the Rock that was to be: Bad boys, rude, dangerous, not the kind of mates you’d want your kid hanging out with.

The real debate for me is The Stones and The Who – Both Rock bands, both bad boys, both hard rockers.

My problem with the Stones is that they always sounded derivitive to me – from their blues and country influences to their infamous 80’s update of their sound. So, for me, anyway, The Who is actually the greatest Rock Band ever – pure Rock, loud, unapologetic, but unique and original in their sound. Plus I’ll Take Daltrey’s pipes over Mick’s garbled mess any day.

Yah, go ahead, Flame me – I like the Stones, but think they are Way over-rated (I like the Beatles too, but feel they are sometimes over rated and not really a rock band either).

4

The Who

Perhaps, more on that later, but I’d say The Who is best for their more innovative work, better albums, and songs with crazy energy that can’t be matched. Just try not to get pumped up while listening to “Won’t Get Fooled Again”.

5

It’s a tie. Depending on my mood, I’m wild for both bands. But I’d have to say, in the typical “desert island” situation, I’d have to stick with the Beatles. They touch my heart in a way no other band has.

6

First off, I thinnk your boss was wrong. In the U.S. at least, it was certainly possible to love both bands. I and most of my friends did.

Secondly, it’s not just a rock/pop division that makes it an apples and oranges argument. The Beatles were together for less than a decade. The Stones, in their various incarnations, have been together for about 40 years. Obviously the Stones have had more opportunity to establish their reputation, their influence and to let their music evolve.

I agree that the better comparison is Stones vs. Who, and I have to give the edge to The Who – at least The Who with Keith Moon.

7

To me, there really is no contest because I love them both and am happy to do so. If pressed, however, IMHO, the Beatles win hands down. The Stones are an amazing band, one of the best ever; the Beatles were a profound cultural phenomenon that defined an era for all time. It’s like comparing, oh, Isiah Thomas to Michael Jordon - one was an amazing ballplayer who ascended to the top of the game and was respected by everybody; one redefined the sport and put his stamp on the era.

The Beatles creative arc - from poppy She Loves You singles through songs like A Day in the Life or Across the Universe - remains one of the most astonishing artistic phenomenons witnessed. The ascended to the top of the pack and while there, continued to take huge risks and innovate. The Stones delivered amazing music, but their creative arc simply does not have a comparative quantum leap. There is no Revolver, Sgt Peppers, White Album or Abbey Road in ther catalogue - albums that find another gear in terms of production, types of songs, lyrics, etc. The Stones’ big 3 - Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile (sure, lots of folks would also include Goat’s Head Soup, Beggar’s, It’s Only R&R and Some Girls, to name a few) - are all amazing, immortal albums - but none make the same artistic leaps that the Beatles did.

8

I knew this would happen.

Can someone explain to me the American fascination with The Who? The Who were popular outside of the states too but they seem to have achieved monumental beyond-expected-norms-type popularity there.

Maybe that’s an issue for another thread.

9

And as for the Stones and the Who - tough call, but I would say the Stones. The Who has a more risky, innovative songwriter in Pete Townshend, and a more classically genetically-perfect front man in Roger Daltrey, but the Stones appeared on the scene sooner and, relative to the Who - but less so than the Beatles - had a greater crossover, cultural impact. The Who came out of a cultural phenomenon - the Mods - but weren’t the shapers of the scene compared to the Stones.

I guess what I am saying is that, to me, influence and cultural impact matter as much as the songs and innovation. The Beatles had it all, The Stones had amazing songs and a strong cultural impact (but not nearly as much as the Beatles) and the Who had innovative songs and a great creative arc (from Can’t Explain to rock operas is amazing), but not as much crossover impact as the Stones. Clearly, YMMV - this is all about the fun of discussion. Ultimately, they are all at the very top of a huge pack of artists, so it is all relative.

10

If I just want to sit and listen to some truly amazing music, beautiful and well-crafted, I’ll go with the Beatles.

But for tunes that make me want to drive 120, drill an 8 ball into the corner pocket and grab a woman by the waist, well, it’s the Stones all the way.

11

eh, why not discuss it here, too? Johnny B. Goode, I think the Who was (and are) huge in the U.S. because:

a) They toured here a lot and were involved in key cultural moments, like Monterey Pop and Woodstock.

b) They evolved their music in stride with the movement in the '70’s to full-length concept albums.

c) They rocked hard - not as hard as Zep or Black Sabbath, say, but certainly harder than most bands on the scene.

d) They were critically respected and got a lot of critical press in magazines like Rolling Stone and Creem.

12

All great bands and who would criticise any of them; Stones, Beatles, Who. I’m just jumping in to refute kunilou because we are talking about the first records me and my friends bought and in Australia you had Beatles records or Stones records and that was it. Both bands were bigger earlier in the rest of the world. Even now the Australian charts are part British, part American, part local.

13

That about sums it up for me, too. I absolutely adore the Stones, to the point that I’ll spend sick amounts to see them in concert even now, but while their music rocks out and makes me shake my ass, the Beatles just mean a little more to me.

14

My own personal Death Match would pit the Beatles against not the Stones or the Who but the Kinks.

15

Heh heh… I’d never heard of the term “Spitting Image puppets” before this OP, but hearing it as a description for the Stones’ present appearance, I thought to myself, “Huh, I wonder if those’re the things from the Land of Confusion video.”

16

The Beatles, definitely. I like the Stones, but, after all, it was the Beatles that made them a success in the US (by creating the British Invasion). In addition, the Beatles were adept at many more musical styles that the Stones. Their songs have also stood the test of time better.

I’d also rate the Kinks and the Who over the Stones.

17

" The Beatles never really were a Rock and Roll band – they were pop, pure and simple."

Now that’s just silly. What’s (for example) “She’s a Woman” if not rock and roll? The Beatles were not leave-your-ears-buzzing-for-four-days hard rock, but that’s not the only flavor of rock.

The Stones were a great band, and Beggar’s Banquet/Let It Bleed/Sticky Fingers/Exile on Main Street are fantastic albums. They also have one huge mark against them, namely that Mick Jagger has a pretty terrble voice. Yes, he has managed to do a lot with it, but there’s not getting around the fact that he can barely carry a tune. (Listen to him sing “My Girl”–if you dare!) He’s leagues behind his role models, guys like Muddy Waters, Howling Wolf, Arthur Alexander and Don Covay. John and Paul had much more flexible voices. And it took the Stones a while to really hit their stride as a band.

I think I’d go with:

Before 1968: The Beatles
1968-1978: The Stones (over the late Beatles or over the ex-Beatles)
After 1978: None of the above. (Most of what the Stones did after Some Girls is pretty negligible, in my opinion.)
Live Band before 1978: The Who. :slight_smile:

18

I’m confused. Is the OP asking which of the two comes in second behind Led Zeppelin? Because that’s the only way any of it makes sense to me.

19

Just to continue the whole thing for my self-serving enjoyment, I will now list my ten songs from the five Stones albums (the ones I believe are their greatest) I mentioned before. The Beatles ones I will do another time. Feel free to come up with and share your lists. I look forward to seeing them.

Not in any order except grouped by album:

  1. Brown Sugar
  2. Can’t You Hear Me Knockin’
  3. Bitch
  4. Gimme Shelter
  5. Monkey Man
  6. You Can’t Always Get What You Want
  7. Rocks Off
  8. Tumblin Dice
  9. Sympathy for the Devil
  10. It’s Only Rock 'n Roll

Boy, that was hard. Eight of them picked themselves for me but the last two (which I gave to Rocks Off and You Can’t Always Get What You Want) places had about ten contenders.

20

If you want to go by what the world was like at the time, Reality Chuck is closest.

At the time, nobody made today’s distinction about pop and rock. The Beatles were the very definition of rock ‘n’ roll from the beginning. That’s what adults hated about them.

At the time, the Beatles had a huge and insurmountable head start over the Stones, with eight number one records before “Satisfaction” came out. People no longer remember this, but the group that was looked upon as the Beatles rival was the Dave Clark Five with their dozen hits in '64 and '65. (Admittedly, they were quickly eclipsed by the Stones by '66.)

At the time, the Stones were considered to be slavish imitators of the Beatles. See “Their Satanic Majesty Requests” and “Flowers.” And everybody knew that John and Paul had written the Stones’ first hit for them.

From everything I’ve read later, the Stones vs. Beatles thing was a much bigger deal in the U.K. than in the U.S. (Much as the whole mods vs. rockers split was non-existent and pretty much incomprehensible in the U.S.) No doubt there were some hipper than thou types in the U.S. who looked down on Beatles’ listeners, but mostly the Beatles were just on a different level from everyone else. In college, the hippest guy in my dorm was the Vietnam vet with the pot and the major league sound system. So when the “White Album” debuted and was played in its entirely on the radio[!] we all huddled in his room to listen, rate the songs, and argue over whether it deserved to be a double album. Nobody ever did anything like that for the Stones.

The Stones only started to catch up, IMO, with “Beggar’s Banquet” - released just after the “White Album” - and the major tours they were finally able to create in 1969. But by that time the Beatles were falling apart.

As for the rest of the British Invasion, you have to remember that mostly the only place to hear this music was on AM radio. The Who, the Kinks, the Yardbirds simply didn’t get as much play in the mid-60s as the Herman’s Hermits, the Hollies, and the Dave Clark Five (all of whom were still considered at the time, to be rock rather than pop). Those first three groups, no matter how revered they are today, never had a Top 5 hit single in America. Not one. Ever. It wasn’t until “Tommy,” also from '69, that the Who really broke through.

So I think the OP’s boss is mostly wrong. There may have been a small Beatles/Stones split, but that was as much media and publicity hype as it was real. (The Beatles were Kings until they abdicated, and then everyone else fought it out for the title.