Thank you. That was the kind of post that I would never have even dreamed of getting until I did. It was very informative for a younger and more ignorant man like myself.
I was, however, seeking to compare the impact, influence and legacy of the two bands to date. I don’t doubt that the Beatles’ light shone first and brightest, and that their broad-based appeal is greater. I also offer a counterpoint that the Stone have, perhaps, made up for that with prolificacy and longevity.
Maybe like comparing Gale Sayers with Walter Payton.
Great job on the context, Exapno - thanks. And I agree with your concluding point about the Beatles basically being the kings until they chose not to be…
Nope - more like comparing Jim Brown with Walter Payton. Jim Brown’s dominance was undisputed for the, what, 7 years he played? He chose to retire, but is still considered THE dominant running back of his or any era by most knowledgeable football types.
In terms of influence, the Stones cast a huge shadow, but it is not nearly as big as the Beatles’, regardless of longevity. Face it, past Some Girls the Stones haven’t really produced anything at the forefront of rock…
There are certainly many songs which are skippable by the beatles, on almsot all their albums, i.e mxwells silver hammer, michelle etc. but the stones i think suffer from so much recent public exposure of being ‘the greatest rock and roll band ever’ which when you compare them to soeone who really rocked, such as led zep, tey pale in the background, personally, and i think with some hard evidence Zep are the best band. Sure their lyrics might not always match the beatles, but as musicians they were light years ahead of beatles or stones, or anyone else for that matter, and they actually the most consistent number of number 1 albums, from II to ITTOD. Plus they never released singles in the UK< and only about 4 in the USA. If you’ve never seen The song remains the same or how the west was won then you need to. Watching that shows you just how far behind other bands were at showmanship, style, songs, and prescene(no pun intended)
Fuck, that’s a good mix, Johnny! I’d probably exchange “All Down the Line” for “Gimme Shelter,” but all told, if you and me shared a stereo, we’d be gettin along jes fine.
The early Beatles were are and always willbe schlock. I wanna hold your hand. Love love me do. Popular. Sure. Great music. Hardly.
Satisfaction was superior to all of them.
The Beatles certainly made some major music: Hey Jude. A Day In the Life. Let it Be. And some very interesting throw-aways: Rocky Raccoon. Let’s do it in the road. Etc.
But when you stack up Tumblin’ Dice. Can’t always get what you want. Gimme Shelter. Sympathy for the Devil. Much better rock and roll.
Gimme Shelter makes any one of the Beatle’s films look like an amateurish cartoon. Of course part of that was the Altamont Event. And the Mayles brothers. But when you sat there watching Gimme Shelter, you couldn’t leave the theater.
Now I’ll throw a real ringer: The Band’s Last Waltz may well be the best of them all. But I’m sure I’ll get little support for that. And Janice and Gracie and Neil. . .
“the smoking lamp is lit in all unauthorized places.”
In relation to each other, people tend to paint these bands in fairly broad strokes- The Beatles were the arty ones (more literate, more prone to folk/Indian music excursions, etc.) while the Stones were the rockers. But anything further than a cursory glance shows that the Beatles could rock as hot and sweaty as any 60’s group (Revolution, Helter Skelter, et al), and the Stones could write as affecting a ballad or semi-ballad as any folk-rock combo (As Time Goes By, Ruby Tuesday, Moonlight Mile, many others). Limiting them to their respective “roles” as cultural icons is convenient but hardly accurate.
Plus, the comparison becomes moot when you consider that the Beatles hung it up in 1970. This means that when the Stones were making two of their greatest and hardest-rocking albums ever, Sticky Fingers and Exile, the Beatles had nothing to enter into the competition!
My quick two cents: The very best Stones songs are slightly better than the very best Beatles songs. Overall, however, I’d take the Beatles.
[hijack]
I actually know someone with that name. Bud Miller is on his birth certificate. Nothing like being named after what your parents were drinking when you were conceived.
[/hijack]
Back in '64 - '67, the Beatles were the “good boys” band with their nice suits and weird but clean haircuts. Adults hated rock and roll long before they appeared, but they made it almost respectable. The Stones positioned themselves as the “bad boys” in contrast. The already mentioned “Hold Your Hand” vs. “Let’s Spend the Night Together” comparison shows this well.
I vote for the Beatles since they were the trailblazers. They used the sitar first, the Stones copied it. They did Sgt. Peppers., the Stones, tried (and failed) to copy it. The Stones were a good blues band, but the Beatles took from an incredible amount of musical tradition. They were from the era when rock and rollers didn’t grow up just listening to rock.
As for the Beatles being pop artists, three words - Roll Over Beethoven. Don’t confuse Sir Paul’s later career with the original Beatles.
I’ll give the Stones the edge in live performances. Anthology makes it clear that when they went live during Beatlemania, the feeble amps used then meant that no one could hear them, so they didn’t bother. I guess they were a lot better before this.
I listen to them both still. As for Led Zep - I listened to them when they came out, but have not the slightest desire to listen to them any more.
Classics as far as I’m concerned: one each (She’s leaving home versus Angie).
Beatles songs that come close to being classics AFAIC:
Blackbird, The ballad of John and Yoko, Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday, A day in the life, If I fell, Penny Lane, Strawberry fields forever, Lucy in the sky with diamonds.
Stones songs that come close to being classics AFAIC:
Ummmmmm… no.
Then again, from the sixties I’d prefer Simon and Garfunkel over either.
Am I the only one who, gosh darn it, just doesn’t care for the Stones? In general, I like their radio hits, but I’ve never liked “Satisfaction” all that much, and, hey, isn’t that THE GREATEST ROCK SONG EVER? I’ve owned a few of their albums (Don’t know which) and… meh. The Beatles are the tops for me, but I’ll take Zeppelin, Sabbath, the Who, the Kinks, AC/DC, or any of dozens of other rock bands before the Stones. Fine, they were influential, but I just don’t get it…
I would throw in the under-rated and seldom-heard “Have You Seen Your Mother…”, and toss “Monkey Man”. And amazingly, I had never ever heard “Rip This Joint” until a year or so ago, and it’s now high on my all-time Stones list. I can’t hear that song without chair-dancing.
But then there’s some great old stuff like “It’s All Over Now”, “Last Time”, “Not Fade Away”…and how can you leave off “Shattered”…
Fine, and I welcome your opinion but bear in mind that I have chosen the five albums first and neither Flowers (Have you seen your mother, baby) nor Some Girls (Shattered) are on my list.
That’s also the reason why there’s no Jack Flash, Satisfaction, Start Me Up or Honkey Tonk Women on my list.
I have to go with The Beatles. I can appreciate the Stones, but just their popular radio stuff. Granted, I’ve never really explored the Stones, but based on what I hear, I’m content with their popular tunes. But I chose the Beatles because of their musical diversity. In such a short period they really went a long way.
Uh…You know that was Chuck Berry’s song, right? And so was “Rock and Roll Music”. And “Twist and Shout” was the Isley Brothers. And so on.
Not disputing the claim that the Beatles could rock. They could; they had their fire baptism in Hamburg. And a few of their original songs are hardcore: “Revolution” and “Helter Skelter” come to mind. But those are definitely the exceptions.
And I’d look at it this way: during their solo careers Lennon, McCartney and Harrison each had at least one song that could easily be termed a ‘classic:’ let’s say “Imagine,” “Band on the Run,” and…um, “My Sweet Lord,” respectively. (I know this is very arguable but I’m making a point). That three members of a quartet could ON THEIR OWN come up with classic tunes, for me at least, weighs heavily in favor of The Beatles. You could almost say that any of the three would almost certainly be the most talented members of ANY band they joined. To have the three of them in a single band pretty much blows away any competition, in my own humble opinion.
I rock out to the Stones, of course, but Mick and Keith et al have never displayed any kind of solo talent outside of the band. “Lucky in Love?” Ha ha ha! Not REALLY up there with the likes of ‘Imagine’ or ‘Silly Love Songs’ or ‘Here Comes The Sun’ (not REALLY a Harrison solo, but it might as well have been!) or ‘Jet’ or "Insant Karma.’
Here’s another way of looking at the question: 500 years from now, if only one band from our era will be remembered, who will it be? Is there any question but that it’s the Beatles?
500 years from now, students of 20th century music will listen to The Stones and The Who. But little kids will know who the Beatles were. They’re the Shakespeares of our age - the artists that will rise up out of the clutter and become symbols for us all.
