@bigtwin At a birthday party for Mick Jagger in ‘68, at a really popular joint in London called the Vesuvio Club, the place was going crazy listening to an advance pressing of the upcoming Stones LP, Beggar’s Banquet that Mick had brought along to play on the house system.
Paul McCartney arrived and handed an acetate of the upcoming Beatles single, Hey Jude/Revolution to the club’s owner, saying, “here’s our new one, see what you think of it.”
After everyone went crazy for the Beatles single, asking it to be played repeatedly, Mick, according to some attendees, seemed peeved. Paul does say that Mick was also quite impressed with “Hey Jude.”
Beatles vs. Stones
Which do you prefer?
I'd have to go with the Rolling Stones although I do love Revolver.
And you?
- ...
- 137 posts total
@tylermunns I have to believe there was a lot of mutual respect between all those guys, if not outright friendship. McCartney/Lennon were, IMHO, a little further ahead of Jagger/Richards in their songwriting. The first Beatles LP was +/- 3 years before the Stones. |
Yes, I think each group recognized the different talents of the other one. The Beatles wrote great songs. The Stones were more focused on the music, the sound, the beat. The Stones had the advantage of longevity. The Beatles were basically done by 1969. That's when the Stones' best music was just starting. If you prefer pop, you choose the Beatles. If rock and roll is your thing, it's the Stones. |
If you prefer pop, you choose the Beatles. If rock and roll is your thing, it's the Stones.
That sounds about right. I always preferred the Beatles whilst my heavy rock/metal fan younger brother always preferred the Stones. I still remember buying him a copy of the Stones Rolled Gold double LP for his birthday whilst he was still at school. |
- 137 posts total