Beatles vs. Stones

When I was a child and teenager I used to listen more to Beatles. Now it turns out that Rolling Stones sometimes motivate me more. I would not predict that when I was a young.

 OOPS! Sorry bigtwin, the first comment I was referring to was from onhwy61, not yours. Guess I'd better check on what I'm smokin'!

hmmmmm...let's see, how do you like your cheeseburger? onions? pickles? tomatos? Better yet, Cheeseburgers or chop suey? Tacos or hot dogs? Why do these ramblings continue on and elicit so many responses? The Beatles were beat/rock, Stones initially blues/rock. Apples and oranges. Both unbelievably good. By the way Phil59, the Beatles first U.S. single was "Please Please Me" b/w "Ask Me Why", July '63 on VJ records #498. STOP! Let's get back to JBL vs. KLH.

P.S. bigtwin what are you smokin'? I'd love to try it. Hope your first post in this misguided adventure was sarsacm. Again, if not, what are you smokin'??  AB

@dz13 

You dedicated follower of fashion, you.

Nowadays it's a little too easy to forget that the UK had so many great bands back then.

The Beatles, the Stones, the Animals, the Who, the Hollies, the Kinks, the Yardbirds, Herman's Hermits, the Incredible String Band, the Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, Cream etc.

At the very least they must have all been giving each other plenty to think about.

The British Invasion was probably the only good thing that came out of the JFK assassination.

I'm a Kinks fan from the British Invasion bands but between the 2, I would go Beatles all day and all of the night. 

@unreceivedogma 

I agree Aftermath may be an artistic breakthrough because they wrote all the songs. But I see it as just a transition to much better songs ahead. The earlier albums had many great performances that were cover songs, with some originals too.

@unreceivedogma 

The first Beatles US single, She Loves You, was released in August or September 1963, followed by I Want to Hold Your Hand. The first album release indeed was January 1964. And the first public appearance was on the Ed Sullivan Show, 2/9/1964.

Well, I have like twenty-plus Stones Lp's and two Beatles.  

@bigtwin

I see your point. Two things:

- the first Stones LP was mostly covers of American blues compositions. It wasn’t until the 2nd to 3rd LP that originals by Jagger/Richards, at the urging of Oldham, I believe, started to predominate. Because they released their first 6 LPs within 2 years, there’s really not that much of a meaningful start lag behind Lennon/McCartney.
- Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street are thought of as the Stones canonic high point, but I throw Aftermath - the first LP with all original compositions - in there as well.

@unreceivedogma  Yes, but I was thinking along the lines of when they started at a writing team and suggesting Lennon/McCartney were out of the gate a bit sooner.  Once Jagger/Richards started to hit their stride with Beggars Banquet, there was not looking back.  IMHO, their work from Beggars though Exile, equals the best of the Beatles.  Different style of music, more soft rock vs hard rock, but both collections have stood the test of time and that's what really speaks to the quality of the songs.  

@bigtwin 

The Beatles 1st US release was January 10, 1964. 
So, in the US, it was 3 months. 

@unreceivedogma  I stand corrected.  Guess you really can't trust anything you read on the internet.  🤣

@larsman

The film also includes Black Panthers, Maoists, Nazi sympathizers, a bunch of white women getting shot, and “Eve Democracy”.

it’s about the 60s, not (just) about the Stones.

There’s an interesting scene in the rehearsal when they change “who killed Kennedy?” on the fly to “Who killed the Kennedys?”

@unreceivedogma - the scene that sticks out most for me was when they are all around the mic doing the 'Woo! Woooo!'s in the background for 'Sympathy'.

@larsman

1 + 1 was the original title of the avant-garde film by Jean-Luc Godard otherwise known as Sympathy for the Devil.

@bigtwin 

March 22, 1963 - Please Please Me, 1st Beatles LP

April 16, 1964 - England’s Newest Hitmakers, 1st Stones LP

13 months, not 3 years. 

Jefferson Airplane 

@phil59 

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.

Similar quandary as Duke vs. the Count in my mind, Not really apples to apples, all had different musical aspirations/goals I believe.

Bottom line, it’s all good when played on hi hf! 😀

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.

@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.  

@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.”

@cd318 While watching Get Back. I noticed several times they had the Stones Beggars Banquet LP in the studio with them, among others.  

@bigtwin

Thanks for reminding me.

I can hardly believe that it’s well over 30 years since I last saw it on Channel 4 during their Goddard season here in the UK.

I think it was called 1 + 1 over here and Sympathy for the Devil in the US.

No idea why.

I wouldn’t mind watching it again because it made little sense back then. It was more like an oddly interesting jigsaw puzzle back then.

Nowadays, I’m a lot more familiar with the pieces.

It might also be one of the rare occasions when the Stones inspired the Beatles.

The Beatles is pretty much the Sun in music, in every direction. Pure perfection for the most part. The Stones is a mess, but it works. And it works well. They contributed about 12 songs to humanity that are brilliant and elevate the listeners life like any great music does. It's that raw energy and beautiful emotional whirlwind that is so unique to them...

It is quite clear from many of the responses (certainly not all) that this is an audiophile blog as opposed to a blog for music lovers.

@bigtwin - Yes, that Rolling Stones film was by Jean-Luc Goddard, if I recall correctly? 

@cd318 Akin to the Beatles in Get Back is the video of the The Stones in the studio working on Sympathy For The Devil.  Starting out as an acoustic ballad and slowly turning into the near violence that is, IMHO, the greatest rock & roll song even written.  

@bigtwin 

Fascinating to watch in real time as some of the most iconic songs are created out of thin air.

Essential viewing for any Beatles fan.

The Beatles incredible output in just 7 years is partially revealed in Get Back as you can clearly see that they never stopped creating new songs.

Even as they are making  what eventually came to be known as Let It Be they are already preparing songs that would appear on Abbey Road.

Perhaps that's the real secret to their success?

Don't ever stop!

I’d have to go with the Beatles—much more melodic, for the most part.  My own favorites, however, are the Moody Blues.

They are both different and great bands!

I’m glad we had/have both. I’m a WHO fan as well.

I’m going to brag a little (ok a lot), that I got to walk across the famous "zebra crossing" to Abbey Road Studios and spend many hours (and drink a pint or two) inside the studios where the Beatles and Pink Floyd recorded, to name just two. I was working with Apple setting up a multi-media production suite.

At the time (this was the late 90’s), they re-painted the white wall outside the studio regularly so that there was space for new ’Beatles Tribute Graffiti’.

It was like going to music history church. If those walls could talk...

@bigtwin I’m something of a film buff.  
I watch anything and everything from any time and anywhere in that medium.  
Obviously, a) Get Back is not a traditional documentary, it’s closer to an archaeological film product, b) documentaries can’t be compared to fiction films, and c) I’m a huge Beatles fan.  
All these things aside, I’m not sure any film has necessarily brought me as much joy and enthrallment as Get Back. I’m so grateful to Peter Jackson and his colleagues and Paul/Ringo/Yoko/Olivia for this film.  
One doesn’t need to like the Beatles or even music to be enthralled by the film.  
Peter Jackson had me with merely the intro. I’m sure we all would have our choices as to which pieces of footage made the final film (having seen the original Michael Lindsay-Hogg Let it Be, I know I missed a few bits Jackson left out - particularly when Paul & John share a mic for a run through of ‘Two of Us’ and go full-on silly in extremely funny fashion, or when the band is jamming w/Preston and start playing ‘Besame Mucho’ and Paul goes into ridiculously-silly over-the-top singing to hilarious effect) but I felt completely in trust of Jackson that he made a tremendous film based on what I saw.

Just watching the 3 hour (?) documentary Get Back.  Going to take a few evenings to get through it.  Billy Preston just joined them in the studio.  For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, I highly recommend you spend some time with it.  Fascinating to watch in real time as some of the most iconic songs are created out of thin air.  McCartney just strumming the bass like a six sting as George & Ringo look on, waiting for Lennon to show up.  Paul is just mumbling to himself and suddenly you start to hear the slightest inkling there's something going on.  George stops yawning and picks up a guitar.  Ringo adds some rhythm with hands and feet.  And there it is out of nothing, the embryo of a classic.  It's takes a few days to put flesh on the bones but it's something to watch.  

The Stones vs The Beatles, Both are and were Fantastic. Being a guy who was a 10 year old when I f it rst heard the Beatles. I grew,up with  there,music.i know the Beatles,ended like 1970.But if you but all the music by each of the Beatles it like ,they never ended.

@tylermunns

Agreed, the Beatles White Album is a fantastic collection of songs.

Hearing The Analogues relive it brought back many happy memories of hearing it for the first time in 1981.

Nowadays I’m even getting to like my least favourite track on there - Savoy Truffle.
 

@tylermunns thanks for mentioning Rod Temperton.

@bdp24 Love The Kinks. Generally go for them over Stones, can’t say necessarily the same w/Beatles. Beatles are just…too good. I could certainly, however, produce a “short novella” on my love of The Kinks.  
I consider Sgt. Pepper’s long-held status as #1-all-time-worthy incommensurate with the actual songs. The studio innovation, sure. Songs, not so much. I consider “She’s Leaving Home” gorgeous, brilliant, haunting, indelible and impervious to overplayedness. “A Day in the Life” is just…incredible (I also enjoy the early takes on Anthology 2…Jesus…). 
Obviously this is all subjective but, “Way over half of the White Album is unlistenable”…boy… 
“Dear Prudence,” “Glass Onion,” “Bungalow Bill,” “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” “Happiness is a Warm Gun,” “Martha My Dear,” “I’m So Tired,” “Blackbird,” “Piggies,” “I Will,” “Julia,” “Mother Nature’s Son,” “Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey,” “Sexy Sadie,” “Helter Skelter,” “Long, Long, Long,” “Honey Pie,” “Savoy Truffle,” “Cry Baby Cry,” “Goodnight.”  
20 of the 30 tracks that are as sublime as pop music gets.
Legit avant-garde songs like “Wild Honey Pie,” “Revolution 9.” Super ballsy to put stuff like that on an LP by the biggest band in the world. Irrespective of artistic courage, I still consider those tracks sonically and artistically remarkable.

Rod Temperton (author of Heatwave, Brothers Johnson, Michael Jackson, Quincy Jones classics), Kenny Gamble and Leon Huff (authors of and producers of too many glorious records by way too many incredible artists to begin to mention), the brothers Gibb, Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Anderson, Giorgio Moroder, and Niles Rodgers (author of Chic, Sister Sledge, Diana Ross, David Bowie) may have something to say about someone using the word “disco” as merely a pejorative.

The primes of Michelangelo, Shakespeare, and Bach ended a lot more than fifty years ago. This has no bearing on whether their art was good.

Rubber Soul and Revolver are my go-to Beatles albums. I haven’t played SPLHCB in over fifty years. Same for Abbey Road. Way over half of the white album is unlistenible.

Mick Jagger is a terrible singer, Keith Richards a mediocre guitarist (for verification, watch Chuck Berry trying to teach Richards how to play "Oh Carol" in Hail! Hail! Rock 'n' Roll. Keith can’t do it.). And they made a disco album. End of story.

You know why so many have covered Beatles songs, and so few those of The Stones? I do, but you are of course free to consider Jagger & Richards good songwriters if you wish. When was the last Jagger/Richards song you like written? Does fifty years ago seem about right?

I think Sgt Pepper was great when it came out, and it still is; love every song on there. Can't say the same for every Beatles album. 

For all you septics that have got it a$$ about face, the Beatles were Scousers, means from Liverpool.

Mick and Keef are from Dartford in Kent and had Souf London accents, Mick later adopted a US southern drawl.

Brian was the brains of the operation until Mick and Keef outed him. He probably wrote a lot of the early stuff and was a musician, way ahead of the other Stones and the Beatles.

Gram Parsons, Ry Cooder and Mick Taylor gave the Stones massive inputs after Brian died and basically created a completely different Rolling Stones.

After listening to the Stones almost everyday for over 50 years I can say that my favourite album is Goat's Head Soup, my favourite track is Down Home Girl or maybe Backstreet Girl.

If you ever get a chance to buy the Stones bootleg Black Album, it's fantastic.

@bigtwin: Two matters:

1- The lyric is actually "when (not "well") after after all it was you and me."

2- I did answer the question: I choose neither. Yesterday I went into my local record store to pick up an album they ordered for me: Lonely Soul by GA-20, a Blues band out of Boston. I walked into the store a coupla weeks ago, and while perusing the LP racks heard music playing on the store’s sound system to which I was immediately drawn. Song after song was fantastic: raw, primal Blues, sort of like early Fabulous Thunderbirds meets a Garage Band, including their version of "Got Love If You Want It"---a Slim Harpo song I had first heard on the Kinks debut album, a fabulous version, far better than what The Stones were (and are) capable of. By the way, I hold The Kinks in higher esteem than both The Beatles and The Stones.

I went over to the counter and checked out the front cover, on which I saw a coupla youngish (compared to me ;-) guys with beards. The back cover had a picture of the two guys holding cool vintage guitars, and album credits. When I saw the names Charlie Musselwhite (harmonica) and Luther Dickinson (slide guitar), I was sold. I rarely do impulse buys, but this one was a no-brainer. My favorite new band!.

Oops, there I go again, penning a short novella ;-) . Back to the topic:

So I entered the store yesterday to pick up the GA-20 (yet another terrible band name ;-) album, and what did I hear playing? That horrid, droning bore of a "song" "Within You Without You" (the damned sitar RUINED George Harrison!). Oh no, I thought to myself; it’s that pos Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. I had other titles I was looking for, and as I started flipping through LP’s I was subjected to "Lovely Rita" (oh for God’s sake, are you kidding me? Who actually likes this sh*t?). That was all I could take. See ya guys, I’ll be back.

If I heard Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band today, as a new release, would I like it? Would you? It strikes me as incredibly corny, especially McCartney’s British Music Hall/nostagia bullsh*t. At least it wasn’t side one; "A Little Help From My Friends"? "Fixing A Hole"? "She’s Leaving Home"? Please, kill me now.

Guess that's why I listen to the Stones and not jazz....

Jazz guys rarely play stones ...just sayin'

@crustycoot I'm a critical thinker and I have access to the internet.  Enough said.

Depending what days of the week it is... Both are great and I love both.

Yes to both.

@edcyn - I'd guess that it was more a friendly tit-for-tat. There were some wonderful songs on there, though - 'Citadel', '2000 Man', '2000 Light Years From Home', 'She's A Rainbow', 'Sing This All Together', even Bill Wyman's 'In Another Land'....

@larsman The way I see it, I can't be sure the Stones were inspired enough by Sgt. Pepper to do Satanic Majesties, were doing it as a friendly tit-for-tat, or were given just a tiny bit of pressure from their record company. In any case, the Stones were pretty obviously out of their element with Satanic Majesties. It had its stretches of fun and a few moments of good music but it is certainly one of their less successful efforts.

@bdp24

He and I made a pilgrimage to Brian’s Bel-Air mansion in the summer of 1975, demo in hand (engineered by yours truly), to ask if he would produce us in a pro studio. It didn’t work out ;-)

Gee, that’s bad luck, or bad timing.

By most accounts Brian was not in a good place by the mid 1970s. 1975 was also the year he began his involvement with the controversial celebrity psychologist Eugene Landy.

@jrosemd

By most accounts the Beatles have outsold the Stones by a factor of more than 10 to 1.

Not too bad for a band that only recorded for 7 years.