Battle of the Bands: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

[nicodemus]

I saw this on another message board I post on and it made for some good discussion. Feel free to start your own similar threads.

If you have to pick one...

The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

[Auriaprottu]

Nico...this is a shameless no-brainer. You've put perhaps the most influential group of musicians ever to compose and perform together against the biggest wannabes in the history of the arts. The Beatles in a landslide. Strangely, "Angie", "Ruby Tuesday" and "Paint it Black" would be in my Desert Island 10-CD changer, but that doesn't prevent the Stones from being world-class poseurs. The pre- Sgt. Pepper's Beatles were a bit fake, especially when they tried to play stuff like "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Twist and Shout", but they acquitted themselves so well with "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Within You Without You", She Came In thru the Bathroom Window", "Fool On The Hill",.. I'll stop here- too many to mention. When I want R&B, I'll listen to old Motown or Atantic. When I want blues, I'll dust off the albums of any number of REAL blues artists- not Jagger, Vaughn or Clapton. The Stones are a joke. A well-played joke, a financial windfall joke, a popular joke, but a joke nonetheless. Anyone who'd give these bums a vote is either deaf or stupid. If you'd put the Beatles up against Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin, maybe you'd have a battle. But this? This? (...nooooo, howwwww dooooo youuuuuu REALLY feeeeeeeel, Auria...)

[nicodemus]

I agree, I'd pick the Beatles in a hearbeat, but somebody's already picked the Stones. It was just somewhere to start. Feel free to start a Beatles vs. Floyd or Zep thread and I'm sure the results will be different. I'm just trying to find us a new way to argue about music.

[afgrijselijkheid]

ummm.. ok i won't even favor that last post with a response - i cant even be bothered to choose between these two - i need them both

[nicodemus]

Nico...this is a shameless no-brainer. You've put perhaps the most influential group of musicians ever to compose and perform together against the biggest wannabes in the history of the arts. The Beatles in a landslide. Strangely, "Angie", "Ruby Tuesday" and "Paint it Black" would be in my Desert Island 10-CD changer, but that doesn't prevent the Stones from being world-class poseurs. The pre- Sgt. Pepper's Beatles were a bit fake, especially when they tried to play stuff like "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Twist and Shout", but they acquitted themselves so well with "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Within You Without You", She Came In thru the Bathroom Window", "Fool On The Hill",.. I'll stop here- too many to mention. When I want R&B, I'll listen to old Motown or Atantic. When I want blues, I'll dust off the albums of any number of REAL blues artists- not Jagger, Vaughn or Clapton. The Stones are a joke. A well-played joke, a financial windfall joke, a popular joke, but a joke nonetheless. Anyone who'd give these bums a vote is either deaf or stupid. If you'd put the Beatles up against Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin, maybe you'd have a battle. But this? This? (...nooooo, howwwww dooooo youuuuuu REALLY feeeeeeeel, Auria...)
I forgot to add...

now that's the kind of venom I want to see :D

[yossarian]

Nico...this is a shameless no-brainer. You've put perhaps the most influential group of musicians ever to compose and perform together against the biggest wannabes in the history of the arts. The Beatles in a landslide. Strangely, "Angie", "Ruby Tuesday" and "Paint it Black" would be in my Desert Island 10-CD changer, but that doesn't prevent the Stones from being world-class poseurs. The pre- Sgt. Pepper's Beatles were a bit fake, especially when they tried to play stuff like "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Twist and Shout", but they acquitted themselves so well with "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Within You Without You", She Came In thru the Bathroom Window", "Fool On The Hill",.. I'll stop here- too many to mention. When I want R&B, I'll listen to old Motown or Atantic. When I want blues, I'll dust off the albums of any number of REAL blues artists- not Jagger, Vaughn or Clapton. The Stones are a joke. A well-played joke, a financial windfall joke, a popular joke, but a joke nonetheless. Anyone who'd give these bums a vote is either deaf or stupid. If you'd put the Beatles up against Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin, maybe you'd have a battle. But this? This? (...nooooo, howwwww dooooo youuuuuu REALLY feeeeeeeel, Auria...)

If I believed in that sort of thing....I would think you were reading my brain waves as I could not agree more. You hit the nail on the head.

[655321]

The Stones stopped being musically important after 1973...and up until then they weren't anywhere near the Beatles.

[afgrijselijkheid]

anybody who thinks the stones haven't had any influence at all better first check with the jayhawks, the replacements, sheryl crow, the black crowes, son volt, etc. first

[nicodemus]

anybody who thinks the stones haven't had any influence at all better first check with the jayhawks, the replacements, sheryl crow, the black crowes, son volt, etc. first
That's fine if they influenced people I like (Jayhawks & Son Volt from your examples), but that still doesn't mean I want to listen to them.

[GringoTex]

anybody who thinks the stones haven't had any influence at all better first check with son volt first

Beatles influenced Wilco.

I win.

[Auriaprottu]

anybody who thinks the stones haven't had any influence at all better first check with the jayhawks, the replacements, sheryl crow, the black crowes, son volt, etc. first

That's like secondhand smoke. I mean it in a good way, but it is. The Stones weren't the originators of what they made so much fame from doing, and they'd be among the first to tell you so. They were like The Commitments or something, listening to Wilson Pickett, Aretha Franklin, Junior Walker and the All-Stars, Percy Sledge, Otis Redding, Sam Cooke, James Brown, The Dells, the Temptations, Jackie Wilson, etc... the generation who put the "R" in R&B. Mick & co. may have had an influence on the groups/artists you named (I saw the Crowes open for Robert Plant at UAB several years ago, and was not impressed. I've never liked Sheryl Crow or her stunt double Rickie Lee Jones), but theirs was at best a watered-down version of the real thing. Yes, every generation is influenced, and every generation adds something of its own, but the Stones are to R&B (let's face it- that's what they're trying so hard to play) what Kenny G is to jazz. They're not the only ones, and it ain't because they're White -I enjoy Tower of Power and Average White Band a lot, and can't abide most "modern" R&B- but they're the most famous of all the pretenders.

[Deuteriumoxide]

The Beatles and the Stones influenced a lot and a lot of people. In fact music might not be the same if not for them.

That doesn't mean I have to like either of them. No Vote.

[nicodemus]

That doesn't mean I have to like either of them. No Vote.

...:D...

[Auriaprottu]

Has this become the de facto Alabama music thread?

[nicodemus]

Has this become the de facto Alabama music thread?
Hmmm....four of us did live here at one point or other.

[Real Ray]

The Stones.

The problem (or I should say my problem) with the Beatles is that while they where more influential in terms their influence on pop culture, IMO they have too short a window of truly great work and they broke up before they matured as musicans.

For me the only Beatle albums that truly rate as complete works are :
Rubber Soul (1965)
Revolver (1966)
Sgt. Pepper (1967)

I like the White Album and Abbey Road, but I think we can agree on the flaws as well. Important works in the history of pop music, but really a limited body of work.

More importantly (and why I rate the Stones better) when you compare them to their two great contemporaries, The Who and Rolling Stones, you can see that right at the time of their breakup, these two bands, with similar timelines soar to what many see as their peaks, not just in the studio but as live bands-an area where the Beatles are just terrible.

You look at the Stones from 1968 on:

Beggars Banquet (1968)
Let It Bleed (1969)
Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! (1970)
Sticky Fingers (1971)
Exile On Main Street (1972)

Five classics and more importantly IMO, the actual full maturity of the band as a unit. And with "Exile..." they come out of this journey showing an absorbtion of all of their influences and creating a unique sound of their own. And later album like Some Girls and Tattoo You showed they could still deliver hits and remain relevent deep into the decade. And yes, there are lots of great singles pre-1968 but let's be fair: both of their early works while having some gems, were also full of a lot filler-as was the way pop records were made at that time.

The Who BTW, have a very similar time-line as well: Tommy (1969), Live At Leeds (1970), Who's Next (1971) and Quadrophenia (1973). I don't think it's any coincidence that they both put out strong live albums out in 1970: they were now complete bands with a unique and mature sound. The Beatles never reached this stage and in fact, you can make a case that from Sgt. Peppers on they, were no longer creating as a whole, musical unit-that matters in my book. The Stones were. And they simply rocked harder and better. I deduct major points off the Beatles on this score.

Beatles...a great band, but I rate the Stones better.

[nancyb]

Well, I much prefer the Beatles, but the Stones had a lot going for them. Paint It Black has got to be one the best songs ever. The lyrics the music create such an visual, emotional response it's amazing. Few songs can match it.

[afgrijselijkheid]

That's like secondhand smoke. I mean it in a good way, but it is. The Stones weren't the originators of what they made so much fame from doing, and they'd be among the first to tell you so. They were like The Commitments or something, listening to Wilson Pickett, Aretha Franklin, Junior Walker and the All-Stars, Percy Sledge, Otis Redding, Sam Cooke, James Brown, The Dells, the Temptations, Jackie Wilson, etc... the generation who put the "R" in R&B. Mick & co. may have had an influence on the groups/artists you named (I saw the Crowes open for Robert Plant at UAB several years ago, and was not impressed. I've never liked Sheryl Crow or her stunt double Rickie Lee Jones), but theirs was at best a watered-down version of the real thing. Yes, every generation is influenced, and every generation adds something of its own, but the Stones are to R&B (let's face it- that's what they're trying so hard to play) what Kenny G is to jazz. They're not the only ones, and it ain't because they're White -I enjoy Tower of Power and Average White Band a lot, and can't abide most "modern" R&B- but they're the most famous of all the pretenders.



you need to put down the creative loafing dude - i mean calling the stones "pretenders? - calling the stones an R&B band is like calling led zeppelin a blues band - everybody has their influences, doesnt make them pretenders - the stones have toyed with reggae, moroccan sounds, disco, punk, jazz, whatever you want

[Ghost]

The Stones.

The problem (or I should say my problem) with the Beatles is that while they where more influential in terms their influence on pop culture, IMO they have too short a window of truly great work and they broke up before they matured as musicans.

For me the only Beatle albums that truly rate as complete works are :
Rubber Soul (1965)
Revolver (1966)
Sgt. Pepper (1967)

I like the White Album and Abbey Road, but I think we can agree on the flaws as well. Important works in the history of pop music, but really a limited body of work.

More importantly (and why I rate the Stones better) when you compare them to their two great contemporaries, The Who and Rolling Stones, you can see that right at the time of their breakup, these two bands, with similar timelines soar to what many see as their peaks, not just in the studio but as live bands-an area where the Beatles are just terrible.

You look at the Stones from 1968 on:

Beggars Banquet (1968)
Let It Bleed (1969)
Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! (1970)
Sticky Fingers (1971)
Exile On Main Street (1972)

Five classics and more importantly IMO, the actual full maturity of the band as a unit. And with "Exile..." they come out of this journey showing an absorbtion of all of their influences and creating a unique sound of their own. And later album like Some Girls and Tattoo You showed they could still deliver hits and remain relevent deep into the decade. And yes, there are lots of great singles pre-1968 but let's be fair: both of their early works while having some gems, were also full of a lot filler-as was the way pop records were made at that time.

The Who BTW, have a very similar time-line as well: Tommy (1969), Live At Leeds (1970), Who's Next (1971) and Quadrophenia (1973). I don't think it's any coincidence that they both put out strong live albums out in 1970: they were now complete bands with a unique and mature sound. The Beatles never reached this stage and in fact, you can make a case that from Sgt. Peppers on they, were no longer creating as a whole, musical unit-that matters in my book. The Stones were. And they simply rocked harder and better. I deduct major points off the Beatles on this score.

Beatles...a great band, but I rate the Stones better.

Great post.

Beatles are OK, but I really do wonder how much of their worship by baby boomers has to do with justifying their choice to listen to pop tunes during a decade of immense counterculture presence. Avant-garde on the cheap, is I guess what I mean. Other than I Am the Walrus, Strawberry Fields, Norwegian Wood, and maybe Dear Prudence, it's hard for me to name potential Desert Island songs from the Beatles. Meanwhile, Exile is a desert island CD in its enirety. And besides, could any band with Paul McCartney in it really be that good?
By the way, I guess I'm number five on posters in this thread who used to live in Alabama.

[nicodemus]

Avant-garde on the cheap, Great expression.

And besides, could any band with Paul McCartney in it really be that good? That might be the most valid music criticism I've ever read.

By the way, I guess I'm number five on posters in this thread who used to live in Alabama. Where did you live?