The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones | Page 5 | Yesterday... and today | Fab forum

Please consider registering
Guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones
27 September 2012
12.04am
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9547
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
81

Von Bontee said
"Satanic Majesties" was certainly Pepper-inspired, but there was a lot of that about at that time.

"We Love You" had nothing to do with "All You Need Is Love".

I think John was a bit paranoid. What else did he mention specifically? (I can't view that clip.)

 

From the Rolling Stone interview with Jann Wenner (as taken from here):

What do you think of the Stones today?

I think it's a lot of hype. I like ``Honky Tonk Women,'' but I think Mick's a joke with all that fag dancing; I always did. I enjoy it; I'll probably go and see his films and all like everybody else, but really, I think it's a joke.

Do you see him much now?

No, I never do see him. We saw a bit of each other when Allen [Klein, Beatles' late-period manager] was first coming in – I think Mick got jealous. I was always very respectful of Mick and the Stones, but he said a lot of sort of tarty things about the Beatles, which I am hurt by because, you know, I can knock the Beatles, but don't let Mick Jagger knock them. I would like to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on every fuckin' album. Every fuckin' thing we did, Mick does exactly the same – he imitates us. And I would like one of you fuckin' underground people to point it out. You know, Satanic Majesties is Pepper; ``We Love You,'' it's the most fuckin' bullshit, that's ``All You Need Is Love.'' I resent the implication that the Stones are like revolutionaries and that the Beatles weren't. If the Stones were or are, the Beatles really were, too. But they are not in the same class, musicwise or powerwise, never were. I never said anything, I always admired them, because I like their funky music, and I like their style. I like rock & roll and the direction they took after they got over trying to imitate us. He's obviously so upset by how big the Beatles are compared with him, he never got over it. Now he's in his old age, and he is beginning to knock us, you know, and he keeps knocking. I resent it, because even his second fuckin' record, we wrote it for him. Mick said, ``Peace made money.'' We didn't make any money from peace.

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
27 September 2012
6.12am
linkjws
The Star-Club
Forum Posts: 68
Member Since:
25 September 2012
Offline
82

In the video it also shows the cover of "Beggars Banquet" and the White Album and they are very similar.  I have never listened to Beggars, so I can't comment on the style of music.  Also the whole "Let It Bleed/Let It Be" thing.  I noticed from the earlier years some stones album covers looking similar, but I am sure that there was a lot of that going on.  

27 September 2012
6.23pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2169
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline

Aside from only being released a week after the White Album, the "Beggar's Banquet" album cover was a replacement for the cover which the Stones originally wanted. Just a coincidence. The cover of the Rolling Stones' debut does feature their faces lit on one profile only, just like the earlier "With The Beatles"…but it also leaves off the name of the band entirely, which the Beatles never did until "Rubber Soul", a virtual lifetime later. And "Let it Bleed" was released months before "Let It Be"!

Really, it's mostly just John being paranoid or peevish (not that Mick Jagger didn't also have a petty jealous streak in him.) The Beatles did a lot of things first; somebody had to be second.

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
27 September 2012
6.52pm
Long John Silver
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 366
Member Since:
9 May 2012
Offline
84

Wasn't Mick around Let it Be sessions?

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
27 September 2012
7.59pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2169
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
85

Sure, maybe, I dunno. But they were then "Get Back" sessions – there were no plans to title an album "Let It Be" until long after the Stones album was in the stores.

I really think there's nothing at all to the whole thing. I remember, long time ago when I was 12 (lol I'm old), Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and Michael Jackson's "Off The Wall" were released within about a month or so of each other – nobody accused either of ripping off the other!

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
27 September 2012
8.58pm
Long John Silver
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 366
Member Since:
9 May 2012
Offline
86

Well yeah but the song Let it be existed.. meh I don't know that really, but what I am more interested is what tarty (funny word) things did Mick say?

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
27 September 2012
9.51pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2169
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
87

Would the Rolling Stones really send Mick Jagger to spy on the Beatles just so he could verify a prospective song title of theirs, just so that he Keith could write their OWN song several months later that sounded NOTHING like the Beatles song, but did share two words of a title? And then title their album after that song, in vague hopes that the Beatles would title THEIR album after THEIR song, several months down the road? Hoping ultimately that…I dunno, that maybe some really stupid people would go out intending buy a Beatles record, only to accidentally buy a Stones record instead because they only read the first two words of the title?!

Sounds plausible to me! :)

(Tarty IS a pretty funny word, isn't it?)

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
27 September 2012
10.01pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9547
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
88

Folks believe Paul is dead which is proof that some people will buy into any old crap. There was probaly some element of truth in it, one reason being The Beatles were the ones leading the way for most of the 60's, but not to the extent of waiting to see what the beatles did and copy it.

I was thinking of writing an article/blog thing where John singing Hound Dog in '72 is an attack on Paul just to see if someone picks up on it and reports it as fact but i cant be bothered and there is already so much bullshit about the beatles why add to it. If you see it as truth online tho you know who started it.

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
27 September 2012
10.50pm
Long John Silver
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 366
Member Since:
9 May 2012
Offline

Von Bontee said
Would the Rolling Stones really send Mick Jagger to spy on the Beatles just so he could verify a prospective song title of theirs, just so that he Keith could write their OWN song several months later that sounded NOTHING like the Beatles song, but did share two words of a title? And then title their album after that song, in vague hopes that the Beatles would title THEIR album after THEIR song, several months down the road? Hoping ultimately that…I dunno, that maybe some really stupid people would go out intending buy a Beatles record, only to accidentally buy a Stones record instead because they only read the first two words of the title?!

Sounds plausible to me! :)

(Tarty IS a pretty funny word, isn't it?)

Not really a spy, I just think the inspiration for title song was Let It Be. I might be wrong though.

 

And yes, if English was my first language of communication, I would've use it often :) .

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
27 September 2012
10.57pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2169
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
90

Haha ok, fair enough! I suppose it's possible, for reasons of their own.

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
19 December 2012
11.16pm
Velvet Hand
A Tunisian Amphitheatre
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 34
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
91

Ooooh, what an interesting topic! 

On the whole, I'd say that the Stones, while brilliant, were less consistently brilliant than the Beatles (at the time they mattered, that is), and that even during their own "imperial" phase (ca. "Satisfaction" to Sticky Fingers or thereabouts), they put out some substandard and/or just plain boring stuff.

While one might argue that some Beatles songs are "worse" than others – "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" is worse than "Here, There and Everywhere" or whatever -, they were certainly never boring, and there are songs that bore me rigid even on my favourite Stones albums. Except, and I'm not being wilfully contrary here, on "Satanic Majesties", which is confused but not boring.

Oh, and I really like Goats Head Soup. More than Exile On Main St.!

19 December 2012
11.38pm
minime
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 516
Member Since:
16 February 2011
Offline
92

ahdn_paul_06I prefer Maxwell's Silver Hammer to HTE though…

20 December 2012
12.29am
Long John Silver
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 366
Member Since:
9 May 2012
Offline

You are joking… right :D ?

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
20 December 2012
2.20am
Egroeg Evoli
Across the universe
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1665
Member Since:
6 December 2012
Offline
94

minime said
ahdn_paul_06I prefer Maxwell's Silver Hammer to HTE though…

If you're not joking, then I agree! Here, There, and Everywhere is a bit boring and I'm-feeling-sleepy-can-I-either-turn-this-off-and-go-to-bed-or-put-on-something-like-oh-I-don't-know-Helter-Skelter-or-a-song-like-that-ish.

ahdn_george_08

 

Do you want to know a secret? Read my username backwards. ~ ~ ~ - - - . . . - - - ~ ~ ~ Also known as Egg-Rock, Egg-Roll, E-George, Eggy...

☮ & <3

20 December 2012
7.46pm
Velvet Hand
A Tunisian Amphitheatre
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 34
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
95

Egroeg Evoli said

Here, There, and Everywhere is a bit boring

Well, that is an, uhm, original opinion, I suppose, but it fails to take into account that even if "Here, There and Everywhere" is boring, it is certainly not as boring as "Something Happened to Me Yesterday". Or "Factory Girl". Or "Doncha Bother Me". Or "Bitch". Or "Let It Loose". Or – y'know.

20 December 2012
8.17pm
thewordislove94
Ed Sullivan Show
Forum Posts: 198
Member Since:
12 November 2012
Offline
96

To be perfectly honest, I'm not a fan of Maxwell's Silver Hammer and Here, There, Everywhere. As for the Rolling Stones, I respect them for staying together for so long, but I prefer their earlier stuff. I like the Beatles better because their music never gets old.

"The world is a very serious and, at times, very sad place - but at other times it is all such a joke."-George Harrison
21 December 2012
5.01am
RunForYourLife
Ed Sullivan Show
Forum Posts: 152
Member Since:
18 November 2011
Offline
97

I've always put it this way.

The 'Stones were a better "rock and roll" band. Heavier, nastier, dirtier.

However, The Beatles were a better band, period. More innovative and interesting.

 

I love both bands, but I've always preferred the lads from Liverpool. 

21 December 2012
4.27pm
Inner Light
Friar Park
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 489
Member Since:
20 December 2010
Offline
98

Mick was always different and never wanted to be like everyone else back in the early sixties. I remember while the Beatles would be in their suits, Mick would were a sweater. Even back then, he was always pushing the envelope.

The further one travels, the less one knows
21 December 2012
10.55pm
Linde
The Netherlands
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2018
Member Since:
21 November 2012
Offline
99

I never really liked the Stones, there's maybe a handful (maybe even 2!) of songs by them I like.

I also don't really like Mick's voice. Surely it suits their songs, but I could never listen to the Stones for half an hour.

 

So yeah, this isn't a hard question for me at all.

23 December 2012
10.38pm
parlance
Slaggers
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 5069
Member Since:
8 November 2012
Offline
100

The only song of the Stones I've cared for is "Paint it Black." But I'm not that familiar with their non-single songs, so I'm sure I could find others.

parlance

Beware of sadness. It can hit you. It can hurt you. Make you sore and what is more, that is not what you are here for. - George

Check out my fan video for Paul's song "Appreciate" at YouTube and Vimeo.

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: DrBeatle, Ahhh Girl, Annadog40, StrawberryWalrus
64 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 9547

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

parlance: 5069

Ahhh Girl: 4821

mithveaen: 4651

Zig: 3990

Annadog40: 3947

Mr. Kite: 3510

Ron Nasty: 3013

fabfouremily: 2934

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2569

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3177

Posts: 132446

Newest Members: celmackrobi, tiszalina, Chlobeans, beatle1965, beatle 146

Moderators: Ahhh Girl (4821), meanmistermustard (9547), Zig (3990), Joe (3446)

Administrators: Joe (3446), Ellie (1)

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: None