The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones | Page 6 | 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
23 December 2012
11.56pm
Ben Ramon
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 619
Member Since:
26 March 2012
Offline
101

I love Gimme Shelter and She's A Rainbow, but most other Stones tracks I can take or leave, and it's not just because of Beatles favouritism; I've listened thoroughly to their "classic period" records plenty of times but they don't grow on me much. The bluesy roots-rock thing gets old quickly, and Jagger's not the best singer (hugely iconic and influential frontman though). For all the publicity the Stones got as the "bad boys", and their music supposedly being dirtier and heavier, they certainly never pushed the boat out as far as Revolution, Helter Skelter or I Want You (She's So Heavy) did.

SHUT UP - Paulie's talkin'
24 December 2012
7.23pm
RunForYourLife
Ed Sullivan Show
Forum Posts: 152
Member Since:
18 November 2011
Offline
102

Don't those high harmonies sound awfully familiar?

25 December 2012
12.42am
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3029
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
103

Don't get me wrong, I love the Stones, but they were always in the wake of The Beatles. The Stones only really came into their own as The Beatles started to break apart in '68. One of my favourite Stones stories is the meeting between Dylan and Jagger at the Ad Lib in the mid-sixties (Bobby's '65 or '66 tour). Bobby obviously didn't have a very high opinion, looked at Jagger and said, something like, "The difference between us is I could have written 'Satisfaction'. You could never have written 'Like a Rolling Stone'."

Few facts.

1) George got them signed to Decca.

2) They first make the UK Top 20 with a Lennon/McCartney throwaway.

3) Jagger and Richard(s) are locked in a room by Andrew Loog Oldham and told if John and Paul can write songs they've got to as well, and they ain't coming out until they do.

4) "I'm Free" lifts Lennon and McCartney's "Love me, hold me," from "Eight Days A Week". You can't find any instance of The Beatles directly quoting the Stones.

5) The first Stones album generally mentioned is "Satanic Majesties…" and that's only to say what a failure and mis-step it was. None of their early albums get much beyond the singles and filler that existed before The Beatles (only possible exception being "Aftermath", and then barely).

The Stones were a great band, deserving much love for a great run of 60s singles, and who hit a great run of albums between '68 and '73, but they were no Beatles. To my mind The Who snapped at The Beatles heels creatively far more than the Stones.

Ooo… 6) "Street Fighting Man", fantastic pose. "Revolution", a – I really ain't sure about all this fighting on the streets. A show of fitting in with the '68 riots is the much easier option than questioning where they're going.

 

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
25 December 2012
4.56am
robert
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 356
Member Since:
19 April 2010
Offline
104

To me it's this simple – every band gets compared to The Beatles – there's a reason – they are the standard. It doesn't take anything away from those other bands – they just are not in a class near The Beatles. -  no other band even comes close. No objective measurement can even put any other band in their league. History continues to prove this. Their supremacy is no longer opinion. it's fact.

"She looks more like him than I do."
25 December 2012
3.54pm
Velvet Hand
A Tunisian Amphitheatre
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 34
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
105

mja6758 said
The first Stones album generally mentioned is "Satanic Majesties…" and that's only to say what a failure and mis-step it was.

Yes, but have you listened to it? It's got a bunch of fantastic songs ("Citadel", "2000 Man", "The Lantern", "2000 Light Years From Home", the aforementioned "She's a Rainbow", also "In Another Land" if you can get past Bill Wyman singing through his nose) and isn't that much of a "Sgt Pepper" rip-off really, musically at least… It's much darker (also lyrically), and there's quite a lot of weird improvised-sounding stuff ("See What Happens", "Gomper", parts of "2000 Light Years")… In fact I think that its aimlessness is what makes "Satanic Majesties" so different from what the Beatles did at the time.

25 December 2012
5.47pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2169
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
106

Yeah, that long improv bit and the overall darkness is something that the meticulously arranged Sgt. Pepper never had any time for.

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
25 December 2012
8.05pm
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3029
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
107

Velvet Hand said

mja6758 said
The first Stones album generally mentioned is "Satanic Majesties…" and that's only to say what a failure and mis-step it was.

Yes, but have you listened to it? It's got a bunch of fantastic songs ("Citadel", "2000 Man", "The Lantern", "2000 Light Years From Home", the aforementioned "She's a Rainbow", also "In Another Land" if you can get past Bill Wyman singing through his nose) and isn't that much of a "Sgt Pepper" rip-off really, musically at least… It's much darker (also lyrically), and there's quite a lot of weird improvised-sounding stuff ("See What Happens", "Gomper", parts of "2000 Light Years")… In fact I think that its aimlessness is what makes "Satanic Majesties" so different from what the Beatles did at the time.

Yes, I have listened to it, and I don't think it's a bad album ("Sing This All Together…" is my favourite track, but the others you mention go from great to good to not without interest). I wasn't commenting on its worth as an album, just talking about how it became the first Stones album to be treated as a whole, rather than a collection of singles and filler, and that the commentary on it was largely "the psychedelic Stones didn't really work". A good example being Jon Landau's review for Rolling Stone, which wasn't exactly complimentary. In many ways it's their "White Album/Get Back-Let It Be" given what was going on around, and within, the band during 1967, ending with Andrew Loog Oldham quitting as their producer. Unlike The Beatles, they did manage to "get back" and, with the drafting in of Jimmy Miller, went on to produce the run of albums – from "Beggars Banquet" through to "Exile…" – that are accepted as their classics.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
28 December 2012
6.46am
sinco
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 30
Member Since:
19 September 2012
Offline
108

Ben Ramon said
I love Gimme Shelter and She's A Rainbow, but most other Stones tracks I can take or leave, and it's not just because of Beatles favouritism; I've listened thoroughly to their "classic period" records plenty of times but they don't grow on me much. The bluesy roots-rock thing gets old quickly, and Jagger's not the best singer (hugely iconic and influential frontman though). For all the publicity the Stones got as the "bad boys", and their music supposedly being dirtier and heavier, they certainly never pushed the boat out as far as Revolution, Helter Skelter or I Want You (She's So Heavy) did.

I just listened to She's a Rainbow and I thought it was great, and Mick Jagger sang this really well. Personally the one thing I don't like much about the Stones is that Mick Jagger is not a very good singer (I pretty much only like their tracks where he sings well: Gimme Shelter, Satisfaction etc..) which is where I think the Beatles are heads and shoulders above the Stones. Part of why the Beatles never gets old is because they had two of the best lead singers to ever make records, in addition to them being the greatest songwriting team ever (this is all my opinion of course).

22 April 2013
2.37pm
parlance
Slaggers
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 5106
Member Since:
8 November 2012
Offline
109

BTW, The Examiner mentioned that yesterday was the 50th anniversary of The Beatles meeting The Rolling Stones for the first time at the Crawdaddy Club.

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.

22 April 2013
4.45pm
Sky999
On The Hill
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1744
Member Since:
14 January 2013
Offline
110

toryst said
McLennonSon said:

That is one good post, man. apple01

Thanks a-hard-days-night-george-8 I never really bought into the whole debate because it's like comparing apples to oranges.  One thing that has always got my goat tho is when the Beatles are called a pop band. 

a-hard-days-night-ringo-8People (in real life) always, ALWAYS bring this up. They always call The Beatles a pop band and the Stones a rock band, but they can never justifiable back the argument when I give them such facts as this:

mja6758 said

1) George got them signed to Decca.

2) They first make the UK Top 20 with a Lennon/McCartney throwaway.

3) Jagger and Richard(s) are locked in a room by Andrew Loog Oldham and told if John and Paul can write songs they've got to as well, and they ain't coming out until they do.

Or when I bring up The Beatles later stuff.

The Beatles did put out "pop" songs, but they also put out rock songs. Most people only point out songs like I Want To Hold Your Hand. Well what about Helter Skelter? Oh, wait that wasn't a single.

The other thing they bring up is The Beatles fan girls/groupies, particularly the people who were not alive then. What do they think the Stones were not going to getting laid? Course they had fan girls! Maybe they didn't have the Beatlesmaina screams, but they had screaming fan girls.

Either way, they are both great bands in different ways. I do love The Beatles more, but I also love the Stones. I give The Beatles credit for leaving on top, but give the Stones credit for longevity.

22 April 2013
5.42pm
fabfouremily
Sitting in an English garden
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2934
Member Since:
3 May 2012
Offline
111

The thing about calling The Beatles a pop band gets on my nerves a lot. Not because I try to deny that they did put out pop songs, but because that term has changed over the years IMO. A pop group now is, for example, One Direction. No talent, songs written for them and, apparently, no idea at all on making half-decent music. If that floats your boat then fine, music is there to be enjoyed, but you can't call both The Beatles and One Direction pop bands because there is no comparison between the two.

Do I think the Stones (whom I quite like, btw) are a bit more Rock and a little less pop than The Beatles? Yes, slightly. But, in my eyes, the latter were a rock band. This is something that I haven't quite convinced my parents of yet, unfortunately.

''We're just knocked out. We heard about the sell out. You gotta get an album out, you owe it to the people. We're so happy we can hardly count.''

22 April 2013
5.45pm
parlance
Slaggers
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 5106
Member Since:
8 November 2012
Offline
112

fabfouremily said

Do I think the Stones (whom I quite like, btw) are a bit more Rock and a little less pop than The Beatles? Yes, slightly. But, in my eyes, the latter were a rock band. This is something that I haven't quite convinced my parents of yet, unfortunately.

I just don't know how you listen to the White Album or Abbey Road and come away calling them a pop band.

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.

22 April 2013
5.54pm
fabfouremily
Sitting in an English garden
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2934
Member Since:
3 May 2012
Offline
113

parlance said

fabfouremily said
Do I think the Stones (whom I quite like, btw) are a bit more Rock and a little less pop than The Beatles? Yes, slightly. But, in my eyes, the latter were a rock band. This is something that I haven't quite convinced my parents of yet, unfortunately.

I just don't know how you listen to the White Album or Abbey Road and come away calling them a pop band.

parlance

Exactly.

 

''We're just knocked out. We heard about the sell out. You gotta get an album out, you owe it to the people. We're so happy we can hardly count.''

22 April 2013
6.00pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2169
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
114

Because there many great pop songs on both of those albums?

As you already said, the main problem is that the meaning of the term has changed.

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
22 April 2013
6.04pm
fabfouremily
Sitting in an English garden
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2934
Member Since:
3 May 2012
Offline
115

Von Bontee said
Because there many great pop songs on both of those albums?

As you already said, the main problem is that the meaning of the term has changed.

Yes, there are ''pop'' songs on those albums but there are mainly songs on there that I think are better put under the category of 'rock'.

''We're just knocked out. We heard about the sell out. You gotta get an album out, you owe it to the people. We're so happy we can hardly count.''

22 April 2013
6.05pm
Sky999
On The Hill
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1744
Member Since:
14 January 2013
Offline
116

fabfouremily said
The thing about calling The Beatles a pop band gets on my nerves a lot. Not because I try to deny that they did put out pop songs, but because that term has changed over the years IMO. A pop group now is, for example, One Direction. No talent, songs written for them and, apparently, no idea at all on making half-decent music. If that floats your boat then fine, music is there to be enjoyed, but you can't call both The Beatles and One Direction pop bands because there is no comparison between the two.

a-hard-days-night-ringo-8This I wish people would get that through their heads.

22 April 2013
8.11pm
parlance
Slaggers
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 5106
Member Since:
8 November 2012
Offline
117

fabfouremily said

Von Bontee said
Because there many great pop songs on both of those albums?

As you already said, the main problem is that the meaning of the term has changed.

Yes, there are ''pop'' songs on those albums but there are mainly songs on there that I think are better put under the category of 'rock'.

Yes, that's my thinking too. Even by 1960's definitions, I don't think overall they would have been considered pop albums.

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.

22 April 2013
11.05pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2169
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
118

But that's not really the case. At least in the UK, if you read all the old '60s press clippings and whatnot, you'll invariably see 'em described as a "pop combo". The terms "rock and roll" (much less just "rock") only show up very infrequently. But, again, that just goes to show how the terms have changed.

I get the general impression that '60s music writers seemed to reserve the term "rock & roll" for stuff that dated back to the '50s – giving the impression that "pop" overtook "rock" sometime around the turn of the decade.

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
22 April 2013
11.52pm
parlance
Slaggers
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 5106
Member Since:
8 November 2012
Offline
119

^^ I won't argue with that as I haven't read too many music reviews from the period. I'm just confused how someone nowadays like Emily's parents would still want to categorize them strictly as a pop band by any standards.

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.

23 April 2013
12.13am
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2169
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
120

Yeah, and I have my reservations about classifying 'em as either one, since they were spectacular at both. And then there's the question of whether pop can encompass rock, or vice verse, blah blah blah…

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
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Oudis, Hey Jude, UnidentifiedFiendishThingy
49 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 9745

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

parlance: 5106

Ahhh Girl: 4941

mithveaen: 4651

Annadog40: 4116

Zig: 4099

Mr. Kite: 3666

Ron Nasty: 3029

fabfouremily: 2934

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2591

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3157

Posts: 133826

Newest Members: mrneil2, macdog, estoreparka, mouse, ug3hp

Moderators: Ahhh Girl (4941), meanmistermustard (9745), Zig (4099), Joe (3450)

Administrators: Joe (3450), Ellie (1)

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: None