Please consider registering
Guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones
No permission to create posts
27 September 2012
12.04am
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 19676
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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.

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris) 

"Don't make your love suffer insecurities; Trade the baggage of "self" to set another one free" ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)

27 September 2012
6.12am
linkjws
The Star-Club
Forum Posts: 68
Member Since:
24 September 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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
Avatar
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Rishikesh
Forum Posts: 2857
Member Since:
14 December 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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
Avatar
Long John Silver
Paris Olympia
Forum Posts: 364
Member Since:
9 May 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Wasn't Mick around Let it Be sessions?

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.

27 September 2012
7.59pm
Avatar
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Rishikesh
Forum Posts: 2857
Member Since:
14 December 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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
Avatar
Long John Silver
Paris Olympia
Forum Posts: 364
Member Since:
9 May 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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
Avatar
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Rishikesh
Forum Posts: 2857
Member Since:
14 December 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 19676
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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.

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris) 

"Don't make your love suffer insecurities; Trade the baggage of "self" to set another one free" ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)

27 September 2012
10.50pm
Avatar
Long John Silver
Paris Olympia
Forum Posts: 364
Member Since:
9 May 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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
Avatar
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Rishikesh
Forum Posts: 2857
Member Since:
14 December 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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
Avatar
Velvet Hand
A Tunisian Amphitheatre
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 34
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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
Avatar
minime
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 511
Member Since:
16 February 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

ahdn_paul_06I prefer Maxwell's Silver Hammer to HTE though...

20 December 2012
12.29am
Avatar
Long John Silver
Paris Olympia
Forum Posts: 364
Member Since:
9 May 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You are joking... right :D ?

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.

20 December 2012
2.20am
Avatar
Egroeg Evoli
Across the universe
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 1805
Member Since:
6 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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

 

Also known as Egg-Rock, Egg-Roll, E-George, Eggy, Ravioli, Eggroll Eggrolli...

~witty quote~

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

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
London Palladium
Forum Posts: 181
Member Since:
12 November 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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
Avatar
RunForYourLife
London Palladium
Forum Posts: 153
Member Since:
17 November 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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
Avatar
Inner Light
Friar Park
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 528
Member Since:
20 December 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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
Avatar
Linde
The Netherlands
Rishikesh
Forum Posts: 2743
Member Since:
21 November 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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.

The following people thank Linde for this post:

Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<
23 December 2012
10.38pm
Avatar
parlance
Slaggers
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 7065
Member Since:
8 November 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
100sp_Permalink sp_Print

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 Vimeo or YouTube.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: SayaOtonashi, BeatleSnut
79 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Starr Shine?: 13194

Silly Girl: 9139

parlance: 7065

mr. Sun king coming together: 6429

Mr. Kite: 6133

trcanberra: 5944

Necko: 5900

Ron Nasty: 5842

mithveaen: 4618

AppleScruffJunior: 4267

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 87

Members: 2141

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 42

Topics: 4086

Posts: 237490

Newest Members:

Maxwelledison, jpgrthe4th, closeEyesHugh, Mel, Odetta

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 13017, meanmistermustard: 19672, Zig: 8922, Joe: 4604

Administrators: Joe: 4604, Ellie: 4

Members Birthdays
sp_BirthdayIcon
Today: None
Upcoming: IveJustSeenAFaceo