Taking Sides - Beatles vs. Stones

It was done about 1000 times a week by various fans during the 60s. :-)

Anyway, Beatles, of course.

1. the beatles explored various styles of music (blues-, jazz- ,country-, psychadelic-, etc. influenced popular rock music) in a little more depth.

2, the beatles at least had a proper break up. yeah, ringo's a children's fantasy train conductor who i last saw singing on leno out on the stage, away from the drum kit. and yeah, paul still records wanky bop music. but, the stones' endless touring and re-packaged 'licks' seem increasingly pathetic at their age.

those are my humble opinions. what are yours? i'm sure they're better.

1) Rubbish live: Okay, never actually been to a Beatles gig(!), but from the tapes I've heard they were terrible. Have you seen that Shea Stadium gig? They were terrible! Likewise never been to a Stones gig, but again, from the tapes, they sound amazing.

2) Stones = better musicians: Even comparing like with like, Mr Harrison was never a better guitarist than Mr Jones, and Mr Watts pisses all over Mr Starr.

3) Too much wank: At least the bad Stones tracks are passable. The bad Beatles tracks are unlistenable.

Of course, there are opposite arguments as to why the Beatles are better:

1) Better songs: Well, just look at them!
2) Greater influence: For fear of getting myself in trouble here, let's just agree that in the course of history, more people have tried to sound like The Beatles than tried to sound like The Stones.

Given these two, you would have to go for the Stones. Apart from a few magic moments (2nd side of Abbey Road, most of the "red album") the beatles were uber-cheese, whilst the Stones have made some quality dirty rock music. You can spin off a pile of great stones albums . . . it ain't easy spinning off a pile of great beatles albums, despite what the canon says.

for me it's definitely the beatles. i like my popstars to be really good human beings. the beatles were/are kinder, humbler people. okay, maybe i'm mainly saying this 'cos mick (jagger) generally seems like such an ass. but didn't they treat brian jones like shit around the time of his death? i know he was no angel, but he was their bandmate and all & a founding member, no?

the stones career is tainted by things like jones' death, altamont, their overall decadence which slid over into the realm of creepiness, plus some really crappy songs in the seventies and eighties. keith richards wrote some swell riffs, and the stones created a certain type of rock'n'roll archetype, but as songwriters they are dogshit compared to the beatles. plus now we have to deal with the legacy of that archetype. give me a million beatles-inspired bands (granted, almost every band who came after them) anyday over all the stones-worshippers that have come down the pike. to give just one example, particularly-rubbish-era primal scream.

isn't it gram parsons who was in fact, responsible for one of the stones' best efforts (wild horses)? the ones usually trotted out to prove their greatness, like 'satisfaction', are just a fucking riff played 48 times with mick doing his fucking "blues" routine overtop. it gets old very quickly...while 'i want to hold your hand' still provides the same visceral thrill for me that it did when i was hearing it for the first time at age 5. nothing, NOTHING, that the stones did can match the brilliance of john/paul's best efforts, like 'strawberry fields' or 'michelle'. the beatles must own at least half the patent on psychedelia, and the stones, nada. the stones own the patent on bullshit rock "image", that's led to like, a billion kids o.d.-ing on smack, poisoning their livers with jack daniels, and the tiresome posturing of clods like oasis. there's not much in the beatles' catalog that's not fantastic in at least some way, while the best stones tunes, such as 'like a rainbow' or 'waiting on a friend' are unrepresentative of most of their work

the 'better musicians' argument i can't get down with. for one, virtuosity means little when the songs aren't there. yeah, watts had jazz chops and all, but who gives a crap? ringo's drumming was absolutely perfect for the beatles. paul was a fucking amazing bass player. him and john knew guitar chords like jack van impe knows the fucking bible. they consistently produced brilliant progressions without the slightest effort.

the 'wank factor': i see it exactly opposite. the stones worst are unlistenable/merely tiresome and the definition of wank, while the beatles' worst are not merely passable, but always have interesting shit going on.

as far as the second side of abbey road, that's about the only thing the beatles did that i can see someone citing as 'uber-cheese'

paul in his wisdom prophetically wrote "maxwell's" because he foresaw the hilarity and joy it would bring to future generations of people stoned and watching the steve martin sequence in the sgt. pepper's movie

i know it's been fashionable for some time to knock the sgt. pepper's album, but i honestly don't see any track qualifying as 'cheese', with the possible exception of the title track.

Back in from the bank-holiday with this clash of the titans. I’m gonna weigh in with the Stones. What is it a, boxing ring or a streetfight? Cos you know the Stones could have the Fab Four in a street brawl any fuckin day right?

So we’re in a back alley, I’m the guy standing behind Keef nonchalantly tossing a flick-knife and sneering sideways on as John gives in the banter…

John: (in that dark Scouse cackle and peering over little black round sunglasses) "You know you’ll never have it kids, right?"
Paul: "Never had it anyway."
George: "Wouldn’t know what to do with it."
Ringo: "What those three said."
Mick: (pulls on his cigarette and advances): Well, right… don’t you think that really depends on what we’re talking about here boys because (stubs cigarette under heel of cowboy boot) who wants to be remembered for being ‘fab’ man?
Keef: (goading) "You ever heard a riff George?"
George: "You ever hit a clean note?"
Keef: (blows a kiss) Love You To baby.
Mick: I mean what is it you think you have anyway? A few pretty tunes, for lots of pretty girls, but what else is there to it? Where’s your input man? Where do you pour it in? Where’s your fucking commitment to what it’s about? ‘Cos you know with you cats, I never really know what the fuck any of it is about…Not really…
Brian: (shoving Paul) "Maaaannnnnn."
Keef: "Hey George, whyd’ya get Clapton to play lead for ya?"
George: (as he is retrained by Ringo) "At least I didn’t rip him right off, like you rinsed Cooder!"
Keef: (restrained by Bill) "That’s a fuckin lie man"
John: "Boring. Boring. Boring. Christ you’re so fucking boring Mick. And you don’t have any fucking idea really do you, you or any one of you, you tossers. (adopts whiny Mick tone) ‘Where’s your fucking commitment… I never really know what the fuck any of it is about.’ Grow up you twat. What’s any of it about man? Making fucking music is what it’s about… and maybe living in a huge expensive white mansion with the woman you love… but who cares what you do or don’t ‘get’ kid, because frankly, I don’t give a shit and there a ten million people who say they don’t give a shit either." Grow up man, or shoot yourself but don’t stand there and tell me you don’t get it like it’s my fault that you don’t have the first fucking idea.
Paul: "I think you need to take a.."
Bill: "Oh shut up Paul."
Mick: "John, what I’m saying man, is like you do what you do and for what? I don’t know because your music sure as hell doesn’t tell me, well, it might tell me man, but I don’t feel it…
Keef: "And you gotta feel it boys"
Charlie: (under his breath) "You’re gonna feel it in a minute..."
Ringo: "What’s that Watts?" You want me to show you how to keep time?"
Brian: "You mop top tossers ain’t got no style man. You’re just mannequins right. You don’t live your lives like."
John: "But Brian you’re a fucked up dope head. Like. Get a grip. Like. No style? And what was Their Satanic Majesties all about then? Christ you look like pantomime part-timers trying to cash in."
Paul: "And I think you should…"
Everyone: "Just shut the fuck up Paul."
Keef: "I’ve had just about enough of your talk Johnny."
John: "Yes ‘Keef’, I expect it’s rather hard for you to follow."
(George starts sniggering)
Keef: "You fucking twat" (he lunges with a right at George)
Ringo: "Hey up"
Charlie: "I’m gonna make you see Starrs pal."
Mick: "John, how d’you wanna be under my thumb." (rushes at him)
Bill: "This is for ‘Michelle’ you dick." (lands a left on Paul’s nose)
Brian: "Wow, crazy man."
John: (as Mick’s fist connects) "Why don’t we do this in the road?"
(A scrappy melee develops with Mick chinning John, Charlie dusting Ringo and Keef laying George out cold. While Brian rolls another J up, the others then help Bill put Paul out of misery)
Mick: (Dusting his hands) Oh Keith, I think I broke a nail!"
Keef: "Don’t even start Mick, don’t even start."
(Streetfighting Man then kicks in hard and the five drag Brian out of the alley, fade lights, cue credits)

please no one write a slash version of this encounter.

really, though, i think john could've kicked all of the stones' scrawny asses without breaking a sweat.

As for the TS, I take no side.

I listen to The Stones more when driving or sexing.
I listen to The Beatles more for everything else.

I love the Beatles too, but not as passionately.

How many cover versions have there been of Jagger/Richard songs?

Although the latter is also a large number, they are nowhere near to the quality of The Beatles' written output. Lennon/McCartney are the Mozart/Beethoven of the 20th century, and that in itself will always put Beatles up there with absolutely nobody else.

I prefer the Stones to the bands who subsequently ripped off the Stones.

And what percentage of those cover versions is constituted by "Yesterday"...?

Not to mention, how many suck? They are one of the hardest bands to cover well at all, let alone compete with the original versions. More so than Dylan even.

Not that much. There have been hundreds of cover versions of "Hey Jude", "Michelle", "Here There And Everywhere" and "Let It Be" too.

While I absolutely despise the likes of James Last, Ray Conniff et all, being extensively covered by this kind of acts is still a quality sign, because those guys first and foremost look for melodic and harmonic qualities in music,

On the other hand, "Satisfaction" has spawned different and "interesting" cover versions from artists as different as Devo and Britney Spears. But the fact that "Satisfaction" is being transferred so well into other cover versions really doesn't show anything at all except it isn't really much a song to begin with.

I'm trying to resist the urge to note that there is absolutely no logic behind this statement.... oops!

plus, i like the stones more than the beatles. so there!

on one hand, John Lennon didn't do "Let's Work" (the worst thing ever recorded in the history of mankind, bar none). on the other hand, Mick Jagger didn't record himself onstage with Zappa and the Mothers playing FZ's "King Kong" and credit himself with writing Zappa's song. horns of a dilemma, etc.

Major selling points for the Stones: They aged (up to a point) much smarter than the Beatles. Building on their style (rather than abandoning it), they stayed fairly consistently good at least five years longer. And, yes, they're the better rhythm section -- but they're the better rhythm section than almost anybody! After Elvis, they're probably the best cover band ever.

However: The Beatles were still a great (and greatly underrated) rhythm section. Plus (yes, Geir) they wrote better songs. And either Lennon or McCartney is a better singer than Jagger (who is no slouch). AND the Beatles were the much better live band. I've never understood the Stones' live rep. They COULD on occasion be good: Their set in The TAMI Show is jaw-droppingly great. But all 42 of their live albums suck, while both of the Beatles' are wonderful (especially Hamburg) -- besides the Washington DC set, Shea Stadium, the Sullivans, etc.

Beatles.

And did you know that once, when the Stones wanted to use a bathroom at a gas station, the manager said 'no' because the Stones were a bad influence on their listeners, and then they pissed all over the gas station pump.

That is one reason I don't like the Stones. Another reason is because I'm just not partial to their music as I am to the Beatles'. Granted I have a few favourite songs by the Stones, like Jumpin' Jack Flash, Satisfaction, Paint It Black, and Get Off Of My Cloud.

But since the Beatles and the Stones were actually friends, I think that lovers of both bands should be friends as well. And we should stop flaming each other's likes and dislikes. My mom prefers the Stones over the Beatles, but we don't fight about it.
Anyway, this isn't a Flame The People Who Dislike Your Favourite Band thread, it's a Who Do You Prefer thread.

So let's all just calm down, take a drink of water and agree that they were both good bands in the '60s and even now.

What it all boils down to is that the Beatles AND the Stones were both created from British blood. And we should learn to appreciate both bands.

"And that's all I have to say about that." - Forrest Gump

Thank you.

He pissed on nuns. Way cooler.

not to pick on one person, but this isn't true.

and as for coolness, The Kinks steamroll over both.

YEAH THE DOORS WERE GREAT.

So I always ask the question, Who is better the Beatles or the Stones? If they say Beatles I’m a bit more interested.

whooooa JBR, you don't really think that do you? i mean yikes!!

quien es mas macho?

dud

A drunk, portly, 40ish guy in a red sox cap once approached my band after a show. He said that he had done both A&R and management before, and that he would manage us if he were still doing that sort of thing. However, he said that we had "guns but no bullets." Whereas (moderately known band that he had allegedly managed) had "bullets but no guns." I don't know what either of those phrases means, but I feel like if you can solve the riddle, therein lies the answer to beatles vs. stones.