The Hollies was the first famous band from abroad I saw live, namely 1968. I thought they were like Beatles, very nice voices and good melodys...

2 1 2 0

Aftermath and Revolver are two very good albums, comparing them is a bit of a waste of time as both bands were at different points in their career, but people just love to compare!

I've always viewed Aftermath as being the stones an answer to Rubber Soul.

That does seem a fairer comparison and to follow Revolver and Between The Buttons!

Quote
Come On
The battle of 1966 1 grade:
1/Mothers little helper-Taxman...I give it to George on points 0-1
2/Stupid Girl-Eleanor Rigby...Oh what a hard one , even 1-2
3/Lady Jane-I'm only sleeping...sorry twins, it's John 1-3
4/Under my thumb-love you to...well not easy but glimmer twins on point 2-3
5/doncha bother me-here there end everywhere...lousy songs, even 3-4
6/Going Home-Yellow submarine...what do ya think, sorry Ringo 4-4
7/Flight 505-She Said She Said...easy one for John 4-5
8/High and Dry-Good day sunshine...hoochy koochy twins 5-5
9/Out of time-and your bird can sing...tight on point for stones 6-5
10/It's not easy-For no one...easily to Macca 6-6
11/I am waiting-Dr Robert...hmmm even 7-7
12/Take it or leave it-I want to tell you...easily to twins 8-7
13/Think-Got to get you into my life...Paul 8-8
14/What to do-Tomorrow never knows...yeah, what to do if not giving it to John, 8-9. Revolver won this game but it was tight for sure...

Beatles - 1, 2, 5, 7,8,9,10,11,13,14
Stones - 3,4,6,12

Maybe not a fair comparison. 'Aftermath' was the first Stones album that was all J/R songs and they were a year or so behind the Beatles development wise by then. Its a fine record, but 'Revolver' is one of the best two albums the Beatles ever made.

(Stupid Girl as good as Eleanor Rigby? 'Here there and everywhere' a lousy song? Eh?)

However, Blonde on Blonde also came out in 1966,and its better than both of them.

Quote
Come On

Quote
NorthShoreBlues2
Please, this thread is a joke . . . your stating that Stupid girl is somehow a better song than Eleanor Rigby, again is this joke?

Eleanor vs Stupid Girl broke even. Impossible to decide a winner...But what is strings and shit towards raw rock from Richards/Jones..and brilliant lyrics also..

I understand its just your opinion and likings, but here is more of mine . . .

I just think that the Beatles were ahead of the stones at this time . . . and that the stones first great album was beggars. Musically i think the use of strings and horns on Revolver is a bit more advanced than the "60's" keyboard/organ as on stupid girl, its all about likes and preferences. To my ears, however, Revolver's recording production is far superior to Aftermath; Rigby stands the test of time and is fresh even today, while stupid girl sounds so dated . . . lyrically: "look at that stupid girl" umm a bit adolescent, while Rigby, "look at all the lonely people" etc, much "deeper" more metaphysical and philosophical, i think its just a more mature recording . . . and i didn't mean to come off so harsh, its just my opinion.

Also going home over yellow submarine? umm not to bring in popularity but ask 100 people on the street over the age of 50 and i bet 95 will not know Goin Home, while 95 will know yellow submarine. For me Goin Home is a bit meandering, while yellow submarine, well, my kids love it, ok actually you win, i can't defend ringo on this i'll choose Goin Home too!!!

Revolver is the definite winner, no question about that, but Gazza is absolutely right because in 1966 the Beatles had a far more accomplished songwriting duo (+Harrison) than the Stones could offer at the time.

I never understood what's so good about Pet Sounds, it bores the hell out of me (with the exception of Wouldn't it be nice and the perfect, PERFECT God only knows). I don't get that one at all.

But as strong a year as it was: Blonde on Blonde surpasses them all easily...

Even though AFTERMATH is great album and one of their most important records, I think one can not help feeling a bit bored in listening to the B-side of the album (and I'm of course talking about the UK version and thinking in terms of LPs) - one can hear that Jagger and Richard are really taking wonderful steps as song-writers, especially in variety-wise, and they seem to emerging songs 'just like that', but not all of their ideas are perhaps really so interesting or good enough. When one finally reaches "What To Do" one can not help really agreeing with the key phrase of the song - the record had been running out of great ideas for a while...

But "Mother's Little Helper", "Lady Jane", "Under My Thumb" "Goin Home", "Out of Time" are top-class Jagger/Richard songs, and I think it would take till BEGGARS BANQUET when they will reach that level of greatness again in their songcraft (and top it).

But as far as the original 'battle' goes I need to give the vote for REVOLVER - it is really The Beatles reaching their top, and personally I would rate it over to the over-hyped SGT. PEPPER. (But like Gazza I would think BLONDE ON BLONDE as the best of the best of the year 1966).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-14 19:57 by Doxa.

Absolutely Dylan's Blonde on Blonde is a masterpiece. However, and this going to piss off a lot of people here...but nothing will ever top The Beatles. Not in any of our lifetimes, just ask Keef He'd probabably agree. Again, I'll state this does not affect my "fandom" for The Stones. Hopefully you guys will be objective and not brutally biased.

What's all this crap talk about the Stones not being at their peak in '66? They were the premiere rock band at that time this side of the Beatles and that's saying something! Where would the rock world be without Satisfaction, Paint It, Black, The Last Time, Under My Thumb, and Get Off Of My Cloud, all pre-1967 hits? Comparing Aftermath and Revolver is pointless because they were entirely different. I will always consider Aftermath to be one of the more important albums of the 1960's, a great blend of classic r&b-rock themes and exotic, otherworldy arrangemements. The Stones' peak years were 1963-1972!

Thanks neptune

__________________________

Quote
neptune
What's all this crap talk about the Stones not being at their peak in '66? They were the premiere rock band at that time this side of the Beatles and that's saying something! Where would the rock world be without Satisfaction, Paint It, Black, The Last Time, Under My Thumb, and Get Off Of My Cloud, all pre-1967 hits? Comparing Aftermath and Revolver is pointless because they were entirely different. I will always consider Aftermath to be one of the more important albums of the 1960's, a great blend of classic r&b-rock themes and exotic, otherworldy arrangemements. The Stones' peak years were 1963-1972!

Good point!

- Doxa

Quote
neptune
Where would the rock world be without Satisfaction, Paint It, Black, The Last Time, Under My Thumb, and Get Off Of My Cloud, all pre-1967 hits?

Yep - the Stones were a great singles band. Jagger and Richards were not the fully-formed article. Being able to knock out three Grade A singles a year, isn't quite the same as knocking out top-notch LP's.

Btw, I am aware that Under My Thumb wasn't a single!

Quote
Big Al

Quote
neptune
Where would the rock world be without Satisfaction, Paint It, Black, The Last Time, Under My Thumb, and Get Off Of My Cloud, all pre-1967 hits?

Yep - the Stones were a great singles band. Jagger and Richards were not the fully-formed article. Being able to knock out three Grade A singles a year, isn't quite the same as knocking out top-notch LP's.

The Stones had TWO peak periods; their 65-66 peak as a singles band, and their 68-72 peak as an albums band (during which they also released singles that were even better than the ones that define their period as a great singles band). But they really didn't catch up to the Beatles until '68, when JJF (May '68) blew away the then-current Beatles hit, Lady Madonna (March '68). SFM and Beggers hold their own against Hey Jude/Revolution and the White Album. HTW is the equal of Get Back. Let It Bleed stands up to Abbey Road. Ya-Yas tops Beatles on the Rooftop, and Sticky Fingers murders Let It Be.

Quote
Big Al
Yep - the Stones were a great singles band. Jagger and Richards were not the fully-formed article. Being able to knock out three Grade A singles a year, isn't quite the same as knocking out top-notch LP's.

Until 1966, the name of the game was producing GRADE A SINGLES, not albums. By the way, Aftermath, NOW!, and Out of Our Heads were top-notch albums.

Now and Out Of Our Heads WERE good albums but included a fair amount of cover songs(even though they were good covers and generally unheard by alot of white audiences). The Beatles changed the game alot by producing so many good non single album cuts which was great because(at least in America) people were tired of buying an album with the "hot" single track and then 11 tracks of filler rubbish! It took Aftermath to break the Stones out of the pack of the other English bands of which they were obviously the most accomplished but still part of the pack. I think the Beatles had a leg up on the Stones as a BAND material wise until the breakup but thats where the comparison had to stop. I'm a bigger Stones fan but who knows what would have come out of the Beatles if no break up occurred. I think there was too much individual creativity and WAY too much ego for that to happen though. IMO

Quote
scottkeef
Who knows what would have come out of the Beatles if no break up occurred.

Judging from the quality of the material on their solo albums, the Beatles would have released their last LISTENABLE album in 1974.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-14 17:47 by tatters.

Quote
neptune

Quote
Big Al
Yep - the Stones were a great singles band. Jagger and Richards were not the fully-formed article. Being able to knock out three Grade A singles a year, isn't quite the same as knocking out top-notch LP's.

Until 1966, the name of the game was producing GRADE A SINGLES, not albums. .

It was?? Depends how high you chose to aim, I suppose.

Quote
frankotero
Absolutely Dylan's Blonde on Blonde is a masterpiece. However, and this going to piss off a lot of people here...but nothing will ever top The Beatles. Not in any of our lifetimes, just ask Keef He'd probabably agree. Again, I'll state this does not affect my "fandom" for The Stones. Hopefully you guys will be objective and not brutally biased.

"nothing will ever top the beatles"....that's the problem trying to discuss this, had a similar discussion with one of my mates and I told him that the beatles are the most overrated band ever ..... by the reaction i got you would have thought i had insulted his mother!!. you can't have a subjective disucssion about the beatles people cannot accept anything other than they were amazing.

They probably were, but they have become a victim of there own success and their songs(their big hits)are so overplayed that they actually have no meaning or affect anymore.

Revolver probably is a better album but I would skip most of the songs on it becuase frankly i'm bored hearing them, only dr robert, she said and tommorow never knows would get a listen.

I would also point out that due to the beatles being beyond criticism and everyone thinking that eveyone else loves the beatles, no one cares to admitt that they have in fact cast a huge shadow over the 60's(to it's disadvantage in my opinion) i'm still finding out about other great bands that have had little air play, articles or televison time.The media would rather do another piece on sgt pepper than say the zombies odyessey and oracle.

Quote
tatters

Quote
scottkeef
Who knows what would have come out of the Beatles if no break up occurred.

Judging from the quality of the material on their solo albums, the Beatles would have released their last LISTENABLE album in 1974.

You certainly may have a point there. I always thought that Johns sarcasm,wit and desire to "rock" offset perfectly with Pauls tendency to be a "candy-ass". George
broke up things with a couple of gems per album and Ringo was,well always Ringo!

Revolver is a work of genius. It hangs together as a collection in a way that no Stones album before Begars does - they are merely collections of songs that could, largely, be interchnageable from album to album.



I look forward to the logical succsssor to this thread where Sergeant pepper and Their Satanic Majestics Request slug it out for supremac. I can't wait to see how Stones zealots try to make out that Majesties is the superior album..................

Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage
Revolver is a work of genius. It hangs together as a collection in a way that no Stones album before Begars does - they are merely collections of songs that could, largely, be interchnageable from album to album.



I look forward to the logical succsssor to this thread where Sergeant pepper and Their Satanic Majestics Request slug it out for supremac. I can't wait to see how Stones zealots try to make out that Majesties is the superior album..................

can't disagree with that or defend majesties against pepper...however beatles zealots wouldn't be able to accept that the best album of that year was are you experianced jimi hendrix. which is so far ahead of it's time it doesn't even sound as if it's from the same era!!

I'd throw the Doors and Velvets debuts into the mix as well. And Bob's John Wesley Harding.

However, give me Dylan's Basement Tapes over any of them....

When it comes to Dylan his albums is always number 1 ín my world, compared to everyting except for maybe Coltranes & Miles albums from the same period, but I left Dylan out of this because he's no band...

2 1 2 0

Quote
scottkeef

Quote
tatters

Quote
scottkeef
Who knows what would have come out of the Beatles if no break up occurred.

Judging from the quality of the material on their solo albums, the Beatles would have released their last LISTENABLE album in 1974.

You certainly may have a point there. I always thought that Johns sarcasm,wit and desire to "rock" offset perfectly with Pauls tendency to be a "candy-ass". George
broke up things with a couple of gems per album and Ringo was,well always Ringo!

In the early 70s, bootleggers began compiling their own "Beatles" albums from the solo tracks of the four ex-Beatles. While it was possible to cobble together a pretty good 1971 "Beatles" album, it proved impossible to put together anything using tracks later than 1971 that would not, if it were a REAL Beatles album, be a total embarrassment to their legacy.

Quote
Gazza
I'd throw the Doors and Velvets debuts into the mix as well. And Bob's John Wesley Harding.

However, give me Dylan's Basement Tapes over any of them....

The Doors 1st album was relaeased in 67.

..I know. It was the discussion about 1967 that I was referring to.

Quote
tatters

Quote
scottkeef

Quote
tatters

Quote
scottkeef
Who knows what would have come out of the Beatles if no break up occurred.

Judging from the quality of the material on their solo albums, the Beatles would have released their last LISTENABLE album in 1974.

You certainly may have a point there. I always thought that Johns sarcasm,wit and desire to "rock" offset perfectly with Pauls tendency to be a "candy-ass". George
broke up things with a couple of gems per album and Ringo was,well always Ringo!

In the early 70s, bootleggers began compiling their own "Beatles" albums from the solo tracks of the four ex-Beatles. While it was possible to cobble together a pretty good 1971 "Beatles" album, it proved impossible to put together anything using tracks later than 1971 that would not, if it were a REAL Beatles album, be a total embarrassment to their legacy.

Interestingly there are many on this forum that say the Stones have released nothing good since 1981 (Tattoo You). So is everything post TY an embarrassemnt to the Stones legacy. For the record I think not? But I do think some take this whole Beatles v Stones thing a bit seriously.

Quote
tatters

Quote
scottkeef

Quote
tatters

Quote
scottkeef
Who knows what would have come out of the Beatles if no break up occurred.

Judging from the quality of the material on their solo albums, the Beatles would have released their last LISTENABLE album in 1974.

You certainly may have a point there. I always thought that Johns sarcasm,wit and desire to "rock" offset perfectly with Pauls tendency to be a "candy-ass". George
broke up things with a couple of gems per album and Ringo was,well always Ringo!

In the early 70s, bootleggers began compiling their own "Beatles" albums from the solo tracks of the four ex-Beatles. While it was possible to cobble together a pretty good 1971 "Beatles" album, it proved impossible to put together anything using tracks later than 1971 that would not, if it were a REAL Beatles album, be a total embarrassment to their legacy.

It would be a moot point as the 'albums' wouldnt have had the input of George Martin to bring out the best of all of them

Quote
Come On
The Hollies was the first famous band from abroad I saw live, namely 1968. I thought they were like Beatles, very nice voices and good melodys...

The Hollies are a Home (UK) band!

And at least as big in the UK at this time were The Small Faces. Less pop and more character -

- perhaps too (idiosyncratically) English to make it bigger abroad (stateside).

Aftermath was important in development terms, but as Doxa says, too many iffy songs to make it great. (In addition to Think and What To Do I actually find Stupid Girl incredibly naff). By concentrating on being 'tunesmiths' - melodies and arrangements - for me they sacrificed their main attractive qualities, - a rough/raw, chaotic/dangerous, spontaneous feel as evidenced on the singles of the period. (PIB is not on the UK album).


Stones were still developing whereas 'Lennon/McCartney' were fully mature and Revolver has no weak links whatsoever. It also opens witha stunning Harrison number too.

Beggars is the Stones Revolver. They had to 'grow out of' the Aftermath approach (and find the right producer), via Buttons and Satanics, to achieve it.

Quote
robertfraser

Quote
frankotero
Absolutely Dylan's Blonde on Blonde is a masterpiece. However, and this going to piss off a lot of people here...but nothing will ever top The Beatles. Not in any of our lifetimes, just ask Keef He'd probabably agree. Again, I'll state this does not affect my "fandom" for The Stones. Hopefully you guys will be objective and not brutally biased.

"nothing will ever top the beatles"....that's the problem trying to discuss this, had a similar discussion with one of my mates and I told him that the beatles are the most overrated band ever ..... by the reaction i got you would have thought i had insulted his mother!!. you can't have a subjective disucssion about the beatles people cannot accept anything other than they were amazing.

They probably were, but they have become a victim of there own success and their songs(their big hits)are so overplayed that they actually have no meaning or affect anymore.

Revolver probably is a better album but I would skip most of the songs on it becuase frankly i'm bored hearing them, only dr robert, she said and tommorow never knows would get a listen.

I would also point out that due to the beatles being beyond criticism and everyone thinking that eveyone else loves the beatles, no one cares to admitt that they have in fact cast a huge shadow over the 60's(to it's disadvantage in my opinion) i'm still finding out about other great bands that have had little air play, articles or televison time.The media would rather do another piece on sgt pepper than say the zombies odyessey and oracle.

Very well said. It's easy to understand anyone's frustration with the Beatles' exalted status because it's very difficult now to hear their tunes as if they were new songs. Their catalog has become so much the air we breathe that it's hard to get a feeling one would have gotten in '66 when Revolver was new. Over-familiarity has blunted their impact.