Taken from NWI.COM the largest and most trusted media company in North west Indiana


Home / Entertainment / Music
Beatles or Stones -- who made the bigger mark on today's music?

As the summer of love's 40th anniversary fades, local pundits dish on which album best stands the test of time -- "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" or "Exile on Main St."

TIM SHELLBERG - Times Correspondent | Posted: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:00 am | No Comments Posted



The "summer of love" was drawing to a close at this time four decades ago, and its unofficial soundtrack, the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," has remained a touchstone for generations of music fans.

Witness the hubbub over last week's release of Julie Taymor's Beatles film homage, "Across the Universe."

That year, 1967, the Fab Four's peers -- and some might say rivals -- the Rolling Stones, followed in their psychedelic footsteps with a "Pepper"-lite platter called "Their Satanic Majesties' Request."

But five years later, in 1972, the Stones released its own masterwork, the gritty, decadent "Exile on Main St.," which has been revered in many musical corners with the same, if not more, enthusiasm as "Pepper."

More than four decades since each band stormed the globe, the Beatles vs. Stones battle among music lovers remains.

Listed below are the heartfelt views of area musicians and music fans as to which of the two Brit-rock masterpieces best stands the test of time.

While some say it's definitely a case of either/or, several local pundits can't help but extol the virtues of both.

Daryl Grady, lead singer of Salamander Drake: Both.

"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." Nineteen-sixty-seven. Iconic wax-museum cover, "A day in the Life," "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," "Within You, Without You," (producer) George Martin. It is the wake up call from across the Atlantic that the (counterculture) movement of the '60s is now not just located in San Francisco, and that the movement has larger implications than just political. It is a spiritual call that has a new soundtrack.

"Exile on Main St." Nineteen-seventy two. The party is over, and it is the following morning. What do I do with my soul now, after all the overindulgence? The death of (former Rolling Stone Brian) Jones, Altamont (the concert where. Still, somehow having a future doesn't seem like such a bad idea if it sounds like this.

Tod Bowers, bassist, Steepwater Band: Both.

Both "Sgt. Pepper's" and "Exile" are the masterpieces of their time. Of the late '60s psychedelic-pop of the likes of the small Faces, (Jimi) Hendrix, etc., the Beatles raised the bar with an album that many bands would strive to better, and fail. Then in the early '70s, the Stones perfected the Americana-blues-rock revival of groups like The Band and (Eric) Clapton's (Derek and the) Dominos. Both of these albums were mind-blowers on the first listen, and still kick my a** today.

Jeff Massey, guitarist and vocalist, Steepwater Band: "Exile."

It's hard to compare art like a competition, but "Sgt. Pepper" is missing one thing compared to "Exile": Keith Richards singing "Happy."

Chad Clifford, lead singer, Crawpuppies, solo songwriter and performer: Both.

Both albums are (each of these) bands' crowning critical achievements. But as the Stones were looking inward in 1972, the Beatles were looking outward and breaking their mold in 1967. They had just stopped touring and had the time and budget to do whatever they wanted and used the recording studio as it had never been used in pop music before.

The Stones by contrast looked inward and wrote an album that represented where they were at the time. There was no doubt, with the Beatles having broken up in 1970, that the Stones were the undisputed biggest band in the world. "Exile" is soaked in the booze, sex and drugs that were part of the Stones' daily routine, drenched in the delta blues, gospel and Chuck Berry-inspired rock and roll that made them famous and infamous.

The Beatles pushed themselves into uncharted territory and broke the rules and boundaries of pop music with "Pepper," and the Stones, with "Exile," stayed somewhat same in the box they created for themselves and made a great, albeit safe, album.

David Varella, lead singer, Highway Band: "Exile."

When talking about songwriting teams, Lennon/McCartney and Jagger/Richards are among the best ever. To compare the two would be next to impossible. Comparing these albums, however, was a no-brainer for me. "Exile" is gritty, raw and packed with attitude and emotion. It's arguably one of the Rolling Stones' best albums, and I don't think there is a throwaway track on it. "Sgt. Pepper's," on the other hand, has too much filler material in my opinion. This album was one of my favorites -- when I was 10 years old. Now, just a little more mature, I'll take "Exile" for my listening pleasure."

Steve Vansak, Merrillville-based songwriter and performer: Toss-up.

"Pepper" isn't in as high esteem for me as (1966's) "Revolver" or (1965's) "Rubber Soul." "Pepper" gets points for innovation in recording, and it is flawlessly put together.

"Exile" is sloppy, benevolent, fun from start to finish. I just prefer the Stones' mastering of American roots music (blues, gospel, country, Chuck Berry rock) to The Beatles' foray into psychedelia. I tend to take the dirty garage over the pristine den, so to speak. Also, ("Exile") defines what the Stones are in sound and songwriting. "Sgt. Pepper" is a left turn (albeit a great one) for the Beatles, and if you had to play one album to explain the group this wouldn't be it. "Exile" has everything that the Rolling Stones are about, and I'd gladly hand it off to someone, knowing they would get who this band is.

Tom Torluemke, artist: "Exile."

The Rolling Stones embody the sights, sounds, smells and desires of the

streets. They sing about life in all their bedeviled glory. They swing and tingle with an adult I-mean-business sexual energy. Come and play with me, I'll make you feel good. Baby, be my partner in crime. There is a fine line between love and hate -- the machine-gun rattle or the slap on the skin crack, and the roll in the hay metaphor; the Rolling Stones' brand of music reeks of the primitivism and animalistic behavior in us all. They shine their light on us all, so that we may see the truth.

Tim Shellberg, Times correspondent: "Exile."

Despite what the likes of CNN, ABC and Rolling Stone said about "Pepper" on its 40th birthday in June, it's hard to disagree with Vansak above. Time -- at least to those of us who weren't around during the summer of love -- has given "Rubber Soul" and especially "Revolver" the upper hand over "Pepper," which ultimately suffers from being too time-stamped in its era.

"Exile," to its benefit, isn't stamped in its day, which gives it the edge over "Pepper" in that still-running Beatles vs. Stones debate. Play any of the disc's 18 songs next to the White Stripes, Wilco's latest release and the Arcade Fire, and an unknowing ear might hear an up-and-coming indie act rather than the 35-year-old towering achievement by the former "World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band."

Posted in Music on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:00 am | Tags: Music,

"Taken from NWI.COM the largest and most trusted media company in North west Indiana".

I take it then that people in Illinois etc... as well as the rest of Indiana do not trust the company.

I Just Wanna See His Face does not stand up next to anything. It's filler. Because it's so twisted it made the album. Other than that it's weak. But to compare Sgt Peppers to Exile? They're not even in the same league. That's like comparing Exile to AC/DC's Back In Black or Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon. Not even close. You can't "compare" them. This is just someone's idea of getting some traffic to their site.

I dunno. This thing says "summer of love" but then talks about Exile. The best thing to happen to the 1960s was Altamont and the way it snapped those hippies out of 'the dream'. The worst thing to happen to the 1960s is hippies. So the 1960s are steeped in self centered nostalgia for hippies, who were only ever about themselves.

With the possible exception to Majesties, I'm glad the Stones never went the hippie route.

Who is Steepwater Band, or Salamander Drake band ?
The most trusted info straight out of NW Indiana ..

No matter what NCI.Com or any other trusted media company says the Beatles, in my view, had a much more profound influence on popular music than the Stones. The Beatles lead and more often than not others followed. Not to disparage the Stones influence which is profound within the idiom of rock and roll but the Beatles cast a much wider influence over popular music in general.

Just bull...

I'm a big Beatles fan but I've never could or can consider Sgt Pepper their finest work. Songs like "When I'm 64", "Good Morning, Good Morning", "Getting Better" or "Fixing a Hole" are in no way masterpieces. Hell they did so much better than that.

"For the Benefit of Mr Kite"...Yes, they did make Beethoven take a back seat with that one.

The STONES- easy

I am a diehard Stoner; have been one all my life, and it will never change. They are my favorite band.
But there is no doubt in my mind that no one even comes close the deep, groundbreaking influence on popular music that the Beatles have had.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I am a diehard Stoner; have been one all my life, and it will never change. They are my favorite band.
But there is no doubt in my mind that no one even comes close the deep, groundbreaking influence on popular music that the Beatles have had.

Precisement! You stated my view quite succinctly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-30 18:48 by ChrisM.

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I am a diehard Stoner; have been one all my life, and it will never change. They are my favorite band.
But there is no doubt in my mind that no one even comes close the deep, groundbreaking influence on popular music that the Beatles have had.

Precisement! You stated my view quite succinctly.

i wouldn't say i like one band over the other, but only a anti-beatles fanatic would suggest the stones were more influential...it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise....

Quote
mickscarey
The STONES- easy

What else can you say to substantiate that statement? I'd like very much to read your thoughts on this subject.

Pet Sounds

I think that back in 69 the Beatles were BUT since they split and the Stones have gone on another 40 years they have difinatly made the biggest mark by far.

Quote
pgarof
I think that back in 69 the Beatles were BUT since they split and the Stones have gone on another 40 years they have difinatly made the biggest mark by far.

don't agree. not sure anything the stones have done the past 30 years has had much, if any, impact or influence...

Quote
T&A

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I am a diehard Stoner; have been one all my life, and it will never change. They are my favorite band.
But there is no doubt in my mind that no one even comes close the deep, groundbreaking influence on popular music that the Beatles have had.

Precisement! You stated my view quite succinctly.

i wouldn't say i like one band over the other, but only a anti-beatles fanatic would suggest the stones were more influential...it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise....

I don't think it is ludicrous to suggest Exile influenced present day rock bands more the Pepper did, take Wilco, Black Crowes, White Stripes, etc I hear an exile influence on much of their work.
I am not anti-beatles at all and agree as far as popularity between the two records it is no contest at all Sgt Peppers is much much more popular and well known.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-30 19:14 by Ket.

well, i don't think the question has to do with popularity, per se. i see it as an "influence" thing - hell, the beatles even influenced the stones themselves.

you take the beatles out of the equation, and it's almost impossible to imagine the course modern rock/pop would have taken. not so much if you take the stones out of the picture....

Quote
T&A

Quote
pgarof
I think that back in 69 the Beatles were BUT since they split and the Stones have gone on another 40 years they have difinatly made the biggest mark by far.

don't agree. not sure anything the stones have done the past 30 years has had much, if any, impact or influence...

look at the albums they made in the early seventies and all the massive concert tours they have done, they paved the way for nearly everyone.

Quote
pgarof

Quote
T&A

Quote
pgarof
I think that back in 69 the Beatles were BUT since they split and the Stones have gone on another 40 years they have difinatly made the biggest mark by far.

don't agree. not sure anything the stones have done the past 30 years has had much, if any, impact or influence...

look at the albums they made in the early seventies and all the massive concert tours they have done, they paved the way for nearly everyone.

sure they influenced the way in which music was presented publicly - but just on a pure "musical influence" basis they haven't had anything close to the impact on popular music that the beatles did....there's just not a credible way of denying that....

Thank godness we did not only had the Beatles - then it would have been pop all over.

Musically - Beatles
Stylewise - Stones

the stones are my favorite band , the doors are my second favorite but the beatles are defo in my top 5 favorite bands but sgt. pepper is overrated it is a great album of course but revolver, the white album, and abbey road are better albums. exile is my favorite stones album.though i was 4 going on 5 when it was released it can take me on a musical time travel back to the days of simplicity exile feels like it could of been recorded on a back porch in the deep south on lazy sunday morning. while pepper starts us on a mysterious trip and ends up getting us lost a few times along the way .

By calling it quits at the end of the seventies, the Beatles' musical legacy, along with its image and subsequent influence, was left practically intact, and nothing on earth - not even Macca's dreadful Wings albums - could dent their indelible mark in music history.

By contrast, the Stones, from the early-seventies onwards, were no longer in a position to cast much of a general influence upon the younger kids, and had the seemingly impossible task of having to preserve their legacy whilst at the same time, managing somehow, to stay trendy and relevant.

Hence the reason why even their own music began to rely too much upon the influences of others; be it punk, reggae, disco or whatever. It was their only way to survive.

Alas, their current incarnation influences nobody outside of money men and accountants.

The Beatles made the far biggest impact overall. No doubt about it. Nobody comes close. But within the term 'rock 'n roll' The Stones have been the biggest imo. Every rock band I see are in some way a copy of The stones. The music, the hardness, the manners, the image. It all comes from the stones. The Beatles made an impact that spilled far over to the edges of what we call music. But man: those two bands are indeed the two best there ever was.

JumpingKentFlash

Influence is largely defined by whose sound is still being used years later. I'd say the Stones musical legacy is much stronger than their record sales would indicate. There is something about their classic singles and albums that have come to epitomize what is considered rock'n' roll. There are so many bands that have built their approach around the Stones as role models, not The Beatles. Mind you one can't discount various bands that take their cue from The Beatles (Squeeze, XTC to name but two).As a band, The Beatles recorded oeuvre is probably the best output by any band and it has a certain poetic perfection to it - ie. Meet The Beatles to The End. Sgt. Pepper was the last time the world stopped to listen to a record. That didn't happen when Exile came out (or any other Stones album for that matter). Now the audience is so fragmented that it's impossible for that to ever happen again. The Beatles unified an audience - they were the centre to which the Stones took the left side.

One must also consider what the people ie fans say, which is spanning, what, five generations now? I know this is not a real way to measure such a thing but look at the Stones reissues and the Beatles reissues. I'm happy for both of them, of course, to have been properly done (Virgin still rules for me). But the demand and sales does say a lot. The Beatles have, in this way, a much bigger 'influence' on music than the Stones do. And they've only done it once. I think there was more interest when Virgin reissued their records than when UMe did. But not enough to have chart placings as I recall.

And that's all that is. Doesn't mean they are better or worse, it just means they grabbed a lot more interest from people than the Stones did. Ever, actually.

True, Peppers is not their best. However!!!! It's a gazillion times better than that pile of dung that Pet Sounds is. What an awful album. I listened to that and was stunned - THAT inspired The Beatles?

Had the Stones stopped after Exile? It would probably be quite different for the Stones. Their biggest problem is they kept going, as far as that sort of thing goes. You've got the big four then Some Girls and Tattoo You as what people identify the Stones with. The Beatles? It's practically their entire catalogue.

Not even close. the Stones. The beetles HAD to retire as the Stones overtook themm circa 67

You could arguee who was the better band,not sure why, but you could. But who had the bigger impact on popular culture ? Its clearly obvious.

Right, The Stones

Quote
T&A

Quote
pgarof
I think that back in 69 the Beatles were BUT since they split and the Stones have gone on another 40 years they have difinatly made the biggest mark by far.

don't agree. not sure anything the stones have done the past 30 years has had much, if any, impact or influence...

Au contraire!

Merchandising, VIP travel packages, tax shelters, marketing tie-ins and corporate sponsorships...the Stones of 1981-present remain an inspiration across the music world.

Excellent music has snuck out along the way, too. I wish more people were still listening...

I love both bands.....I can play Beatles tunes at a party and everyone loves it, clean, fun...Stones people love...a bit more provocative but people also love their tunes. Stones were just a bit more edgy, Beatles a bit more poppy, but both found their niche and contributed - I go 60 Beatles / 40 Stones....as far as the average listener..........me, totally Stones - so be it......as a pianist I present both bands and get cool reactions both ways so all is good. The best stuff of all time!!!!

Lips

Quote
T&A

Quote
pgarof
I think that back in 69 the Beatles were BUT since they split and the Stones have gone on another 40 years they have difinatly made the biggest mark by far.

don't agree. not sure anything the stones have done the past 30 years has had much, if any, impact or influence...

Really? The fact that they effectively pioneered the huge record breaking stadium tours that all bands now aspire to in order to make the dough rather than recording hasn't had any impact on the music industry?