I am writing a paper for a Danish Beatles website. Since I'm a Rolling Stones fan I offered them to do this paper on the Beatles/Stones debate seen from a Stones fans view. I would like some IORReans to give their views on this. Especially the old fans who actually experienced the whole thing in the sixties.

Why do you prefer Stones over Beatles?
How is Stones better? And why?

Qustions like that I need answered.

Please post views, opinions and so on.

Thanks.

EDIT: Please send replies to: JumpingKentFlash@hotmail.com to avoid a heated discussion. I only need views.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-02-05 18:06 by JumpingKentFlash.

This is for the old boys. My father told me that it was impossible to like both. Simular Man.Utd. and Liverpool. I was born the year IORR were released so I like both. Still I got 80 cd`s with Stones and only two with Beatles. I suppose they ( the fans) had`nt a clou about the cooperating between the two bands e.g. when they did`nt release albums at the same time. The strategy to the management worked, they did know very well to handle the press( especially Andrew Logham). It`s funny to see them so much together as they was.
Well, you know probarly all this, but I just felt to write some words.

Good luck to you and your writing.

When the British Invasion started in the '60's after the birth of The Beatles the debate was the Beatles were more "clean cut" than the Stones. It was true, they had their nice tidy suits and wrote/sang tunes strictly for the Hit Parade.

Andrew Oldham wanted to present the Stones as the Anti-Beatles. There was a famous article "Would You Let Your Daughter Marry a Rolling Stone". Obviously, their daughter's did live with and marry a Rolling Stone.

Musically, the Stones played with an edgier sound. Mick had (and still does) a special stage presence.

In the early days, these two bands would collaborate as to when each would release a new single. A brilliant strategy.

The music eveolved when the Beatles came out with "Revolver". It was more serious content. The Stones were evolving as well, songs like Satisfaction, Ruby Tuesday, Paint It Black were exquisite examples of the Jagger/Richards team.

The Beatles stopped touring in '66 to concentrate on their work in the studio. Sgt Pepper is a great work. People tend to forget, Sgt Pepper was the Beatles answer to the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds".

Sure, The Stones competed and came out with "Their Satanic Majesties Request", the original title was supposed to be "Her Majesties Satanic Request".

The Stones hit their stride with the release of Jumpin Jack Flash, the song and the video show Jagger at his best(at that time). The Stones were peaking with songs like Honky Tonk Woman, Sympaythy For The Devil, Stray Cat Blues, Bitch and a bunch of others. It was no longer Michael Phillip Jagger, it was Mick Jagger, full time rock star. They proved to be the best live touring band from '69 - present day.

"Sure, The Stones competed and came out with "Their Satanic Majesties Request", the original title was supposed to be "Her Majesties Satanic Request".

- I thought the original title was "Cosmic Christmas".

Anybody have the e-mail address to Ove Tingvall? He is sure to have some very good insider views on this I think.


JumpingKentFlash

I think George said it best, " We were the Spice Boys". I turned 12 in 1970 so the sixties I viewed as a child but I do remember both bands. As I grew into the "wonder years" - 13-17, and then as an adult I see no comparison. I recognize the Beatles significance , but in my opinion their songs pale in comparison to many other bands. Even now when I put my Beatles CD's on to see if I miised something of more value that I can appreciate in my middle age, I still don't get the it. I can't get past the silly stuff. Granted their are some great songs , IMO, but not enough to compare to the Stones or The Who. The Stones records I never tire of. Townsend's compositions are brilliant.

Perhaps part of the problem is never seeing the Beatles live. Would they rock like the Stones? or The Who? They never gave us the opportunity to find out. My guess would be "no".

The Beatles rocked like hell in their Hamburg days when the Stones were still trying to find their style. Then they were put in suits and changed their image while the Stones were supposed to be exactly the opposite. The Beatles had come full circle in 1969 in their thing, done everything as a group and had absolutely no interest in repeating anything (no tour, not another Pepper, not another Abbey Road). They went on individually in different directions. I always found that very brave. It would have been easier for them just to go on and on. If you wanna see the best possible Beatle show today, you just go to a McCartney gig.

The Stones were late in comparison, they started something really special in 1968 (their great period lasting until about 74) and then touring made them what they are today. The Beatles never were performers like the Stones. You just couldn´t imagine George Harrison hitting the guitar like Keith and start kicking in the air. Or Paul running and dancing around like Mick.
Also the Stones are a riffing guitar band. Of course the Beatles also were kind of a guitar band, but overall they did not really create special things on instruments (like Keiths very special style). It was all about songs on records (with Lennons unreachable lyrics), while the Stones are STILL A LIVING ROCK´N´ROLL BAND BREATHING and recreating their magic group dynamics on every new tour.

Kent, you let someone do your Dirty Work!

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

When these two legendary groups went head to head in the 1960's, there is just no comparison. The Beatles were selling out Shea Stadium in 1965 (55,000 seats) while the Stones were filling halls and auditoriums half that size. The chart success of the Beatles vs. the Stones is another no contest win for the Fab Four. The rest is just a matter of taste. The Stones ruled the 70's after the Beatles broke up. The Stones have certainly lasted much, much longer than the Beatles and they should be congratulated for that feat.

mickijaggeroo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent, you let someone do your Dirty Work!
>
> Vilhelm
> aka MICKIJAGGEROO!!!!!!!!!
>
> Nordic Stones Vikings


Hahahaha. No I don't. I just think it's very important to get other Stones fans' views rather than it just being my views.


JumpingKentFlash

Kent, I´ll help you get in touch with Ove.

He said once that his own father once said, havin´ watched a picture of Stones:
"They look like some bleedin´ monkies" [with heir long hair]
"Oh, shite ["Å, fan" in better Swedish];
these cats I really have to worship, even more now... "
(from my radio show where I interviewed Ove, Oct, 2004)
...In his case matters had connection with the, then, ongoing mod movement in Sweden in mid-60´s.

You should also mail my uncle in Norway, born in 1956;
but I wouldnt put out his mail-addresse here, neither Oves.

Just listen to the music my friend, and who´s still there???
Not the Beatles, but the Fab Four was great...really great...
/LesPaul

[www.stonesvikings.com]
lespaul@stonesvikings.com

Rolling Stone magazine #74 and #75 January 21, February 4, 1971 John Lennon Interview:

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE STONES TODAY?
I think it's alot 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 ANYMORE?
No, I never do see him. We saw alot of each other when Allen (Klein) 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 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 @#$%&' album. Every @#$%&' thing we did, Mick does exactly the same - he imitates us. And I would like one of you @#$%& underground people to point it out. You know, Satanic Majesties is Pepper, "We Love You" is the most @#$%&' bullshit, that's "All You Need Is Love".
I resent the implication that the Stones are like revolutionaries and the Beatles weren't. If the Stones were or are, the Beatles really were, too. But they are not in the same class, music wise or power wise, 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 @#$%&' record we wrote it for him. Mick said, "Peace made money." We didn't make any money from peace.

Sounds a tad pissed off!!!!

The Stones were big in the 70's but not as big as Led Zeppelin.

I've heard the debate that Zepplin was bigger than the Stones in the 70's. Led Zepplin did sell more records, even though the Stones had 7 #1 albums in the 70's, but the Stones tours of 72, 75, & 78 outdrew the tours of Zepplin. The Rolling Stones were the #1 concert draw, at least in the United States, for the 1970's.

"Sure, The Stones competed and came out with "Their Satanic Majesties Request", the original title was supposed to be "Her Majesties Satanic Request".

- I thought the original title was "Cosmic Christmas".

'Cosmic Christmas' was only a working title. They almost called it 'Her Satanic Majesty Requests And Requires' after the phrase in the UK passport.

Beatles a far lesser band in every way except songwriting and even in that field Jagger/Richards who are generally much more underrated than Lennon/Macca have written many songs that surpass the Rutles at their best.

The Rolling Stones and The Beatles were the ying and yang of the 1960s. That's all you need to know. Just like a battery has a +/-, so the 1960s had those two bands. That's it, Kentish. By the way, thanks for the new phone #!

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

From "Jagger Remembers" in Rolling Stone mag in 1995:

On competing with The Beatles"
"The Beatles were so big that it's hard for people not alive at the time to realize just how big they were. There isn't a real comparison with anyone now. They were so big that to be competitive with them was impossible. I'm talking about in record sales and tours and all this. They were huge. Looking back, thinking of all that competition, I hate it. But I suppose it's all right, because I won out."

"They certainly were not a great live band. Maybe they were in the days of the Cavern, when they were coming up as a club band. I'm sure they were hilariously funny and all that. And they did have this really good onstage persona. But as far as the modern-day world, they were not a great performing band. But do they deserve the fantastic reputation? They were the Beatles. They were this forerunning, breakthrough item, and that's hard to overestimate."

Ok....so according to Mick the Stones "won" the contest based on longevity and being a better live band. As a diehard Stones fan who rarely listens to ANYTHING else, nevermind The Beatles, I'd have to disagree with Mick and say that the Stones have only tied the Beatles at this point because the groundbreaking work of the Beatles on Rubber Soul, Revolver, Pepper's, White Album, etc. reserves a special place at the top for the Fab Four. Having said that, for adding a much grittier, bluesier sound in the 60's and 70's, rolling into the 80's with greatness still about them, and for maintaining themselves as a band and commercial "tour" de force to this day, the Stones have clearly equalled the Beatles in overall importance to the history of Rock and Roll. Oh, and by the way, one day we ought to start a chess match of sorts pitting Beatles tunes with Stones songs. Wonder who'd win the match of the catalogs????

"one day we ought to start a chess match of sorts pitting Beatles tunes with Stones songs. Wonder who'd win the match of the catalogs????"

I spent 3 of my school years doing this with 5 friends (3 of us Stones fans, 3 Beatles). We even devised a point scoring system, up to 10 per track and working out an average score for the whole album. I think we even had to build in an extra 2 points per sleeve design. Guess what the results were:
All 3 Stones fans made the Stones clear winners and all 3 Beatle fans made the Beatles clear winners - completely pointless.

The rivalry was largely a media
image thing to spur sales, actually
they were often good friends, part of
the British Invasion scene, and complimented
each other nicely with their styles.

No debate. The Beatles were a non-touring pop band that ended 36 years ago. In the massive few years The Beatles were together half of the stuff they recorded were shitty little dittys. The Stones will have a new album in June and a tour to follow summer 2005.

If John Lennon were alive right now he would be scratching at the inside of his casket.

Milo, NYC
Burns like a red coal carpet

But.. but.. if he was alive what would he be doing in bleedin' a casket?

ROCKMAN

A non touring pop band. You've got to be kidding. Come on guys.....debating about the Stones and the Beatles is like debating which is more important....food or water.

The Stones have been together the longest, regardless of what some people think (around here of numbers) 43 years, (almost) mean something, plus the volume of material the boys have produced. The Beatles were together, what, around eight years? Big deal.

But there is really no comparison between the two because the Beatles are a Pop Band and the Stones are a ROCK Band.

The Beatle made music and the stones made a soundtrack to a lifestyle.

The Stones stoped being a real band some 25 years ago so I think they outlived The Beatles with what, ten years?

The Stones stopped being a real band 25 years ago, what kind of statement is that?

To me the Beatles had some great songs but way too many silly little pop songs. And also when the Beatles were making some of their best music, from 67 on, they never played live anymore. Which turns me off right away because I love live music. I don't think they would have sounded good live because their albums were too big of productions with orchetras and all that other stuff. The four of them onstage would have never been able to reproduce some of their best songs from that time.

you cant compare Beatles and Stones The beatles died in 69

There is even no need to compare them. They both have their great qualities.
Beatles made music that the stones never made and the other way around.
Both great fantastic bands. Period. (Although the stones are better)

Always found these discussions a bit stupid.

This has gone a bit off-topic hasn't it? It's still not meant to be an argument. It's just personal views and opinions.

JumpingKentFlash

Good point JumpingKentFlash!

The originator asked us:

"Why do you prefer Stones over Beatles?
How is Stones better? And why?"

1. I like the Stones music more than the Beatles for being harder edged, more blues inspired, more Berry vs. Holly influenced, and just being darker without being depressing.

2. The Stones are better IMHO due to being only arguably a bit behind the Beatles during their lifetime as a band and then soaring ahead of the Beatles' solo efforts throughout the 70's and 80's. Let's face it...most Beatles tunes were written by either John OR Paul, and while surely they helped each other and missed each other's influence, their solo music doesn't come anywhere close to what the Stones produced from LIB (or SF?) to Some Girls, never mind a few good tunes since.

3. Stones fans love em live! And even early on, the Stones were far better as a live band. Even consider 1969 performances...watch Gimme Shelter and Let it Be...which band had it going more? And yes, I understand the Beatles were breaking up...which brings us to...

4. 40 years man! As a sports fan, I 'll give this analogy...would you prefer to have a great player on your team for 6-7 years or a nearly great player for 40 years? And the Stones were NOT just nearly great...they were great and ARGUABLY remain so to this day!

I'm showing my age here...but way back when...you had to pick one or the other...you couldn't like both. I picked the Stones. I'm glad. No regrets.