In the mid--sixties--This was the question---in popular music. The nice Fab Four or the wild Rolling stones. My sister was a Beatles-FAn--and bought in 65 a Stones-Record--called "Little red rooster". The Start i become a Stones--fan.
Just bought "Live Licks".
But really---Beatles "RUBBER SOUL , Revolver---Sgt-Pepper--Abbey Road----great Albums

i saw MACCA-- 93 three times--- Great shows

Saw the Stones--1973 European-Tour---til Licks Tour----Great

Stones and Beatles still Rules the Rockn ROLL World

Yeah but one of the above hasn't been a functioning unit for 35 years now. It's time people got over them.

People will never will nor should get over the Beatles, Sinatra, Garland, Louis Armstrong, etc....there are not many artist in their class.

The Beatles really were the trailblazers who busted down the doors of popular music for most all bands to follow...
including the Rolling Stones, Kinks, Who, etc.

If it wasn't for the Beatles, none of the above would exist as we currently understand them.

Thank God for the Beatles!

I agree with most of you above here.
Except on one point and I would put this way.

There have a lot of good bands/artists out there from the 50's thru the 60's and all of us that have had the fortune to be a Stones fan can only be greatful that them guys have stuck together thru all these years. When they now come to the end of great career they should be greeted with respect, joy and love. We don't need to feel any sorrow when this band is putting it to up for good.

We are blessed with 40 - 45 years of great music, tours and other memories to look back on. At least this is what I feel, having been there for 41 years now.

Still it's sad to know that this band won't be here forever! Still the legacy is!
So please don't compare, that belongs to the 60's. All music has it own place in this world, even if it can't get that much space in our hearts like the Stones have. And that's what it's all about. A passion for the Stones and their music.



HJofSweden

"If it wasn't for the Beatles, none of the above would exist as we currently understand them"

This is not true - Stones never played the same music as the Beatles.... Stones and Beatles had different initial roots - Stones origined from the more american blues kind of thing..... Beatles had their roots in the british skiffle music.....

Presley and other american musicians had as much impact on the music in the sixties as Beatles did..... just that the Beatles were better to promote / make believe that they were the best.....

I just want to know - what was the Beatles influence on songs like: JJF, Satisfaction, HTW, SFTD, GS, 19 NBD, Last Time, Going Home, Under my Thumb and so on.....

People, including Macca, just go on telling that the Stones always were copying the Beatles without mentioning some important things.......

Once the doors were kicked opened by the Beatles, the rest came in and followed. There was no direct Beatles influence on the above Stones songs mentioned other than the fact that the Beatles blazed the trail, kicked in the door, and allowed the public to acknowledge this British wave in the first place. The Stones evolved into their own monster once they followed the leaders - The Beatles.

The Beatles even lent a helping hand and gave the Stones "I Wanna Be Your Man" which ended up charting very successfully as their second single. The Stones were given special treatment by the mop-tops, a jump-start in their careers...something that the other bands could only wish they would have had.

The doors to the popular music would have been opened with or without Beatles - music in US was already developing very fast... Presley and so on.... England in the same way with the skiffle music bouncing ahead....

Beatles were lucky to be on the right place at the right time.... another band with as good producer / manager would have been able to the same..... George Martin and the manager (don't remember his name right now) meant quite much to them.......

The helping hand is way too overrated.....

They would have survived with or without "I Wanna Be Your Man"...... just an average song...... Stones was never based on this song....

They used other songs in the beginning, that were just as or way more succesful:

Come On, Not Fade Away and It's All Over Now.....

So - with or without "I Wanna Be Your Man"...... wouldn't have meant anything special....

Just happy Stones never made songs like She Loves You, Obladi etc.

Let's face it. All the above named artists and some others, made their contribution to the music scene. Luckily for us we stayed with this little great band of gypsys. 3 guys left from the original platoon that went out in the djungle and survived. They were joined by others for a while. Then along came Ronnie Wood and made this band a great favour and honour to stay for this long.

Now we just have to face the fact that this tour might really be the last one!



HJofSweden

i, know---Two different "Bands". Made in the first years by their "Managers"
the Beatles were the wild ones---but their Management put them into " THe nice--ones".. The Stones were middle-class--kids---and Oldham told them---that had to be Different.---Street--clothes and---longer hairs.

Their music? The Beatles ruled the POP-world from 1963-1966..and Lost their Common Cause of Yoko ono. they did great Albums like "Revolver--Sgt. Pepper--and the White---one. . They had four Minds---John--paul george and Ringo.
The Stones put Their building on this.---and from 68--The Beatles--were nothing.
The Stones learned Their job---and ... They did their "Biggest"--Albums now.

So--what im gonna tell you

We wouldnt have THE STONES--(still the greatest Rockn Roll Band)--without the beatles

Oh no, not THAT discussion again. I love them both. End of my comment. Its just useless to convince people of the other band (or these days Macca) when they are just into one of them.

country honk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The doors to the popular music would have been
> opened with or without Beatles - music in US was
> already developing very fast... Presley and so
> on.... England in the same way with the skiffle
> music bouncing ahead....

eh? skiffle was dead by the time the Beatles became popular. American rock n roll had stagnated for about 3-4 years before the British Invasion when most of the initial wave of rock n rollers either went into the army, found God, were dead, in disgrace or were in jail (ie, Elvis, little richard, Buddy holly, Jerry lee lewis, chuck berry)
>
> Beatles were lucky to be on the right place at the
> right time.... another band with as good producer
> / manager would have been able to the same.....
> George Martin and the manager (don't remember his
> name right now) meant quite much to them.......

um..Brian Epstein? I'm not trying to be rude, but its a bit hard to take seriously your summation of their musical impact when you dont know their manager's name
>
> The helping hand is way too overrated.....
>
> They would have survived with or without "I Wanna
> Be Your Man"...... just an average song......
> Stones was never based on this song....


> > They used other songs in the beginning, that were
> just as or way more succesful:
>
> Come On, Not Fade Away and It's All Over Now.....
>
> So - with or without "I Wanna Be Your Man"......
> wouldn't have meant anything special....
>
> Just happy Stones never made songs like She Loves
> You, Obladi etc.



The Stones would have survived, but they would have done so in a different way and probably not for anywhere near as long. The Stones for the first two years basically were a band that recycled blues material. Andrew Oldham realised they couldnt make a lasting career this way and impressed upon them the need to follow what the Beatles were doing and write their own material. Something which was not a common thing for 'beat' groups at the time. Without following the Beatles' example, its hard to see how they would have developed creatively.

You kind of conveniently also forget that much of the Stones' impact in their early years was due to the publicity they got, engineered by Andrew Oldham, in that they were marketed as an "antidote" to the image that the Beatles had. Without the Beatles, that whole image would have been redundant.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-11 00:03 by Gazza.

"They had four Minds---John--paul george and Ringo."

Sure Ringo was a MIND - he plays drums like I can hammer / beat on my pans at home......

Sure Stones only were able to do music after 68 - whatabout the music before????

I really hate this Beatles vs Stones. What helped the Beatles more than anything was great marketing & acceptance by the parents. There early songs were cutesy. I wanna hold your hand, I saw her standing there, She loves you etc. Right from the beginning the Stones were more "mature" with their music. I just wanna make love to you, King Bee, Little By Little etc.

The Stones didn't wanna hold your hand, the Stones were buzzing around your hive!!

It's so very lonely, you're 2,000 Light Years from home

The first Stones single "Come On" was a real rock smasher. Why didn´t they include it on Forty Licks? [this was ironical]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-11 13:19 by tomstones.

cos they didnt write it and greedy sods that they are, Mick and Keith wouldnt get any royalties from including it - same reason IMO for the bizarre non inclusion of "Little red rooster" (a no.1 single!!) and "Harlem Shuffle" (the only Stones studio album NOT represented on "40 Licks" - not coincidentally also the only Stones album in the last 40 years to have a cover version as first single). There are a couple of covers on Disc 1 of 40 licks but they could hardly ALL of their early singles off!

"Come On" was only a single in the UK and a minor hit. There were better candidates for inclusion I guess. Also, the band NEVER liked it. Even early on, Mick described it as "a piece of shit"

Look, the whole thing, (the British invasion) was going to happen one way or the other, someone just needed to open the lid, (the Beatles did not open the lid, the music industry did, they just happened to be the first product mined, and a great one it was). The fact that The Beatles were the first to be picked up commercially does not mean that the whole thing would not have happened without them. It's comparable I think to the American blues artists of this country. There were people playing the blues all over the south, but because someone just happened to get a recording contract and make a record does not invalidate the other artists, does it? I say just enjoy the music, two great bands. To be quite honest I love both bands, and, yes my first record was by The Beatles, (Introducing The Beatles, on the VeeJay label, I still have it). And yes, The Beatles gave me, (and thousands of other folks), my first taste of rock 'n' roll. (Well actually that would have been Fats Domino on my parents Hi-fi, lol) But, does that mean that I think they were better at it then the Rolling Stones, no. Brown Sugar was NEVER going to come from The Beatles and conversly, Hey Jude was NEVER going to come from The Stones. I would not want my world to be without either. Enjoy!

The Beatles, in their massive 8 years or so of known existance were a pop band, who only toured four years out of their eight. They were also silly, which was the Beatles thing. When they tried to get serious, nobody wanted to hear it. They also existed during a time when music, and what was played was tightly controlled.

The Stones were a blues/rock band and they never acted silly. By the way, the Stones new album will be out this summer followed by a tour, maybe John Lennon and George Harrison's skeletons can be propped up against the stage. Enough withe The Beatles vs Stones crap. The Beatles have been gone 35 years and half of the music they made was shit.

Milo, NYC
I said baby baby baby your out of time

Gazza wrote (e.g.):
"The Stones would have survived, but they would have done so in a different way and probably not for anywhere near as long. The Stones for the first two years basically were a band that recycled blues material. Andrew Oldham realised they couldnt make a lasting career this way and impressed upon them the need to follow what the Beatles were doing and write their own material. Something which was not a common thing for 'beat' groups at the time. Without following the Beatles' example, its hard to see how they would have developed creatively.

You kind of conveniently also forget that much of the Stones' impact in their early years was due to the publicity they got, engineered by Andrew Oldham, in that they were marketed as an "antidote" to the image that the Beatles had. Without the Beatles, that whole image would have been redundant."

...I couldnt have put it better myself. Still; its silly to make such a fuzz over two groups that were the best of friends and oftenly meet in Swinging London´s nightclubs 8 days a week after a hard night´s day (and at a late homecoming to Edith Grove maybe James Phelge were waitin with a surprise...)

Milo Yammbag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Beatles, in their massive 8 years or so of
> known existance were a pop band, who only toured
> four years out of their eight. They were also
> silly, which was the Beatles thing. When they
> tried to get serious, nobody wanted to hear it.
> Milo, NYC


are you suggesting their later work didnt sell ???

Each one of those albums sold far more than any album the Stones have ever released! (US album sales so far - Beatles 166.5 million. 50 million more than Elvis, and 103 million more than the Stones)

In fact, the biggest selling Beatles' albums generally tended to be their later work

The White Album sold 19 million in the US alone (and it was a double and for many years it was the fastest selling album in history), Abbey Road 12 million and Sgt Pepper 11 million. The 1967/70 compilation double album shifted 16 million in the US. Thats 4 of the biggest 5 selling albums of their career (the other being the 1962/66 compilation). Sales wise, the public seemed to have liked their later material.

When you consider that the Stones' biggest selling US album was Hot Rocks (12 million) and their biggest STUDIO album (Some Girls) shifted 6 million, those later 'serious' Beatles albums didnt do too badly!

I think both bands are excellent. I'm much more a Stones fan of course, but the Beatles-obsession with many Stones fans over a band thats been defunct for 35 years is even more bizarre than the current obsession over U2. Seems like a bit of sales-envy more than anything,w hich is pointless




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-11 12:13 by Gazza.

"Each one of those albums sold far more than any album the Stones have ever released!"

You can never underestimate the cheap - not to mention bad - taste of the masses...

Musically - and now I'm NOT talking about their huge impact as forerunners or their present iconic status of the ONLY representation of the sunny days of youthful 60's - I've always thought that the Beatles were a pre-Abba. Those nice melodies are so difficult to resist. Björn and Benny had the same genius as Paul and John in creating catchy, easy-listening, sing-along pop melodies. Mick and Keith also tried a bit, but their results never were that good.. So they - fortunately - found their home from "Gimme Shelter" or "Bitch" sort of thing...
try to sing-along that shit around the camp-fire!!

- Doxa

Milo Yammbag wrote: They were also silly, which was the Beatles thing. When they tried to get serious, nobody wanted to hear it.

Oh my god? I did not want to include myself in this Stones/Beatles discussion, but if I read something like this I just shake. The Beatles were mostly serious from 65/66 on. Help was meant seriously. All those beautiful lyrics by John were meant seriously. Eleanor Rigby by Paul was meant seriously. Noone wanted to hear it? I don´t need to comment. The Stones never wrote something like Imagine (John solo 1971, although written ´69 while in the Beatles). But I never expected them to do so. I like the sex lyrics Mick writes all the time.

Gazza.....Everybody knows The Beatles have sold a gazillion records. What I am saying is that today The Beatles are on this "pedistal" that everything they recorded was great and fantastic, that every song on every album they made was just pure genius, which is just a load of crap. Did they make some great songs ? YES. Did they make some pretty shitty ones also ? YES.

The Beatles were huge in what was a very small pond when they started. They stayed in the game once the pond became an ocean and were still at the top of the heap with the Stones.

I have nothing against The Beatles, I enjoy the music they made just like many people in the world do.....but they were a Pop band, not a rock band and they were silly and towards the end a little self indulgent. I personally can't stand listening to some of Lennon's snide remarks.

My point is that in 1968 a Stones vs. Beatles question was valid and one that could never be answered unless you go by record sales and tour totals. Its all about the sound.

In hindsight the Beatles were like a great sitcom on TV, where most episodes were very good, but they stayed on the air 2 seasons too long and started to become a little stinky, but no one would admit it. Its a shame they ended the way they did. The fun was gone, they hated each other and they hated being "Beatles".........but today that is pretty much glossed over.

They made some good tunes but they were not gods, the fat old DJ's in the USA gotta get over them.

Milo, NYC
Got to scrape the shit right off my shoes

George Martin. Did he understand that you could pan a track to the center also, just not right and left ? He Andrew Oldham knew about panning.