Not to beat a dead horse, but, I've alway's thought that this one goes to the Stones hands down. I'm not talking "sound" quality so much here as I am visual performance. And, I'm not talking Hamburg here as I doubt many of us were there to see that. I'm talking once the whole British thing broke and the bands were widely known.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Stones blew the Beatles away as far as live bands go.

Beatles was not a live band.

VERY GOOD JOKE !!!

Do you mean who IS the better live act ? You must be joking. The Beatles havent toured in 40 years or been a group in 35, also 2 of them are dead.

Milo, NYC
With a needle and a spoon

Stones. If the Beatles had toured after '69, with new sound systems &c. they would have given the Stones a run for their pin money.

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

No comparison - Stones

Beatles was never a live band, didn't have performers like Mick and couldn't vary their music from studio to live like Stones..... (also the remaining like Macca, Lennon etc.)...

I think Menace has a good point. If the Beatles toured in the 70s then they may have been good live. After all, the rooftop gig was pretty good and they could have .

However, I would always say the Stones!

"I've always felt that The Beatles thing.. you know, when they were big... was doing records. Ours was like doing concerts." - Mick Jagger, 1969.

- Doxa

The Menace of Mayfair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stones. If the Beatles had toured after '69, with
> new sound systems &c. they would have given
> the Stones a run for their pin money.
>

I seriously doubt it. Even up to when the Beatles stopped touring in 1966 and when you compare both live acts, the Stones were always the more exciting live band

Like Charlie Watts said: "Beatles become more pouplare than anyone bofore or since in England - and they still are,as a name. But they were not as good as us on stage."

Rolling Stones are a live band, there were band who made better records but name a band who smashed the stones live on stage?? They are the greatest live band in the world!

The Beatles were a great live band before the Stones even started. I love their Hamburg days, I love the BBC recordings from that area. They were still quite good in 1964 when it came to Rock´n´Roll (Can´t Do That, Long Tall Sally) while Mick still had his early sweet voice. The Beatles quit live in 1966 - their Rooftop Concert in "Let it be" from January 1969 shows a bit of what could have been. I prefer this rooftop concert anytime to the Stones out of tune and lame Hyde Park Concert later that year... But of course the Stones only started then to become a great live act.

The Rooftop Concert was a real sleeping pill IMHO.
On the other hand I dwell the - maybe controversial in this
forum - opinion that the Gimmie Shelter-tour gigs (at least
most of them you see on dvd/video) are surprisingly overrated.
I understand that the Ya-Ya´s-record (which I must admit havent passed by ears...
"Shame, baboon!") shows far better sides of live-Stone a la 1969-70.

Beatles would have been a smasher to see at early Cavern or Hamburg gigs.
Really it would be foolish to draw this comparison too long,
I stay away from this thread from no on.

tomstones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Beatles were a great live band before the
> Stones even started. I love their Hamburg days, I
> love the BBC recordings from that area. They were
> still quite good in 1964 when it came to
> Rock´n´Roll (Can´t Do That, Long Tall Sally) while
> Mick still had his early sweet voice. The Beatles
> quit live in 1966 - their Rooftop Concert in "Let
> it be" from January 1969 shows a bit of what could
> have been. I prefer this rooftop concert anytime
> to the Stones out of tune and lame Hyde Park
> Concert later that year... But of course the
> Stones only started then to become a great live
> act.



thats a fair point on the Hamburg era. It was also the last time that they could be HEARD in concert, though! They didnt really develop musically as a live band however, partly because they didnt have to, as no one could hear them!

I dont think you can use Hyde Park as a typical Stones concert from the 60's, though. New look band, piss poor sound, limited rehearsal and the size of the setting

"They didnt really develop musically as a live band however, partly because they didnt have to, as ....."


In terms of stage 'performance' yes, in terms of musicianship I disagree - you can't become a bad musician by playing the amount of performances that they did in those days.

The Beatles were not selling out stadiums at the end of their live career. They were starting to get a bit passe.


I think probably The Who in the 1960's could have blown both bands off stage if you go on stage performance and musicianship alone.

I AM SICK TO DEATH OF STONES/BEATLES COMPARISONS.

"I AM SICK TO DEATH OF STONES/BEATLES COMPARISONS."

Very understable. But one thing that always had bothered me with all these comparisons is the fact that in the case of The Rolling Stones, The Beatles is quite often mentioned; The Stones are compared to them, being better, being bigger, sexier, having longer hair, more rebellious , more rock and roll or, being more whatever..being anti-Beatles etc. But in the context of The Beatles the Stones are not often mentioned, and if they are, they are just more or less anecdote. The Beatles seems to be much more self-standing, an entity of their own that does not relying to anyone. They don't need to be compared to anyone to make a difference. In that sense I suppose The Beatles are truely the biggest ever by creating basically themselves out of nowhere, and by heading the course, and making themselves the measure of all the others, of the whole genre. The Rolling Stones are in a big degree a lot of that for many others bands to come, but never that self-sufficient as The Beatles. And Mick and Keith know that by whatever they do, as original artists they always will be in the shadow of the Beatles. The Beatles are their big brothers, really.

I just happen to like the Stones more.

- Doxa

Must of Beatles songs were boring fall a sleep songs like Let it Be or happy joyful tralalalalalalala songs like She Loves You

Therefore they could never have developed into a real consert band

Some really ridiculous comments re the Beatles live on this thread.

Yes for mine the Stones were better live.

The Beatles however were actually a great little live band in the earlier days when they didn't have to compete with 15 000 - 56 000 screaming fans and could be heard.

"Long tall sally", IWHYH, "rnr music", "Roll over beethoven", "T&S", "Hard day's night", "Please please me", It won't be long" and so on were great live tracks with a really raw sound.

"Baby's in black" was better than alot of the blues classics the Stones were covering at the time and it sounded great.

The progressively became a little sloppy - but that's hardly surprising when you consider they had little time to actually rehearse, could hardly hear anything they were perfoming for the most part, had become disenchanted with playing live cos nobody was there to really listen to the music, and eventually they were evolving in the studio at such an incredible rate that reproducing their material live by end 1965 was becoming very difficult.

Trying to perform songs such as "Paperback writer", "Nowhere man" etc were a pretty hard task for any band.

"Tommorow never knows" would never have got a look in back in 1966 whereas today it would be a non issue.

Also McCartney and Lennon knew how to f'ing sing rock and roll man.
Far better than Mick ever did between 1962 and 66.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

Monkey man said: Also McCartney and Lennon knew how to f'ing sing rock and roll man.
Far better than Mick ever did between 1962 and 66.

So you're telling us that Jagger did a poor job on "Satisfaction? I don't think so, and, there's no way that McCartney or Lennon could have out sung him on that song, no way in hell. Jagger was expressing real sexually charged angst, something The Beatles never did know how to do. And there it is, each group has it's strong points.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Who said Jagger did a poor job at anything?

I said that Lennon and McCartney were better live rock and roll singers between 1962 and 66.

Listen to any live show from the Stones in the early to mid sixties and it's clear that Jagger is still finding his feet with regards to singing live.

His voice was still maturing and he was still learning how to control it - esp on stage.

I also never alluded to Jagger's sexual prowess on stage - even though I agree with your comments.

I also stated that for me the Stones were a better live act.

My main point however was that people writing the Beatles off as a crap live act are erroneous.

You don't become the biggest group of all time by being a bunch of hopeless hacks on stage - no matter how good the writing or promotion.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

anyone here on this side who can really compare both bands ???

anyone saw the beatles live ??? (television didn't count)

Well I've never had my nuts chewed by a pit bull either but can pretty well work out all by my lonesome that I wouldn't like it.

You don't need to directly experience something physically live to have an opinion on it.

You can make a comparison when comparing dvds/vids and listening to records cds etc.

Whether you believe tv doesn't count or not, people can still draw conclusions based on their experiences with seeing live shows on dvds etc.

So yes, there are people here that can compare both bands - and although it's a pointless comparison, it is still an interesting discussion on some level for some here.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

monkey man, you said: Also McCartney and Lennon knew how to f'ing sing rock and roll man.
Far better than Mick ever did between 1962 and 66.


I don't see the word "live" in there anywhere.

And, the only live Stones album prior to Ya-Ya's was "Got Live If You Want It. But the same holds true for the Stones as The Beatles at that time, the screaming makes the album almost impossible to listen to. I don't see Jagger looking for his feet in any of the album photo's. He was singing then as he does now, like a black (blues) man. How do you figure he was still trying to "find his feet? I think that's just you're way of saying McCartney and Lennon were better singers? hmmmmmm.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

I fully agree with monkey man. John Lennon had a very strong Rock´n´Roll voice from the very beginning (maybe because he sometimes sang 8 hours a day in over 1500 Hamburg and Liverpool Cavern Club concert bookings). Mick still sounded like a very young boy singing the blues in 62-65. Satisfaction the suddenly showed where he could go.

62-65 little blues boy era with clear and sweet voice
66-70 getting rougher voice, discovering more abilities to also sing Pop AND Rock
70-82 the master era, Mick becoming the hottest singer in the hottest band
(much screaming)
82-89 relearning the game, Mick learning the variety of phrasing
(instead of just screaming)
89-now Perfectly trained voice, Mick singing with "chest-voice" (discussed
here earlier), very strong singing for his age, but missing a bit
of phrasing variety when doing old numbers he once used to scream

Rorty you are one SMART mama!

This thread started out as "who was the best "live" band, what happened? lol I mean even on their very first single, (Not Fade Away), Mick is singing with balls and authority, where do you get off with this "little boy" thing? I think someone needs to take a listen to some early Stones stuff. Might I suggest:

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (nobody "white" sang like this at the time!)
The Last Time (especially the last few bars)
Time Is On My Side
It's All Over Now (Mick wails like a rooster on this on)
19th Nervous Breakdown (Wow! He can even sing rock 'n' roll!)
Heart Of Stone (My Fav)
Get Off My Cloud (nothing but sound and fury, Mick was defining what rock 'n' roll could be sung like)
Not Fade Away (see above)

The above list compromises the majority of Big Hits (High Tide And Green Grass) I don't hear "clear and sweet" anywhere on the above mentioned tunes.

So, John had a strong rock 'n' roll voice, and, a great one I might add. But, so did Mick, even stronger in many ways. God forbid The Beatles get bested by anyone, THAT JUST CAN"T HAPPEN! Thing is, it's been happening from the very beginning

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-13 23:13 by RankOutsider.

Yeah!...Have a listen to Little Queenie from the '61 Little Boy Blue jam and tell me where ya get this shit that in the early days Mick sang like a little boy...Jeez even in '61 sex was just dribblin' from his gob!

Seriously,how the hell did a kid from Dartford know how to sing like that?

ROCKMAN

Ya, where did he get those lips?

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

It was more Lennon / Macca with the sweet voice......

Lennon later discovered the more rockier voice.... Macca still has the same old sweet childish voice..... which is perfect for his tralalalalalalala songs.....

Mick got the acknowledge of being the "white bluessinger"....

So somebody has gotten something wrong here..... or is it just the same old story:

Beeeeeeatles were the beeeesssstttt because they were so niiiiiiiiiiice....