Quote
Stoneage
Doesn't this one belong to the Beatles versus the Stones thread?

It's there, of course

Quote
buttons67
i think the stones have always been respectful of the beatles, i dont think that has ever worked in reverse,

lennon said in an interview around 1970, something to the effect of i like honky tonk women but nothing much else, when appraising the stones songlist at that time

Lol yet John is on the @#$%& Stones own Rock And Roll Circus. Keeping grasping at straws. You'll never find one. Both groups are very respectful of the other.

The Beatles: the band for people with no curiosity below the waist. Head music.

Quote
Doxa
To me it looks like THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES is for Beatles freaks, and seemingly for McCartney as well - as once upon time for Lennon - the most significiant, if not the only album the Stones ever did. The argument showing the superioty of the Beatles is so strongly based on the example of SATANIC MAJESTIES, since the Stones so clearly were 'following' the lead of the Beatles there. Part of the Beatles mythology is the idea of them being such adventurous, innovative, experimental and 'first' in everything. Like that alone equals to greatness.

However, those following the story of the Stones more closely, or even being fans of them, might imagine that SATANIC MAJESTIES was not the album the band is most remembered for... If the claim that the Stones were copying SGT. PEPPER there is true, one might even conclude that the best thing the Stones ever did was to stop to following the example of the Beatles...

- Doxa

ha...good one.

Beyond that, I'd say that She's a Rainbow is better than anything on Sgt. Pepper, excepting A Day In The Life of course. Throw in 2000 Light Year's, 2000 Man and Citadel and you have not too bad a cast off album. Pity they couldn't have included Dandelion and We Love You (and removing See What Happens). That could've put TSMR into classic album status.

Quote
Hairball
Lol @ the Daily Mail....almost as much credibility as Mad Magazine...

What, me worry?!

..... the ye olde conversation ......

If ya lived thru the sixties you'll remember
the ones who were Beatle fans and what girly breaths they were ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
buttons67
i think the stones have always been respectful of the beatles, i dont think that has ever worked in reverse,

lennon said in an interview around 1970, something to the effect of i like honky tonk women but nothing much else, when appraising the stones songlist at that time

It has been a while since I read that lengthy Rolling Stone interview that Lennon did in 1970, but his statement (this is not an exact quote so excuse me) was something to the effect that he liked the direction the Stones took after they stopped trying to imitate the Beatles (ie post 1967).

Quote
Rockman
..... the ye olde conversation ......

If ya lived thru the sixties you'll remember
the ones who were Beatle fans and what girly breaths they were ....

...if you LIVED thru the '60's.....you WOULDN'T remember!!!!

Quote
crholmstrom

LOL

Quote
EddieByword
McCartney .....'We did Sergeant Pepper and the Stones did a psychedelic album. There was a lot of that,' he added.


Maybe you were both influenced by things other than each other..............like shed loads of LSD.....possibly........maybe?

><

Cheers,
SonicD

These 2 have had a friendly rivalry for over 55 years. They’re probably far beyond giving the slightest toss about what spin the press put on their words. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve spoken on the phone about this and had a good old laugh about it all. They’ve seen and heard it all before innumerable times.

I’ve always said that the World is s better place for having had both great bands to enjoy and both from this little island. And the big bonus is that one of them’s still going although Macca gigs nowadays usually include about 25 Beatles songs.

Both bands made lots of great songs. If the Beatles had not made it would The Rolling Stones have? It’s more than being a great band. It seems in the music business there is a lot of luck involved.

"Paul's being a bit of a b*tch, Mick a politician..."

...with both being the sort of people they've always been -- pop stars.

Quote
Rocknroll1969
Both bands made lots of great songs. If the Beatles had not made it would The Rolling Stones have? It’s more than being a great band. It seems in the music business there is a lot of luck involved.

That's for Dick Rowe to decide. In the meantime, the Beatles don't exist and never did an actual tour as that stuff wasn't invented yet

That's fine, let people think the Beatles are better. We all know the Stones are.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-26 20:45 by ryanpow.

The Beatles were better at perpetuating the myth gifted by the media.
The Rolling Sones were always the better band.

it is amazing the myths that follow both bands,

one myth being the stones always copied the beatles, the truth is 95% of stones stuff and 95% of beatles stuff never actually sounded like each other.

another myth, they were compared mostly by the efforts of sgt peppers and satanic majesties, truth is sgt peppers is generally considered one of the beatles best albums while satanic is considered much lower in the stones appraisal, also satanic wasnt like sgt peppers, and in my opinion was better than sgt peppers.

another myth is the beatles never used backing musicians in the studio or never did cover versions like the stones did, infact thats not true as beatles did use backing musicians and did do cover versions.

another myth is beatles rarely made bad songs, yellow submarine, obla da obla di, when im 64, get back, penny lane, are just some of the less riveting beatles songs.

another myth is beatles lead the psychedelic revolution, the truth is that they never and the stones were better in that department as were other bands.

I get a chuckle reading this thread. I can't believe it has gained so much traction (153 pages and counting). I mean why does it have to be titled Beatles vs. Stones? In reality, hasn't this always been an "apples and oranges" argument, meaning these bands are really incomparable? It is not like one group has something over (and/or better) than the other. They both offer something that is unique, positive and different from one another (ala a ying and a yang so to speak). And we as music fans, are the better for it! Discuss among yourselves (LOL)!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-26 23:40 by Sighunt.

This thread just goes to show that nearly 6 decades on, Andrew Loog Oldham certainly did his job, at least as far as marketing the Stones with respect to image.

To this day, Allen Klein owns the Stones and ALO owns their fans.

(ALO in the midst of his Scott Walker phase, c.1965)

The thing is, the Beatles arguably are better musicians, academically speaking...but ultimately they don't move me like the Stones do. No other band or artist does. Like someone said, the Beatles are head music. With the exception of a few songs, I don't feel that much when I listen to the Beatles, though I do enjoy listening to them.

A side note, it seems that Beatles cover bands often are able to "cover the sound" pretty well, whereas Stones cover bands never sound quite right, to me. I think this has to do with the X Factor the Stones possess, which is that age old wobble that they have...and Stones cover bands just play the notes on the page and can't capture the wobble.

I enjoy listening to both bands. Re copying Sergeant Pepper, many bands did. Tommy by the Who can be traced back to Pepper as it (Pepper) was one of the first, if not the first, rock/pop concept album. After Pepper, think about how much art work on albums went psychedelic and the albums featured concept themes (hello, Moody Blues). Re Pepper, itself, vastly overrated, IMHO. I'll take Revolution and Rubber Soul over it any day.

As to who was the better band back then, I give my nod to the Beatles. They were innovative and very creative in the studio (thank you George Martin) and Lennon and McCartney were superb as a songwriting team. I wouldn't call all of their songs great, but one must admit they wrote many great songs that will stand the test of time. The Stones were something different and, as McCartney noted, rooted in a different style of music than the Beatles, thus the Stones having a harder sound than the Beatles, along with capturing bits of what today is called Americana on their albums from the late 1960s onward.

As for MJ's reference to longevity, selling out arenas and stadiums, etc., to this day, this has little to do with saying who was the better band. There are any number of performers from the 1960s, 1970s, still touring out there. Does this make them better bands than the Beatles because they are still here? I think not. Like the Stones, they're running on nostalgia and playing them golden oldies for the crowd and money. The Stones pointed out this path - playing for the crowd - when they penned the line "Why don't we sing this song altogether...." But, of course, Ringo and McCartney do the same with their tours.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Rocknroll1969
Both bands made lots of great songs. If the Beatles had not made it would The Rolling Stones have? It’s more than being a great band. It seems in the music business there is a lot of luck involved.

That's for Dick Rowe to decide. In the meantime, the Beatles don't exist and never did an actual tour as that stuff wasn't invented yet

I was taking about being signed to a record deal. I read the Beatles had a difficult time getting a Record deal. They were rejected by many labels. The good bands that came after the Beatles were signed faster.

Quote
dmay
I enjoy listening to both bands. Re copying Sergeant Pepper, many bands did. Tommy by the Who can be traced back to Pepper as it (Pepper) was one of the first, if not the first, rock/pop concept album. After Pepper, think about how much art work on albums went psychedelic and the albums featured concept themes (hello, Moody Blues). Re Pepper, itself, vastly overrated, IMHO. I'll take Revolution and Rubber Soul over it any day.

As to who was the better band back then, I give my nod to the Beatles. They were innovative and very creative in the studio (thank you George Martin) and Lennon and McCartney were superb as a songwriting team. I wouldn't call all of their songs great, but one must admit they wrote many great songs that will stand the test of time. The Stones were something different and, as McCartney noted, rooted in a different style of music than the Beatles, thus the Stones having a harder sound than the Beatles, along with capturing bits of what today is called Americana on their albums from the late 1960s onward.

As for MJ's reference to longevity, selling out arenas and stadiums, etc., to this day, this has little to do with saying who was the better band. There are any number of performers from the 1960s, 1970s, still touring out there. Does this make them better bands than the Beatles because they are still here? I think not. Like the Stones, they're running on nostalgia and playing them golden oldies for the crowd and money. The Stones pointed out this path - playing for the crowd - when they penned the line "Why don't we sing this song altogether...." But, of course, Ringo and McCartney do the same with their tours.

Great post, and that settles it - The Beatles for the WIN!


Thread should be closed now.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
dmay
I enjoy listening to both bands. Re copying Sergeant Pepper,

Being an utter pedant, I have to point out that the military rank is NEVER spelled out like that in any, and I mean ANY, authoritative/official stuff.

Its just about always SGT PEPPER, and every now and again - very rare - a SGT.PEPPER.

:-)

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
floodonthepage
The thing is, the Beatles arguably are better musicians, academically speaking...but ultimately they don't move me like the Stones do. No other band or artist does. Like someone said, the Beatles are head music. With the exception of a few songs, I don't feel that much when I listen to the Beatles, though I do enjoy listening to them.

A side note, it seems that Beatles cover bands often are able to "cover the sound" pretty well, whereas Stones cover bands never sound quite right, to me. I think this has to do with the X Factor the Stones possess, which is that age old wobble that they have...and Stones cover bands just play the notes on the page and can't capture the wobble.

Certainly NOT Ringo!!!

>another myth is beatles lead the psychedelic revolution, the truth is that they
>never


I can tell you, no one who was around back then (1967 - 1968) would make a statement like that. They led the revolution at least as far as the media and their relationship to it goes. They were THE measure of the psychedelic times for many many people. Charlie Manson didn't hit on the White Album out of nowhere.

jb

Quote
stickyfingers101

Quote
floodonthepage
The thing is, the Beatles arguably are better musicians, academically speaking...but ultimately they don't move me like the Stones do. No other band or artist does. Like someone said, the Beatles are head music. With the exception of a few songs, I don't feel that much when I listen to the Beatles, though I do enjoy listening to them.

A side note, it seems that Beatles cover bands often are able to "cover the sound" pretty well, whereas Stones cover bands never sound quite right, to me. I think this has to do with the X Factor the Stones possess, which is that age old wobble that they have...and Stones cover bands just play the notes on the page and can't capture the wobble.

Certainly NOT Ringo!!!

Ha! Definitely not. Well for me, truly none of the Beatles are better for feel...but for "academic" musical chops and what they went off and did on their own...for the other 3...well, a case can be made.