Quote
flacnvinyl
I agree with you and would add that I find it painfully difficult to listen to early Beatles records. The terrible pop tracks on those first few records (A Taste of Honey, Do You Want To Know A Secret, etc) are just awful. Contrast that to the Stones first few records and it is like listening to early punk. I was not alive during that era so maybe it felt drastically different to the masses at the time..

It sure did. Those tracks seem sappy in retrospect, but at the time they just balanced out the rockers like I Saw Her Standing There (which I still love to death), Twist and Shout, Long Tall Sally, etc. (Btw pretty much all my favorite Beatles songs, except I am the Walrus, are pre-Rubber Soul, and the same applies to many of my contemporaries. Those were the days when they were young and exciting and new, and so were we!)

Having said which, I loved every track on the Stones' first couple of albums, and ruined Down the Road Apiece because I kept moving the needle to listen to my favorite part over and over and in the end scratched the record so much it started to skip. Now when I hear the song on CD it sounds weird WITHOUT the skip! It's hilarious to describe those albums as derivative, considering the trail they blazed in the 1960s blues boom.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-28 09:57 by Aquamarine.

As late as 1980 the red and the blue double were the only albums I own with the Beatles

Being a Stones-fan I had everything on record with Stones of course (except for just 'Hot Rocks' and a couple of more Greatest Hits albums)..

Today I must admit that nothin beats The Beatles red and blue albums...Pure Gold on vinyl...!!!



2 1 2 0

I've Always thought 'Between The Buttons' superior to 'Sgt's Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band', when comparing albums between the 2 bands.

I wish they never tried to best 'Sgt. Peppers' w/ the material that ended up as 'T.S.M.R'. The follow up to BTB-pre-Beggars album could have been another GREAT record in the style of 'All Sold Out' , 'Yesterday's Papers' , 'My Obsession' , Connection' , 'Complicated' , 'Back Street Girl' & the GREAT unreleased 'I Can See It' aka 'Get Yourself Together', they were really getting a rough & solid R'n'R sound.

(I'm not going go to go into the technical aspect of the overall 4 track recordings; I.e. Pre-mixing the tracks, bouncing & overdubs.) The overall songwritng & GROOVE they achieved w/ 'Buttons' was a huge step fwd! Wish we could have had one more to follow this, ala 8 track before 'Beggars' & skipped the whole Beatles posing era!

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-28 12:04 by Marhsall.

It's not a case of versus...it's a case of thank you for both appearing on our musical horizons at the same time. Amen.

Wow, how original, another Stones vs. Beatles thread...

Well interesting that flacvinyl points out no Beatles fans listen to their early music, and that it is all bubble gum pop. Yet, again, as a huge fan of both bands, it is easier to be more objective, than when you obviously dislike one of the bands it is hard to appreciate the historical, artistic, and rewarding the music is of the band you don't like. However, as a fan of both, I'd like to comment.
Interesting with all the hoopla of The Beatles 50th anniversary I have been doing just as you suggested fans don't do, is listening a lot to The Beatles pre 66. And wow! Some incredibly scorching rock n' roll. Their first two albums are stunning masterpiece of a new sound, rock, soul, blues, power pop. The main thing a lot of critics and historical writers have always focused on is that The Beatles were so original because they were writing their own music. Sure that is a big change in music groups back then. However, the thing a lot of people tend to gloss over is how The Beatles, Lennon and McCartney in particular, choose mostly obscure music, re-arranged them musically, and delivered hard boiled rousing versions that often became the definitive versions. Twist and Shout is often thought of by younger music fans as a Beatles original. Just listen to how fracking heavy Money is! IT is scorching with such a raw heavy vocal from Lennon. There are so many other versions of covers on their early albums that are incredible. Anna (Go to Him) is such a beautifully haunting soul work out, with yet another amazing Lennon vocal that belayed his age. Ok, sure you have the glossy candy like power pop of I Want to Hold Your Hand and She Loves You that are made into radio anthems that had to be played every program cycle. But even those songs were very original at the time.
Another very interesting thing that rarely is written about, is how much The Beatles used acoustics on their music.So much country/skiffle/rockabilly.
The Beatles For Sale often is not considered as a bit of a lull, but I disagree there as well with some incredible writing on it from No Reply, I'll Be Back, and again amazing covers. Such mature writing and amazing harmonies.
And as was said by several posters A Hard Days Night is a historical classic and a very important record in so many ways.
But again, often with these threads when there are people who are intent on disparaging The Beatles, it is often useless to write about historical or objective views that are regarded openly.

The other thing is that big hang up and prop non-Beatles fans by labeling all they did as pop. Well listen to so many interviews with Jagger and other musicians where virtually all popular music in the 60s was called pop. Jagger has called the Stones pop, so had Keith. Why? Because they were releasing popular singles bought by young fans.

And sorry to hear you (flacvinyl) don't like A Taste of Honey. I love it. Great vocals, again from Paul, and a haunting song. But that is another thing The Beatles, and the Kinks did so well. They were Dance Hall fans from their parents, and appreciated and like the standards and were always interested in interpreting the standards.

Listening to the Mono collection, both the Capital release, and the box set is a great time. I have been driving a lot lately and have listened to the same album in three different ways, mono from the box set, mono from the Capital, and stereo from the 24 bit Apple, and another thing comes through so well, they have a fantastic sound and production.

I love both bands, almost equally. And I am so lucky to have the variety of both.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-28 20:09 by whitem8.

Some 'fans' seem to find the need to disparage the Beatles to elevate the Stones.

I guess that is because in society's collective psyche, the Beatles are number one, and will always be thought that way.

Frustrating for them that their favourite band isn't, and quite rightly maybe should be.

But who the hell cares. I couldn't imagine a world without Beatles or Stones music.

As good as the old stuff is though, maybe we should spend more time investigating new music.

Well the Stones would not have been so productive if not for the Beatles.

But there would have been a Stones.

We mustn't forget Dylan ofcourse!

He didn't write a song called 'Like a Beatle', you know. That MUST be significant.

Infact. It's Signifying.

Quote
whitem8
Well interesting that jimmer points out no Beatles fans listen to their early music, and that it is all bubble gum pop. Yet, again, as a huge fan of both bands, it is easier to be more objective, than when you obviously dislike one of the bands it is hard to appreciate the historical, artistic, and rewarding the music is of the band you don't like.

...

And sorry to hear you (Jimmer) don't like A Taste of Honey. I love it. Great vocals, again from Paul, and a haunting song. But that is another thing The Beatles, and the Kinks did so well. They were Dance Hall fans from their parents, and appreciated and like the standards and were always interested in interpreting the standards.

Who's "Jimmer" or is that a derogatory term I am not familiar with? You do realize that my opinion is simply that... an opinion that happens to belong to me, right...? So it is nothing personal if I am dismissive of early Beatles records. Just my two cents from a young dude who did not grow up in the 60s!

I Saw Her Standing There DOES rock. One of my favorite tracks as well! That being said, most casual Beatles fans (like casual Stones fans) wont sit there and listen to the early records. They'll throw on Revolver, Sgt Peppers, White Album, etc... Why? Because the later catalog was and remains far more original than the early records. It is all about the songs! I for one am THRILLED that they ditched the sappy pop tracks like A Taste Of Honey or Mr Moonlight!! Most Beatles fans (that I have spoken with) agree!

I am a huge Beatles fan!! Try to not reduce opinions on a message board to personal attacks. See reference below:


(my 3 year old beautiful daughter holding my brand new Christmas present.. Sgt Peppers remaster vinyl, her current favorite record)


And for the record (pun intended) Magical Mystery Tour is the single most underrated Beatles album ever released.

Quote
whitem8
Wow, how original, another Stones vs. Beatles thread...

Well interesting that jimmer points out no Beatles fans listen to their early music, and that it is all bubble gum pop. Yet, again, as a huge fan of both bands, it is easier to be more objective, than when you obviously dislike one of the bands it is hard to appreciate the historical, artistic, and rewarding the music is of the band you don't like. However, as a fan of both, I'd like to comment.
Interesting with all the hoopla of The Beatles 50th anniversary I have been doing just as you suggested fans don't do, is listening a lot to The Beatles pre 66. And wow! Some incredibly scorching rock n' roll. Their first two albums are stunning masterpiece of a new sound, rock, soul, blues, power pop. The main thing a lot of critics and historical writers have always focused on is that The Beatles were so original because they were writing their own music. Sure that is a big change in music groups back then. However, the thing a lot of people tend to gloss over is how The Beatles, Lennon and McCartney in particular, choose mostly obscure music, re-arranged them musically, and delivered hard boiled rousing versions that often became the definitive versions. Twist and Shout is often thought of by younger music fans as a Beatles original. Just listen to how fracking heavy Money is! IT is scorching with such a raw heavy vocal from Lennon. There are so many other versions of covers on their early albums that are incredible. Anna (Go to Him) is such a beautifully haunting soul work out, with yet another amazing Lennon vocal that belayed his age. Ok, sure you have the glossy candy like power pop of I Want to Hold Your Hand and She Loves You that are made into radio anthems that had to be played every program cycle. But even those songs were very original at the time.
Another very interesting thing that rarely is written about, is how much The Beatles used acoustics on their music.So much country/skiffle/rockabilly.
The Beatles For Sale often is not considered as a bit of a lull, but I disagree there as well with some incredible writing on it from No Reply, I'll Be Back, and again amazing covers. Such mature writing and amazing harmonies.
And as was said by several posters A Hard Days Night is a historical classic and a very important record in so many ways.
But again, often with these threads when there are people who are intent on disparaging The Beatles, it is often useless to write about historical or objective views that are regarded openly.

The other thing is that big hang up and prop non-Beatles fans by labeling all they did as pop. Well listen to so many interviews with Jagger and other musicians where virtually all popular music in the 60s was called pop. Jagger has called the Stones pop, so had Keith. Why? Because they were releasing popular singles bought by young fans.

And sorry to hear you (Jimmer) don't like A Taste of Honey. I love it. Great vocals, again from Paul, and a haunting song. But that is another thing The Beatles, and the Kinks did so well. They were Dance Hall fans from their parents, and appreciated and like the standards and were always interested in interpreting the standards.

Listening to the Mono collection, both the Capital release, and the box set is a great time. I have been driving a lot lately and have listened to the same album in three different ways, mono from the box set, mono from the Capital, and stereo from the 24 bit Apple, and another thing comes through so well, they have a fantastic sound and production.

I love both bands, almost equally. And I am so lucky to have the variety of both.

whitem8 - I think you mixed up my comments (Jimmer) with comments from others. While I have never been a big Beatles fan I did not offer any derogatory comments about them or their music.

Jimmer

I am so sorry Jimmer! I did make a mistake, I meant to put Flacvinyl. I am very sorry for that mistake!

Those three are truly great 'rock' albums. I agree 'Hot Rocks' is very close to '62-66' & '67-70' in terms of quantity and quality.

But I think it is too much (even with these collections alone) an unfair comparison. And forces me to choose one over the other, which I never do anyway. So I say I don't think either is better...they're both great.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-28 20:15 by nightskyman.

Drake I don't think there was anything in my post that was a personal attack. And yes you were stating an opinion as was I as a counterpoint. It is cool you are fan of their later stuff. I was just trying to point out that I also really like their early stuff, and I don't think most casual Beatles fans only listen to their later catalog. Their early albums still sell tons, and albums like 1 and 1962-66 are huge sellers, with a lot of their early tracks.
So sorry, again, nothing was meant on personal. I was also laying out that on this board there are times it is hard to have objective conversations about The Beatles.
And yes! I agree with you about Magical Mystery Tour being a very underrated album! It was one of Lennon's favorites.

the beatles were overrated no doubt, not knocking them, they pioneered the early pop scene, were light years ahead of the stones in those early days in terms of production, songwriting, popularity and versatility.

the stones were rough around the edges in those days, didnt produce much of their own songs always relying on cover versions and it is these facts which portray the beatles to always be superior to the stones.

but the stones developed, to having an ever changing sound, to writing and producing their own songs, to having a much wider music genre in their repertoire, to having a heavier and more energetic sound and by the late 60,s to being an allround better band.

difficult to compare them, its a matter of personal choice, the beatles made some fantastic tunes but in my opinion if they had formed in the 70,s or 80,s they would be less thought of than they actually were, timing was perfect for them.

the stones will always be the best, ok theyve made a lot of average records, some poor but for 20 years they produced some of the greatest songs ever, with more versatility and energy than the beatles could muster and that is why they will always remain the best.

the stones in my opinion didnt always produce the right songs as a single and in those days the singles market helped form peoples opinions a lot more than the album market did. this also helped perpetuate the myth that the beatles were better than the stones.

sometimes its nice to listen to the beatles, i like "in my life" and "across the universe" but for energy, excitement, variety and noise you cant go wrong with "citadel", "its all over now", "jigsaw puzzle". "gimme shelter", "paint it black", "stray cat blues", "child of the moon", "no expectations" "jj flash" "cool calm collected", "2000 man", "its alright", "2120 south michigan avenue", "ruby tuesday", "lady jane", "we love you" "you got the silver" "the last time" and "back street girl". theres obviously many more, and that dosent even begin to mention the 1970,s or 1980,s.

Quote
flacnvinyl
I agree with you and would add that I find it painfully difficult to listen to early Beatles records. The terrible pop tracks on those first few records (A Taste of Honey, Do You Want To Know A Secret, etc) are just awful. Contrast that to the Stones first few records and it is like listening to early punk. I was not alive during that era so maybe it felt drastically different to the masses at the time..

My comment to Beatles fans is simply to point out how few songs they like prior to Rubber Soul. Favorite Beatles songs always land in the psychedelic era. No one actually listens to those first few bubblegum pop records. In contrast, I would be proud for anyone to throw any early Stones record on a turntable. Earlier today I was listening to Now! telling my better half about Brian Jones playing slide all over Little Red Rooster. There is nothing similar in the Beatles catalog.

To quote Jason and the Scorchers...

"And he yells, and he roars! Loves the Stones, hates the Doors! Thinks the Beatles sing for girls! He's a moonshine guy in a sixpack world!"

I simply cannot agree. The so-called 'bubblegum pop' records (as you call them) are actually all-time classics and highly memorable today (McCartney, see, still performs them these days).

Also, how do you know what anybody's favorites are before or after Rubber Soul? Makes no sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-28 20:20 by nightskyman.

Quote
whitem8
I am so sorry Jimmer! I did make a mistake, I meant to put Flacvinyl. I am very sorry for that mistake!

Not a problem!

The Beatles were a global popular music force. The only act that I could compare would be Elvis in the 50's and Michael Jackson in the 80's. Perhaps Abba outside the US. Those three (or four) acts are in a different class.

However, if you listen to Side 3 of Hot Rocks: Jumping Jack Flash, Street Fighting Man, Sympathy, Honky Tonk Women and Gimme Shelter, you realize that the Stones music rocks harder, and is simply cooler. The ongoing appeal is obvious when you think of how those five tracks are used in television, movies, games, commercials - all generations still find the Stones music appealing today. The others seem more dated. Check out Gimme Shelter:

Veetles did good songs but they did a big bunch of unlistenable songs (and everyone would agree on this)

This does not happen to the Stones (ok...They did Winning Ugly or Back to Zero but even those songs may be heard from time to time. )

@whitem8 - No worries! Sometimes our tone can get convoluted. On this board I have been in the middle of a happy discussion and had something taken COMPLETELY the wrong way! On the ABB tour I remember one occasion when I was at my studio, a glass of Stone IPA in one hand, cigar in another, talking about setlists and song preferences, and suddenly someone (no longer on this board) started taking everything the wrong way. In general, IORR is my happy place! HA!

Quote
nightskyman
I simply cannot agree. The so-called 'bubblegum pop' records (as you call them) are actually all-time classics and highly memorable today (McCartney, see, still performs them these days).

Also, how do you know what anybody's favorites are before or after Rubber Soul? Makes no sense.

@nightskyman - I was only relating my experience with Beatles fans that I personally know. I am not speaking on behalf of millions of fans across the world, only regarding the ones that I have met. When I ask Beatles fans what they dig, invariably it is Strawberry Fields Forever, Helter Skelter, Across The Universe, etc... No one says P.S. I Love You or Do You Want To Know A Secret.

Let's take Please Please Me...

It is also telltale that the Stones covered blues and soul tracks on their first albums, and the Beatles covered POP... Anna, Chains, Baby Its You, A Taste Of Honey...

SIDE 1

1. I Saw Her Standing There - One of the greatest opening tracks of all time. FANTASTIC! I remember being completely floored by it at age 5. Personally this is the ONE song that I feel the Stones should cover. It would be a blast on the b-stage with dueling guitars! But I digress... fantastic ROCKNROLL track.





2. Misery - "Bubblegum pop"





3. Anna - VERY "bubblegum pop"





4. Chains - "bubblegum pop"





5. Boys - Definitely early rocknroll. Not my personal favorite but a solid track.





6. Ask Me Why - Sappy pop ballad





7. Please Please Me - BEAUTIFUL song. Amazing melodies and songwriting. So much so that Keith even plays it here n there. I love the Voodoo outtake when he refuses to play the 'terrible Beatles bridge'. Ha! Goregous track.





SIDE 2


1. Love Me Do - A classic Beatles pop track. I completely get why it was a hit. I loved it when I was a little kid. This is one of the reasons that I typically point out that the Beatles were a great 'pop' band, whereas the Stones were a blue/rocknroll band.





2. P.S. I Love You - Sappy pop ballad.





3. Baby Its You - Sappy pop ballad.





4. Do You Want To Know A Secret - "Bubblegum pop"





5. A Taste Of Honey - "Bubblegum pop/ballad".





6. There's A Place - Early pop/rocknroll.





7. Twist & Shout - CLASSIC. Amazing vocals and the band just really locks in. Such fantastic raw vocals. No autotune, just soul.





So, IN MY OPINION, the first album is primarily a bubblegum shmushy gushy pop record, PRIMARILY, with a few noteworthy exceptions. Most Beatles fans, THAT I HAVE MET, do not play this album regularly. Isolated tracks from it, sure, and most of those can be found in the compilations (Past Masters, 1, etc.)

Quote
drbryant
The Beatles were a global popular music force. The only act that I could compare would be Elvis in the 50's and Michael Jackson in the 80's. Perhaps Abba outside the US. Those three (or four) acts are in a different class.

However, if you listen to Side 3 of Hot Rocks: Jumping Jack Flash, Street Fighting Man, Sympathy, Honky Tonk Women and Gimme Shelter, you realize that the Stones music rocks harder, and is simply cooler. The ongoing appeal is obvious when you think of how those five tracks are used in television, movies, games, commercials - all generations still find the Stones music appealing today. The others seem more dated. Check out Gimme Shelter:

Yeah, you kind of document how I feel about them. To me, the freshest sounding Beatles music to listen to now is the earlier stuff esp. Hard Day's Night thru Rubber Soul. The later stuff, while acknowledging that it's great, seem very "of it's time" and dated to me. If I hear Hey Jude on the radio, I scramble to turn it. The Stones tracks (and others) that you mention just seem to be timeless. THAT's the kind of party I want to be at. The Beatles later material is the kind of thing that seems like its meant to be listened to by yourself in a room. Like admiring a painting on a wall, versus something that's interactive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-28 22:18 by StonesCat.

Quote
flacnvinyl

Most Beatles fans, THAT I HAVE MET, do not play this album regularly.

Time you met me!

Quote
treaclefingers
Some 'fans' seem to find the need to disparage the Beatles to elevate the Stones.

I guess that is because in society's collective psyche, the Beatles are number one, and will always be thought that way.

Frustrating for them that their favourite band isn't, and quite rightly maybe should be.

But who the hell cares. I couldn't imagine a world without Beatles or Stones music.

As good as the old stuff is though, maybe we should spend more time investigating new music.

And there we have it. Says it all.

Quote
Jimmer
When I was growing up, two of the big Beatles hits compilations were: The Beatles: 1962 - 1966 and The Beatles: 1967-1970. And of course the Stones greatest compilation will always be Hot Rocks 1964-71. If you add a year to the Stones to make the time frames comparable, you would have:

The Beatles 1962 - 1970
Stones: 1964 - 1972

When you look at the studio album output quantity wise during those similar time frames, both groups had 12 or 13 studio albums. The Beatles of course were much more commercially successful but the Stones sold a lot of records too in their own right (just not nearly as many as the Beatles - but of course who did back then). But quality wise when you consider the output of these two groups during that time frame, it is just staggering looking back! Being the 'objective' Stones fan that I am, I'll put the Stones output right up there with the Beatles and even beyond. My friends would expect nothing less coming from me!

This is silly. No comparison. Stones killed em. Wayyyyyy better. Why keep bringing it up?

Flacnvinyl, funny you would say Anna is "very bubblegum pop", considering its origins as a soul song originally performed by Arthur Alexander. I would say, if anything, the Beatles were attempting to channel their love American blues and soul with it. Fortunatly they did it better than they would with a later blues/soul cover: Mr. Moonlight. The latter is arguably the worst song the Beatles ever recorded. So for consideration the original by Piano Red aka Dr. Feelgood:

Listened to the White Album in the car today and it made me realize how silly this argument is. The Beatles were on a whole other level as recording artists. The Stones couldn't compete as songwriters, and song producers. The Beatles were simply the most brilliant pop artists that ever existed. And yet they lacked a certain excitement, a certain musical authority when it came to rock and roll and blues that the Stones had in spades.

Face it, they're just two totally different kinds of artists. The Stones did some embarrassing things when they tried to copy the Beatles too closely. And the Beatles could never be as hard edged and funky as the Stones. You just can't compare the two.

Thank You 24FPS!

Beatles introduced me to Motown on their early albums, Stones introduced me to the blues on theirs. Two wonderful gifts! The blues became my passion, but I still love Motown and much of the other music of the Motor City.

There are other factors at play.

The Beatles on record played with clean guitar sounds until 1966. How different things would have been if producer George Martin hadn't objected to the distorted sounds of the fuzz tone they used to record the early takes of She Loves You and Don't Bother Me (now lost). The Beatles were the first UK rock band to record with the Maestro Fuzz Tone.

Imagine if Brian Epstein hadn't cleaned up their dirty leather image and the Beatles had had PA systems to be able to hear themselves play and been able to replicate their Hamburg, Germany stage act for UK and US audiences.

Then the only thing separating the Beatles and the Stones would have been a lead singer who could dance about because he didn't have to play guitar.

Otherwise, the differences are just gimmicky marketing images from press agents like Andrew Loog Oldham.

If only, if only....

Quote
24FPS
Listened to the White Album in the car today and it made me realize how silly this argument is. The Beatles were on a whole other level as recording artists. The Stones couldn't compete as songwriters, and song producers. The Beatles were simply the most brilliant pop artists that ever existed. And yet they lacked a certain excitement, a certain musical authority when it came to rock and roll and blues that the Stones had in spades.

Face it, they're just two totally different kinds of artists. The Stones did some embarrassing things when they tried to copy the Beatles too closely. And the Beatles could never be as hard edged and funky as the Stones. You just can't compare the two.

THIS. THIS. THIS.

Quote
stonehearted
There are other factors at play.

The Beatles on record played with clean guitar sounds until 1966. How different things would have been if producer George Martin hadn't objected to the distorted sounds of the fuzz tone they used to record the early takes of She Loves You and Don't Bother Me (now lost). The Beatles were the first UK rock band to record with the Maestro Fuzz Tone.

Imagine if Brian Epstein hadn't cleaned up their dirty leather image and the Beatles had had PA systems to be able to hear themselves play and been able to replicate their Hamburg, Germany stage act for UK and US audiences.

Then the only thing separating the Beatles and the Stones would have been a lead singer who could dance about because he didn't have to play guitar.

Otherwise, the differences are just gimmicky marketing images from press agents like Andrew Loog Oldham.

If only, if only....

We wouldn't even have needed the Stones in that case, as the Beatles would have covered all the musical bases.

Think of all the money we could have saved?!

What site would we be posting on now? RARM.org?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted
There are other factors at play.

The Beatles on record played with clean guitar sounds until 1966. How different things would have been if producer George Martin hadn't objected to the distorted sounds of the fuzz tone they used to record the early takes of She Loves You and Don't Bother Me (now lost). The Beatles were the first UK rock band to record with the Maestro Fuzz Tone.

Imagine if Brian Epstein hadn't cleaned up their dirty leather image and the Beatles had had PA systems to be able to hear themselves play and been able to replicate their Hamburg, Germany stage act for UK and US audiences.

Then the only thing separating the Beatles and the Stones would have been a lead singer who could dance about because he didn't have to play guitar.

Otherwise, the differences are just gimmicky marketing images from press agents like Andrew Loog Oldham.

If only, if only....

We wouldn't even have needed the Stones in that case, as the Beatles would have covered all the musical bases.

Think of all the money we could have saved?!

What site would we be posting on now? RARM.org?

Yes indeed. But now we got a band with a dancing singer. Bless his heart.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted
There are other factors at play.

The Beatles on record played with clean guitar sounds until 1966. How different things would have been if producer George Martin hadn't objected to the distorted sounds of the fuzz tone they used to record the early takes of She Loves You and Don't Bother Me (now lost). The Beatles were the first UK rock band to record with the Maestro Fuzz Tone.

Imagine if Brian Epstein hadn't cleaned up their dirty leather image and the Beatles had had PA systems to be able to hear themselves play and been able to replicate their Hamburg, Germany stage act for UK and US audiences.

Then the only thing separating the Beatles and the Stones would have been a lead singer who could dance about because he didn't have to play guitar.

Otherwise, the differences are just gimmicky marketing images from press agents like Andrew Loog Oldham.

If only, if only....

We wouldn't even have needed the Stones in that case, as the Beatles would have covered all the musical bases.

Think of all the money we could have saved?!

What site would we be posting on now? RARM.org?

Yes indeed. But now we got a band with a dancing singer. Bless his heart.

indeed