"But, the rockers just don't represent the group's best work (Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life, Fool on the Hill, I Am the Walrus, All you Need is Love, Hey Jude, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Let it Be, Across the Universe Long and Winding Road, Something, Here Comes the Sun, Because). And they don't have the timeless essence of the Stones "big 4 + 1 great live album" period."

Seriously? You're suggesting those Beatles songs don't have the timeless essence of the Stones?

I'm a Stones fan but you have to be kidding.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
drbryant

Quote
sonomastone
Hmm. I buy your argument that their greatness was less about their Rock in the later years, however i don't find it germane to the Beatles vs Stones argument since it's easy to just look at the Beatles' rock output in that period and compare it to the Stones.

In the period you're talking about, the Beatles created about 3 times the music the Stones did.

Let's break it down by year to demonstrate how much more the Beatles were doing in this period, and let's ignore everything but the rock.

1967 - what's a better rock album: Sgt Pepper or Satanic Majesties?

1968 - The rock tracks (forget the pop) on 45s released by the Beatles in 68 plus those on Magical Mystery Tour, and the White Album, (so, for example, Revolution, I am the Walrus, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Back in the USSR, Helter Skelter, Lady Madonna, Strawberry Fields, Happiness is a Warm Gun, etc.) or Beggar's Banquet ?

1969 - The rock tracks on Abbey Road *and* Let it Be or Let it Bleed?

Just because the Beatles released 3 times the music in this period as the Stones, and a lot of it wasn't rock, doesn't mean they weren't a more successful rock band. If I evaluate the above, I think 69 is the only year the Stones win. Maybe you disagree. But clearly it's a close race. And this is of course only looking at the period people are regarding as the Beatles' weakest.

I love the Rolling Stones. My heart is with the Stones. But my brain knows the reality.

I never thought about it in term of the releases in the particular years. I generally think of the Beatles in terms of pre- and post- Pepper. I think of the Stones and pre- and post-Jumping Jack Flash, so the time periods aren't exact. So, to me, the Beatles are Pepper, MMT, the White Album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let it Be (and you can throw in the non album Ballad of J&Y and Hey Jude- any others?). The Stones are Beggars Banquet. Let It Bleed, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out, Sticky Fingers and Exile (and throw in JJF and Honky Tonk Women).

Those five Stones albums are as good as rock and roll gets. For the most part, it's basic blues-based rock and it sounds natural and unforced. In the Stones' version of "rock and roll" songs written in the 1920's - Prodigal Son, Love in Vain, Stop Breaking Down - sound right at home with Street Fighting Man, Gimme Shelter and All Down the Line, and it all sounds timeless because the Stones understood the greatness of that music instinctively.

For the Beatles, at least post-Pepper, "rock and roll" meant "oldies", a music to be loved, but not taken that seriously and as a result, it was not the focus of their efforts. Pepper and MMT don't have much rock on them although they are among the greatest albums ever made. And when they went "back to basics" after the White Album, many of their uptempo numbers either channeled the oldies (Beach Boys/C.Berry on Back in the USSR, Come Together; Doo-wop on Happiness is a Warm Gun, Oh Darling; themselves on One after 909) or were treated as "less serious" filler (songs about birthdays, monkeys, bulldogs, or doing it in the road). Some of those sound great, primarily because John Lennon had the greatest voice of a generation.

But, the rockers just don't represent the group's best work (Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life, Fool on the Hill, I Am the Walrus, All you Need is Love, Hey Jude, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Let it Be, Across the Universe Long and Winding Road, Something, Here Comes the Sun, Because). And they don't have the timeless essence of the Stones "big 4 + 1 great live album" period.

hmm ok if the question is "can you define rock in such a way that if you pick a time period in the beatles career when they were at their weakest according to that definition and compare them to the stones at their strongest and conclude the stones were 'more rock'" then you have an argument

but to be clear, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the stones at their best compare favorably to the beatles at their 'least'. kind of like saying deniro at his worst wasn't as good as peter fonda in 'easy rider'. fine, but so what?

Yes, well said. I've been trying to express the same but was unable to state it so clearly.

In the end it's not worth it to bother comparing these two groups because they are both great.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-13 05:39 by nightskyman.

This is fun to watch: [www.abbeyroad.com]

Quote
treaclefingers
"But, the rockers just don't represent the group's best work (Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life, Fool on the Hill, I Am the Walrus, All you Need is Love, Hey Jude, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Let it Be, Across the Universe Long and Winding Road, Something, Here Comes the Sun, Because). And they don't have the timeless essence of the Stones "big 4 + 1 great live album" period."

Seriously? You're suggesting those Beatles songs don't have the timeless essence of the Stones?

I'm a Stones fan but you have to be kidding.

four thumbs up for The Beatles

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-13 18:20 by NICOS.

Quote
treaclefingers
"But, the rockers just don't represent the group's best work (Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life, Fool on the Hill, I Am the Walrus, All you Need is Love, Hey Jude, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Let it Be, Across the Universe Long and Winding Road, Something, Here Comes the Sun, Because). And they don't have the timeless essence of the Stones "big 4 + 1 great live album" period."

Seriously? You're suggesting those Beatles songs don't have the timeless essence of the Stones?

I'm a Stones fan but you have to be kidding.

You misread my sentence. I meant that the Beatles' rockers don't have the timeless essence of the Stones music (not the cited "best work")

Quote
sonomastone
hmm ok if the question is "can you define rock in such a way that if you pick a time period in the beatles career when they were at their weakest according to that definition and compare them to the stones at their strongest and conclude the stones were 'more rock'" then you have an argument

but to be clear, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the stones at their best compare favorably to the beatles at their 'least'. kind of like saying deniro at his worst wasn't as good as peter fonda in 'easy rider'. fine, but so what?

No, that's not what I am saying; I'll try one last post, and then I'll retire. I don't think the Beatles' post-Pepper albums are "least" in any way shape or form. I copied below the tracklist from 1967-1970. What an amazing collection of tracks. I hear that music resonating in tracks by Arcade Fire, Fleet Foxes and many others today. So, if you want to say the Beatles were better than the Stones post-Pepper (or at all times) I have no quarrel with that.

Instead, I'll just point out that the Stones' music post-JJF is very different from anything the Beatles ever did. The music comes from a completely different place, as I have tried to explain. The Stones forefathers were Robert Johnson, Howlin Wolf, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Willie Dixon, Reverend Fred Wilkins and Mississippi Fred McDowell. That's where Stu and Brian got their inspiration to form the Stones. The Stones returned to their roots after TSMR, and they've rarely strayed (for better or for worse). That's what Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers sound like.

And to me, it's music that comes from a completely different place than the Beatles' music. If others don't hear any difference, I can respect that. I also think that the Stones' music (all of which was rock) was far superior to the Beatles handful of post-Pepper rock tracks. Others obviously disagree, and that's fine. The Beatles' rock was certainly pretty good - I like Paul and George doing the "shoo bee doo wah - bow!" parts on Revolution, that's for sure!

The Beatles 1967-1970 tracklist

Side 1
1."Strawberry Fields Forever" – 4:10
2."Penny Lane" – 3:03
3."Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" – 2:02
4."With a Little Help from My Friends" – 2:44
5."Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" – 3:28
6."A Day in the Life" – 5:06
7."All You Need Is Love" – 3:48

Side 2
8."I Am the Walrus" – 4:37
9."Hello, Goodbye" – 3:31
10."The Fool on the Hill" – 3:00
11."Magical Mystery Tour" – 2:51
12."Lady Madonna" – 2:17
13."Hey Jude" – 7:08
14."Revolution" – 3:21
Disc 2
Side 1
1."Back in the U.S.S.R." – 2:45
2."While My Guitar Gently Weeps" (Harrison) – 4:45
3."Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" – 3:05
4."Get Back" – 3:14
5."Don't Let Me Down" – 3:33
6."The Ballad of John and Yoko" – 2:59
7."Old Brown Shoe" (Harrison) – 3:18

Side 2
8."Here Comes the Sun" (Harrison) – 3:05
9."Come Together" – 4:20
10."Something" (Harrison) – 3:03
11."Octopus's Garden" (Starkey) – 2:51
12."Let It Be" – 3:52
13."Across the Universe" – 3:48
14."The Long and Winding Road" – 3:38



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-13 21:39 by drbryant.

in 1967 there was no need to welcome the rolling stones, since of course they were already very well established

there is surely a story, or at least an inside joke, behind this. does anyone know?

[www.iorr.org]

Quote
tatters
[www.iorr.org]

thank you!

Another Beatles box set coming out in June. What does 15,120 yen translate to in American dollars? Sounds expensive.

[www.amazon.co.jp]

Quote
tatters
Another Beatles box set coming out in June. What does 15,120 yen translate to in American dollars? Sounds expensive.

[www.amazon.co.jp]

My heart skipped a beat for a second....I thought it was the long promised MONO vinyl box set.

I wonder why the wait there...maybe because so many stereo box sets still unsold?

Interesting when you compare the Beatles Stereo box set to the Stones 1964-69 vinyl box released in 2010. You cannot find the Stones box in new condition for under $1000 on any Amazon country site, and I think they average for around $1400, although listed as high as $4000.

The Beatles vinyl box by contrast has gone down by about $100 on average since released.

Here's a look-see at the new Japanese Beatles box. Are those Budokan tickets?

[sp.universal-music.co.jp]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-19 17:56 by tatters.

Read the full story here.

[www.examiner.com]

Quote
tatters
Read the full story here.

[www.examiner.com]

Even though I pre-ordered, I ended up cancelling the US package...just too much redundancy and the recordings were going to be the same versions as the UK versions. I'll pass on this as well.

Got to same me money for the stones CLEAR VINYL release next month!!!

I would consider getting the Beatles on MONO vinyl if they ever do release that.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
sonomastone
hmm ok if the question is "can you define rock in such a way that if you pick a time period in the beatles career when they were at their weakest according to that definition and compare them to the stones at their strongest and conclude the stones were 'more rock'" then you have an argument

but to be clear, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the stones at their best compare favorably to the beatles at their 'least'. kind of like saying deniro at his worst wasn't as good as peter fonda in 'easy rider'. fine, but so what?

No, that's not what I am saying; I'll try one last post, and then I'll retire. I don't think the Beatles' post-Pepper albums are "least" in any way shape or form. I copied below the tracklist from 1967-1970. What an amazing collection of tracks. I hear that music resonating in tracks by Arcade Fire, Fleet Foxes and many others today. So, if you want to say the Beatles were better than the Stones post-Pepper (or at all times) I have no quarrel with that.

Instead, I'll just point out that the Stones' music post-JJF is very different from anything the Beatles ever did. The music comes from a completely different place, as I have tried to explain. The Stones forefathers were Robert Johnson, Howlin Wolf, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Willie Dixon, Reverend Fred Wilkins and Mississippi Fred McDowell. That's where Stu and Brian got their inspiration to form the Stones. The Stones returned to their roots after TSMR, and they've rarely strayed (for better or for worse). That's what Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers sound like.

And to me, it's music that comes from a completely different place than the Beatles' music. If others don't hear any difference, I can respect that. I also think that the Stones' music (all of which was rock) was far superior to the Beatles handful of post-Pepper rock tracks. Others obviously disagree, and that's fine. The Beatles' rock was certainly pretty good - I like Paul and George doing the "shoo bee doo wah - bow!" parts on Revolution, that's for sure!

The Beatles 1967-1970 tracklist

Side 1
1."Strawberry Fields Forever" – 4:10
2."Penny Lane" – 3:03
3."Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" – 2:02
4."With a Little Help from My Friends" – 2:44
5."Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" – 3:28
6."A Day in the Life" – 5:06
7."All You Need Is Love" – 3:48

Side 2
8."I Am the Walrus" – 4:37
9."Hello, Goodbye" – 3:31
10."The Fool on the Hill" – 3:00
11."Magical Mystery Tour" – 2:51
12."Lady Madonna" – 2:17
13."Hey Jude" – 7:08
14."Revolution" – 3:21
Disc 2
Side 1
1."Back in the U.S.S.R." – 2:45
2."While My Guitar Gently Weeps" (Harrison) – 4:45
3."Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" – 3:05
4."Get Back" – 3:14
5."Don't Let Me Down" – 3:33
6."The Ballad of John and Yoko" – 2:59
7."Old Brown Shoe" (Harrison) – 3:18

Side 2
8."Here Comes the Sun" (Harrison) – 3:05
9."Come Together" – 4:20
10."Something" (Harrison) – 3:03
11."Octopus's Garden" (Starkey) – 2:51
12."Let It Be" – 3:52
13."Across the Universe" – 3:48
14."The Long and Winding Road" – 3:38

You nailed it. Any other discussion doesn't make sense.
It's a matter of taste, musical direction
I like Stones because of it's musical roots.

<<You nailed it>>

You mean to say that you agree with the "I don't think the Beatles' post-Pepper albums are "least" in any way shape or form. I copied below the tracklist from 1967-1970. What an amazing collection of tracks." and "The Beatles' rock was certainly pretty good" parts of the post, too?

Quote
stonehearted
<<You nailed it>>

You mean to say that you agree with the "I don't think the Beatles' post-Pepper albums are "least" in any way shape or form. I copied below the tracklist from 1967-1970. What an amazing collection of tracks." and "The Beatles' rock was certainly pretty good" parts of the post, too?

The text underlined:

Instead, I'll just point out that the Stones' music post-JJF is very different from anything the Beatles ever did. The music comes from a completely different place, as I have tried to explain. The Stones forefathers were Robert Johnson, Howlin Wolf, Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Willie Dixon, Reverend Fred Wilkins and Mississippi Fred McDowell. That's where Stu and Brian got their inspiration to form the Stones.

Writer/editor and music publisher Michael Sigman writes about his close encounter with John Lennon in a Hoboken, New Jersey, printing plant in 1974.


John Lennon with Record World associate chart editor Toni Profera/Winter, 1974

On the day in question, assistant editor David McGee was given a reprieve so that he could do an exclusive interview with Jackson Browne from the office, via telephone -- his first interview with a major artist.

McGee, who had only recently been promoted from the Record World mail room, recalls, "To study up, I brought to the office not only Jackson's new album, Late for the Sky, which would be the focus of the interview, but his two previous albums, Jackson Browne and For Everyman. A pair of headphones was on the desk, and although I plugged them in while I played the albums, that didn't stop the music from pouring out of the speakers. I had my back turned to the door and was hunched over the cover of the Jackson Browne album, listening to the haunting 'Song for Adam,' a requiem for Browne's departed friend Adam Saylor, who apparently committed suicide in Bombay.

"It's one of Browne's greatest songs, as beautiful as it is mournful, and apart from its Biblical allusions it's a touching testimony to the power of friendship. As I played the song for probably a third time, I became aware of a presence in the room; I knew I wasn't alone anymore. Thinking it was probably someone from the office, I kept focused on the music, until finally I had to see why this presence wasn't leaving.

"When I turned around I was face to face with John Lennon, who was standing alone in the doorway, listening to 'Song for Adam,' apparently as intently as I was. When it finished I took off the headphones, and John, who wasn't introduced and obviously didn't need to be, said, 'That's a great song. A really great song. The whole album's like that, isn't it?' The latter wasn't really a question; it was a rhetorical statement. And then, like that, I was in a spirited conversation with John about Jackson Browne, finally getting around to Late for the Sky, of which he had heard only the title track. 'That one got under my skin,' he said, and then John Lennon -- John Lennon, mind you -- added: 'I wish I could write songs like that.'

"Talking to him was as easy as catching up with an old friend. No pretense, no attitude, no sense of entitlement on his part but exuding a real warmth engendered by a connection through our mutual awe at what a song can mean in a person's life, and how it comes out of a person's life.

"It's now 2014, 40 years later, and during the ensuing years I have met any number of big-time musical artists, including some of the most important ones of our time. But there was something about John's presence that was utterly different from any other artist's -- or even any other human being's -- that I've ever met. He simply seemed to be operating intellectually and spiritually on another plane, and yet at the same time was as regular a guy as you could imagine -- through Jackson Browne's song, he had no trouble connecting with a kid who was then only two years off the plains of Oklahoma and only a few months removed from running the mail room at Record World.

"All told, I had about 10 minutes alone with him in that room discussing Jackson's work before May Pang (John's significant other and a great friend to us RWers) emerged and escorted him away. I don't know why he was in our office that day, and really don't care. To date that is my only personal meeting with a Beatle. And if that's the way it is from here on out, I'll take it, because that moment was so electric for me."

Story from: [www.huffingtonpost.com]

Quote
Koen
This is fun to watch: [www.abbeyroad.com]

I was there yesterday.

How was it Tele? I went last year and it was interesting for about five minutes. I wish they still did tours of the studio.

Chronology of greatness...


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

What a joke.

The Stones were/are WAYYYYYY better plus the Beatles were soft pop, that is why they had broad appeal. Come one, everyone knows that.

Quote
Hairball
Chronology of greatness...

I suggest you read the book that this thread was supposed to be about. You may come away with a different view point. The book is Beatles vs Stones by John McMillian. Great read.

Quote
michaelsavage
What a joke.

The Stones were/are WAYYYYYY better plus the Beatles were soft pop, that is why they had broad appeal. Come one, everyone knows that.

It's pretty much a toss up, however, the Stones are slowly inching ahead and by the time they retire (in 2022) they will be the clear cut champions.

At least up until recently.

The Beatles quit in the kitchen! Why, they don't even eat their Wheaties!

The Stones should be on the Wheaties box! The breakfast of champions!