Quote
nightskyman

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's hilarious to think that there were some people (actually I think it was just one very silly person) that thought if the Stones were to record and release a new studio album that they'd "finally" surpass The Beatles.

There were some other bits of junk like that tossed in as well, like Hyde Park and Glastonbury - somehow one of those and eventually both of those "finally" hurling or leaping or whatever The Rolling Stones over The Beatles.


I've never understood how that could be. What is there to surpass? What was there to hurl or hurtle or leap "over"? Does anyone think Elvis thought he would "hurtle" over Frank Sinatra? That's the same mindset. Frank and Elvis had one thing in common - they both sang. But they could not've been any different. Although to a lesser extent - that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones played the same kind of music - they could've only been any different simply by playing different kinds of music, say, The Beatles being a folk band and The Rolling Stones being a heavy metal band.

The Beatles were The Beatles. They had and still have an enormous impact on studio recording and the invention of technology for it as well has how songs are recorded and arranged, how orchestras can work with rock'n'roll, etc...; songwriting and song recording; what it means for the bludgeoning release schedule for having hit singles; the impact on the art of making LPs simply with songwriting; how many gazillions of people can identify with the music that resulted in - and continues to - the gazillions of numbers of albums sold; how a band can be the center of the culture of its music for generations, not just the generation that it existed in. How a band, after not being a band for generations, can still have such demand that is reflected in many ways, one good one being record sales.

The Rolling Stones were The Rolling Stones. They had and still have an enormous impact on touring and stage design - the show; how attitude can define what a rock'n'roll band is, whether they meant to or not; what duration can do for a band in all kinds of ways: number of number one albums in a row, attendance records on tours, financial records on tours and, of course, hype; how having the most brilliant logo in the world created a brand without meaning to create a brand that has now become its own brand and without a word says the name of the band to boot; essentially breaking up, getting back together for the true sake of money (and glossing it over with new music that is glossed over); how moving past that allows a dictatorship regarding what the band sounds like and where it goes because of what one person in the band wants the most; what money does to a band; how a band can become a travelling country across the world that has a bigger GNP than some real countries have on a yearly basis (or so it's been said).


McCartney has released 3 studio albums since 2005. The Stones have released zero studio albums since 2005.

McCartney has released 17 studio albums since The Beatles ended.

The Rolling Stones have released 14 studio albums since The Beatles ended.

McCartney also released 7 studio albums with Wings in between solo albums...

One is a solo artist that had a band for a little while that was able to write and record at will, the other is a band that... eventually slowed down and then had some solo artist releases that don't amount to anything in this regard and then slowed down even more release wise to the point of releases getting far apart and then only re-releases.


That's all very interesting to look at but it means absolutely nothing other than what it is, which is how different they are. There is no 'winning' in music (other than, I suppose, the amount of awards bands/artists get, which is nothing more than some sort of highly esteemed recognition of... whatever). The Beatles lent a helping hand to The Rolling Stones in a few ways - a single, for one, that the Stones recorded when they were getting going; they opened the door for touring the United States - although certainly not with the idea of "helping" the Stones. It turned out that way. However, they were essentially the forefathers for any English band touring the United States.

The Stones recorded great albums, just like The Beatles did, and continued to record albums covering a span of 35 years since The Beatles ended. The Stones invented a legacy of duration, which has and will continue to work against them when being held up to The Beatles. However, the Stones can laugh all the way to the bank about it - if they even think about it. Some fans? Seems like they need therapy because of it.

They're just bands. It's just music. There is no winning. It just is what it is: a part of our lives.

Well this comes as close as possible to a resolution to this whole Beatles. Vs. Stones thread...I hope.

Btw, I love both the Beatles & Stones equally.

Quote
frankotero
Perhaps one more articulated thought. Personally I think it's okay to like The Stones more than The Beatles, but to claim they're greater (in reality) is far fetched. In my opinion I feel it's smarter to say you prefer The Stones to The Beatles and state your case. Nothing wrong with that. Now, hopefully we can move on as friends of Rock And Roll Music. Cheers.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
frankotero
Perhaps one more articulated thought. Personally I think it's okay to like The Stones more than The Beatles, but to claim they're greater (in reality) is far fetched. In my opinion I feel it's smarter to say you prefer The Stones to The Beatles and state your case. Nothing wrong with that. Now, hopefully we can move on as friends of Rock And Roll Music. Cheers.

speaking of "rock and roll music", they all owe their careers to chuck berry, so hail, hail, rock and roll

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Turner68

Quote
frankotero
Perhaps one more articulated thought. Personally I think it's okay to like The Stones more than The Beatles, but to claim they're greater (in reality) is far fetched. In my opinion I feel it's smarter to say you prefer The Stones to The Beatles and state your case. Nothing wrong with that. Now, hopefully we can move on as friends of Rock And Roll Music. Cheers.

speaking of "rock and roll music", they all owe their careers to chuck berry, so hail, hail, rock and roll

I agree that to say the Stones were greater than the Beatles is farfetched. But in addition to preference, there is a significant difference in the music played by the two bands. Chuck Berry was Keith's guru, and was very important to both groups, but I wouldn't say that the Stones owe their careers to him. The group was started by Brian and Stu, and even after adding Keith, the group's primary musical touchstones were always Robert Johnson, Elmore James, Howlin Wolf, Jimmy Reed, Slim Harpo, and other contemporary and past blues greats that never had any influence on the Beatles. Maybe I'm just stating the obvious, but it's always been the defining difference between the groups for me.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's hilarious to think that there were some people (actually I think it was just one very silly person) that thought if the Stones were to record and release a new studio album that they'd "finally" surpass The Beatles.

There were some other bits of junk like that tossed in as well, like Hyde Park and Glastonbury - somehow one of those and eventually both of those "finally" hurling or leaping or whatever The Rolling Stones over The Beatles.


I've never understood how that could be. What is there to surpass? What was there to hurl or hurtle or leap "over"? Does anyone think Elvis thought he would "hurtle" over Frank Sinatra? That's the same mindset. Frank and Elvis had one thing in common - they both sang. But they could not've been any different. Although to a lesser extent - that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones played the same kind of music - they could've only been any different simply by playing different kinds of music, say, The Beatles being a folk band and The Rolling Stones being a heavy metal band.

The Beatles were The Beatles. They had and still have an enormous impact on studio recording and the invention of technology for it as well has how songs are recorded and arranged, how orchestras can work with rock'n'roll, etc...; songwriting and song recording; what it means for the bludgeoning release schedule for having hit singles; the impact on the art of making LPs simply with songwriting; how many gazillions of people can identify with the music that resulted in - and continues to - the gazillions of numbers of albums sold; how a band can be the center of the culture of its music for generations, not just the generation that it existed in. How a band, after not being a band for generations, can still have such demand that is reflected in many ways, one good one being record sales.

The Rolling Stones were The Rolling Stones. They had and still have an enormous impact on touring and stage design - the show; how attitude can define what a rock'n'roll band is, whether they meant to or not; what duration can do for a band in all kinds of ways: number of number one albums in a row, attendance records on tours, financial records on tours and, of course, hype; how having the most brilliant logo in the world created a brand without meaning to create a brand that has now become its own brand and without a word says the name of the band to boot; essentially breaking up, getting back together for the true sake of money (and glossing it over with new music that is glossed over); how moving past that allows a dictatorship regarding what the band sounds like and where it goes because of what one person in the band wants the most; what money does to a band; how a band can become a travelling country across the world that has a bigger GNP than some real countries have on a yearly basis (or so it's been said).


McCartney has released 3 studio albums since 2005. The Stones have released zero studio albums since 2005.

McCartney has released 17 studio albums since The Beatles ended.

The Rolling Stones have released 14 studio albums since The Beatles ended.

McCartney also released 7 studio albums with Wings in between solo albums...

One is a solo artist that had a band for a little while that was able to write and record at will, the other is a band that... eventually slowed down and then had some solo artist releases that don't amount to anything in this regard and then slowed down even more release wise to the point of releases getting far apart and then only re-releases.


That's all very interesting to look at but it means absolutely nothing other than what it is, which is how different they are. There is no 'winning' in music (other than, I suppose, the amount of awards bands/artists get, which is nothing more than some sort of highly esteemed recognition of... whatever). The Beatles lent a helping hand to The Rolling Stones in a few ways - a single, for one, that the Stones recorded when they were getting going; they opened the door for touring the United States - although certainly not with the idea of "helping" the Stones. It turned out that way. However, they were essentially the forefathers for any English band touring the United States.

The Stones recorded great albums, just like The Beatles did, and continued to record albums covering a span of 35 years since The Beatles ended. The Stones invented a legacy of duration, which has and will continue to work against them when being held up to The Beatles. However, the Stones can laugh all the way to the bank about it - if they even think about it. Some fans? Seems like they need therapy because of it.

They're just bands. It's just music. There is no winning. It just is what it is: a part of our lives.

Well this comes as close as possible to a resolution to this whole Beatles. Vs. Stones thread...I hope.

Btw, I love both the Beatles & Stones equally.

Yes great post.

If there is to be any type of scale of superiority/inferiority,
I'd give the advantage to The Beatles with the Stones being a close runner-up.
That's the reality of it all, and that's the way it always will be (for me).

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Hairball

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's hilarious to think that there were some people (actually I think it was just one very silly person) that thought if the Stones were to record and release a new studio album that they'd "finally" surpass The Beatles.

There were some other bits of junk like that tossed in as well, like Hyde Park and Glastonbury - somehow one of those and eventually both of those "finally" hurling or leaping or whatever The Rolling Stones over The Beatles.


I've never understood how that could be. What is there to surpass? What was there to hurl or hurtle or leap "over"? Does anyone think Elvis thought he would "hurtle" over Frank Sinatra? That's the same mindset. Frank and Elvis had one thing in common - they both sang. But they could not've been any different. Although to a lesser extent - that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones played the same kind of music - they could've only been any different simply by playing different kinds of music, say, The Beatles being a folk band and The Rolling Stones being a heavy metal band.

The Beatles were The Beatles. They had and still have an enormous impact on studio recording and the invention of technology for it as well has how songs are recorded and arranged, how orchestras can work with rock'n'roll, etc...; songwriting and song recording; what it means for the bludgeoning release schedule for having hit singles; the impact on the art of making LPs simply with songwriting; how many gazillions of people can identify with the music that resulted in - and continues to - the gazillions of numbers of albums sold; how a band can be the center of the culture of its music for generations, not just the generation that it existed in. How a band, after not being a band for generations, can still have such demand that is reflected in many ways, one good one being record sales.

The Rolling Stones were The Rolling Stones. They had and still have an enormous impact on touring and stage design - the show; how attitude can define what a rock'n'roll band is, whether they meant to or not; what duration can do for a band in all kinds of ways: number of number one albums in a row, attendance records on tours, financial records on tours and, of course, hype; how having the most brilliant logo in the world created a brand without meaning to create a brand that has now become its own brand and without a word says the name of the band to boot; essentially breaking up, getting back together for the true sake of money (and glossing it over with new music that is glossed over); how moving past that allows a dictatorship regarding what the band sounds like and where it goes because of what one person in the band wants the most; what money does to a band; how a band can become a travelling country across the world that has a bigger GNP than some real countries have on a yearly basis (or so it's been said).


McCartney has released 3 studio albums since 2005. The Stones have released zero studio albums since 2005.

McCartney has released 17 studio albums since The Beatles ended.

The Rolling Stones have released 14 studio albums since The Beatles ended.

McCartney also released 7 studio albums with Wings in between solo albums...

One is a solo artist that had a band for a little while that was able to write and record at will, the other is a band that... eventually slowed down and then had some solo artist releases that don't amount to anything in this regard and then slowed down even more release wise to the point of releases getting far apart and then only re-releases.


That's all very interesting to look at but it means absolutely nothing other than what it is, which is how different they are. There is no 'winning' in music (other than, I suppose, the amount of awards bands/artists get, which is nothing more than some sort of highly esteemed recognition of... whatever). The Beatles lent a helping hand to The Rolling Stones in a few ways - a single, for one, that the Stones recorded when they were getting going; they opened the door for touring the United States - although certainly not with the idea of "helping" the Stones. It turned out that way. However, they were essentially the forefathers for any English band touring the United States.

The Stones recorded great albums, just like The Beatles did, and continued to record albums covering a span of 35 years since The Beatles ended. The Stones invented a legacy of duration, which has and will continue to work against them when being held up to The Beatles. However, the Stones can laugh all the way to the bank about it - if they even think about it. Some fans? Seems like they need therapy because of it.

They're just bands. It's just music. There is no winning. It just is what it is: a part of our lives.

Well this comes as close as possible to a resolution to this whole Beatles. Vs. Stones thread...I hope.

Btw, I love both the Beatles & Stones equally.

Yes great post.

If there is to be any type of scale of superiority/inferiority,
I'd give the advantage to The Beatles with the Stones being a close runner-up.
That's the reality of it all, and that's the way it always will be (for me).

that's because you need help. no seriously

Quote
Hairball

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Hairball

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's hilarious to think that there were some people (actually I think it was just one very silly person) that thought if the Stones were to record and release a new studio album that they'd "finally" surpass The Beatles.

There were some other bits of junk like that tossed in as well, like Hyde Park and Glastonbury - somehow one of those and eventually both of those "finally" hurling or leaping or whatever The Rolling Stones over The Beatles.


I've never understood how that could be. What is there to surpass? What was there to hurl or hurtle or leap "over"? Does anyone think Elvis thought he would "hurtle" over Frank Sinatra? That's the same mindset. Frank and Elvis had one thing in common - they both sang. But they could not've been any different. Although to a lesser extent - that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones played the same kind of music - they could've only been any different simply by playing different kinds of music, say, The Beatles being a folk band and The Rolling Stones being a heavy metal band.

The Beatles were The Beatles. They had and still have an enormous impact on studio recording and the invention of technology for it as well has how songs are recorded and arranged, how orchestras can work with rock'n'roll, etc...; songwriting and song recording; what it means for the bludgeoning release schedule for having hit singles; the impact on the art of making LPs simply with songwriting; how many gazillions of people can identify with the music that resulted in - and continues to - the gazillions of numbers of albums sold; how a band can be the center of the culture of its music for generations, not just the generation that it existed in. How a band, after not being a band for generations, can still have such demand that is reflected in many ways, one good one being record sales.

The Rolling Stones were The Rolling Stones. They had and still have an enormous impact on touring and stage design - the show; how attitude can define what a rock'n'roll band is, whether they meant to or not; what duration can do for a band in all kinds of ways: number of number one albums in a row, attendance records on tours, financial records on tours and, of course, hype; how having the most brilliant logo in the world created a brand without meaning to create a brand that has now become its own brand and without a word says the name of the band to boot; essentially breaking up, getting back together for the true sake of money (and glossing it over with new music that is glossed over); how moving past that allows a dictatorship regarding what the band sounds like and where it goes because of what one person in the band wants the most; what money does to a band; how a band can become a travelling country across the world that has a bigger GNP than some real countries have on a yearly basis (or so it's been said).


McCartney has released 3 studio albums since 2005. The Stones have released zero studio albums since 2005.

McCartney has released 17 studio albums since The Beatles ended.

The Rolling Stones have released 14 studio albums since The Beatles ended.

McCartney also released 7 studio albums with Wings in between solo albums...

One is a solo artist that had a band for a little while that was able to write and record at will, the other is a band that... eventually slowed down and then had some solo artist releases that don't amount to anything in this regard and then slowed down even more release wise to the point of releases getting far apart and then only re-releases.


That's all very interesting to look at but it means absolutely nothing other than what it is, which is how different they are. There is no 'winning' in music (other than, I suppose, the amount of awards bands/artists get, which is nothing more than some sort of highly esteemed recognition of... whatever). The Beatles lent a helping hand to The Rolling Stones in a few ways - a single, for one, that the Stones recorded when they were getting going; they opened the door for touring the United States - although certainly not with the idea of "helping" the Stones. It turned out that way. However, they were essentially the forefathers for any English band touring the United States.

The Stones recorded great albums, just like The Beatles did, and continued to record albums covering a span of 35 years since The Beatles ended. The Stones invented a legacy of duration, which has and will continue to work against them when being held up to The Beatles. However, the Stones can laugh all the way to the bank about it - if they even think about it. Some fans? Seems like they need therapy because of it.

They're just bands. It's just music. There is no winning. It just is what it is: a part of our lives.

Well this comes as close as possible to a resolution to this whole Beatles. Vs. Stones thread...I hope.

Btw, I love both the Beatles & Stones equally.

Yes great post.

If there is to be any type of scale of superiority/inferiority,
I'd give the advantage to The Beatles with the Stones being a close runner-up.
That's the reality of it all, and that's the way it always will be (for me).

that's because you need help. no seriously

Thanks, I've had HELP! since 1965!

Quote
BluzDude
The Oxford Dictionary of Music states that the term "pop" refers to music performed by such artists as the Rolling Stones (pictured here in a 2006 performance)

Quote
Turner68

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Turner68

Quote
frankotero
Perhaps one more articulated thought. Personally I think it's okay to like The Stones more than The Beatles, but to claim they're greater (in reality) is far fetched. In my opinion I feel it's smarter to say you prefer The Stones to The Beatles and state your case. Nothing wrong with that. Now, hopefully we can move on as friends of Rock And Roll Music. Cheers.

speaking of "rock and roll music", they all owe their careers to chuck berry, so hail, hail, rock and roll

I agree that to say the Stones were greater than the Beatles is farfetched. But in addition to preference, there is a significant difference in the music played by the two bands. Chuck Berry was Keith's guru, and was very important to both groups, but I wouldn't say that the Stones owe their careers to him. The group was started by Brian and Stu, and even after adding Keith, the group's primary musical touchstones were always Robert Johnson, Elmore James, Howlin Wolf, Jimmy Reed, Slim Harpo, and other contemporary and past blues greats that never had any influence on the Beatles. Maybe I'm just stating the obvious, but it's always been the defining difference between the groups for me.

i agree that it's the defining difference. the beatles truly had no blues (as we use the term) in them. but i believe if you asked each group to write down one name, it would be chuck berry. i probably over stated things to say they owed their careers to him.

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Turner68

Quote
frankotero
Perhaps one more articulated thought. Personally I think it's okay to like The Stones more than The Beatles, but to claim they're greater (in reality) is far fetched. In my opinion I feel it's smarter to say you prefer The Stones to The Beatles and state your case. Nothing wrong with that. Now, hopefully we can move on as friends of Rock And Roll Music. Cheers.

speaking of "rock and roll music", they all owe their careers to chuck berry, so hail, hail, rock and roll

I agree that to say the Stones were greater than the Beatles is farfetched. But in addition to preference, there is a significant difference in the music played by the two bands. Chuck Berry was Keith's guru, and was very important to both groups, but I wouldn't say that the Stones owe their careers to him. The group was started by Brian and Stu, and even after adding Keith, the group's primary musical touchstones were always Robert Johnson, Elmore James, Howlin Wolf, Jimmy Reed, Slim Harpo, and other contemporary and past blues greats that never had any influence on the Beatles. Maybe I'm just stating the obvious, but it's always been the defining difference between the groups for me.

i agree that it's the defining difference. the beatles truly had no blues (as we use the term) in them. but i believe if you asked each group to write down one name, it would be chuck berry. i probably over stated things to say they owed their careers to him.

Don't forget the Everly Brothers and Buddy Holly...I think they had influence on Paul, John and Keith in particular (songwriting, guitar playing).

Quote
Olly
Mel Belli wrote in the 'Keith in Esquire' discussion that much of what is written in admiration of the Beatles is 'just hagiographic conventional wisdom.'

I agree top an extent about this, but what strikes me about the majority of the Beatles' music is it's timelessness.

I heard I'm Only Sleeping a few days ago for the first time in years, and the timelessness of the music was striking: one could imagine people from any historical age humming that melody.

It's the timeless, often other-worldly nature of the music that seperates the Beatles' output from that of other bands formed in the 1960s.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Hairball

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
GasLightStreet
It's hilarious to think that there were some people (actually I think it was just one very silly person) that thought if the Stones were to record and release a new studio album that they'd "finally" surpass The Beatles.

There were some other bits of junk like that tossed in as well, like Hyde Park and Glastonbury - somehow one of those and eventually both of those "finally" hurling or leaping or whatever The Rolling Stones over The Beatles.


I've never understood how that could be. What is there to surpass? What was there to hurl or hurtle or leap "over"? Does anyone think Elvis thought he would "hurtle" over Frank Sinatra? That's the same mindset. Frank and Elvis had one thing in common - they both sang. But they could not've been any different. Although to a lesser extent - that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones played the same kind of music - they could've only been any different simply by playing different kinds of music, say, The Beatles being a folk band and The Rolling Stones being a heavy metal band.

The Beatles were The Beatles. They had and still have an enormous impact on studio recording and the invention of technology for it as well has how songs are recorded and arranged, how orchestras can work with rock'n'roll, etc...; songwriting and song recording; what it means for the bludgeoning release schedule for having hit singles; the impact on the art of making LPs simply with songwriting; how many gazillions of people can identify with the music that resulted in - and continues to - the gazillions of numbers of albums sold; how a band can be the center of the culture of its music for generations, not just the generation that it existed in. How a band, after not being a band for generations, can still have such demand that is reflected in many ways, one good one being record sales.

The Rolling Stones were The Rolling Stones. They had and still have an enormous impact on touring and stage design - the show; how attitude can define what a rock'n'roll band is, whether they meant to or not; what duration can do for a band in all kinds of ways: number of number one albums in a row, attendance records on tours, financial records on tours and, of course, hype; how having the most brilliant logo in the world created a brand without meaning to create a brand that has now become its own brand and without a word says the name of the band to boot; essentially breaking up, getting back together for the true sake of money (and glossing it over with new music that is glossed over); how moving past that allows a dictatorship regarding what the band sounds like and where it goes because of what one person in the band wants the most; what money does to a band; how a band can become a travelling country across the world that has a bigger GNP than some real countries have on a yearly basis (or so it's been said).


McCartney has released 3 studio albums since 2005. The Stones have released zero studio albums since 2005.

McCartney has released 17 studio albums since The Beatles ended.

The Rolling Stones have released 14 studio albums since The Beatles ended.

McCartney also released 7 studio albums with Wings in between solo albums...

One is a solo artist that had a band for a little while that was able to write and record at will, the other is a band that... eventually slowed down and then had some solo artist releases that don't amount to anything in this regard and then slowed down even more release wise to the point of releases getting far apart and then only re-releases.


That's all very interesting to look at but it means absolutely nothing other than what it is, which is how different they are. There is no 'winning' in music (other than, I suppose, the amount of awards bands/artists get, which is nothing more than some sort of highly esteemed recognition of... whatever). The Beatles lent a helping hand to The Rolling Stones in a few ways - a single, for one, that the Stones recorded when they were getting going; they opened the door for touring the United States - although certainly not with the idea of "helping" the Stones. It turned out that way. However, they were essentially the forefathers for any English band touring the United States.

The Stones recorded great albums, just like The Beatles did, and continued to record albums covering a span of 35 years since The Beatles ended. The Stones invented a legacy of duration, which has and will continue to work against them when being held up to The Beatles. However, the Stones can laugh all the way to the bank about it - if they even think about it. Some fans? Seems like they need therapy because of it.

They're just bands. It's just music. There is no winning. It just is what it is: a part of our lives.

Well this comes as close as possible to a resolution to this whole Beatles. Vs. Stones thread...I hope.

Btw, I love both the Beatles & Stones equally.

Yes great post.

If there is to be any type of scale of superiority/inferiority,
I'd give the advantage to The Beatles with the Stones being a close runner-up.
That's the reality of it all, and that's the way it always will be (for me).

that's because you need help. no seriously

Quote
Turner68

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Turner68

Quote
frankotero
Perhaps one more articulated thought. Personally I think it's okay to like The Stones more than The Beatles, but to claim they're greater (in reality) is far fetched. In my opinion I feel it's smarter to say you prefer The Stones to The Beatles and state your case. Nothing wrong with that. Now, hopefully we can move on as friends of Rock And Roll Music. Cheers.

speaking of "rock and roll music", they all owe their careers to chuck berry, so hail, hail, rock and roll

I agree that to say the Stones were greater than the Beatles is farfetched. But in addition to preference, there is a significant difference in the music played by the two bands. Chuck Berry was Keith's guru, and was very important to both groups, but I wouldn't say that the Stones owe their careers to him. The group was started by Brian and Stu, and even after adding Keith, the group's primary musical touchstones were always Robert Johnson, Elmore James, Howlin Wolf, Jimmy Reed, Slim Harpo, and other contemporary and past blues greats that never had any influence on the Beatles. Maybe I'm just stating the obvious, but it's always been the defining difference between the groups for me.

i agree that it's the defining difference. the beatles truly had no blues (as we use the term) in them. but i believe if you asked each group to write down one name, it would be chuck berry. i probably over stated things to say they owed their careers to him.

Don't forget the Everly Brothers and Buddy Holly...I think they had influence on Paul, John and Keith in particular (songwriting, guitar playing).

absolutely. they were all influenced by a smorgashbord of sources (apologies for the spelling, esp. to our scandinavian friends...) but i will assert that chuck was the #1 for both bands. chuck started it all, IMO.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Turner68

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Turner68

Quote
frankotero
Perhaps one more articulated thought. Personally I think it's okay to like The Stones more than The Beatles, but to claim they're greater (in reality) is far fetched. In my opinion I feel it's smarter to say you prefer The Stones to The Beatles and state your case. Nothing wrong with that. Now, hopefully we can move on as friends of Rock And Roll Music. Cheers.

speaking of "rock and roll music", they all owe their careers to chuck berry, so hail, hail, rock and roll

I agree that to say the Stones were greater than the Beatles is farfetched. But in addition to preference, there is a significant difference in the music played by the two bands. Chuck Berry was Keith's guru, and was very important to both groups, but I wouldn't say that the Stones owe their careers to him. The group was started by Brian and Stu, and even after adding Keith, the group's primary musical touchstones were always Robert Johnson, Elmore James, Howlin Wolf, Jimmy Reed, Slim Harpo, and other contemporary and past blues greats that never had any influence on the Beatles. Maybe I'm just stating the obvious, but it's always been the defining difference between the groups for me.

i agree that it's the defining difference. the beatles truly had no blues (as we use the term) in them. but i believe if you asked each group to write down one name, it would be chuck berry. i probably over stated things to say they owed their careers to him.

Don't forget the Everly Brothers and Buddy Holly...I think they had influence on Paul, John and Keith in particular (songwriting, guitar playing).

absolutely. they were all influenced by a smorgashbord of sources (apologies for the spelling, esp. to our scandinavian friends...) but i will assert that chuck was the #1 for both bands. chuck started it all, IMO.

The swedes may help you with that spelling, Turner

Thanks for the kind words earlier, btw