With all of the superlative listing that we tend towards on IORR, I was thinking about how the Beatles top four albums would stack up against the top four of the Stones. Just for the sake of conversation.

Of course this really is an apples to oranges comparison, but it might prove interesting.

If I consider the Beatles best albums to be
Abbey Road
The Beatles (White Album)
Sgt. Pepper, and
Revolver
(and obviously there are other choices)

I'd have to say that The Stones are in tight in a few comparisons, depending on how you see the Stones top 4, I'll say:

EOMS
LIB
SF, &
BB

If I put EOMS up against The White Album, then EOMS wins easily, similarly any of the remaining three Stones albums beat Sgt Pepper's. The only Beatles album that pulls out equal to or ahead of the Stones is Abbey Road. I think Abbey Road holds its own against the Stones best work (except EOMS, which kicks its ass).

Any other views on a four to four comparison?

I got two words for you, Rubber Soul.

letitbleed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I got two words for you, Rubber Soul.


Two more words: Great album. Call it 4b . . . or 4a.

But personally I think Revolver was better with Taxman, Tomorrow Never Knows, and Eleanor Rigby, among others.

Girl,Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, The Word...I don't know.

Hey Jude, or The Beatles Again, if you prefer......

vs Stripped

It's a tie!

Two of my favorite LP's

Best four Stones in order:

1.- SF.
2.- EOMS.
3.- LIB.
4.- BB.


Best four Beatles in order:

1.- White Album.
2.- Revolver.
3.- Rubber Soul.
4.- Sgt. Pepper.


In my mind The Stones win hands down.

JumpingKentFlash

It's not a fair discussion. Of course the stones win hands down in a comparison to the stones on a STONES BOARD. Go to a beatles board and suprpise, suprise the Beatles win hands down!!!

Cheers,
Wuudy

True Wuudy. But I think it was meant to be our own experience. Or....?


JumpingKentFlash

I don't want these 8 albums to compete against each other.
I have them and love them all.

And I love to listen Aftermath followed by Rubber Soul. or Between the buttons followed by Revolver, or the White album followed by EOMS.

Of course it is all subjective but I agree with Camper 88's choice of the Beatles top 4 albums and the results when pitted against the Stones big 4 except for Abbey Road which I think is pissed over by all 4 Stones albums.

In fact for me the only area that the Beatles could hold a light to the Stones is with individual tracks. A Day In The Life for instance I think is superior to most tacks on those Stones albums.

JumpingKentFlash

I am shocked that Abbey Road isn't your #1.

IMO, Abbey Road is the album that people will be listening to in 500 years.

I love the Beatles, but sometimes I get really pissed when magazines/radio shows list Revolver as the best album of all time. The only reason for this is that teh Beatles did it first. Yes, Revolver was revolutionary in its time, and yes it has stood up for the past 40 years and probably for the next 40 or 400 as well, but just because the Beatles (or should I say George Martin) lead the way in these new-fangled production/songwriting techniques, does not mean it hasn't been surpassed in the meantime. So put the Beatles '66 output up against the Stones '66 output, and yes, probably the Beatles win. But overall, Let It Bleed, Beggars, Sticky Fingers and Exile blow away any album of the Beatles. So there!!

And one thing is for sure:
The Beatles don't have a "Get yer ya ya's out".

Wuudy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not a fair discussion. Of course the stones
> win hands down in a comparison to the stones on a
> STONES BOARD. Go to a beatles board and suprpise,
> suprise the Beatles win hands down!!!
>

Go to ANY board (any country, any planet, etc) and surprise, surprise, the Beatles win hands down. 'Fair' never figures into any discussion of Beatles/Stones.

White Album
Rubber Soul
Revolver
Abbey Road

These are my favourite Beatles records. All are excellent and comparable to any Stones album. However I am biased towards the Stones so I dig the Stones more.

Charles Baudelaire
1821-1867

Let's stop comparing gods versus gods.
Both bands established in the 60's are the No 1 & 2 greatest British acts of all time closely followed by 'Queen'

Que-huh-en?

top 4 Beatles: Help, A Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul, Revolver.....Top 4 Stones: Sticky Fingers, Let It Bleed, Exile On Main St., Beggar's Banquet.............no need for me to compare....The Stones are kings...but i still enjoy the Beatles once in a while

Do you like apples or oranges better? Both are great, but appeal to different tastes at different times.

One thing I can say is that it's ironic that Keith is still standing while, unfortunately, two of the Beatles have passed on. Too bad b/c it would be great to see the two bands tour together!!

I am happy to say I don't own one Beatles CD and the Beatles have never gotten 1 Penny from me...though The Stones on the other hand have drained my bank account on more that several occassions.

PECMAN

Well, as much as I like to think of myself as a die-hard "are you Beatles or are you Stones" guy... I do retain a big fondness for the boys from Liverpool.

There's just something about the depth of humanity that one feels coming through Beatles records that is different from almost anything else. Listening to the short and almost perfect story of their lives as young men that is contained on those albums is like being ushered into a family--a group of brothers or cousins. From the exuberence of the early stuff, to the wild experimentation of the middle period, to the weariness and leave-taking of their later work...there's so much beauty and kindness and humor and heartbreak.

"...I hope we passed the audition."
I mean, can you believe Lennon saying that from a rooftop and just beneath a grey London sky? Could there be a more perfect (public) exit?

ANYWAY...
The "top Beatles albums:" "The White Album," "Abbey Road," "Sgt. Pepper," "Revolver," and/or "Rubber Soul." vs. The Stones' "Big Four:"

I would say this: that the Stones' "Big Four" (and "Some Girls") outclasses the Beatles "Big Four or Five" pretty decisively. In the case of "The White Album" versus "Exile," I don't think there's any competition at all: "WA" is a sprawling, fascinating mess with some brilliance intersperced with trivia. "Exile" is a masterstroke. It's the sound of the Stones deploying all their love and knowledge of their sources to deveastating effect. No contest at all.

Beyond that, I would say that the above Beatles records have become dated in a way that the comparable Stones works, by and large, have not. In the case of "Sgt. Pepper," this is so true that the album's reputation has begun to erode; "Revolver" now seems to occupy its exalted place as most admired Beatles record.

"Let It Bleed" and "Beggar's Banquet" seem consistently believable in ways that "Abbey Road" and "Rubber Soul" do not. That believability may not speak well of the evolving state of the world, but...

A key caveat to what I have written: I don't believe that the Stones were in any way the equal of the Beatles until 1968. And the overall standard of quality of the respective catalogues--the level of consistent excellence...gulp!...may favor the Beatles. It certainly did over the time span in which the two groups functioned concurrently.

The Stones never took a bow from a rooftop. It now seems unlikely that they ever will. Instead, we can count ourselves lucky that they have continued making music. That music has veered from the highest brilliance and intensity to the barest servicability. Sometimes within the span of a single album. But whatever its inconsistencies, it has almost always been underappreciated. Doubters can rest assured that the Stones' later work will be judged more favorably when the band has passed from the scene.

And, of course, the legacy of the Stones' live show is one for which there is scarcely any Beatles equivalent. Or any equivalent at all, for that matter.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-17 08:02 by Rev. Robert W..

it's funny but true....paul's 4 best wings/solo albums are better than the stones top 4

wings at the speed of sound
driving rain
flowers in the dirt
off the ground.

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, as much as I like to think of myself as a
> die-hard "are you Beatles or are you Stones"
> guy... I do retain a big fondness for the boys
> from Liverpool.
>
> There's just something about the depth of humanity
> that one feels coming through Beatles records that
> is different from almost anything else.

Rev,

I won't quote the rest of your post, but I'll only say it sure is a wonderful view on the relative merits and comparison of these apples and oranges--more than I ever expected to hear in posing the question in the first place, and so much in concert with my own thoughts and feelings on the subject that I have to thank you for articulating it so well . . . so . . . thank you.

There is something bittersweet about the Beatles passing into history so long ago after burning so brightly, and there is something so intensely fragile in the strength of the the Stones continued ability to grace the stage, and to burn so long without fading away.

May we all remain forever young.

Wow, thanks Camper. I've been having a hard time getting any writing done for a long while and this board gets me "tuned in" in a very helpful way. So, thanks to you and to the to-and-fro of the enthusiastic folks around here...I just love this music so much.

I was sitting with a bunch of friends in a cottage by the Atlantic in early Spring, 2002--a few months after Harrison's death--when "Here Comes The Sun" came over the radio. Now, it was a gorgeous, cold, bright day and the sun was streaming through the windows and my friends and I were having a bunch of laughs...

But hearing that song just stopped everyone. And it wasn't some sad thing, becuase of his recent death. And it wasn't the dopey, obvious "Spring is coming..." thing.

It was just that it sounded so warm. And that everyone in the room had a lifetime's relationship to that song and to so many others that the Beatles had sung. It was one of those lucky moments when you can hear something that has been played to death and experience it as if it were absolutely fresh and new. Like falling in love again with that girl you've been with forever while she's doing the dishes or something. Everyone in that room just stopped and listened and smiled. And I think everyone felt that exact thing I'm talking about.

And nothing stronger than coffee and cigarettes goin' around...

Pecman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones on the other hand have
> drained my bank account on more that several
> occassions.


Everybody please remember this next time you feel like bitching about prices.

Bianca: I don't think Abbey Road is that good. Too many boring tracks. Like the Lennon stuff on there. It's just too boring.

JumpingKentFlash

The following is Rolling Stones VS Beatles these Days:

Primitive Cool VS Cloud 9
Steel Wheels VS Flowers In the Dirt
Main Offender VS Time Takes Time
Wandering Spirit VS Off the Ground
Voodoo Lounge VS the singles Free As A Bird & Real Love
Bridges To Babylon VS Flaming Pie
Goddess In the Doorway & Not For Beginners VS Driving Rain
40 Licks VS 1
A Bigger Bang VS Chaos And Creation in the Backyard

Albums from years which saw no release of new or comparable material from both camps are not listed.

Now who won this is your choice.