I was watching the Beatles Anthology over the weekend and I came across a thought that struck me and wanted to share with here.

The stories about the Beatles breaking up was a fascinating look into their history. It was apparent that they were getting on each other's nerves and a break was definitely what they needed. Each Beatle practically took on their own solo careers---and successful ones too.

In the 80's...the Stones very well almost permanently fell apart for almost the same reasons: Mick and Keith were explosive with one another. They tried their solo careers to mediocre results. Years passed...and the Stones returned and remained together since then.

Yes, we applaud the Stones for being together for 45 years and giggle at the fact that the Beatles lasted not even 10 years together. But...would it be valid to assume that the Stones are only together because they found out that their musical efforts and output individually wasn't successful or gratifying?
It's an interesting situation because both groups have their pros and cons. Either way, it's still something to wonder about why the Stones are still together.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-26 19:45 by Justin.

well...in the Beatles there were 4 singers and 3 and a half composers...is not the same

honey ... it takes a lot more than that to keep a band not only together but also toweringly successful.
seems like spending a weekend watching videos has had a depressive effect on you.
get some fresh air, drink more water, eat your spinach, turn up the music and dance!
you'll feel better, i promise.

No doubt that the Beatle members were more successful as solo artists. But I think a large part of this was that they split when they and their audience were still young and in their prime. By the time the Stones went solo they were already in their 40s, past their creative primes and out of the mainstream pop culture. If they had been doing solo work in the early 1970s I think they would have been pretty much as successful as the Beatles solo (it is not like the Beatles solo had off the charts success anyway)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-26 19:26 by livewithme.

I have the answer to the Stones Longevity...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PECMAN

Timing is everything-- the Beatles left at their peak....the Stones waited a little too long (even thought Mick in his heart of hearts wanted a solo career)

The Stones always had a drummer. The Beatles had someone who pretended to play drums. I'd break up to if Ringo was in my band.

i liked the beatles but as talented as they were and they did make some catchy tunes which are pleasent to the ears they were a one trick pony.

the stones had more variety and versatility, and could make heavier rock music than the beatles, but the stones also played catchy pop tunes although not to the beatles standard.

the stones played a variety of music the beatles never even thought existed.

even george harrison liked the stones as a band,as so he told c.watts at the brixton gig,wish he had band like the stones,harrison had lot of respect for the
stones.

I hate the beatles and I love the stones.

Also The Beatles, not only The Stones, would sell more albums & concert tickets as a band than as solo artists. Moneywise, The Beatles had the same incentive to stay together as The Stones.

Having a successful solo career was easier in the early 70s (as The Beatles had) than in the mid-to-late 80s (as The Stones had).

But The Beatles, of course, was and is the most popular band. But according to my perfect judgement, The Stones is the best band of all time!

yeah, i dont know its hard to say.... I had some ideas but edited them out because I dont konw...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-27 04:47 by ryanpow.

This is crazy....Harrison was only 26 years old at the time of The Beatles' last recording session on 4 January 1970 (Lennon, who had left the group the previous September, did not attend the session).

Well the question is Stones' longevity vs. Beatles's split. The answer is Ronnie and Charlie ws. Yoko Ono.

The Beatles were "a one trick pony" that's an interesting theory on the music of the Fabs I must say!

Main point is the different attitudes to women. Mick and Keith didn't want to involve their chicks or wives in the band.Thanks God!

wee bobby lennox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i liked the beatles but as talented as they were
> and they did make some catchy tunes which are
> pleasent to the ears they were a one trick pony.
>
> the stones had more variety and versatility, and
> could make heavier rock music than the beatles,
> but the stones also played catchy pop tunes
> although not to the beatles standard.
>
> the stones played a variety of music the beatles
> never even thought existed.

With all respect, this is utter crap. I think you need to listen again to the Beatles, from the beginning to the end. And when it comes to variety, just listen to The White Album. Have a nice day.

Well, nobody knows for sure what goes on inside the hearts and minds of the Stones and the Beatles of course, so we can only guess.

I think your hypothesis comes down to "every rock star wants to be a succesfull solo star, and a band is only a pedestal to get you attention before you start a solo career."

I don't know if this is a right hypothesis to begin with. I guess some people feel better and function better in a team than on their own. Maybe one of the great things about the Stones is their teamwork. No one stands out in particular and everyone is just adding to the over all sound (well maybe with the exception of the early 70s). I think it is part of their personalities to be team players rather than solo artists.

Come to think of it: there are only a few examples of bands with teamplayers that last long (like The Who, Kinks, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, well two of those were build around brothers, so these were natural born teams to begin with) and a lot of bands whose members are mainly trying to get a lot of personal attention that last short (you know them).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-27 11:56 by marcovandereijk.

IMO, The Rolling Stones was more of a unit than The Beatles. The paralell from the 80s is highly relevant though...

>> This is crazy <<

yes, it is. Justin's original hypothesis is totally flawed:
breaking up and going on to moderately successful solo work is not a greater achievement
than staying together as a phenomenally successful band; besides which,
individual Stones have done miles of fine stuff of lasting value in addition to their work as a band.
Justin is simply depressed, probably from too much sitting around watching videos.
he needs to get some sun & fresh air on his glands and he'll be fine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-27 11:55 by with sssoul.

I don't know if Justin is regarding breaking up and going on to a solo carreer as a greater achievement than staying together.

And in my humble opinion: a lot of the so called "solo" work of our boys is truely fine, but in most (maybe even best) cases I think it is just so because they managed to form another "team". Keith had a strong relationship with Steve Jordan, Charlie had his sextets or Jim Keltner to stick together with, Bill had his best work with the Rythm Kings, Mick always relied on a lot of others too. Which leaves Ronnie maybe to be the most independent of the boys (well, he's got Jo to team up with).

I think it was a simple case of "the divorce didn´t work", as Lennon said after a couple of wild years without Yoko.

So, Justin is considered "depressed" 'cause of his hypothesis.
If that is his point of view, yeah so be it. Nothing to be upset about.
Calm down you guys and have some popcorn.

>> I don't know if Justin is regarding breaking up and going on to a solo career
as a greater achievement than staying together. <<

that's how his post sounds to me (particularly before he edited it a bit). and as you noted:
>> I think your hypothesis comes down to "every rock star wants to be a succesful solo star,
and a band is only a pedestal to get you attention before you start a solo career"
I don't know if this is a right hypothesis to begin with. <<

>> a lot of the so called "solo" work <<

i also consider "solo work" a misnomer for stuff done with other musicians, but it's the term in common use.
(and ... smile: as long as we're picking on each other's posts: Ronnie also has other musicians on his albums.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-27 12:55 by with sssoul.

>> Nothing to be upset about. Calm down you guys and have some popcorn <<

LoFL: have some your own self - no one here is upset.
yes, his theory sounds depressed to me. it's not an insult.

I think a lot of it was maybe just fate and circumstance.
The Stones came though their various crises and crashes...the Beatles failed at the first one. Circumstances and the business at that time didn't allow them to realise that they could stay together as a viable band without living in each other's pockets or being "married" to each other.
The Stones learnt that and survived.
They've had their fallings out, accepted their differences of opinion and have space to live their own lives.
In effect there's only a Rolling Stones when they're working. The Beatles never had the chance to evolve in that direction.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-27 15:53 by Spud.

I'd say the Beatles split 1966. Since then it was Macca with a back up band. The Beatles couldn't be a band, the Stones couldn't be without being a band.

The Beatles split at their peak. Simple as that. The Stones were allowed to slip into mediocrity and I think over the passing years too many have forgotten their great work. They are just the wrinkly geriatric rockers in many peoples minds.

*shoulders shrug*


Well...this post wasn't meant to be taken THIS seriously. Sheesh. It was just an idea that crossed my mind and so I shared it here...no biggie. It's hard to bring up a Beatles-related topic here because people have such mixed feelings towards them.

As a final note about my initital post...no I don't think breaking up or staying together deserve any more respect than the other. But it's impossible to ignore that Paul McCartney still made notable hits after The Beatles. Not just songs that only a Beatle fan would know...but made it to the mainstream. "Maybe I'm Amazed" "Band On The Run" "Jet" to name a few. These songs are ALMOST as big as his Beatles songs. With those successes, I'm sure it gave Paul the fuel he needed to continue on going solo. I wonder how many times after this he thought: "Hmm....this solo thing ain't working. I'm gonna get the Beatles back together again." Even Lennon had "Imagine" which doesn't match Paul's success but nevertheless it was something that he did on his own and is a trademark for Lennon.

It's great that we all can defend Mick and Keith's solo outputs...but it's not like we're saying any of them had the same mainstream successes as the mentioned above in their solo work. How many people on the street would know "Wired All Night"? or "Locked Away?" And that's all I'm saying. My assumption was that had Mick (or Keith) struck a string of songs that allowed him to create an audience OUTSIDE of the Stones...he would've remained a solo artist. But like Keith had said about the matter..."Mick went out there; found out he couldn't do it...and with his tail between his legs: came back..."

"I'd say the Beatles split 1966. Since then it was Macca with a back up band. The Beatles couldn't be a band, the Stones couldn't be without being a band."

exactly, the beatles were never a band really. beatles songs work if you do them on your own and maybe some others play along. so the beatles members were always doing solo stuff within and after the beatles.
stones songs only work if the players really play with each other. without playing together you can´t even call it a song.

but by the way i don´t think that a lot of beatles solo stuff is really werth listening to it. maybe john but not the others.