Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jumpin'JackFrash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They're like night and day. I don't think you
> can
> > compare the two, because they eventually became
> > two very different bands, and always were from
> the
> > start.
>
>
> How could they 'eventually became two very
> different bands', if they 'always were from the
> start' ?
> I think you mixed up a Keith quote with a Jagger
> quote there...



The Beginning:
Stones - R&B Blues Band
Beatles - Pop Band

The End (For Beatles)
Beatles - Psychedelia/Genre-crossing (think Wilco)
Stones - World's Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band

I love you Erik.

There is a lot of talk about the Beatles sucking as a live act. The comments are taken out of time. First we need to realize that by the time of Beatlemania, Brian Epstein had taken all of the rough edges off of the boys and dressed them in collarless suits. The Hamburg Beatles at the Kaiserkeller were legendary for thier shows. Next, the Beatles as show toppers were, by their own admission, only going through the motions; that is part of why they quit. They could not hear themselves on stage, and no one could hear them. Watch Lennon at the famous Shea event playing piano with his elbows; it had all become a joke. That is why they stopped performing, they knew that the onstage event was no longer about the music.

It was the Stones, starting in 1969, that really spearheaded live rock music into what we know today. Travelling with your own sound system and stage, monitors so you could hear what you were playing, all of these things came after the Beatles had given up performing, indeed, after they had just plain given up. For something just tossed together, the Let it BE rooftop concert shows there was great potential, but they just not last long enough to be tested in the era where rock shows actaully became viable musical events. Macca's solo tours have always been successful and shown that at least the music itself translates well into the arena/stadium stages. Who knows what would have happened if egos had not splintered the group so soon.

>> The Beginning:
Stones - R&B Blues Band
Beatles - Pop Band <<

psst: better edit that to say "the beginning of their fame" or something like that, or else
someone'll be along any second to point out that the Beatles played rock & roll in their Hamburg days

I am shocked, Frash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-09 03:24 by Erik_Snow.

The Stones actually started out copying the Beatles and covering some of their songs... When the Beatles grew their hair long, so did the Stones. When the Beatles released Sgt Pepper, the Stones followed with Satanic Majesties.

The Beatles were music leaders but burnt out quickly and they sucked in concert.

The Stones thrived in concert and lasted much longer.

Stones are better overall.

Beatles had better producers and sound engineers, not that the Stones had bad ones, just that the Beatles benchmarked that arena.

"But still - almost everytime a Beatles product is launched they still beat the Stones. I do believe that the Beatles' "Beatles 1" outsold "Forty Licks" by a large margin? And the funny thing is - every original Beatles album has probably outsold any Stones original album, therefore the logic says that more people would own the Beatles' songs already...... "

Even Spice Girls, Back Street Boys etc. beat Stones in record sales, but it doesn't say anything about quality.

Stones are blues / rock - Beatles, Spice Girls etc. are pop, and pop will always win because of bigger audience.....

But don't make it a problem for Stones - blues / rock compared to pop - I know what to choose - not the latter.

>> The comments [that the Beatles sucked in concert] are taken out of time. <<

yeah well ... the Stones also went through that mania phase, not hearing themselves, etc -
clearly that doesn't "automatically" cause a band to lose their heart for performing.
i think it boils down to ... well, to a number of things, of course, but underneath it all:
playing the music you love (aka loving the music you play) makes a difference.
(loving music that has really really long legs doesn't hurt either.)

>> The Stones actually started out copying the Beatles and covering some of their songs <<

nah - the Stones copped some of the Beatles' sound a bit later, but it's not how they started out.
and if by "some of their songs" you mean I Wanna Be Your Man, they didn't "cover" it;
Lennon & McCartney offered it to them and they recorded/released it before the Beatles did it.
but since we all know that, i'm sure you were just checking to see if anyone was paying attention. how's your eye?

bumbum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even Spice Girls, Back Street Boys etc. beat
> Stones in record sales, but it doesn't say
> anything about quality.
>
> Stones are blues / rock - Beatles, Spice Girls
> etc. are pop, and pop will always win because of
> bigger audience.....
>
> But don't make it a problem for Stones - blues /
> rock compared to pop - I know what to choose - not
> the latter.

First of all, this is a discussion as to whether the Beatles or the Stones are the toppermost of the poppermost, so what's Spice Girls got to do with it?

Next, did you bother to read the whole post and the post that it was an answer to?

If so, please point out where I supposedly think it is a problem for the Stones? Or for me, for that matter???

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones actually started out copying the
> Beatles

No they didnt.....

This thread, or some variation on it, comes up from time to time. As I've said before, the choice between Beatles and Stones has always been easy for me -- I like the Stones.

Still, it always bothers me when the Beatles are dismissed as a pop band, and now they've been compared to the Spice Girls..

This was no mere pop band. It's a bit more accurate, I think, to say that the Beatles re-defined what pop music could be, after ignoring, or actually obliterating, the previously existing concepts and strictures...

Just my opinion, of course...

And, of course, they did tons of stuff that just can't be characterized as pop music at all...

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Beatles sounded like crap live in concert,
> very thin sounding.

you no doubt attended the hundreds of shows they played in Hamburg, then......

The Beatles sounded GREAT in their early club days, at least the recordings I heard. Oh, wait, they must have gone back and overdubbed all those shows.

as much as i liked a lot of beatles songs, they wrote great ones and thier music was pleasant and uplifting, but they really were a one trick pony compared to the stones.

the stones music rocked, the stones could do rock and roll, blues, country, pop funk, reggae, disco, punk, psychadelia and soul.

the stones music could go from a song that just oozed energy right down to a beautifull soulful ballad.

the beatles made nice music but they sounded silly when it reached a certain decibel level.

the stones wipe the floor with the beatles.

there is no competition.

Don't be silly. The Beatles were and always will be the greatest recording band. They sounded horrible live in the mid-60's, but so did the Stones. Just dig out all the bootlegs.
But over all the Stones is the greatest live band, nobody touches them.
But the greatest recording artists will always be the Beatles. They had the best songwriters, especially John Lennon. They had one of the 3 best producers (the other 2 being Phil Spector and Brian Wilson). The outsold anyone in the number of records sold.
Still I'm a great Stones fan...you can be a fan of both, you know.
The crap the Stones versus the Beatles ended 40 years ago. That's the usual teenage battle...

Dig it

__________________________

wee bobby lennox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as much as i liked a lot of beatles songs, they
> wrote great ones and thier music was pleasant and
> uplifting, but they really were a one trick pony
> compared to the stones.
>

A one trick pony!!! You gotta be kidding!

Even by the time you were playing with the Lisbon Lions in 1967, they had invented just about every trick that there was to know!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Stones actually started out copying the
> > Beatles
>
> No they didnt.....

Well, copying the Beatles AND Chuck Berry too as if he was in the Beatles (before Yoko). That was it would be 5 and 5.
The Stones played Beatles songs (and Chuck Berry songs) when they started out.

The Stones were only like a year behind The Beatles. They played Beatles songs when they started out? How many songs did The Beatles have at that point? I think you are giving The Beatles too much credit.

The Beatles were a phenomenon who defined a decade. Greatest pop band ever.

The Stones might be a phenomenon in their own way (age, touring, longevity, etc), but regardless - they've defined rock n' roll.

some thoughts about the Beatles and Stones:

the beatles will always be more popular than the stones becuase as a listerner you have to work harder to appreciate the stones.

the beatles had an amazing talent for harmony, melody and well crafted songs. likewise a keen sense of experimentation, they evolved musically in ways the stones didnt. the stones kept going back to the roots and fusing traditional black american music with a more contemporary sound. the beatles sound was more ornemental- by which I mean listening to a song the listener heard indivual musicians playing their respective instruments. the stones sound was more monolithic the band seemed to function as one body, one heart pumping away.the stones sound was somehow greater than the indivual musicians more like they didnt have a choice- a force or an obsession.the beatles music is definately more accessible and their musical talent is amazing. the stones music is somehow more interesting, honest, real.

One of my favorite scenes in the Movie "Where the Buffalo Roam" in which Bill Murray plays Hunter S. Thompson has to do with this question. He visits his friend/attorney Lazlo who's out of jail and running guns for this guy named Rojas. Thomsopn goes with him to sell to some arms dealer or general from Mexico. They meeet him at a secret landing strip out in the middle of nowhere where his jet is, its very risky and a tense moment. Hes sitting in the back of Lazlo's car drinking a budweiser, and he turns to one of the gun runners who is from Mexico or guetmala or something, and obviousley doest speek English, and says to him "who do you like better, the Beatles or the Stones?"

kahoosier Wrote:

>
> It was the Stones, starting in 1969, that really
> spearheaded live rock music into what we know
> today. Travelling with your own sound system and
> stage, monitors so you could hear what you were
> playing, all of these things came after the
> Beatles had given up performing, indeed, after
> they had just plain given up. For something just
> tossed together, the Let it BE rooftop concert
> shows there was great potential, but they just not
> last long enough to be tested in the era where
> rock shows actaully became viable musical events.
> Macca's solo tours have always been successful and
> shown that at least the music itself translates
> well into the arena/stadium stages. Who knows what
> would have happened if egos had not splintered the
> group so soon.

Make up your minds, a week or two ago I was saying in a thread that the Stones were the pioneers of the large rock concerts but was shot down in flames with everyone saying it was the Who!

Whilst the Beatles started out by playing electric and amphetamine fuelled shows in seedy bars and night clubs in Hamburg, the Stones were playing in cosy clubs and pubs in Surrey to middle-class white teenagers.

- the Marquee Club 1962 (courtesy of vox12string)

the Beatles' Hamburg stint was 1960, wasn't it? the Rolling Stones didn't exist in 1960.
if you're talking about pre-Stones formations: so where/for whom did the pre-Beatles play?
(i know it wasn't Surrey :E but i doubt the pre-Stones were playing Surrey in 1960 either, so ...)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-09 16:02 by with sssoul.

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Stones actually started out copying the
> > > Beatles
> >
> > No they didnt.....
>
> Well, copying the Beatles AND Chuck Berry too as
> if he was in the Beatles (before Yoko). That was
> it would be 5 and 5.
> The Stones played Beatles songs (and Chuck Berry
> songs) when they started out.

Nope. The first and only Beatles song the Stones ever recorded or performed was 'I Wanna Be Your Man'. Recorded some 17 months after they played their first gig and about 9 months after they got their first record contract. technically not even a cover, as the Beatles GAVE them the song.

I thought this was common knowledge amongst Stones fans - but the Stones started off exclusively covering songs by black American blues and R&B singers, not those of an emerging beat combo from Liverpool who had barely a handful of original songs to their name at that time.

Somewhat difficult I would imagine to start out by copying a band whose first record wouldnt be released until 3 months after you played your first gig,

You wont find too many Beatles songs in their early repertoire - heres some documentation -

[www.rocksoff.org]
[rocksoff.org]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-09 15:53 by Gazza.

with sssoul Wrote:
> the Beatles' Hamburg stint was 1960, wasn't it?
> the Rolling Stones didn't exist in 1960.
> if you're talking about pre-Stones formations: so
> where/for whom did the pre-Beatles play?
> (i know it wasn't Surrey :E but i doubt the
> pre-Stones were playing Surrey in 1960 either, so
> ...)


sssoul, is this a response to my post?

If so, I was just comparing how both bands started out. The Beatles had it far tougher in Germany. The Stones had it easy. The Star Club in Hamburg with its drunken sailors and prostitutes or The Red Lion and the Station Hotel? The Stones were probably tucked up in bed by 11!

I think the Beatles VS Stones has gotten old.

>> I was just comparing how both bands started out <<

okay, because the way you phrased it sounded kind of like you were comparing what the two bands were doing in 1960.
if you mean "started out": the Beatles (under whatever name) also had an early phase of playing town fetes and the like.
it's not a "versus" thing to me, mind you, just a historical-accuracy thing.

> > Who wrote the best songs about animals?
> > The Beatles: Everybody’s Got Something To Hide
> > Except For Me And My Monkey/Hey Bulldog 47%
> > The Rolling Stones: Monkey Man/Stray Cat Blues
> 53%

Didn't know Mick Jagger did actually sing about a thirteen year old cat... At least they didn't chose "Little red rooster" for an example, hehe.