One angle to consider is actual musicianship along with the songwriting. The Beatles were always far more inventive, and took more risks in terms of songwriting, the Stones have always recognised and honoured their American RnB roots.
However when you come down to musicianship it becomes interesting, Mick Jagger, for all of his vocal flaws always sings it like he means it, not a great deal of detatchment and irony, but the Beatles would often have an almost storytelling Brechtian detatchment, but their vocal qualities, and harmonies were/are exquisite. Charlie Watts is a far far better drummer than Ringo, Keef and others far better guitarists than George and John, there is a case to be made that Paul is a better bassist than Wyman, amd overall the Stones had to cook it up live more than the Beatles (post Hamburg).
Like everybody else I believe their both fantastic bands...it's interesting that Ringo was once quoted as saying that the Beatles and the Stones fought it out, and Led Zeppelin won (Henry will hate that).
The late Brian Jones could probably have been in either band, and the Beatles wrote 'I wanna be your man' an early hit for the Stones.
John Lennon was once asked by a journo........"Is Ringo Starr the best drummer in the world"?
Lennon famously replied..........."He's not even the best drummer in The Beatles."
Poor old Ringo..........lucky fella in many ways but a sound enough musician and a very nice unasuming guy none-the-less.
From "Love Me Do" to "I Am The Walrus" in the space of 4 years; they only changed the face of popular music and were at the forefront of an almost revolutionary change in popular culture; from the dour, grey, poor, class ridden post war years to the bright, confident, increasingly affluent 60's. The first age of the teenager.
The Beatles were always much moreb than just a pop group.
As has been said the Stones followed in their wake.
As I said before the Stones singles were mustard and at times rivalled or surpassed the Beatles for quality.
But the were never as prolific or groundbreaking. The first few albums were derivative and their first all self-written album "Aftermath" came out the same year as "Revolver", a chasm of difference in musical development.
After "Pepper" the Beatles started to fall apart, and only then, as the Stones found their true voice, did they take the Beatles mantle with classic albums like "Beggars Banquet", "Let It Bleed" "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile".
The Beatles v. Stones thing originally started as a marketing ploy as Andrew Oldham the Stones manager projected the Stones as dirty, cool, bad-boy outlaws, against the Beatles as "loveable moptops" (much to Lennons annoyance as a genuine occasionally violent bad boy compared to the preening narcissist Jagger).
The are both brilliant English bands who I am lucky enough to say provided the soundtrack to my youth in the bright optimistic sixties.(well most of the time cf. the Kinks for the downside!)
Soundas, I wasn't around at the Reformation, but I can still have an opinion on it. And with the benefit of hindsight, I think my opinion is probably going to be more balanced than someone who was in the middle of it at the time...
[cite]Posted By: WasCharleyOne[/cite]yes, massively. McCartney + Lennon both cited Holly as their main inspiration when they were still the Quarreymen, so yes, MASSIVELY.
Suggest you put in the following google search...........Buddy Holly influence on The Beatles........ and read the first link on that page.....it was only in the early days that Lennon was influenced by Buddy Holly but not to any 'massive' significance, there were others 'far' more influential to the band as a whole as can be seen by the piece.Though I'm not denying that there was a substantial early days bonding of styles for a while....I suppose it depends what one means by the word 'massive.'
I was of course aware(as were most Beatles afficianados at the time), of the link but it's the first time I've heard the word 'massive' to describe it............ simply because there were others with far more influence to The Beatles as a whole and over a longer period.
Legend has it that Wyman was only in the band because he had an amp. The original Bass player was Dick Taylor who left to concentrate on his Art Degree and later formed the Pretty Things.
The Beatles were FAB and got more original as they matured. I prefer their last 3 albums to the rest.
The Stones have such longevity though. They produced some great albums in the 70's and 80's such as Some Girls, Emotional Rescue, Tattoo You and Undercover. Even Steel Wheels was't bad.
I like them both but because the Beatles have a finite lifespan I guess the Stones mean more to me, Also I've seen them live a number of times, hardly likely to see the other lot!
I reckon the remaining members of the Fab Four should team up with what is left of The Who. You have it all, Singer, Lead Guitar, Bass and Drums. They could be called the Wheatles!
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]Legend has it that Wyman was only in the band because he had an amp. The original Bass player was Dick Taylor who left to concentrate on his Art Degree and later formed the Pretty Things.
The Beatles were FAB and got more original as they matured. I prefer their last 3 albums to the rest.
The Stones have such longevity though. They produced some great albums in the 70's and 80's such as Some Girls, Emotional Rescue, Tattoo You and Undercover. Even Steel Wheels was't bad.
I like them both but because the Beatles have a finite lifespan I guess the Stones mean more to me, Also I've seen them live a number of times, hardly likely to see the other lot!
I reckon the remaining members of the Fab Four should team up with what is left of The Who. You have it all, Singer, Lead Guitar, Bass and Drums. They could be called the Wheatles!
I girl I was at school with mum went out with George when he was a Beatle. No Stones story, but a bloke I once worked with brother shagged Sporty Spice before she was famous, she went to college in Sidcup,
If I could stick my pen in my heart
I would spill it all over the stage
Would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya
Would you think the boy is strange? Ain't he strange?
If I could win ya, if I could sing ya
A love song so divine
Would it be enough for your cheating heart
If I broke down and cried? If I cried?
If I could stick a knife in my heart
Suicide right on stage
Would it be enough for your teenage lust
Would it help to ease the pain? Ease your brain?
If I could dig down deep in my heart
Feelings would flood on the page
Would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya
Would ya think the boy's insane? He's insane
I said I know it's only rock 'n roll but I like it
I said I know it's only rock 'n roll but I like it
I said I know it's only rock 'n roll but I like it, like it, yes, I do
Oh, well, I like it, I like it. I like it...
For me the Stones run of classic albums ran from "Beggars Banquet" through to "Exiles on Main Street". (Honorary mention to "Aftermath")
"Goats Head Soup" and "It's only rock'n'roll" had some great moments, but already formulaic filler was starting to creep in, and then the rot really began to set in.
They've had their moments, on Some Girls, Steel Wheels etc, but standout songs are few and far between.
All the live albums (and there are far too many) are cack; and I hate this album/tour/live album/corporate money making machine to bits.
Lucky for the Beatles they split before their inspiration dried up. (Check out some of the dire solo albums for evidence of what might have been!)
Comments
This has to be a wind-up
I thought 'if you could remember the sixties you wern't there'
However when you come down to musicianship it becomes interesting, Mick Jagger, for all of his vocal flaws always sings it like he means it, not a great deal of detatchment and irony, but the Beatles would often have an almost storytelling Brechtian detatchment, but their vocal qualities, and harmonies were/are exquisite. Charlie Watts is a far far better drummer than Ringo, Keef and others far better guitarists than George and John, there is a case to be made that Paul is a better bassist than Wyman, amd overall the Stones had to cook it up live more than the Beatles (post Hamburg).
Like everybody else I believe their both fantastic bands...it's interesting that Ringo was once quoted as saying that the Beatles and the Stones fought it out, and Led Zeppelin won (Henry will hate that).
The late Brian Jones could probably have been in either band, and the Beatles wrote 'I wanna be your man' an early hit for the Stones.
next : Take That or Boyzone ?
Lennon famously replied..........."He's not even the best drummer in The Beatles."
Poor old Ringo..........lucky fella in many ways but a sound enough musician and a very nice unasuming guy none-the-less.
From "Love Me Do" to "I Am The Walrus" in the space of 4 years; they only changed the face of popular music and were at the forefront of an almost revolutionary change in popular culture; from the dour, grey, poor, class ridden post war years to the bright, confident, increasingly affluent 60's. The first age of the teenager.
The Beatles were always much moreb than just a pop group.
As has been said the Stones followed in their wake.
As I said before the Stones singles were mustard and at times rivalled or surpassed the Beatles for quality.
But the were never as prolific or groundbreaking. The first few albums were derivative and their first all self-written album "Aftermath" came out the same year as "Revolver", a chasm of difference in musical development.
After "Pepper" the Beatles started to fall apart, and only then, as the Stones found their true voice, did they take the Beatles mantle with classic albums like "Beggars Banquet", "Let It Bleed" "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile".
The Beatles v. Stones thing originally started as a marketing ploy as Andrew Oldham the Stones manager projected the Stones as dirty, cool, bad-boy outlaws, against the Beatles as "loveable moptops" (much to Lennons annoyance as a genuine occasionally violent bad boy compared to the preening narcissist Jagger).
The are both brilliant English bands who I am lucky enough to say provided the soundtrack to my youth in the bright optimistic sixties.(well most of the time cf. the Kinks for the downside!)
no, can't stand The Beatles or The Stones and frankly can't see what anyone sees in them.
........
Is it true that Wyman never played bass on the records (although he's credited) because they used a more competent session player?
And all The Stones stuff was good?........Nah I don't think so matey!
Suggest you put in the following google search...........Buddy Holly influence on The Beatles........ and read the first link on that page.....it was only in the early days that Lennon was influenced by Buddy Holly but not to any 'massive' significance, there were others 'far' more influential to the band as a whole as can be seen by the piece.Though I'm not denying that there was a substantial early days bonding of styles for a while....I suppose it depends what one means by the word 'massive.'
I was of course aware(as were most Beatles afficianados at the time), of the link but it's the first time I've heard the word 'massive' to describe it............ simply because there were others with far more influence to The Beatles as a whole and over a longer period.
Most of it yes. Not saying i dislike the Beatles, far from it. Just saying i enjoy listening to the Stones alot more.
The Beatles were FAB and got more original as they matured. I prefer their last 3 albums to the rest.
The Stones have such longevity though. They produced some great albums in the 70's and 80's such as Some Girls, Emotional Rescue, Tattoo You and Undercover. Even Steel Wheels was't bad.
I like them both but because the Beatles have a finite lifespan I guess the Stones mean more to me, Also I've seen them live a number of times, hardly likely to see the other lot!
I reckon the remaining members of the Fab Four should team up with what is left of The Who. You have it all, Singer, Lead Guitar, Bass and Drums. They could be called the Wheatles!
I would spill it all over the stage
Would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya
Would you think the boy is strange? Ain't he strange?
If I could win ya, if I could sing ya
A love song so divine
Would it be enough for your cheating heart
If I broke down and cried? If I cried?
If I could stick a knife in my heart
Suicide right on stage
Would it be enough for your teenage lust
Would it help to ease the pain? Ease your brain?
If I could dig down deep in my heart
Feelings would flood on the page
Would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya
Would ya think the boy's insane? He's insane
I said I know it's only rock 'n roll but I like it
I said I know it's only rock 'n roll but I like it
I said I know it's only rock 'n roll but I like it, like it, yes, I do
Oh, well, I like it, I like it. I like it...
The Beatles were making songs from another dimension. The Stones have just kept going, that's all.
Check this out:
http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/profiles/beatles-vs-rolling-stones.php?ssid=2
http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-n-roll-classic-rock-60s-rock/8302-rolling-stones-vs-beatles-39.html
http://musosguide.com/i-like-the-beatles-you-like-the-stones/6402
"Goats Head Soup" and "It's only rock'n'roll" had some great moments, but already formulaic filler was starting to creep in, and then the rot really began to set in.
They've had their moments, on Some Girls, Steel Wheels etc, but standout songs are few and far between.
All the live albums (and there are far too many) are cack; and I hate this album/tour/live album/corporate money making machine to bits.
Lucky for the Beatles they split before their inspiration dried up. (Check out some of the dire solo albums for evidence of what might have been!)