Beatles or Stones?

[snoodmonger]

When I was twelve I told my dad my favorite Beatles song was "Daydream Believer."

 

He got kind of huffy and said, "That was the Monkees."

 

I responded, "Whatever, same difference."

 

I don't think he ever forgave me for that.

[OleMissCub]

Rolling Stones lose simply because of they are gross looking.

 

John and George probably aren't too beautiful right now either.

 

Re: The Monkees, I quite like I'm not your steppin stone.

 

actually, they don't look like anything. Both were cremated.

[GhostRunner]

Bottom line from a musicology standpoint, in my opinion, is that the Stones should have hung it up when Jones died. That way, they'd have an easily defined canon of material much like the Beatles. Nearly every Beatles album is an "essential" of anyone's record collection. The Stones have diluted their canon to such an extent over the past 35 years that it's hard to define essential Stones records.

In a similar vein, I've heard many arguments speculating on what would have become of the Beatles had they stayed together and continued to produce (and had Lennon not been murdered) . . . many painting a very negative image of what might have otherwise been. Given the fragmentation of the band during the Let It Be and Abbey Road sessions and the mounting pressure from both McCartney & Lennon desiring solo careers, any further works may have been less than high-quality. As such, it's their short-lived union as a band that may have very well been the best thing for them historically, cementing their status as rock & roll deities with a relatively small body of top-shelf material, having very few disappointments for future fans to dwell upon.

 

In other words, the Rolling Stones of today could very well mirror what the present-day Beatles could have become, for better or, IMO, for worse.

[OleMissCub]

In a similar vein, I've heard many arguments speculating on what would have become of the Beatles had they stayed together and continued to produce (and had Lennon not been murdered) . . . many painting a very negative image of what might have otherwise been. Given the fragmentation of the band during the Let It Be and Abbey Road sessions and the mounting pressure from both McCartney & Lennon desiring solo careers, any further works may have been less than high-quality. As such, it's their short-lived union as a band that may have very well been the best thing for them historically, cementing their status as rock & roll deities with a relatively small body of top-shelf material, having very few disappointments for future fans to dwell upon.

 

In other words, the Rolling Stones of today could very well mirror what the present-day Beatles could have become, for better or, IMO, for worse.

 

That's pretty much what i've been getting at, but in the opposite approach.

If the Stones had quit, say in 1970, I still don't think their work would be as popular, innovative, and influential as the Beatles was, but I think their status from a musicology standpoint would be higher than it is today.

 

And indeed, the short lifespan of the Beatles certainly helps their cause. With the exception of Let it Be and perhaps Beatles for Sale, every album of theirs was tremendous and an event in of itself every time one was released. I give them a pass on Beatles for Sale because it was recorded in late 64 after their American and World tours, so fatigue was clearly an issue. Let it Be is definitely their weakest album. I think they were just massively distracted with other things when making it...Yoko/Linda. Add on the fact that it was their only album not produced by George Martin (the REAL fifth Beatle, in my opinion) and it was doomed to be substandard. However, i recall one rock critic who said that while Let it Be is the Beatles weakest album, it's still better than the best work of most other bands.

[Derwood]

The Rolling Stones are an abomination.

 

The first post says it all. How can the (self proclaimed) "Greatest Rock N' Roll Band of All Time" have such craptacular record sales? Because they suck. They should have quit 30 years ago and every day they continue to tour is a bigger and bigger joke.

[Tracer Bullet]

The Rolling Stones are an abomination.

 

The first post says it all. How can the (self proclaimed) "Greatest Rock N' Roll Band of All Time" have such craptacular record sales? Because they suck. They should have quit 30 years ago and every day they continue to tour is a bigger and bigger joke.

 

Nothing personal, but I just don't like this. This is the same argument that says "Athlete X isn't nearly as good as he was in his prime, he should hang it up. Every day he keeps playing is a joke."

 

If you were one of the best ever to do whatever it is you do...and you loved doing it...and you made more money than you could ever dream to spend doing it - what right do I have to tell you when to stop? If the Stones love playing music and people keep buying albums and tickets, good for them. The fact that "Rough Justice" is a horrible song that makes me want to cut my ears off doesn't make "Sympathy for the Devil" any less great.

 

The Stones are one of the greatest bands of all time. Whatever crap they put out over the last 30 years doesn't change that.

[Derwood]

The Rolling Stones are an abomination.

 

The first post says it all. How can the (self proclaimed) "Greatest Rock N' Roll Band of All Time" have such craptacular record sales? Because they suck. They should have quit 30 years ago and every day they continue to tour is a bigger and bigger joke.

 

Nothing personal, but I just don't like this. This is the same argument that says "Athlete X isn't nearly as good as he was in his prime, he should hang it up. Every day he keeps playing is a joke."

 

If you were one of the best ever to do whatever it is you do...and you loved doing it...and you made more money than you could ever dream to spend doing it - what right do I have to tell you when to stop? If the Stones love playing music and people keep buying albums and tickets, good for them. The fact that "Rough Justice" is a horrible song that makes me want to cut my ears off doesn't make "Sympathy for the Devil" any less great.

 

The Stones are one of the greatest bands of all time. Whatever crap they put out over the last 30 years doesn't change that.

 

my beef isn't with 60 year olds still touring (I would have paid a lot of money to see David Gilmour play on his current tour). My beef is with crappy bands that I hate still touring when they are 60

[SeldomSeen]

Beatles by a wide margin. The difference in their work, creatively, from Meet the Beatles, Hard Day's Night, etc to the White Album and Abbey Road (etc.) is staggering. All this in less than a decade.

[srbin84]

Stones. I've always thought your answer to this question says a lot about your personality. The Stones are the best rock band ever, not even looking at their longevity. The Beatles did a lot of different things. I like some of their songs but not everything they did. The Stones never really changed from when they started, personality wise or musically. They experimented later in their career though with success with Wild Horses, Honkey Tonk Woman and Miss You. I never liked those songs a whole lot. Give me Exhile on Main St. or Sticky Fingers over the White Album or Abbey Road anyday.

[srbin84]

 

My problem with the Stones of the last 30 years is they've put out too much crap. They probably have as many great songs as the Beatles, but it took them 40 years to do it (and took the Beatles less than 10). Most of the Stones' albums of the last 30 years just have too much crap mixed in with the gems.

 

I dunno...with the exception of "Start Me Up" (which I can't stand), "Angie" and "Brown Sugar", i really can't think of any "GREAT" Rolling Stones songs since 1970.

 

Look at the songs that are pre-1970: Sympathy for the devil, paint it black, gimme shelter, honky tonk woman, satisfaction, as tears go by, get off of my cloud, you can't always get what you want, jumping jack flash, street fightin man, heart of stone, time is on my side, let's spend the night together.

 

I really think they lost alot of their "mojo" when Jones died.

 

No way, their stuff with Mick Taylor was the best of their work, followed closely by Brian Jones, the Mick era was their peak.

[OleMissCub]

Stones. I've always thought your answer to this question says a lot about your personality. The Stones are the best rock band ever, not even looking at their longevity. The Beatles did a lot of different things. I like some of their songs but not everything they did. The Stones never really changed from when they started, personality wise or musically. They experimented later in their career though with success with Wild Horses, Honkey Tonk Woman and Miss You. I never liked those songs a whole lot. Give me Exhile on Main St. or Sticky Fingers over the White Album or Abbey Road anyday.

 

Honky Tonk Woman was from 1969 and Wild Horses is 1971. That's about 35 years ago, hardly later in their career.

 

And no disrespect to the Stones, but I think Led Zeppelin are a better rock band and were far more influential than the Stones were. All modern heavy rock is pretty much derived from Zeppelin.

 

p.s. Just to show i'm not a Stones hater...just a recent Stones hater...i've got a collection of mint LP's framed on the wall and Sticky Fingers is one of them.

[srbin84]

I don't really recognize the work they did in the 80's and beyond.

[OleMissCub]

I don't really recognize the work they did in the 80's and beyond.

 

Well then that's my whole point. They diluted their good material by continuing to put out crap in the 80's and beyond.

[srbin84]

I don't really recognize the work they did in the 80's and beyond.

 

Well then that's my whole point. They diluted their good material by continuing to put out crap in the 80's and beyond.

 

I don't look at it as diluting the good stuff. IMO, they had two decades of excellent music. I can see how you are partial their 60's work as you are a beatles fan. The Stones sill had more great work than the Beatles IMO, but the Beatles did more in a shorter amount of time. It's like aguing Kofax vs. Maddux.

 

And btw, I didn't think much of the Lennon and Yoko stuff, Wings or Harrison's and Ringo's solo works. They were ok, but not much better than anything the Stones did in the 80's.

[OleMissCub]

 

I don't look at it as diluting the good stuff. IMO, they had two decades of excellent music. I can see how you are partial their 60's work as you are a beatles fan. The Stones sill had more great work than the Beatles IMO, but the Beatles did more in a shorter amount of time. It's like aguing Kofax vs. Maddux.

 

Oh, Son....no no no no. You may personally feel that way, but critically you are just dead wrong. Just take a look at Rolling Stones Magazines Top 500 albums of all time, which was made over years using numerous musicologists. The Beatles have 6 albums in the top 50 and the Stones have only 2....with 37 more years to work with.

 

And btw, I didn't think much of the Lennon and Yoko stuff, Wings or Harrison's and Ringo's solo works. They were ok, but not much better than anything the Stones did in the 80's.

 

The Beatles' solo careers just proves that they were had something special "together" and not alone. John needed Paul and vice-versa.

 

The only one whose solo stuff I listen to regularly is Lennon's. He's the only ex-Beatle with a solo record listed in Rolling Stones top 100, with 2.

[srbin84]

I don't agree with the critics. I don't understand the glorification of records like Sgt. Peppers, which were more likely inspired by band members taking lsd hits in front a tape recorder than artistic genious and superior metaphorical thinking.

[Andy]

I don't agree with the critics. I don't understand the glorification of records like Sgt. Peppers, which were more likely inspired by band members taking lsd hits in front a tape recorder than artistic genious and superior metaphorical thinking.

But by God, those were the most artistically ingenious hits of LSD that have ever been taken!!!!

[OleMissCub]

I don't agree with the critics. I don't understand the glorification of records like Sgt. Peppers, which were more likely inspired by band members taking lsd hits in front a tape recorder than artistic genious and superior metaphorical thinking.

 

How little you obviously know on the subject. No offense. There is only one instance in the ENTIRE Beatles recording sessions over 7 years where one of them was on LSD. That was Lennon who was promptly dismissed by the producer.

[srbin84]

I don't agree with the critics. I don't understand the glorification of records like Sgt. Peppers, which were more likely inspired by band members taking lsd hits in front a tape recorder than artistic genious and superior metaphorical thinking.

 

How little you obviously know on the subject. No offense. There is only one instance in the ENTIRE Beatles recording sessions over 7 years where one of them was on LSD. That was Lennon who was promptly dismissed by the producer.

 

It seems like a lot of Beatles fans deny their drug use for some reason.

[OleMissCub]

I don't agree with the critics. I don't understand the glorification of records like Sgt. Peppers, which were more likely inspired by band members taking lsd hits in front a tape recorder than artistic genious and superior metaphorical thinking.

 

How little you obviously know on the subject. No offense. There is only one instance in the ENTIRE Beatles recording sessions over 7 years where one of them was on LSD. That was Lennon who was promptly dismissed by the producer.

 

It seems like a lot of Beatles fans deny their drug use for some reason.

 

Deny it nothing. They did marijuana, cocaine, heroin, lsd.

 

But NOT in the studio. How is that sooo difficult to believe. No doubt it had an influence on their lives and the lyrics they wrote. However, everything they did IN the studio, especially with sgt. pepper, was sober and changed the way people made music forever. They spent 15 hours a day in the studio making their records. To try and downplay their creativity as music makers is ludicrous.

 

There are reasons why Music Schools have entire classes devoted to the study of the Beatles. Did you know that they invented distortion on guitars? Did you know that they were the first to ever play backwards loops, which is so frequently used now. Did you know they were the first band to use sampling i.e. Puff Daddy.

[srbin84]

Ok, at least we are on the same page there, and I never said they did drugs in the studio. I'm just saying that album was inspired by drugs to some degree, I think a large one but that's just me, and you can hear it in the lyrics and music. I once got in argument with a huge Beatles fan who denied that they smoked marijuana. Talk about a slam dunk. McCarty even got caught with a monster stash in an airport.

[OleMissCub]

Ok, at least we are on the same page there, and I never said they did drugs in the studio. I'm just saying that album was inspired by drugs to some degree, I think a large one but that's just me, and you can hear it in the lyrics and music. I once got in argument with a huge Beatles fan who denied that they smoked marijuana. Talk about a slam dunk. McCarty even got caught with a monster stash in an airport.

 

Heck, McCartney is the first famous rockstar to admit publicly that he did Heroin. This was in like 67.

 

Clearly "Pepper" and "Magical Mystery Tour" are "drug influenced" albums. But that doesn't mean they didn't know what they were doing with it. Their producer is on record as saying that it helped them visualized new concepts that they would bring with them (sober) into the studio.

 

Look, Classic Rock is one of my things. I've got a whole bookshelf full of Beatles, Doors, Stones, Zep, Hendrix biographies and books. Any "fan" who denies the Beatles did drugs isn't a "fan" at all....but rather they are an idiot. The Beatles for some reason have this good image about them, yet if you read about what "really" happened they went to the same drug raves and sexual orgys that the Stones went to.

[SeldomSeen]

Wait a minute. Are you implying that some musicians use drugs?

[GhostRunner]

Wait, is he actually using drugs as a reason to simultaneously denounce the Beatles and to support his pro-Stones argument? The Rolling Stones? The Rolling Stones, whom include as a member the one and only Keith "Walking Dead" Richards?!

 

I don't agree with the critics. I don't understand the glorification of records like Sgt. Peppers, which were more likely inspired by band members taking lsd hits in front a tape recorder than artistic genious and superior metaphorical thinking.

I think your morality is corrupting your argument here. Whether you condone or abhor drug use, it shouldn't matter whatsoever in determining the quality of a band's music. And to inject the subject into a comparison between the Beatles and the Stones is downright laughable.

 

BTW, you seem to draw the conclusion that LSD and other drug use somehow prevents true artistic genius or "metaphorical thinking". Well, truth is, some of the greatest minds, poets, writers, and musicians in the long history of the world have been drug users . . . perhaps even Shakespeare.

[Careless]

The beatles are just so painfully overhyped..

Yellow submarine(the song)'s success says a lot