| ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board | |
|
http://rocksoff.org/cgi-bin/messageboard/YaBB.pl
GENERAL >> MAIN BOARD >> Stones vs Beatles http://rocksoff.org/cgi-bin/messageboard/YaBB.pl?num=1370618109 Message started by LadyJane on Jun 7th, 2013 at 10:15am |
|
|
Title: Stones vs Beatles Post by LadyJane on Jun 7th, 2013 at 10:15am
Were The Rolling Stones better than The Beatles?
Greg Kot Chicago Tribune By the time the Rolling Stones got around to making records in 1963, The Beatles had already been cutting tracks with George Martin at Abbey Road studios for nearly a year. The Beatles were already stars, and their sweep made what the Stones did (and every other band in the UK, for that matter) seem like a response. In the end, of course, the Stones got their due as rock’s nastiest band – that is, until Johnny Rotten came along. Since then, history has pretty much confined the two legendary groups to their prescribed roles: The Beatles as innovators and universal pop icons, the Stones as the anti-Beatles, the dirtiest Chicago blues band not from Chicago. Myth becomes fact. Or does it? It’s hard to imagine that a band currently charging as much as $600 for their North American concert tour could once have been underrated. But the Stones’ musical contributions often get short shrift because of the huge shadow cast by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and, yes, even Ringo Starr. On the occasion of the 50-year anniversary of the Rolling Stones’ first single – a cover of Chuck Berry’s Come On, released in June 1963 – it’s time to reassess. Were the Stones as revolutionary as the Beatles? No, but their reign of good-to-great albums was nearly twice as long, and their best music from this era – 1963 through 1981 – has a consistency, durability and variety that few bands from any era could match. Not even The Beatles, it turns out. The Beatles were running on fumes during the Let it Be sessions in 1969 and broke up soon after piecing together their final masterpiece, Abbey Road. The Stones were already playing it prickly on their first single. Come On was loosely modelled on Berry’s original, recorded in 1960 at Chess Records studio in Chicago, but it had nothing of the guitarist’s bounce and brightness. Berry raced through the lyrics with breathless anxiety, but the Stones played it rough and sullen as Mick Jagger sneered his way through the obstacles life dared to throw at him. The track rippled onto the pop charts. A few months later the Stones would have an even bigger hit with another cover, I Wanna Be Your Man, written by two guys named Lennon and McCartney, who were already so popular in the UK that they could hand leftovers to their rivals and watch them turn into gold. The British invasion The Beatles invaded and seduced America, with their three-night run on The Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964. For the next six years they were the biggest rock band in the world. The Stones followed The Beatles overseas a few months later, but were smugly mocked by Dean Martin on a less popular TV variety show, Hollywood Palace. The Stones also visited their shrine, Chess Records in Chicago, and cut 16 tracks on 10-11 June, 1964, essentially bringing full-circle their obsessions with the musicians who recorded there, such as Berry, Muddy Waters and Howlin’ Wolf. Unlike The Beatles, who revelled in their roles as not just rock stars but pop pioneers who had witty opinions and a fad-inducing feel for fashion and style, the Stones never wanted to lead a revolution - nor anything else for that matter. They were in it strictly for themselves. “What can a poor boy do, except play in a rock ‘n’ roll band?” Jagger once sang, barely concealing his cynicism. Nor did the Stones ever profess to be anything but a “Chicago blues band,” a mantra that Jagger and Richards repeated even as the band embarked on a 2013 tour of North American sports arenas. Which is a bit like describing James Brown as a pretty good dancer. But it contributed to a general sense that the Stones were a relatively narrowly focused rock band – a very good one, to be sure, but not in the same class as the exalted Beatles, whose music seemed to absorb and inform everything around it. The Beatles compressed dozens of amazing songs into their six-year progression from Merseybeat teeny-boppers to psychedelic seers and beyond. They were among the first rock bands to use the studio as an instrument, and set a new standard for pop song-writing, with their graceful melodic invention and their embrace of the avant-garde in mind-benders such as Tomorrow Never Knows. Can’t get no satisfaction? Yet starting with (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction in 1965, the Stones transitioned into a multifaceted, hard-edged rock band with pop smarts that matched The Beatles nearly hit for hit. Blues and R&B covers dominated the first three Stones albums, but once Jagger and Keith Richards began writing together, the band took in everything from chamber pop to Eastern drone. Much was made of The Beatles’ embrace of Ravi Shankar, but Brian Jones broke out a sitar on the Stones’ indelible 1965 single Paint It, Black. He also played a marimba for Under My Thumb (1966), a dulcimer on Lady Jane (1966), and an oboe on Ruby Tuesday (1967), bringing a touch of the exotic to the Stones acid-pop phase that culminated with their 1967 album Their Satantic Majesties Request. That album was slated almost from the start as a tepid response to the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. The Stones themselves say it was made “under the influence of bail” because of their ongoing drug busts and legal hassles. But it actually satirised flower-power excess even as it offered up some of the era’s best psychedelic pop songs (2000 Light Years from Home, She’s A Rainbow, the B-side Dandelion). As The Beatles were winding down, the Stones kept busting new moves, re-emerging with renewed ferocity when guitarist Mick Taylor joined the band in 1969. Typically, the Stones camp played down the innovation of albums such as Sticky Fingers (1971) and Exile On Main Street (1972) by nurturing the outrageous rumours (some of which – gasp! -– were even true) about the decadence surrounding the recording sessions. Yet these albums were studio masterpieces in line with what the Beatles once did at Abbey Road. They were crafted over long periods in different studios, the colours in the arrangements ranging from the autumnal Moonlight Mile, with Charlie Watts’ orchestral drumming, to the deep gospel textures of Let It Loose. The Stones would continue through the 70s successfully adapting reggae, Philly soul, funk and even disco into their music, without compromising their essence. Key outside musicians, whether it was Sugar Blue on Miss You or Sonny Rollins on Waiting On A Friend, further broadened the sound. The Beatles set trends in motion through the 60s, but the ‘anti-Beatles’ from London weren’t just exploiting bad-boy mystique. The Stones may have started out as a “Chicago blues band,” but to quote one of their heroes, Muddy Waters, “Well, honey, ain’t no way in the world could we be satisfied.” |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by TomL on Jun 7th, 2013 at 11:18am
Who's still playing...........................
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by nankerphelge on Jun 7th, 2013 at 11:29am
Never even been a question in my mind.
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Heart Of Stone on Jun 7th, 2013 at 11:32am
Charlie & Ringo answer quite well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pOyvq_splo |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by LadyJane on Jun 7th, 2013 at 11:37am
No doubt in MY mind either.
EVER. Just nice to see others seem to feel the same. :areyoufuckingserious |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by munichhilton on Jun 7th, 2013 at 11:50am
Better songs better hooks better guitars better cooks...their cooks were outstanding...waitstaff too...
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Edith Grove on Jun 7th, 2013 at 12:04pm
Who would you rather party with ?
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Gazza on Jun 7th, 2013 at 12:12pm
I'm amazed anyone over the age of 12 who isn't stuck in a 1964 time warp is still insecure enough to care.
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by mojoman on Jun 7th, 2013 at 12:44pm TomL wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 11:18am:
Big Mac's got two solde out shows at Barclay Center |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Steel Wheels on Jun 7th, 2013 at 12:54pm
I love both bands.
I also love B.B. King. With just one note he can sum up a complete song's worth of emotion. I strongly urge everyone to see the King in concert. Lucille speaks to everyone. |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by LadyJane on Jun 7th, 2013 at 1:03pm Gazza wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 12:12pm:
Gazza PLEASE!!! I shouldn't have to tell you that the collective intellectual age of your Board members is about 10 1/2!!! |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by gimmekeef on Jun 7th, 2013 at 2:00pm Gazza wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 12:12pm:
Hey!....that remark resembles me! |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Gazza on Jun 7th, 2013 at 2:23pm LadyJane wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 1:03pm:
That high? Enough with the ass kissing already! :booze |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Saint Sway on Jun 7th, 2013 at 2:37pm
Other than that they both broke huge at the same time, I've never understood the point of comparing them.
Its a pop band vs a rock and roll band. Would be like comparing N Sync vs Nirvana. Both were top of charts at the same time but different types of music. Beatles were great at what they do. Stones are great at what they do. |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by gimmekeef on Jun 7th, 2013 at 2:57pm
You can never take away the impact the Beatles had and their music legacy will last forever. I believe however in their primes if you put both bands live at either end of a huge field by the second half of the show most would have drifted over to hear the Stones.
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Paranoid Android on Jun 7th, 2013 at 3:03pm
I feel like it is May 1965 on some crappy NYC AM station...holding a contest with this question...
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Factory Girl on Jun 7th, 2013 at 3:38pm
The answer is Iggy Fucking Pop.
The real question Stones or Led Zepplin? |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by sirmoonie on Jun 7th, 2013 at 9:44pm
Maybe it was a real debate once upon a time, but it's long since taken on a sense of a media question aimed at people who don't listen to much music. I've seen intelligent people, obviously lacking situational knowledge, get all excited as if this was an actual intellectual exercise they could just chime in without sounding stupid. You can't if you say the Beatles. And you can't if you raise the Stones as "bad boys" (Jesus fucking Christ with that) or anything they played when Brian Jones was around.
I once read (probably here) that when the Beatles heard Jumping Jack Flash, they gave up and punted. Who cares if that's factually true? You can prove it through Socratic reasoning, logic, time, algebra, contemporaneous reports that satisfy hearsay exceptions, drug tests, moof, history, and access to common sense. |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by mojoman on Jun 7th, 2013 at 11:14pm
beatle bones and smokin stones
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Nellcote on Jun 8th, 2013 at 9:00am
I do not care for Macca
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by nankerphelge on Jun 8th, 2013 at 9:31am |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Bitch on Jun 8th, 2013 at 9:47am
Well the Beatles wrote some amazing songs, but I cant listen to them on an every day basis, its just once in a while for me. The Stones I listen to every day and surprisingly even for me, it never gets old. The Beatles songs remain consistent but The Stones songs take on new meaning and I hear them in different ways, and with all the studio, live albums, and bootlegs there is no question that The Stones outplayed, outlived and outlasted The Beatles.
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Kilroy on Jun 8th, 2013 at 10:16am
This question is moot and seems to be a question better asked when there is not a Stones tour current.
Actually a better question would be IF Lennon, Harrison, Were still alive and The Stones were, Jones, Wyman,were intact as they were in the 60's which ticket would be highest Or Paul's (alone) ticket price VS Mick (alone) ticket price. IMO. Today if I had to pick..........Stones cause there is more of them and Keith who i believe is the essence of Rock N Roll! Still! I do miss John and George and would have loved to see and hear what they would have been doing. I do believe their 50th,or reunion would have been a unbelievable event, probably, unpresidented. That what, not having something does when you finally get it! I love all things Stones because of Charlie's drums. Maybe the question is not moot since I answered. I love this place. And both bands gave me more than anyone group or artist, other than CCR, Zep, The Floyd, Iggy, DC5, James Brown, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, John Cash, Merle, Hank, Hank JR, Fats, Bo, Ventures, Mitch Ryder, Santanna, Perkins, Jones, Jennings, B Miles, etc.......... :smilestu Let the beatings begin |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by Mel Belli on Jun 8th, 2013 at 10:24am
Greg Kot is a great champion of the Stones, but this doesn't add much to a tired conversation.
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by MRD8 on Jun 9th, 2013 at 8:30am Nellcote wrote on Jun 8th, 2013 at 9:00am:
He doesn't care for you either! [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif] |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by wiseblood on Jun 9th, 2013 at 9:40am
Two words: Taylor Swift.
Two more words: Gwen Stefani For as much awful shit as the solo Beatles catalog possesses, I don't find the same abysmal lows in the Beatles years. Having said that, the Stones sample size is large and for anything that's been around 50 years, there are bound to be cracks in the armor (talking to you Jagger with your falsetto-vocal songs). In this modern era, I'm more into seeing McCartney live because I know he's going to TRY (sorry Keith) and not bring out really shitty guests. Plus, he plays for nearly 3 hours. I know these recent Stones shows are clocking in with good time, but still. I passed on the Stones in 2007. I will never pass on a McCartney show. I love both bands for what they are: damn fine music. They both are at the top of my list. |
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by gimmekeef on Jun 9th, 2013 at 9:49am
This would be a moot point if the Stones had put out 2-3 even good albums after 1994......
|
|
Title: Re: Stones vs Beatles Post by uncleson on Jun 15th, 2013 at 1:36pm
Stones are better, no question.
Were the Stones as revolutionary as the Beatles? No, Stones were much more 'revolutionary', in every aspect. |
|
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved. |