Beatles or Stones (or Kinks? Monkees? Herman's Hermits?) (1 Viewer)

Okay. So we've had the: 'What is art thread, and that morphed into the: 'Doors thread' and that got me to thinking (good job mjp) what's everyone's take on the Beatles vs. the Stones. I know this sounds like a baby boomer thread (God forbid) but the reality is, even in this day and age there's no escaping the two different camps. They've left their imprint on everything since (except maybe emo) or anything else the "Fragile generation" has to offer. (sorry, but you all suck ass)

My opinion (five beers in) is that the Stones Rule. They're really the first "Modern Rock band". The Beatles are great, and the Stones wouldn't have happened without them (yada, yada) but the Beatles sound dated to me.They're what I call: "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Music. Creepy-ass, WTF era is this supposed to be from? 1867 or 1967? either way, it's all creepy to me.

The Stones rule!

Okay, your thoughts, but remember, if you disagree with me--you're wrong.

Homeless Mind, you go first.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
I'm gonna jump in front and say that I don't care for either band. Maybe if I was a few years older, but by the time, I heard them, they were well on their way to being used to sell cars and jeans. I just don't really get it, I guess.

I'm 38, if that gives you an idea.

Bill
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
while I love both bands(although the Stones should've stopped 20 odd years ago), my vote goes to the Beatles.

the stones play blues based rock and roll. and for a long time, they were the best at it. they were dangerous and sexy and everything men wanted to be and women wanted to be with.

that's great. that's all rock and roll can ask for.

BUT, pop music refuses to be stagnant. while pop music is always familiar, it is always moving forward. for better or worse.

the Beatles took pop from R&B and shifted gears. imagine pop music is your wife. the Beatles seduced your wife in a nightclub and took her back to their hotel and fucked her proper. in the morning your wife decided she made a mistake and stuffed her panties into her purse and made her way back to your house. the moment she walks through your door you realize she's your wife, but there's something different about her.

this is what the Beatles did: they took something familiar and fucked it so it's still familiar but changed forever.

the Stones just got it drunk and fucked it and made it feel a little dirty, even though they liked it.

I like both bands, but the Beatles fucked pop music so it would stay fucked.
 
I think that the Stones have created several good songs (after 45 years, one would hope so), and a certain edgy sound that I like:

Street Fighting Man
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Sympathy for the Devil
Monkey Man
Can't You Hear Me Knockin'
Sister Morphine
It's Only Rock and Roll
Angie (which I would rank up there amongst the best emotive ballads ever)

I could pretty much take or leave the rest.

Meanwhile, my laundry list of great, ground-breaking Beatle's tunes would use up more bandwidth than a video of Richard Simmons trying to get off with a slender woman present.

The Beatles realised (gotta throw George Martin in there, of course!) just about everything in Rock and Roll that I hold dear. When I met my wife, she had certain tastes, and she's as hard-headed as they come. This particular subject never came up; but after getting her into Dylan by simply playing the best stuff, I then tried the Beatles.

She was shocked at the sophistication and clean purity of their sound and message. I played stuff that you don't hear very often:

Everybody's Got Something to Hide, Except for Me and My Monkey
Tomorrow Never Knows
Rain
She Said She Said
Fixing a Hole
Hey Bulldog
I've Just Seen a Face
I Want You (She's So Heavy)

Plus a bunch of other, more common tunes. My being a bass player, she has come to appreciate something she never listened to before - fricking bass lines. McCartney was and is amongst the best. Turns out, she would have said "Stones over Beatles" before this, but now she's far and firmly in the Beatles' camp. What a lovely wife I have!

Not to belabour the point, but Bill Wyman or whomever else played bass for the Stones would probably be better off selling used cars, to bring this full-circle.

I could live a long, long, long time without the Stones. I'd rather not live a day without the Beatles.
 

number6horse

okyoutwopixiesoutyougo
Jesus ! Whoever is compiling the chapbook of Purple Stickpin's sexual references and metaphors, DO NOT forget the Richard Simmons one used above. Wow.... a new high-water mark, my friend :D

Beatles vs. Stones ? Being a musician, I can't help but measure a band or artist by how they challenged me personally to learn a new chord or scale or riff or whatever. (Not saying this is how all other musicians do this or should do this). And in that regard, The Beatles are tops - no question.

I love the Stones too. Keith's open-tuned shit is THE SHIT as far as blues-rock goes. And the contributions Brian Jones made were invaluable too. I have great memories tied to many of their songs, even though I wasn't a teenager during their very peak years (I turn 47 in a couple of weeks). "Wild Horses", "Can't You Hear Me Knockin'", "Monkey Man"..... superb stuff. And if I am anywhere in the vicinity of an open G-tuned Telecaster with a few drinks under my belt, watch out for an all-the-way-to-11 version of "Happy". I'm just warning you.

But The Beatles opened my mind to musical possibilities w-a-a-a-y-y- beyond anything offered by The Stones. Sure, they had a nudge from Dylan (puff,puff) and also Brian Wilson and maybe Jimi Hendrix, but what they created was new sonic territory in pop music without sacrificing melody. Their music always retained its "sing-ability" regardless of context. And I agree with PS that McCartney remains a premier bassist for the ages. And in my opinion, Lennon's singing voice had a combination of urgency and vulnerability that has never been matched, except, perhaps, by Kurt Cobain. They just covered a more expansive musical territory, and did it well, so I gotta go with The Beatles.
 

Ambreen

Sordide Sentimental
I'm gonna jump in front and say that I don't care for either band. Maybe if I was a few years older, but by the time, I heard them, they were well on their way to being used to sell cars and jeans. I just don't really get it, I guess.

I'm 38, if that gives you an idea.
I have exactly the same feeling as you toward these two groups. I haven't touched to any of their albums yet, I just know their most popular songs (I learnt a lot of Beatles's ones during the english courses) and I don't feel my ignorance as something shameful. No doubt a question of generation but at the same time, I know some people of my age and even younger who are unbeatable about the Beatles and the Stones, thanks to the familiar musical heritage or because they contrary to me need to listen to every big band that has left its mark on rock music.
 
I pick the Stones because they are (of all the rock bands) a rock'n'roll band-in that they have the feel of early fifties rock music, unlike Led Zep, Who etc.

I like the Beatles but the earliest the better as that's when they were most like a rock'n'roll band. But that's me -I love rock'n'roll not so much rock.

I'm a bass player and will admit Paul McC was amazing with he Beatles.

The Beatles-more important but ultimately they had too much wimpy stuff in their catalog.
 
Beatles or Stones? None of them. I'm voting for Penelope Houston, just listen to
the coverversion of "Paint it Black",it rules more than the original.
O.K.,now you may dismember me.
 
When I five, 1969, my uncle (a real Los Angeles Dodger) roared into my front yard in San Gabriel on his overstated motorcycle and, without shutting the engine, motioned for me to climb aboard. I threw down my bat and ball with delight and squeezed between him and a long chromed sissy bar. Thusly kidnapped, we were off.
Both helmetless we toured the freeways, the stadium, scenic precipices, alleyways, (a bar), and a few landmarks. We refueled at Little Joes, sharing a Swedishburrito the size of a loaf of bread and then we hit the record store. My uncle was into anything and nothing...he was grabbing records at whims; Herb Alpert, MC5, Lee Hazlewood, Dusty Springfield, Electric Prunes, Tom Jones, and on and on. He said, "go ahead, get some records." I never had a record, didnt know any music but had been staring at the cover of Sgt Pepper, mesmerized, for 15 minutes already, so I picked that one. "Hell yeah, the Beatles,!" he exclaimed.
So now I held onto him with one arm, struggling to hold the stack of records with the other, as we raced back to my house on Blackley St. There was chaos back there over my abduction and my dad wad livid. Uncle dumped me off, took the time to hand me the record, and got the hell outta there before he got throttled.
It was my first record, I listened to it a hundred times a day for a year or so and of course then bought Magical Mystery Tour (all those lovely pages). I was easily ten before I owned anything but the Beatles. The Stones were just another one of the OTHER good bands, not comparable, and so it still is today.
I still have that first record, just to look at, and I must trace a portion of the development of early creative sensibilities back to that acquisition. I'd hate to think what might have happened had that been a Simon and Garfunkle or Englebert Humperdink that caught my eye.
 
That's a cool story, Scribbler. It's funny how, a lot of times, the memories we associate with music usually have more of an impact than anything else. I also have bands that I hold 'near and dear' probably for no other reason other than where I was and what I was doing when I first discovered them. AC/DC is one of them--summer of 1980. Had a blast. Now, someone could throw me in a Turkish prison, take away all my memories of family and friends, and I'd still be able to retain a place in my soul for Angus and the boys. :cool:
 
Stones, although I'm far, far displaced from either band's heyday. I haven't gone through either band's album catalog, either.
 

Lolita Twist

Rose-hustler
My opinion (five beers in) is that the Stones Rule. They're really the first "Modern Rock band". The Beatles are great, and the Stones wouldn't have happened without them (yada, yada) but the Beatles sound dated to me.They're what I call: "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Music. Creepy-ass, WTF era is this supposed to be from? 1867 or 1967? either way, it's all creepy to me.
Why does everyone forget the White Album? :(

That being said.

Stones. All the way. Definitely. The Beatles wanna hold your hand, the Stones wanna burn your town. I'm down with that. (Down with that? Really? Shit.) That being said, I do love the Beatles. But who can't feel the cocaine hitting your nerves in a cigarette filter when Can't Ya Hear Me Knockin' is blaring at 2:30 in the morning when someone's turned off all your lights and the heat is out? Helter Skelter just doesn't do that for you. It's a great song, but it doesn't have that effect.
 
the beatles when i'm sober, the stones when i'm drunk. especially "street fightin' man"! not that i'm any sorta street fighter...
 
My opinion (five beers in) is that the Stones Rule. They're really the first "Modern Rock band". The Beatles are great, and the Stones wouldn't have happened without them (yada, yada) but the Beatles sound dated to me.They're what I call: "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Music. Creepy-ass, WTF era is this supposed to be from? 1867 or 1967? either way, it's all creepy to me.

The Stones rule!

Homeless Mind, you go first.
You really can't compare the two.
They are so different. The only real thing related is UK birth (har har).
But here goes anyway.

First, both are great bands.
But they did and achieved different things.
Different styles of music; with somewhat of an overlap in fan base.
Both were forces, but one was clearly a leader in psychedelia, and other things.
The other in hard drinking, partying, rock & roll excess. (Hell's Angels, etc.)

Let's look at a few releases when music was changing forever, '67 and '68.
I know, it's just a snapshot, but a good one.
The Beatles released Sgt. Peppers. The Stones, Beggars Banquet.

The albums and songs were so different. The imagery, the intent.

"Sympathy for the Devil" and "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds."
"Street Fighting Man" and "Fixing A Hole."

Now, let's venture deeper into the rabbit hole.

Were the Stones trying to change things? Expand the mind? Or making great music that became very famous "” and create disruption (punk)? That's where I see the main difference.

John Lennon actually believed he could change things with his words, music. While Paul was probably the most prolific pop writer to have ever lived and carry a tune, John was the intellectual undertow. One couldn't help but be swept away after listening.

So, if you like your music loud and proud, they both work.
But I give the Stones the edge there.
But if you're looking a bit deeper, and want more from your music, the Beatles.

From an artistic standpoint, there is no comparison.
The Beatles did things that still haven't been replicated. Experiments of sound and music, intellectualism and writing that were topical and metaphysical, timeless.

I still listen to both. And dig.

Let's compare 'em both to ice cream.
The Stones: fudge swirl.
The Beatles: rainbow swirl.
Both have their time and place.

But the Beatles, well, JL in particular, get my vote.
Because that is my taste...and give peace a chance, well, no more needs to be said.

Not that it matters...

Pax
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mjp

Founding member
Funny that a lot of people cite the Beatles mind-expanding-creativity-and-ahead-of-their-timeness when 99% of that quality is directly attributable to their producer George Martin, not Lennon or McCartney. Take Martin away from the Beatles and give him to the Stones and I think the impression today would be the complete reverse of what it is.

When people say the Beatles were squeaky clean and the Stones dirty and raunchy - sorry, I just don't see it. I was born in 1960, so I heard both bands on the radio growing up (sandwiched between everything else that mined similar veins), and I think a lot of that "Beatles want to kiss you, Stones want to rape you" shit was concocted in retrospect, after writing about music gained some legitimacy and people had to think up things to say about the music and the times.

Anyway, I think if you took Martin out of the mix, those two bands would have been a lot closer in style than they turned out.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
true.
we've had the talk on here before about influence. not just from generation to generation, but contemporary influence. the Beatles openly said they wanted Sgt. Pepper to be as good as the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds.

and George Martin was the guy to help them do that. producers are often the polarizing factor to change in pop. they see talent and have a good idea how far they can push that talent and how to create a sound.

Sam Phillips and the echo-y Sun Records sound. Phil Spector's Wall of Sound, and so on.
 
Funny that a lot of people cite the Beatles mind-expanding-creativity-and-ahead-of-their-timeness when 99% of that quality is directly attributable to their producer George Martin, not Lennon or McCartney.
[...]
I seemed to have lost my response, if it's there, and you can post, cool. If not, I'll try again. Sorry for being a PITA.

Here's round two; my bad. Thanks, Hooch.

mjp: You make an interesting point.

Here's the brief on what I said before it went missing (again, my bad):

Martin didn't write the lyrics.

Sympathy for the Devil and Fixing A Hole are diametrically opposed.

Again, Martin or not. It's more than sound, it's message.

Being born in the same year, I get what you say.

And having logged a lot of studio time (probably not as much as you), I get it even more. A great producer can turn the page to genius easier than a yes man. And a scientist on top, well, I guess that was Martin...

HOWEVER: Same time, different message. Different music.

I pick the Stones because they are (of all the rock bands) a rock'n'roll band-in that they have the feel of early fifties rock music, unlike Led Zep, Who etc.
You're kidding, right?

Rock N Roll is a migratory animal with its roots cemented in the blues.

So the '50s or whatever don't mean much, other than a blip on the excel spreadsheet of rock. I consider the '50s more of a curiosity than bedrock. But fuck, I like Sha Na Na, too, but that may be the '60s. ;)

Rock = Blues. With a twist of Jack Daniels. And more.

When I five, 1969 (snip) Herb Alpert, (snip)NOT THIS ONE, BUT I DID WHEN PURCHASED ON 45, hm---I listened to it a hundred times a day for a year or so and of course then bought Magical Mystery Tour (all those lovely pages). (snip)
Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass?

A Taste of Honey?

Damn, Scrib, you're jostling my memory quite well. Thanks.


Pax
 

Lolita Twist

Rose-hustler
The Stones use tequila, if you ask me. I think that's it.
And the Beatles used acid, for their twist. I wouldn't call Beatles rock n roll, though. So do they even get a twist? Or do they have no frame of reference, if they're not rooted in blues? Exclude: White Album. Then again that really didn't get to where it was supposed to go either because I wouldn't call Give Peace a Chance rock n roll, either. So what the fuck is up with the White Album? Was it a black horse or a one time deal that was supposed to be something else? You can say, "Blame Yoko Ono," but I'm really not fond of doing that, because Lennon's 21 and all that.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
I like both bands so why choose? It's like choosing between apples and oranges. Some days I listen to the Beatles, and some days I listen to the Stones. It all depends on my mood.
Back in the day (early to mid-sixties) when both bands were at the top of the charts, you were either a Beatles fan or a Stones fan. Back then I preferred the Beatles, but it does'nt make any sense to choose anymore. Both bands have made great music, so why not enjoy it all?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lolita Twist

Rose-hustler
poster_mick_jagger_poster_who_isf.jpg
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
and for a period of 10 years or so, he was the most dangerous and sexy frontman in rock. then Altamont took a bit of that danger out of him.

and now he's a dancing clown.

I saw GnR play live in 1987, and Axl Rose had that same quality. he looked like he wanted to knife you in the gut and fuck your girlfriend while you watched, dying a slow and painful death.

and now he's a Botox clown.

but for a while, nobody could touch them.
 

mjp

Founding member
Sympathy for the Devil and Fixing A Hole are diametrically opposed.
That isn't comparing bands, it's comparing completely different songwriters. It would make more sense to compare Sympathy with Yer Blues, or Happiness Is a Warm Gun, from the same period.

Sympathy for the Devil is overrated anyway. Really well put together lyrics, spooky music and all that, but others said the same thing better. By 1968, it seems that the message of the song was pretty commonplace.

But McCartney - well, you'd have to compare McCartney to - I don't know what. Broadway musicals or something. He was a great songwriter, but he primarily wrote wonderfully executed sappy, disposable shit. Fine little melodies though. La la la. They stick in your head like dog shit sticks to your shoe.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
when he was in his prime, he looked like any minute he would jump down from the stage and kill you because you weren't clapping enough. or whatever.
 
Sticky Fingers: LG:

andy warhol, eh?

when he was in his prime, he looked like any minute he would jump down from the stage and kill you because you weren't clapping enough. or whatever.

he was never that intimidating to me. mythology. pr machine. that was part of his genius, no doubt. he understood marketing, and how to reach his audience, and expand it. remember the magazine cover (i believe PEOPLE), with his quote: "Cocaine Is Boring."

~~~~~~~~~

I'll never forget it. He must've needed some juice in the pubs, or why come out with such a statement?

Marketing genius = MJ

Pax
 
Sure, Memory Motel in Montauk. Great bar, skeevy motel. Now famous. Dead in the Winter; thrives in the Summer. Right on 27 East. (Near: THE END - lol.)
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
he was never that intimidating to me. mythology. pr machine. that was part of his genius, no doubt. he understood marketing, and how to reach his audience, and expand it. remember the magazine cover (i believe PEOPLE), with his quote: "Cocaine Is Boring."

I'll never forget it. He must've needed some juice in the pubs, or why come out with such a statement?

Marketing genius = MJ
of course it was just an image. that's beside the point.
 
It's quite obvious you've spoken to his hip replacement surgeon.

As for his plastic surgeon, I have no info...

But rumor has it, he's been calling Mickey Rourke.

And he probably has enough money by now to bail out the US economy...
 

Lolita Twist

Rose-hustler
He goes to the same guy as Cher. And I'm sure he and Mickey spend all their potential US bailout bucks on hookers and booze anyway :p

And I'm off for the night. Goodnight all. :)
 
But McCartney - well, you'd have to compare McCartney to - I don't know what. Broadway musicals or something. He was a great songwriter, but he primarily wrote wonderfully executed sappy, disposable shit. Fine little melodies though. La la la. They stick in your head like dog shit sticks to your shoe.

If I had to choose my top 10 Beatles' songs, I doubt there would be more than 1 McCartney composition in there, if any. But he composed some excellent tunes:

I've Just Seen a Face
I'll Follow the Sun
For No One
Lovely Rita
Blackbird

But far more than his juxtaposition to Lennon's songwriting philosophy was his supreme musicianship and ground-breaking bass playing. In terms of R&R (I leave James Jamerson to the Motown genre here), McCartney just about single-handedly brought the bass to worthy equality with the guitar - no mean feat indeed. His work from April '66 (Paperback Writer/Rain) through January '68 (Hey Bulldog) ranks up there with the greatest inventive period ever in music. Lennon may have been pushing all of the boundaries with his songwriting, but McCartney was also pushing just as hard with his playing during this period. Those seemingly psychedelic innovations couldn't have happened without McCartney, even if McCartney wasn't really a big part of that scene.

As for your comments on George Martin, spot on.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top