Because the Beatles aren't 1 band - they reinvented themselves 3-4 times, leaving a fantastic legacy of phenomenal, trend-setting music across British Invasion, Singer Songwriter, Psychedelic. Modern Rock, by the end were pushing the envelope in the same heavy rock/blues genre the Stones spent most of their career in.
The legacy of hit singles and top-10 albums the Beatles recorded over 6 years is just staggering and at least once every few months, I'll find myself dabbling in one of those great albums.
That made records for 7 years versus 50. Love them both but it is hard to imagine what the Beatles might have accomplished had they not fallen apart when they did.
In my opinion, when comparing the two bands you have to include their record Producers too. The Beatles had Sir George Martin working with them. The Stones had Andrew Loog Oldham. Point for the Beatles.
Also, consider the untimely demise of Brian Jones, who was one of the early leaders of the Stones.
I liked both bands back in the day. They each introduced new musical influences. They opened the flood gates for every British band that ever picked up a guitar.
Remember that there was no such thing as Music Videos. You heard a 3 minute song on a transistor AM radio. If you liked it, you bought the record.
It's Beatles AND Stones . No Band can ever be compared to the Beatles. They are in their own category. They redefined what pop music was. Previous to them it was crooners like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis....etc. Rock and Roll was still considered a novelty or a teen fad . They changed that .The quality of their massive output in seven years was astonishing. I always loved the Stones raunchy R&B sound and their hit records still sound great today. But really their reputation is based on 20 songs they recorded sixty years ago that they are still playing in concert .Loved them both . Always will .
they are so different. I like them both and for different reasons. I listen to whatever mood I happen to be in.
I remember way back the argument was who's better, the Stones or the Yardbirds. Both blues-heavy influenced Brit Invasion bands with a lot of crossover appeal.
Another one was who's the better drummer, John Bonham or Ginger Baker?
Jeff McKee, who had what I thought was a great analogy for the Beatles v the Stones. He felt the Beatles were like Ted Williams, with his higher overall BA, while the Stones were more like DiMaggio, their string of albums from Beggars Banquet to Exile was akin to DiMaggio’s hitting streak.
Who I prefer depends on what I feel like listening to. The Stones are more fun, with more energy, while the Beatles were more thought-provoking.
I can acknowledge how enormously influential the Beatles were, but I never liked them much. It’s a gut reaction. The Stones hooked me when the Beatles never did.
But I can't listen to the Beatles, it's the same with the beach boys it's just feels like old pop music and when they try and push the envelope it's just doesn't work.
The Stones are different with me the blues/country rock fusion just works and lyrically they just hit differently from a depth level.
Obviously IMO and not trying to kill the Beatles
But I can't listen to the Beatles, it's the same with the beach boys it's just feels like old pop music and when they try and push the envelope it's just doesn't work.
I think once they grew out of the pop radio sound (Baby, you can drive my car. Beep beep, beep beep yeah) they got a lot better. Still, some of their old stuff is really good like Help! Their version of Twist and Shout - if it doesn't get you singing along there's something wrong with you.
I wasn't a fan of the nonsense (I am the Walrus, Come Together), but there was some mighty fine songwriting in the later 60s.
It's Beatles AND Stones . No Band can ever be compared to the Beatles. They are in their own category. They redefined what pop music was. Previous to them it was crooners like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis....etc. Rock and Roll was still considered a novelty or a teen fad . They changed that .The quality of their massive output in seven years was astonishing. I always loved the Stones raunchy R&B sound and their hit records still sound great today. But really their reputation is based on 20 songs they recorded sixty years ago that they are still playing in concert .Loved them both . Always will .
It's Beatles AND Stones . No Band can ever be compared to the Beatles. They are in their own category. They redefined what pop music was. Previous to them it was crooners like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis....etc. Rock and Roll was still considered a novelty or a teen fad . They changed that .The quality of their massive output in seven years was astonishing. I always loved the Stones raunchy R&B sound and their hit records still sound great today. But really their reputation is based on 20 songs they recorded sixty years ago that they are still playing in concert .Loved them both . Always will .
What about Elvis?
Elvis was awesome as were Little Richard Chuck Berry The Everly's Buddy Holly Carl Perkins Jerry Lee and all the originals. They invented the form the Beatles perfected. But they all faded. Sadly Elvis also viewed Rock and Roll as a passing fad and really wanted to be a movie Star . The Beatles added melody and harmonies to the original R&B recipe and put them all out of work .
as embodied by the Beatles, was firmly established by the time they rolled around. They were kings of the hit chart, but pop rock would have been just fine without them.
This is a good example of people putting too much credit on the Beatles. There's no doubt they made a solid contribution to the genre, maybe more than any other individual artist/group (although Les Paul may argue otherwise), but c'mon.
as embodied by the Beatles, was firmly established by the time they rolled around. They were kings of the hit chart, but pop rock would have been just fine without them.
This is a good example of people putting too much credit on the Beatles. There's no doubt they made a solid contribution to the genre, maybe more than any other individual artist/group (although Les Paul may argue otherwise), but c'mon.
Sorry, but the Beatles never put an album out as good as Let it Bleed
By 1968 the Stones were by far the better band, IMO.
That 4 album run was incredible....
But Rubber Soul,Revolver and Pepper were better albums top to bottom.
Exile is one of those albums that the critics loved and i never quite agreed with...that said if it was a single album with the best tracks on it, I would feel differently.
that said,i could say the same for the White Album.
If you take the best of that onto 1 album,you have something equal to the best of the Beatles.Let it Be and Abbey Road aint exactly anything to sneeze at either.
By 1968 the Stones were by far the better band, IMO.
That 4 album run was incredible....
But Rubber Soul,Revolver and Pepper were better albums top to bottom.
Exile is one of those albums that the critics loved and i never quite agreed with...that said if it was a single album with the best tracks on it, I would feel differently.
that said,i could say the same for the White Album.
If you take the best of that onto 1 album,you have something equal to the best of the Beatles.Let it Be and Abbey Road aint exactly anything to sneeze at either.
It's all opinions. I don't think there's any Beatles album as good as the Stones big 4 run: BB, LIB, SF, EOMS. And I don't think it's close. Especially Sgt Peppers, the most overrated album in rock history. I can name 100 albums I like better. I can't listen to it.
By 1968 the Stones were by far the better band, IMO.
That 4 album run was incredible....
But Rubber Soul,Revolver and Pepper were better albums top to bottom.
Exile is one of those albums that the critics loved and i never quite agreed with...that said if it was a single album with the best tracks on it, I would feel differently.
that said,i could say the same for the White Album.
If you take the best of that onto 1 album,you have something equal to the best of the Beatles.Let it Be and Abbey Road aint exactly anything to sneeze at either.
It's all opinions. I don't think there's any Beatles album as good as the Stones big 4 run: BB, LIB, SF, EOMS. And I don't think it's close. Especially Sgt Peppers, the most overrated album in rock history. I can name 100 albums I like better. I can't listen to it.
Sgt Pepper must be viewed from the lens of how it changed,not only how Rock could sound,but also how it could capture and time and place.The Beatles had albums with more top 10 hits on it,but nothing anyone has ever done will approach the work of Art that they created....
It's Beatles AND Stones . No Band can ever be compared to the Beatles. They are in their own category. They redefined what pop music was. Previous to them it was crooners like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis....etc. Rock and Roll was still considered a novelty or a teen fad . They changed that .The quality of their massive output in seven years was astonishing. I always loved the Stones raunchy R&B sound and their hit records still sound great today. But really their reputation is based on 20 songs they recorded sixty years ago that they are still playing in concert .Loved them both . Always will .
This. I like them both, but what the Beatles put out in a relatively short time period dwarfs what the Stones did. In 50 years the Stones should have done a lot more than what they did.
on me over the years, I always liked them but I really like them more now. OTOH, the Beatles never did it for me, the do have a few songs I absolutely love tho. The Beatles weren’t a band in the classic sense to me either, while being great musicians, songwriters and producers of albums they just didn’t do it live enough. It would have been nice to have them releasing some great concert footage along with the different studio mixes that have come out.
It's Beatles AND Stones . No Band can ever be compared to the Beatles. They are in their own category. They redefined what pop music was. Previous to them it was crooners like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis....etc. Rock and Roll was still considered a novelty or a teen fad . They changed that .The quality of their massive output in seven years was astonishing. I always loved the Stones raunchy R&B sound and their hit records still sound great today. But really their reputation is based on 20 songs they recorded sixty years ago that they are still playing in concert .Loved them both . Always will .
What about Elvis?
Elvis was awesome as were Little Richard Chuck Berry The Everly's Buddy Holly Carl Perkins Jerry Lee and all the originals. They invented the form the Beatles perfected. But they all faded. Sadly Elvis also viewed Rock and Roll as a passing fad and really wanted to be a movie Star . The Beatles added melody and harmonies to the original R&B recipe and put them all out of work .
I have wondered about how American rock and roll might have progressed if Buddy Holly hadn’t died at 23, even that kid Richie Valens had a bright future .
It's Beatles AND Stones . No Band can ever be compared to the Beatles. They are in their own category. They redefined what pop music was. Previous to them it was crooners like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis....etc. Rock and Roll was still considered a novelty or a teen fad . They changed that .The quality of their massive output in seven years was astonishing. I always loved the Stones raunchy R&B sound and their hit records still sound great today. But really their reputation is based on 20 songs they recorded sixty years ago that they are still playing in concert .Loved them both . Always will .
What about Elvis?
Elvis was awesome as were Little Richard Chuck Berry The Everly's Buddy Holly Carl Perkins Jerry Lee and all the originals. They invented the form the Beatles perfected. But they all faded. Sadly Elvis also viewed Rock and Roll as a passing fad and really wanted to be a movie Star . The Beatles added melody and harmonies to the original R&B recipe and put them all out of work .
I have wondered about how American rock and roll might have progressed if Buddy Holly hadn’t died at 23, even that kid Richie Valens had a bright future .
But the Stones are/were a better rock band as such.
Agreed and I think even the Beatles would agree...
They were a pop band who reached heights never seen before or since...
But in terms of stripped down rock n roll...the Stones had em
But no band produced to the level or displayed the big hits batting average that the Beatles displayed. Pick a random song from the Beatles, just throw a dart wt their entire catalogue and there’s a better than average chance you picked a great song. Or a “hit.”
Seinfeld said it best. No musical act In recorded history ever reached the popularity of peak that the beatles did right around the time of their last live show, or right before rubber soul. Right about that time as the Beatles peak of popularity was at its very peak, a peak never seen before in history, what did the Beatles do next? They got even better. They went into the studios and embarked on a run of albums that produced the most successful or consistent run of hits ever. At their peak of popularity they got even better.
To me it’s the Beatles. The Stones had an insanely great peak too and their longevity (mick and Keith) has reached laughable proportions but no one had a better peak than John, Paul, George and Ringo. Shit even their solo works are fantastic.
One was singing that they wanted to hold your hand while the other was singing about satisfaction. Different level of song writing.
Guy I work with always takes this sort of stance that the Beatles were kiddie rock. Nonsense. They started off that way (hold your hand and whatever else early on ) but rubber soul through let it be saw them evolve immensely into complex and provocative song writing. Even Help was mature or pushing the envelop for its time. Not to detract from the stones of course. They definitely wrote amazing and dark shit in their own right. Two of the very best.
haha - but you're right. The Beatles had higher peaks, perhaps never to be replicated, but the Stones are a longer-running act. The years while and right after the Beatles were breaking up, the Stones put out a string of the best rock albums ever. And they still exist, they get credit for that!
Different styles, both prolific, both influential.
Same here ... comparing the Stones to the Beatles though is like comparing Apples to Oranges.
The Beatles were a pop/rock vocal band ... the Stones were a R&B/Blues band who became popish.
If you are comparing the 2 - you are not really a student of the lineage of music. Which is fine but, the 2 bands are so different. Most people think they are same "apple" because they are both from England in the 60's ... they are not.
Comparing the Beatles to the Stones is almost like comparing the Beatles to Black Sabbath (maybe that is a bit of a stretch?) but, the Stones and the Beatles are very far apart style wise.
They played Blues, some jazz, rock, and pop of course. Their influence was more than music in was the culture as well
So true ... the Beatles didn't only influence music/musicians of their generation they also influenced an entire culture of their generation! Music, hair style, fashion, speech, etc .... it goes on forever.
I once read a list made by historians of the top 100 events that influenced American history. I think #1 was Columbus discovering America. Then things like the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth rock, Revolutionary war, etc ... Some where around the 70's position - was the Beatles playing on Ed Sullivan. Their influence cannot be measured or over estimated.
The legacy of hit singles and top-10 albums the Beatles recorded over 6 years is just staggering and at least once every few months, I'll find myself dabbling in one of those great albums.
Actually, I was a fan of the Dave Clark 5.
As for Beatles vs Stones in the 60s, it's a tie. The Beatles were better singers, the Stones better rockers. Both legends.
Can't be a fan of the same band as your parents. it would be like if all of a sudden I became a Taylor Swift fan. My kids would probably abandon her.
Also, consider the untimely demise of Brian Jones, who was one of the early leaders of the Stones.
I liked both bands back in the day. They each introduced new musical influences. They opened the flood gates for every British band that ever picked up a guitar.
Remember that there was no such thing as Music Videos. You heard a 3 minute song on a transistor AM radio. If you liked it, you bought the record.
I remember way back the argument was who's better, the Stones or the Yardbirds. Both blues-heavy influenced Brit Invasion bands with a lot of crossover appeal.
Another one was who's the better drummer, John Bonham or Ginger Baker?
Who I prefer depends on what I feel like listening to. The Stones are more fun, with more energy, while the Beatles were more thought-provoking.
1965: Rubber Soul
1966: Revolver
1967: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
1968: The White Album
1969: Abbey Road
The Stones played 'Catch-Up' in a way with the following classics --
1967: Satanic Majesties Request (as a counterpoint to Sgt., Pepper)
1968: Beggars Banquet
1969: Let it Bleed
1971: Sticky Fingers
All 9 albums are great collections of contemporary music. I think the edge goes to the Beatles over this time frame.
Since the Beatles stopped touring with the Rooftop Concert, and the Stones continued as a Live Band over the following 50 years....Edge to the Stones.
The Stones are different with me the blues/country rock fusion just works and lyrically they just hit differently from a depth level.
Obviously IMO and not trying to kill the Beatles
From there I pretty much went the metal route. AC/DC, Metallica, etc.
I think once they grew out of the pop radio sound (Baby, you can drive my car. Beep beep, beep beep yeah) they got a lot better. Still, some of their old stuff is really good like Help! Their version of Twist and Shout - if it doesn't get you singing along there's something wrong with you.
I wasn't a fan of the nonsense (I am the Walrus, Come Together), but there was some mighty fine songwriting in the later 60s.
What about Elvis?
Quote:
It's Beatles AND Stones . No Band can ever be compared to the Beatles. They are in their own category. They redefined what pop music was. Previous to them it was crooners like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis....etc. Rock and Roll was still considered a novelty or a teen fad . They changed that .The quality of their massive output in seven years was astonishing. I always loved the Stones raunchy R&B sound and their hit records still sound great today. But really their reputation is based on 20 songs they recorded sixty years ago that they are still playing in concert .Loved them both . Always will .
What about Elvis?
Elvis was awesome as were Little Richard Chuck Berry The Everly's Buddy Holly Carl Perkins Jerry Lee and all the originals. They invented the form the Beatles perfected. But they all faded. Sadly Elvis also viewed Rock and Roll as a passing fad and really wanted to be a movie Star . The Beatles added melody and harmonies to the original R&B recipe and put them all out of work .
This is a good example of people putting too much credit on the Beatles. There's no doubt they made a solid contribution to the genre, maybe more than any other individual artist/group (although Les Paul may argue otherwise), but c'mon.
This is a good example of people putting too much credit on the Beatles. There's no doubt they made a solid contribution to the genre, maybe more than any other individual artist/group (although Les Paul may argue otherwise), but c'mon.
By 1968 the Stones were by far the better band, IMO.
By 1968 the Stones were by far the better band, IMO.
That 4 album run was incredible....
But Rubber Soul,Revolver and Pepper were better albums top to bottom.
Exile is one of those albums that the critics loved and i never quite agreed with...that said if it was a single album with the best tracks on it, I would feel differently.
that said,i could say the same for the White Album.
If you take the best of that onto 1 album,you have something equal to the best of the Beatles.Let it Be and Abbey Road aint exactly anything to sneeze at either.
For a double album, I'm hard pressed to find 4 good songs on all 4 sides. That album was put together to spite Allen Klein and ABKCO.
The Stones were kind of searching for another guitarist until Ronnie Wood joined the band in 1976.
Quote:
...or Begger's Banquet, Sticky Fingers or Exile.
By 1968 the Stones were by far the better band, IMO.
That 4 album run was incredible....
But Rubber Soul,Revolver and Pepper were better albums top to bottom.
Exile is one of those albums that the critics loved and i never quite agreed with...that said if it was a single album with the best tracks on it, I would feel differently.
that said,i could say the same for the White Album.
If you take the best of that onto 1 album,you have something equal to the best of the Beatles.Let it Be and Abbey Road aint exactly anything to sneeze at either.
It's all opinions. I don't think there's any Beatles album as good as the Stones big 4 run: BB, LIB, SF, EOMS. And I don't think it's close. Especially Sgt Peppers, the most overrated album in rock history. I can name 100 albums I like better. I can't listen to it.
For a double album, I'm hard pressed to find 4 good songs on all 4 sides. That album was put together to spite Allen Klein and ABKCO.
The Stones were kind of searching for another guitarist until Ronnie Wood joined the band in 1976.
100% agreed
Quote:
In comment 16529344 sb from NYT Forum said:
Quote:
...or Begger's Banquet, Sticky Fingers or Exile.
By 1968 the Stones were by far the better band, IMO.
That 4 album run was incredible....
But Rubber Soul,Revolver and Pepper were better albums top to bottom.
Exile is one of those albums that the critics loved and i never quite agreed with...that said if it was a single album with the best tracks on it, I would feel differently.
that said,i could say the same for the White Album.
If you take the best of that onto 1 album,you have something equal to the best of the Beatles.Let it Be and Abbey Road aint exactly anything to sneeze at either.
It's all opinions. I don't think there's any Beatles album as good as the Stones big 4 run: BB, LIB, SF, EOMS. And I don't think it's close. Especially Sgt Peppers, the most overrated album in rock history. I can name 100 albums I like better. I can't listen to it.
Sgt Pepper must be viewed from the lens of how it changed,not only how Rock could sound,but also how it could capture and time and place.The Beatles had albums with more top 10 hits on it,but nothing anyone has ever done will approach the work of Art that they created....
This. I like them both, but what the Beatles put out in a relatively short time period dwarfs what the Stones did. In 50 years the Stones should have done a lot more than what they did.
Quote:
In comment 16529155 averagejoe said:
Quote:
It's Beatles AND Stones . No Band can ever be compared to the Beatles. They are in their own category. They redefined what pop music was. Previous to them it was crooners like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis....etc. Rock and Roll was still considered a novelty or a teen fad . They changed that .The quality of their massive output in seven years was astonishing. I always loved the Stones raunchy R&B sound and their hit records still sound great today. But really their reputation is based on 20 songs they recorded sixty years ago that they are still playing in concert .Loved them both . Always will .
What about Elvis?
Elvis was awesome as were Little Richard Chuck Berry The Everly's Buddy Holly Carl Perkins Jerry Lee and all the originals. They invented the form the Beatles perfected. But they all faded. Sadly Elvis also viewed Rock and Roll as a passing fad and really wanted to be a movie Star . The Beatles added melody and harmonies to the original R&B recipe and put them all out of work .
I have wondered about how American rock and roll might have progressed if Buddy Holly hadn’t died at 23, even that kid Richie Valens had a bright future .
Quote:
In comment 16529306 HardTruth said:
Quote:
In comment 16529155 averagejoe said:
Quote:
It's Beatles AND Stones . No Band can ever be compared to the Beatles. They are in their own category. They redefined what pop music was. Previous to them it was crooners like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis....etc. Rock and Roll was still considered a novelty or a teen fad . They changed that .The quality of their massive output in seven years was astonishing. I always loved the Stones raunchy R&B sound and their hit records still sound great today. But really their reputation is based on 20 songs they recorded sixty years ago that they are still playing in concert .Loved them both . Always will .
What about Elvis?
Elvis was awesome as were Little Richard Chuck Berry The Everly's Buddy Holly Carl Perkins Jerry Lee and all the originals. They invented the form the Beatles perfected. But they all faded. Sadly Elvis also viewed Rock and Roll as a passing fad and really wanted to be a movie Star . The Beatles added melody and harmonies to the original R&B recipe and put them all out of work .
I have wondered about how American rock and roll might have progressed if Buddy Holly hadn’t died at 23, even that kid Richie Valens had a bright future .
The Beatles are their own category.
Quote:
I purposefully left 'Exile on Main' off of my list of Classics.
For a double album, I'm hard pressed to find 4 good songs on all 4 sides. That album was put together to spite Allen Klein and ABKCO.
The Stones were kind of searching for another guitarist until Ronnie Wood joined the band in 1976.
100% agreed
Yeah, Exile on Main doesn't belong with those other great Stones albums, which are all-time classics.
After you hear Tumblin' Dice, Happy, and maybe Sweet Virginia.....the rest of it is filler to satisfy a bad contract they signed with Allen Klein.
But the Stones are/were a better rock band as such.
But the Stones are/were a better rock band as such.
Agreed and I think even the Beatles would agree...
They were a pop band who reached heights never seen before or since...
But in terms of stripped down rock n roll...the Stones had em
Seinfeld said it best. No musical act In recorded history ever reached the popularity of peak that the beatles did right around the time of their last live show, or right before rubber soul. Right about that time as the Beatles peak of popularity was at its very peak, a peak never seen before in history, what did the Beatles do next? They got even better. They went into the studios and embarked on a run of albums that produced the most successful or consistent run of hits ever. At their peak of popularity they got even better.
To me it’s the Beatles. The Stones had an insanely great peak too and their longevity (mick and Keith) has reached laughable proportions but no one had a better peak than John, Paul, George and Ringo. Shit even their solo works are fantastic.
Guy I work with always takes this sort of stance that the Beatles were kiddie rock. Nonsense. They started off that way (hold your hand and whatever else early on ) but rubber soul through let it be saw them evolve immensely into complex and provocative song writing. Even Help was mature or pushing the envelop for its time. Not to detract from the stones of course. They definitely wrote amazing and dark shit in their own right. Two of the very best.
haha - but you're right. The Beatles had higher peaks, perhaps never to be replicated, but the Stones are a longer-running act. The years while and right after the Beatles were breaking up, the Stones put out a string of the best rock albums ever. And they still exist, they get credit for that!
And its not meant to be a knock on the Beatles
Same here ... comparing the Stones to the Beatles though is like comparing Apples to Oranges.
The Beatles were a pop/rock vocal band ... the Stones were a R&B/Blues band who became popish.
If you are comparing the 2 - you are not really a student of the lineage of music. Which is fine but, the 2 bands are so different. Most people think they are same "apple" because they are both from England in the 60's ... they are not.
Comparing the Beatles to the Stones is almost like comparing the Beatles to Black Sabbath (maybe that is a bit of a stretch?) but, the Stones and the Beatles are very far apart style wise.
So true ... the Beatles didn't only influence music/musicians of their generation they also influenced an entire culture of their generation! Music, hair style, fashion, speech, etc .... it goes on forever.
I once read a list made by historians of the top 100 events that influenced American history. I think #1 was Columbus discovering America. Then things like the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth rock, Revolutionary war, etc ... Some where around the 70's position - was the Beatles playing on Ed Sullivan. Their influence cannot be measured or over estimated.
Fun fact. The Stones first top 20 hit was I Want To Be Your Man. Written for them by the Beates.
And its not meant to be a knock on the Beatles
This is me too. Stones are growing on me more and more as I get older.