I heard this song by Delaney Bramlett (Delaney & Bonnie and Friends) the other day, and while the song isn't about asking the listener's musical preferences it does bring up the age old question - are you a Beatle or a Rolling Stone? Delaney's lyrics in this 1972 song are about an Atlanta groupie trying to get a piece of action, insinuating Delaney must either be a member of one band or the other since he "looks familiar." Anyhow, it sparked the question in my head that most of you all have wrestled with at one time or another, whether the Beatles or Stones are the better band.
The Beatles came first - no doubt. They also left first, leaving the Stones to carry on until the present day. The Beatles were the Beatles though, no revolving door of members (we're not counting Pete Best or Stuart Sutcliffe) although each Beatle individually had success as a solo artist. The Beatles were a skiffle group in the beginning, admired American rock n' roll, and made it safe for British acts to show that admiration while in the States. The Beatles became more of a studio-based act later in their career though, eschewing touring for production quality & innovation. Many would say that the Beatles were the most influential rock band in history, and are the benchmark for quality in music that all bands strive to achieve even to this day.
The Rolling Stones broke out of the pack of Beatles followers to the States very early on, mainly when Keith Richards & Mick Jagger began to write their own music instead of covering others. The Stones were an unabashed blues band however, with a harder edge and gruffer exterior. Some called them "The Workingman's Beatles" due to this hard-living persona they portrayed (& lived). Innovatively, however, the Stones always seemed to be a step behind The Beatles in the studio as the embarrasing "Their Satanic Majesties Request" proved. Given this lame attempt to answer "Sgt. Pepper's..." it commenced the rise of the Stones to the pinnacle of their career as they began to produce their own work and tour like no other band. The Stones as a live act pretty much has had no peer since the early 70's, and they are still touring to this day building on this legacy.
There now - that's my take. I could go on & on but you get my drift. I'm a fan of both bands, but for different reasons. As eccelectic as I am in my musical tastes, it pretty much depends on how I'm feeling that day - if I'm happy-go-lucky I'm a Beatle; if I'm struggling & down I go for the Stones. What I want to hear is your take: Are you a Beatle or a Rolling Stone...and why? Submit you comments below while you're checking out our new poll, and generally getting lost in The Black Hole....
I've always been a Beatle guy hands down. I like The Stones but they've stayed basically the same musically since day one. Compare any song from 1964 with something from today and there's not much of a stretch. Great Rock and Blues band though. The Beatles, on the other hand, grew dramatically over their short career. From "She Loves You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" to "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Helter Skelter" in a span of 4-years? Unbelievable in retrospect. In addition, The Beatles were groundbreaking in so many areas I can't even begin to mention them. The Beatles were far ahead of The Stones in areas such as recording techniques and quality, lyrics, originality, I could go on forever. Also, the whole idea of The Stones being a tougher, harder edged bunch of guys is a bit of a myth. John Lennon and crew mixed with some of the roughest crowd in Liverpool and Hamburg, Germany as they rose to fame. Bassist Stu Sutcliffe's death by anuryism is widely believed to have been brought on by a head injury he received during a back alley brawl outside The Cavern after a Beatles gig. Besides, tough guys can sing love songs too, right? The Stones image is basically a reflection of their music.
ReplyDeleteI need to stop now. I could go on for weeks.
valid argument for the Beatles...there's no wrong opinions on this one. Keep 'em coming!
ReplyDeleteThe answer to the question (in my eyes) is in the question itself! The fact that one group has been around for some 40 years and the other was only around for some 7 or 8, but yet the mark that will be left by the Rolling Stones is still not on par with the Beatles. I am not the Beatle fanatic that most are, (following motown most of my younger years), but there is no question the influence of the Beatles in Rock music is unmatched by any other band.
ReplyDeletei'm a beatle.. that band has given so much to the world of music, and i couldn't agree more about the stones sounding the same over the years!! my favorite stones songs are the ones that don't sound like the stones.. namely "miss you" which i think is their best tune..
ReplyDeleteez
Hmmm. I always thought I was a Beatle until I read your post. I get the innovation and influence of the Fab, but I really like the way Keith Richards talks. Maybe the bluesy, honky tonk, sound just has a more rock and roll feel to it. Somehow, I almost think the short-lived career of the Beatles adds to their immortality (which, in turn, detracts from the Stones). "It's better to burn out, then to fade away" right? Well, look at Mick and Co. - those dudes are fading - fast! Still not sure - both bands too British for my official endorsement.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHey Supervesey,
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should try to play a few Beatles songs. They would have to get a better response than the cricket sounds we hear after playing a Stones song. I agree with EZ,"Miss You" is one of my favorites also.
I have to say I love both bands. The Beatles were the masters of the studio. The Stones are the masters of the stage.. And i think this has a lot to do with the stones sounding the same over the years.. Can you imagine the Beatles taking what they did in there later years on the road?
ReplyDeleteThere were 7 Beatles albums that never went on the road, they toured behind revolver but played no songs from the album. So one should keep this in mind when talking about the 2 bands. Most bands have to keep this in mind when going into the studio. Can you pull it off live. And that is a big reason the stones have had a similar sound all these years. You can pull it off live.
And as for the stones fading away. I don't think that is true either. Bigger Bang is one of there best albums in years. Check it out .
I consider the Beatles to be a great Pop group. However, The Rolling Stones are the Greatest Rock n’ Roll Band EVER! The Stones have the most top 40 hits- the most successful tour (A Bigger Bang made $550,000,000) and the most consecutive # 1 albums. The Beatles sold tons of records too, but the Stones music is still current. On the contrary, The Beatles music is somewhat dated. Try playing Yesterday at a Teenage party today-you might get bored faces from the crowd. Play BROWN SUGAR and you get the crowd jumpin'!
ReplyDeleteThe Stones will always be better than a overrated band like the Beatles - its kiddies music i mean "yellow submarine and piggies" only decent thing from the beatles was John Lennon who in fact said > "paint it black" -"the greatest song of the 20th century." sorry i think 47 yrs is alot better than 10yrs also better albums and better music from the Rolling Stones.
ReplyDelete