- Stones vs The Beatles
It only dawned on me, very recently, that it was the Beat-les. Not the Beetles. Suddenly, one day, it became clear. I’d never ever noticed it.
More surprisingly, feeling like a bit of a berk, I told my little friend, later on in the pub, and she said she’d never noticed, either….
Clever.Posted 9 years agosurferMember
Coming from Liverpool I always wondered what the fuss was about and they seemed a bit bland when I was younger. Partly I am sure because I didnt want to part of the herd!
Now I am older I listen to their music and think they were truly innovative. They are still not my favourite band (listen more to Jazz) but I see now how great they where. Except for Ringo of course whose a to**er.
To hear one of the groups on X factor compared to them is comical given they couldnt sing, play an instrument or write a song!Posted 9 years agochakapingSubscriber
Not mad about either, weird because I was/am a music obsessive – just never got round to listening to them much.
Lennon and Macca were undoubtedly great songwriters, but I find almost all their music completely emotionally unengaging.
My opinion of the Stones has been raised significantly after listening to Exile On Main Street a bit lately though, they’ve stood the test of time a lot better than much of The Beatles output.Posted 9 years agoStumpyRiderMember
I’ve been through phases of obsession for both bands and I really don’t think you can compare them like for like. The Beatles will always be viewed through slightly rose-tinted glasses (probably rightly on the whole) as innovators and a symbol of the ’60s, (the latter primarily because they split in 1970!). The role of producer George Martin can’t be underestimated either. Beatles albums were more than just the sound of 4 blokes in a band.
Anyone not convinced of their worth tho’ should read the late Ian MacDonald’s excellent Revolution in the Head. Then it’ll all make sense! 🙂
I think the fact that the Stones still continue to record and tour doesn’t help the debate. Their output probably post-Goats Head Soup (1973) is patchy at best but can you really compare Exile on Main Street to, say, Abbey Road? Almost certainly not.
The simple truth, IMO, is that both were truly great rock and roll bands who really only shared (briefly) a place in time.Posted 9 years ago
Trouble is, the Beatles sound so mainstream, because most of what you hear today was pioneered by them. Feedback, sampling, orchestras, double tracking, all first made appearances on Beatles tracks. It’s like that Orsen Wells film, Citizen Kane, it looks dated, only because everything in it was adopted by directors all over the world. Not to say the Stones weren’t a good group, but Richards/Jagger was never a match for Lennon/McCartney.
Plus, of course The Beatles never had to borrow songs from the Stones… 😉Posted 9 years agoandymMember
Beatles, without a doubt. Stones are a glorified Blues band, couldn’t, and haven’t written an original thing in their lives. Beatles were genuinely innovative
Jaw hits floor. What did the Beatles do that was innovative? They also started out doing covers of Motown and Stax songs. Lennon and McCartney wrote good pop songs that’s as much as you can say.Posted 9 years agoBillMCMember
I’ve always loved the Stones despite their obvious inconsistencies and was lucky enough to see them in Hyde Park in ’69 but their creativity waned after Exile. I’ve never tired of the Beatles, homorous, quirky and creative but the Stones did do a superior version of I Wanna Be Your Man. The best Stones album was Beggar’s Banquet and much of that is acoustic, a million miles from their standard stuff.Posted 9 years ago
What did the Beatles do that was innovative?
You are having a laugh? Go away, do some listening, and reading, and come back when you actually know what you’re talking about.
Stones did do a superior version of I Wanna Be Your Man
Which was written by?…
Joe Cocker did a superior version of With a little help from my Friends, Jimi did a superior version of All along the Watchtower…what’s your point? There are really really great Stones songs, but that’s it; some great songs. The body of work left by the Beatles (in a fraction of the time spent together) just blows it away.Posted 9 years agoPookSubscriber
What did the Beatles do that was innovative? They also started out doing covers of Motown and Stax songs. Lennon and McCartney wrote good pop songs that’s as much as you can say.
Hi, I’m AndyM. I’ve listened to all the Beatles records. Yes all of them…
1962-1966 AND 1967-1970. So there.
Tomorrow Never Knows anyone? Day in the Life?Posted 9 years agopantsonfireMember
Coming from Liverpool I have had the Beatles rammed down my throat for as long as I can remember. I lived in Canada for 3 years and whenever anyone found out I came from Liverpool they would start going on about the Beatles. I met a girl in Vancouver and the first time I went to her house she put sgt sodding pepper on and couldnt work out why I was trying to eat my own ears.
I quite like the Stones but dont listen to them much, my favourite 60s British band is the Spencer Davis Group.Posted 9 years ago
The topic ‘Stones vs The Beatles’ is closed to new replies.