Beatles vs Rolling Stones

[Galactus]

Funny what happens when you say something that's not even really that insulting about the Beatles...just a note I didn't personally call them fluff, I said in twenty years I think more people will see them that way. Less people will see them as gods who trancend space and time, as many of you do. The Beatles were ahead of their time but they aren't anymore. They're standards. They will be Duke Ellington...now The Duke is the man but the times they are a' changin'. Duke will never truly go away as Mozart and Bach have not...I love the Beatles, Ellington, Mozart...and Bach's ok too...to be honest I'm not sure where this going now, so I'll stop.

[phil]

... to be honest I'm not sure where this going now, so I'll stop.


Thanks !

[phil]

just a note I didn't personally call them fluff,
I said in twenty years I think more people
will see them that way.

That is still a judgment call on your part
except you're trying to bolster it behind
some kind of future large consensus
which is yet a second judgment call ... !!

Nice going ...

[Galactus]

I'm not hiding behind anything, that's the way I see it. I don't personally consider them fluff yet I see more and more people who do. How can I not accept that?

[phil]

... yet I see more and more people who do.

Must be the same people who buy Destiny's Child's albums ...

[Galactus]

Yes that's right Phil, it can't possibly be anyone who knows anything about music. Kicking and screaming, phil, there's no other way to go. For the record there is one Destiny's Child CD in my store, it's in the bargin bin for $3 and no one's touched it for six months.

[strat-0]

Well, the two bands are hardly comparable, as has been said. But as far as future generations go, I think the Beatles are one of the few musical entities of our time that will indeed endure for centuries, as a Mozart, what have you. Think of how many artists from all different genres have covered Beatles tunes - I can't think of a more-covered writing team in modern history.

[RocDoc]

I program the first six Beatles discs (on 3 discs since they were all really short) on a 5 disc CD player, along with 2 Lithuanian language soundtracks from a long-running TV kids' show in Lithuania...and I nearly always put it on 'Random All'...the Beatles universal sound('Fluff'? Only to a musical illiterate...and yes there are WAY too many in this world, so that sort of dumb opinion could become a majority, yeah) sometimes gets in some weird juxtapositions ('Run For Your Life' for one...'Nowhere Man') with these generally very happy, positive and surprisingly professionally executed kids' songs which'll hopefully still keep up our boy's curiosity for his nationality's language till his Gramma returns to us from her home in Lithuania...near round Christmas-time we hope.

The Beatles' songs are simply stuffed with hooks which filled MY young life with a pure love for music, one which I'm somehow confident will resonate a musicality in his soul. Still, try listening to a consistent diet of Beatles' tunes with a one year old and see how they're often not at all bouncy and bright the way someone characterized them here.

This place needs that boxin' Boston Irishman and that hip rocking Mama from PA and the Indiana ski lift operator...

[Kensterberg]

Dark Beatles:

For No One -- sadder than anything the Stones ever cut, right up there with If You See Her Say Hello as the saddest of sad songs.
Yer Blues
Helter Skelter
Come Together
I Want You (She's So Heavy) -- as intense and, well, "heavy" as anything the Stones ever did (including Gimme Shelter)
Getting Better -- ("I used to be mean to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved" -- this is a confession of all the horrible things this guy has done, and all he can say in his own defense is "I know it's me but I'm changing my scene and I'm doing the best that I can" hardly a happy little ditty)
A Day in the Life
I Am the Walrus
Julia
Piggies -- a darkly cynical take on society.
Money -- "give me money, I wanta be free!" Lennon's vocals on this set a high water mark for pure rock and roll desperation
She Said, She Said
Tomorrow Never Knows -- with lyrics cribbed from the Tibetan book of the dead!
Nowhere Man -- shiny harmonies and gorgeous melody be damned, this is a bleak lyric. Just listen to Paul Westerberg's take on this if you need proof.
Paperback Writer -- the poor bloke is so desperate for money he's willing to practically give away his work, "because I need a break and I want to be a paperback writer."
Taxman -- another deeply cynical take on life from George.
Elenor Rigby
Strawberry Fields Forever
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
You Never Give Me Your Money -- can you imagine a more disfunctional relationship?
The Ballad of John and Yoko -- a truer and more personal blues than the Stones have ever put out.

Simply put, the Beatles could do everything the Stones did, plus a whole lot more. In fact, that can be said when comparing the Fab Four to almost any other band in rock ...

And I must confess that, in the last year at any rate, I've listened to considerably more cuts from the Who than either the Beatles or the Stones. Every time I do a mix, there's at least one Who song, and often another from Townshend's solo catalog. The Beatles and Stones just don't show up as often. Which probably just says that I identify more with Pete's songwriting than any of his peers, rather than being a significant indicater of artistic merit.

[RocDoc]

The druggy trippy (yet still somehow vibrant) psychedelia of the Beatles on Abbey Road or on the White Album (or the aforementioned 'Tomorrow Never Knows') was also far more descriptive, enveloping and involving (and inviting, for the most part) than any number of Luded-out drug references which the Stones mustered...

The Stones did their drugs in an alley, then passed out. The Beatles did them in a nicely done up penthouse and then drank in and savored the experience...

[Kensterberg]

Very well said, RocDoc.

And the Stones just got less and less literate as their career progressed. Jagger's lyrics hit a peak in the mid-late sixties, and then became steadily less relevant. By the time they got to stuff like Shattered, the words didn't even matter any more ... it was just a vocal accompaniment for the band. I don't think Jagger has had anything really to say since It's Only Rock and Roll (but I like it). And if you're gonna forgive the Stones their lyric missteps, then you've got to be forgiving of Macca's commission of the same sin.

[Rit]

Looks like DED and me are the only 2 that voted for the Stones.

[Rit]

disastrous.

To me, it’s obvious that the Stones are remarkable – they contributed the most to and gave powerful association to a particular kind of Rock, defined by buzzing guitars and mobile chugging rhythm sections, all usefully wrapped in authoritative credentials (for a burgeoning rock undergound), credentials that were wound up tightly against an invigorating fabric of blues and Motown punchiness. This applies to the time when they still played cover tunes and also to their initial forays into pop songcraft. Later on, they added country music and a wider and deeper rock palatte to the mix, somewhat diluting the overall initial image of authoritativeness, but that was not really noticeable until the early Seventies anyway.

I just can't believe the Stones aren't getting anymore props from you guys. Most of you are older than me, you ought to know better

The Beatles had conservative notions of songcraft, fine and dandy. When the Stones began to write their own material, it is true that Jagger and Keith displayed a (sometimes) clumsy and artificial grasp of pop structures, but that didn’t seem to matter much. Within the space of only a few misjudges, the Stones had a raucous and indestructible muscular approach to their music, matched with a surprising effeminacy (a British trait, perhaps? or products of a band of Londoners’ insecurity more accurately?), products of their own peculiar influences and tastes, rather than any kind of general trend. In fact, it did become a general trend later on, but the Stones were there first.

The Stones were real. (We're talking the Sixties here, not the Seventies and onwards, when they were only rock star parodies of their former selves). They were themselves, they played and behaved as a bunch of young hooligans. They were impassioned (about the blues -- there was NO SANE REASON TO PLAY blues rock in 1962-3, it was an act of love on their part. Only by 1964-5, did it slowly dawn on marketers that there was a potential in blues rock as a teen medium.)

The voicing of Rock music became defined on those mid-60s singles of theirs. To paraphrase an idea from the critic Harold Bloom, the Stones were not only fulfilling an unsuspected large niche in rock music at this point, they were the very largeness and extent of rock as popular art itself. There's deep fucking art in the Stones, especially on albums like The Rolling Stones, Now or Beggars Banquet or "Jumping Jack Flash". Only an unimaginative sort would rest on the obvious markers of the Beatles "artistry" and proclaim that that's was all there was. The Stones have deep finesse in their handling of rock, channelling the rawest aspects of it (they were the earliest to do so, remember) into a popular platform. This, i contend, is real mastery, and real art.

Moreover, the Beatles must’ve felt they were being clever, subverting the basic R&B sound to their own pop stylings in the early years; by comparison, the Stones would’ve seemed their less sophisticated counterparts, but this is a snobbish conclusion to make. The Stones made a style out of their obsessions, strongly aware of sex and lust as elemental facts of youth culture. This has proven to be the lasting "revolution" in popular culture, and the Stones were there along with the rest of the (select) few who realized this. And they did this as part of the overflow of their own personalities....

ahh, i give up. i'm still in shock that only two people voted for the Stones

[Rit]

Beggars Banquet (1968) – the Stones finally decide that if music is to be done right, it will demand a razor’s edge of intensity and commitment and poetic feeling. They prove the validity of the motto the “Greatest Rock and Roll Band” once and for all by being the only ones self-assured enough to take that step. And what a scene! They effortlessly courted danger and rife decadence during those times, all the while proving themselves masters of the form of Rock music. The Stones leapt neatly and precisely into myth and self-absorption with the ease and majesty of young roaring lions first stepping onto their thronelands. -- (An understated masterwork filled with quiet gusto and ragged grace).

Let It Bleed (1969) – Little enough needs to be said about this, the Stones’ masterpiece by default, a status roughly contested for by at least 4 other Stones albums; nevertheless, Let It Bleed rollicks along, artfully refined and tuneful, with songs clothed in crystal-clear and subtle execution, rooted in all of the Stones’ core elements: delta blues, country pastiche and chugging Chuck Berry rock and roll. The days of Revolver trumping Aftermath or a Sgt. Pepper beating out Satanic Majesties were behind them for good. This was the one that outclassed them all. Perhaps in some ways, it goes beyond the Stones as well. -- (An elegant, spare, cool and chic album).

Sticky Fingers (1971) – A great album, which admittedly contains moments where that fine line of Stones bravado and deep love for the music starts to skirt a certain type of display and laziness. Songs on here are amongst the most melodic and crafted they ever did; but by the same token, songs on here are also some of the most flatly unsubtle of their classic decade of music making. The gritty mystique of Let It Bleed has already nearly completely vanished and in its place lies artifice that plays at being even grittier. This album, more than anything else from the classic decade of the Stones, defined the direction they would take in their declining years. -- (A fiery, headstrong tour de force, if a little flashy at times).

Exile On Main Street (1972) – the Stones try to sound like they don’t give a damn on this one, perhaps a wilful withdrawal from the threats of career obsession evinced by Jagger on Sticky Fingers, if only for a little while. This album really comes down to the rest of the Stones; the deep blues feeling that has always threatened to reveal itself from the band in full glory one day is here, alongside heartfelt gospel and Chuck Berry influences, and the rhythm section is tremendous. There is a certain dethroned elegance to Exile, but certain glib lyrical and musical touches give the game away; while Exile is a fine album ultimately, there would never be another Let It Bleed from this band, nor even something as joyful as an Out Of Our Heads. Mick and Keith were already moving apart, Keith into a years-long downward spiral of drug abuse and Mick removed further from ordinary experience. It was all downhill for them from here on in. -- (Ultimately, it is a brash, turbulent, and deeply unsettled work, another of the Stones’ impressive opuses).

[Kensterberg]

ritalinpants said:

disastrous.

The Beatles had conservative notions of songcraft, fine and dandy. When the Stones began to write their own material, it is true that Jagger and Keith displayed a (sometimes) clumsy and artificial grasp of pop structures, but that didn’t seem to matter much. Within the space of only a few misjudges, the Stones had a raucous and indestructible muscular approach to their music, matched with a surprising effeminacy (a British trait, perhaps? or products of a band of Londoners’ insecurity more accurately?), products of their own peculiar influences and tastes, rather than any kind of general trend. In fact, it did become a general trend later on, but the Stones were there first.

Actually, the Beatles were the ones who subverted conventional ideas of song structure, tonality, and instrumentation. All the early Stones tunes slavishly followed blues conventions (and in the early sixties, the blues were a viable musical form with much more "mainstream" appeal than traditional rock and roll: of all the British Invasion bands, the Beatles were the only ones who were completely committed to ROCK as opposed to having blues (or another, more respectable) form to fall back on). The Beatles, on the other hand, were pushing songwriting conventions by (at least) 1965. "Yesterday" may sound like a sweet Macca song today, but look at its structure: THERE'S NO CHORUS! It's just a couple of verses, and one hell of a melody. That just wasn't done by big rock (or blues) bands of that time. Similarly, "Dr. Robert" is verses and bridge ("well, well, well, you're feeling fine ..."), with (once again) no chorus. It was the Beatles who pushed the limits of viable rock instrumentation, and the Stones followed. Even the "back to basics" notion which is often associated with the Stones was following the lead of the Fabs. The Stones had been playing around in psychedelia in '67 and early '68, and then the Beatles released "Lady Madonna" on single. Right after that, the Stones cut "Jumping Jack Flash" and then went on to record their two finest albums. Stones fans like to point to Exile on Main Street as this sprawling two LP set, but of course it was the Beatles who made their sprawling two LP release first, some four years earlier! (And it is worth noting here that both were following Dylan's groundbreaking Blonde on Blonde, the first rock and roll double album, and that Pete Townshend's Tommy was under way well in advance of either the white album or Exile, and that Pete's ambitions topped those of all his peers).

The Stones were real. (We're talking the Sixties here, not the Seventies and onwards, when they were only rock star parodies of their former selves). They were themselves, they played and behaved as a bunch of young hooligans. They were impassioned (about the blues -- there was NO SANE REASON TO PLAY blues rock in 1962-3, it was an act of love on their part. Only by 1964-5, did it slowly dawn on marketers that there was a potential in blues rock as a teen medium.)

Again, the blues were hugely popular, particularly in Britain, in the early sixties. Blues bands were a dime a dozen in Britain in '62 (witness the Animals, John Mayall's Bluesbreakers, etc.). It was seen as much more acceptable than rock and roll at that point. And I may be alone in thinking this, but to my ears those early Stones blues sides are awfull approximations of the real thing. Give me any of the authentic U.S. bluesmen over this simulation.

Moreover, the Beatles must’ve felt they were being clever, subverting the basic R&B sound to their own pop stylings in the early years; by comparison, the Stones would’ve seemed their less sophisticated counterparts, but this is a snobbish conclusion to make. The Stones made a style out of their obsessions, strongly aware of sex and lust as elemental facts of youth culture. This has proven to be the lasting "revolution" in popular culture, and the Stones were there along with the rest of the (select) few who realized this. And they did this as part of the overflow of their own personalities....

Sure, the Stones knew that sex sells ... but so did Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, David Bowie ... AND SO DID ELVIS, LITTLE RICHARD, AND JERRY LEE LEWIS! Just as the mists of time have made the Stones blues roots look much riskier than it was, so too does it seem that the Stones "invented" the idea that sex and lust were inherent parts of teen culture. This wasn't anything new, it was just a further expression of the very phenomenon that had given birth to rock in the fifties: horny teenagers looking for release, both physical and emotional.

I'll happily give the Stones their status as one of the most influential bands of the last forty years, no problem. But, IMHO they were hardly artistic peers to such truly innovative (and artistically more succesful) bands as the Beatles, the Who, the Clash, Bowie, and others too numerous to name.

Hope all that made some kind of sense ...