Beatles or Stones?

[skuthorp]

I used to wonder the reaction of younger staff and management of retirement homes when the resident's preferred music was rock and blues.

[Bobcat]

View of a younger generation: In December 1980, I saw some kids--preteens-- looking at the headlines about John Lennon's murder. "Who are the Beatles?" one asked. "That's Paul McCartney's band before Wings," said other kid.

[David G]

The Stones can play as long as they are able to play. No problem with that. People will pay big money to see them. Certain musicians are playing in their 90's I will see Buddy Guy, 86, next time he comes to town. Lionel Hampton was on stage when he was over 90.

But we should realize that this debate interests no one who is not eligible for the senior's discount at Denny's.

Nope. Not entirely. It spiked some lively discussion with my 30+ son.

[Ted Hoppe]

the Beatles made fun movies. The Stones never really did.

Lester really captured their spirit, joy of youth, of innocence.

[Chip-skiff]

At home, I'd sooner listen to The Beatles.

But for a live concert, I'd go with the Stones.

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

The Stones don't get enough respect.

[skuthorp]

Different music, different base influences. Mick and the boys made black blues respectable in parts of the US that wouldn't play the original artists.

[John Meachen]

I'm on the same page as Norman and incidentally,how many are aware that the producer of Uffa Fox's album of sea shanties was listed as George Martin?As for the Beatles and Stones,I think they both fizzled out at the same time with the difference being that the corpse of the Stones keeps twitching.

[RFNK]

I think that there is the Stones, and the Mick Taylor era Stones: Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed, and Exile on Main Street.

Those are the only albums that I have owned, whereas at one point or another I have owned every Beatles album.

Exactly. Stones haven't produced a decent song since Mick Taylor left. Even then, Stones never produced a really classic album. They always had two or so good songs and a whole lot of fill. Beatles typically produced collections of inventive, diverse and arguably great material. I can't think of any other band that consistently achieved that. Plenty of bands and artists have produced one or even two great albums but I don't think any other band produced so many albums with such a high proportion of notable tracks.

[RFNK]

I saw the Stones play again not long ago. Before the concert, I was wishing our seats were closer to the stage but, once there, I was happy to be well back as it would be off-putting rocking to the beat of rattling bones and creaking joints.

[Jimmy W]

Different music, different base influences. Mick and the boys made black blues respectable in parts of the US that wouldn't play the original artists.

Elvis did the same before the Stones.

[ShorelineJohn]

Yoko Ono!
Never should have been on stage.

[ShorelineJohn]

[The Q]

I hate the stones not particularly for their records...

But because the kid next door played then over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.... And he didn't have many of their records..

[wizbang 13]

Meh ….
never spent a nickel on either

[Rigadog]

I saw McCartney play in Oakland California years ago, about the time he released "Off The Ground", It was a phenomenal concert, played a mix of his solo stuff and Beatles, he totally put his heart in it. It was quite magical, just a very positive, uplifting experience. I saw the Stones around the same time, also in Oakland, and the vibe wasn't great, the crowd was edgy, shoving and pushing and the music was okay but sort of like they were going through the motions. When I was a kid, the Stones were my favorite but as I got older the Beatles took their place, their music is just way more interesting. That being said I still like a lot of the Stones, especially the early stuff through "Exile on Main Street".

[Garret]

Need an "All the above" choice. Then add at least 100 more bands - as I can't limit myself to just 2.

Surprised no one mentioned Traffic. Yes - later than the Stones & Beatles, but amazing music.

On a tangent: I remember an argument on the school bus as to whether "I wanna hold you hand" was better than "Glad all over" (Dave Clark 5). I argued the "Glad" case, as I liked the sax, but over time, it became clear that the Beatles were far better.

[gypsie]

Definitely, without question or hesitation - The Stone Roses.
the frikkin best frikkin ever. Amen.

[Rich Jones]

The Stones are not worthy to lace up the sandals on the Beatles feet.
That is all.

[CWSmith]

#51 is just awful.

[Breakaway]

#51 is just awful.

Here she is solo at MOMA.




I will note that Yoko is not a Beatle. She just mated with one.

Kevin

[icyb]

With a heavy Liverpool accent "The Beatles "

[ron ll]

A friend plays bass with the “War on Drugs”. They were opening for the Stones and before the concert he said he watched a guy in an orange vest and hard hat going around the stage carefully checking all the scaffolding and rigging. Turned out it was Mick.

[Rigadog]

Yes Traffic was a wonderful band. Love the song "Shanghai Noodle Factory"

[Yeadon]

Alaskan Yellow Cedar or Eastern White Cedar?

Port Orford

[Jack Loudon]

I think of the Beatles as catchy & clever but the Stones as more of a whole-body experience.
But after 50 years, it's Pink Floyd and David Bowie who still do it for me.

[Puttputt]

If you’d asked me 40 years ago it would have been the stones hands down. Then I started getting interested in jazz and composition. A lot of Beatle tunes (especially McCartney’s) open themselves to improvisation.

[RFNK]

Definitely, without question or hesitation - The Stone Roses.
the frikkin best frikkin ever. Amen.

Okay ..., never heard of them! Please recommend two songs that might convince us/me.

[Dinghy Pipedreams]

Beatles for me (although I like a lot of Stones stuff too).
The Beatles were much more innovative and pioneering in popular music.

They were the lst band to write all (or mostly) original songs at a time when that wasn't done (or allowed).

Had successful singles longer than the radio formatted 3min. 30 sec. max. (Hey Jude for one).

Introduced eastern instrumentation into American pop music (Sitars, Tabla, etc.)

McCartney's bass playing was super melodic was recorded very "up front" in the mixes (after touring) and he is still considered one of the G.O.A.T.s in that style (along with Jack Bruce, Chris Squire and later, Geddy Lee of Rush.

Retired from touring as a screaming girls pop act to create albums that were concepts and utilized innovative techniques like backwards guitar and vocal part and used the studio as an instrument in and of itself.
Sgt. Pepper was influenced by The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" strongly.

George Martin was a huge influence on me and it led me to dong some recording production work and sessions as a musician as an adult, later.
Even though he contributed ideas most of the experiments were brought up by the band members. "could we make it sound like this"? "What if we did this..."?

If you dig around on the net there are very long lists of innovations the Beatles introduced to the pop audience/record buyers.

Lennon & McCartney songs are considered to be as much of a "Great American Songbook" as those of Irving Berlin, Rogers and Hammerstein, Hank Williams, etc. etc.

I love the Stones too (but not as much). I think there is a generally positive/uplifting aspect to Beatles music and a grittier, darker edge to a lot of Stones stuff and I think that influences listeners to favor one over the other in a general sense.

I agree that Beatles songs have more "room" to improvise as some of their chord progressions were sometimes a bit more expansive than the Stones' on the majority of the songs.

As seen in the recent Peter Jackson "Get Back" doc. I liked the Beatles' collaborative arranging/writing process.

The Stones sure had fantastic background singers though! If anyone here hasn't seen the documentaries "Standing in the Shadow of Motown" and "Twenty Feet from Stardom" (about the "chick" background singers, they're great!

[RFNK]

Just thinking about which two Beatles song and which two Stones songs have really stuck with me. Beatles would be A Day in the Life and While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Stones would be Time Waits for No One and Beast of Burden.

[Garret]

Okay ..., never heard of them! Please recommend two songs that might convince us/me.

Lead singer was Axl Jagger.

[Rigadog]

Loved watching how they put songs together in "Get Back"

[brad9798]

IMPOSSIBLE question!

No comparison!

LOVE them both!

[Hugh MacD]

Which was you favorite?


Or fill in the blank _________________

James Gang

[RFNK]

Lead singer was Axl Jagger.

Of course