Stones v. Beatles breakup?

I love the Beatles and don't care for the Stones, but don't think it's really fair to make the comparison in this way. They were two completely different bands, in so many ways. Their wider status among music fans and the general public reflects that. The Beatles story is perfect and complete, and - IMO - largely unblemished. I would've loved another album or two, but we got four solo careers (which I love) and a great collective legacy.

The Stones' story isn't like that at all. But any later disappointing releases ( which are always matter of opinion, in any case) do not tarnish their golden period output, and if I was a Stones fan I'd be thrilled they have continued making music for so long - and performing to such a high standard.

In short, if they had split in 72, they might have a bit more mythical status, but not much. Long after we're all gone, they will still be remembered as one of THE great rock bands. Just not as great as The Beatles.

 

great post,
/thread

 

You may not like it, but on a 45 there was no need for filler as it was 3x the length of most singles.

Very different from the Stones not having enough to fill out an album without a mediocre jam.

 

Neither the Beatles nor the Stones had the run that Zeppelin did album-wise, imo.
But that's a bit apples and oranges given who started what and when.

 

The Stones would have been more revered if they didn't tell King Jones that he's out.

 

I don't think they broke up at the right time. They could have made a few more great albums.......

 

It is always apples and oranges comparing the Beatles and Stones, but as a Beatle fan I always has Stonus envy-that they stuck it out to this day. They remain IMO "the world's greatest band".

John Lennon live was a powder keg. If he overcame his stage fright and toured with Paul circa 76, no one would have touched them Beatles or no Beatles. Where John was raw-he still was a pure rocker live, and Paul was tight on the bass and vocals. With a modern sound it would not have been "Toot n Snore".

George wanted no part of live playing so I can't say for certain what his role if any would have been. He showed in 90 he always could have done it.

Ringo was a drunk in the 70s. It just would not have worked out, without Jim Keltner on the other kit.

Apples and oranges.

 

As Oats suggested, this is crazy talk all around. The second halves of Can't You Hear Me Knockin' and Hey Jude are BOTH great moments in the history of rock and roll.

As for the OP regarding the Beatles and Stones, they're both, to paraphrase Tony the Tiger, "Grrreat!" Agree with Melville that touring boosts the Stones hugely in this exercise. Beatles had an annoying cutesy side too (not to mention the clinical psychosis of I'll Cry Instead, but I digress).

 

George and Ringo were both at peak playing power when the band broke up in 1969!

 

George was playing rhythm guitar with Bonnie and Delaney and Gary Wright and loving every minute of it. Ringo sat in on a lot of stuff but always with another drummer. My point is that I'm not sure how effective they would have been as a live unit...unless they toured immediately after the Get Back sessions.

George was great at Bangladesh...but again...to do all that with the Beatles...not so much that he couldn't but wouldn't.

 

No, i love the Stones but the Beatles were trend setters & innovators, ths Stones mainly followed, the Beatles also kicked down the doors for all others to follow had they not done so the Stones would likely remained a blues covers act. The Beatles position at the top of the pile was secure even if they had also broken up in 72 and thats before we compare discographies excluding the Stones work after Exile or even allowing for the possibility the Beatles would have sullied their legacy with a less than stellar middle age.

 

Really ? the legacy of the Beatles is nearly everything that came after ever since in pop & rock, and the includes the Stones who probably would never have had to take up writing their own songs if the Beatles had not arrived, the Stones are in fact also part of the Beatles legacy.

 

They both continued to play at a high level for the first few years after the break up.
I would submit that had the Beatles kept going, the mid-70s malaise (musicianship-wise and intake-wise) may have likely been avoided.

 

I'm thrilled that the Stones didn't break up in 1972. Only a small handful of Beatles fans actually got the chance to see them live, and that was with crappy '60s sound equipment and scads of screaming teenagers. The Stones have been performing for six decades, well into the era of great sound systems and audiences there to appreciate the music and not wet themselves. There are people alive who have seen the Stones live in all six of those decades. Generations within families have seen them together.

I got into classic rock music in 2002, both the Beatles and the Stones. With the Beatles, it was all history-a complete story that I could only look back on. With the Stones, it was still a living thing. I got to see them live two times with my father (a MASSIVE Stones fan, who has seen them on multiple tours) and share that experience with him. He got to share his favorite band with his daughter. I got to experience the thrill of new release dates for brand new Stones albums A Bigger Bang and Blue and Lonesome-the anticipation, the thrill of opening it for the first time and hearing the music for the first time right alongside millions of other Stones fans from all over the world.

I am a huge Stones fan and only like the Beatles casually and all of this might be a factor in that. It has always felt more personal to me...more alive, because I have been a part of their history in my own tiny way.

(NOTE: No, I do not consider Paul McCartney or any of the other solo Beatles to be "the Beatles." I have seen Paul live twice. It's not the same as seeing "the Beatles.")

 

Only my opinion, of course, but, for my tastes, the Beatles are untouchable. Period. As it happens, I listen to their solo work more frequently than to their 60s work. But altogether, they represent a level of musical genius and musical excellence untouched by anyone else. I would say the same about Dylan. Separate, untouchable spheres: Dylan and the Beatles.

But the Beatles and Bob Dylan were not the only sites of musical genius and musical excellence. And the Stones had some great, great albums, and some great, great singles. They are one of the gems of rock and roll history and if the mid-60s/early-70s are your period, then they will hold a special place. But, their level of excellence is shared by other giants of rock history: Kinks, Velvet Underground/Lou Reed, Neil Young, Led Zeppelin, Van Morrison, Paul Simon, Bruce Springsteen, Talking Heads, Elvis Costello, Prince, REM, U2, Radiohead. Now, some of these bands I like more and some of them I like less (and some of them aren't particularly to my taste), and frankly I like the Stones better than most, but I think they're all in the same ballpark of musical excellence as the Stones. I don't see a 1972 breakup changing that assessment for me: I tend to rate musical acts by their peak period anyway, provided that it lasted more than one miraculous album (plenty of bands rate highly with one great album and a few extra singles, but these are in a lower tier for me than the Stones' tier).

 

I've said this here before. Where George was not necessarily a "shredder", he was an excellent "accompaniment" guitarist, even live as best displayed in the Carl Perkin's special. I think he knew he had certain limitations. Even in the rooftop concert-he was doing more licks and riffs than all out leads. Always tasty though.

 

I'm very happy that the Stones didn't break up. Love the Beatles and have been a fan since 64 but I've been a Stones fan since 65 listen to them all the time. I still listen to Beatles album once in a while.

 

I think the Stones' iconic status is the same as it would have been had they broken up in 1972. I think the reason the Beatles are put on an untouchable pedestal is because they were mythologized from the moment they got big, not necessarily because of their near-perfect discography (though that obviously has a lot to do with it). Many people think Led Zeppelin has a perfect or near-perfect discography, and they ruled the 70's the way the Beatles ruled the 60's, but their legacy does not match that of the Beatles in terms of hype. Some consider Led Zeppelin the ultimate classic rock band, but they are not the same kind of cultural icon the Beatles have become. Another flaw is that even if the post-Exile filler was removed, the Stones still would not have anywhere near a perfect discography. None of their pre-Aftermath albums are cohesive or worth listening to as albums, and all of them can be surpassed by later-career classics such as Some Girls, or Tattoo You.

 

I enjoy Out of Our Heads a lot.

 

Yeah, that one has some good songs, but I don't think it is as enjoyable in its capacity as an album as the later work. It's definitely a lot better than what came before, though.

 

Maybe blues is not your style of music. I love all the Stones albums that came before OOOH! They are great listens from start to finish for me.

You make several comments in this thread that you pass off as fact....when in fact...they are only your opinion.

 

Blues definitely IS (one of) my style(s) of music, and I love a lot of the early Stones blues songs (as well as later ones), I just don't think those are great albums

 

I don't think a hypothetical break-up would have put the Stones at the level of legend the Beatles have. They were always one step (maybe two) behind the fabs (and I LOVE the Stones), so nothing would change that. I don't think taht the fact that they have made a couple of sub-par records have damaged their image and legacy anyway. They are and will be considered a great band, only not the greatest (in my book, they are behind The Kinks too, but I won't try to convince anyone of that )

 

I never cared for the Blues unless it was done by The Rolling Stones. They injected energy and life into a genre that I've always been bored and underwhelmed by. (No offense, guys!)

 

Johnny, my dear old friend, nooooo. We may agree on many things, but this, I'm afraid, is not one of them. I'm sure Keith himself is having a "disturbance in the force" moment right now.