Stones v. Beatles breakup?

Well, I'm a fan - short for fanatic music is my religion.

 

Interesting. I honestly know very little of the in's and out's of the British language, to be honest - I mean the various dialects. A very very very rough understanding at best. I would put Brian being sidelined at 1968 rather than 1965 though. If you mean as unquestioned leader of the band it is 1965, but if you mean in terms of fully functioning member on equal footing, that ends in the second half of 1968 - Sometime after June.

 

Given the current environment where people sue over lesser transgressions, I'm not so certain about them not being incensed.

 

The Stones are Number 1 in my world ahead of the Beatles. It’s always been my preference in all honesty.

 

Possibly, because they were touring, but John Lennon was just not happy period for a significant portion of his life, including 68-69. It had less to do with what band he was in and more to do with being personally dissatisfied and unfulfilled.

Yes, the Beatles made it look easy for sure.

What ‘superficial cool kids’? Superficial cool kids today don’t listen to the Beatles or the Stones. They listen to whatever is top 40. They wear Dark Side Of The Moon shirts but have never heard the album. What’s worse, they’ve never heard Wish You Were Here. Seriously.

 

Didn't the Stones break up in the mid-80s? I thought comparing that break up to the Beatles in 1970 was the topic ha.

The Beatles were so young when they split. George was 26 at his last Beatles sessions. They were at the height of their collective fame and cultural power when they split, and the break up propelled them in good ways and bad into their own solo efforts at a time when they were still young, exploring and hungry to prove themselves.

To me, the Stones break up in the 80s was far after they were at the height of popularity and rock & roll status. Still up there and revered, but not so much among younger audiences by the 80s. They were in their mid 40s by then and not close to the forefront of music evolution. Dinosaurs. So it carried less weight and had less impact on the culture and their solo projects. Being older they were also more likely to be circumspect and a little more mature about parting ways, to a degree.

The Beatles were young when they split, and probably had some less-mature sniping and comments about each other publicly then they would have if they'd been older breaking up.

 

Exile and Sticky Fingers are really good albums, but they are only great albums and important albums if you never listen to the real American blues and soul records by the artists the Stones, wealthy London kids, were copying. Spend time with the originals, and it puts the Stones' achievements in perspective. They were a great band (with a decent, albeit energetic, vocalist), but they weren't innovative or original. And that's OK! They're just on a different wavelength from the Beatles who, yes had many inspirations, but what they did with that crazy mix of inspirations and how they progressed and what they wrote really changed things for everyone, Stones included.

 

The Stones didn't break up in the eighties, Ian Stewart died and they worked more on solo albums. However, they still released Undercover and Dirty Work in the eighties and never officially broke up.

 

Gotcha. I thought maybe Jagger and Richards had a war of words in the press and said they didn't want to play with each other any more or something along those lines, but maybe that was blown out of proportion.

 

Keith wasn't happy when Mick Jagger signed a solo record deal. They also did not tour to promote Undercover and Dirty Work.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, so give me the synopsis: surely you guys have solved this debate unequivocally and for all time, right?

 

I had brought this up earlier. What I was trying to say there -- was that it felt like they had broken up (or were heading that way), even though they never officially did so.

I'm not sure what others here were/are thinking, but I think the first time I thought that maybe they would break up was at the time of the Live Aid concert July 13, 1985, when Jagger and Richards didn't play together, but did appear with other artists. Then Dirty Work appeared a year later, but it had songs like "Had It With You". So I guess that's when I began thinking that again, and that really continued until Steel Wheels and "Mixed Emotions".

My take on this is that, unlike Lennon and McCartney in 1969, Jagger and Richards ultimately realized that they could do better together than separately (although I am struggling to decide what I mean by "better" -- were they thinking commercially or artistically?).

 

I think John and Paul's decision (and George's) to split was purely on artistic grounds rather than commercial. They all felt they had a muse they wanted to chase individually and things they wanted to make and say as individuals that would be better, stronger what have you than maybe having to compromise or change or wait on a collective vision with the Beatles.

The Beatles were so successful commercially I don't think any of the songwriters in that band genuinely worried about what their sales might be as solo acts in 1970/71 and none of them were naive enough to think their sales would top the Beatles as a unit though, but they didn't care. It was an artistic move to split.

 

IMO the Stones should have called it a day looong ago. I think the music they've put out for at least 30 years has hurt their legacy

 

Jagger was also working on solo material at the same time the Stones were working on the Dirty Work lp. Much to Keith's dismay, Jagger wanted to tour as a solo artist instead of promoting Dirty Work.

 

There is no comparing the two - in terms of popularity and just flat knowledge. The Beatles, hands down. The fact the Stones are still around and have yet to have a record to stand by without question they are in fact the #1 band, says it all. IMHO and all that jazz.

Was there a Stoneamania I'm not aware of?

 

And he (Jagger) had a solo album out in 1985 ("She's the Boss"). I presume you mean the 1987 solo album "Primitive Cool"? Or do you mean "She's the Boss"?

John Fell - I added to the post you quoted to share what I was thinking in 1985-1986.

 

I do not understand what you mean by The Beatles being way ahead of the Stones in terms of "flat knowledge". It would appear they both knew how to make records and perform shows so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Also I grew up in a Beatles household but they never led me to music I wasn't already familiar with. They covered Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Motown etc. But the Stones led me to Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Jimmy Reed, Slim Harpo and others. As far as the Stones not having a record to show they were the best, read around on this forum a bit more - generally Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main St. are considered classic rock n roll records. And no there was no Stones mania but having mania surrounding you doesn't really make you a better musician in my view.

 

85-86 is a weird period. You have what you mentioned with Live Aid, then you have the Stones reconvening to receive a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award the next year, as well as doing at least two big photoshoots (one for Dirty Work, the other earlier in the year) plus video shoots and interviews about the band. They were just on hiatus except barbs were thrown in the press.

I have a feeling that Jagger's second solo album in 1987, and Keith's the same year, not doing as well as expected commercially is what led to the group meeting in 1988 to discuss tour plans for the next year.

This interview from Live Aid with Mick, where he leaves right after curtly answering a Stones question, is icy, though:

The question is at 3:04.

 

Also what's interesting is how rapidly the Keith-Mick relationship fell apart. It seems to have been during the 82 tour? Or perhaps during the sessions in 83 for Undercover? I'm watching a January 1980 interview with the duo (Mick has a beard here) and they seem on fine terms - same as they'd always been.

 

no of course that we be like me presuming to know the ins and outs of New York accents and yes i did mean him being sidelined as Jagger/Richard learnt to write their own songs - and be so good at it. I believed this sidelined Brian and effectively was the process that eventually removed him from the leadership of his own band, and i suspect that created a deep rooted resentment that was a catalyst to his descent within the band until by 68 he was about as much use as a chocolate teapot, and worse actually becoming a divisive presence that got so bad that they had to actually sack him !

 

and thats what personal preference is all about, each to his own.

 

there was very much a stones mania 64/6, it was overshadowed by Beatlemania of course but it wasn't just the normal mania that surrounded most pop bands of the period that came along in the Beatles wake either.

 

i share your sentiments but i would replace flat knowledge with " more influential " and " innovative " and " game changers " - also there was a stones mania as per my post above.

However regardless of personal preferences the Beatles remain the most important ( as well as biggest selling ) act in the history of popular music, certainly since Rock and Roll and very probably ever.

 

I don't think the reputation of the Rolling Stones would have been improved by breaking up. They are road warriors and reached far more fans by remaining an arena/stadium act for decades than they could have by calling it a day after EXILE, SOME GIRLS, TATTOO YOU or whichever album you decided you didn't need any more. At this point they are the Last Men Standing, which makes their tours even more of an event.

As an example, a nephew attended a concert on someone else's initiative and was shocked that he recognized almost every song, despite not owning any Rolling Stones albums. He couldn't believe one band had done all those songs he'd heard on radio and television all those years.

He wasn't concerned whether the songs were current, or if the set list was two-third's the same set they'd performed several years previous. He was just impressed a bunch of old men could perform so enthusiastically and expertly, with over two hours of recognizable material, to such a large audience.