How big were The Beatles? Let Mick Jagger tell you... (from 1995)

From my high school experience, dirty mean guys who are puny still get their butts kicked. But in all seriousness, I’m just joking around. It doesn’t really matter. Sid Vicious would kick all their a$$es.

 

Also worth mentioning, those of you who think Sir Mick is sooooo deferential to the Beatles, obviously haven't heard his onstage comments from Desert Trip or from the most recent European Stones tour. He was cracking quite a few jokes and quips at the Beatles' expense, right there onstage. They were subtle so they might zip over many people's heads. "We were told that Hamburg was a good place to start a career," Mick said, in Stadpark in Hamburg, with a wink -- implying, which band's active career is still going, and whose isn't? -- and I'd even argue that the cover of "Come Together" at Desert Trip was a send-up and a pointed dig at Sir Paul, sitting up there in the luxury suites. I see that cover choice as Mick's sly way of saying, hey, we're still a band, and you're.... a solo guy. I can't remember all of them, but there were several other of these little bon mots or subtle digs, on that most recent tour. The Beatles may have been big, but Jagger's got a point to his quips, about the longevity of the two different bands.

 

You mean like that guy in Watchmen?

 

Of course this will all probably devolve into which band is better and for what reasons. I'm not actually going there, I don't know enough to fight it out and only have a generic opinion based on what music I like better. I would just want to say I would take one album of pure, unadulterated genius vs decades of mediocrity. Neither applies to either band, both had long(ish) careers and more than one important album. I only put it that way to illustrate that I just don't buy Jagger's argument. The longevity of the Rolling Stones, in and of itself, doesn't make them the more important or better band. And I think even the Rolling Stones fans around here like to point out that they feel more like Rolling Stones Inc. these days than a real band.

But I get your main point about Jagger poking at the Beatles.

 

I cannot remember what the source was but I saw a video where Keith talks about the Beatles being the boys you could take home to meet your mother so Andrew decided that the Stones would be the opposite. And "the black hat" fit pretty well. But Keith said something to the effect of "I knew Johnny Lennon and let me tell you, he was no effing angel". This was followed by much coughing and laughing.

If there's a cage match of classic rockers, my money is on Roger Daltrey vs John Bonham in the final round. And Daltrey better hope he has a broken beer bottle for that one.

 

Agreed. I think some people take it too seriously, like Mike Love vs The Beatles type of thing. It wasn't a coincidence that Jagger was often seen around the Fabs, like the video of All You Need is Love, etc...

 

I mean, Mick told the truth. The Beatles were the biggest band the world has ever known. He was there. He knows. Nothing to be ashamed of, really.

 

that was nice...The Beatles were instrumental in getting them signed with DECCA...

 

bring 'em on..we love it.

 

well IMO they were #2! Mick is cool! Nice to see that they were friends. : )

 

In the US during the 60's they were golden and played on AM radio everyday when I was growing up listening to AM radio faithfully...

 

Agreed. I am glad to know that the “rivalry “ was nothing more than pr.

I think they all still are (well everyone left anyway).

The only advantage to the Stones is live.

Beatles take everything else.

 

i'm sure it was quite impressive at the time. for the rest of us, it's just classic rock.

 

Little things like this are why I love the Beatles. It just gives a good sense of his personality. I don't see it as a determent at all.

 

How big were The Beatles? Well, if you can imagine the size of Nelson's Column, which is roughly three times the size of a London bus, then The Fab Four were obviously smaller...unless of course, they stood on each other's shoulders in which case their total height was 23 feet 5 inches. Thus the great race to be the tallest pop group began.

 

He didn't tell the truth about the Beatles as a live band!

How can anyone think that after all those absolutely relentless hours on stage in Hamburg, The Beatles wouldn't be a good live band?! When they came back to England they blew peoples mines they were so good, no one could touch them!

 

agree 100%!

 

The Stones weren’t a very good live band in 1965-66 either based on the available recordings. That wretched Got Live Album with its sloppy overdubs is a case in point.

 

Do you have any stories?

 

From 1988:

 

He must have been good at it, they never got it on film.

 

Mick is the Stones’ Mike Love: he sings, runs across the stage, tells stories, makes the girls in the front seats faint... he’s a showman. You gotta admit that’s one thing the Beatles didn’t have. They should have kept Pete Best to shake maracas.

 

Unless you were there when the gong was struck and just didn't hear the continuing echo of it then you can't possibly know how big the Beatles were in the 1960s.

Well said Mick.

I will say that the Stones had the best rhythm section in rock from 1965-1972.

That is fact.

That is the one thing the Beatles cannot lay claim to over the Stones.

That being said Van&Them were every bit as menacing and dark as the Stones and Van has always been able to sing circles around the Beatles & Stones.IMO.

 

OTE="Tommyboy, post: 18149214, member: 3500"]Do you have any stories?[/QUOTE]
I've heard it all now.Toothpick Goerge all of 155 lbs at best was a quote unquote mean f#&@er.

Absurd!Ridiculous! Undocumented!!!

 

But the longevity is really the key to their legacy, isn’t it? It’s their longevity that allows them to say that they’ve released 26 studio albums over five decades, all of which hit the top 5 on both sides of the Atlantic. Or that they’ve played live for more people than any other act (a record that is unlikely to ever be broken). That they played a show for 1.5 million people in Rio in their mid-60’s, and another show for 500,000 people in Cuba in their mid-70’s. People across three generations have seen the band live.

And unlike the Beatles and other sixties acts, there are literally hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of hours of high quality color footage of the band’s shows available on the internet. The Stones don’t make much of an effort to block it, probably because most of it is quite good and serves as great marketing - watching it, you just want to be there. It’s an astonishing legacy.