Stones v. Beatles breakup?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by doc021, Sep 2, 2016.

  1. doc021

    doc021 Active Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hershey, PA, USA
    Many might agree that the Beatles broke up at the right time while being at or near their peak. Since they were at the top of their game, fans have held them in that high regard with very little challenge to their throne. Their discography really has no "low point" nor did they experience (as a group) a period of poorly conceived or produced recordings that may have tarnished their legacy had they continued into the 70's, 80's and beyond...like the Stones. At the time of the Beatles breakup, the only two groups widely considered in the "best" argument were the Beatles and the Stones

    So my question is what if the Stones broke up in 1972 following the release of Exile on Main Street (arguably their high point), do you think they would be held in the same reverence and near-mythical status as the Beatles are today?
     
  2. Rfreeman

    Rfreeman Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    I think they are still held to be the second greatest anyway, at least by folks in their late 40s to early 60s. Nobody thinks their albums have been real great since Tattoo You, but they retain respect for their earlier work and are a smash live attraction.
     
  3. the sands

    the sands Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    The Stones were always uneven, right from the start, I think, and they need each other in a different way than The Beatles did. They had three independent genius songwriters.
     
  4. majoyenrac

    majoyenrac Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicagoland
    I think the 70s run upped their status as a live act and cemented them as #2 despite it being post Tattoo You

    So I think while the albums considerably suffered, they were viewed "stronger" by sticking together.
     
  5. mbrownp1

    mbrownp1 Forum Resident

    The Stones should still be revered today (and for the most part are). The majority of their output can be categorized as slightly varying degrees of greatness. They've never done a BAD album. Their worst is better than most musicians' best.

    The Beatles did quit at the right time and, of course, are the most revered band of all-time, but I just can't picture them keeping up after 1970, with the bar being raised so high with Sticky Fingers, Exile, etc.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2016
  6. Paper Wizard

    Paper Wizard Forum Resident

    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Good question. I am sure they would still be remembered as a great band.
    Some of their best work was done in the 1970's.
     
  7. notesfrom

    notesfrom Forum Resident

    Location:
    NC USA
    But did they need that post-'72 action to still be considered the #2 group over the likes of Zeppelin, The Who, etc.?

    How close is the #3 group to the Stones?

    I don't think there's even a consensus on who #3 is!

    Seems that even among people who agree with Beatles #1, Stones #2, there is no agreement on who #3 is.

    Or maybe there'd be an awful lot of groups tied for #3.

    Maybe there isn't even a #3.
     
    Shaddam IV, The Beave and John Grimes like this.
  8. majoyenrac

    majoyenrac Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicagoland
    Think of it this way maybe

    Had Bonham not passed and LZ already with diminishing returns albums stuck around as a concert act another 10-15 at least yrs, might they have been #2? Perhaps..
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2016
    angelo73 and Shaddam IV like this.
  9. Rfreeman

    Rfreeman Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    Except it is a minority opinion that Sticky Fingers or Exile are as good as most Beatles albums.
     
  10. Bowieboy

    Bowieboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Louisville
    I think 1972 is too preliminary IMO. Now if they split after Tattoo You and their massive 1981 tour, perhaps moreso, but splitting in 1972 would've cost us some classics.
     
  11. Siegmund

    Siegmund Forum Resident

    Location:
    England, UK
    I don't think their staying together made any difference to their reputation. They were considered the second greatest rock act in the world by the general public in 1970 and that hasn't changed in the 46 years that have followed. *

    *Zeppelin were a bigger band than the Stones during 1970-1980 but they had virtually no public profile. I'd never even heard of Zep until 1981 but even if you weren't interested in music in the 60s/70s, you'd heard of the Stones.
     
  12. mbrownp1

    mbrownp1 Forum Resident

    Frankly, it's apples and oranges, so I wouldn't ever frame it that way.
     
    Rubber65, NaturalD, Frosst and 3 others like this.
  13. x2zero

    x2zero Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Brooklyn USA
    Highly debatable IMO, count me in the minority if you're right
     
    mbrownp1, xfilian, DHamilton and 12 others like this.
  14. I guess I disagree with the premise of the OP in a sense. I can't speak for the majority of the "popular audience", but from a personal standpoint, I hold the Stones and Dylan in at least equal if not greater reverence than the Beatles primarily because of the sheer greater amount of quality music each has delivered - enabled in fact by their far greater longevity.

    And even if you take just their respective 60's outputs into account to somewhat level the playing field, I would put the Stones maybe just a notch below, and Dylan probably at least equal - though his popular success of course didn't approach the Fabs (which makes little difference to me). But if you take their respective 60's careers and then throw in Sticky Fingers, Exile, Some Girls, Tattoo You, Blood On the Tracks, Desire, Time Out of Mind, Love and Theft (for starters), then I think a strong case can be made that at least on a quantitative "great music" level, each has eclipsed the Fabs.

    Also want to make clear that whatever one thinks of the respective solo Beatles careers, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr individually are not the Beatles...

    :hide::hide::hide:
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2016
    moj, Diego Lucas, laf848 and 3 others like this.
  15. Rfreeman

    Rfreeman Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    Pretty sure a minority of people who consider the Beatles the best band ever could not even name four tracks off each of those Stones albums without googling them.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2016
  16. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Southwest
    Call me crazy, but I don't think The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are locks for #1 and #2. They may very well own those slots, but there are a handful of incredible bands from that era who are contenders for the top two slots -- the lines start blurring before #3.
     
  17. Siegmund

    Siegmund Forum Resident

    Location:
    England, UK
    I just want to add: the Beatles and the Stones had virtually nothing in common, other than both being a) British and b) coming to prominence in the 60s. Their music and (especially) their approach to live performance couldn't have been more different.
     
  18. x2zero

    x2zero Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Brooklyn USA
    It sounds like you're saying that folks who agree on the top 2, wouldn't list the Stones' best among their favorite albums from the 2 bands
     
    scarfaceclaw likes this.
  19. Rfreeman

    Rfreeman Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    I am saying that the Stones were much less of an album band than The Beatles were and a lot of folks who consider them the second best only know the tunes that got played on the radio or were on Hot Rocks.

    Sticky Fingers would be a lot better known than Exile which is more of a fav of critics and die hards. Neither of them would be in my top 2 Stones albums.
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
  20. George Blair

    George Blair Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Well, at this point half the Stone's legacy is that they didn't break up.
     
  21. Say It Right

    Say It Right Forum Resident

    Location:
    Niagara Falls
    Mario Andretti won the Indy 500 in 1969 and the Formula One World Championship in 1978. By most measures, he continued to drive professionally "past prime." We could look at the Stones in this same light. Some earn the right to go as long as they want without concern for snobs, who believe everybody should quit before or at "peak."

    As for the Beatles comparison, the Stones were a better live act than The Beatles ever thought of being. The Stones continue to put out consistently solid shows. So, this thread is just a re-packaged "legacy" topic.
     
    Cyberhog9 and mbrownp1 like this.
  22. WhoTapes1

    WhoTapes1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    NC, United States
    Exactly! And you know WHO gets my vote for #1 band!
     
    Matze S. and Hamhead like this.
  23. Only among Beatlemaniacs.
     
  24. PNeski@aol.com

    PNeski@aol.com Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    Don't think Keith could have come up with a solo lp as good as All Things Must Pass ,and George was clearly the third best in the Beatles Keith and Mick needed each other as much as Page needs Plant ,Gotta have a singer in Rock
     
  25. Baba Oh Really

    Baba Oh Really Certified "Forum Favorite"

    Location:
    mid west, USA
    The Stones legacy is so much greater than the Beatles: stretching across decades, conquering any genre that came along and flourishing while making it their own, a more popular live act today than ever.

    So in regard to breaking up in 1972? How about "no"?
     

Share This Page