Stones v. Beatles breakup?

Maybe. The Beatles may have a slightly stronger discography but they have never released anything as perfect as "Sticky Fingers". Every one of their masterpieces is marred by one or two clunkers.

 

Ah, yet another Stones vs. Beatles thread. This ought to be entertaining.

 

Sorry the last half of Can't You Hear Me Knockin is more filler than anything on a post Mr. Moonlight Beatles LP (other than the last half of I Want You)

 

There are way more of those than there are people who have made it through all 4 sides of Exile.

 

That's one of the greatest jams in Rock history!

 

I don't think it matters where the Beatles finished or where the Stones didn't finish, it's where they started. Which is to say the Beatles started it all. The Rolling Stones came in after them and were linked to them so will always be seen as the second wave of a revolution. And thus wouldn't be held in quite that 'mythical status' even if they had finished in 1972.

I prefer the Stones by quite a bit and believe they made more great albums than the Beatles but the Beatles are the most important band in history.

 

I wasn't necessarily questioning the Stones lasting legacy in my OP. I am a very big Stones fan. I agree with others that say their endurance and live shows are without equal. At times I find that aspect very impressive and they are allowed a few clunkers on the way. Even the best of the best have them...Dylan and Clapton for example. You have to expect that when you are recording 40 or 50+ years. Probably would have happened with the Beatles too had they stayed together into the 80s or 90s. With the Beatles, though, their musical reputation as a band has remained untarnished for decades since their breakup. Like I said, almost mythical proportions. My question was would the Stones have that same reverent public opinion (as the Beatles) today had they broken up at or near their peak in the early 70s or do you think that level of respect was or is reserved exclusively for the Beatle?

 

Jams = filler on studio albums by bands with good songwriters.

 

I was pretty young, and not very interested in non-AM music at the time, but I remember hearing about Led Zep in 1977. Not very good things. Tour cut short because of death of Robert's son.

 

So every song should be 2:50? We aren't allowed to get into a groove and stay there for a little while?

 

Sure if you don't have enough great songs to fill an album, you can always spend 5 minutes jamming and call it a wrap.

Or form a jazz band

 

I hate to derail this thread but Bob Dylan
is most likely the most "influential" songwriter of all time.
Rubber Soul may never have happened if the fabs weren't digging Bob at the time.
And don't forget "Dr. Robert" is about Bob.
The Beatles songwriting only became interesting after Bob "smoked them up."

back on topic....
The Stones were just as great songwriters as the fabs....
JJF GS and SFTD alones proves this.

I don't hear the Beatles writing those type of songs. I think it all comes down to apples and oranges too.
BEATLES= greatest pop
STONES= greatest rock.
they are pretty much equal in their legacies IMHO.

every body has two arms.

 

What?? I love Sticky Fingers ,perfect hardly

 

despite the not always great records, the Stones are still with us today, and this matters a lot.
Stones breaking up in 1970= no Sticky Fingers, no Exile, no Some girls, no Tattoo you.
And no personal faves such as Goats, Black and blue, Steel wheels (yeah, laugh at me ), Voodoo lounge

 

Bob is great ,but music is sometime hes not the greatest at ,So greatest songwriter is not something he can win , Please there's plenty of POP and Rock and other things in Beatles or Stones Music ,Music that is greater than most of Dylans
not to mention far better performed, The only thing Dylan could do better is write words ,only half of songwriting

 

Okay well in that case, the answer is "no", The Rolling Stones would be seen as a far, far lesser act than the Beatles, because by the time the Beatles broke up, the Rolling Stones greatest days still laid ahead of them (and that's not to detract from any of the albums pre 1972).

The Rolling Stones legacy began in the sixties, but were solidified throughout the 70's and 80's: They were very, very relevant musically during these times.

 

The Beatles peaked in '63.

 

It wouldn't have had the same impact because the Stones had already been through a major lineup change by 1972. If the Stones had disbanded in 1969 when Brian died and Let it Bleed was their final record, that would be one thing, and I think that album and Beggar's Banquet in particular would have been critically re-appraised and given more applause and love in the early 70s in that case, but having replaced Brian already before his death, any breakup in 1972 would have been sad for fans, sure, but not on the same level as John, Paul, George and Ringo parting ways.

 

I've always considered Tattoo You to be a pretty weak album; like they were really picking over the bones of the Some Girls output by then. I'm surprised by the amount of love it gets around here. All the good and weird leftovers went into Emotional Rescue, which I greatly prefer. Just me though.

What was the question? Oh!
#1 Monkees
#2 Banana Splits

 

My thoughts on this are that The Beatles could cover American soul better than The Stones, i.e Please Mr Postman, You Really Got A Hold On Me, Baby It's You, whereas The Stones versions of My Girl, Under The Boardwalk, are pallid to say the least. The Stones couldn't write decent ballads until much later, i.e Angie, Wild Horses, Coming Down Again, Worried About You, Sleep Tonight. Tell Me, the first Jagger / Richards song, is a Fabs Merseybeat steal anyway.

The twin guitar axis of Richards / Taylor was technically far superior to anything Harrison and Lennon could provide. I prefer Mick Taylor's playing from Sticky through to It's Only Rock'n'Roll, with Keith, to anything that came from the fragmented Fab Four at the time.

 

For me The Beatles are a lock for number one all time.

Stones though at best are number two in the sixties - other great contenders such as Pink Floyd,Kinks et al. All time there are many better bands - such as Radiohead (who I consider almost on par with The Beatles genius) The Smiths , XTC et al. Just my opinion and I'm sure many others as well.

 

That view is incorrect in my opinion. However, I don't just listen to radio friendly pop songs.