Stones v. Beatles breakup?

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

  1. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    As a Beatles fan if I were concerned about any bands being a threat to their number one spot it's not the Stones or the Who. Great bands but a long way off. It would be bands such as XTC Radiohead or The Smiths. Most especially Radiohead who in recent years have started to challenge The Beatles in those all time best album lists. In the example below The Stones highest rated album comes in at number 30.



    Overall Chart

    Another with OK Computer on top - albeit from 1985 to 2010

    Radiohead's OK Computer named best album of the past 25 years
     
  2. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    I'm a Beatles guy all day but Jagger, Daltrey and Plant are great rock, pop rock or bluesy singers.
     
  3. Jeff Carlson

    Jeff Carlson Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tacoma
    Mick Taylor was a really good soloist, but I'm not sure how he'd work with the Beatles.
    Never heard him do some of the styles of George. I hope people in all differing opinions posting here can laugh at themselves for a second, I am. I love the Stones, but when comparing them to the Beatles, I stand my ground. I'm not gonna go too far defending any position against my second favorite band of all time. I'll agree with every valid point. No fighting words from me, or reaching to interpret comments coming my way as such. Mick Jagger is indeed the greatest frontman of all times, and a great vocalist. That said I stand by previous comments
    No argument here, I'm a huge fan of all of them. In fact Robert Plant is my second favorite singer of all time behind John Lennon, but all greats.
     
    The Beave and Price.pittsburgh like this.
  4. dave9199

    dave9199 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Durham, NC
    Anyone who refers to themselves in the third person while making a valid point is also a work of art.
     
    The Beave likes this.
  5. Olompali

    Olompali Forum Resident

    One can place blame on Andrew Loog Oldham for starting that snowball.
    Management didn't pit The Who, etc. into a polar places with The Fabs.
    It has always been a bit silly
     
  6. dave9199

    dave9199 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Durham, NC
    I don't feel the Imagine album is as good as people say it is. I think it's because the title track carries the rest of the album. It's still a good album but to me POB is better only because of the emotional territory it comes from. That's not saying the songs are better. Imagine's songs are better crafted songs but I pick interesting over better crafted here though I've always love Gimme Some Truth and that would fit onto POB easily. After 1973, Beatles solo quality slip downward. All four of them had great and weak albums in the early to mid 70's. All of The Stones albums of that time are great to solid though their quality also slips but I feel not as much as the solo Beatles albums did. The Stones hit a peak right as The Beatles were finishing theirs as a band.

    Maybe some of it can be put down to people expected more from The Beatles because they gave more but by the 70's had not as much to give whereas The Stones never gave that much but knew how to maintain and be solid most of the time. I think that's what bands learned in the 70's; how to maintain and go with their strengths because maybe they felt they had done the experimental thing in the late 60's and knew what worked and what didn't by the 70's.

    I also feel if The Beatles were still around and touring in the 70's, yes, both Zeppelin & The Stones would've been looking up to them but I don't think it would've been because they'd be putting on a better show. I think it would've been out of habit. If The Beatles are doing what you do, you honor them just because they are there and what they mean to you. I don't think it would have anything to do with the quality of their show. I think The Beatles would be the first to say how much better a show both Zeppelin & The Stones would be putting on. The Beatles shows probably would've been like any Wings show of the mid-70's as far as presentation.
     
    The Beave and stewedandkeefed like this.
  7. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Location:
    Eastern Shore
    Beatles: great material through Abbey Road. Only Let it Be was product, appropriately relegated to the shelf until Klein had Spector polish the turds.
    Stones: great material until Exile; coasting since then, with only occasional flashes of brilliance, and even those isolated ones dimming as the years relentlessly roll by. No mixed emotions here.
    Decision: Beatles, for going out on top. Just imagine John and George singing the chorus of Silly Love Songs. Ugh.
     
  8. John Fell

    John Fell Forum Survivor

    Location:
    Undisclosed
    It's doubtful they could have recreated some of their later studio material in the live setting without simplifying the arrangements a lot and then it probably wouldn't sound right compared to the studio versions.
     
  9. John Fell

    John Fell Forum Survivor

    Location:
    Undisclosed
    I tend to favor the vocalists that don't scream as much like, Gregg Allman, Steve Winwood and Steve Marriott for example.
     
  10. John Fell

    John Fell Forum Survivor

    Location:
    Undisclosed
    Michael Jackson has the best selling album of all-time if I remember correctly so he must be better than all of them. :D
     
    The Beave likes this.
  11. Gill-man

    Gill-man Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    1) Comparing a Stones and Zeppelin show to a potential Beatles show is Apples to Oranges as they were completely different bands and whose to say that type of live show is better?

    2) Wings was considered one of the best live acts of that time. If you include the rest of the Beatles, you now have the four-headed monster on top of that. It would be a force to be reckoned with.
     
    Jeff Carlson likes this.
  12. dave9199

    dave9199 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Durham, NC
    I'm wondering if that option of Wings was because McCartney was a Beatle and people projected something onto it that wasn't there at that time.
     
    zphage likes this.
  13. wiseblood

    wiseblood Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    Still, no.

    I love both bands but both are very different. History will show that the Stones were always 3 to 6 months late to the party. Later than the Beatles to America. Later than the Beatles to songwriting (with great songs). Later than the Beatles to psychedelia. Later than the Beatles to great album statements. Yes, they arrived, but they were always coming in on the coattails of the Beatles. It probably wasn't until the 69 tour and the Ya Ya's album where they started to break away but by then they had already established themselves and what they were to the world. And I'm okay with it. The Rolling Stones pulled away being a heavy-hitting rock and roll band by the time Jumping Jack Flash is released. The Beatles tried with the White Album and did a fine job, but they were still the Beatles, writing great (I hate this term) "pop" songs. It's just who they are. The Stones are rock and roll.

    Watch John play on RnR Circus versus what the Stones were up to. Different.

    This conversation gets into a hazy area of "we'll never know" and I'm just babbling on at this point. I'm happy the Stones didn't get out. It would have been a bad move. They have the real marks of a band that has been around for 50+ years, all the good, bad, and ugly. They're great. The Beatles got out and it's quite possible that with what we saw from them in the 70's that they would have been made to look like a total joke. There is some real garbage in there. Some of it FAR worse than what the Stones were up to.

    We'll never know. in the meantime, I'm gonna spin Sticky Fingers AND the Beatles Blue Album today.
     
  14. The Beave

    The Beave My Wife Is My Life!

    Location:
    Auburn, Washington
    Great points. But that's just the way it is.
    When I was younger, I used to make fun of the Beatles all the time! My adolescent mind seeing the Stones as Studs and the Beatles as *****'s
    It was just the team mentality, mine is better than yours. But as I got older, I came to love the moptops almost as much as the Stones.
    The reality is that both groups have their legacy firmly burned into the stone of history. Yes, the Beatles will ALWAYS be #1 historically, and there is nothing wrong with that.
    The Stones will have the added legacy that they went all the way and the Beatles didn't. But again that doesn't mean one is better than the other, both groups are extremely special and they don't really step on each other, which is pretty incredible when you look at them historically.
    I'm glad I dig them both.

    And no, The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin, The Yardbirds? Don't fall into the same ocean as the Beatles and the Stones.
    Their good classic rock bands, but a totally different class altogether.
    And this is JUST my opinion, nothing more so please don't take offence.
    Hope everyone had a good Christmas Holiday!
    Happy New Year!
    Beave
     
    bonus and stanlove like this.
  15. The Beave

    The Beave My Wife Is My Life!

    Location:
    Auburn, Washington
    :uhhuh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::winkgrin::hide::shtiphat:
    Beave
     
  16. The Beave

    The Beave My Wife Is My Life!

    Location:
    Auburn, Washington
    I think you have something here.
    Beave
     
  17. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    Yeah that's what I meant as far as looking up at them, attendance.
    I mean Paul alone ha a massively successful tour in 76 by himself.
    I agree POB is better than Imagine and Imagine may not be a masterpiece but again it's pretty good and POB is IMO a masterpiece.
    So just being able to 2 two great ones alone without Paul and Paul doing all he did without John, says a lot for our hypothetical scenarios.
     
  18. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    I think the fans would have embraced basic renditions of their more complex material just because it's them.
    Some pretty large acts sound like crap live on the most basic arrangements and still do well with the fans.
     
  19. John Fell

    John Fell Forum Survivor

    Location:
    Undisclosed
    I think only Beatles fans consider Wings to be one of the greatest live acts of all time.
     
  20. John Fell

    John Fell Forum Survivor

    Location:
    Undisclosed
    A solution would be to use a backing tape and play along with it. I believe the Who used to do it.

    I know Stones fans complain about song arrangements all the time. Jagger has also said he does not like playing certain songs in an arena setting because they don't go over as well.
     
    Price.pittsburgh likes this.
  21. acdc7369

    acdc7369 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    how did ac/dc copy the stones?
     
  22. Terrapin Station

    Terrapin Station Forum Resident

    Location:
    NYC Man
    I expected that to go, " . . . among the ' music geek' crowd, the Stones are often #1." :angel:
     
  23. Terrapin Station

    Terrapin Station Forum Resident

    Location:
    NYC Man
    How exactly do we manage to ignore that Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Little Richard, the Beach Boys etc. etc. were writing their own material prior to the Beatles?
     
  24. Terrapin Station

    Terrapin Station Forum Resident

    Location:
    NYC Man
    I'd say that albums are artworks simply because music is one of the arts. Singles, EPs, etc. are artworks, too.
     
  25. Terrapin Station

    Terrapin Station Forum Resident

    Location:
    NYC Man
    You're trying to make "art" a normative term correlated with complexity, originality and particular sorts of intentions, which is pretty ridiculous even if we ignore the problems with quantifying complexity and originality, as well as the epistemic problems with knowing intentions (contra having no idea, contra marketing angles, etc.)
     

Share This Page