Stones v. Beatles breakup?

You're right. It began in 1965 with "Bringing It All Back Home".

 

I dunno, Working Class Hero sounds an awful lot like Masters Of War to me..

 

And Bob Dylan never wrote tunes that sounded like others?

 

Or replaced two of the weakest songs from Sgt. Pepper with "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Penny Lane". Oh well, at least we have "Magical Mystery Tour". If only that was a studio album, and not a compilation.

 

Sure he did. Masters of War is essentially Nottamun Town Dylan-ized. I'm not knocking Lennon or the song for sounding like Dylan. I'm just pointing out that I think Dylan had a longer lasting impact on John's writing than you suggest.

 

Nobody is saying he plagiarized Dylan. Dylan influence was clearly apparent through his solo years. Not just Working Class Hero. Gimme Some Truth, How Do You Sleep, Attica State, Steel & Glass, Serve Yourself.

 

And I'm just suggesting that Lennon was no more fallible than others.

 

When Dylan decided to follow the Beatles lead and go electric?

 

I always think of the Stones pre Exile.

If you put The Beatles mature albums against The Rolling Stones, The Beatles had one more.
Though the overall quality, production and song catalog of The Beatkes is far superior.

Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt Pepper
White Album
Abbey Road
Let It Be


Satanic
Beggars
Let It Bleed
Sticky
Exile

 

Yes it did, - the scrappy collection of demos that was the white album and the car crash that was Get Back/Let It Be.

See above comment.

Absolutely. That run from Beggar's to Exile is one of the greatest and I think it is the equal of The Beatles' golden run from A Hard Day's Night to MMT.

 

I was just thinking about this earlier in the week. About the 3 other great British bands of the 1960s. The Rolling Stones, The Who and The Kinks. The Beatles recording history lasted from 1962-1970. That is eight years of near perfection. They went out on top. I though the Stones and the Kinks would have ended perfectly in 1972 with the releases of Exile on Main Street by the Stones and Everybody's in Showbiz by the Kinks. Both bands first albums came out in 1964. So they had eight years of great albums. The Who's first album came out in 1965. Their classc double album from 1973, Quodrophenia is considered their last great album. So the Who also had a great eight year run. All the groups continued to make great music after this period but the albums were more patchy and inconsistent. So it seems that with all four of these Hall of Fame bands eight years would have been the perfect time to call it quits. I am glad that they did not quit. No need to put them on a pedestal. I prefer working bands who continue to make new music.

 

It's down to musical taste, mainly. Personally I could happily listen to any Beatles album from start to finish, whereas with the Stones, aside from maybe two albums, there are always tracks I either can't stand or find boring and too derivative to bother with. I guess in terms of impact, if the Stones had finished in the early 70s their reputation would be a little greater now, but it's not exactly faded away!

 

There's something wonderfully complete about the Beatles story. It seemed clear by the end of the 60s that the group format could no longer contain all that talent. The Stones' live performances in the 70s redefined them in many ways - and no doubt continued to in later, leaner years. It would be a great loss if the Stones had split at the dawn of the 70s or rather after Exile. Not so much for the studio work but missing out on the stadium tours.

 

Had The Stones broken up after Exile, their status would be even more mythical than it is now. While they've maintained-and even enlarged-their status as "the world's greatest Rock and Roll band" by still performing, the quality of their studio output suffered; a few highs but a vast amount of lows compared to their "steady upstream" between the early 60's through to the early 70's. had they ended "it" in the early 70's we would have been left to wonder where they might have gone musically as well as a performing band. These questions having been answered-especially the former-there iesn't any of that "mystery" which leads to mythical status.

...and of course all of that said, The Beatles' "story" ended at the perfect time.

 

#1) By that time, the Rolling Stones had already released plenty of mediocre material and covers in comparison with the Beatles.

#2) Besides, in 1972, the Rolling Stones best years were still ahead of them (Some Girls, Tattoo You.._)

#3) The Rolling Stones showed that they could conquer any decade and make it their own. It is *highly* debatable whether the Beatles would have been able to pull this off.

 

I love The Stones but i don't feel they quite made any decade their own. While they fit beautifully into the 70's arena concert landscape, it belonged much more so to Led Zeppelin. As far as their best years creatively, i respect your opinion but disagree with it. They never re captured the super high peak that was the period between (and including) BB and Exile.

As far as The Beatles pulling it off, I agree for the most part. Fellow Beatle fans disagree with me and feel that they had two or three great albums in them. maybe a couple of albums of great SONG collections, yes..but their time as "leaders" was over.

 

In full disclosure the Beatles and Stones were/are my favorite groups in that order, but I've often debated with myself how the differences between them make at least in some ways the comparison an apples and oranges one. A key metric in that is the Stones as a live act, which of course they were in the mid sixties, but then after their two year hiatus a return to the road, on which they continued with breaks here and there ever since, began roughly around the time of the Beatles' breakup.

As great as the Stones' contributions were before that return to touring in 69, it is touring that elevates them in the comparison. But it also speaks to the OP's question since however debatable their work was post Exile, their keeping on the road was of great credit to them. I think that counteracts any perception of them as "tarnishing their record" with less than stellar studio work.

Having said that post Mick Taylor leaving the band, the only album I think ranks near their top ten all time is Some Girls. Tattoo You is decent, and the rest? Varying degrees of mediocre.

 

Beautifully said, start to finish.

 

I think they would probably be more beloved but think they are ultimately cool for keeping it rolling.

 

Did the Beatles make him go electric? There were other groups, influences.

 

I think the Stones are revered and mythical enough as it is. I don't think that staying together has hurt their profile for one minute.

I rather think that the Beatles squandered an incredible opportunity by breaking up when they did. In retrospect, it seems almost beyond belief that they didn't attempt to get back together during the 70's. If John hadn't been killed, I think the certainly would have given it another go eventually.

To be clear, I'm OK with how things turned out - I'm not crushed about the Beatles' permanent separation - but I reject the idea that this is what HAD to happen and that it was the best thing that could have happened.

 

Here's how I rank 'em all:

1) The Rolling Stones (1964-1972)
2) The Beatles (1968-1970)
3) The Rolling Stones (1978-1983)
4) The Beatles (1965-1967)
5) The Beatles (1963-1964)
5) Led Zeppelin (1969-1971)
6) Led Zeppelin (1973-1979)
7) The Rolling Stones (1983-present)

 

If we're gonna talk about last halves, the last half of "Hey Jude" is more filler than anything The Stones ever did.

 

Er, no - the last half of "Hey Jude" is what makes it the classic it is...