Stones v. Beatles breakup?

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tmoore

    tmoore Forum Resident

    Location:
    Olney, MD
    Not sure if you're kidding, but both Jagger and Richards had multiple solo albums, and each of them had a couple good tracks.
     
  2. Ram4

    Ram4 Lookin' good

    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    No way, the Stones would never have been held at that level, nor should they be. To me the Stones albums up to Beggars Banquet are inferior in almost every way. Sonically they sucked. They also had a ton of filler. I almost don't even want to compare The Beatles and Stones because they could be considered pop and blues/rock bands (though I think the Beatles could out rock the Stones when they wanted to). Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile are all incredible classic albums with almost no filler. But the rest of their albums before 1968 would not have them on an equal footing in history with the Beatles. Come on - Rubber Soul vs Out Of Our Heads? Revolver vs Aftermath? Sgt Pepper vs Satanic Majesties? Not to mention something you totally overlooked. The Beatles INFLUENCE on Pop Culture. Everyone started wearing their hair long after The Beatles. They were imitated the world over. They influenced countless musicians to write their own songs (including Jagger and Richards). The Stones were a band, The Beatles were icons. Besides, in the 60's I would take The Beach Boys over the Stones for number two anyway. But they really were a pop band, so most people won't compare. Although Andrew Loog Oldham paid for advertisements in the music press in which he compared Pet Sounds to Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade and told everyone to buy it!

    But here's where I am coming from. I have everything released by the Beatles and most everything (not the recent stuff) by the Stones. I loved both of them, but to me it's not even close. In the 60's, the Stones were always one step behind The Beatles and they knew it. Don't you just love how they started using "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" right around late 1969 when they probably knew The Beatles were going to break up? Besides, the Stones weren't even the biggest band in rock in the 70's - Zeppelin was. And even then, Led Zeppelin has outsold the Stones entire 50 year output by tens of millions of albums even though they were active for a little more than a decade.

    I am from Chicago and the whole Beatles vs Stones thing of the 60's reminds me of the Cubs vs White Sox thing. The Beatles are the Cubs - by far the more popular team, they were around for years before the other showed up, loved by millions, even loved when they are down. The Stones are the White Sox. A little bitter, jealous of the Cubs popularity - like a little brother who can't beat the older brother at anything. And I have noticed some Stones fans react the same way to The Beatles as Sox fans act towards the Cubs. They hate them. They think their overrated. They root against them. Whatever. I can enjoy both bands all my life, but at the end, The Beatles are the greatest of all time.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016
  3. Darrin L.

    Darrin L. Forum Resident

    Location:
    Golden, CO
    They both had failed solo careers, which is why they stayed together. It was out of desperation and the inabilty to achieve anything on their own. I think that's the point rod sphere was trying to make. They did not have "successful" solo careers. Heck...Ringo's solo career was more successful than all of the Stone's combined.
    That why I think it's funny how some post it as a great achievement that they stayed together (well...not really, since it's only 3/5 of the actal band) when it was only done out of desparation and greed.
     
    Mumbojunk and Ram4 like this.
  4. Darrin L.

    Darrin L. Forum Resident

    Location:
    Golden, CO

    I agree with you about the fact that "sonically they sucked". A song like "Gimme Shelter", which I always loved, but it "sonically sucked" and still does. I remember getting the remaster, thinking I was going to have a "like hearing it for the fist time" experience, but it was still that muddled, unlistenable mess. I guess they were just recorded poorly...??? Pretty sad, considering that by that point they were internationally selling artists, so why were they recording on a shoe-string budget?
     
  5. John Fell

    John Fell Forum Survivor

    Location:
    Undisclosed
    Aftermath is great album even if Goin' Home goes on a bit too long. I have all of the Beatles albums but I listen to the Stones a lot more.

    You failed to mention that the Stones were a big influence on the garage bands of the sixties. Many of the garage bands co-opted the Stones image as rebels and bad boys and loose playing.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016
    laf848, WilliamWes and RogerB like this.
  6. MHP

    MHP Lover of Rock ‘n Roll

    Location:
    DK
    If The Rolling Stones are a so horrible and talentless bunch of people, as your posts constantly suggests, why do you then feel the need to put them down the whole time? It's almost like it's yer damn mission to point out to others, why they have no talent and are inferior to your favourite group.

    I'll bet your views and thoughts on John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, doesn't even feature 'desperation' or 'greed', right? Even though, it has been established that all four did some desperate moves in the solo-years to keep it going. Well, the truth is in eye of the beholder, I guess. But it says a lot about a Beatle-worshipper, when one has to constantly pick on other artists, to get their message through!
     
    RogerB likes this.
  7. RogerB

    RogerB Forum Resident

    Location:
    Alabama
    Seriously? I can't imagine Gimmie Shelter sounding different. It's perfect! The sound helps paint the picture of doom and despair . Perfection IMO.
     
    MHP likes this.
  8. MHP

    MHP Lover of Rock ‘n Roll

    Location:
    DK
    And at the same time, our friend probably hails any early Lennon solo track as being honestly raw recordings, even though those productions are even more badly produced and swapped in echo and reverb.
     
  9. Darrin L.

    Darrin L. Forum Resident

    Location:
    Golden, CO
    Thanks for doing my thinking for me, but a prefer the Cobbin remixes of the Lennon catalogue. I hate the Spectorized influence on Lennon and Harrison. Lennon and Spector were so behind with the times, they thought they were still making music for AM radio. For me, "Wall of sound" is just another way of saying over-produced. Even after Spector, Lennon continued to produce in a similar manner. This also extends to "All Things Must Pass", making some tracks virtually unlistenable. So yeah..."Gimme Shelter" might be good for AM radio, but I prefer some clarity in my music, being able to distinguish one instrument/vocal from another.
     
  10. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Holy crap, I forgot "Don't Let Me Down".

    In terms of non-ballads, the Beatles' psychedelic era music is great - "Tomorrow Never Knows", the entire Pepper album, "I am the Walrus". But, their rock tracks, while still good (they did, after all, have two of the greatest vocalists in rock history), haven't aged very well. Once they got off the road, it seems that they tended to view rock and roll in a rear view mirror, as a nostalgic "getting back" to where they once belonged, which for them seemed to mean the 50's. Many of their rock tracks sound more like oldies tributes, to Chuck Berry ("Come Together", "Back in the USSR"), to Fats Domino ("Lady Madonna"), to Johnny Burnette ("The Ballad of John & Yoko"), to 50's doo-wop ("Happiness is a Warm Gun", "Oh, Darling!") and even to themselves ("One After 909").

    I don't buy into that whole "the Stones were rock, the Beatles were pop" BS. One listen to the Long Tall Sally EP tells you they could rock the house. But I do think that by far their best songs in their later years (especially post-Pepper) were their ballads, many of which have become standards. If you look at the Stones, on the other hand, there is probably only one ballad on their "big four" albums that has even close to the same resonance (Keith's amazing "Wild Horses").
     
    WilliamWes likes this.
  11. This must have been what it was like in high school in 1970 arguing which band was better.
     
  12. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    I was responding to a comment that the Stones legacy was greater.
    But I guess that's not an opinion.
     
  13. Holerbot6000

    Holerbot6000 Forum Resident

    Location:
    California
    The Beatles definitely had a broader appeal because they were a pop act. Yes they could rock, but it was the pop songs that hit big and had mass appeal all over the world. The Stones were a very different band and as popular as they were, I don't think they had that same impact at the time. I don't remember much discussion about whether the Beatles or Stones were better, but whether you were a Beatles or Stones fan and what kind of person that made you. I recall toward the end of the 60's, saying you were a Beatles fan over the Stones implied that you were actually a little square.
     
    laf848, RogerB and Moonbeam Skies like this.
  14. Baba Oh Really

    Baba Oh Really Certified "Forum Favorite"

    Location:
    mid west, USA
    #1) Mick and Keith have managed to have solo careers even within the context of being in the Stones.

    #2) Sure it's easy for the members of the Beatles to pursue solo careers since the band wasn't together. The Rolling Stones never broke up.

    #3) Who are the beetles?
     
  15. RogerB

    RogerB Forum Resident

    Location:
    Alabama
    This is my memory as well. From late 60's to mid 70's it was considered cool to be a Stones fan. Beatles...not so much.
     
    Moonbeam Skies likes this.
  16. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    Instead of focusing on the assumed reason the Beatles stayed on the throne is because they split at the right time.
    Let's also consider they have been broken up for 46 years and maybe the only reason the Stones even get mentioned in the same breath is because they have stayed together for 50 plus years.
    The Stones are always out there in some regard.
    Lots of new music not only in the 70s but lots in the 80s and new stuff in the 90s and 2000s.
    As well as plenty of tours all over the world through all the years.
    So them spliting in 73 or so IMO would not have placed them near the Beatles throughout the years.
    Them maintaining is what did that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016
  17. Duophonic

    Duophonic Beatles

    Location:
    BEATLES LOVE SONGS
    I prefer the Stones. The Stones were never referred to as a "boy band" therefore they are better.
     
    RogerB likes this.
  18. Mr. Grieves

    Mr. Grieves Forum Resident

    Maybe, or maybe it was their string of incredibly great singles & albums? Singles & albums that were so great, people forgave them whenever they falterd. At this moment, I'm probably listening to the Kinks more than either of em, but the Stones, imo, were never that far off from the Beatles. I'd say Beggars-Exile is just as great as Rubber Soul-White Album. Again, that's just my opinion of course, but I think they are highly regarded enough to be in the same ball park for those albums alone
     
    Rekkerds and RogerB like this.
  19. WilliamWes

    WilliamWes Likes to sing along but he knows not what it means

    Location:
    New York
    The chart #'s for the Beatles are outstanding there's just no doubt. Both groups have album tracks that easily could have been more singles. But I do think the Beatles held back almost too many songs - so many classic albums where no singles were released - the Beatles have the most #1 singles ever without releasing any of the White Album songs, many of which people will still know today - all the Sgt. Pepper tracks, the Rubber Soul songs. The list of songs that people still know in everyday life goes on and on when you add in the Beatles had 2 major films that got fans to know album tracks that felt like early music videos for half of A Hard Day's Night and Help! For certain albums the Stones had album tracks that got to be widely known, but not on the same level.
    :-popcorn::thumbsup:
     
  20. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    This makes no sense to me. I have a very good, high end system, and in my view, Let it Bleed is good enough to be used as a demonstrations record. The 2002 SACD in particular, is spectacular. "Gimme Shelter" has the most complex mix on the album, The vocals are deeper in the mix, which may give the impression that the track is poorly recorded, but I'm sure that's intentional. On the other tracks, there are fewer instruments, so the sound is clean, with a nice, wide soundfield. I think of the acoustic on one side and the slide on the other blending delicately on "Love in Vain", or the tight, uncluttered bass and kick drum sound on "Live with Me." The title track is very cool, with drums mixed wide to one side, and acoustic on the other (I don't have the CD w/me, so I can't remember which side) with the wonderful piano runs in the center. Again, the vocals are no "up front" which may be why you remember it sounding muddled. And the intro to "Monkey Man" is just glorious.

    I really recommend that you go back and listen again. Beggars Banquet sounds almost as good. Before that, it's a little hit and miss, but there are some terrific tracks. The bass and marimbas on "Under My Thumb", the way Charlie's toms come in on "Paint It, Black" (both stereo versions for me) are memorable. Even the earlier mono albums have a few audiophile gems - personal favorite is "King Bee" from the first album. That track has literally tactile guitars - you can feel the pick hitting the strings. I love it.
     
    Mr. Grieves and RogerB like this.
  21. Mr. Grieves

    Mr. Grieves Forum Resident

    Commercially speaking, the Beatles had no equal. There's simply no denying the amount of success they had, it was almost supernatural. I'm speaking artistically speaking & how they are viewed in retrospect as artists by most music fans, & while the Beatles are more often than not the highest ranking, I don't think the Stones are too far off.
     
  22. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    Valid point about singles.
    I think they are preceived far more as a singles band to most regardless of the great 4 album run from 68-72.
    They have had so many great singles people forget about subpar albums along the way.
    Paul McCartney post Beatles career is similar.
     
  23. Mr. Grieves

    Mr. Grieves Forum Resident

    Aftermath is their first truly great album, but the ones that proceeded it weren't too bad. Nothing terribly spectacular, but singles were still killer. John & Paul were more fully formed songwriters by the time they started. Jagger & Richards began closing the gap around Satisfaction
     
    RogerB likes this.
  24. tmoore

    tmoore Forum Resident

    Location:
    Olney, MD
    FWIW, when I was in high school (1981-1985), the Beatles were not on many people's radar. Lennon was dead and that ended any possibility of them getting back together. It should be noted that the Stones were still together then (many of my classmates were into Tattoo You), as was the Who (at least for the first part of that time).

    I had a old binder on which someone had written "And in the end, the love you make is equal to the love you take". In Sept. 1981, in 9th grade English, the girl next to me saw it asked me "what does that mean?". When I explained it was an old Beatles lyric, she clearly did not know what I was talking about. This says it all.
     
    RogerB likes this.
  25. dudley07726

    dudley07726 Forum Resident

    Location:
    FLA
    Ringo's had a more successful solo career than either of those two.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine