How big were The Beatles? Let Mick Jagger tell you... (from 1995)

The Beatles were so big that it's hard for people not alive at the time to realize just how big they were. There isn't a real comparison with anyone now. I suppose Michael Jackson at one point, but it still doesn't quite seem the same. They were so big that to be competitive with them was impossible. I'm talking about in record sales and tours and all this. They were huge... They certainly were not a great live band. Maybe they were in the days of the Cavern, when they were coming up as a club band. I'm sure they were hilariously funny and all that. And they did have this really good onstage persona. But as far as the modern-day world, they were not a great performing band. But... (t)hey were the Beatles. They were this forerunning, breakthrough item, and that's hard to overestimate. Jagger 1995

Q: How well did the Stones get on with the Beatles? Huw Gale, Cardiff, Wales

A: Very well. Of course, there was a lot of competition but the Beatles were always hugely more popular and had a head start on us. They were so massive and there’s never been a band since that’s been so big.
But we got on very well with them and they were very helpful to us. They gave us a song, which was one of our first top 10 hits in England. They were really very easy to get on with. But they weren’t always nice to everybody.

 

Fair minded response. As far as live, I'd say they were still quite good prior to the hurricane days of Beatlemania but then began to deteriorate for all the reasons we all know by now. They're the first ones to admit to this.

 

Can't argue Jagger on any of it, especially the live aspect. I love The Beatles but live, not so much.

 

I was listening to a podcast today where a writer said something I'd been saying for years(my words not his): The Stones were/are the greatest Rock n Roll Band in the World. The Beatles were just so much more than Rock n Roll.

 

In addition to the relentless screams from the audience, The Beatles themselves didn't make it easy on themselves from the outset by creating records of songs that were difficult to reproduce on stage. Even from the early days there were subtle little studio embellishments which "made" the records: things like the handclaps on IWTHYH or the galloping bongos on AHDN which virtually "drove' the studio recording of that song. And that's just to start. Did I mention vocal layerings..?

 

Love the stones in their golden period, but always though they were/are a patchy band live as well.

 

True, but early on there are live TV and radio recordings that bear out that they were good live at one point, that point being immediately after coming out the club/bar circuit, basically 1963 and a bit into 1964. The problem for me isn't the lack of studio embellishments or vocal double-tracking, but rather the way Beatlemania seemed to make them lose enthusiasm for playing live. Plus, they just didn't seem able to jam together at all.

 

I love both bands and never really am comfortable with the competition aspect .

That being said, an observation I'd put forward is .. I think the Beatles would have been a much better band live through 1965 because the Stones didn't have that many great original songs through about 1965 or so.

I saw both bands in 1966 and by that time I thought both bands were great live because by then the Stones could add better upbeat original songs to their set list like "Paint it Black" and "19th Nervous Breakdown".

The Beatles were a more "professional " band presentation wise , but the Stones had a great proto punk energy and sloppy (in a good way) reckless energy which was very appealing .

By 1969 when I saw the Stones live they had become more professional themselves and were a great live band for different reasons than I liked them in 1966.

And because inevitably this will turn into a Beatles vs. Stone thread , let me state again that they were both GREAT and I loved both of them.

 

They do sound pretty good when they get back out there for a bit in 1969 on the roof top IMO.

 

BIG $ Movies, TV, books, media, royalties, lunch pails and merchandise galore the Beatles were everywhere.
This comes unsaid from Mick the accountant.

 

I've mentioned it before but by the time the Beatles toured beyond the UK seeing them was more of an "event" than a musical concert, and as you have mentioned, they were fully aware of this themselves .

It was a communal mass hysteria event with s little music thrown in also .

Good lord, the guys I watched on Ed Sullivan and in A Hard Days Night,etc., are in the room with me! WAHH!

Trust me, it was a surrealistic experience at the time.

 

I remember Elvis Costello -- probably around the time of SPIKE/FLOWERS IN THE DIRT --
saying something to the effect that the Beatles were famous when being famous meant something, like you couldn't leave your hotel.

 

Keith Richards, in his autobiography, tells the story of how frustrating it was to the Stones that the Beatles were so much richer than they were. Andrew Loog Oldham told them "Well of course they are, they get songwriting royalties. Why don't you write some songs?"

And, of course, they did.

 

Yep.

As long as you bring up Keith, it strikes me as interesting that he tries to minimize the Beatles at every opportunity these days.

That shouldn't surprise me though because he tries to minimize almost everyone except himself now.
Even his band mate ," the tiny todger"

 

Glenn, I think you jumped to a conclusion. Keith wondering why another band is so much richer than he or his band is a fair question to a young 20 something with no music business experience, and is not a put down of the Beatles, but a question about the Stones and their shortcomings.

Keith hung out with Paul not long ago and they hashed out their respective band's history from their own point of view. This was in private, like sitting on the deck of a beach front house sipping wine and smoking a joint together. Keith told Paul that one of the big advantages that the Beatles had is every member could sing. Keith stated this (publicly) about their meet-up not long ago.

He and Mick both seem to know their own place in rock as the Stones, and admire and respect the Beatles with their better albums and strong hit songs.

 

Brian Epstein turned them into a cabaret band,but then there was the songs.

 

Yeah, but I'm not talking about Keith talking in his 20's or even 10 or 15 years ago when Keith was more generous with his appraisal of the Beatles. He has been less generous the last few years though.
As a small example, and I can't remember what award the Beatles were getting ,but Keith's introduction to them getting the award consisted of all kinds of superlatives about" this great revolutionary band,"etc., or somesuch and then he ended it with" but enough about the Rolling Stones "....

I know it was supposed to be humorous but it seemed like he couldn't bring himself to actually give the Fabs their props for a minute, he had to spotlight his band for that minute rather than realizing this wasn't his band's moment in the sun.

 

Music: Top 100 Songs | Billboard Hot 100 Chart

 

Perhaps some will recall that Keith did putdown Sgt Pepper recently in a comment to the press (which was unnecessary) . I think he simply thinks that they got and get enough praise as it is, which they certainly did and do.

Keith and John Lennon were both great friends, and approached rock playing and performing the same way, preferring it on the raw and unpolished side of things over the slicker type production. Keith still admires John's musical sensibilities, and has said it recently that he is a Lennon type rocker.

All of the band members of each of these two groups highly admire each other. And they are close enough that they think they can get away with saying things that really need not be said.

 

Yeah, that's the key really . John said some nasty things about Mick in his Rolling Stone interview yet they hung out together quite a bit afterwords .

Paul agreed with Howard Stern mentioned that the Stones seemed to do the same thing the Beatles did soon after.

So, its basically a bunch of rich, spoiled friends that can say what they want about each other but nobody holds it against them when they get together.

 

John mentioning that Mick wearing eyeliner (still after all these years) if F'ing ridicules. I think he implied Mick was too old for it. That might be the Playboy interviews.

 

The Stones were more often influenced by the Bealtes than vice-versa. It's hard to imagine "Play With Fire" existing if "Things We Said Today" hadn't come out a few months earlier. The musical similarities between "Let's Spend The Night Together" and "You're Gonna Lose That Girl" are also very much in evidence.

 

I find it curious why some seem to think The Beatles need 'patting on the back' all the time...?

i.e. THE BEATLES WERE SO BIG in bold black letters - sounds like a spin Doctor trying to ram home a view on people !

we get thread after thread starting up forever over praising them as if some are fearful The Beatles supposed 'crown' might slip thus needs regular enthusiastic polishing up !

it often just sounds like 'squee squee squee' - doing the band and their memory few favours if any....

Lennon said he was 'only a lukewarm Beatles fan' and later claimed he;
'don't believe in...Beatles' (gasp !!!)


as a live band they certainly would have benefited if John Lennon didn't so often keep going wrong on lyrics - on HIS own songs !!

 

They were the New Kids on the Block or the Backstreet Boys of the 60s.

 

I'd just like to state right here, right now, how glad I am that there's a resurgence of Beatles threads in Music Corner. I'm feeling my oats now, and will likely start 2-3 more Fab threads!