Stones v. Beatles breakup?

Seeing Keith with a mustache makes me see how he could pass for Jack Sparrow or Johnny Depp's father.
Bill looks pretty cool with the pencil stache
Charlie looks a little like one of the Beatles around the Sgt Pepper era
Brian looks like he hasn't slept in days (but then again when didn't he?), but I think he pulled off the beard nicely

 

I don't know if George qualifies as genius.

 

If the Stones would have broken up in 72 they would still be remembered and be on equal footing with the Beatles, in my opinion. I'm just so glad that they didn't. I became a Beatles fan in 64 and Stones fan in 65. I still play a Beatles album occasionally but I still listen to the Stones all the time.

 

Good point but "respect' and "mythical status" are two different things. The whole idea of not knowing what might have come next had they stopped in '72-which was a high point musically and and in terms of enigmatic appeal-would have elevated their status even higher than it is today, if that's at all possible. There's always added "mystique" when you're stuck in "what-if" mode with a band or artist who stops "short"

 

Mick and Brian admiring each other's new beards, January 1968:

 

BONUS:
Mick Taylor's afro, 1973:

 

That had to be a wig right? He did not have enough hair to curl that much.

 

Yes, was a wig he wore when he played with Billy Preston's opening band on the Stones '73 European tour. Mick was such a tour de force - did a full Billy Preston show and a full Stones show the same night.

On topic: As much as I love the Stones (much moreso than The Beatles), if they broke up in say 1972, I do not think they would be remembered nearly as much as The Beatles. The Beatles were already a corporate, global brand by 1970. They had better marketing, wider exposure, and a wider fanbase. The Stones were big in the 70s but they never dominated the way The Beatles dominated most of the 60s unquestionably. The Stones only built into a global juggernaut in the 80s and 90s, really. If they broke up in 1972, they probably would be remembered, but not to any large degree. I do not think they would even be as "legendary" as Led Zeppelin is now. Led Zeppelin purposefully cultivated a very mystical, mysterious and alluring presence and their lack of media exposure only made them more interesting. Their epic songs and their impact on 90s rock helped turn them into legends. The Stones have not been nearly as influential, nor did they have any mysticism to impart (If they broke up in say, 1968, this is a different story).

As far as solo careers post a breakup:

AMick Taylor was not nearly as interesting a person or a persona as George Harrison. I mean, Taylor was an amazing guitarist but quite a bland and boring personality whereas George was, you know, George. Quirky, introspective, soulful and interesting even beyond the music.

The only way I can see a successful solo career is if Mick Jagger retained Taylor for a solo band (which, given how close the two Micks were by '72 seems quite plausible). If the Stones break up in '72 I can also see Mick focusing a lot more on his acting career. Mick Jagger and Mick Taylor together might've made some very great jazzy sort of music that was commercially viable (given Jagger's propensity for sensing the next bandwagon).

I can't see Keith becoming as big on his own as say, Santana, in the event of the breakup. He would be Chuck Berry: His own little niche of fans, but his albums wouldn't be commercially viable in the way John or Paul's were.

 

I think a more interesting scenario is the Stones breaking up BEFORE The Beatles - say in early 1969 just after Beggar's Banquet, or in late 1969 just after Altamont.

Mick was starting up a film career and was a mega sex symbol in 1969. He also had the makings of a solo career if he wanted it with Ry Cooder on guitar (Memo from Turner). He was highly wanted in film - There was even talk of doing Shakespeare films with him in the lead in 1968/1969. He might've given such overtures more attention if the Stones broke up. He might've collaborated also with Dave Mason (Dave was hanging around the Stones' studio in '69 and played on Factory Girl and Street Fighting Man). Mick's interest in pop music (the choir and pop feel of You Can't Always Get What You Want was all his doing) was growing. He would've become a pop star in the late 60s.

Keith wasn't heavily addicted to smack in 1968 or 1969 - but he was by 1972. I can see him doing much of Sticky Fingers/Exile on his own with help from Gram Parsons.

Brian's death right around the time of a Stones breakup would've only added to a sense of mystery and made questions arise of "what could've been" in much the same way John Bonham and Jim Morrison's deaths elevated the mythology and post-break up fame of their bands.

Plus, they would've been one of the first major rock breakups, if it happened sometime during 1969. And if it happened just after Altamont? Forget it, that's legendary status right there.

1972 for me is much less an interesting time than 1969 for a breakup to occur IMO.

A breakup in 1969 would check every box that made other bands legendary after their breakups:
-Death of seemingly gifted, young, troubled band member? Check
-Interesting and arresting lead singer at height of his sex appeal? Check
-Shocking/game changing concert event just before the band's breakup? (Ala Miami 1969, Knebworth 79)? Check

 

Truthfully you're not wrong

 

The first couple of discs from the solo Beatles (Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, McCartney, Ram, All Things Must Pass sides 1-4) are brilliant. They're great. Someone said earlier that the Stones needed each other in a different way than the Beatles, and I think that's right.

Does anyone believe that if the Stones had broken up, at any point really, that any of them, let alone 3 of them, could produce a run of brilliant records that rivaled their output as a group?

I guess what I'm saying here is that the Stones *needed* to go on to add to their legacy, and also that the Beatles *could* have gone on.

 

imho nobody can have equal billing to the Beatles as their genius and the effect they had on cultural history before we even get to the music makes them the headliner by a country mile.

The stones would occupy the next line though along with a couple of others, maybe Zep and Floyd.

 

Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.

Mozart

I always imagine The Beatles as a band that took advantage of having three superb song writers in the group, all of which were critical thinkers that were guided by their own spiritual and political motives, which only sometimes were in sync with each other. No way it could have gone on.

Personally, I like having the Stones around. Makes me feel less old.

Still more of a Stones fan than a Beatles fan, but that really has to do with exposure, personal taste and my age. Don't really care who's one or two. That's kind of silly and the answer is pretty obvious. What's crazy is that the first super-popular rock band still might be the most influential, no one can eclipse their ingenuity and their love for what they did when they were together as band.

As far as the actual question, had the Stones disbanded after Exile they would not be in the top ten. Not sure where they would be. Yes they would be well regarded, highly remembered, like Cream or some other sixties power house bands that had great potential but disbanded early to move on to other things. We would be wishing that they had continued. I'm glad they did. I think highly of everything they did up through Tattoo You. Also, had they broke up then my favorite Stones song would not have been recorded (see below).

 

i'm not as impressed as you with the solo Beatles output, POB Imagine ATMP 1-4 BOTR and possibly Ringo aside, however your point is well made, and the Stones have made no solo albums that i can think of that were not much more than dog **** on the dance floor ( to miss quote Keef )

 

#3 is definitely the Kinks, and definitely not the Who

 

Yeah I see a breakup in 1969 like this:

Mick does a solo project with Dave Mason, Ry Cooder, with Mick Taylor on lead guitar (the same way George played on John's early solo work). This is just based on the people Mick was hanging with in 1968-1969. You get poppy songs akin to You Can't Always Get What You Want, some creepy bluesy numbers akin to Midnight Rambler, and some eastern inspired Taylor tracks. Think a lot of the more Mick led tracks on Sticky Fingers and Exile, only with collaboration from the guys I mentioned. Mick on his own in this era might have even been bigger than John: More pop-oriented and less politically divisive. Films and collaborations with pop stars would color a Mick Jagger career post the Stones, and given that he's totally on his own, he might pick better movies and give more effort to solo efforts. After all, he doesn't have the Stones' safety net to fall back on in this scenario.

Keith probably joins a supergroup (I mean, in Dec 1968 he briefly did The Dirty Mac with Lennon, Mitch Mitchell, and Eric Clapton). I can easily see him being called over by one of those guys, and he is at his creative peak here. Pair him with any of those guys and you'd have a hit solo career on par with Paul. Keith probably doesn't make it out of the 1970s, though. He's dead of a heroin overdose probably by the late 70s.

Brian dying is the best PR move to cement the Stones' legend. Stones fans would forever wonder: Would they have gotten back together with him? What would the next Stones record have been like? Let it Bleed was so great - what would've come next? Altamont only months after Brian's passing cements this mystique.

Charlie I can see just doing niche jazz fusion stuff, maybe becoming a session man? Bill who knows.

But if they broke up in 1969, they'd be legendary.

 

i am also glad they are still here, i love the stones too, and Mozart was a literally a genius, it just ran out of him, Beethoven however had to work harder at it and like the Beatles music would never been the same without him whereas Mozart imho was for the most part just a greater Haydn although that does oversimplfy his genius, Beethoven and the Beatles did not just improve what went on before, they went on to change their respective games.

 

I think McCartney nailed the difference between the 2 bands (after decades of thinking about it?), and Keith Richards basically agreed with him when Keith quoted Macca in Keith's biography as saying, paraphrasing from memory here, "The Beatles were a singing group, and the Stones were a guitar group".

 

The Beatles were my first love, and I really like the Stones, and you could argue that the Stones were as great as the Beatles, but then I'd just say that the Stones needed 2 decades to do it, whereas the Beatles did it in one.

 

I think you can chalk this up to a 60s vs. 70s thing, rather than evidence of one band being better than the other.

 

You do have a view of a post-breakup Stones if you look at the Jagger-Richards solo releases circa 1985-1988. Not as sexy as early '70s, I'll grant you. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought the Stones were finished in the mid-'80s.

 

Not about the music it doesn't.

 

Mick Taylor appears on this.

 

Imo, The Stones got all of their greatest material out by the time Exile came out, so they only needed a decade too(62-72)