Stones v. Beatles breakup?

Much stronger

I like Sticky Fingers (much better than the overrated Let It Bleed) it has some great songs ,but Revolver , Pepper , White , Abbey Road. Sticky Fingers comes nowhere near that level of genius.

 

Yes it does. In fact, it is better in my opinion.

 

No. Not then, not now!

 

Revolver - Yellow Submarine
Sgt. Pepper - When I'm 64
Abbey Road - Octopus's Garden

I beg to differ.

 

Don't like psychedelia?... or Ringo?

 

<------- What do you think?

 

That's not psychedelia.

 

Certainly not on Tame Impala's level, but I think it's psychedelia wedded with a brilliant pop melodicism. It's a big part of why the Beatles are so revered, they seem to reach a level that none others do.

 

Give me glockenspiel! I need more glockenspiel!!

 

Two nursery songs and one granny song.

 

I definitely far prefer the Beatles to the Stones....BUT... The Beatles never made an album as cohesive and great as Exile.
I do like more Beatles albums than I do Stones albums, but no Beatles album comes anywhere close to Exile.

 

That's exactly how I feel about "Sticky Fingers".

 

Sure he's not the most gifted guitarist, melodist & composer, but he did have a lot of great songs. How many songwriters can claim as many classic albums/songs as him? There's a few but not too many. His influence also reaches a bunch of genres & artists including both the Beatles & the Stones who were, like many of his contemporaries, in awe of him. Not bad for a guy who's only leg up on anybody was his word writing ability.

 

I would give Dylan the title of most influential lyricist from the 60s on.

You don't get to folks like Lennon (post 63), Jagger, Reed, Zappa, Springsteen, Robert Hunter and many others without going through Dylan.

 

most singer/songwriters quote Dylan as more of an influence than Paul and John

nothing the Beatles did could touch
Bringing it all Back Home, Highway 61
and Blond on Blond........no way.

And what's wrong with Dylan's music?
He wrote some great melodies!

As for "music" the Fabs couldn't even approach the complexity of Zappa so
they weren't #1 there either.

look it seems to me the Beatles crapped out too early. The Stones weathered way more karma than the Beatles.
Beatles never lost one of their key members and I'm sure Mick and Keith fought as much as John and Paul yet
they never crapped out did they?
That says volumes.

 

Sure nothing as bad as Yellow Sub on Sticky, but nothing as beautiful as Here, There & Everywhere(ok, maybe Moonlight Mile ). It also doesn't have the majestic quality conjured up by the "half baked" songs that make up some 2 of the greatest Beatles album ever. I love Sticky, & along with the other "classic" Stones albums, would rank them near the Beatles best albums, but I don't think that just cause it lacks a track as really weak track, that it makes it better than Revolver or Abbey Road(not that I think that's what you're saying, just pointing it out).

 

Hmmm....not sure about that, if anything music was changing wide and fast, and the best was way bigger than just two bands.

 

Beatles have that whole "we made the 12 best albums of the rock era and another 3 albums worth of the best singles of the rock era" thing going for them, so they didn't have to fall back on redefining the role of lyrics in popular music thing like Dylan did or the make music that's so weird that 95% of people won't dig it thing that Zappa specialized in.

But Beatles, Stones, Dylan and Zappa are, along with the Grateful Dead, my top 5 artists.

 

Not to mention Cooke's A Change's Is Gonna Come & Gaye's What's Going On

 

I'm saying that IMO the Beatles never released an album that was as strong front to back as "Sticky Fingers". That's a nearly perfect work of art.
People can make an argument for a few Beatles albums but each one has one or two songs that hold it back from excellence. I love the Beatles just as much as the next guy, but it is what it is.

 

Lennon gave up chasing Dylan after "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away".
Sure, "Day In The Life" doesn't have as many words as "Desolation Row", doesn't necessarily mean it's lacking in anything.
And on the flipside, did Bob Dylan ever accomplish anything like "Lucy In the Sky with Diamonds"?

 

He did? * cough cough* ""In My Life"....
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? In terms of what?

 

Personally, I'm glad they didn't break up after Exile(my fav Stones album) cause we wouldn't have Goats Head Soup, Black n Blue, Some Girls, and Tattoo You. It was best that the Beatles broke up cause they couldn't carry on with each other. If they had a few more solid albums in em, then we would have gotten it I think. But I get the feeling they knew it was over cause they were in much different places, and John, Paul, & George were so independent. Jagger & Richards could get on each other's nerves, but still managde collaborate together much more.

 

In terms of inhaling helium and singing.
It might come to some surprise to some, but life didn't completely begin in '63 with Freewheelin Bob Dylan.

 

Sure, I get what you're saying. I will concede that even my favorite Beatles album has at least one filler song, which, as you say Sticky lacks. What makes it frustrating is how close they could have come to perfect, filler-less albums if they only switched around some b-sides & album tracks &/or put their singles on the albums. How much better would Revolver have been if you replaced the two weakest tracks with Paperback Writer & Rain?