Yes, versatile music.

No, no, no! While certainly true of their first two albums (and the Beatles were always the better pop band), from 68-72 the Stones were in a league of their own.

"Exile" shows the band hitting a peak of creative achievement, effortlessly running through several musical styles (pop, rock, country, R&B, blues, soul and even gospel) while still remaining true to themselves and being recognisably "The Stones".

Before that Sticky Fingers featured improvisation (Can't You Hear Me Knocking?) that The Beatles, constricted by their more formal song structures, would never have dared to attempt, and a stunning and subtle solo by a guitarist (Taylor) way more accomplished than Hari Georgeson, bless him.

To attain that level of maturity and accomplishment across different styles is very rare in artists in any field, let alone pop/rock music.

Exaggerate much?

The Beatles may have been the four most talented individuals to ever get together (why did they need George Martin and Phil Spector?), but they are still overrated.

they're only the band the beatles could have been

LOL I've heard this my entire life even from my own father and his generation. I grew up with that generation of music cuz it was my dad's music, I've never heard any R&B or blues on the same level as rock. It's more like an evolution of the music cuz it's not the same music at all.


They definitely got influenced but rockers from that generation including Hendrix evolved the music and lit fire under their own ass to grow. If it was just imitation it would just dead ended, instead they lit that rocket and landed on another planet with their music.

If only we had a Rolling Stones thread where people could **** on the Stones...

Easy to **** on the Beatles, hard to **** on the STones. Jagger would just do a little dance and you'd miss by a mile.

Mojo,


How is it that your family members keep getting invited onstage with Paul McCartney?

IMO, they were best songwriters the rock genre has produced. In their prime, from 62-69, Lennon & McCartney were coming up with an average of about a song every other week. And how many of those were downright bad, maybe 10? If that? Contrast that to just about any other artist you can name, most of whom cannot come up with one full album that is wall-to-wall great original songs, much less a dozen+ albums in a row. Writing a good song is tough.

To me, the mark of a great song is how good other people can sound while covering it. For example, I've heard a bunch of covers of Hendrix's "Little Wing", and they all sound terrific (especially SRV). Same with Mick Jones' "Train in Vain". So many links in this thread to so many covers, IMO, shows what incredible songwriters the Beatles were. The creativity in the studios was icing on the cake.

After 30+ years of owning it, I still listen to the White Album, in its entirety, about 10 times a year.

Current favourite Beatles song is "If I needed someone".

https://youtu.be/H3MgJWH2TiQ?t=1849

If I Fell is such a gorgeous, mature, heartbreaking song. How old were they when the wrote it, like 22? Insane.

Ranking their solo work:

Paul



Ringo
George


John

I think I'll give Tom Petty the last word on the Beatles vs Stones.

My favorite thing about the Beatles was how in their entire catalog they only let Ringo have fun for 20 seconds and then they spent the next minute on that song rotating through guitar solos while leaving Ringo out.

Band for a decade and he couldn't even get 1 ****ing song as the spotlight.

My daughter brought a sign with her asking for Paul to sign her arm. At the time Paul was doing this at a lot of his shows. My daughter had good tickets by the stage and got selected along with another woman. At the LA show my wife brought a sign saying 'You signed my daughter's arm. Can you sign mine?' Once again they were close to the stage and got picked to go up. They have been to so many McCartney shows that they know his main security guy by his 1st name so I think that might have helped.



Go to about 2:12. My daughter in Philly is somewhere on Youtube as well.

Except for maybe one song per album he'd sing or had written.

This is how it was

Mojo,

That’s great!

I don't doubt that the Beatles were great, their songs are great, they changed music, ... but probably 95% of their songs just don't resonate with me. They dont *sound* good to me. No idea what it is, and I wish it wasn't so. It's possible I need to listen to more, and it's possible I should do it while tripping. ... I'm not a hater, but I do not enjoy the Beatles. The white album I do like, but then, don't most people? I just don't get it, but then again some people don't like Dylan.

pretty surprised at the hate for johns solo stuff. I dont really like the guy as a person, he seemed like a real ******* but his solo stuff just crushes lol paul.

You have a point, in that the Stones, though always essentially an R&B act (and Sir Mick has always sung in a fake American accent, which the Beatles decided to stop doing -- which makes quite a difference, you know), also imitated the Beatles. Their second hit was a Lennon-McCartney cover, I Wanna Be Your Man. They did it proud, too, but it was a Beatles cover.

And throughout the Sixties, the Stones were always playing catch-up with the Beatles, never the other way around. In April '63 the Beatles dropped in on the Rollin' Stones' regular gig at the Station Hotel, Richmond (the Stones didn't use the G on 'Rolling' at that time) and the Stones were flattered as heck and had a few drinks with the Beatles afterwards and the Beatles invited them to their Albert Hall gig the following Thursday. And Jagger, Richards and Jones carried the Beatles' guitars into the Albert Hall to get out of buying tickets. No question who was top.

Even in '66, the Stones' album Aftermath wasn't up to Rubber Soul or Revolver, and Jones admitted it was because their music 'wasn't very original.' In January '67, Between the Buttons peaked at No.3 and was likened by the band's biographer Philip Norman to 'a vaudeville show in an almost empty hall.' And a few months later the Beatles released Sgt Pepper, which I'm not mad about, but it created an enormous impact and made the Stones look dusty. In July the Beatles hit No.1 with All You Need Is Love and in August the Stones tried to copy them with We Love You and got consigned to No.8.

And in '69, the inclusion of the London Bach Choir on You Can't Always Get What You Want was due to Mick trying to copy the anthemic effect of Hey Jude. The Stones reached great heights, and since the Beatles broke up they have clearly been the biggest and best band in the world. But they were propelled to those heights by the Beatles. You can call the Beatles twee, you can cite John's view of 'Paul's granny music' -- the songs that even your granny liked, which is uncool -- but the Stones only became what they are because of the Beatles. And not the other way round.

John's solo work is obviously better, yeah. We used to live near Paul and Linda in St John's Wood in the Seventies, and my kid bro went to the local primary school with the McCartney kids and my mum used to run into Linda at the school gates. I don't like people who hate on Paul, really. Just don't. But John's solo work is obviously better.

Yeah, yeah, yeah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSfg...lf5RjA&index=5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmKn...f5RjA&index=42

36:04 onwards.