Why the Rolling Stones SUCK when compared to The Beatles

[boritter]

The original post omits many key details that flaw his arguement:

First, both of these albums came out in 1966, not 1965.

Second, he only listed the tracks from the US version of Aftermath. The UK version included "Mother's Little Helper," which is a great song.

Third, whenever you talk about the Stones music you need to remember that they released many singles that never appeared on albums. "19th Nervous Breakdown," another Stones classic, was recorded during the Aftermath sessions but the Stones only released it as a single. (As a side note, Jumping Jack Flash was also released as a single and never appeared on an album).

Finally, I will not argue with the songs that the original poster chose as great or poor.

But when you "randomly" pick two albums to compare, at least use albums that represent each band at their peak. The Beatles were at or near their prime in 1966. The Stones had yet to evolve from their pop-rock phase into a full on rock n' roll band (a transition which the Beatles never made). The best Stones music appeared during the Beggar's Banquet - Exile on Main Street years.

It is illogical to measure the Rolling Stones without taking into consideration the contributions that Mick Taylor made on the band.

Yes, the Beatles were a far better pop band.

But the Rolling Stones are the world's greatest rhythm and blues and rock n' roll band.

[slicer]

Originally Posted by boritter

Yes, the Beatles were a far better pop band.

But the Rolling Stones are the world's greatest rhythm and blues and rock n' roll band.

BINGO! wrapped up in two sentences!

regards,
jim.

[guitarboy32]

I think the Beatles were better. All bands that make it to the big time have one great songwriter, but the Beatles had two. Although when all is said and done, they were both just bubblegum pop, Beatles pandering to girls and Stones pandering to guys.

A good discussion would be Beatles vs. Metallica.

[MarqueeMoon]

Originally Posted by alittleguitar

i'd like to subjectively say that 'exile on main street' is the greatest thing ever recorded.

hahahaha, nice...

[chloesdad]

I agree, I love the Stones but they are a bit of a joke in England.
Old farts!!!!

[oscar101]

u r so wrong!!!!
keith defines r&r to this day and teh stones anthems havent dated like teh beatles stuff

[Knight]

YEAR ALBUM UK US
1964 Rolling Stones 1
1964 England's Newest Hit Makers 11
1964 12x5 3
1965 Rolling Stones No.2 1
1965 Rolling Stones NOW! 5
1965 Out of Our Heads 2 1
1965 December's Children (and everybody's) 4
1966 Big Hits (high tide and green grass) 3
1966 Aftermath 1 2
1966 Big Hits (high tide and green grass) 4
1966 got LIVE if you want it! 6
1967 Between the Buttons 3 2
1967 Flowers 3
1967 Their Satanic Majesties Request 3 2
1968 Beggar's Banquet 3 5
1969 Through the Past Darkly (big hits vol. II) 2 2
1969 Let it Bleed 1 3
1970 Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out (in concert) 1 6
1971 Stone Age 4
1971 Sticky Fingers 1 1
1971 Gimme Shelter [NOT a soundtrack] 19
1971 Hot Rocks 1964-1971 4
1972 Milestones 14
1972 Exile On Main Street 1 1
1972 Rock 'n' Rolling Stones 41
1972 More Hot Rocks (big hits and fazed cookies) 9
1973 Goat's Head Soup 1 1
1974 It's Only Rock and Roll 2 1
1975 Metamorphosis 45 8
1975 Made In The Shade 14 6
1975 Rolled Gold 1963-69 7
1976 Black and Blue 2 1
1977 Love You Live 3 5
1977 Get Stoned 8
1978 Some Girls 2 1
1980 Emotional Rescue 1 1
1981 Sucking In the Seventies 15
1981 Tattoo You 2 1
1982 Still Life (American concert 1981) 4 5
1982 In Concert [Dutch export to U.K.] 94
1982 Story Of The Stones 24
1983 Undercover 3 4
1984 Rewind 1971-1984 23 86
1986 Dirty Work 4 4
1989 Singles Collection* the London Years 138 91
1989 Steel Wheels 2 3
1990 Hot Rocks - The Greatest Hits 1964-1971 3
1991 Flashpoint [live + studio] 6 16
1993 Jump Back: The Best of the Rolling Stones 1971-1993 16
1994 Voodoo Lounge 1 2
1995 Stripped [CD/CD-ROM] 9 9
1996 Rock and Roll Circus (live, 1968) ** 92
1997 Bridges to Babylon 6 3
1998 No Security (live) 67 34
2002 Forty Licks [1964-2002] 2 2
2004 Singles 1963-1965 178
2004 Jump Back: The Best of the Rolling Stones 1971-1993 30
2004 Live Licks 38 50
2005 A Bigger Bang 2 3
2005 Rarities 1971-2003 133 76


There is the chart positions.

I'm not going to include Beatles positions, because I don't really care.


I have seen no evidence that the Beatles are "better" than the Stones. Here are a few reasons why they are not:

Exile On Main Street. Enough said
Charlie Watts. Ditto
Keith and the 5-string guitar. Never has anyone done more with less.
Yoko never did a Stone(I hope).
Mick Taylor's great playing.
Glimmer Twins songwriting. It cannot be beat.
The bass line in Miss You. Wyman at his best.
The beatles were too clean, while the Stones were dirty.Therefore, cooler.
I'd rather hang with Charlie than Ringo.
The Stones lasted and prospered past 1970.
Some girls. Enough said.
Ronnie Wood. Can make great solo albums and draw the covers too.
Let It Bleed.Enough said.
Tattoo You. Enough said.
Mick Jagger's stage moves. No one is better.
Shine A light made it to No.2 In the UK. Thats for a live album.


I think the Beatles are ok, just a bit dated comared to the Stones of the sixties. I like Lennon solo far better than the Beatles.

[keith]

i must say that lennon had more talent than the rest of the beatles and the stones.
Cause John Lennon was/is the beatles just like keith richards is the rolling stones cause you can put the lyrics from mick and keith on any song you want without keith's riffs and rhythm they wouldn't be succesfull. just compare the solo projects of all the stones.
And you will notice that keith has that typical sound of the stones.
and the hits of the stones are mostly written by keith and not by jagger.

And lennon was bigger than all of the beatles. He sold more records on his own than paul, george and ringo sold together.

The best stones albums ever made couldn't be compared with the beatles
like let it bleed, sticky fingers and exile on main street. nobody could beat these albums when they came out and i don't think that the beatles could come up with better stuff at that time.

and you say who's cooler than paul McCartney that's really easy.
keith who else? If paul would have lived like keith he would be dead a long time ago i think that he wouldn't survived Gram Parsons.

And keith doesn't look good anymore but anybody knows from what that is.
At least keith can say that he always stayed normal just like john lennon.
And did not become an asshole like mccartney cause he thinks he is/was the best artist ever. In my opinion McCartney never made a good record after the beatles he maybe wrote some good lyrics but that's all.

Then you have george who was allright in what he did.
But the drummer Ringo he sucks big time!!!
He could really learn a lot from charlie.
the only good thing about ringo is his son.
he plays really good (Foreigner and the Who).

conclusion:
if john lennon started a band with Keith on guitar and charlie on drums.
that would be bigger then the stones and the beatles together.
(for the rest of the band you can choose between: bill, Brian and George i don't)

[Schenker93]

Alright, this seems like a flame thread ready to happen. First off, they're both different. You really can't say which one is better unless its one music style with one set of standards. I prefer the Rolling Stones because for me the guitar is better. That's pretty much the most important thing to me when I listen to music - how does the guitar sound? I prefer Kieth Richards so, I prefer the Rolling Stones. Now, in the broad spectrum of music I like, the Rolling Stones probably aren't even in the top 30. Quite frankly, I don't consider either band to be great musicians, but hey, it was a simpler time, with different music. So yeah, all opinion - just like those lists of the "Best Guitarists of All Time" or "Greatest Songs of All Time" - pure opinion that 99% of the time doesn't agree with your tastes.

[Needley_Springsteen]

thanx

[alittleguitar]

no band ever had a greater run than the stones did w/ 'beggars' banquet,' 'let it bleed' and 'exile on main street,' which is the greatest rock album ever.

[Strawman]

no no i cant stand lennon moaning twat..listened to a interview of his and moan moan..christ what have you got to moan bout u pillock!

[jmrecillas]

This is a very local discussion, since everybody speak about The Beatles and Rolling Stones as a local bands in UK and US. But things looks different from other countries. Specially those that not belong to English tradition or language. For example, the case for both bands in Mexico is really absolutelly different from any other country in Latin America, Europe, or North America (America is a full continent, not a silly country).

In Mexico, Rolling Stones are less than a zero to the left, but The Beatles are a sort of religious cult. We have the most older radio show dedicated to them from more than 40 years non-stop broadcasting, and there is no other radio show in Mexico so older and so alive. This shows broadcast 3 times everyday: one in the morning, another at Noon, and other when the sun is falling. Other stations has tried to broadcast radioshows dedicated to other bands such as Quenn, Rolling Stones, but all this shows has fall into oblivion and nobody cares about their music.

In Mexico, The Beatles are almost a religion that has followers everywhere. Of course, I have to tell that this has pist off many people, not for The Beatles itself, but for the fans, that ussually are morons and obtuse people that hardly can speak, so as the same way that in Mexico you support some of the two major soccer teams (America or Guadalajara), many people are divided by this love/hate relationship to The Beatles.

But of course, is not only something about taste or like or dislike to some of both groups. There a solid ground to say that The Beatles are much much better group than Rolling Stones, as the same way we can say that Eric Clapton is a better guitar player than Joe Satriani or Steve Vai. They are just much more technically dotated, but they are cold as ice, meanwhile Clapton can touch your soul with a single melody, and that's beacuse he's got a blues root behind that supported. To be more technically dotated is not a proof of beign a better player. We must not mixed expression with virtuosism.

In the case of The Beatles, and more specifically they in Mexico, I can say that they are made, or more accurate, the people has made a hit of every single song of all their albums. In Mexico people knows (at least those who listen foreign groups and not the trashie junk that today its broadcasted for many sub-humans in this country) every song written by Lennon & McCartney, but also those written by Harrison and Starr. All albums of The Beatles are perfect and everybody values as such. I prefer, of course, those albums after Sargent Peppers, and my absolute favorite is Abbey Road.

There is no one single album made by The Rolling Stones that has been an absolute success with every single song of it. And is not a secret that there is a zillions of hommages to The Beatles all over the world, and there is... how many dedicated to the Stones? Even in musical dictionaries such as Harvard, The Beatles are considered the most influential and important group of all times. Orchestras all over the world play arrangements of their songs, and... how many orchestras has played some song of the Stones? Yeah, I guess that.

So, are The Beatles more important than The Rollings Stones? Of course. Only a Rolling Stones' fan can denied that. The Beatles aren't not only better thatn RS, they are also more important historically and musicologically. Ask any music professor, ask any professional musician, but specially, ask any Historisist. There is no place where The RS can beat The Beatles. It doesn't matter what argument you can put on the table, History support The Beatles, as support Clapton over Satriani or almost every other guitar player who doesn't be BB King. Its not a matter of taste, like or dislike, ground public or popularity (which is a ver strong argument in behalf of The Beatles: If RS has split at the same time than The Beatles, who remember them today? ANSWER: NOBODY). History is History, and if the Rolling Stones are still stand in the popular taste is only because they are still live and kicking, which is not, by the way, a silly thing by itself.

Do I have must say something more? I guess not.

[jmrecillas]

I'm gonna try to show how wrong are you in your ideas, and that you don't prove anything.

Originally Posted by keith

i must say that lennon had more talent than the rest of the beatles and the stones.

Many say that, but this has not any sense at all. Its only words, but is not an argument.

Cause John Lennon was/is the beatles (If Lennon was The Beatles, can you prove that The Beatles exist before they were founded, when Lennon was a member of Quarrymen? No, you cannot, and nobody can, so this is one of the lamest argumets ever, and is not new. Not for saying many times its gonna be true) just like keith richards is the rolling stones (same as previous idea) cause you can put the lyrics from mick and keith on any song you want without keith's riffs and rhythm they wouldn't be succesfull. just compare the solo projects of all the stones.

This is another silly argument. You're saying absolutelly nothing. You can't put lyrics of one song in another just to compare. This is not make any sense. So, lame argument.

And you will notice that keith has that typical sound of the stones.
and the hits of the stones are mostly written by keith and not by jagger.

What has to do this with the original idea about who's best or bigger than other? Maybe you just wanted to say it, and already you has say it. But it doesn't add an inch to the discusion.

And lennon was bigger than all of the beatles. He sold more records on his own than paul, george and ringo sold together.

I think this is not right. You don't give any data about selling records (maybe you only listen that someone say that, but you don't have actual data) and I'm sure that this not prove anything. Another silly argument.

The best stones albums ever made couldn't be compared with the beatles
like let it bleed, sticky fingers and exile on main street. nobody could beat these albums when they came out and i don't think that the beatles could come up with better stuff at that time.

Another silly guess that is impossible to proof.

and you say who's cooler than paul McCartney that's really easy.
keith who else? If paul would have lived like keith he would be dead a long time ago i think that he wouldn't survived Gram Parsons.

Once again, guessing after guessing. "If Paul has live that way or that another, that's would it happended". "If Keith Richards would be born in Thailand...". And, of course that silly think about coolness is something that seems only matter to people who live in UK or US, but for those of us who doesn't such a thing as coolness is just a waste of time and one of the more silly things we can heard about.

And keith doesn't look good anymore but anybody knows from what that is.
At least keith can say that he always stayed normal just like john lennon.
And did not become an asshole like mccartney cause he thinks he is/was the best artist ever. In my opinion McCartney never made a good record after the beatles he maybe wrote some good lyrics but that's all.

This is an asbolute moronic cookie talk. Who's more normal than who it doesn't add anything to the original idea. Of course you can compare whatever you wanted: shit, underwear, guitars, hair cut, eyes colour, but that's has nothing to do with music. And that argument about that McCartney has never write a good record or song as a solo musician is an absolute piece of crap. At least McCartney write his own music and lyrics, which Richards is far from be able to do. And of course, Keith Richards has never recorded not an album but a memorable song as a solo singer.

Then you have george who was allright in what he did.
But the drummer Ringo he sucks big time!!!
He could really learn a lot from charlie.
the only good thing about ringo is his son.
he plays really good (Foreigner and the Who).

Another idiotic argument that proves you can't say anything coherent about this subject. Of course Ringo was a sucker drummer, but that's not the point. And to put in the frame of this thread his son is absolutely idiotic.

conclusion:
if john lennon started a band with Keith on guitar and charlie on drums.
that would be bigger then the stones and the beatles together.
(for the rest of the band you can choose between: bill, Brian and George i don't)

Conclusion: You only make silly comparisons and more silly argumentations, you don't have add a single strong idea that support what is only a superficial taste for The Stones. This final guessing, "if john lennon started a band with Keith on guitar and charlie on drums" only supports that you live in a world of Fantasy and Illusions, and not in real world.

So, as far can anyone see, you don't add a solid idea that support your taste for the Stones. And in any case, is just that, a matter of taste. But, wether you like it or not, The Beatles are still part of collective memory all over the world and they continue alive, much more than many other groups from that age or after, and they seel zillions of albums all over the world, more than any other group or singer. So, don't get mad. If you prefer Stones over The Beatles, thier popularity doesn't have to affect you too much, as any Stones fans.

[soulsurvivor5555]

The Rolling Stones don'T fool around with POP Bullshit like The Beatles Did!! The Stones Play Blues Based Rock N Roll not Melodic POP The Stones Were THE BAD ASS BOYS THAT PlAYED BLUES AND BLUES BASED ROCK N ROLL As Far As The Rolling Stones Having Songs That Are The Exception To The Rule ..You Are A Fool!!
It's All Over Now, Play With Fire, Time Is On My Side,Little Red Rooster, The Last Time, 19th Nervous Breakdown,Ruby Tuesday,. Lets Spend The Night Together,Love In Vain, Sympathy, Jumping Jack Flash,You Can't Always Get What You Want,Gimmie Shelter,Midnight Rambler, Monkey, Man,Honky Tonk Women,Paint It Black,Under My Thumb,Heart Of Stone,Get Off My Cloud,Dandelion, 2000 Light Years From Home, She's A Rainbow Street Fighting Man.SATISFACTION...SHALL I GO ON...AND IM NOT EVEN OUT OF THE 60s..I STILL HAvE THE 70s& 80s HITS IN MY BACK POCET !!! FACE IT THE STONES HAVE SURPASSED YOUR GAY LITTLE QUARTET!!! AND AS FAR AS SOLO CAREERS..KEITH HAD A VERY GOOD SOLO CAREER...HIS SOLO ALBUMS ARE SOLID....MICK'S SOLO ALBUM ENTITLED..WANDERING SPIRIT IS HIS BEST EFFORT.( I JUST SAW RINGO SOLO ON SOME SPECIAL..HE WASN'T EVEN FIT TO BE A LOUNGE LIZARD)
THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU ARE JUST JEALOUS THAT THE STONES ARE STILL GOING SELLING OUT STADIUM AFTER STADIUM NIGHT AFTER NIGHT AND YOUR GAY LITTLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL HARMONMY CHOIR WERE BROKEN UP BY SCREAMING ASIAN FOOL....YEA YOKO....LETS NOT EVEN TALK ABOUT HOW EMBARRASSING YOKO AND JOHN LENNON WERE ON THE ROLLING STONES ROCK N ROLL CIRCUS. IT WAS RIDICULOUS TO SEE JOHNLENNON ON THE SAME STAGE ADVOCATING YOKO SCREAMING INTO THE MIKE LIKE A DYING WOUNDED CIRCUS SEAL!YEA GREAT IDEA JOHN...WHAT A GREAT SONG..WHAT A TALENT...!!!!..AND AS FAR AS I CAN REMENBER PAUL HAD SOME REAL GREAT ONES TOO..FLOWERS IN THE DIRT..COMES TO MIND....AND COME TO THINK OF IT ANYTHING BPAUL DID IN THE 80S AND 90S STUNK.....THE BEST THING HE DOES IS FILL UP THE ARENA AND BUTCHER OLD BEATLES SONGS....WHEN YOU GO SEE A STONES SHOW YOUR GOING TO SEE MEN PLAYING ROCK N ROLL