Why the Rolling Stones SUCK when compared to The Beatles

[wip5150]

I'm sure I'll catch some heat for this, but so be it. I am damn sick and tired of everyone telling me how great the Rolling Stones are/were - especially when people are comparing them to the Beatles.

In my opinion, the Rolling Stones are/were average at best. When they were going "head to head" with the Beatles, the Fab Four win hands down. Sure, the Stones had some good songs ("Paint it Black", "Satisfaction", and "Get Off My Cloud" come to mind), but those songs are the exception, not the rule. So, to prove my argument, let's take a look at a few points of contention.

Exhibit A - A Random Album Comparison

Let's look at two albums, released within months of each other in 1965 and compare, shall we?

The Rolling Stones - Aftermath
<ul type="square"> [*]Paint It Black [*]Stupid Girl [*]Lady Jane [*]Under My Thumb [*]Dontcha Bother Me [*]Think [*]Flight 505 [*]High and Dry[*]It's Not Easy [*]I am Waiting [*]Going Home [/list]
Now, of those songs, I think only "Paint it Black" and "Under My Thumb" stand out. Since I'm not 100% familiar with this release, I'll go ahead and give the Stones a "wildcard" credit for another good song on here making a total of three out of 11 or about 26.5%

The Beatles - Revolver
<ul type="square"> [*]Taxman [*]Eleanor Rigby [*]I'm only Sleeping [*]Love to You [*]Here, There and Everywhere [*]Yellow Submarine [*]She Said, She Said [*]Good Day Sunshine [*]And Your Bird Can Sing [*]For No One [*]Doctor Robert [*]I Want to Tell You [*]Got to Get You into My Life [*]Tomorrow Never Knows [/list]
Every song on Revolver, except for "Love To You" and "Elanor Rigby" are classics. Since there are 14 cuts on the album, that's over 85%!

Exhibit B - The Solo Careers

Sure, The Rolling Stones have longevity on their side - they have been around since dirt - and Keith was very cool in his time. But let's look at the individual work outside of the group framework.

I think it's safe to say that the solo careers of the Stones are rather lackluster. Mick had a minor hit with David Bowie and "Dancin' in the Streets" in the mid-1980's but that's really it. I won't comment on Mick's "acting" endeavors. Keith has had a few solo albums come out and they were decent, but received very little accliam from fans or critics.

The members of the Beatles, on the other hand, had far more success in the solo arena, both critically and financially. Lennon's work was dark and vaired throughout the 1970's but hit his pinnacle with Double Fantasy before he was murdered. McCartney had great success with Wings and as a solo artist - Flaming Pie being his best work. Harrison's work is a bit more spotty but All Things Must Pass and Cloud Nine are very good. Ringo had a few hits but nothing to write home about. Clearly, the talent of the individual Beatles are superior to the individual Stones.

Exhibit C - Overall Coolness

This is where apologists for the Stones have a good arguement. In thier day, few people were cooler than Mick and Keith. Much like David Lee Roth in the 1980's, guys wanted to be them, girls wanted to bang them. But, as the Stones have not-so-gracefully aged, their coolness has waned as well. I know the Stones are doing a good business on the road right now, but it's a nostalgia act and they are really a shell of their former selves.

The Beatles were also pretty cool in the 1960's, but I would have to agree the Stones were cooler. However, as time has gone by, the Beatles have surpassed the Stones. Sure, Lennon and Harrison are gone (RIP) and Ringo is throwing down his nostalgia act with his "All Starr Band", but is there anyone cooler than Paul McCartney. He looks fabulous, sounds great and is still relevant. I'm not sure I can say the same for the Stones.

Conclusion - The Beatles are Far Superior

I find it difficult to understand why any music fan could come to a different conclusion. If you think I'm wrong, show me - I'm willing to listen and be proven wrong.

[bulletman01]

You must be out of your mind. No one can deny the influence of the Beatles but the Stones are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better in my opinion. I'm proud to say I own close to 300 Stones records and not one Beatles.

[mcnach]

yawn!

[GoldenEars]

Originally Posted by wip5150

I'm sure I'll catch some heat for this, but so be it. I am damn sick and tired of everyone telling me how great the Rolling Stones are/were - especially when people are comparing them to the Beatles.

In my opinion, the Rolling Stones are/were average at best. When they were going "head to head" with the Beatles, the Fab Four win hands down. Sure, the Stones had some good songs ("Paint it Black", "Satisfaction", and "Get Off My Cloud" come to mind), but those songs are the exception, not the rule. So, to prove my argument, let's take a look at a few points of contention.

Exhibit A - A Random Album Comparison

Let's look at two albums, released within months of each other in 1965 and compare, shall we?

The Rolling Stones - Aftermath
<ul type="square"> [*]Paint It Black [*]Stupid Girl [*]Lady Jane [*]Under My Thumb [*]Dontcha Bother Me [*]Think [*]Flight 505 [*]High and Dry[*]It's Not Easy [*]I am Waiting [*]Going Home [/list]
Now, of those songs, I think only "Paint it Black" and "Under My Thumb" stand out. Since I'm not 100% familiar with this release, I'll go ahead and give the Stones a "wildcard" credit for another good song on here making a total of three out of 11 or about 26.5%

The Beatles - Revolver
<ul type="square"> [*]Taxman [*]Eleanor Rigby [*]I'm only Sleeping [*]Love to You [*]Here, There and Everywhere [*]Yellow Submarine [*]She Said, She Said [*]Good Day Sunshine [*]And Your Bird Can Sing [*]For No One [*]Doctor Robert [*]I Want to Tell You [*]Got to Get You into My Life [*]Tomorrow Never Knows [/list]
Every song on Revolver, except for "Love To You" and "Elanor Rigby" are classics. Since there are 14 cuts on the album, that's over 85%!

Exhibit B - The Solo Careers

Sure, The Rolling Stones have longevity on their side - they have been around since dirt - and Keith was very cool in his time. But let's look at the individual work outside of the group framework.

I think it's safe to say that the solo careers of the Stones are rather lackluster. Mick had a minor hit with David Bowie and "Dancin' in the Streets" in the mid-1980's but that's really it. I won't comment on Mick's "acting" endeavors. Keith has had a few solo albums come out and they were decent, but received very little accliam from fans or critics.

The members of the Beatles, on the other hand, had far more success in the solo arena, both critically and financially. Lennon's work was dark and vaired throughout the 1970's but hit his pinnacle with Double Fantasy before he was murdered. McCartney had great success with Wings and as a solo artist - Flaming Pie being his best work. Harrison's work is a bit more spotty but All Things Must Pass and Cloud Nine are very good. Ringo had a few hits but nothing to write home about. Clearly, the talent of the individual Beatles are superior to the individual Stones.

Exhibit C - Overall Coolness

This is where apologists for the Stones have a good arguement. In thier day, few people were cooler than Mick and Keith. Much like David Lee Roth in the 1980's, guys wanted to be them, girls wanted to bang them. But, as the Stones have not-so-gracefully aged, their coolness has waned as well. I know the Stones are doing a good business on the road right now, but it's a nostalgia act and they are really a shell of their former selves.

The Beatles were also pretty cool in the 1960's, but I would have to agree the Stones were cooler. However, as time has gone by, the Beatles have surpassed the Stones. Sure, Lennon and Harrison are gone (RIP) and Ringo is throwing down his nostalgia act with his "All Starr Band", but is there anyone cooler than Paul McCartney. He looks fabulous, sounds great and is still relevant. I'm not sure I can say the same for the Stones.

Conclusion - The Beatles are Far Superior

I find it difficult to understand why any music fan could come to a different conclusion. If you think I'm wrong, show me - I'm willing to listen and be proven wrong.

I totally 100% agree with you and your explanation. I get so sick and tired of hearing about the hacking stones and their hacking playing and most of all watching that rack of bones who is 2 steps away from a retirement home walking back and forth and back and forth on some huge stage. Kids do not like the stones but they do like the beatles. The beatles on top of their great radio tunes had amazing deep music as well as songs like Yellow Submarine and even Ringo with sweet sixteen on his own. These songs I have just mentioned have become as well known as happy birthday. Yes hands down the beatles kicked their ass. The ultimate proof is in the sales.......the Beatles were only together in the sixties and the stones have been around for 50 + years and still the Beatles have like 5 times the sales with one tenth the number of records and with a relatively short career. The stones need to quit unless they are trying to break a record for senior citizen rock star lasting power hahaha. Golden Ears

[P-Funkadelic]

Imo, its very hard to make the case that anyone other then the Beatles is the best band ever. They probably arn't my favourite band ever but there is no possible way I can argue that a band is better then them from the pure amount of amazing songs/albums they made in a pretty short time.

I've never been a huge Stones fan. They have some good songs, Paint it Black, but I dont think they even compare to the Beatles. I'm more of a "The Who" fan then a Stones fan.

[The Shredder89]

To each, his own...

We could argue about this all day, but the bottom line is that it is all subjective and a waste of time to argue over. Basically all we're doing is saying who our favorite is...

Why are threads from four years ago being revived anyway lol?

[SirChick]

Comparing these 2 is like comparing Joe Satriani to a camel. Not the same at all in my opinion.

Plus are you telling us that the likes of Steve Vai/Satriani and instrumental greats suck because they have smaller fan base aka less sales? Which we all know they do.... but they kick everyones ass but are much less known for their music brilliance let alone their guitar skills.


So many people say Vai is just a show off as is satch petrucci, names could continue, but they are shallow idiots if they say that. If they buy a guitar how ever they suddenly go "woahhhh that is amazing". I how ever liked these artists without buying a guitar but i knew from watching them they playing such crazy songs and looking so relaxed like they could do it in their sleep. When there on stage they look like there at a party drunk having a laugh... that to me shows complete mastery over their music.. they are natural at doing it which is talent yet so few see.

Rolling stones have better performance on stage in their early days tho. But comparing the two.... silly idea.

[Sprint]

here's some expected heat for you:

- who cares which one is better!! - both offered a lot of style, originality and good music.

these "which band / player is better - x or y" threads are lame

[gilbo]

Same..................Both bands are great...Both made some big mistakes... Both made some big cashola..........Every persons reality is different on what makes a good musician/show.....I wouldnt go as far as saying the Stones SUCK as they do what they do best.......ROCK & ROLL!!!.......................Who gives a rats ass anyway?

[55tele]

I really liked the stones a lot as they were going thru time,untill the mid- seventies anyway.

I finally got to see them live in Clevland,1978. Up to this time ,I had been to over a hundred live show's of the best of that era .
This Concert was the worse ! It truly was . " KANSAS " was the starting band,(whom I never liked ) .Had I not seen their show first ,I would have walked away feeling ripped off.
They didnt play anything I knew ,or could possibly understand for that matter. Reverb must have been the old" Kustom "type. Yikes !!!

I still love the earlier stuff,and find both bands were equally great up to '67.



( hope this wasnt a bad idea for my first post )

[starman]

At the risk of boring even myself.....
To start with Eleanor Rigby not a classic!
Give the Stones some credit Sympathy for the devil , Gimme Shelter, Emotional Rescue, Miss You etc
& seeing as how the two bands never had a problem working with each other as per Mick on All you need is Love and McCartney and Lennon on We Love You i don't think... oh there you go i have bored myself

Lets not break a butterfly on a wheel any more

[irish]

I like both of them.
M

[lornemusic]

While you can argue on which band is better, I don't think you can argue this: both bands (along with Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys) pushed each other to raise the bar of recording techniques and composition. The friendly competition produced some great music on both sides. While you could argue that the Beatles would have continued to transform from their bubble gum sound and image both bands (along with Dylan) inspired the each other to move on to bigger things. Something (IMO) that is sadly missing in today's music world.

I also think the Stone's longevity has hurt their image and maybe timing. While Voodoo Lounge was a strong offering up to any of the classic 60's material it was overshadowed by the two "discovered" Beatle's tracks. Both quickly forgotten when compaired to their work in the 60's.

Also while we see the Stone's as (for lack of a better term) Rocker's with Walkers the Beatles image of the young Fab 4 seems to be etched in the public conscience forever. Rarely do we see the Stones as they were in the 60's. So that is a big reason the Beatle's have passed up the Stones in the "coolness" department. Then again while Paul is getting sued by his ex-wife Mick is dirty dancing on stage with Christina Aguilera. Which is cooler, and more disturbing at the same time.

Like most performers who ended their careers never to come back, the public seems to forgive more easily the Beatle's missteps. (Really, Free as a Bird sounded straight out of the ELO catalogue and nothing like a classic Beatle's tune) and be more harsh on the bands that continue to seek the limelight. The Stone's continued to put out hit records in the 80's and 90's on their own terms and never got the tag of selling out musically like many of their contemporaries did (ie Eric Clapton)

In the end it's all up to musical tastes on who you think is better. But I think you have to like the Stone's attitude of still wanting to play after all these years when they could be retired and counting their money in the Swish Alps. Which after hearing Ringo Star's new single (which directly milks the Fab 4 imagery) I have to wonder why he isn't staying retired.

[slicer]

this was a dopey shit stirring post back in 2003, he hasnt posted since 2006 so it looks like he's fucked off and stirring shit elsewhere.

stones vs beatles.. he had just left the womb when they was rockin, so wtf does he know!

regards,
jim.

[alittleguitar]

i agree w/ those who say it's all subjective. other than that, i'd like to subjectively say that 'exile on main street' is the greatest thing ever recorded.