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.
Threaded Mode