# The Beetle and the Stone



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

The Rolling Stones and The Beatles are, both, archetypical bands for the evolution of Rock & Roll.

Different styles and also different philosophies...

Which do you identify with?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I don't care for the Stones. I basically like everything by The Beatles.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

I don't mean to be a wise *** or anything, but "The Beetles" should be "The Beatles." As far as which group I felt myself closer to growing up, it all depended on the mood I was in that day--looking for a fight, or peaceful. Both groups had so many different phases and styles--although the Stones of course are still extant and the Beatles long gone--that I could often take my pick of music from either--or both. I am unable to vote in this poll, because--*IMHO*, at least--they were/are both truly seminal groups, as much reflections and influencers of their--and my--times as any rock and roll band I can think of. 
BTW, great idea for a poll!


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Well, they should also be plural; however, I feel it gives it a nice poetic feel.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

samurai said:


> I don't mean to be a wise *** or anything, but "The Beetles" should be "The Beatles."




OMG!  Yes... so sorry about the mistake. Makes evident my lack of good spelling and not being a Beatle fan. 



> BTW, great idea for a poll!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Love both bands but not everything they've done - out of the 60s/70s British 'Old Guard' I probably love The Who and The Kinks just as much, maybe more. I haven't too much interest in the Beatles output pre-Help! or the Stones output post-Some Girls.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Stones bitch! I grew up with them. They are rougher and plainer spoken. Beatles are great, but Stones had so much more time to make music and they made better use out of it than people give them credit for. You Can't Always Get What You Want.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I would rank them

Beatles
Kinks

Then after that you got bands like The Who and The Pretty Things

Then after you got through exhausting all those bands, I will then list The Rolling Stones.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2012)

Raised in a household where both were idolised, there seemed something more 'adult' about The Stones which made them less attractive to me. I liked their hits well-enough, but as an adult now, I own all The Beatles studio albums, but not even a single Stones single!


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Dedicated follower of The Kink here. Of the two listed The Beetle has the edge though. They more clearly developed from their influences rather than just mimicking them.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I am not really into either one. Alternately , I'd pick The Doors or maybe Led Zeppelin


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't know about different philosophies? Just two bands of English blokes inspired by American rock n roll heroes Chuck Berry, Little Richard, etc. I give the Stones the edge. Their 60s output proves they were every bit as good as pop songwriters as the Beatles. But the Beatles were never convincing as down n dirty blues rockers.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I prefer the sound of the Beatles but I owned all the Rolling Stones albums when I was a teenager in the 70s. Today I look back at the Stones and wonder how they could revamp the same song so many times and keep selling albums? I mean how many chords have they used in their songs? ten? fifteen? just reorganized and regurgitated again? I can still tolerate listening to the Beatles on occasion but just can't bring myself to listen to the Stones anymore.

Kevin


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

The Stones have had 40 more years together than the Beatles, to help them catch up...and they *still* haven't! :tiphat:


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Catch up to what?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Quality. Wit. Music.

They've long overtaken them in salesmanship and corporate cynicism...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Kieran said:


> They've long overtaken them in salesmanship and corporate cynicism...


Let's not forget that Mick Jagger attended the London School of Economics and has (I believe) always been the Stones' business manager. Looks like some of the courses stuck.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Captain Beefheart


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

After very good posts and opinions given, it is time to confess that I am a big fan of that sort of magnetism that has had The Stones. Maybe because I really like R & B.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

If I have to listen to this music, then give me Bob Dylan to listen to. I don't even like the Beatles, solo or collectively. The Stones mid-Atlantic twiddling sounds too phony for my sensitive ears...sorry Ondine!


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

starthrower said:


> I don't know about different philosophies?


Not too serious about philosophies but I have ever thought of 'The Stone' having _Sympathy for the Evil _and The Beatle _Imagining_ a different world. Quite contrasting, isn't it?

It is just that.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Captain Beefheart


Yea, Zappa/ Beefheart


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ondine said:


> Not too serious about philosophies but I have ever thought of 'The Stone' having _Sympathy for the Evil _and The Beatle _Imagining_ a different world. Quite contrasting, isn't it?


Yes, the Beatles are such NICE young men, and the Stones just want to mug you and leave you in the gutter. In listening, I'll stay on well-lit streets, thank you!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Yes, the Beatles are such NICE young men, and the Stones just want to mug you and leave you in the gutter. In listening, I'll stay on well-lit streets, thank you!


But isn't that the paradox with the Stones vs Beatles. ie the Stone's where all (originally- definitely not talking about Ronnie Woods here), from very well to do backgrounds/ art school etc. Whereas, the Beatles were from the school of hard knocks, although with some art school focus. Yet the public perception is the reverse!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

And Mick, the Stones' very capable business manager, a student at the London School of Economics no less! (Oops, mentioned this before...) But a switchblade is still a switchblade.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Remember them this way:


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> But isn't that the paradox with the Stones vs Beatles. ie the Stone's where all (originally- definitely not talking about Ronnie Woods here), from very well to do backgrounds/ art school etc. Whereas, the Beatles were from the school of hard knocks, although with some art school focus. Yet the public perception is the reverse!


That's just so typically English - rugger is a thug's game played by gentlemen whereas soccer is a gentleman's game played by thugs. They seem to specialise in that sort of contradiction.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Oh, the Beatles for me. Anyone seen the brilliant piece Howard Goodall did on the Beatles?


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Neither. So called "classic" rock ain't my jam.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

First we need the Stones to destroy old things, then we need the Beatles to Imagine and grow new, beautiful things in stead.


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

I used to not like The Beatles, but I'd listen to one or two songs occasionally. Then I started listening more often. One day I looked at my itunes and saw that they were one of my most played bands and I had no idea how it had happened. 

This has not happened with the Stones, I still don't like them.


----------



## HeartofGold (Aug 23, 2013)

The Rolling Stones are one of the, if not, THE longest going rock and roll band ever! It's been 50 years!!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2013)

HeartofGold said:


> The Rolling Stones are one of the, if not, THE longest going rock and roll band ever! It's been 50 years!!!


That's quite an achievement - though some might say they should have stopped long ago.

Arguably, depending on one's definition of rock/rock n roll band, The Searchers have been going longer, though only one member survives from the original line-up.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

If I never, ever, ever again hear "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" I will still have heard it 100 times too many.

Stones................yuck


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2013)

Vesteralen said:


> If I never, ever, ever again hear "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" I will still have heard it 100 times too many.
> 
> Stones................yuck


I voted for The Beetle. They mean more to me than The Stone. That is a reflection of one of the principles of personal engagment with an artist which is about more than just the music.

For example, I have most of The Beatles songs on my iPod. I have only one by The Stones, and no vinyl or CDs in my collection. However, if I were to give it any thought, I'd probably like to have a few more tracks by the Stones - You Can't Always Get What you Want, Get Offa My Cloud, Last Time etc. But my iPod is missing a large number of songs that have been in the charts since I was a toddler old enough to like them, but have never owned.

This begs the question, what prompts you (one) to want to possess a piece of music instead of merely enjoying it when you hear it on the radio/TV/online? I would venture it isn't just about the degree of 'liking' the music, but also something to do with the degree of attraction to the image, or philosophy, or personality of the band and/or its members.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> This begs the question, what prompts you (one) to want to possess a piece of music instead of merely enjoying it when you hear it on the radio/TV/online? I would venture is isn't just about the degree of 'liking' the music, but also something to do with the degree of attraction to the image, or philosophy, or personality of the band and/or its members.


Well, to get serious for a change...this is a good point. I guess I'm missing whatever gene it is that makes a person enjoy male-centric posturing. That's all the Stones ever were for me. They weren't about music at all. They were pure and simply an attitude and an attitude which has no attraction for me and with which I have no sympathy.

The Beatles, on the other hand, were complex. What you saw was not always what you got. And there was so much more to the music, at least from "Rubber Soul" on.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2013)

Vesteralen said:


> They were pure and simply an attitude and an attitude which has no attraction for me and with which I have no sympathy.


Which may well be exactly the same reason why I don't own any of their music, but am willing to give time to some of the songs.

Another reason may be something to do with the fact that my mother loved The Stones ...

....but that's a whole 'nother issue!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> but am willing to give time to some of the songs.


I should be willing to do this as well, in all fairness. But, I think it would take more than a normal lifespan for me to find the time.


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

Meanwhile, here's where my head was at when I was 12.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kleinzeit said:


> View attachment 24228
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here's where my head was at when I was 12.


Uh, oh... plainly, you smoked too many banana peels.


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

Quite rightly. I believed it was going to be the very next phase.
He seemed a perfectly cromulent model of manhood! 
Now I suppose it's


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I can't be the only one who thinks even the best Stones albums have aged terribly. And that's coming from someone who thinks the 60s and 70s was rock's heyday. Every once in a while, perhaps out of spite for skinny limp-wrist white kids who only listen to twee pop singles and Italian house music or whatever, I make an effort to "get into" some big unhip canon macho rock band like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin and find something to appreciate. The Rolling Stones is the only band so far where I just can't do it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2013)

Kleinzeit said:


> View attachment 24228
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here's where my head was at when I was 12.


Jeez, Klein, what we're you on and can I have some?


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2013)

Nah, but as an old fart harmony teacher (not sayin' where, _cabrones_) I've got to say that I've used the odd Beatles song for a harmony exercise, but never the Stones. That said, I have used a Stranglers song (_Golden Brown_) for harmony and rhythm dictation purposes.


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Nah, but as an old fart harmony teacher (not sayin' where, _cabrones_) I've got to say that I've used the odd Beatles song for a harmony exercise, but never the Stones. That said, I have used a Stranglers song (_Golden Brown_) for harmony and rhythm dictation purposes.


Now you're talking!


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2013)

Hah! Maybe in 30 years, Kleinzeit, and if I don't lay of the schnapps ...


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2013)

I think I'll take that photo posted by _K_razy Kleinzeit as my avatar!


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> I think I'll take that photo posted by _K_razy Kleinzeit as my avatar!

















Meanwhile, the picture I keep in the locked room is getting younger.

That's the plan.

Aw Jeez you actually did!! LOL


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2013)

My thanks to *Kleinzeit* (mon maître) for the "heads up" to this apt avatar of my good self.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

From what I've heard, I think the Beatles do a lot more interesting things, musically.

And they are less sexist  

I can relate to a lot more of the Beatles lyrics so far than I can the Rolling Stones. But I haven't heard everything yet, so who knows.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

"Behind the scenes" they were probably just as sexist/unpleasant. John Lennon beat his wife for instance. Then again, Yoko...


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

I voted for the Beatles because to me they're like home, but I'm a bit... surprised? puzzled? at the low opinion you people have of the Stones.

Yes, they weren't probably as harmonically adventurous as the Beatles. Yes, they used, like, 3 chords.... But that's blues based music for you! The Stones, while being every bit as white and english as the beatles, dug much deeper in the sounds invented by black people in USA. And while they are many areas where the Beatles beat the Stones, the reverse is also true.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

You only have to see some of the Stones's 1969 Madison Square Garden footage to appreciate why they were, at that time, widely considered to be the greatest rock 'n' roll group on the planet. Some bad things happened to the band that year (Brian's death, Altamont etc.) but you'd scarcely notice once they locked into that murderous groove. Here's a taste:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> Well, to get serious for a change...this is a good point. I guess I'm missing whatever gene it is that makes a person enjoy male-centric posturing. That's all the Stones ever were for me. They weren't about music at all. They were pure and simply an attitude and an attitude which has no attraction for me and with which I have no sympathy.
> 
> The Beatles, on the other hand, were complex. What you saw was not always what you got. And there was so much more to the music, at least from "Rubber Soul" on.


They were about attitude, and it's attitude that made them famous. So I would almost agree, but I think the Stones were actually very competent musicians.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

science said:


> They were about attitude, and it's attitude that made them famous. So I would almost agree, but I think the Stones were actually very competent musicians.


Can't judge that from what I've heard. You may be right. But, it's still music in the service of attitude. It's just an attitude that fails to resonate with me. Obviously it resonates with others.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

I don't get this "stones were about an attitude" thing (as in they weren't about "music")... in which ways it was about an "attitude"? If you are referring to the feelings evoked by the music... yes, perhaps the music is about a feeling, but then again, what music doesn't evoke something in the listener?


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

Have you run into this?

It's the isolated vocals from the big 16 minute medley at the end of Abbey Road. Just the singing as the vocal tracks are being layered. Where the music usually plays, there's silence. (where it's being recorded 'live', as in Mr. Mustard, all the music is right there, live, un-isolatable). If you like to look behind the curtain, this is fun to listen to. If you've completely internalized the music, as millions have, it's kind of uncanny.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/09/...-climactic-side-two-medley-on-abbey-road.html


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

niv said:


> I don't get this "stones were about an attitude" thing...


Well, I'm not sure you want to run into them on a dark deserted street...


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2013)

Kleinzeit said:


> Have you run into this?


Well that was a spooky experience for first thing in the morning (not to mention an unexpected lump in the throat at _Golden Slumbers _- and I'm in cheery mood today too). Many thanks Kleinzeit.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Well, I'm not sure you want to run into them on a dark deserted street...


They look in a better mood than I would be if I was dragged to a photo session on Primrose Hill early on a freezing winter morning after spending all night cooped up in a studio.

:lol:


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

It's a very difficult question, to be honest. Because the Beatles and the Stones are both very good. But the Beatles win, of course.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Kleinzeit said:


> Have you run into this?
> 
> It's the isolated vocals from the big 16 minute medley at the end of Abbey Road. Just the singing as the vocal tracks are being layered. Where the music usually plays, there's silence. (where it's being recorded 'live', as in Mr. Mustard, all the music is right there, live, un-isolatable). If you like to look behind the curtain, this is fun to listen to. If you've completely internalized the music, as millions have, it's kind of uncanny.
> 
> http://www.openculture.com/2013/09/...-climactic-side-two-medley-on-abbey-road.html


That was very interesting. Some subtleties of the vocals are listenable in this isolated track.

I once used to consider abbey road the greatest record ever and would listen to it over and over. Now I think the notion of "greatest record ever" is something empty, but I still think that record is pretty darn cool!


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

I can't stand The Stones, I hate Mick Jagger's voice, I hate his swagger, I hate the lyrics, I hate the general attitude. I can't stand the kind of rock 'n' roll mythology that idealises adolescent behaviour and misogyny.

With The Beatles I tend to remember moments rather than songs, and there are some great ones. The instrumental interplay and noise that ends Strawberry Fields Forever, the wonderful musicianship on display in Within You Without You, the verses (but not the chorus) of Baby You're a Rich Man. They got less interesting when they stopped taking LSD.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Garlic said:


> I can't stand The Stones, I hate Mick Jagger's voice, I hate his swagger, I hate the lyrics, I hate the general attitude. I can't stand the kind of rock 'n' roll mythology that idealises adolescent behaviour and misogyny.


misogyny? That sounds like John Lennon to me!


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

niv said:


> misogyny? That sounds like John Lennon to me!


Yes you're right. But it's easier to avoid with the Beatles, they never wrote anything as nasty as Brown Sugar, Under My Thumb or Midnight Rambler (maybe Run For Your Life comes close). And I think Yoko managed to talk some sense into Lennon regarding this, he did express regrets about his behaviour.


----------



## Gilberto (Sep 12, 2013)

Neither one of those bands would have been what they were if it were not for the drums and bass. As much as the melody and chords mattered....and who said the lyrics count for anything? 

Ringo....Charlie .....any other dummy playing drums would have messed it up. Listen to Paul and Bill on bass... who would think of playing those lines? Magic sounds for magic times...that's all.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

the beatles  I like paint it black, ruby tuesday and the last time a lot though


----------



## MrTortoise (Dec 25, 2008)

Love both bands, however forced to choose, The Beatles hands down!


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Garlic said:


> Yes you're right. But it's easier to avoid with the Beatles, they never wrote anything as nasty as Brown Sugar, Under My Thumb or Midnight Rambler (maybe Run For Your Life comes close). And I think Yoko managed to talk some sense into Lennon regarding this, he did express regrets about his behaviour.


Penny Lane is plenty raunchy. But, I have absolutely no interest in the Stones beyond a handful of nice tunes. Beatles easily here.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

The Rolling Stones had a lot of great songs, usually 1-4 per album, from about their second all the way through to Sticky Fingers. I still like these songs (but I am so weary of hearing them  ).

The Beatles were pretty boring until Revolver. From Revolver onward, right through to Let it Be, they were great. I still like all of this music (but I am so weary of hearing it  ).

I still recall when I was 10 years old and a friend and I would sneak into his brother's bedroom (the brother had been born in the States, so he was serving in Viet Nam) and we would look at the Play-, I mean, listen to Magical Mystery Tour over and over again on the brother's expensive turntable.

Definitely, these later albums of the Beatles were a big part of my life as I was growing up and remained so until I discovered Pink Floyd's Ummagumma and Tangerine Dream's Zeit. They still have nostalgic meaning to me.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

The Rolling Stones did some good _songs_, The Beatles did some good _albums_.

So obviously The Beatles.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Been listening to a lot of Stones lately, and they ROCK. Sometimes I am tempted to say they are better than the Beatles, but they are both class acts.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Overall, The Beatles - big time! But I loved some early Stones' songs very much so! Coincidentally, I am not really that much into the early Beatles.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

That dilemma... 

Stones music > Beatles music
Stones appearance < Beatles appearance


----------

