Rants & Raves 8.14.08: Beatles vs Stones

Posted by Vanessa Willoughby on 08.14.2008

~~~This column co-hosted by Dan Halen~~~

With all the commentary over The Beatles in the past couple of weeks on 411, we’ve decided to revisit the old debate and take a look at who is better. Controversy is sure to ensue, so come on in and get a ringside seat.

"Music is a language that doesn't speak in particular words. It speaks in emotions, and if it's in the bones, it's in the bones." – Keith Richards

"I can reel off the 1950s Top Tens, but it was intensely boring. So that's why Chuck Berry and Elvis were, to us, so startlingly different. The music got called rock 'n' roll because it had gone white; otherwise it was rhythm and blues." – Keith Richards

"When real music comes to me - the music of the spheres, the music that surpasses understanding - that has nothing to do with me, because I'm just the channel. The only joy for me is for it to be given to me, and to transcribe it like a medium...those moments are what I live for." – John Lennon

"You won't get anything unless you have the vision to imagine it." – John Lennon

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right, and I will be proved right. We are more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first – rock 'n 'roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me." – John Lennon

Vanessa: Hey everyone, Vanessa here from A Suburban Girl's Guide to Music That Doesn't Suck. Well, it's that column you've all been waiting for. This week, Dan and I are going to attempt to tackle the age-old debate: The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles. Dan and I thought this would be an interesting subject to cover after noticing the voluminous responses to Blake's Ask 411 Music column. Now, we could easily spend days, weeks even, unraveling and pulling apart just about every specificity under the sun. However, Dan and I decided to narrow our discussion to some basics.

One of the biggest differences between The Stones and The Beatles seems to be stage presence. In addition to talent, rock 'n' roll has always relied on the ability of an artist's public persona, that allure that captivates an audience. While I'm going to focus on stage presence, Dan's going to talk about the differences and similarities between music styles. Due to the nature of the discussion, I'm sure you're probably going to bring up something Dan or myself hasn't mentioned. But that's what the comment box is for! One of the things we want to do with this column not only have a two-way discussion between ourselves, but between us and you, the readers! Anyway, without further ado…

Dan: A couple of weeks back, someone specifically asked Blake what the music terrain would be like if The Beatles had not existed. One thing in particular I wanted to address was Blake's comment on how The Beatles set the stage for acceptance of edgier music, which got a strong disagreement from me. Now Blake is not the most impartial person on this subject – he'd have you believe that the world would have ceased to exist without The Beatles! (just kidding, Blake). What do you think, Vanessa?

Vanessa: I'm probably going to get shot for saying this, but I'm not going to lie. As much as I like The Beatles, I think they're a bit overrated. There, I said it. I'm not going to deny that they certainly have a well-deserved and important spot in music history. But when I think about the essence of rock 'n' roll, the main components of the British Invasion, I think of The Rolling Stones. From the very beginning, The Stones were the prototype for the public persona of rock 'n 'roll, from their blues-inspired musical style to Mick's theatrical stage presence. This isn't to say that The Beatles didn't have any of this, but if you compare their earlier records to that of the Stones, the two bands are already headed in two different directions. While Paul McCartney wanted to hold your hand, Mick Jagger unabashedly admitted that he just wanted to make love to you. Although both bands were notably influenced by the likes of Little Richard and Chuck Berry, I think that in the public's mind, The Stones were the antithesis of The Beatles. On one hand, you had this seemingly wholesome group of young men with their matching haircuts and relatively clean lyrics. On the other hand, you had a band without an obvious gimmick, who just didn't give a shit, their blues and jazz influences not nearly as discreet.

In October of 1964, the Stones appeared the Ed Sullivan Show. Their appearance sparked an audience riot and as a result, Sullivan vows to not "book any more rock 'n' roll groups." Hmm…sounds a bit familiar…maybe a little reminiscent of Elvis?

Of course, I'm not an expert and I can't speak for anyone who was actually my age during that time period, but when comparing the stage persona of The Stones and The Beatles, I have to say that The Stones win by a landslide. As far as I can recall, I don't remember either John or Paul jumping around onstage like James Brown, clad in skin-tight pants. Without a doubt, Jagger is not only a great musician, but also an extraordinary performer. The Beatles could send teenage girls into a tizzy just by standing around and breathing into the microphone, but on stage Jagger is a force of nature. He's absolutely electric, like the music itself, and part of the whole rock 'n' roll mystique isn't just about the music, but the energy created onstage. Even later on in The Stones' career, Jagger hadn't lost his charisma. Just look at the video for "Start Me Up" for proof. - Jagger slinks around the empty set like an alley cat, white shirt and white pants flaunting his slender frame.

Ahmet Ertegun, founder of Atlantic Records and current co-Chairman and co-CEO, said in the book According to The Rolling Stones, "I went to the first big party that was given for The Stones in New York…It wasn't goo-goo-eyed teenagers, but rather it was young, hip, intellectual, cutting-edge people. And they appreciated the Stones as an artistic, rebellious group that was doing something else, something different from other pop groups of the time."

Like Elvis, The Stones utilized American black rhythm and blues as the prominent element that aided in the blossoming of their sound. Once again, let me stress that I'm not saying that The Beatles didn't share the same influences. However, the key to understanding the relationship between the two groups is to look at the beginning decisions that shaped their respective careers. As the years went by, both groups only grew in talent, creativity and popularity. On the contrary, in terms of The Beatles, I think it took them a bit longer to fully incorporate that signature R&B sound into their own stuff, which The Stones did right from the start. When The Beatles broke, they were considered rock 'n' roll. But if it hadn't been for their pop-packaging, then who knows if they would have inspired the same sort of female teenage-frenzy? Pop music is based around the philosophy of being user-friendly and youth-accessible. Not everyone could appreciate The Stones and their adoration of blues-legends like Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters. On the other hand, The Beatles were accessible to the masses, their melodies being careful not to stray too far into the signature musical composition of a straight-on blues record. The Beatles were the sort of band you played when your parents were in the room. The Stones were the ones you put on when they left. When officially pledging your loyalty to the Stones, it was a bit more of a finger to conservatism than becoming a Beatles fan. In 1964, at a Coventry school, eleven boys were suspended for having "Mick Jagger haircuts," and a weekly music newspaper, New Musical Express, called them a "caveman-like quintet." I don't think many people or critics would readily describe The Beatles as "caveman-like."

Dan: Wow, some great observations there, Vanessa and I can't say I disagree with a lot of it. I, too, feel The Stones were edgier than The Beatles – after all, mop-top haircuts, matching suits and proclamations that you are "more popular than Jesus" don't make you edgy. Look back at Jerry Lee Lewis several years prior – for the times, things don't get much edgier than that. I also recall hearing a story about The Beatles smoking pot and giggling like schoolgirls afterwards or occasionally dropping some acid – compare that to The Stones infamous drug abuse (three of the five were busted in 1967 – a scenario that would become familiar and much more common for the band over the coming years) and I think we can easily see who has the edginess as far as image and public perception.

Vanessa: Not to interrupt, but speaking of "edginess," even The Stones' album covers were under public fire. If I remember correctly, I've read that the cover for Beggars Banquet came under a lot of criticism because the "bathroom artwork" was deemed indecent. And if that's not enough, I've got two words for you: Sticky Fingers. But we can talk more about that later!

Dan: Good point. Oh, and if there's any doubt about being on the edge, I've got one word for you – Altamont. There's talking the talk and then there's walking the walk. You've done a good job of covering public perception and image, so let's look at what was going on in the studio/songwriting/talent department.

And I want to state for the record, in spite of my badgering and bantering with Blake, I truly am on the fence with these two bands. Both have songs I am drawn to, but both have a lot of material I'm ambivalent about. I think I tend to gravitate more to The Stones because I do like darker material such as "Gimme Shelter" or "Dead Flowers" but at the same time, gain as much pleasure out of listening to "Let It Be" or "Eleanor Rigby". And to break it down further, I dig Wings and the solo material from Harrison and McCartney in the 70s. On the other hand, I can't say anything good about Jagger's or Richards' solo material and am not much of a fan of Lennon's solo work either.

First of all, there really are some key similarities between the two bands:

1. The Beatles had George Martin guiding them and The Stones had Andrew Loog Oldham (later, Allen Klein)

2. While there were other composers in both bands, the primary songwriters for The Beatles were Lennon/McCartney; for The Stones, it was Jagger/Richards

3. Though The Stones did draw more from American blues and R&B versus The Beatles more pop-oriented influences such as Buddy Holly and Carl Perkins, both drew from Chuck Berry, an unquestionable rock and roll forefather.

4. The basic instrumentation of the bands was the same: two guitars, bass and drums.

5. On their earlier albums, both bands tended to focus on more basic chord progressions and simplistic patterns to forge catchy singles later expanding on this to create more complex material, arrangements and instrumentation.

Now let's look at some differences:

1. On The Beatles first release, more than half of the album consisted of Lennon/McCartney originals; The Stones had a single original song on their first release.

2. George Martin had the edge over Andrew Oldham as far as knowledge of technology and the recording process.

3. While Jagger had a distinctive lead vocal, let's face it - The Stones were NOT known for their harmonies whereas The Beatles had four capable lead singers, two of which also had very distinctive styles and voices.

4. The Beatles were the first to embrace the psychedelic culture and expand upon it. The Stones flirted with it unsuccessfully and then dropped it like a one-night stand afterwards.

5. The Beatles were more about pure songwriting and structure whereas The Stones were more about attitude and delivery.

6. It was much easier for The Stones to reproduce their sound live.

7. While The Stones maintained a basic foundation of Jagger/Richards/Wyman/Watts during the 60s and 70s, their guitar lineup was always in a state of flux (Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, Ronnie Wood) during this time. Each change brought something new to the table but at the same time, never allowed the band to become completely comfortable – depending on your point of view, this could be a negative or positive.

8. On the other hand, The Beatles had Pete Best. (I kid, people)

So what's my point? I'd have to give the nod to The Beatles on overall talent and in the recording studio. The Stones could not compete on the same level vocally or in the technique department when it came to songwriting nor did they have the expertise to experiment with and manipulate the recording process. Live was a different beast altogether – if you've seen footage of The Beatles performing live, they stand around the microphones looking cute but The Stones stalk the stage like some sort of feral animals run amok. This is especially true in older footage before they began carrying overblown stages that take up most of a football field. If any of you get a chance to see the bootleg footage from Texas in 1972, by all means, check that shit out. This is with Mick Taylor (my pick for best guitarist The Stones had) and it's absolutely ferocious.

But what about lasting impact as far as influence and songs? At this point, we can only speculate because obviously The Beatles are no longer around and can never regroup, so taking that into consideration, we can only look at what came out of the 60s for an answer. And I will go on record saying The Stones should have hung it up long ago – with them, it's wash, rinse, repeat – new album every five or so years, nothing relevant on it, big corporate-sponsored tour and lots of money made for the retirement fund. Would it have been the same with The Beatles?

Vanessa: You make some really excellent points, Dan. It's kind of disappointing to see that a band that was once on the forefront of being cool, hip and modern has been reduced to rock 'n' roll memorabilia. I think that both bands certainly have had a lasting impact on today's industry. But in terms of who's had the bigger impact? I'm not quite sure I can give a definitive answer. Naturally, I want to say The Stones, as I'm more of a Stones fan than Beatles. However, despite my devotion, I know this would be a totally biased and probably inaccurate answer. Rock 'n' roll is a combination of one part talent and one part stage presence. You can't have one without the other. Yes, it helps to actually know how to play your instruments and have a good voice, but the thing that separates you from the rest is that certain Je ne sais quoi. There's got to be something about you that attracts people, which makes them want to watch you. And The Stones and The Beatles both have this special aurora, but two very different kinds. The Stones seemed to have the edge over The Beatles in the sense that they possessed a hint of unpredictability, the flair for the dangerously dramatic, a sense of the volatile. It's almost like…the age-old debate between various superheroes. Now excuse me while I allow my inner geek to shine, while I do my best to make sense of this sudden analogy. If The Beatles were a comic book hero…they'd be like Superman: clean-cut, relatively straightforward, America's (and Britain's) darling, operating on the same moral and ethical (or in this case, musical) code, fueled by an unwavering need for justice (a.k.a. spreading the goodness of rock 'n' roll over the land). And then you have The Stones…who are more like Batman. Yet, Batman is often feared and hated, as he is loved. There's something dark and mysterious about Batman; his image has never been wholesome. Neither is necessarily superior to the other, but each hero has something the other lacks and both are operating on the same musical plane.

Yes, a little bit of a stretch. Hopefully, you can read between the lines and see what I mean.

Dan: Nice summation, Vanessa. It truly is hard to pick a clear-cut winner here. Obviously, The Beatles are going to win on record sales along with technique, but there's more to rock and roll than that. The Stones would take the crown on live presentation and attitude but how can we truly know what sort of impact The Beatles would have today since they're no longer around? We can speculate and that's about it. It's obvious both bands have their devotees and have been influential on a multitude of artists that have come along since but can you really judge "Sympathy For The Devil" against "I Want To Hold Your Hand" or any of the other songs in their respective catalogs? Absolutely not. They're all classics and have had huge influence on the face of modern music. The best thing about it is there is plenty of room for all opinions in this argument and that's what's so great about music – different perceptions and opinions. There are no wrong answers, just what we like and dislike.

And that's going to wrap it up for this week. Again, we welcome any comments and/or questions and will be glad to address those in future columns. Tune in next week when we take a look at music videos and their relevance from the MTV era up through today's music scene.