Beatles vs. Stones, Critic’s Roundtable, Part 3

When you answer “Beatles” to the question, “Beatles or Stones?” it shows that you don’t understand the question being asked, and if you don’t get it in 2011, you never will. – East Portland Blog

Critic’s Roundtable, Part 3

(This conversation has four parts.)

Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4

I always found the Beatles vs. Stones comparison useless. It’s like asking “chocolate or salmon”.

– Joe Mabel

*******************************************************

The Beatles vs Stones argument is not at all useless, in fact it is one of my all time favorites. I have spent many an hour at a bar or party having quite an enjoyable time hearing peoples views on both bands debate this very thing, and as is my want, I would take on all of points of conventional wisdom spewed out by both sides.

It’s only rock n roll discourse, but I like it……..

– Marc Marshall

*******************************************************

Conversely, I’ve nearly always found the Beatles v. Stones debate [because it’s really not a “comparison”, at least not in the way it typically arises in conversation; more like an expression of pseudo-religious BELIEF for those not-prone to analysis or who are largely unfamiliar with the vast majority of either band’s musical output, while being a touchstone conversational “springboard” for those of us steeped in appreciation of both bands and their respective stylistic merits] quite resonant, and even/often enlightening.

By the by, if one is to take “genre ranking” seriously, in addition to culinary pleasure, I can’t see how there’s more than an iota of difference genre-wise betwixt Les Beatles et Les Stones, particularly if one is comparing them during the seven or so years during which they co-existed [1963-70].

Both could be [and were] fairly lumped together as exemplars of “Rock and Roll Music”, “British Invasion”, “Popular Music”, “Top 40”, and [decades later, as a radio formatting commonplace at first], “Classic Rock”.

I’m not much of a cook or gourmand, Joe, while you are certainly both, but it seems to me that “chocolate and salmon”, aside from being comestible foods, have virtually nothing in common “genre-wise”, not in flavor, texture, color, odor, nutritional benefit, root source within our ecosystem, means of manufacture and/or processing prior to arrival at the marketplace, means of preparation in the home, and so forth.

Many people like [or love!] both, a few like one and not the other, and virtually no one of my acquaintance or media experience abhors them both.

On the other hand, if you were to say “Rock Music”, it is likely that, 1950s artistes aside, the first two names to come to most folks’ minds would, in fact, be….

That said, there are, upon closer examination, numerous meaningful distinctions to be made about both groups’ musical output, in addition to their public personae and relative degrees of massive success.

Re: Thuh Fellas, perhaps what I’m doing is in part a critique of [perceived] Pac NW provinciality and either the musical/historical obliviousness or smug dismissiveness of at least a core segment of the band’s cult and/or claque.

I’m also making the assertion that, even in the area of their supposed pre-eminence [“Rock Humor”], the band is quite arguably second- or third-rate. They’re not the worst students in the Joke Rock class, by any means, but they have no chance of making my “Honor Roll” either.

Perhaps that’s because I find their music [Pop or Rock, it truly would not matter to me, as I certainly rate both] rather tepid, whether compared to Abba OR The Stooges, and that of those bands I’ve cited was often quite vibrantly expressive/excessive, and their humor rather more “scandalous”, bizarre, cruel or demented, as opposed to the generally icky, wimpy, or simpy stuff TYFF specialize(d) in.

It’s not so much that Pop is not my thing, Joe, in fact that’s far from the case. It’s that [for me] Cute or Silly or Wussy or Precious had better hit the ball outta the park or I’m gonna need an injection of insulin straight to the mainline!

And Scott McC very likely IS, in some measure, less appreciated nationally and internationally than his achievements may warrant. But then few among us aren’t, unless we’ve been struck by lightning [like R.E.M., Green Day or Pearl Jam], so I don’t feel too bad for the guy.

By the way, I don’t quite know how to take the imputation that my “ranking” of genres [or bands] is somehow unrelated to “actually listening closely to bands or music”. I can’t imagine how else I’d have arrived at my 95 Theses of Joke Rock [or any other musical comparisons], but I do like to consider the further emanations [reputation, influence, celebrity, audience] that arise from musical workers and their works.

End of day, we may well hold TYFF in about the same modest esteem, particularly as local heroes. But I do think it’s worthwhile to challenge certain assumptions about their hegemony, particularly when I have a non-Straw Man asserting for it right in front of me, i.e. via today’s premise comparing Scott and Kurt, more or less!

– Tom Kipp

*******************************************************

You could never compare the two bands. Although, they may have started with the same influences, both bands made their mark early on and excelled in their art. A much more fair comparison would be Stones vs, say, Yardbirds, or Beatles vs Beach Boys.

– Eduard P. Gomez

*******************************************************

Think Beatles. People the world over love to read about the Beatles, Stones too. It’s the “Ginger or Maryanne?” dichotomy of rock fans. A good Beatles dustup will bring the world to your door.

– East Portland Blog

*******************************************************

Okay, well let’s get started then. I think the whole Beatles v. Stones thing is on some levels at least a false comparison because the bands were coming from two such completely different places musically (one could argue philosophically as well but for now, let’s keep it musical unless someone wants to broaden the debate).

Deep fondenss for both bands but for me it ultimately comes down to this.

The Beatles were a pop band that could rock with the best of them when the mood took them (“Revolution”, Helter Skelter” and “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” are among the best rock songs ever written during that period).

The Stones were a rock band that could do pop with the best of them when so inclined (see anything really from the Brian Jones era).

Your thoughts?

– Jon Ravenscroft

*******************************************************

Concur entirely.

– Joe Mabel

*******************************************************

My non-musical point is that “Beatles or Stones?” is a code and password question intended to identify members of the rock cognoscenti who enjoy looser, freer, harder edged music best. To answer with “Stones” is to identify yourself as a member of the club, as one who understands the power of rock to be a filthy, chain-smoking Keith Richards of a beast and nothing like Sir Paul McCartney. McCartney stands for 1945 – June of ’67. Richards stands for July 1967 to Nirvana.

A “Beatles” answer to that question may identify you as a brighter, happier, even smarter and more discerning, music fan, but it still keeps you on the outside of the angry club a little longer.

Thus, once this is understood, even those who prefer to listen to the Beatles should say “Stones” when asked “Stones or Beatles?” It’s not a personal preference query. The question is really asking, “Do you understand rock’s most powerful moments? Are you comfortable with what rock became, and not where it stood still in 1970? Are you one of us? Are down with Zeppelin, the Who, punk, post-punk etc.?” And the correct answer is always, “Stones.”

– East Portland Blog

*******************************************************

Interesting perspective and in the broadest sense I would agree with you that the answer should always be “Stones”. At least in the framework you’ve outlined below which I think makes a lot of sense.

Since we’re getting non-musical, for me the Beatles have always represented the more philosophical “mental” perspective (same with Dylan) while the Stones have always hit another portion of the anatomy (think about three feet lower). This isn’t meant to be as glib as it probably sounds, or suggest that the Beatles couldn’t be raw or the Stones intellectual when either felt like it, just that the Stones were always about darker, more primal and unashamedly sexual energy, which I think is ultimately at the core of what we think of as “rock” v. the more “innocent” perspective embodied by a lot of “pop”.

Personally, I’ve always been more drawn to the dark, the raunch and the raw, so for me, the answer ultimately has always been, “Stones”.

– Jon Ravenscroft

*******************************************************

I have always felt that the answer to that question is very telling about a person. Not just your musical tastes. Stones all the way.

– Tim Oehlerking

*******************************************************

Speaking as someone who was a teenager when the two groups first hit, the Beatles were strictly for the girls. Of course, they soon became a superb studio pop group, with many imitators and no real equals. Their musical roots weren’t really that different from the Stones, but they soon grew weary of performing (as the Beatles) and of one another. I never could get too much excited about pop, so it always was the Stones for me. Besides, their music introduced me to the blues, for which I will always be in their debt.

– John Siscoe

*******************************************************

First of all Paul McCartney is not the Beatles, any more than Keith Richards is the Stones. In a Thunderdome death match I would put my money on Richards every time – with both hands and one leg tied behind his back! To reduce the comparison of Beatles to Stones to those Paul and Keith is to completely overlook the fragile mystery, magic and alchemy that is ensemble music in the first place. Hate Paul McCartney/love the Beatles. Love Keith Richards/hate the Stones.

Why? The Stones have been doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING for 50 years! They do it EXTREMELY well (who wouldn’t with so much practice). The Beatles pushed the limits of rock and roll with every song, every line, every note. Yes, they failed sometimes. That’s the cost of taking risks. What risks did the Stones ever take – not including sexually-transmitted diseases and drug overdoses?

How can you even put the Rolling Stones and the Beatles in the same sentence? In the most recent KEXP poll of greatest band of all time the Beatles were beaten out of the number one spot not by the Stones, but by Radiohead. Radiohead! C’mon! A great band to be sure but really, Radiohead? It’s this complete lack of perspective that is required to even THINK of comparing the Stones to the Beatles.

To compare the Beatles to the Stones is like comparing Nirvana to Pearl Jam, Neil Young to Crosby, Stills and Nash, the Beach Boys to Jan and Dean. PLEASE! Great songs, yes. Great albums, there’s aren’t many better than “Let It Bleed.” Frankly I could listen to the Stones’ particular take on rhythm and blues-based rock and roll forever. It’s the crack cocaine of popular music. But did they ever push the envelope? Did they ever move out of their comfort zone? Have you ever heard a Stones song that you didn’t expect? No, no and no! Other than universal popularity and sex appeal what have the Stones ever done that Van (the Man) Morrison didn’t better?

C’mon you’re not really serious. Name one Stones song that’s as good in musicality, complexity, emotional power, conceptual clarity and originality as “You’re Gonna Lose That Girl,” which I consider to be a slightly above average number in the Beatles canon. And that was before they even got started. Listen to it before you answer.

Put up your dukes, East Portland Blog. I’m ready to rumble!

– The Wedgewood Rocker

*******************************************************

You might want to keep this tome — http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-vs-Rolling-Stones-Opinions/dp/0760338132 — from The Wedgewood Rocker for fear it would make his head explode anew.

– BernardStreetCred

*******************************************************

“And my brother’s back at home

with his Beatles and his Stones.

We never got it off

on that revolution stuff.

What a drag.”

I never quite understood the “or”.

Too many snags.

– Tom Somebody

*******************************************************

I couldn’t disagree more with the above analysis. Sure the boys from Liverpool were not as raunchy as the Stones during THE SAME TIME PERIOD, but to say that the Stones represent “rocks most powerful moments” more than the Fab-Four, or that the Beatles didn’t produce “loose,” “free,” “hard-edged” music is simply inaccurate. In my humble, non-musical, opinion.

– A doctor in Seattle.

*******************************************************

Incendiary questions like “Beatles or Stones?” are my “shtick.” They’re what I do to entertain the Facebook and blogosphere masses. I post something like this, usually political, and then the electronic vultures descend to tear it, and each other, apart. (This imagery may be too violent, post-Sarahpac, if so, I apologize for that too.)

A recent incendiary post in a similar vein said, “Weren’t the Young Fresh Fellows more important than Nirvana in the long run?” In fact, this was the argument which fed directly into the remastered reissue of the Beatles vs. Stones argument. I don’t think the Young Fresh Fellows were more important, to Seattle or, especially, the world, than Nirvana. Much of anything I post is conversational posturing to keep the controversy going. And my Beatles vs. Stones post truly worked. There was a goodly amount of spirited discussion. I also sent it to you in hopes I’d get a grunt of email recognition out of it from you. I got much more than I bargained for. Your post below is quite an unexpected reward. Thank you. Your email says more than you’ve said about any topic in the last 20 years. So, thank you again.

As for my own feelings about the Beatles, I agree with allmusic.com’s Richie Unterberger when he wrote, “they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did.”

And I’d agree they were the most innovative popular musicians ever. To find remotely comparable innovators, you run into real apples’n oranges comparisons, like Hendrix. He was innovative yes, but probably not as innovative as the Beatles. Miles Davis, more innovative, but not a pop musician.

And I can see how you, a firsthand witness, would prefer them to the Stones.

And they were the most prolific and consistent songwriters in their six year window. Nobody will equal releasing as much great stuff as they did, and, in fact, no one really tries. Everyone since has been much slower in creative output.

In short, the Beatles are still awesome, and the sixties were still awesome. No one can take your participant’s perspective away from you.

But there is a generational difference between us which can perhaps be explained this way: From the viewpoint of June 1967, when Sgt Peppers was released, of course the Beatles owned the decade. Seen from 1978, when I came of age, it isn’t that obvious. The Stones seemed to fit in better with the arena rock of the 70s, and seemed to lead directly into, as I intimated, punk and its progeny. “You’re Gonna Lose that Girl” is tighter, poppier and more complex than “Gimme Shelter,” but the latter seems cooler in retrospect.

I know this is a shock to any 60s Beatles fans, but time really was on the side of the Stones.

Another way to illustrate the point of my limited argument would be to say that anyone, when asked, “Pistols or Clash?” should always say “Pistols,” even though just about anyone will have heard more Clash and enjoyed more Clash than Pistols. “Stones” and “Pistols” are two answers which naughty boys think are cooler than “Beatles” and “Clash.”

I hope this clears things up,

East Portland Blog

*******************************************************

‎”Are down with Zeppelin, the Who, punk, post-punk etc.?” And the correct answer is always, “Stones.””

There were some much darker sides to the Beatles from the Maureen Cleave interview to “Helter Skelter, ” “Happiness is a Warm Gun,” to the trippy “Tomorrow Never Knows.” Skelter alone had enough anxiety to spawn more than a few punk bands.

On the other hand, the Stone’s “Wild White Horses” is one of the most elegant rock tunes recorded. The Sundays did the most gorgeous cover of it.

I’d rethink the premise, especially since both bands were highly influential. I’d also argue that the Doors, Who, and Zep were already well on their way at the time. In terms of understanding rock’s most powerful moments, just follow the influences of those bands and it’s easy to discover that a Beatles-Stones centric universe is like the sun revolving around the earth.

– Peter Dysart

*******************************************************

Hey, John Lennon & Keef (with Eric Clapton & Mitch Mitchell) were in the Dirty Mac together too! Best of both worlds!

– Howlin’ Hounddog

Critic’s Roundtable – Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4