As a young schoolboy nothing made me happier than The Beatles’ songs, feels like yesterday listening to them on the school bus with a crappy mp3 player and wanting to learn their songs on guitar and marvelling at the chord changes
They are different. The Stones are true rock stars, some of the best and most iconic of all time. I just don’t look at The Beatles the same way. They are a cultural force, innovators for their time, great songwriters, but different from how I view the Stones. I appreciate Jason’s enthusiasm but I just don’t view the Beatles in the way that many others do. And Kram makes some good arguments about how The Beatles were mainly a studio band and essentially had three or even four different singers and songwriters which can make the albums as a whole a bit all over. Really this is one of those arguments where you can see both sides and I never really liked the idea of pitting two bands against each other. The media created many of these kinds of feuds or battles when really all bands are different and it’s just whichever you prefer regarding your personal taste.
I think Lennon was envious of the Stones. That they were so free and they rocked so hard. It was what he wanted to be but wasn't because he in his own words "sold out." And yet he also he knew had he not done that the Stones probably would never gotten nearly as big. They may have ended up a covers band and flaming out. The Beatles opened everything up for ....everybody. Townshend - oh shit, I guess i have to write my own songs. Think about that. That was all because of what the Beatles did to the industry.
Theres no way you think Mick has a better voice than John and Paul, he has the same voice for everything, John and paul have so many singing styles including heavier rock voices.
I recently did a Beatles deep dive and while I was truly amazed at how many good songs are in their catalog, how strong each album is, I have never been a huge fan. I have to be in the mood. And even when I am, I mostly think about their songs in a cerebral way. That harmony sounds good, I like that change, etc. The Stones have had their share of ups and downs over the years, but I agree with absolutely (nearly) everything Kramzer said. They move me more. My brain engages with their music in a more visceral manner. I like the people in the band more. I play their music more often. I would rather see them live. I prefer bad Stones to good Beatles (mostly). I will say Drive My Car is the closest the Beatles ever got to me just rockin out. And Gimme Shelter is better than everything the Beatles wrote (for me). Day In The Life is probably the best Beatles song to me. And I can think of 20-30 Stones songs I would prefer to listen to. Paint It Black. Dance Pt. 1. Slave. Street Fighting Man. Parachute Woman. Dead Flowers. The list goes on. I get people's love for the Beatles. They crafted great music, but while I admire their craft, it just doesn't taste nearly as good as this cheeseburger.
The Beatles back catalog is among my biggest gripes. McCartney's desire to write and record "tralla-la" type songs that cover rather mundane observations makes it hard for me to listen to many of their/his albums end-to-end. Stones lyrics often walk close on the line of the dark side. Not evil, but more expression of desire, which created many very dynamic arrangements. So yes, the Stones songs connect at a different level. Add the earth-shattering vocals from Sasha, Lisa, or Mary and we have a party going.
Visceral is a good word. And I think for people who saw the Who in the late 60s/early 70s they took that to the extreme in terms of a live concert as a spiritual event. A mix of power, athleticism, intelligence. The Stones and the Who overtook the Beatles at that point. The Beatles were going to get steamrolled by those two had they continued to try to patch it together.
Street Fighting Man is greater than A Day in the Life? Wow, just Wow. I guess every one is entitled to their opinion but I am still scratching my head about that one.
As a Brit at primary school in the 1960s, I liked the Beatles, but also the Beach Boys, Bee Gees, and the Tremeloes. In the 1970s, the Stones were my favourite band. They still are!
I’m amused very much by this video. I even like how there’s an “album vs. live performance” argument at the end. Concerts matter, Jason! Concerts matter!😉
Their styles veered in different directions and the starting point is Beggars Banquet. Much heavier and blues influenced direction from the Stones from that point on. Not saying the Beatles had no rock songs, just that in the whole, they had a lot less, and appealed to a different audience than the edgier Stones did.
Mick is the better singer? Oooh...I wouldn't say that at all. I think one of the greatest strengths of the Beatles is their vocals and their vocal arrangements. I'm not a singer, I'm not a musician, but I think their vocal arrangements and they're doing something different with so many backing vocals is one of those main ingredients as to why they're so much better than everyone else. They've got 3 guys who are as good or are better singers than Mick Jagger. Lennon has my favorite voice, but at times it's McCartney who has my favorite voice. That said, not one of them is as good a front-man as Mick and that helps with any argument as to who had the better live band.
@@Gordy63I don’t know about the Beatles being better you heard what that guy said he said the Beatles are overrated I think the Beatles are the most overrated band period they weren’t even around that long the stones were around for over 60 years the Beatles could never write a song like Satisfaction or Jumpin Jack Flash I don’t think so
@@Gordy63 I was raised on the records of the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac, and my walls are covered with Rolling Stones records and Bob Dylan posters-I am no stranger to the colorful world of classic rock. Despite my periodic attempts to understand the universal appeal of The Beatles, I always come to the same conclusion: The Beatles are overrated. I am not saying I hate The Beatles or that they suck, so save your eyerolls for another one of my pretentious ramblings. I am simply asserting the band’s “Strawberry Fields” may not be as ripe as everyone says they are.
It's difficult to avoid over-simplifying or get bogged down in minutia once the chosen theme is 'Beatles vs. Stones.' Consideration is needed of the strong and weak phases both bands went through creatively over the years. John's songs solidified the promise the Beatles showed in 1963. 1964 was the extraordinary year. The manic pop thrills of "Hard Day's Night," "Can't Buy Me Love," "Tell Me Why," etc., were untouchable. John and Paul essentially set the stage and modeled what pop music would become for that era. The Stones had nothing to compare against that in 1964. It was more than a year later until the Stones started coming up with "Satisfaction," "Play with Fire'" "Get Off of My Cloud." Mick has said Keith listened to The Beatles incessantly in 1965 in order to learn songwriting. Also, who else was singing minor-key ballads with vocal harmonies of the Beatles' caliber in the spring and summer of 1964? The Zombies possibly, kinda. By 1966 The Stones had "As Tears Go By" "Ruby Tuesday." But in 1964 John's vocal angst was a lot stronger and more convincing than anything Mick was singing at the time. 'Between the Buttons' is a great album. But, as we know, 1968 became The Stones' "annus mirabilis." By then, no one could touch them.
That's a good post. Once Mick and Keith seized total control and dumped Brian they got into that period where they could almost do no wrong. They certainly became heavier, funkier, darker and more relevant as a mirror for society than the Beatles. Mick was the top dawg in rock in 69, 70. He was the king there for a short while. He and George Harrison oddly enough.
@@Twotontessie Thanks! I agree, Mick and Keith were at the top of their game in 1969-70. I would include 1968 as well if only for "Sympathy for the Devil." At the time there was no more sophisticated rock song lyrically and musically until the release of Let It Bleed. It's been said Marianne Faithfull, Baudelaire and Bulgakov were the catalysts. It's true Harrison was also at his peak circa 1969-70, although for a much briefer period, in my view.
@@TastesLikeMusic Love those two artists, but if that’s the case, rnr is simply an obsolete genre. Like The Beatles, The Stones’ music has a contemporaneous/timeless quality that pre-1963 artists don’t have.
@@scottanthonyweidner8692some songs of the Bestles have this timeless quality, yes, but I strongly disagree about music from the pre-1963 era is not timeless. Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis and the Everly Brothers wrote and recorded loads of timeless classics. I think they are great!
I'm semi-retired, living in Boston, and grew up in Liverpool during the sixties. You note musical taste is subjective. In one respect, therefore, it's a pointless argument; however, I thought I might be able to provide context to this age-old debate. Up front, I am a Beatles fanatic who has a substantial music collection, including several Stones albums. Before The Beatles, popular music was 'showbusiness'. The Beatles changed everything. Their look, personalities and humour differed from previous 'pop' stars. Elvis was an influence, but even he succumbed to showbiz. The Beatles covered songs, but significantly, they wrote their own. The 'Fab Four' were outside the establishment in an era when the UK media was London-based. The Fabs were upstarts from the provinces. Consequently, an effort was made to push a London-based band to rival these provincials. Initially, it was the Dave Clark Five. Enough said! When they fizzled out, The Rolling Stones were next. They were better with a charismatic lead singer, and with longer hair, they took The Beatles' lead one step further. At first, Stones albums were predominantly covers. Seeing how quickly Lennon & McCartney put together their first hit, "I Wanna Be Your Man", Jagger and Richards were inspired to start writing. So it is said. For me, the early albums of the Stones were okay. The singles were on a different level. Many were great with "Satisfaction", considered the classic of their early run. Noting the versatility of their rivals, the Stones began to dabble in 'pop'. "Lady Jane", "As Tears Go By", and "Under My Thumb" are good examples. Elsewhere, Jagger & Co. were aware of changes The Beatles introduced to the music scene. "Eleanor Rigby" was followed by "Ruby Tuesday"; All You Need is Love" by "We Love You". The Beatles used the sitar; the Stones gave us "Paint it Black". Everything reached a peak with "Their Satanic Majesties Request", which resembled "Sgt Pepper" in terms of the album sleeve and psychedelic music within. It felt like the Stones were copying The Beatles. I remember that clearly as a boy. "Satanic Majesties" wasn't bad but was criticized because many noted similarities to the '67 Beatles. Perhaps this caused the Stones to change direction? The Stones played to their strengths moving on. New album tracks like the storming "Street Fighting Man" showed a new direction. A great three-run album followed with " Beggars Banquet", "Let it Bleed", and best of all "Sticky Fingers". When the Stones tour nowadays, the meat of their set comes from this era … "Jumping Jack Flash", "Sympathy for the Devil", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", "Honky Tonk Women", "Brown Sugar", "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" etc. Perhaps best of all, the incredible "Gimme Shelter". None of these tracks were anything like the Fabs. Interestingly, I find "Exile on Main Street" overrated. There is nothing of the level of the aforementioned tracks. It's good, but not much more. It was little surprise that Mick Taylor left soon after as the band recording "Exile" seemed more focused on other things over the quality of previous LP's. Taylor had been a crucial factor in this inspired run of records. The Stones carried on, but what was the last true classic they recorded? 1981's "Start Me Up" and "Waiting On a Friend".? The Stones have released good tracks since, BUT look at their set list; it tells the tale. 68-71 dominates. Some points from your video:- 1). A major reason behind The Beatles' legend and mystique was their significant accomplishments in a short period of time. They had consistency with high-quality material. Some B-sides would have been gold for other bands. Had they stayed together, the level would likely drop. The Stones had their 'Golden Period', and then they became part of the furniture. The Beatles were never tainted in this respect; they only had a 'Golden Period'. It furthers their myth. The Beatles never burned out. 2). The Stone's music was more varied than The Beatles?!!! Really? Listen to "The White Album". I can think of no other album in the history of popular music that contains such a diverse and eclectic range of tracks. 3). The Beatles died! Brian Jones? The original leader of the band. And now, of course, Charlie. The Stones stayed together! Bill Wyman? he left over thirty years ago. 4). Mick Jagger is the best vocalist? Does he have the power of Lennon's vocals or the versatility of McCartney? For me, no. Admittedly, my musical opinion. Jagger's voice is the best for the Stones, just as Dylan's is the best for his stuff. One area the Stones cannot compare is vocal harmonies. 5). Looking at the songbooks of each band, again, everyone has their preferences. However, what can be debated is the number of Beatles covers compared to the Stones. It isn't close. After the Beatles split, many of my favourites from the seventies, Elton, Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Todd Rundgren, and Gerry Rafferty, all exhibited Beatle influences. 6). Concerning the "live" issue, it's difficult to asses The Beatles as they were drowned out by screaming girls while using primitive equipment. My Auntie used to go to The Cavern and watch the band before they were famous. She raved about their energetic and unique performances. Touring ended with frustration over the limitations they had with their fans. Still, they were the pioneers of stadium tours, though they didn't have the setup bands enjoyed in the seventies and beyond. Ultimately, neither band is "better" because of the subjectivity. However, the legacy of The Beatles is undeniable. Over 2,000 books have been published about them. RUclips is full of analyses of their music and cultural impact from classical composers to teenagers today discovering them and their music. The Rolling Stones were one of many great British bands that emerged in the wake of the leaders of that generation, The Beatles. The Stones were the most successful of these bands, and that, plus the way the media portrayed them, were significant factors in creating the Beatles vs Stones debate initially. Many more opinions have been discussed and added to the argument in the years since. I would recommend two books for you to check: 1). "Paperback Writer" by Mark Shipper (1978). It is a fictional account of the four getting back together and why it would have been a disaster. 2). "Beatles vs Stones" by John McMillan (2013). Finally, a track that sounds like neither band but poses the question of everyone's individual preference: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones! ruclips.net/video/LqldwoDXHKg/видео.html YNWA
The best part of this video is Joe's bemused look!! I love both bands I would pick the Beatles but Kramzer saying Revolver isn't a 5 star record is outrageous!! Mad respect to the Stones though!! Also nobody could deny Stones gear and merchandise sells better!!
@@Twotontessie The lyrics to Eleanor Rigby are some of the saddest ever. I disagree with you but respect your opinion of course!! I love the Stones but the Beatles are the most important pop culture phenomenon of all time.
The Beatles are an awesome museum you go to once every few months to appreciate how great they were, but you listen to the Stones on the way there and in between.
I think if you're a man ... the Stones are going to bring out the primeval elements of what that means. And that's powerful stuff. It's the same thing ... that makes a hound dog howl at night.
Very enjoyable discussion as usual, guys. My choice is the Rolling Stones because of their longevity, their grittiness, and the fact that they always took their music out on tour. The Beatles retired to the studio for good in 1966. The Stones, now in their 7th decade of existence, never left the road, playing to audiences with incredible regularity. Keith Richards said in 1974 that "any band that doesn't play live... is only half a band as far as I'm concerned because that's where it all comes from" (It's on RUclips word for word). Just the fact of having a front man who isn't burdened by holding an instrument beyond a microphone and harmonica gave the Stones, Mick especially, of course, a chance to develop a visual concert experience that just kept getting better and better, something the Beatles did not have. So, the stage act cannot be minimized. It's a big part of the overall package, the so-called rock star persona that the Stones were a prototype of. Here's a paraphrase of a comment I read recently : The Beatles turned rock music into a beautiful, polished diamond. The Stones kept it raw, dirty, alive. The point is that these bands are so different in every way, but both are great in their specific specialties. It's been a cliché to say that the Beatles broke up and the Stones broke out, but I was a teenager in 1970 when the Stones were breaking out, and it was mesmerizing to say the least. Maybe if I had been 5 years older and really, fully lived the Beatles experience I might have a different opinion, but in my own breaking out teenage years, the Stones were front and center, and fabulous. The Beatles, unfortunately, were part of yesterday's papers. My love for the Stones in the early 70's got me to buy compilations to review their back catalog of the 60's (which wasn't so old at the time), and I was blown away to discover how many great songs they had that I didn't know were theirs even though I knew the songs. Also, still in the early 70's, they released their eponymous live album "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" and I was again blown away. This album literally drove me to want to experience not just the Stones in concert, but live music in general. This was the album that made me really feel the excitement of being in an audience while a band was on stage, emphasizing again what Keith said about bands having to perform live to not be "only half a band". In another of your videos, Kram called the Beatles musical savants which I thought was a great description. The art of studio innovation was their expertise and contributed to the great, timeless music they produced. In spite of this, the overall body of work by the Stones is, for me, the greatest. Thanks guys.
I never understood why in that generation one had to be Beatles or Stones. I never followed that rule. I am a fond believer that Beatles and Stones complemented each other, surrounded by the Kinks, the Who etc etc. I am grateful for growing up after bad, bad times in Europe with that excellent music, thank you.
I align with Kram the most on this channel… until he starts talking Beatles and McCartney😂 easily my favorite musician of all time. I do go through moods though where I prefer the rough edges of the Stones
Same here, Macca is the GOAT, Kram is wrong about him, Beatles are the best songwriters, but I love The Stones, they're just so much fun and Billy Preston's organ on "Shine A Light" is the best sound ever recorded, also Jimmy Miller's drums on that track, Mick Taylor's solo, The Blackberries singing background and Mick singing "Berber jewelry ...", Keith playing bass ... yeah, sometimes I just want to listen to The Stones.
@mfish3835 I never cared for the Beatles I love everything the stones did better then anything the Beatles did even the worst stones albums I like better then anything the Beatles did the stones made way more albums they put out the best music and the stones were great as a live act I know the stones should have stopped a long time ago they should have stopped after steel wheels they’d were getting old when baseplayer Bill Wyman stopped he didn’t wanna do it anymore the whole band should have stopped after steel wheels
@@mikebarooshian7255 How is it possible to love the Stones and not care for the Beatles? That just doesn't make sense. They both made great songs in the same general category of popular music. I mean, I get how you could prefer one group over the other, but not caring for the Beatles is just strange if you love the Stones, and vice-versa.
@@TT-fq7plwell I heard the Beatles but they don’t do it for me the stones are an amazing band they have so many great songs they were around way way longer then the Beatles were they had the most sold out concerts all over the world and there still together even today all take the worst stones albums over the best Beatle albums I think the Beatles are way way overrated and people think the Beatles are the best I know the stones have been around for such a long long time they should have stopped along time ago like after steel wheels when they were all getting old when Bill Wyman left I knew the band was over they were never the same ever since Bill left
@@mikebarooshian7255 Well, I think it's obvious that they're both amazing bands. I don't see anything wrong with preferring the Stones though. Even when I was a teenager, we called that tour the Steel Wheelchairs Tour. Not so funny now that I'm 40 years older!
@@TT-fq7plwell another band that I really love is The Dave Clark 5 I like dc5 way better then the Beatles they were only around for 8 years and they broke up in 1970 my 2 favorite bands of course are The Rolling Stones and The Dave Clark 5
Why? I'm a Stones nut, I'm a Beatles nut. I love chocolate chip, and I love black forest gateau. I love it all, no competition. I think it's clear enough the Beatles were better songsmiths but the Stones wrote amazing songs the Beatles would never have come up with. The Stones were menacing and brooding in a way I love and that the Beatles weren't. The Beatles produced some magical melodies that feel like alchemy but the Stones created atmospheres that did the same.
Rubber Soul and Revolver not 5 star lps ? Ouch you took my breath away. Tom Petty said it best "There's the Beatles, and then there's everybody else " I was 10 when I bought my first record. Hello Goodbye w I am the Walrus. You had to be there. They were way more than a rock band to cultures everywhere.
I'm completely torn; I see both sides of the argument. I know it is cop out, but since they are so different - I just love them both equally. And yes, Ringo is the only person in both groups that I would love to hang out with.
To the guy who not only said very inaccurate ignorant things about The Beatles great live performances, but he said The Beatles were mostly George Martin,well George Martin always said that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were incredibly talented people and they were both extraordinarily talented song writers and great singers and he said that most of the creative music ideas came from them he said that he never knew or worked with any other music artists as brilliant as The Beatles. And he produced quite a few music artists after them but he never had the same success as he did before and after he became their producer.
Excellent video gents. It’s a hard topic. Both are spectacular and we must value and appreciate both bands for their contributions. It’s somewhat tough to compare because the Beatles had a Sandy Koufax kind of career…red hot for seven years then gone. The Stones have been rocking for decades. However, I think the fair comparison is to take their top five records and compare. When you do that it becomes very difficult indeed. I think it’s tough to beat the stones from 68-73. Those records are as good as any ever made. Also, there is the live thing to consider. The Stones also had more edgy music that evolved over time because they’ve had a longer career. It would have been interesting to see how the Beatles evolved after Abbey Road. So the Beatles get the advantage of being the first to do it really, therefore everyone is compared to them. Regardless, they are great. It really boils down to preference. I love both but I really dig that dirty, raw, swinging, blues infested, rock n roll that the stones do. And I like their edge. It would also be cool to know what the Beatles were like live with modern PA systems. Ppl say they were incredible when they played in Hamburg, etc. but live performances that we have don’t allow us to really hear due to crowd noise and poor PA systems. I bet they were damn good though. I do think that the stones style and sings lend themselves more toward playing live whereas the Beatles were a more experimental studio band. To each their own. It’s kinda like if you prefer like Disney World today play The Beatles. If you feel like Vegas rock the Stones.
Both great. Beatles will always have the edge commercially. I started out in music with a love for the Beatles, but the older I get I appreciate the Stones great albums more the Beatles great albums. People will point to the songwriting but sometimes I think the Stones could get close to making similar types of albums 'in that time and in that spirit' .....with their own George Martin. HOWEVER the Beatles could have NEVER made an Exile on Main Street. I love it for all the reasons Mick Jagger doesn't. The mix, the grit and 'bandness' of it. It is the Rock n Roll album. It personifies rock n roll.
The Beatles are the biggest phenomenon in the history of human entertainment. It's not at all hyperbole to say they changed the world. There's a great documentary produced by the BBC called "How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin." Its an eye-opener as to how far flung, and how strong, The Beatles' influence was. It went way beyond music.
Suprised Kramzers opinions on the Beatles considering His favourite bands Radiohead clearly have SO much beatles influence and not much if any stones influence.
The Stones. I'd rather listen to them on a typical day. They groove way harder than the Beatles, and it ain't close. And the Stones got Keef. Case closed.
I love all three. I don’t have to choose a winner. I enjoy them all for who they are and what they did/do. I just can’t trust anyone who says they don’t like all three.
You only say that because they were the first to come out in this format. If they were the second third fourth or later, I highly doubt you would feel the same. These beetle groupies always confuse being the first with being the best. Even an average jazz musician was way above the beatles musically and creates music on a much higher level. Don't forget, the beatles are pop music, plain and simple. And speaking of "playing in another league, that would be the jazz musician as if you were to compare pop to jazz it would be like comparing kool-aid (sugar water) to a fine wine with its multiple layers.nuances of flavors etc. This is not opinion but a technical fact. Plus, I would far rather listen to the edginess and intensity of Gimme Shelter than Michelle my belle or I want to hold your hand.
I love them both, (Stones up to Exile... don't care for the rest). I saw throught the first years singles by the bands. And it's not that easy to pick a winner. Summer 1963 She Loves You/I'll Get You vs. Come On/I Want To Be Loved. Winter 1963 I Want To Hold Your Hand/This Boy vs. I Wanna Be Your man/Stoned New year/spring 1964 Can't Buy Me Love/You Can't Do That vs. Not Fade Away/Little By Little Summer 1964 A Hard Day's Night/Things We Said Today vs. It's All Over Now/Good Times Bad Times Winter 1964 I Feel Fine/She's A Woman vs. Little Red Rooster/Off The Hook New year/ Spring 1965 Ticket To Ride/Yes It Is vs. The Last Time/Play With Fire. Summer 1965 Help!/I'm Down vs. (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction/The Spider And The Fly Winter/autumn 1965 We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper vs. Get Off Of My Cloud/The Singer Not The Song. It's almost like compairing Kinks vs Byrds. Different styles, but something in common. One vocalist vs. harmonies/multi vocalists. One big advantage for the Beatles, and a thing I like in general, is vocal harmonies, and that more than one guy do the (mostly) singing.
@@TastesLikeMusic The Stones inhabit Kramzer's soul much more that the Beatles. He feels a deeper connection to their music. All over his body apparently.
As somebody who got into The Beatles when I was 9 but then got into The Rolling Stones when I was 19 similar to the whole Beatles discography but especially from their period of late 1965 (the album "December's Children and Everybody's") to 1981, I have a LOT I would love to say here but I will try to keep it brief. The Beatles are the better band overall for just how much they tried to do in less than eight years of being together as a famed band (their first singles were released at the end of 1962, last recordings were ever done at the beginning of 1970, months before their break-up). That said, a lot of The Rolling Stones' work, both live and in the studio, and I listened to their studio work religiously for a long time, is just as good as The Beatles' work but they have that pelvic-thrusting rock'n'roll groove that isn't present on many Beatles material because they were simply more polished and articulate. My Top 5 Favourite Albums by The Beatles would be A Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, Revolver and The self-titled Beatles White Album being my personal favourite of 5 Stars. Interestingly my Top 5 Selection for the Stones wouldn't be all their period from 68 to 73 though 3 of those albums are in my Top 3, but the other two are 60s albums pre-Beggars Banquet: Between the Buttons (UK original version), Flowers (compilation album released in the US of missing gems not present on their previous American counterparts to the UK plus exclusively new material), Goats Head Soup, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street. Now if it came to songs, my Top 5 Beatles songs would be "The End" from Abbey Road featuring instrumental solos from every one of The Beatles on guitar and drums in the case of Ringo along with an epic album ending like a proper rock opera even if they didn't address the album as such at the time like The Who did with "Tommy" or Pink Floyd, the heartfelt "Yesterday", "And Your Bird Can Sing" off Revolver with the best guitar playing ever, "A Day In The Life" the epic masterpiece which closes "Sgt. Pepper" and finally I'm going with "In My Life" as my n°1, John Lennon's heartfelt, nostalgic song about his past and present from "Rubber Soul". As for The Rolling Stones' Top 5 I'm going with "Stray Cat Blues" the dirtiest rocker on "Beggars Banquet" which goes triple on everything the Stones were best (and worst) at in the musical and lyrical content, "100 Years Ago" and "Winter" I'm just saying are underrated masterpieces from their entire catalogue never performed onstage apparently but from a wonderful studio album produced by Jimmy Miller which was underrated for not being the supposed rock-heavy standard of their 4 previous streak of albums, "Memory Motel" from "Black and Blue", ohhhh what a masterpiece in songwriting and complete 70s ballad, sound and vibe but did get to be performed live on stage in the 90s with Dave Matthews, but my n°1 Stones track will always have to be "Beast of Burden" off "Some Girls", everything about the track I just think is perfect. I'd take that disco and dance vibe of that song and its chords 1,000 times over "Miss You".
I've never felt the need to compare them, to be honest. They're two completely different entities. The Beatles changed pop music and the music industry in general forever. They were true craftsman. And the Stones were the living embodiment of rock and roll. The excess, the darkness, the debauchery, and that unstoppable groove. Parents of the time would be ecstatic if a Beatle showed up at their door asking for their daughter's hand in marriage, but if one of the Stones came a' knockin they'd grab their shotgun. Two totally different bands who are only compared to one another because they were contemporaries.
The Beatles were scruffy working class from Liverpool. In the USA that is the equivalent of a southern red neck. The Stones were mid to upper class from London. That would be the equivale of nice people from Boston. Your are buying into how the groups were marketed.
@@julian65886 Yeah, I'm aware of that. How they were marketed and how they were perceived by their fanbases is what matters. Their childhood upbringing and socio-economic class are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The way they were marketed IS what the populous buys, not their personal lives as many don't even know their personal lives. Why do you think marketing an image is so important in the first place. Marketing a product or music group in this case could make or break it. Your comment was non-sensical /ignorant. Also, "nice people of Boston", implying that southern "red necks" can't be nice? I don't know whether to just laugh at this falderal or advise you to re-think this mess of yours. @@julian65886
George Martin said in his biography All You Need Is Ears that there's no doubt that Lennon and McCartney were good musicians and that they had good musical brains and he said which is where music originates it has nothing to do with your fingers and he said as it turned out they could all play their own insurance very well and since those early days have all improved especially Paul McCartney and that he's a great music all-rounder,a brilliant guitarist, a first rate drummer, and probably the best bass player ever, and a competent piano player. George Martin also said that in The Beatles early days he tried to learn to play the guitar to have a better musical communication with them but he said he couldn't learn to play it so he gave it up but he said both John and Paul learned to play the piano far more quickly than he was able to master their instrument. Paul could always play anything great even in the early to mid Beatles period but I'm sure that more people would say that he's a better piano player than a drummer since he inherited his father James McCartney's natural music talent to a rare extreme degree. Paul's father James McCartney broke an ear drum at the age of 10,then at age 14 he taught himself to play the piano and as an adult he became the leader of his own jazz band Jim Mac's band as a jazz pianist and the band were popular in Liverpool clubs in the 1920's and 1930's and he wrote a very good 1920's jazz instrumental Walking In The Park With Elloise which Paul McCartney played bass with other musicians and recorded the song in 1974.Paul said in a 2001 TV Guide interview that he knows that he has the music talent in his genes from his Dad. Paul' paternal grandfather also played brass and other instruments in a band and was said to have a very good singing voice so that must be where Paul also got his once great singing voice from too. John inherited most of his great music talent from his mother Julia who taught herself to play the banjo,piano acordian and ukelee and she taught John to play the banjo when he was 15. People who heard Julia Lennon sing said she sang a lot like the successful popular 1940's singer Vera Lynn and I never heard of Vera Lynn so I listened to her on RUclips and she had a really beautiful strong singing voice so John obviously inherited his beautiful strong singing voice from her too, John's father also played banjo and sang and there was a paternal grandfather and a maternal grandfather who was a musician and another a singer too.
As a baby boomer, both these bands were otherworldly, brilliant, incomparable groups that recorded timeless records. Its a ridiculous question. Like asking a parent who is your favorite child. Plus, they were quite different. Stones more blues-based R&B based, Beatles more pop/baroque, but NOT overrated They changed the culture at the timeSure, every Beatle album (8) was excellent, But the Stones had a string of truly great records. Between The Buttons, Exile, Aftermath, Sticky Fingers, Let It Bleed, Beggars' Banquet. Finally, don't try to compare RIngo and Charlie. Both great, but soooooooo different. Hey, you can identity any Beatles song just by his drumming. Watt's swinging style and steady beat made the Stones who they were, Beatles vs. Stones. Rembrandt vs. Michelangelo. JUST BE THANKFUL YOU HAD BOTH BANDS TO ENJOY FOREVER!
Well, this was fun. I sure hope Beatles and Stones fans discover your channel because of it. Also, a nice taste of all your personalities for anyone looking to subscribe to a new music channel. Now do The Kinks vs. The Who.
I posted this on another channel but I feel it bears repeating. Some guy said comparing The Beatles and the Stones is like comparing bourbon and chocolate - both great but completely different. Truer words were never spoken. I'm a fan of both groups but I think The Beatles have the edge. The Beatles in my view don't get enough credit for the harder edged stuff they did like "Helter Skelter", "Everybody's Got Something to Hide...", "Yer Blues", Revolution", "I Want You (She's So Heavy), etc. These songs were just as heavy as "Can't You Hear Me Knocking", "Bitch", "Stray Cat Blues" (the live one from "Ya-Ya's"), and other songs the Stones did. So when comparing both groups, it seems like The Beatles were considered less "dirty" sounding than the Stones when in reality they could rock as hard as any group from that era. Plus The Beatles had more variety than the Stones. The Beatles did psych (better than the Stones did. The Stones had only one "psych" album "Satanic Majesties Request" a poor man's "Pepper" I.M.O.). The Beatles had songs with a Greek feel ("Girl"), they had songs with Baroque elements ("In My Life"), they had experimental/Eastern songs ("Being for the Benefit of Mr.Kite", "Within You, Without You"), etc. And while it's true that the "5th Beatle" George Martin played a big role in the groups sound, The Beatles came up with the ideas and Martin orchestrated them. Finally, The Beatles had more of an overall influence culturally and musically than the Stones. I love the Stones, but they're more one dimensional than The Beatles.
There's no doubt the Beatles are hugely influential and had (and still have) a great impact on the pop world. But most people seem to forget the cultural impact of the Stones. The Beatles wore uniforms until 66, and pretty much every early sixties band wore them. Not the Stones. They dropped the uniforms right away and dressed as they wanted since 1963. That is huge deal, and not many people give them credit for that. They've been often accused of misogynistic lyrics in the early days, but that was part of the cultural revolution they led from the fringes. While the Beatles were singing about holding hands and were promising diamonds rings in their songs, the Stones treated women as equals. And that treatment sometimes involved telling them that 'they're playing with fire' that they'll never 'break this heart of stone' or that they are, indeed, 'under their thumb'. They certainly were tough on them at times, but they also stopped being condescending. This doesn't mean the Beatles didn't influence the Stones. They paved the way in the beginning and also, they were o couple of years older, which is a big age gap when you're in your early twenties. And although there is an influence, specially in the mid sixties when the Stones had their own take on baroque pop and psychedelia, they never followed the Beatles' tracks all the way. Not lyrically and not musically. And by this I mean the Stones never sang Christmas songs and they never wrote music for children. From Revolver on, the Beatles had a number of songs written for kids in every album. Here's a few of them: Submarine, Good day Sunshine, Lucy in the sky, Kite, when I'm sixty four, piggies, all together now, Maxwell, Octopus, Mustard. You can put together a whole album with kids songs, which I suppose is why the Beatles are so popular: they grab you at a very early age. The thing with the Stones is that they never even tried to write that kind of music. They were proto punks, they were dirty, and in Europe, their shows usually ended with a riot against police. Sometimes, they weren't able to even finish the show. Anyway, love but bands for very different reasons. Just don't buy what some say here that the Stones were imitating the Beatles all the time. And when they did, they grabbed a sitar and instead of writing a love tune like Norwegian Wood, they went and did something completely dark and sinister: Paint it black.
@@southsider3542. I think what the writer is saying is the Beatles might be more technically proficient musicians, but the Stones’ music resonates more with them.
I'm with Kramzer 110%. They aren't even in the same category. The Stones are the quintessential rock and roll band. The Beatles are a sophisticated pop band. Yawn!
There is also a 1977 interview with Eric Clapton on a great site Super Seventies and he said that there was always this game (meaning guitar) between John and George and he said partly because John was a pretty good guitar player himself. Eric played live with John Lennon as a member of his 1969 Plastic Ono Band. There is also an online 2013 Eric Clapton interview on The Times Of India and he was asked what he thought about John Lennon as a person, as a musician and a song composer and he said John was a friend, a great musician and an amazing composer. There is also a post by a long time guitar player on his WordPress blog, The Guitar Cave and he said that The Beatles were a great rock and roll band from their earliest albums and that they had great vocals, great energy and great vocal harmony. He also said that the more he listened to them the more he appreciated and realized their talents and abilities.He reviewed Rolling Stones albums too.And he compliments John and George's guitar playing too.
Growing up I always preferred the Beatles more by a lot. The older I get the more I prefer the Stones. They're completely different but the Stone gritty, bluesy rock n' roll is much more appealing to me in my 30s than in my teens or 20s. I think the Beatles were the greater talents (especially in the early to mid stuff) but the Stones have a wider appeal due to their sound. I only love the Beatles from '62 to '66 besides some of Abbey. The Stones did what they did so well better than what the Beatles did and more consistently in my opinion. With that said I like the Who more than both :)
Entertaining clip! That was fun. This is like asking which is better between Coke and 7-Up. For a while, 7-Up marketed itself as the Uncola. The Stones were sort of the Un-Beatles. The mangy, back alley alternative. Of course, the Beatles were Teddy Boy rockers dressed in leather before they were refashioned by German exis and Brian Epstein but that's too much info... But I think Kram and Jason are too far into their own camps. If Jason thinks Heartbreaker is the best Stones song, I don't think he really gets the band's appeal. It's those snaky, slithery grooves that Kram and Joe were talking about in the album video. When Jimmy Miller was producing and Mick Taylor was their lead guitarist they had a hot hand and they released several great albums. They had a more insinuating, pelvic-centered groove than the Beatles ever did (except for, maybe, on Come Together). The Beatles were all about crazed enthusiasm when it came to their rockers. If Kram thinks Aftermath is a 5 star album while Revolver isn't...., that's beyond a bad opinion, it's as close to an opinion can get to being just a factual error. Revolver changed pop/rock music more than any other album while raising the standard for rock albums. Aftermath has a bunch of whiny, misogynistic pop songs that are just annoying and an 11 minute blues number that's less fun to listen to than even Revolution 9. The Stones tried to compete with the Beatles as pop artists in the mid-60s but they didn't have the vocals to pull that off. The Beatles had far better harmonies and both Lennon and McCartney were better lead vocalists than Jagger, who generally sounded pretty awful on those pre-Jimmy Miller LPs. Despite that, some of those pop songs from the Jones period are really fantastic (eg Connection, Out of Time, Let's Spend The Night Together, 2000 Man, Dandelion...) but the albums before Beggar's Banquet were pretty patchy. Anyway, the Beatles are better because it's their playground and the Stones could only borrow it. But the Stones were a great band too from around '68 - '72. I think you're way overrating Goat's Head Soup and Some Girls but Tattoo You was a good rebound, imo.
Beatles have the album crown and the immaculate discography. I would vote for them if I had to pick, but it's not a simple conversation as somebody whose music appreciation owes so much to both. My favorite songs of each are both right up there with some of my favorite stuff. And as a songs guy, who is willing to pick and choose on that level and doesn't care as much about the wider whole or it being harnessed in the right place, it becomes more of a conversation. Stones probably have *more* material I love by virtue of having more material period. And I don't love everything Beatles. If I were to do a top 25 pulling from both discographies, I would expect a healthy portion from each even within the period they were both active. But the Beatles' track record counts for something, and I have little doubt they would have been amazing for a while yet had they continued. I can't get as far on end of the spectrum as Jason or Kram. I'm more or less with Joe here.
The fact that this is even a discussion is itself a testament to The Stones’ greatness. They had a unique charisma, which clicked in 1965 and held sway until 1973. Had they died in a plane crash at the end of 1967, they’d be thought of far differently, but that ‘65-‘67 material was still unique and brilliant, and then they reached a whole new level in ‘68. Let’s put it this way - The Stones were as good as The Beatles for four albums. The Beatles were as good as The Beatles from beginning to end. And the agony of these tin-eared, juvenile, anal-expulsive dismissals of the Beatles’ pre-Rubber Soul era in the comments - pure suffering to have to tolerate such drivel in what’s supposed to be an intelligent music conversation. It really does push the bile buttons for me.
I'm Team Beatles here all the way, but I'm with Kram on this: the early stuff is *wildly* overrated. If Please Please Me and With/Meet the Beatles were all we had, they'd be just another of-that-time band. There is nothing all that special until Beatles for Sale and nothing truly great until Rubber Soul.
@@JarrettMehldau I wouldn't quite say either of them reaches greatness for me, but it's a fine hair, they are both wonderful. I mostly take exception with the "start to finish" comments when the first couple records have a lot of rock n roll retreads and sound more or less like anything else from the era.
@@spencerarmstrong258 Yeah, they sound similar to The Crickets, The Searchers, Gerry & Pacemakers, or early Zombies, but they sound like the good cuts from those bands. I also liked it, when bands brought that early 60s style back in the 90s The Wonders, The Rembrandts, The La's, etc.
@@spencerarmstrong258 Ludicrous and gravely ignorant opinion, tbh. If they had died in a plane crash after A Hard Day’s Night, they would ***still*** be noted in music history as the band who changed popular music forever.
This is a great topic. Two of the greatest bands ever. One was more polished, the other was more of a rock band. But, the other band of greatness in this discussion should be the Who. I am older than our 3 heroes here, as I was born in 1961. I saw the Who in Birmingham AL in 1983 or so, when Kenny Jones was the drummer. They were perfect. I saw the Stones at the Superdome in New Orleans in 1982 (?). The opening acts were the Neville Brothers and George Thorogood. I had just seen Thorogood about a year earlier in front of 300 people, and now we’re part of 82,000 people. An unbelievable difference for Lonesome George, but he was great. We were told at the time that this was the largest indoor concert in the history of the world. The Stones were an event. They played sloppy, they were loose, they had fun, they were nothing like the Who. And they were also nothing like the Beatles (who I never saw). The Beatles were produced perfectly (George Martin) and were often very much a pop band. The Stones were not a pop band. They were tough, loud, crude. I love all three bands, but I don’t think I love the Beatles more than the Stones or the Who. McCartney and Lennon were much better together than separate, and to me, when McCartney was taking charge near the end of the Beatles they were less interesting. Thanks for the discussion. Music is a personal thing, we all have different opinions.
I think the star system for grading albums is flawed. I like Christgau’s letter grading better. It gives the reviewer more freedom to be nuanced and specific. You should always judge art for what it is, not for what it isn’t. For example, Black and Blue is an A- album for me, and a big part of that album is about incorporating the dance music of the era. This grading system allows me to express how much I like its ass-shaking music, while also recognizing that what they do in Sticky Fingers is even more successful by being able to give it an A+. As for the eternal Beatles vs Stones thing, with my dumb system, 8 out of 13 Beatles albums are an A- or higher, while the Stones have 16 out of 26 with an A- or higher grade. So, the Stones easily win out for me. Their discography is huge, eclectic, and fun. I get quality and quantity.
Where Did They Hide The Good Albums The Stones recorded ‘Beggars Banquet’, ‘Sticky Fingers’, ‘Exile on Main Street’, ‘Goats Head Soup’ in succession. The Beatles made only one really consistent album - ‘Sargeant Peppers..’. The rest were pretty ropey (Let It Be, The White Album, Revolver…some good, some bad on all).
I love the Stones to death as a band that did their greatest work from about 1963-72, with occasional pockets of greatness thereafter. And of course I’m impressed by the longevity of the band and their public image, particularly as an actively touring live band. I love The Who for basically all the same reasons. But neither can compare to the titanic, monumental beauty of The Beatles greatest work. But The Beatles, in their best period of recording, weren’t a live band. Still, as much as Paul can drive me crazy, it’s always gonna be The Fab Four forever.
The Beatles. My first love. The Stones may go down in history as being the greatest singles band in rock and roll history. They had both the blessing and the curse of pretty much always sounding like the Stones. When they were great, they were awesome. But when they weren't, they were mediocre or worse, irrelevant, on record. There are a number of Stones albums that if they never existed, it wouldn't make one bit of difference. You can't say that about the Beatles.
Drums - I would rate Charlie. I will point out that Stones didn't go anywhere until he cemented into the back line. Ringo was flashier but not to where he would stick out. Charlie wasn’t flashy at all. It was just a steady beat that held the band together. I saw Ringo live once, and the Stones live five times. They are both spot on and keep perfect timing. Charlie rarely solos.
Gotta give The Beatles the edge overall, but nobody plays with a looser, dirtier feel than The Stones. Keef lets the song breathe and gives it space with his incredible rhythm guitar work and riffage. Mick’s lyrics, charisma, and showmanship are second to none. What an exciting period for music, culture, and creativity the 1960’s must have been with these 2 bands knocking out classic album after classic album in competition with each other. But The Beatles had Lennon and McCartney. Nobody can sing like them. So creative and powerful. Both bands are beautiful.
Loved this video and reading the comments! Fun times! I prefer the Stones to the Beatles, but they are both hugely influential, top-notch artists. My life is better for having heard them.
Early Beatles were the bomb for maybe a year or two. Then they disintegrated. They became this concept album band (no live shows) selling new merchandise with each album. Hard Day's Night, Help, Rubber Soul, Peppers, Mystery Tour, Yellow Sub., etc. They lost their grove. Lost their grove. They tried to get it back with Let It Be. Not for me. Today, maybe you'll hear The Beatles in an elevator. I can't listen to them. I believe John Lennon said he couldn't listen to Beatles records too. Stones are Rock 'n Roll forever. I can work, exercise, dance, and party to The Rolling Stones all day long. They kick ass. In my opinion, they're not only way better than The Beatles, they're still the World's Greatest Rock 'n Roll band at 80 yrs old. Their new album is killer!
Its now over 40 years since these groups co existed and were at their prime- and the arguments still have not been resolved. As long as we all have different tastes so no amount of arguing will ever resolve it. We get lots of entertainment from the topic for all that. All credit to Joe keeping ihe ship on course (kind of.) "you guys are a little crazy" says it all. The real tragedy would be if there was no Beatles or was no Stones.
Dang boys you really got after it here, haha! Great passion! For me its The Beatles (though The Stones are a big favorite as well) because everything about the Beatles from the songs, to the albums, to the photos, to the stories, to the individual personalities, to the eras (even within a 10 year period) has always been the pivot point to everything i've loved about music since i discovered the Red and Blue albums in my parents collection when i was very young. Their music got into my head quick, and i found everything about them fascinating, and the songs really connect with me on various levels. The incredible listening experience range of the 60's pop of Hard Days Night to John's eerie acoustic number I'm Only Sleeping to the psychedelia sounds on Strawberry Fields ....... its hard to find words. But, The Stones are badass for sure
Have just one conversation with a Beatles fan, and you will know for sure that they are not underrated. Ask them, and the Beatles basically invented music. Are they one of the most influential bands of all time? Sure. But their early stuff (more than half of their career) is just pretty good. Not any better than what Chuck Berry, Elvis, Dylan, Beach Boys, or several artists from Motown had done or were doing at the same time. I'm myself pretty big Who fan, and I've had "debates" with Beatles fans who claim that Beatles "invented" punk, claiming Helter Skelter was the first punk song of all time, ignoring the fact that My Generation preceded it by 3 years. Now, replace the word "punk" with other genres, like "heavy metal", or things like "concept album", "deep, meaningful lyrics", "using orchestra in a pop song", or "making a song consisting of shorter songs/samples", and we got the same conversation over and over. A lot of stuff is attributed to the Beatles by their fans and the public eye, that by all rights should not be. Like Led Zeppelin, they are getting a lot of credit for doing stuff that others had already done, simply by the virtue of being the most popular band to have done those things. After that, by definition, they cannot be underrated. I've even talked to people who claim Beatles invented rock 'n' roll. I wonder then, whose songs were they covering on their early albums, if no rock music existed before them...
It's funny but he Stones were seen as the bad boys but they were all middle class whereas the Beatles were working class, even John who whilst aunt may have not been, his mother and father were.
Big myth. John was upper middle, Paul was middle, George and Ringo were lower class. In the Stones, Brian was upper middle, probably the most educated of the whole pack, Mick was middle, and Keith, Bill and Charlie were lower class.
Charlie Watts is a much better drummer than Ringo. That isn't close. Watts is more like an American style R & B type drummer, as opposed to Ringo's mersey beat thing. Which I do enjoy. But it doesn't have the punch or swing of rock n roll. It's silly to favor Ringo just cause you prefer the Beatles. The latter is a valid opinion, the former is not.
Ringo much better at writing unique parts for each song. Charlie does his Charlie thing, which is great in it's own right, but far less interesting to me.
@@TastesLikeMusic Ringo Starr is an amiable, likeable scouser. Unfortunately, what he is not is a good drummer. In fact, he wasn’t even the best drummer in The Beatles. I’ve heard all the revisionist nonsense about Ringo’s abilities over the last few years, but that’s all it is: nonsense. By contrast, Charlie Watts was a fantastic drummer. His minimalist style in The Rolling Stones often hides his natural jazz style, but what he did in the Stones is always, always perfect.
stones easily. amazing singles, amazing albums. Sticky Fingers is the best rock album ive ever heard. Let it Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Exiles, Head Goat Soup, Some Girls, Black and Blue even.
I can’t compare, love Beatles, but stones with their longevity, really are marked on my heart. The song “ gimme shelter” is the best rock song ever, but wow, that song George wrote for Revolver is a close second. I enjoyed Joes analysis on stones. They are a lot grittier and grimy. Helll, joe even said Decembers Children is stones 5th best
IMO The Beatles made pop music as the Stones were more r'n'b oriented. I like both of them a lot. I was about 13 years old when they all started. Their music is the soundtrack of my life.
Why do I have to choose? I like them both a hell of a lot. In the distant past both occupied the top spot in my all-time hierarchy. Who's music have I listened to more in my life? Probably The Beatles. Who have I listened to more in the last 10 years? Probably the Stones. But neither is in my top 10 for current listens. I'm not going to pick. I have enjoyed them both immensely for a long time, but not so much recently.
Mick Jagger was at The Beatles recording session of their very good song Baby Your A Richman May 1967 and here he was the front man of his own really successful popular rock band, but he came there just to stand on the sidelines and listen to The Beatles playing and recording their song and he sang in the backing vocals towards the end of the song and Mick's name is on the tape box too. There is also a picture that is online of Mick sitting in the middle of John and Paul in the recording control room during the recording of The Beatles brilliant great Revolver album in early 1966. And Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were at The Beatles live first via satalite broadcast of their great summer of love song All You Need Is Love in June 1967,so were their other friends Eric Clapton and Graham Nash and you can clearly see Mick in the front row singing and clapping along. Mick with his then girlfriend the singer Marianne Faithful also went on the train with The Beatles to Bangor Wales to see the Marahaishi for the first time in August of 1967 and he was there with them when they got the sad call that their manager Brian Epstein was found dead. Also Keith and Mick can clearly be seen in the filmed party of The Beatles great brilliant song A Day In The Life in early 1967. Also Marriane Faithful is quoted in the authorized Paul McCartney biography Many Years From Now by Barry Miles,that she and Mick would often go visit Paul in his music room in his house in 1966 and 1967,but they only went to see him because he was Paul McCartney but he never visited them. She also said that Mick was somewhat in intimidated by Paul but Paul was totally oblivious about this. There is also an online 2016 picture of Keith Richards smiling holding a sign that says I ❤ The Beatles. And he said in an online August 1971 interview that in The Rolling Stones early days they had hysteria like The Beatles did and screaming throughout their concerts and he said that there were no monitors back then. Keith also said in this same interview that The Beatles were so f***** good at what they did and it's a shame that they broke up in such a tatty way. There is also a 2008 interview with Keith that is on RUclips where he's asked what 5 bands does he think are great besides The Rolling Stones and he said he has to put The Beatles in there obviously and then he said obviously again.But he also said that he's not going to say The Who or Led Zeppelin ( I strongly don't blame him for this!) because he'd be lying because their not his favorites.
There are also online pictures of The Rolling Stones, in 1963 and early 1964 before their manager took them out of them and manufactured their exaggerated 'bad' boy image. And also Eric Burdon And The Animals in 1964 wearing matching suits and ties with similar haircuts and a black and white film of The Beach Boys in early 1964 wearing shirts with matching big stripes with teenage girls screaming throughout the concert and The Moody Blues wore matching suits and ties until 1967 a year after The Beatles stopped. It was common in the early to mid 1960's for rock and roll bands to be wearing matching suits and ties with similar haircuts for professional reasons to get great live concert playing jobs.But by the late 1960's nobody had to do that anymore because everyone were hippies then. There are also online pictures of The Rolling Stones on the cover and inside teen magazines sometimes with The Beatles in 1964,1965, and 1966 and The Rolling Stones on the cover of teen magazines in 1967. There are also online pictures of Mick Jagger on the cover twice and inside a popular teen newspaper in 1965.
I'm a huge blues fan, and although I think the blues songs that the Stones delivered over time, specially in their early years are not amazing, I think their roots and understanding of the blues contribute so much to their sound, I mean I never heard anything like the Stones, even when groups try to make Stones type of material they totally fail, but I'm not able to say the same about the Beatles, I think their sound is a lot more "common", and easier to replicate in comparison to the Stones. I totally agree with Kram when he says besides Paul every Stone is a better player the Beatles, and as a guitar player and a blues fan it amazes me more than anything how Keith and Mick are able to write songs, with such a blues type of sound characteristic of them, with so much space for every instrument and with a such a "clear" sound but also adding the blues roughness to it, it's from another world. The Beatles vs Stones debate is a very personal thing to everyone because there's no way of being objective about it, for me the Stones are a much better band, the beatles don't even make my top 10 bands of all time, I just can't get sick of the Stones, for me it would be easier to listen to only Stones music for 10 years than to listen to only Beatles music for a month, I love Mick's voice, I love how Keith is more of a rythm guitar player/genious, I think with Charlie and Bill the Stones had the best rythm section of any rock band in the world and with all of this I think you just can't ask for more.
Not to mention how mind-blowing it is for the Stones to create a song like "Wild Horses" and on the other side of their catalog they have a song like "Undercover", both great songs, but if I've never heard any of them before, I wouldn't believethey were written by the same two people.
totaly agree beatles made silly pop songs not one of their songs comes close to gimmie shelter and for gods sake i wish people would stop calling them a roc k band only band to come anywhere nesr the stones is led zep end of the silly comparison
I think if there wasn't the Beatles vs Stones debate de Beatles would never be called a rock band, because they are not one, they made a couple of songs that can be called rock music but all their catalog is filled with simple and catchy pop songs, and I give the Beatles credit for making such catchy songs, but for me the Stones have a so much more interesting sound
Its funny Kramzer mention that they would never make a pirate based off of a beatle, yet Paul McCartney was actually in "Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Men Tell No Tales"
When you compare the ‘best’ 5 songs of the various great pop artists through time, the Beatles do fine, however - it is when you compare the ‘best’ 105 songs that they really shine. Note: Rolling Stone magazine listed ‘Hello Goodbye’ as the Beatles 100th best song. They list 99 Beatles songs as better.
Must we drag this one out again. The Stones and Beatles are two different animals. I love both. A lot. Beatles came with a little more polish. Stones had the grit. The bands were friends. It's a personal choice and my heart belongs to the Beatles. Could not live without Exile or the White Album. The new Stones CD kicks ass and I dig the Beatles single. Now don't make me come back. 🤠 ☮
Also there is a great online 2011 article by Gillian Garr of Goldmine Magazine and they took a poll The Best Overall:The Song Writing Team Of Lennon and McCartney and he said what I always have said,that John and Paul wrote songs at such a prodigious rate in 1963 and 1964 that they wrote hit songs for other music artists at the same time they were looking after thier own group's interests. He also mentions that in the December 1963 London Times their music critic Willam Mann pointed out the clever complex inventive chords they were writing and playing in their early songs and he called John and Paul the two greatest British song writers of 1963. Also in the same December 1963 London Times issue their classical music critic Richard Buckle called John Lennon and Paul McCartney the greatest song composers since Beethoven after they composed the music for a ballet called Mods and Rockers. Gillian Garr didn't say who the other music artists were that John and Paul wrote hit songs for, besides The Rolling Stones they also wrote hit songs for Billy J Kramer And The Dakota's, Peter and Gordon and singer Cilla Black in 1963. Bob Dylan said that when he was going on a long car trip in early 1964 he noticed that 8 hit songs on the radio were Beatles songs and he said years later that he knew that they were going to last and they weren't a passing fad.He said their chords were just outrageous just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid and they were doing things in music that nobody else was doing and that he knew they were taking music in the direction it had to go. Roger McGuinn said that he bought a 12 string guitar after he saw George Harrison playing it in The Beatles first film A Hard Days Night and he formed The Byrds soon afterwards. Roger also said that The Beatles wrote folk rock chords in their rock and roll music and he said this was unusual and he said they invented folk rock music without even knowing it.
Stones. The Beatles more creative in the early 60s, the Stones were more visceral. The basic sound firstly - the Beatles wrote great pop, but the more primal rhythm'n'blues of the Stones I find far more thrilling. That rhythm heavy pulse powering the Stones' best material maintain that visceral excitement. Their creativity on par with any other act; from the mid 60s r'n"b, to the wonderful baroque/psychedelic pop of '66-'67, leading to their own imperial phase from '68. I would see at least 6 Stones albums as 5-star, roughly same for the Beatles. The 70s Stones I think were far more engaging than the solo Beatles. The '80s onwards - mostly quality, some albums great, others good, but in my opinion surpassing McCartneys albums from the same period for the most part. A few other comments sum it up - the Stones wouldn't have written 'A Day in the Life', the Beatles not 'Gimme Shelter'. Differing styles; equally creative and resonant. The Stones run of four records 1968-1972 is for me on par with or superior to the Beatles four from 1966 to Abbey Road. Overall; both great
@@JarrettMehldau It goes back to the same basic premise, Beatles or Stones. Flaming Pie or Babylon. I like both, but would much prefer Babylon . Chaos and Creation is also good. Bigger Bang is overlong; my own playlist of it is 12 tracks, leaving the four not quite as good. That 12-track configuration equally as good as Chaos. We all hear things differently, that's just how I'd hear/rate them.
@@JarrettMehldau McCartney II is an easier album to admire than to love. For all of its oddities and tracks like 'Bogey Music' and 'Temporary Secretary', it also has 'Waterfalls' and 'Summers Day Song'. Not an album I would revisit often, but one that showed his creative spirit Emotional Rescue is seen as more slight than the two greats either side of it, but it has a charm of it's own. Not a great Stones record, but a very enjoyable one. Four tracks in particular- Dance, title track, She's So Cold, All About You. As to which is better, personal preference - I have Beatle friends who love II, and others who dislike it with a passion. ER similar but more middle ground than the fringes - not so much such passionate dislike, not as much love.
I truly believe they are both the best bands to ever existed. Way above any other. But in a personal point of view, I still think the Beatles never did anything as amazing and beautiful as the Stones version to Love in Vain. And I dig the Beatles a lot. But the Stones can perform the blues like nobody else. Its a matter of opinion, only. But I agree with the argument that the Beatles are overrated. Just look at this now: Now and Then is not even a good song and most people are treating it like a classic. Just look at new Stones album and you can find at least 6 songs that are way better then Now and Then. Anyway, we just need to enjoy them both. The Stones would never create something as Here, There and Everywhere or A Day in the Life; while the Beatles would never create something like Cant You Hear me Knocking, Midnight Rambler or Sweet Virginia. Glad to have them both.
Beatles.-artistic, intellectual, trend setting
Stones-Visceral, dangerous,hedonistic
Give me the Stones!
As a young schoolboy nothing made me happier than The Beatles’ songs, feels like yesterday listening to them on the school bus with a crappy mp3 player and wanting to learn their songs on guitar and marvelling at the chord changes
Thankfully my three years old dig their songs the most, her favourites being Help, Strawberry Fields Forever and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
The Beatles were great. The Stones were and are great. I see them as two different things, and I like them both.
Very well put
They are different. The Stones are true rock stars, some of the best and most iconic of all time. I just don’t look at The Beatles the same way. They are a cultural force, innovators for their time, great songwriters, but different from how I view the Stones. I appreciate Jason’s enthusiasm but I just don’t view the Beatles in the way that many others do. And Kram makes some good arguments about how The Beatles were mainly a studio band and essentially had three or even four different singers and songwriters which can make the albums as a whole a bit all over. Really this is one of those arguments where you can see both sides and I never really liked the idea of pitting two bands against each other. The media created many of these kinds of feuds or battles when really all bands are different and it’s just whichever you prefer regarding your personal taste.
This comment is exactly the answer that makes all these arguments obsolete.
Amen.
I think Lennon was envious of the Stones. That they were so free and they rocked so hard. It was what he wanted to be but wasn't because he in his own words "sold out." And yet he also he knew had he not done that the Stones probably would never gotten nearly as big. They may have ended up a covers band and flaming out. The Beatles opened everything up for ....everybody. Townshend - oh shit, I guess i have to write my own songs. Think about that. That was all because of what the Beatles did to the industry.
Theres no way you think Mick has a better voice than John and Paul, he has the same voice for everything, John and paul have so many singing styles including heavier rock voices.
Beatles are Coke, the Stones are Pepsi.
End of story.
Love the Beatles, but I find The Stones more relatable as far as the human experience. Just more down-to-earth.
salt of the earth, even
I like the Beatles a lot, huge respect for their musical catalog but the band I play is Rolling Stones
I recently did a Beatles deep dive and while I was truly amazed at how many good songs are in their catalog, how strong each album is, I have never been a huge fan. I have to be in the mood. And even when I am, I mostly think about their songs in a cerebral way. That harmony sounds good, I like that change, etc.
The Stones have had their share of ups and downs over the years, but I agree with absolutely (nearly) everything Kramzer said. They move me more. My brain engages with their music in a more visceral manner. I like the people in the band more. I play their music more often. I would rather see them live. I prefer bad Stones to good Beatles (mostly). I will say Drive My Car is the closest the Beatles ever got to me just rockin out. And Gimme Shelter is better than everything the Beatles wrote (for me). Day In The Life is probably the best Beatles song to me. And I can think of 20-30 Stones songs I would prefer to listen to. Paint It Black. Dance Pt. 1. Slave. Street Fighting Man. Parachute Woman. Dead Flowers. The list goes on.
I get people's love for the Beatles. They crafted great music, but while I admire their craft, it just doesn't taste nearly as good as this cheeseburger.
The Beatles back catalog is among my biggest gripes. McCartney's desire to write and record "tralla-la" type songs that cover rather mundane observations makes it hard for me to listen to many of their/his albums end-to-end. Stones lyrics often walk close on the line of the dark side. Not evil, but more expression of desire, which created many very dynamic arrangements. So yes, the Stones songs connect at a different level. Add the earth-shattering vocals from Sasha, Lisa, or Mary and we have a party going.
Visceral is a good word. And I think for people who saw the Who in the late 60s/early 70s they took that to the extreme in terms of a live concert as a spiritual event. A mix of power, athleticism, intelligence. The Stones and the Who overtook the Beatles at that point. The Beatles were going to get steamrolled by those two had they continued to try to patch it together.
@@DeliciousCheats thank you. Those paul songs that are granny rockers with "on Sunday a man reads the paper and stares at his tea".... Just such crap
Street Fighting Man is greater than A Day in the Life? Wow, just Wow. I guess every one is entitled to their opinion but I am still scratching my head about that one.
@@DonaldMains Scratch... and sniff.
As a Brit at primary school in the 1960s, I liked the Beatles, but also the Beach Boys, Bee Gees, and the Tremeloes. In the 1970s, the Stones were my favourite band. They still are!
I’m amused very much by this video. I even like how there’s an “album vs. live performance” argument at the end. Concerts matter, Jason! Concerts matter!😉
In my opinion the Beatles were the melody, the Stones the rhythm and Dylan the lyrics of Rock.
That makes sense.
For me it’s easy. The Rolling Stones is the best rock and roll band. The Beatles were the best pop band.
Tomorrow never knows, A day in the life, I am the walrus, Helter skelter etc etc etc
Pop? do me a favour.
@@jinkysmith It ain't rock n' roll....I think that was the point.
Their styles veered in different directions and the starting point is Beggars Banquet. Much heavier and blues influenced direction from the Stones from that point on. Not saying the Beatles had no rock songs, just that in the whole, they had a lot less, and appealed to a different audience than the edgier Stones did.
listen to The White Album again . Far heavier rock than the Stones.
@@delmofritz3964. I will, but is one album all you can point too? I think that helps to make my point.
Mick is the better singer? Oooh...I wouldn't say that at all. I think one of the greatest strengths of the Beatles is their vocals and their vocal arrangements. I'm not a singer, I'm not a musician, but I think their vocal arrangements and they're doing something different with so many backing vocals is one of those main ingredients as to why they're so much better than everyone else. They've got 3 guys who are as good or are better singers than Mick Jagger. Lennon has my favorite voice, but at times it's McCartney who has my favorite voice.
That said, not one of them is as good a front-man as Mick and that helps with any argument as to who had the better live band.
If I had to pick a favorite singer from either band it would be John Lennon. His voice was capable of a wide variety of moods.
Technically, yes the Beatles are better. But combination of voice, performance and attitude, nobody better than Mick!
@@Gordy63I don’t know about the Beatles being better you heard what that guy said he said the Beatles are overrated I think the Beatles are the most overrated band period they weren’t even around that long the stones were around for over 60 years the Beatles could never write a song like Satisfaction or Jumpin Jack Flash I don’t think so
@@Gordy63 I was raised on the records of the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac, and my walls are covered with Rolling Stones records and Bob Dylan posters-I am no stranger to the colorful world of classic rock. Despite my periodic attempts to understand the universal appeal of The Beatles, I always come to the same conclusion: The Beatles are overrated. I am not saying I hate The Beatles or that they suck, so save your eyerolls for another one of my pretentious ramblings. I am simply asserting the band’s “Strawberry Fields” may not be as ripe as everyone says they are.
@@Gordy63Piggies or Gimme Shelter? 😂
It's difficult to avoid over-simplifying or get bogged down in minutia once the chosen theme is 'Beatles vs. Stones.' Consideration is needed of the strong and weak phases both bands went through creatively over the years. John's songs solidified the promise the Beatles showed in 1963. 1964 was the extraordinary year. The manic pop thrills of "Hard Day's Night," "Can't Buy Me Love," "Tell Me Why," etc., were untouchable. John and Paul essentially set the stage and modeled what pop music would become for that era. The Stones had nothing to compare against that in 1964. It was more than a year later until the Stones started coming up with "Satisfaction," "Play with Fire'" "Get Off of My Cloud." Mick has said Keith listened to The Beatles incessantly in 1965 in order to learn songwriting. Also, who else was singing minor-key ballads with vocal harmonies of the Beatles' caliber in the spring and summer of 1964? The Zombies possibly, kinda. By 1966 The Stones had "As Tears Go By" "Ruby Tuesday." But in 1964 John's vocal angst was a lot stronger and more convincing than anything Mick was singing at the time. 'Between the Buttons' is a great album. But, as we know, 1968 became The Stones' "annus mirabilis." By then, no one could touch them.
That's a good post. Once Mick and Keith seized total control and dumped Brian they got into that period where they could almost do no wrong. They certainly became heavier, funkier, darker and more relevant as a mirror for society than the Beatles. Mick was the top dawg in rock in 69, 70. He was the king there for a short while. He and George Harrison oddly enough.
@@Twotontessie Thanks! I agree, Mick and Keith were at the top of their game in 1969-70. I would include 1968 as well if only for "Sympathy for the Devil." At the time there was no more sophisticated rock song lyrically and musically until the release of Let It Bleed. It's been said Marianne Faithfull, Baudelaire and Bulgakov were the catalysts. It's true Harrison was also at his peak circa 1969-70, although for a much briefer period, in my view.
tell me any beatles song that comes close to gimmie sshelter or sweet sounds of heaven i rest my case@@Twotontessie
In terms of music as a whole-the Beatles. In terms of a Rock n Roll band, the Stones are the greatest.
The Stones are the dictionary definition of rock ‘n roll, tbqh.
Sorry, that’s Chuck Berry and Little Richard.
@@TastesLikeMusic Love those two artists, but if that’s the case, rnr is simply an obsolete genre. Like The Beatles, The Stones’ music has a contemporaneous/timeless quality that pre-1963 artists don’t have.
@TastesLikeMusic amen !!!
@@scottanthonyweidner8692some songs of the Bestles have this timeless quality, yes, but I strongly disagree about music from the pre-1963 era is not timeless. Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis and the Everly Brothers wrote and recorded loads of timeless classics. I think they are great!
I'm semi-retired, living in Boston, and grew up in Liverpool during the sixties. You note musical taste is subjective. In one respect, therefore, it's a pointless argument; however, I thought I might be able to provide context to this age-old debate. Up front, I am a Beatles fanatic who has a substantial music collection, including several Stones albums.
Before The Beatles, popular music was 'showbusiness'. The Beatles changed everything. Their look, personalities and humour differed from previous 'pop' stars. Elvis was an influence, but even he succumbed to showbiz. The Beatles covered songs, but significantly, they wrote their own. The 'Fab Four' were outside the establishment in an era when the UK media was London-based. The Fabs were upstarts from the provinces. Consequently, an effort was made to push a London-based band to rival these provincials.
Initially, it was the Dave Clark Five. Enough said! When they fizzled out, The Rolling Stones were next. They were better with a charismatic lead singer, and with longer hair, they took The Beatles' lead one step further. At first, Stones albums were predominantly covers. Seeing how quickly Lennon & McCartney put together their first hit, "I Wanna Be Your Man", Jagger and Richards were inspired to start writing. So it is said.
For me, the early albums of the Stones were okay. The singles were on a different level. Many were great with "Satisfaction", considered the classic of their early run. Noting the versatility of their rivals, the Stones began to dabble in 'pop'. "Lady Jane", "As Tears Go By", and "Under My Thumb" are good examples. Elsewhere, Jagger & Co. were aware of changes The Beatles introduced to the music scene. "Eleanor Rigby" was followed by "Ruby Tuesday"; All You Need is Love" by "We Love You". The Beatles used the sitar; the Stones gave us "Paint it Black". Everything reached a peak with "Their Satanic Majesties Request", which resembled "Sgt Pepper" in terms of the album sleeve and psychedelic music within. It felt like the Stones were copying The Beatles. I remember that clearly as a boy.
"Satanic Majesties" wasn't bad but was criticized because many noted similarities to the '67 Beatles. Perhaps this caused the Stones to change direction? The Stones played to their strengths moving on. New album tracks like the storming "Street Fighting Man" showed a new direction. A great three-run album followed with " Beggars Banquet", "Let it Bleed", and best of all "Sticky Fingers". When the Stones tour nowadays, the meat of their set comes from this era … "Jumping Jack Flash", "Sympathy for the Devil", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", "Honky Tonk Women", "Brown Sugar", "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" etc. Perhaps best of all, the incredible "Gimme Shelter". None of these tracks were anything like the Fabs.
Interestingly, I find "Exile on Main Street" overrated. There is nothing of the level of the aforementioned tracks. It's good, but not much more. It was little surprise that Mick Taylor left soon after as the band recording "Exile" seemed more focused on other things over the quality of previous LP's. Taylor had been a crucial factor in this inspired run of records. The Stones carried on, but what was the last true classic they recorded? 1981's "Start Me Up" and "Waiting On a Friend".? The Stones have released good tracks since, BUT look at their set list; it tells the tale. 68-71 dominates.
Some points from your video:-
1). A major reason behind The Beatles' legend and mystique was their significant accomplishments in a short period of time. They had consistency with high-quality material. Some B-sides would have been gold for other bands. Had they stayed together, the level would likely drop. The Stones had their 'Golden Period', and then they became part of the furniture. The Beatles were never tainted in this respect; they only had a 'Golden Period'. It furthers their myth. The Beatles never burned out.
2). The Stone's music was more varied than The Beatles?!!! Really? Listen to "The White Album". I can think of no other album in the history of popular music that contains such a diverse and eclectic range of tracks.
3). The Beatles died! Brian Jones? The original leader of the band. And now, of course, Charlie. The Stones stayed together! Bill Wyman? he left over thirty years ago.
4). Mick Jagger is the best vocalist? Does he have the power of Lennon's vocals or the versatility of McCartney? For me, no. Admittedly, my musical opinion. Jagger's voice is the best for the Stones, just as Dylan's is the best for his stuff. One area the Stones cannot compare is vocal harmonies.
5). Looking at the songbooks of each band, again, everyone has their preferences. However, what can be debated is the number of Beatles covers compared to the Stones. It isn't close. After the Beatles split, many of my favourites from the seventies, Elton, Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Todd Rundgren, and Gerry Rafferty, all exhibited Beatle influences.
6). Concerning the "live" issue, it's difficult to asses The Beatles as they were drowned out by screaming girls while using primitive equipment. My Auntie used to go to The Cavern and watch the band before they were famous. She raved about their energetic and unique performances. Touring ended with frustration over the limitations they had with their fans. Still, they were the pioneers of stadium tours, though they didn't have the setup bands enjoyed in the seventies and beyond.
Ultimately, neither band is "better" because of the subjectivity. However, the legacy of The Beatles is undeniable. Over 2,000 books have been published about them. RUclips is full of analyses of their music and cultural impact from classical composers to teenagers today discovering them and their music. The Rolling Stones were one of many great British bands that emerged in the wake of the leaders of that generation, The Beatles. The Stones were the most successful of these bands, and that, plus the way the media portrayed them, were significant factors in creating the Beatles vs Stones debate initially. Many more opinions have been discussed and added to the argument in the years since.
I would recommend two books for you to check:
1). "Paperback Writer" by Mark Shipper (1978). It is a fictional account of the four getting back together and why it would have been a disaster.
2). "Beatles vs Stones" by John McMillan (2013).
Finally, a track that sounds like neither band but poses the question of everyone's individual preference: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones! ruclips.net/video/LqldwoDXHKg/видео.html
YNWA
Well stated, but in the end, laughable and myopic.
The best part of this video is Joe's bemused look!! I love both bands I would pick the Beatles but Kramzer saying Revolver isn't a 5 star record is outrageous!! Mad respect to the Stones though!! Also nobody could deny Stones gear and merchandise sells better!!
Revolver so overrated. She Said She Said is the best thing on there after Taxman. The rest of it is pretty lame. McCartney Muzak.
@@Twotontessie The lyrics to Eleanor Rigby are some of the saddest ever. I disagree with you but respect your opinion of course!! I love the Stones but the Beatles are the most important pop culture phenomenon of all time.
@@TwotontessieI agree on She Said, She Said. Amazing song, one of their best for me!
The Beatles are an awesome museum you go to once every few months to appreciate how great they were, but you listen to the Stones on the way there and in between.
I think if you're a man ... the Stones are going to bring out the primeval elements of what that means. And that's powerful stuff. It's the same thing ... that makes a hound dog howl at night.
Well said, very well said. I stole that line for my comment 😁😁
Only if you’re brain dead
Outstanding analogy.
That's a good one. I still can't listen to The Beatles. Poop!
Very enjoyable discussion as usual, guys. My choice is the Rolling Stones because of their longevity, their grittiness, and the fact that they always took their music out on tour. The Beatles retired to the studio for good in 1966. The Stones, now in their 7th decade of existence, never left the road, playing to audiences with incredible regularity. Keith Richards said in 1974 that "any band that doesn't play live... is only half a band as far as I'm concerned because that's where it all comes from" (It's on RUclips word for word). Just the fact of having a front man who isn't burdened by holding an instrument beyond a microphone and harmonica gave the Stones, Mick especially, of course, a chance to develop a visual concert experience that just kept getting better and better, something the Beatles did not have. So, the stage act cannot be minimized. It's a big part of the overall package, the so-called rock star persona that the Stones were a prototype of.
Here's a paraphrase of a comment I read recently : The Beatles turned rock music into a beautiful, polished diamond. The Stones kept it raw, dirty, alive. The point is that these bands are so different in every way, but both are great in their specific specialties. It's been a cliché to say that the Beatles broke up and the Stones broke out, but I was a teenager in 1970 when the Stones were breaking out, and it was mesmerizing to say the least. Maybe if I had been 5 years older and really, fully lived the Beatles experience I might have a different opinion, but in my own breaking out teenage years, the Stones were front and center, and fabulous. The Beatles, unfortunately, were part of yesterday's papers. My love for the Stones in the early 70's got me to buy compilations to review their back catalog of the 60's (which wasn't so old at the time), and I was blown away to discover how many great songs they had that I didn't know were theirs even though I knew the songs. Also, still in the early 70's, they released their eponymous live album "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" and I was again blown away. This album literally drove me to want to experience not just the Stones in concert, but live music in general. This was the album that made me really feel the excitement of being in an audience while a band was on stage, emphasizing again what Keith said about bands having to perform live to not be "only half a band".
In another of your videos, Kram called the Beatles musical savants which I thought was a great description. The art of studio innovation was their expertise and contributed to the great, timeless music they produced. In spite of this, the overall body of work by the Stones is, for me, the greatest. Thanks guys.
Greatest Bands of all time:
1. Beatles
2. Stones
3. Doors, queen, pink floyd, the who,beach boys, roxy music, led zep, ac/dc, parliament, the clash, the police, velvet underground, talking heads, kinks, Rush, king crimson, genesis,
4. Tool, radiohead, nirvana
5. Others
Greetings from Leipzig/ germany 😌
Imagine seeing The Beatles in their Hamburg days! What a live act
I never understood why in that generation one had to be Beatles or Stones. I never followed that rule. I am a fond believer that Beatles and Stones complemented each other, surrounded by the Kinks, the Who etc etc. I am grateful for growing up after bad, bad times in Europe with that excellent music, thank you.
I align with Kram the most on this channel… until he starts talking Beatles and McCartney😂 easily my favorite musician of all time. I do go through moods though where I prefer the rough edges of the Stones
Same here, Macca is the GOAT, Kram is wrong about him, Beatles are the best songwriters, but I love The Stones, they're just so much fun and Billy Preston's organ on "Shine A Light" is the best sound ever recorded, also Jimmy Miller's drums on that track, Mick Taylor's solo, The Blackberries singing background and Mick singing "Berber jewelry ...", Keith playing bass ... yeah, sometimes I just want to listen to The Stones.
I think the Beatles are the more artistic band but the stones capture the spirit of rock and roll better
@mfish3835 I never cared for the Beatles I love everything the stones did better then anything the Beatles did even the worst stones albums I like better then anything the Beatles did the stones made way more albums they put out the best music and the stones were great as a live act I know the stones should have stopped a long time ago they should have stopped after steel wheels they’d were getting old when baseplayer Bill Wyman stopped he didn’t wanna do it anymore the whole band should have stopped after steel wheels
@@mikebarooshian7255 How is it possible to love the Stones and not care for the Beatles? That just doesn't make sense. They both made great songs in the same general category of popular music. I mean, I get how you could prefer one group over the other, but not caring for the Beatles is just strange if you love the Stones, and vice-versa.
@@TT-fq7plwell I heard the Beatles but they don’t do it for me the stones are an amazing band they have so many great songs they were around way way longer then the Beatles were they had the most sold out concerts all over the world and there still together even today all take the worst stones albums over the best Beatle albums I think the Beatles are way way overrated and people think the Beatles are the best I know the stones have been around for such a long long time they should have stopped along time ago like after steel wheels when they were all getting old when Bill Wyman left I knew the band was over they were never the same ever since Bill left
@@mikebarooshian7255 Well, I think it's obvious that they're both amazing bands. I don't see anything wrong with preferring the Stones though. Even when I was a teenager, we called that tour the Steel Wheelchairs Tour. Not so funny now that I'm 40 years older!
@@TT-fq7plwell another band that I really love is The Dave Clark 5 I like dc5 way better then the Beatles they were only around for 8 years and they broke up in 1970 my 2 favorite bands of course are The Rolling Stones and The Dave Clark 5
Why? I'm a Stones nut, I'm a Beatles nut. I love chocolate chip, and I love black forest gateau. I love it all, no competition. I think it's clear enough the Beatles were better songsmiths but the Stones wrote amazing songs the Beatles would never have come up with. The Stones were menacing and brooding in a way I love and that the Beatles weren't. The Beatles produced some magical melodies that feel like alchemy but the Stones created atmospheres that did the same.
When I trace back the bands/artists I’ve loved through time, The Rolling Stones align closer with that lineage in spirit, if not sound.
Rubber Soul and Revolver not 5 star lps ? Ouch you took my breath away. Tom Petty said it best "There's the Beatles, and then there's everybody else " I was 10 when I bought my first record. Hello Goodbye w I am the Walrus. You had to be there. They were way more than a rock band to cultures everywhere.
I'm completely torn; I see both sides of the argument. I know it is cop out, but since they are so different - I just love them both equally. And yes, Ringo is the only person in both groups that I would love to hang out with.
To the guy who not only said very inaccurate ignorant things about The Beatles great live performances, but he said The Beatles were mostly George Martin,well George Martin always said that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were incredibly talented people and they were both extraordinarily talented song writers and great singers and he said that most of the creative music ideas came from them he said that he never knew or worked with any other music artists as brilliant as The Beatles.
And he produced quite a few music artists after them but he never had the same success as he did before and after he became their producer.
Excellent video gents. It’s a hard topic. Both are spectacular and we must value and appreciate both bands for their contributions. It’s somewhat tough to compare because the Beatles had a Sandy Koufax kind of career…red hot for seven years then gone. The Stones have been rocking for decades. However, I think the fair comparison is to take their top five records and compare. When you do that it becomes very difficult indeed. I think it’s tough to beat the stones from 68-73. Those records are as good as any ever made. Also, there is the live thing to consider. The Stones also had more edgy music that evolved over time because they’ve had a longer career. It would have been interesting to see how the Beatles evolved after Abbey Road. So the Beatles get the advantage of being the first to do it really, therefore everyone is compared to them. Regardless, they are great. It really boils down to preference. I love both but I really dig that dirty, raw, swinging, blues infested, rock n roll that the stones do. And I like their edge. It would also be cool to know what the Beatles were like live with modern PA systems. Ppl say they were incredible when they played in Hamburg, etc. but live performances that we have don’t allow us to really hear due to crowd noise and poor PA systems. I bet they were damn good though. I do think that the stones style and sings lend themselves more toward playing live whereas the Beatles were a more experimental studio band. To each their own. It’s kinda like if you prefer like Disney World today play The Beatles. If you feel like Vegas rock the Stones.
Both great. Beatles will always have the edge commercially. I started out in music with a love for the Beatles, but the older I get I appreciate the Stones great albums more the Beatles great albums. People will point to the songwriting but sometimes I think the Stones could get close to making similar types of albums 'in that time and in that spirit' .....with their own George Martin. HOWEVER the Beatles could have NEVER made an Exile on Main Street. I love it for all the reasons Mick Jagger doesn't. The mix, the grit and 'bandness' of it. It is the Rock n Roll album. It personifies rock n roll.
The Beatles are the biggest phenomenon in the history of human entertainment. It's not at all hyperbole to say they changed the world. There's a great documentary produced by the BBC called "How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin." Its an eye-opener as to how far flung, and how strong, The Beatles' influence was. It went way beyond music.
Suprised Kramzers opinions on the Beatles considering His favourite bands Radiohead clearly have SO much beatles influence and not much if any stones influence.
The Stones. I'd rather listen to them on a typical day. They groove way harder than the Beatles, and it ain't close. And the Stones got Keef. Case closed.
Great channel guys -- one hates the Beatles, one hates the Stones, one hates Dylan !😂
The contrarian triumvirate! lol 😝
That is an excellent observation!! I'm from Minnesota where we revere Dylan so the thought of hating any of these 3 artists is outrageous!!
I just realized that I have more Dylan albums than Stones albums. 😄
I love all three. I don’t have to choose a winner. I enjoy them all for who they are and what they did/do. I just can’t trust anyone who says they don’t like all three.
And one hates Billy Joel.
No doubt for me. As much as I love The Stones, The Beatles play in another league. One with just a handful of the best artists of all time
You only say that because they were the first to come out in this format. If they were the second third fourth or later, I highly doubt you would feel the same. These beetle groupies always confuse being the first with being the best. Even an average jazz musician was way above the beatles musically and creates music on a much higher level. Don't forget, the beatles are pop music, plain and simple. And speaking of "playing in another league, that would be the jazz musician as if you were to compare pop to jazz it would be like comparing kool-aid (sugar water) to a fine wine with its multiple layers.nuances of flavors etc. This is not opinion but a technical fact. Plus, I would far rather listen to the edginess and intensity of Gimme Shelter than Michelle my belle or I want to hold your hand.
@@jrcwwl so many logical fallacies you’re throwing out here
So many beetle groupies who are sensitive to truth and get their feelings hurt so easily. I doubt you even know what a logical fallacy is.@@curly_wyn
@@curly_wynname one logical fallacies he threw out in his comment
@@Rocknroll-ig5iy Tons and it will take me a long time to post it all!
I love them both, (Stones up to Exile... don't care for the rest).
I saw throught the first years singles by the bands.
And it's not that easy to pick a winner.
Summer 1963
She Loves You/I'll Get You vs. Come On/I Want To Be Loved.
Winter 1963
I Want To Hold Your Hand/This Boy vs. I Wanna Be Your man/Stoned
New year/spring 1964
Can't Buy Me Love/You Can't Do That vs. Not Fade Away/Little By Little
Summer 1964
A Hard Day's Night/Things We Said Today vs. It's All Over Now/Good Times Bad
Times
Winter 1964
I Feel Fine/She's A Woman vs. Little Red Rooster/Off The Hook
New year/ Spring 1965
Ticket To Ride/Yes It Is vs. The Last Time/Play With Fire.
Summer 1965
Help!/I'm Down vs. (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction/The Spider And The Fly
Winter/autumn 1965
We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper vs. Get Off Of My Cloud/The Singer Not The Song.
It's almost like compairing Kinks vs Byrds.
Different styles, but something in common.
One vocalist vs. harmonies/multi vocalists.
One big advantage for the Beatles, and a thing I like in general, is vocal harmonies, and that more than one guy do the (mostly) singing.
For once I agree 100% with Jason
Kram actually makes some very solid arguments in favor of the Stones.
Name one.
@@TastesLikeMusic From a purely rock n' roll standpoint, the Stones embody RnR more than the Beatles.
Are we picking our favorite based on music or ideas?
@@TastesLikeMusic The Stones inhabit Kramzer's soul much more that the Beatles. He feels a deeper connection to their music. All over his body apparently.
@@TastesLikeMusic lol
Lol Jason is going to hurt himself with all of the head shaking at Kram’s hot takes.
As somebody who got into The Beatles when I was 9 but then got into The Rolling Stones when I was 19 similar to the whole Beatles discography but especially from their period of late 1965 (the album "December's Children and Everybody's") to 1981, I have a LOT I would love to say here but I will try to keep it brief. The Beatles are the better band overall for just how much they tried to do in less than eight years of being together as a famed band (their first singles were released at the end of 1962, last recordings were ever done at the beginning of 1970, months before their break-up). That said, a lot of The Rolling Stones' work, both live and in the studio, and I listened to their studio work religiously for a long time, is just as good as The Beatles' work but they have that pelvic-thrusting rock'n'roll groove that isn't present on many Beatles material because they were simply more polished and articulate. My Top 5 Favourite Albums by The Beatles would be A Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, Revolver and The self-titled Beatles White Album being my personal favourite of 5 Stars. Interestingly my Top 5 Selection for the Stones wouldn't be all their period from 68 to 73 though 3 of those albums are in my Top 3, but the other two are 60s albums pre-Beggars Banquet: Between the Buttons (UK original version), Flowers (compilation album released in the US of missing gems not present on their previous American counterparts to the UK plus exclusively new material), Goats Head Soup, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street. Now if it came to songs, my Top 5 Beatles songs would be "The End" from Abbey Road featuring instrumental solos from every one of The Beatles on guitar and drums in the case of Ringo along with an epic album ending like a proper rock opera even if they didn't address the album as such at the time like The Who did with "Tommy" or Pink Floyd, the heartfelt "Yesterday", "And Your Bird Can Sing" off Revolver with the best guitar playing ever, "A Day In The Life" the epic masterpiece which closes "Sgt. Pepper" and finally I'm going with "In My Life" as my n°1, John Lennon's heartfelt, nostalgic song about his past and present from "Rubber Soul". As for The Rolling Stones' Top 5 I'm going with "Stray Cat Blues" the dirtiest rocker on "Beggars Banquet" which goes triple on everything the Stones were best (and worst) at in the musical and lyrical content, "100 Years Ago" and "Winter" I'm just saying are underrated masterpieces from their entire catalogue never performed onstage apparently but from a wonderful studio album produced by Jimmy Miller which was underrated for not being the supposed rock-heavy standard of their 4 previous streak of albums, "Memory Motel" from "Black and Blue", ohhhh what a masterpiece in songwriting and complete 70s ballad, sound and vibe but did get to be performed live on stage in the 90s with Dave Matthews, but my n°1 Stones track will always have to be "Beast of Burden" off "Some Girls", everything about the track I just think is perfect. I'd take that disco and dance vibe of that song and its chords 1,000 times over "Miss You".
The Beatles sound appealed to a wider demographic and that was a big part of their massive popularity.
I've never felt the need to compare them, to be honest. They're two completely different entities. The Beatles changed pop music and the music industry in general forever. They were true craftsman. And the Stones were the living embodiment of rock and roll. The excess, the darkness, the debauchery, and that unstoppable groove. Parents of the time would be ecstatic if a Beatle showed up at their door asking for their daughter's hand in marriage, but if one of the Stones came a' knockin they'd grab their shotgun. Two totally different bands who are only compared to one another because they were contemporaries.
The Beatles were scruffy working class from Liverpool. In the USA that is the equivalent of a southern red neck. The Stones were mid to upper class from London. That would be the equivale of nice people from Boston. Your are buying into how the groups were marketed.
@@julian65886 Yeah, I'm aware of that. How they were marketed and how they were perceived by their fanbases is what matters. Their childhood upbringing and socio-economic class are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The way they were marketed IS what the populous buys, not their personal lives as many don't even know their personal lives. Why do you think marketing an image is so important in the first place. Marketing a product or music group in this case could make or break it. Your comment was non-sensical /ignorant. Also, "nice people of Boston", implying that southern "red necks" can't be nice? I don't know whether to just laugh at this falderal or advise you to re-think this mess of yours. @@julian65886
@@julian65886 Beatles fans are like Donald Trump supporters.
@@dindjarin7185 : That is bad trolling bro! You need to be more subtle. Try again!
George Martin said in his biography All You Need Is Ears that there's no doubt that Lennon and McCartney were good musicians and that they had good musical brains and he said which is where music originates it has nothing to do with your fingers and he said as it turned out they could all play their own insurance very well and since those early days have all improved especially Paul McCartney and that he's a great music all-rounder,a brilliant guitarist, a first rate drummer, and probably the best bass player ever, and a competent piano player.
George Martin also said that in The Beatles early days he tried to learn to play the guitar to have a better musical communication with them but he said he couldn't learn to play it so he gave it up but he said both John and Paul learned to play the piano far more quickly than he was able to master their instrument.
Paul could always play anything great even in the early to mid Beatles period but I'm sure that more people would say that he's a better piano player than a drummer since he inherited his father James McCartney's natural music talent to a rare extreme degree.
Paul's father James McCartney broke an ear drum at the age of 10,then at age 14 he taught himself to play the piano and as an adult he became the leader of his own jazz band Jim Mac's band as a jazz pianist and the band were popular in Liverpool clubs in the 1920's and 1930's and he wrote a very good 1920's jazz instrumental Walking In The Park With Elloise which Paul McCartney played bass with other musicians and recorded the song in 1974.Paul said in a 2001 TV Guide interview that he knows that he has the music talent in his genes from his Dad.
Paul' paternal grandfather also played brass and other instruments in a band and was said to have a very good singing voice so that must be where Paul also got his once great singing voice from too.
John inherited most of his great music talent from his mother Julia who taught herself to play the banjo,piano acordian and ukelee and she taught John to play the banjo when he was 15.
People who heard Julia Lennon sing said she sang a lot like the successful popular 1940's singer Vera Lynn and I never heard of Vera Lynn so I listened to her on RUclips and she had a really beautiful strong singing voice so John obviously inherited his beautiful strong singing voice from her too, John's father also played banjo and sang and there was a paternal grandfather and a maternal grandfather who was a musician and another a singer too.
As a baby boomer, both these bands were otherworldly, brilliant, incomparable groups that recorded timeless records. Its a ridiculous question. Like asking a parent who is your favorite child. Plus, they were quite different. Stones more blues-based R&B based, Beatles more pop/baroque, but NOT overrated They changed the culture at the timeSure, every Beatle album (8) was excellent, But the Stones had a string of truly great records. Between The Buttons, Exile, Aftermath, Sticky Fingers, Let It Bleed, Beggars' Banquet.
Finally, don't try to compare RIngo and Charlie. Both great, but soooooooo different. Hey, you can identity any Beatles song just by his drumming. Watt's swinging style and steady beat made the Stones who they were, Beatles vs. Stones. Rembrandt vs. Michelangelo. JUST BE THANKFUL YOU HAD BOTH BANDS TO ENJOY FOREVER!
True words😌
Well, this was fun. I sure hope Beatles and Stones fans discover your channel because of it. Also, a nice taste of all your personalities for anyone looking to subscribe to a new music channel.
Now do The Kinks vs. The Who.
Kinks fo sho! I'd put them over the Stones.
The Kinks for me.
1. Beatles
2. Stones
3. Kinks
4. Who
imo, but I love them all.
Or Queen vs. Led Zeppelin.
I posted this on another channel but I feel it bears repeating. Some guy said comparing The Beatles and the Stones is like comparing bourbon and chocolate - both great but completely different. Truer words were never spoken. I'm a fan of both groups but I think The Beatles have the edge. The Beatles in my view don't get enough credit for the harder edged stuff they did like "Helter Skelter", "Everybody's Got Something to Hide...", "Yer Blues", Revolution", "I Want You (She's So Heavy), etc. These songs were just as heavy as "Can't You Hear Me Knocking", "Bitch", "Stray Cat Blues" (the live one from "Ya-Ya's"), and other songs the Stones did. So when comparing both groups, it seems like The Beatles were considered less "dirty" sounding than the Stones when in reality they could rock as hard as any group from that era. Plus The Beatles had more variety than the Stones. The Beatles did psych (better than the Stones did. The Stones had only one "psych" album "Satanic Majesties Request" a poor man's "Pepper" I.M.O.). The Beatles had songs with a Greek feel ("Girl"), they had songs with Baroque elements ("In My Life"), they had experimental/Eastern songs ("Being for the Benefit of Mr.Kite", "Within You, Without You"), etc. And while it's true that the "5th Beatle" George Martin played a big role in the groups sound, The Beatles came up with the ideas and Martin orchestrated them. Finally, The Beatles had more of an overall influence culturally and musically than the Stones. I love the Stones, but they're more one dimensional than The Beatles.
There's no doubt the Beatles are hugely influential and had (and still have) a great impact on the pop world. But most people seem to forget the cultural impact of the Stones. The Beatles wore uniforms until 66, and pretty much every early sixties band wore them. Not the Stones. They dropped the uniforms right away and dressed as they wanted since 1963. That is huge deal, and not many people give them credit for that.
They've been often accused of misogynistic lyrics in the early days, but that was part of the cultural revolution they led from the fringes. While the Beatles were singing about holding hands and were promising diamonds rings in their songs, the Stones treated women as equals. And that treatment sometimes involved telling them that 'they're playing with fire' that they'll never 'break this heart of stone' or that they are, indeed, 'under their thumb'. They certainly were tough on them at times, but they also stopped being condescending.
This doesn't mean the Beatles didn't influence the Stones. They paved the way in the beginning and also, they were o couple of years older, which is a big age gap when you're in your early twenties. And although there is an influence, specially in the mid sixties when the Stones had their own take on baroque pop and psychedelia, they never followed the Beatles' tracks all the way. Not lyrically and not musically. And by this I mean the Stones never sang Christmas songs and they never wrote music for children.
From Revolver on, the Beatles had a number of songs written for kids in every album. Here's a few of them: Submarine, Good day Sunshine, Lucy in the sky, Kite, when I'm sixty four, piggies, all together now, Maxwell, Octopus, Mustard. You can put together a whole album with kids songs, which I suppose is why the Beatles are so popular: they grab you at a very early age.
The thing with the Stones is that they never even tried to write that kind of music. They were proto punks, they were dirty, and in Europe, their shows usually ended with a riot against police. Sometimes, they weren't able to even finish the show.
Anyway, love but bands for very different reasons. Just don't buy what some say here that the Stones were imitating the Beatles all the time. And when they did, they grabbed a sitar and instead of writing a love tune like Norwegian Wood, they went and did something completely dark and sinister: Paint it black.
The Beatles were more creative; the Stones were more Rock n Roll. The Beatles were better, but I prefer the Stones.
Good point. ☮️
You prefer the worst band of the two? Makes no sense
@@southsider3542. I think what the writer is saying is the Beatles might be more technically proficient musicians, but the Stones’ music resonates more with them.
The Stones are better by far. Trust your taste.
@@beetlebum7760 I’m with that take 💯!
Stones for me
When listen to their their work and dig deep you find many hidden gems
Saw them live unbelievable the quality of their work
Definitely do more stuff like this! For me, it's the Stones no question
Love both but Rolling Stones all the way for me.
I'm with Kramzer 110%. They aren't even in the same category. The Stones are the quintessential rock and roll band. The Beatles are a sophisticated pop band. Yawn!
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯🔥🤘🏻👍🏻👌🏻💪🏻👊🏻👋🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻
There is also a 1977 interview with Eric Clapton on a great site Super Seventies and he said that there was always this game (meaning guitar) between John and George and he said partly because John was a pretty good guitar player himself. Eric played live with John Lennon as a member of his 1969 Plastic Ono Band.
There is also an online 2013 Eric Clapton interview on The Times Of India and he was asked what he thought about John Lennon as a person, as a musician and a song composer and he said John was a friend, a great musician and an amazing composer.
There is also a post by a long time guitar player on his WordPress blog, The Guitar Cave and he said that The Beatles were a great rock and roll band from their earliest albums and that they had great vocals, great energy and great vocal harmony.
He also said that the more he listened to them the more he appreciated and realized their talents and abilities.He reviewed Rolling Stones albums too.And he compliments John and George's guitar playing too.
My favourite album by either of them is Sticky Fingers, but overall it's The Beatles for me.
Growing up I always preferred the Beatles more by a lot. The older I get the more I prefer the Stones. They're completely different but the Stone gritty, bluesy rock n' roll is much more appealing to me in my 30s than in my teens or 20s. I think the Beatles were the greater talents (especially in the early to mid stuff) but the Stones have a wider appeal due to their sound. I only love the Beatles from '62 to '66 besides some of Abbey. The Stones did what they did so well better than what the Beatles did and more consistently in my opinion. With that said I like the Who more than both :)
Entertaining clip! That was fun.
This is like asking which is better between Coke and 7-Up. For a while, 7-Up marketed itself as the Uncola. The Stones were sort of the Un-Beatles. The mangy, back alley alternative. Of course, the Beatles were Teddy Boy rockers dressed in leather before they were refashioned by German exis and Brian Epstein but that's too much info...
But I think Kram and Jason are too far into their own camps. If Jason thinks Heartbreaker is the best Stones song, I don't think he really gets the band's appeal. It's those snaky, slithery grooves that Kram and Joe were talking about in the album video. When Jimmy Miller was producing and Mick Taylor was their lead guitarist they had a hot hand and they released several great albums. They had a more insinuating, pelvic-centered groove than the Beatles ever did (except for, maybe, on Come Together). The Beatles were all about crazed enthusiasm when it came to their rockers.
If Kram thinks Aftermath is a 5 star album while Revolver isn't...., that's beyond a bad opinion, it's as close to an opinion can get to being just a factual error. Revolver changed pop/rock music more than any other album while raising the standard for rock albums. Aftermath has a bunch of whiny, misogynistic pop songs that are just annoying and an 11 minute blues number that's less fun to listen to than even Revolution 9. The Stones tried to compete with the Beatles as pop artists in the mid-60s but they didn't have the vocals to pull that off. The Beatles had far better harmonies and both Lennon and McCartney were better lead vocalists than Jagger, who generally sounded pretty awful on those pre-Jimmy Miller LPs. Despite that, some of those pop songs from the Jones period are really fantastic (eg Connection, Out of Time, Let's Spend The Night Together, 2000 Man, Dandelion...) but the albums before Beggar's Banquet were pretty patchy.
Anyway, the Beatles are better because it's their playground and the Stones could only borrow it. But the Stones were a great band too from around '68 - '72. I think you're way overrating Goat's Head Soup and Some Girls but Tattoo You was a good rebound, imo.
Beatles have the album crown and the immaculate discography. I would vote for them if I had to pick, but it's not a simple conversation as somebody whose music appreciation owes so much to both.
My favorite songs of each are both right up there with some of my favorite stuff. And as a songs guy, who is willing to pick and choose on that level and doesn't care as much about the wider whole or it being harnessed in the right place, it becomes more of a conversation. Stones probably have *more* material I love by virtue of having more material period. And I don't love everything Beatles. If I were to do a top 25 pulling from both discographies, I would expect a healthy portion from each even within the period they were both active.
But the Beatles' track record counts for something, and I have little doubt they would have been amazing for a while yet had they continued. I can't get as far on end of the spectrum as Jason or Kram. I'm more or less with Joe here.
I love the Stones, but this one is not even close. The Beatles. The Beatles revolutionized music.
Aftermath is 5 stars but Revolver isn’t?? C’mon now.
The fact that this is even a discussion is itself a testament to The Stones’ greatness. They had a unique charisma, which clicked in 1965 and held sway until 1973. Had they died in a plane crash at the end of 1967, they’d be thought of far differently, but that ‘65-‘67 material was still unique and brilliant, and then they reached a whole new level in ‘68.
Let’s put it this way - The Stones were as good as The Beatles for four albums. The Beatles were as good as The Beatles from beginning to end.
And the agony of these tin-eared, juvenile, anal-expulsive dismissals of the Beatles’ pre-Rubber Soul era in the comments - pure suffering to have to tolerate such drivel in what’s supposed to be an intelligent music conversation. It really does push the bile buttons for me.
I'm Team Beatles here all the way, but I'm with Kram on this: the early stuff is *wildly* overrated. If Please Please Me and With/Meet the Beatles were all we had, they'd be just another of-that-time band. There is nothing all that special until Beatles for Sale and nothing truly great until Rubber Soul.
@@spencerarmstrong258A Hard Days Night is a flawless pop album from start to finish, that's greatness in my book, same with Help.
@@JarrettMehldau I wouldn't quite say either of them reaches greatness for me, but it's a fine hair, they are both wonderful. I mostly take exception with the "start to finish" comments when the first couple records have a lot of rock n roll retreads and sound more or less like anything else from the era.
@@spencerarmstrong258 Yeah, they sound similar to The Crickets, The Searchers, Gerry & Pacemakers, or early Zombies, but they sound like the good cuts from those bands. I also liked it, when bands brought that early 60s style back in the 90s The Wonders, The Rembrandts, The La's, etc.
@@spencerarmstrong258 Ludicrous and gravely ignorant opinion, tbh. If they had died in a plane crash after A Hard Day’s Night, they would ***still*** be noted in music history as the band who changed popular music forever.
This is a great topic. Two of the greatest bands ever. One was more polished, the other was more of a rock band. But, the other band of greatness in this discussion should be the Who. I am older than our 3 heroes here, as I was born in 1961. I saw the Who in Birmingham AL in 1983 or so, when Kenny Jones was the drummer. They were perfect. I saw the Stones at the Superdome in New Orleans in 1982 (?). The opening acts were the Neville Brothers and George Thorogood. I had just seen Thorogood about a year earlier in front of 300 people, and now we’re part of 82,000 people. An unbelievable difference for Lonesome George, but he was great. We were told at the time that this was the largest indoor concert in the history of the world. The Stones were an event. They played sloppy, they were loose, they had fun, they were nothing like the Who. And they were also nothing like the Beatles (who I never saw). The Beatles were produced perfectly (George Martin) and were often very much a pop band. The Stones were not a pop band. They were tough, loud, crude. I love all three bands, but I don’t think I love the Beatles more than the Stones or the Who. McCartney and Lennon were much better together than separate, and to me, when McCartney was taking charge near the end of the Beatles they were less interesting. Thanks for the discussion. Music is a personal thing, we all have different opinions.
I think the star system for grading albums is flawed. I like Christgau’s letter grading better. It gives the reviewer more freedom to be nuanced and specific.
You should always judge art for what it is, not for what it isn’t. For example, Black and Blue is an A- album for me, and a big part of that album is about incorporating the dance music of the era. This grading system allows me to express how much I like its ass-shaking music, while also recognizing that what they do in Sticky Fingers is even more successful by being able to give it an A+.
As for the eternal Beatles vs Stones thing, with my dumb system, 8 out of 13 Beatles albums are an A- or higher, while the Stones have 16 out of 26 with an A- or higher grade.
So, the Stones easily win out for me. Their discography is huge, eclectic, and fun. I get quality and quantity.
Robert Christgau = Joe’s favorite critic
The Kinks always get left out of the conversation. Ray Davies didn't have a writing partner..... just saying 🤷♂️
The Beatles are Sandy Koufax, the Stones are Nolan Ryan.
Where Did They Hide The Good Albums
The Stones recorded ‘Beggars Banquet’, ‘Sticky Fingers’, ‘Exile on Main Street’, ‘Goats Head Soup’ in succession.
The Beatles made only one really consistent album - ‘Sargeant Peppers..’. The rest were pretty ropey (Let It Be, The White Album, Revolver…some good, some bad on all).
I love the Stones to death as a band that did their greatest work from about 1963-72, with occasional pockets of greatness thereafter. And of course I’m impressed by the longevity of the band and their public image, particularly as an actively touring live band. I love The Who for basically all the same reasons. But neither can compare to the titanic, monumental beauty of The Beatles greatest work. But The Beatles, in their best period of recording, weren’t a live band. Still, as much as Paul can drive me crazy, it’s always gonna be The Fab Four forever.
gimmie shelter vs we all live in a yellow submarine anursery song beatles were just a bland comedy pop group stones are a rock band
The Beatles. My first love.
The Stones may go down in history as being the greatest singles band in rock and roll history. They had both the blessing and the curse of pretty much always sounding like the Stones. When they were great, they were awesome. But when they weren't, they were mediocre or worse, irrelevant, on record. There are a number of Stones albums that if they never existed, it wouldn't make one bit of difference.
You can't say that about the Beatles.
The Stones also "cheated" by turning over their lineup multiple times. The Beatles were the same 4 guys for that entire 8½ year run they had.
@@AbbeyRoadkill1Stu Sutcliffe, Pete Best.
@@Skycladatdusk78 that was before the first record ... 😊
I can say that about the Beatles. Never cared for them. Have one of their albums; haven’t played it in 30 years. Stones albums are played every week.
@@sbgsbg9994No wonder you don't grow fond of The Beatles, if you never play that album. Which one is it?
I’m pretty sure everyone on earth would trade the stones 60 years of mediocre music for even just another five years of Beatles music
Drums - I would rate Charlie. I will point out that Stones didn't go anywhere until he cemented into the back line. Ringo was flashier but not to where he would stick out. Charlie wasn’t flashy at all. It was just a steady beat that held the band together. I saw Ringo live once, and the Stones live five times. They are both spot on and keep perfect timing. Charlie rarely solos.
Gotta give The Beatles the edge overall, but nobody plays with a looser, dirtier feel than The Stones. Keef lets the song breathe and gives it space with his incredible rhythm guitar work and riffage. Mick’s lyrics, charisma, and showmanship are second to none. What an exciting period for music, culture, and creativity the 1960’s must have been with these 2 bands knocking out classic album after classic album in competition with each other. But The Beatles had Lennon and McCartney. Nobody can sing like them. So creative and powerful. Both bands are beautiful.
Loved this video and reading the comments! Fun times! I prefer the Stones to the Beatles, but they are both hugely influential, top-notch artists. My life is better for having heard them.
Early Beatles were the bomb for maybe a year or two. Then they disintegrated. They became this concept album band (no live shows) selling new merchandise with each album. Hard Day's Night, Help, Rubber Soul, Peppers, Mystery Tour, Yellow Sub., etc. They lost their grove. Lost their grove. They tried to get it back with Let It Be. Not for me. Today, maybe you'll hear The Beatles in an elevator. I can't listen to them. I believe John Lennon said he couldn't listen to Beatles records too. Stones are Rock 'n Roll forever. I can work, exercise, dance, and party to The Rolling Stones all day long. They kick ass. In my opinion, they're not only way better than The Beatles, they're still the World's Greatest Rock 'n Roll band at 80 yrs old. Their new album is killer!
I like both bands, but I prefer The Rolling Stones a little bit more.
It’s 20 degrees here, these hot takes are keeping me warm
Its now over 40 years since these groups co existed and were at their prime- and the arguments still have not been resolved. As long as we all have different tastes so no amount of arguing will ever resolve it. We get lots of entertainment from the topic for all that. All credit to Joe keeping ihe ship on course (kind of.) "you guys are a little crazy" says it all.
The real tragedy would be if there was no Beatles or was no Stones.
Stones don't die. They just roll away slow
Dang boys you really got after it here, haha! Great passion! For me its The Beatles (though The Stones are a big favorite as well) because everything about the Beatles from the songs, to the albums, to the photos, to the stories, to the individual personalities, to the eras (even within a 10 year period) has always been the pivot point to everything i've loved about music since i discovered the Red and Blue albums in my parents collection when i was very young. Their music got into my head quick, and i found everything about them fascinating, and the songs really connect with me on various levels. The incredible listening experience range of the 60's pop of Hard Days Night to John's eerie acoustic number I'm Only Sleeping to the psychedelia sounds on Strawberry Fields ....... its hard to find words. But, The Stones are badass for sure
Have just one conversation with a Beatles fan, and you will know for sure that they are not underrated.
Ask them, and the Beatles basically invented music. Are they one of the most influential bands of all time? Sure. But their early stuff (more than half of their career) is just pretty good. Not any better than what Chuck Berry, Elvis, Dylan, Beach Boys, or several artists from Motown had done or were doing at the same time.
I'm myself pretty big Who fan, and I've had "debates" with Beatles fans who claim that Beatles "invented" punk, claiming Helter Skelter was the first punk song of all time, ignoring the fact that My Generation preceded it by 3 years.
Now, replace the word "punk" with other genres, like "heavy metal", or things like "concept album", "deep, meaningful lyrics", "using orchestra in a pop song", or "making a song consisting of shorter songs/samples", and we got the same conversation over and over. A lot of stuff is attributed to the Beatles by their fans and the public eye, that by all rights should not be. Like Led Zeppelin, they are getting a lot of credit for doing stuff that others had already done, simply by the virtue of being the most popular band to have done those things. After that, by definition, they cannot be underrated.
I've even talked to people who claim Beatles invented rock 'n' roll. I wonder then, whose songs were they covering on their early albums, if no rock music existed before them...
It's funny but he Stones were seen as the bad boys but they were all middle class whereas the Beatles were working class, even John who whilst aunt may have not been, his mother and father were.
thats just not true, doesnt matter how many time you repeat it. do a simple wikipedia-check.
@@rams2702 Oh, well I didn't make it up I read it somewhere. Just shows you can't always believe what you read,eh? Cheers!
Big myth. John was upper middle, Paul was middle, George and Ringo were lower class. In the Stones, Brian was upper middle, probably the most educated of the whole pack, Mick was middle, and Keith, Bill and Charlie were lower class.
Revolver is awsome! I just think its incredible they were done by 70...
The correct answer is BOTH!
Charlie Watts is a much better drummer than Ringo. That isn't close. Watts is more like an American style R & B type drummer, as opposed to Ringo's mersey beat thing. Which I do enjoy. But it doesn't have the punch or swing of rock n roll. It's silly to favor Ringo just cause you prefer the Beatles. The latter is a valid opinion, the former is not.
Ringo much better at writing unique parts for each song. Charlie does his Charlie thing, which is great in it's own right, but far less interesting to me.
I actually agree with this. And I do love Ringo’s drumming.
@@TastesLikeMusicinteresting take. i'm gonna think on it. I do enjoy Ringo's drumming
@@TastesLikeMusic Ringo Starr is an amiable, likeable scouser. Unfortunately, what he is not is a good drummer. In fact, he wasn’t even the best drummer in The Beatles.
I’ve heard all the revisionist nonsense about Ringo’s abilities over the last few years, but that’s all it is: nonsense.
By contrast, Charlie Watts was a fantastic drummer. His minimalist style in The Rolling Stones often hides his natural jazz style, but what he did in the Stones is always, always perfect.
stones easily. amazing singles, amazing albums. Sticky Fingers is the best rock album ive ever heard. Let it Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Exiles, Head Goat Soup, Some Girls, Black and Blue even.
I can’t compare, love Beatles, but stones with their longevity, really are marked on my heart. The song “ gimme shelter” is the best rock song ever, but wow, that song George wrote for Revolver is a close second. I enjoyed Joes analysis on stones. They are a lot grittier and grimy. Helll, joe even said Decembers Children is stones 5th best
IMO The Beatles made pop music as the Stones were more r'n'b oriented. I like both of them a lot. I was about 13 years old when they all started. Their music is the soundtrack of my life.
Why do I have to choose? I like them both a hell of a lot. In the distant past both occupied the top spot in my all-time hierarchy. Who's music have I listened to more in my life? Probably The Beatles. Who have I listened to more in the last 10 years? Probably the Stones. But neither is in my top 10 for current listens. I'm not going to pick. I have enjoyed them both immensely for a long time, but not so much recently.
Mick Jagger was at The Beatles recording session of their very good song Baby Your A Richman May 1967 and here he was the front man of his own really successful popular rock band, but he came there just to stand on the sidelines and listen to The Beatles playing and recording their song and he sang in the backing vocals towards the end of the song and Mick's name is on the tape box too.
There is also a picture that is online of Mick sitting in the middle of John and Paul in the recording control room during the recording of The Beatles brilliant great Revolver album in early 1966.
And Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were at The Beatles live first via satalite broadcast of their great summer of love song All You Need Is Love in June 1967,so were their other friends Eric Clapton and Graham Nash and you can clearly see Mick in the front row singing and clapping along.
Mick with his then girlfriend the singer Marianne Faithful also went on the train with The Beatles to Bangor Wales to see the Marahaishi for the first time in August of 1967 and he was there with them when they got the sad call that their manager Brian Epstein was found dead.
Also Keith and Mick can clearly be seen in the filmed party of The Beatles great brilliant song A Day In The Life in early 1967.
Also Marriane Faithful is quoted in the authorized Paul McCartney biography Many Years From Now by Barry Miles,that she and Mick would often go visit Paul in his music room in his house in 1966 and 1967,but they only went to see him because he was Paul McCartney but he never visited them.
She also said that Mick was somewhat in intimidated by Paul but Paul was totally oblivious about this. There is also an online 2016 picture of Keith Richards smiling holding a sign that says I ❤ The Beatles.
And he said in an online August 1971 interview that in The Rolling Stones early days they had hysteria like The Beatles did and screaming throughout their concerts and he said that there were no monitors back then.
Keith also said in this same interview that The Beatles were so f***** good at what they did and it's a shame that they broke up in such a tatty way. There is also a 2008 interview with Keith that is on RUclips where he's asked what 5 bands does he think are great besides The Rolling Stones and he said he has to put The Beatles in there obviously and then he said obviously again.But he also said that he's not going to say The Who or Led Zeppelin ( I strongly don't blame him for this!) because he'd be lying because their not his favorites.
There are also online pictures of The Rolling Stones, in 1963 and early 1964 before their manager took them out of them and manufactured their exaggerated 'bad' boy image.
And also Eric Burdon And The Animals in 1964 wearing matching suits and ties with similar haircuts and a black and white film of The Beach Boys in early 1964 wearing shirts with matching big stripes with teenage girls screaming throughout the concert and The Moody Blues wore matching suits and ties until 1967 a year after The Beatles stopped.
It was common in the early to mid 1960's for rock and roll bands to be wearing matching suits and ties with similar haircuts for professional reasons to get great live concert playing jobs.But by the late 1960's nobody had to do that anymore because everyone were hippies then.
There are also online pictures of The Rolling Stones on the cover and inside teen magazines sometimes with The Beatles in 1964,1965, and 1966 and The Rolling Stones on the cover of teen magazines in 1967.
There are also online pictures of Mick Jagger on the cover twice and inside a popular teen newspaper in 1965.
I'm a huge blues fan, and although I think the blues songs that the Stones delivered over time, specially in their early years are not amazing, I think their roots and understanding of the blues contribute so much to their sound, I mean I never heard anything like the Stones, even when groups try to make Stones type of material they totally fail, but I'm not able to say the same about the Beatles, I think their sound is a lot more "common", and easier to replicate in comparison to the Stones.
I totally agree with Kram when he says besides Paul every Stone is a better player the Beatles, and as a guitar player and a blues fan it amazes me more than anything how Keith and Mick are able to write songs, with such a blues type of sound characteristic of them, with so much space for every instrument and with a such a "clear" sound but also adding the blues roughness to it, it's from another world.
The Beatles vs Stones debate is a very personal thing to everyone because there's no way of being objective about it, for me the Stones are a much better band, the beatles don't even make my top 10 bands of all time, I just can't get sick of the Stones, for me it would be easier to listen to only Stones music for 10 years than to listen to only Beatles music for a month, I love Mick's voice, I love how Keith is more of a rythm guitar player/genious, I think with Charlie and Bill the Stones had the best rythm section of any rock band in the world and with all of this I think you just can't ask for more.
Not to mention how mind-blowing it is for the Stones to create a song like "Wild Horses" and on the other side of their catalog they have a song like "Undercover", both great songs, but if I've never heard any of them before, I wouldn't believethey were written by the same two people.
totaly agree beatles made silly pop songs not one of their songs comes close to gimmie shelter and for gods sake i wish people would stop calling them a roc k band only band to come anywhere nesr the stones is led zep end of the silly comparison
I think if there wasn't the Beatles vs Stones debate de Beatles would never be called a rock band, because they are not one, they made a couple of songs that can be called rock music but all their catalog is filled with simple and catchy pop songs, and I give the Beatles credit for making such catchy songs, but for me the Stones have a so much more interesting sound
@@joaoquental2933Undercover sucks imho
@@curly_wyn not my type of song either, but you got to admit it has some quality, and not every band could deliver songs like that
Its funny Kramzer mention that they would never make a pirate based off of a beatle, yet Paul McCartney was actually in "Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Men Tell No Tales"
When you compare the ‘best’ 5 songs of the various great pop artists through time, the Beatles do fine, however - it is when you compare the ‘best’ 105 songs that they really shine.
Note: Rolling Stone magazine listed ‘Hello Goodbye’ as the Beatles 100th best song. They list 99 Beatles songs as better.
If we're throwing in all the solo stuff, then the Beatles are leaps and bounds ahead.
Years ago, when someone at a party asked me this very question, I replied, "Man, that's like God vs. Satan but I love 'em both."
Excellent anecdote
If I picked 100 songs between them it would be 60% Beatles and 40% Stones.
90 to 10 ... 😂
in terms of "Rock n Roll Band" : STONES.
I reject the overall premise. Both were great. We don't have to pick one over the other. We can enjoy them both..or not.
Must we drag this one out again. The Stones and Beatles are two different animals. I love both. A lot. Beatles came with a little more polish. Stones had the grit. The bands were friends. It's a personal choice and my heart belongs to the Beatles. Could not live without Exile or the White Album. The new Stones CD kicks ass and I dig the Beatles single. Now don't make me come back. 🤠 ☮
this!
Also there is a great online 2011 article by Gillian Garr of Goldmine Magazine and they took a poll The Best Overall:The Song Writing Team Of Lennon and McCartney and he said what I always have said,that John and Paul wrote songs at such a prodigious rate in 1963 and 1964 that they wrote hit songs for other music artists at the same time they were looking after thier own group's interests.
He also mentions that in the December 1963 London Times their music critic Willam Mann pointed out the clever complex inventive chords they were writing and playing in their early songs and he called John and Paul the two greatest British song writers of 1963.
Also in the same December 1963 London Times issue their classical music critic Richard Buckle called John Lennon and Paul McCartney the greatest song composers since Beethoven after they composed the music for a ballet called Mods and Rockers.
Gillian Garr didn't say who the other music artists were that John and Paul wrote hit songs for, besides The Rolling Stones they also wrote hit songs for Billy J Kramer And The Dakota's, Peter and Gordon and singer Cilla Black in 1963.
Bob Dylan said that when he was going on a long car trip in early 1964 he noticed that 8 hit songs on the radio were Beatles songs and he said years later that he knew that they were going to last and they weren't a passing fad.He said their chords were just outrageous just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid and they were doing things in music that nobody else was doing and that he knew they were taking music in the direction it had to go.
Roger McGuinn said that he bought a 12 string guitar after he saw George Harrison playing it in The Beatles first film A Hard Days Night and he formed The Byrds soon afterwards.
Roger also said that The Beatles wrote folk rock chords in their rock and roll music and he said this was unusual and he said they invented folk rock music without even knowing it.
Stones. The Beatles more creative in the early 60s, the Stones were more visceral. The basic sound firstly - the Beatles wrote great pop, but the more primal rhythm'n'blues of the Stones I find far more thrilling. That rhythm heavy pulse powering the Stones' best material maintain that visceral excitement. Their creativity on par with any other act; from the mid 60s r'n"b, to the wonderful baroque/psychedelic pop of '66-'67, leading to their own imperial phase from '68.
I would see at least 6 Stones albums as 5-star, roughly same for the Beatles. The 70s Stones I think were far more engaging than the solo Beatles. The '80s onwards - mostly quality, some albums great, others good, but in my opinion surpassing McCartneys albums from the same period for the most part.
A few other comments sum it up - the Stones wouldn't have written 'A Day in the Life', the Beatles not 'Gimme Shelter'. Differing styles; equally creative and resonant.
The Stones run of four records 1968-1972 is for me on par with or superior to the Beatles four from 1966 to Abbey Road.
Overall; both great
This sums up my position perfectly. Thanks.
Nah, McCartney often made better albums than The Stones, for example Flaming Pie > Bridges To Babylon, and Chaos & Creation > A Bigger Bang.
@@JarrettMehldau It goes back to the same basic premise, Beatles or Stones. Flaming Pie or Babylon. I like both, but would much prefer Babylon .
Chaos and Creation is also good. Bigger Bang is overlong; my own playlist of it is 12 tracks, leaving the four not quite as good. That 12-track configuration equally as good as Chaos. We all hear things differently, that's just how I'd hear/rate them.
@@ghurley2269 McCartney II > Emotional Rescue?
@@JarrettMehldau McCartney II is an easier album to admire than to love. For all of its oddities and tracks like 'Bogey Music' and 'Temporary Secretary', it also has 'Waterfalls' and 'Summers Day Song'. Not an album I would revisit often, but one that showed his creative spirit
Emotional Rescue is seen as more slight than the two greats either side of it, but it has a charm of it's own. Not a great Stones record, but a very enjoyable one. Four tracks in particular- Dance, title track, She's So Cold, All About You. As to which is better, personal preference - I have Beatle friends who love II, and others who dislike it with a passion. ER similar but more middle ground than the fringes - not so much such passionate dislike, not as much love.
I truly believe they are both the best bands to ever existed. Way above any other. But in a personal point of view, I still think the Beatles never did anything as amazing and beautiful as the Stones version to Love in Vain. And I dig the Beatles a lot. But the Stones can perform the blues like nobody else. Its a matter of opinion, only. But I agree with the argument that the Beatles are overrated. Just look at this now: Now and Then is not even a good song and most people are treating it like a classic. Just look at new Stones album and you can find at least 6 songs that are way better then Now and Then. Anyway, we just need to enjoy them both. The Stones would never create something as Here, There and Everywhere or A Day in the Life; while the Beatles would never create something like Cant You Hear me Knocking, Midnight Rambler or Sweet Virginia. Glad to have them both.