Well The Stones had all the screaming fans too, witness 'Got Live If You Want It'. By the late 60s the fans had grown up, they weren't screaming throughout.
Paul McCartney in particular pushed for a return to live performance circa Let It Be but it didn't happen, other than that rooftop performance.
Absolutely right all around.
Exactly. Both bands found, and succeeded in perfectly nailing, the things they were searching for/best at doing. They were also such different things that I wouldn't imagine comparing them by the same standards anyway. Speaking for myself, I never found the Beatles completely convincing when it came to rocking out. But who cares? I never found the Stones convincing at psychedelic cartooniness either, but I don't enjoy "She's a Rainbow" any less because it wasn't a quintessential example of what the band was all about.
Paperback Writer and Revolution both rock more than anything the Stones ever did. And the Beatles version of I Wanna Be Your Man rocked more than the Stones too.
On a good night, The Who could blow them all off stage.
Bill
She'll be standing on the bar soon
With a fish head and a harpoon
and a fake beard plastered on her brow.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
Sounds like most of these so-called "face-offs" are more about what tribe you see yourself belonging to than about the musicians.
The Beatles were innovators, re-configuring pop music to a fare-thee-well. But, I'm more likely to thrown on a Stones LP. I like stuff you don't have to think about too much.
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
^Listening to something like 'Rosalyn', I wonder what the fuss is about punk rock. The Pretty Things had done it already in 1964.
I'll see your Paperback Writer and Revolution and raise you a Midnight Rambler. LOL! Both bands were/are great and I dearly love both. The Beatles could and did rock out at times and the Stones could be ornate occasionally as well, but by and large I think the Stones style of music lends itself to rocking out more.
Even though I Wanna Be Your Man is Lennon/McCartney tune and The Beatles do a good job on it, I have always preferred the Stones' rawer approach.
Bill
She'll be standing on the bar soon
With a fish head and a harpoon
and a fake beard plastered on her brow.
The difference is, the Beatles actually progressed. The Stones are a rare example of a Regressive Rock band.
The Rolling Stones evidence progression through the '60s and into the '70s. Can't You Here Me Knockin,' for example (and numerous others) would not have been possible much earlier than the album on which it came out.
Also, are you really sure about the truth of your comment concerning progression/regression? Rare? Quite common, I'd say. You're familiar with the career arcs of Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP, etc. etc.?
^^^ I'd say, Facelift, that the Stones did progress a bit up to the 70's and then stopped doing so. At best, their later work picked up on trends that other artists had set, eg. the disco influences on some of the 1980's albums.
And I take your point about Genesis/ELP etc, so perhaps I should just say "example" rather than "rare example".
But by invoking The Beatles, that implies you are talking about when both bands were a going concern- that is, the 1960s. The Rolling Stones made huge creative strides in that decade.
Where the Beatles were compelled to innovate out of an artistic impulse to do so, the Stones self-consciously dabbled for reasons rather less exalted until they took stock and settled on what they were really good at, a "come to Jesus" moment that resulted in the masterful Beggars Banquet and the albums that followed from its premises. Know thyself. Indeed.
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
Bookmarks