So who are the greatest - The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?
Published on Friday 13 July 2012 11:20
As The Rolling Stones celebrate 50 years since their first gig, we consider the sounds of the 1960s and 1970s and ask which we love more, the rock ’n’ roll riffs of Jagger and the boys or The Beatles’ seminal pop? Interviews by Rod McPhee.
Hunter Smith is one of the partners running legendary Leeds music shop Jumbo Records.
“I have to admit that I grew up around the time that The Rolling Stones and The Beatles were really big and I liked them both, although I’ve seen The Stones three times in concert but I never saw The Beatles live.
“The Stones perhaps gain a little more respect from me because the underground music that was being played in all the cool bars and clubs in the 60s all tended to be more black music from the States and The Stones were the British band above most others that really emulated that – though I have to stress they weren’t the only band emulating it at the time.
“The Beatles were perhaps a bit more mainstream and generally stuck to pop. Having said that, The Beatles also produced some great experimental music in those years just before they split up. If I were on Desert Island Discs and I could take one album with me from either band it would probably be Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band which was just head and shoulders above anything else that anyone was producing at the time.
“Then again, if I could only take one single with me from either band it would have to be The Stones’ Start Me Up, when I hear the first few riffs of that it gets me going every time. So I’m pretty open-minded when it comes to both bands. I think they’re essentially two separate entities and trying to decide which is the best really is a very tough call.”
Matt Bowman is lead singer of Leeds band The Pigeon Detectives.
“Well, I have to say from the start that I am a total Beatlehead and that comes from the fact that I was exposed to their music from an early age by my mum playing CDs in the house or in the car – and I think a lot of people got hooked on The Beatles in a similar way actually. The Beatles are a bit like a security blanket, they’re comforting and warming.
“I only really got into The Rolling Stones about seven or eight years ago and I realise how brilliant their music is too and how rock ‘n’ roll they are. I guess if you’re being objective then you can’t really compare the two because they are so different.
“The Beatles are largely pop. They were the boyband of the day – a kind of Take That of the 1960s, while The Rolling Stones were more like Oasis belting out these massive guitar tracks. I think it has become easier with the passing of time to judge the two bands entirely on their music rather than all the shenanigans that surrounded them back in the day.
“But if I had to choose between the two it would have to be The Beatles because, like a lot of people, I grew up with them and they’ll always be special.”
Dr Simon Warner is a lecturer in Popular Music at Leeds University.
“I think after the first 10 years of their existence The Rolling Stones became a disappointing parody of their earlier selves. They would have been much better off splitting up when Brian Jones departed.
“In contrast, the legacy of The Beatles is, let’s say, eight years of intense output which was versatile and innovative and had a broad appeal, which The Stones never had.
“The two bands had a very different emphasis though – The Beatles were all about playing with the pop sound whereas The Stones were more about replicating that authentic R‘n’B sound – and both did so very well.
“But The Beatles had a greater impact on popular culture because they had both the creativity and the charm to become a global success in a way that The Stones never could. The Beatles broke America, and then went further. And they appealed to everyone from ten years old to people in middle age.
“The Stones had a much edgier sound which was never quite going to transfer. The Beatles, meanwhile, took pop from being just a three-minute statement into something which, by the time they broke up, was much more sophisticated.”
John Keenan is one of Leeds’s most famous promoters and has this autumn booked two of The Rolling Stones’ original line-up, Dick Taylor and Mick Avory, to perform at Leeds Irish Centre.
“In terms of sheer musicianship The Beatles were the better band, they actually opened doors for the likes of The Rolling Stones. They set the template. I mean, The Rolling Stones actually did covers of Beatles songs, but The Beatles never did covers of any Rolling Stones songs.
“The Beatles also had wonderful melodies and could perform beautiful harmonies whereas Mick Jagger, for all his charisma, isn’t really a good singer – his voice only has one tone.
“But The Beatles could do rocky stuff, they could do pop or they could do soft, but The Stones stuck with that edgier, rougher rock sound inspired by more underground blues acts. Sure, The Stones were cooler and had a more scraggy image, but in terms of music The Beatles had a wider range, a broader appeal and, although they could be very mainstream, they also took their inspiration from the likes of Chuck Berry and Little Richard.
“There’s no doubt though that both bands are not only incredibly valuable to music but also incredibly valuable to British music.”
Nick Dagger is lead singer with tribute band The Counterfeit Stones.
“If I were to give you an intelligent answer I’d repeat the quote Mick Jagger gave when he was asked the same question back in the day. He said: ‘They’re two different bands doing two different things – you can’t compare them.’ But if I were being blunt I’d say I’ve spent 22 years worshipping The Rolling Stones and zero years worshipping The Beatles.
“If I’m completely honest I think The Beatles probably made better LPs though. I also own a lot of records by The Beatles and have a healthy respect for them – as do a lot of Rolling Stones fans, I think. A lot of Beatles fans have a respect for the Rolling Stones as well, for that matter, which is quite telling.
“But for that live, rock ’n’ roll experience you just can’t beat The Stones. Back in the 60s and 70s The Beatles were also the band that your parents grew to like, whereas The Stones were always the more rebellious characters who appealed to rock ’n’ roll teenagers.
“And, of course, The Beatles actually didn’t last that long, certainly not as long as the Stones who are still going strong now.
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/so-who-are-the-greatest-the-beatles-or-the-rolling-stones-1-4738161