24TuesdayDec 2013
Tags
The Rolling Stones’ “Tongue and Lip Design” logo designed by John Pasche in 1971 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
English: The Rolling Stones at Kiel 7/9/72—Kiel Auditorium, St. Louis—Jim Price, Bobby Keys, Mick Taylor, Charlie Watts, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Bill Wyman (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
English: Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones NYC show, taken with a Nikon F (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Cover via Amazon
English: Mick Jagger (right) and Ronnie Wood (left) of the Rolling Stones in concert in Chicago (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Time Was on Their Side ‘Beatles vs. Stones’ and ‘Rocks Off’
As the 50th-anniversary milestones for the Beatles and the Rolling Stones fly off like calendar pages in an old film, even the stuff of barroom debates gets elevated into book-length exegeses. At least that’s true on the evidence of “Beatles vs. Stones,” by John McMillian, and “Rocks Off: 50 Tracks That Tell the Story of the Rolling Stones,” by Bill Janovitz. The good news is that despite some flaws, each of them justifies its extended treatment of essentially irresolvable disputes. They manage to make their cases in balanced, informed, yet still passionate terms. And, best of all, when you’re done, you don’t need to worry about a crippling hangover.
MONITOR PICTURE LIBRARY VIA GETTY IMAGES
They wanna be your man: The Rolling Stones, November 1963.
<nyt_pf_inline>
BEATLES VS. STONES
By John McMillian
Illustrated. 304 pp. Simon & Schuster. $26.
ROCKS OFF
50 Tracks That Tell the Story of the Rolling Stones
By Bill Janovitz
404 pp. St. Martin’s Press. $25.99.
At a New York dinner party a couple of years back, a beautiful woman — who else would dare? — teased Mick Jagger: “Everybody’s either a Beatles person or a Stones person. Which are you?” Characteristically inclined to repel even deadly serious questions with an eye roll and a shrug, Jagger took this one straight. “I’m a Stones person,” he replied.
That response is telling. Ever since they pulled ahead of the Fab Four on the hipness front in the late ’60s, the Stones have been weary and resentful of Beatles comparisons. In fact, the bands were frenemies from the start. Jagger hilariously describes being intimidated by the Beatles in their leather coats when they came to see the Stones perform in their very early days. And as Londoners, the Stones would forever be gobsmacked by having to stand in the shadow of a quartet from, of all provincial places, Liverpool. While Allen Ginsberg asserted that the Beatles made Liverpool “the center of the consciousness of the human universe,” Keith Richards saw it somewhat differently: “I mean, Liverpool is . . . as far as London is concerned, it’s Nome, Alaska.” The Beatles, to be fair, could be equally dismissive of their surlier rivals: “I think Mick’s a joke, with all that fag dancing,” John Lennon once sneered.
Nonetheless, the Beatles’ pre-eminence is undeniable. Far more than a band that you might like or dislike in relation to any other, “the Beatles are a phenomenon,” the Stones guitarist Brian Jones once evenly stated to a British journalist. In the ’60s rock solar system, they were the sun around which everything else revolved, and the Stones benefited too much from the Beatles’ reflected heat to be able to deny it. As far as America is concerned, without the Beatles’ breakthrough, there could have been no Rolling Stones. When it counted, the Beatles wrote a hit song for the Stones, talked them up in interviews and helped get them a record deal. Later on, the two camps would stagger their record releases in order not to hurt each other’s sales.
John McMillian, who teaches history at Georgia State University, negotiates these thickets with insight, care and a willingness to unsettle clichés. He can be fussy at times, as when, for example, he asserts his objectivity about his book’s subject with a blithe “I don’t try to adjudicate the question here. . . . I’m not a rock critic; I’m a historian.” (True: He’s far better at unearthing surprising material than making musical judgments.) And his writing can occasionally lurch into academese. Neither the Beatles nor the Stones, he observes, “articulated, or proved willing to defend, a coherent political cosmology.”
That said, even the most gnarled and intransigent veterans of the Beatles-Stones debates will emerge enlightened by this book. McMillian is a scholar of the ’60s underground press, and his deft references to those far-flung sources demonstrate how profoundly these bands’ songs, statements and actions roiled the counterculture. It’s hard to imagine any artist, musical or otherwise, having as direct a social impact today. And even if McMillian refuses to “adjudicate” the argument he investigates, he provides plenty of ammunition for you to wage the war, whichever side you’re on.
Our weekly debate series takes on one of the most divisive rivalries in pop music: the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones. Which was the greater band? Which had a deeper connection with their fans, or a more lasting impact on popular music? Prepare for our call-in lines to melt; also, the Earth may crack in half. (Fair warning.)
Joining us is Tim Riley, NPR critic and author of several books on rock music including Tell Me Why: The Beatles, Album by Album, Song by Song, the Sixties and After; and Bill German, author of the memoir Under Their Thumb: How a Nice Boy From Brooklyn Got Mixed Up With the Rolling Stones (And Lived to Tell About It).
Also joining us is Rolling Stone magazine contributor Alan Light. He tells us about the magazine’s new ranking of the 100 greatest Beatles songs of all time.
Which was the better band? Tell us why below.
Today’s Playlist:
1- Revolution- Beatles
2- Street Fighting Man- Rolling Stones
3- I Wanna Be Your Man- Beatles
4- I Wanna Be Your Man- Rolling Stones
5- All You Need Is Love- Beatles
6- We Love You- Rolling Stones
7- Let It Be- Beatles
GUESTS:
Bill German and Tim Riley
Related
RELATED ARTICLES
- ‘Beatles vs. Stones’ and ‘Rocks Off’ (nytimes.com)
- Gweek podcast 126 – The Real Fifth Beatle (boingboing.net)
- The Rolling Stones – Got Live If You Want It! (1966)(allerlei2013riffmaster.wordpress.com)
- ‘Beatles vs. Stones’: Which side are you on? (seattletimes.com)
- Soul of Rolling Stones, Keith Richards, turns 70 (rawstory.com)
Comments [140]
The Stones infused blues with rock n roll and they made some of the first hard rock. They were the first British bad boys. The fact that the Beatles came first is irrelevant. The Stones stayed around. You can’t argue that they should have stopped after Exile because then you lose Some Girls, Tattoo You, Steel Wheels, etc. And you just can’t dismiss albums like Bridges to Babylon and Voodoo Lounge just because they weren’t “as good” as previous albums.
The Stones have music classified under every sub-genre of rock, they do have blues, but they also have country (Wild Horses, Sweet Virginia), and some pop so it’s ridiculous to say they only stuck with the blues and one song can be incredibly different from another. They have incorporated many different sounds in their music over the years. Why would I have 566 songs by them if it’s all just the same meaningless crap?
And their lyrics are not shallow and empty. Tell me “Salt of the Earth” is not a lyrical masterpiece filled with truths. In “Coming Down Again” you have lines that read: “She was dying to survive” and “Being hungry, it aint no crime.” Tell me you can’t feel the pain in “Sister Morphine.” As for their later, lesser works, “Blinded by Rainbows” on Voodoo Lounge and “Saint of Me” on Bridges to Babylon are both bleeding with spellbinding thought and complexity. Why is saying I want to hold your hand 12 times in one song musical genius?
The problem with this debate is that non-Stones fans may only look at their immortal hits like “Sympathy for the Devil” “Brown Sugar” and “Jumping Jack Flash” which, although are great tracks, they are just the surface of the intricate universe that is the Rolling Stones. Even the string of albums starting with Beggar’s Banquet and ending with Exile on Main Street isn’t all there is to the greatest rock and roll band in the world.
Now, I was born in the late ‘90’s so I obviously wasn’t around to witness the influence these bands had on the public. It is a known fact that the Beatles were more popular and sold more records but that was because they released songs that made the public feel happy. It was music they wanted to hear. The Stones released music with truth behind every word.
And as for who had the better live performances, it was the Stones. However, it is an unfair argument since the Beatles couldn’t even be heard. But may I remind everyone that girls were attacking the Stones on the stage and they kept performing.
I have a lot of respect for the Beatles. But I’ve noticed they their status as greatest artists of all time is based off of (obviously) popularity. In another land where this honor was based off of the constant quality of music despite lack of recognition, the Stones would win out.
Although The Stones are a close second.
Rolling Stones = rock-blues-country band
But, since in live concerts Stones was (and are) by far better than Beatles, i’ll go with the greatest rock ‘n roll band in the world.
Stones= 200 million
Stones- 1
What are you gonna do Mick? You can’t do anything! Beatles are the best.
Gimme Shelter!
Live Band: Stones
Rock ‘n Roll spirit overall: Stones #1.
and talking about present beatles were the second best selling artist of decade of 2000′s
after the 40 years of seperation of band …
so who is the best no unquestionably THE BEATLES……for ever..
but STONES have the second position secured for ever
Beatles = unmatch in melodies, tune, variety, innovation. Beatles win – no contest.
I consider the Beatles to be a great pop group. Yes, The Beatles sold tons of records too, but the Stones music is still current. The Beatles music is somewhat dated.
but I found that the narative didn’t hit the mark. Was “Why Don’t We Do It In The Road” Not Sexy (like Mike) or was “Beast Of Burden” not “intellecticual enough ??
But further more the Greatest Perfoming Band EVER wasn’t the Who (I saw @ Filmore East 1970 !!) but was The Grateful
Dead. Sayz I
“We reached their greatness once, in my opinion. Stairway To Heaven is as good as any record ever made. But the Beatles were able to do it on a regular basis.”
“We reached their greatness once, in my opinion. Stairway To Heaven is as good as any record ever made. But the Beatles were able to do it on a regular basis.”
SInce you didn’t say “rock band”, no question, The Beatles.
Listen to a Stones song from 30 years ago and one of their new songs. Sounds like the same group.
Listen to “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” and then any song from their last years. They changed, evolved and weren’t afraid to try something new.
The Stones found a sound that sold and they stuck with it.
Beatles were, like all great artists, innovators.
For the sake of all things living, please stop this silly comparison.
So be it.
I also prefer to play there records then the cd’s. Third fav, The Kinks
This is in contrast to the Beatles who internalized American music and helped to innovate it. Working class heroes in the best way possible!
This is a silly argument and one that should has absolutely no merit. How could one even think that either of these two bands are and were more innovative than the other? Both bands are genius and cannot or should not be compared. Maybe, the argument should be the Monkees vs either of these two? Not Lennon, McCartney vs,Mick and Keith. And only if someone took the side of the Monkees.
I suppose the only innovative difference I see, is that the Stones made music with less chords with most of their tunes and the Beatle’s music was more orchestral? No wonder Ian stewart referred to them as “the three chord wonders”.Or was it four Bill? I forget
But then you have Rudy Tuesday and She’s a Rainbow. Quite orchestral too.So the entire argument is quite silly. Reminds me of when I was a kid and drummers would debate the merits of Ringo vs Charlie or John Bonham and Ginger Baker because of his Toad solo.
I knew better not to even argue this point when I was 12 years old.
So is the debate about live or accomplishments that were made in the studio? I will concede to the argument if we are talking live performance. You can throw the Beatle’s out the or thru the bathroom window. Studio, there is and shall be no argument from this day forward.
No one read music, they played by ear. That is genius, pure and simple.
Sounds like a question from someone who “wasn’t there”.
(Pistols hands down).
2. The Rolling Stones
3. The Who
Akshay
The last great Stones album is from at least 30 years ago, where Paul put out an amazing Fireman record (of which he played all of the instruments) a year ago.
No contest. Beatles rule!
2) They sell more records today, particularly among individuals born twenty and thirty years after they broke up.
3) They were more innovative. First came Sgt. Pepper’s and then the derivative Their Satanic Majesties Request.
4) The Beatles never produced a poor record. Every song on every album is single-worthy. Every album is different from the one that precedes it and the one that follows it. There is a point with the Rolling Stones, however, where their song writing capabilities declined.
5) The Beatles are more fun.
6) A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, The White Album, The B-Side medley of Abbey Road, Twist and Shout.
7) Ringo Starr
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio’s Privacy Policy andTerms Of Use.