Those of us classic rockheads of a certain age have grown up with a number of iconic bands and possibly none moreso than a couple of Britain’s finest in The Rolling Stones and The Beatles. As a kid growing up in the 70s/80s, you could not escape either band on the radio regardless of AM or FM or the frequency you were listening to. I like both bands but if I was told that I could only listen to one for the rest of my life, that band would be… The Beatles.
Music is a funny thing though- I probably listen to more music that influenced the Stones and was influenced by them than I do The Beatles, but there’s something to be said there. The Stones did a great job mixing blues influences with psychedelia and smatterings of country to create their own unique hybrid, but Beatle influences are harder to spot. To me, The Beatles were an entirely different creature that morphed and changed over time. Not that the Stones didn’t do that, but the creative swirl from the Fab Four during their brief tenure stands higher than their counterparts as they effectively mixed folk, early rock n roll, psychedelia, raga, baroque, and orchestral into their mix. And with the help of a great producer in George Martin they were able to take those influences and create everything from sweeping, complex soundscapes to beautiful melodies to a little bit of everything in between. Lennon and McCartney were an ace songwriting team and with the occasional contribution from Harrison, the band was able to create a wealth of excellent material in such a brief period that continues to stand the test of time. Amazingly enough, for as many years as I’ve heard the songs on the radio or listened to them on headphones I’m STILL hearing something new.
As for Mick, Keith, and the gang? Fantastic band and I must admit that if I need a quick rocking pick me up I’d probably go for “Jumpin Jack Flash” over something from The Beatles but overall, there just aren’t as many earworms that stick with me. Don’t get me wrong, they have a ton of classic songs and many that I like a lot but from a “listening experience” standpoint I gotta go with the Fabs. Sure, the Stones are the more raw and primal option of the two but if I’m looking for that vibe I’m going to go to their blues influences instead. And since we’re talking head to head here, I favor the rich musicality of The Beatles
What say you?
ironriot.blog 
This one is impossible for me because it really depends on my mood. If I’m in a rockin mood, Stones hands down. But if I want to hear something more, something experimentally challenging, The Beatles win that easily.
Even in the Stones glory period of ’68-’72 IMO, they were never that way. But, man, they kicked serious ass! I NEVER think of The Beatles as kicking ass, haha! Though they truly had their moments. Man, it’s just a wash for me more than any other 2 bands probably, even Zep and The Who. The Kinks will always come in a comfortable 5th for me, and My Lord is that saying something about the greatness of those bands when I have to rank Deep Purple 6th!? Just WOW!
LikeLike
It’s like comparing Moon and Bonham. One day I think I am more inspired than the other. Ringo and Charlie are like that. Charlie seems so simplistically straightforward in comparison, but then he’ll surprise with cool little jazzy fills and such. It’s almost like comparing apples and oranges, but then the parallels are also totally comparative – all the super catchy early singles, then the albums with so many great deep cuts. Musicianship and songwriting has to go to the Beatles, but the swagger of the Stones just defines everything about rock n roll. That’s why I can’t decide, I think. Keith is the X factor in many ways, but when I saw Paul live, I thought, I don’t know, man, even Keith probably couldn’t pull that kind of passion and energy off now. It’s a great debate but one I can’t decide. Unlike a lot of people, I can’t pull the trigger on that one, so it would depend on my mood that day, haha. I’d need that gun to my head!
LikeLike