Rolling Stones or Beatles

Rolling Stobes or Beatles?

  • Rolling Stones

    Votes: 34 38.6%
  • Beatles

    Votes: 54 61.4%

  • Total voters
    88

Don Draper

Cufflinks & Cognac
Nov 24, 2009
6,364
644
113
"It is quite amazing when you think about it," Mick Jagger recently told Rolling Stone, reflecting on the 50th anniversary of the Rolling Stones first show on July 12th, 1962 at London's Marquee Jazz Club. "But it was so long ago. Some of us are still here, but it's a very different group than the one that played 50 years ago."

On that summer night in 1962, the Rollin' Stones were Jagger on vocals, guitarists Brian Jones and Keith Richards, pianist Ian Stewart and bassist Dick Taylor. The drummer is up for debate; some fans contend it was their frequent early drummer, Tony Chapman, but Richards insisted in his 2012 memoir Life that it was friend Mick Avory. The Stones got the gig when Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated – the club's Thursday night regulars fronted by Jagger – were invited to play a BBC live broadcast. Jagger didn't take part in the broadcast, and Jones persuaded Marquee club owner Harold Pendleton to let their new group fill in. When Jones called local listings paper Jazz News to advertise the gig, the famous story goes, he was asked what the band was called. His eyes went straight to the first song on the nearby LP The Best of Muddy Waters: "Rollin' Stone."

The band borrowed money from Jagger's dad to rent equipment for the gig. In Life, Richards recalled playing songs like "Dust My Broom," "Confessin' the Blues" and "Got My Mojo Working." "You're sitting with some guys, and you're playing and you go, 'Ooh yeah!' That feeling is worth more than anything," he wrote. "There's a certain moment when you realize that you've actually left the planet for a bit and that nobody can touch you … it's flying without a license."

The band continued to play around London clubs that summer. In August, Jagger, Richards and Jones moved into a grimy second-floor apartment at 102 Edith Grove in Fulham, living amongst dirty dishes, two beds and no furniture. Soon, Charlie Watts moved in. "The Rolling Stones spent the first year of their life hanging places, stealing food and rehearsing," Richards remembered. "We were paying to be the Rolling Stones."

Today, Jagger admits feeling uneasy about celebrating the milestone. "One part of me goes, 'We're slightly cheating,'" he says. "Because it's not the same band, you know. Still the same name. It's only Keith and myself that are the same people, I think. I've tried to find out when Charlie's first gig was, and none of us can really remember and no one really knows. But it's an amazing achievement, and I think it's fantastic and you know I'm very proud of it."

Richards is less reflective. "Man, I don't count!" he says with a laugh. "The Stones always really consider '63 to be 50 years, because Charlie didn't actually join until January. So we look upon 2012 as sort of the year of conception. But the birth is next year."

On Wednesday, the Stones met at the Marquee Club to shoot an anniversary photo. And while they might look a little worse for wear and tear than they did 50 years ago, they haven't lost any cool. After more than 400 songs, over two-dozen studio albums, ten mega-tours, turmoil and countless public squabbles, they look dangerous and commanding as ever, still capable of giving crowds more satisfaction than any band 50 years their junior.

Richards says the band will discuss recording new material during their London stay, and the band is strongly considering at least one gig this year, while a tour is more likely next year. Here's hoping it all happens. As Pete Townshend told the band while inducting them in to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989, "Guys, whatever you do, don't grow old gracefully. It wouldn't suit you."

Here is what the Stones played on that night in 1962, according to meticulous, setlist-documenting Stones fansite It's Only Rock and Roll – though the setlist differs slightly from Richards' memory of the show described in Life.

1. "Kansas City"
2. "Baby What's Wrong"
3. "Confessin' the Blues"
4. "Bright Lights, Big City"
5. "Dust My Broom"
6. "Down the Road Apiece"
7. "I'm a Love You"
8. "Bad Boy"
9. "I Ain't Got You"
10. "Hush-Hush"
11. "Ride 'Em on Down"
12. "Back in the U.S.A."
13. "Kind of Lonesome"
14. "Blues Before Sunrise"
15. "Big Boss Man"
16. "Don't Stay Out All Night"
17. "Tell Me You Love Me"
18. "Happy Home"
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
40,381
7,680
113
It's unfair to compare the two since they were completely different bands.

Btw who or what is The Rolling Stobes? Is it a Cuban cigar that I'm unaware of?
 

CUTTERBUCK

Banned
Jan 17, 2004
3,218
0
0
Kitchener/Waterloo
It's unfair to compare the two since they were completely different bands.
Yes and no.

Both bands were heavily influenced by American blues and R/B artists, as were the majority of Brit bands of the era. The Stones more or less stuck to the hard core blues of Memphis Slim, Muddy Waters, et al. The Beatles, in contrast, tended to lean towards the more melodic Motown sound of the Marvelettes, Marvin Gaye, et al.

Both bands changed the direction of “popular music”, and will be ever known for doing so.
 

doggee_01

Active member
Jul 11, 2003
8,349
1
36
the Marquee damn i spent a whole bunch of my youth in that place lol

i think they started in the original location the club moved in the early 60's to it's current location and yes well before my time!!!!
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,145
2,490
113
The Beatles were Pioneers. The Stones made good on their efforts, ....
I love a lot of Stones tunes the Beatle after the first yeah, yeah, yeah albums were amazing. French horns, orchestras, sitars, even guitar feedback (I feel fine), Sgt Pepper's - they constantly were evolving the music and pushing the boundaries.
 

babemagnet

Banned
Jul 5, 2011
747
0
0
In my view Beatles, not even a close comparison.
How did we know?
Beatles. Stones kind of rode their coat tails. Marketed as the "anti Beatles" bad boys. If you read the book by Andrew Loog Oldham, he tells how much the Stones owe to the Beatles, from the point of writing their first hit and more. Beatles set trends and the Stones rode their coat tales. When The Beatles released "Let it be" the Stones followed with "Let it Bleed". When asked, Richards said words to the effect " hey that was just the feeling at the time man". Oldham said "The Stones were nice guys, marketed as thugs and the Beatles were thugs,marketed as nice guys. Whatever. Anyway Congratulations to the Stones.They have some great Karma in their lives.Some of their stuff is pretty good. Jumpin Jack Flash. Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown, and their first album actually kicked ass.
 

homerjsimpson

New member
May 8, 2010
426
0
0
Rolling Stones are the most overrated band on the face of the planet. I wouldn't go to one of their concerts if it was free and in my living room. In fact, I'd kick them the fuck out.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,940
5,741
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Both were great bands in their time.
However the Beatles were far superior in being musically creative and innovative. Many Beatles tunes went on to become classic songs still played all over the world...:cool:
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
40,381
7,680
113
Follow the connections....

The Beatles just plain worked. John Lennon was the conscience and Paul McCartney was the master of melody. However you cannot leave The Beach Boys out of the mix. Who knows what they may have evolved into if Brian Wilson wasn't consumed by depression.

For example while they were wrapping Rubber Soul, this song became a huge hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6_sKPiKCnU&feature=fvst

John Lennon was so impressed by it that he was inspired to write this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGmHwL1Nspc

Lennon played the song to Mick Jagger over dinner and 1967 became the year of convergence as both bands launched the Psychedelic Era.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6o2ZpHZWos
 

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,275
3
38
Rolling Stones are the most overrated band on the face of the planet. I wouldn't go to one of their concerts if it was free and in my living room. In fact, I'd kick them the fuck out.
lmao
 

dirkd101

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2005
10,407
200
63
eastern frontier
Stones, hands down for me. Let's face it, The Beatles were broke up, their longevity comes beacuse they were one of the first to make it big in N.A. The Stones are like the energizer bunny, they just keep going and going...The Stones have an extensive song catalogue from making some great music from their many years together and even when they have gone off on their own for a hiatus from the band, they always come back, fresher, with more energy, creative and personal. The Stones all they way.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
242
63
Tough to compare the two bands.

Are we voting on
1) which we like more
2) which was more influential

Depending on criteria I could go either way.

I like the stones more but the beatles left a bigger mark on music in my opinion,
 

Art Mann

sapiosexual
May 10, 2010
2,899
3
0
Rolling Stones are the most overrated band on the face of the planet. I wouldn't go to one of their concerts if it was free and in my living room. In fact, I'd kick them the fuck out.
Big mistake there, homer.

The Stones are a live band, first and foremost.

Never considered myself a Stones fan, never owned a Stones album ... didn't need to, everybody else had one, and you could hear their tunes everywhere you went.

And then I finally saw them on stage ... Exhibition stadium 20 years or so ago ... and was effin' blown away.

Wish I could have caught some of their club gigs.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,064
3,956
113
Big mistake there, homer.

The Stones are a live band, first and foremost.

Never considered myself a Stones fan, never owned a Stones album ... didn't need to, everybody else had one, and you could hear their tunes everywhere you went.

And then I finally saw them on stage ... Exhibition stadium 20 years or so ago ... and was effin' blown away.

Wish I could have caught some of their club gigs.
I saw my first Stones concert in 94. I believe it was the "Voodoo Lounge Tour" and I too was "blown away"

They are incredible live.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,064
3,956
113
With respect to the kindergarten question of whose dad is stronger, the answer is....

Both are phenominal bands and we will never see their like again. They are the 16 inch gun battle ships, and when they go extinct, there will be no more.

To try and say which band is better is like saying, which car is better - An Audi S5 or a BMW M3. They are both incredible, both with their pluses and their minuses.

I love the Beatles, I was the biggest Beatles fan in the world in High School (30 years ago sadly). But I was also a growing Stones fan.

I love both their music and their styles.

But if I had to pick, as of today, the one thing that I will say is that I listen to the Stones more than I listen to the Beatles. (Nowadays.)

The Beatles were only around for 8 years (And yes, they had a huge impact, and yes, John Lennon's death is one of the greatest tragedies of all time) but the Stones have been at it for 50 years and Mick Jagger has more stage presence than any of the Beatles ever had.

The great thing about the monster rock bands is that their music is available to me for all time.

The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones, U2, Pink Floyd, Queen. I love them all and they are all fucking incredible musical artists.
 

Art Mann

sapiosexual
May 10, 2010
2,899
3
0
+1

And Voodoo Lounge was the show that sold me. Ever since then I'm a confirmed fan.
 

homerjsimpson

New member
May 8, 2010
426
0
0
Comparing The Beatles to The Stones is like comparing The School of Fine Dining to McDonalds. You might enjoy the food at both, but one is a master of the craft in all respects, and the other is just a fucking burger.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts