BEATLES OR STONES?

By Tom Kando

(first written and posted on 12/18/13)
 
On December 16, MSNBC had a short skit about the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones. Here is something an old fart like me can piggy-back on, while maintaining my self-image as someone who is still hip.

I realize that this is not a very original topic. Nevertheless, some of you aging baby-boomers might get a kick out of the question - one more time: which of the two wins?

The Beatles lasted seven years (1960-1967). The Rolling Stones have been at it for over half a century (1962-present).

When the Stones started in 1962, they wanted to be seen as the anti-Beatles. The two groups’ images were indeed those of a more “bourgeois” Beatles and a more subversive Stones. But this was paradoxical, because it was actually the Beatles who came from a working-class background (Liverpool), while the Rolling Stones’ origins were more upper middle class. Mick Jagger even went to the London School of Economics. Nevertheless, the Rolling Stones have always been viewed as more rebellious.

The Rolling Stones produced several dozen LPs and countless singles, whereas the Beatles only produced about 14 full 12-inch LPs, as well as many singles. The Beatles’ “leader” was John Lennon, just as the Rolling Stones were primarily identified with Mick Jagger. Although the Beatles disbanded in 1967, they might conceivably have rejoined, had Lennon not been murdered in 1980. The Stones (Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and other members) also experienced repeated falling-outs and break-ups.

The Stones’ top hit singles ( I Can’t Get No Satisfaction, The Last Time, both in 1965) are not what turned me on the most, although I did like Paint it Black (1966) a lot. My real love affair with them began with their 1966 album, Aftermath, which included such favorites of mine as I am Waiting, the beautiful ballad Lady Jane and the 12 minute long (!) Going Home, which takes over your mind until you forget who and where you are.
Their album, Their Satanic Majesties Request (1967) is probably my favorite, with Sticky Fingers (1971) a close second. The latter album is often raunchily sexual, at times misogynistic, reminiscent of Jim Morrison and anticipating hip hop.

The Beatles’ trajectory was a bit different. Their early singles and their first LPs were relatively puerile - songs like I want to Hold Your Hand (1963), and records such as A Hard Day’s Night (1964) and Help! (1965) are almost inane.
But then, it gets really good: Rubber Soul (1965) contains beautiful songs such as Norwegian Wood. It is followed by Revolver (1966), which includes the hit Eleanor Rigby and other songs that are increasingly profound and mature (and also increasingly drug-inspired).
1967 was unquestionably the Beatles’ apex. That is when their two best albums came out - Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour. Many people consider Sgt. Pepper the Beatles’ best music, but I am not sure which of these two I prefer. Songs like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Fixing a Hole (Sgt. Pepper) and The fool on the Hill (Magical Mystery) will remain among my favorites until the day I die.
Several more excellent  records followed. The White Album (1968) and Abbey Road (1969) contain many fine songs, one of my favorites being You Never Give Me Your Money. There were also some major hits, such as Hey Jude (1968). However, the zenith achieved in 1967 was never reached again.

I feel that the Beatles disbanded prematurely. And then came tragedy: John Lennon’s murder in 1980 and George Harrison’s death in 2001.

After the group split up, the Beatles went their separate ways, and some of them continued to produce great music. George Harrison’s All Things Must Pass is a triple album of music inspired by Hindu spiritualism and Indian culture, which Harrison had come to embrace. My Sweet Lord is my favorite song in this collection. The music prominently features the sitar and the tabla. These are, of course, the well-known Indian instruments popularized by the great Ravi Shankar, with whom Harrison also played and recorded repeatedly. The influence of Indian spirituality, music and culture on the Beatles was already present in earlier albums such as Rubber Soul and Revolver.
Paul McCartney is one of two surviving Beatle. Today, he is a serious composer of modern classical music, which is often played on such radio networks as NPR.

I keep and cherish the dozens of vinyl records I bought during a lifetime of adulation for both the Rolling Stones and the Beatles.

Is it a stupid question to ask which group is better? Probably. Still, it’s permissible to ask whom you LIKE better. Everyone has preferences. There are Coke people and there are Pepsi people.

If quantity and durability are your criteria, then the Stones win hands down. But that’s nonsense. Take Mozart and Haydn: Mozart died at 35 and composed 40 symphonies. Haydn lived to be 77 and wrote 104 symphonies. But we don’t rank him ahead of Mozart because of that.

I would like to say that I enjoy listening to the Stones and to the Beatles equally, but I cannot. While some Rolling Stones songs please me more than some Beatle music, in the end, I have to say that I love the Beatles (a little bit) more...

Let me know how you vote.

© Tom Kando 2014

leave comment here