Stones or beatles?

[Glassweb]

So... you're going away to a desert island... for life! Nevermind the crime; you're offered either the entire Beatles catalog or the entire Rolling Stones catalog to take with you for listening pleasure. (no, i don't know where the electricity is gonna come from!)

So... if you had to choose to listen to one of these bands for life who would it be... Stones or Beatles... and why?

[JeffD]

Well, for me personally, I would get dreadfully tired of either one. I can't think of too many things worse than an exclusive diet of Beatles, or Stones. There is so much to the music, of which they are a small, I agree important, but small part.

I know its not what you are after.

Just let me bring my mandolin and let me noodle.

[Bluejay]

Beatles. I love the Stones too (Keef :) but sometimes it's a bit much. Beatles always make me want to sing and play along.

[yankees1]

Beatles ! Saw them in person in 1966.

[brunello97]

Either-or? That's not really fair. :) Comping an "A-List" of Beatles or Stones songs might have them going somewhat head to head, but I think the B sides, even the C or D sides from the Beatles yield significantly better material, imho.

"And Your Bird Can Sing." Enough said.

Mick

BTW I've only come on recently to appreciating GH as a guitarist. The guy never wasted a note. Ever. (Not that Richards did either....)

[bruce.b]

Beatles, but I'd rarely play it. I agree with Jeff, I'd much rather bring a mandolin and play that.

[Cheryl Watson]

Beatles: I can't live without listening to great harmony and, if I get to have my mandolin on that desert island too, then I consider their music more conducive to mandolin.

[Glassweb]

Well, as I started this dumb thread I guess I should put in my vote for The Rolling Stones. Why? I don't know...

[brunello97]

Well, as I started this dumb thread I guess I should put in my vote for The Rolling Stones. Why? I don't know...

This might refresh your memory:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IhSnfyfUgU

Mick

[Mike Scott]

Beatles ! Saw them in person in 1966.

Me too on both counts

[George R. Lane]

Fab Four.

[Jim]

Just shoot me.

[rb3868]

Never been a fan of "best of" lists. I think it's probably more rational to think of tiers of importance (not necessarily popularity) so you would have a top tier of Elvis, Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and the Clash. Probably through Michael Jackson in there as well. What each of them have in common is that they were all the pinnacle of their respective subgenres. then you'd get the next tier that would probably double the size of the first with your Neil Youngs and Smokey Robinsons etc. etc. I couldn't spend all my time on a desert island listening to one band, not even my all-time favorite, without hating it by the time I got rescued. In that respect, I would chooose someone who WASN'T my favorite band

[oneeyeross]

this is a serious question? There can be only one correct answer (from a music point of view) and that would be the Beatles. The Stones were good, for what they were, but as far as musical genius, the Beatles all the way. Harmony, tight guitar work, good lyrics that you could understand make them far better than the Stones. Now, the Stones have had great songs and all, but you can't be the Beatles.

But, I'd rather listen to Dylan, or John Prine, or someone else....(I know, not a choice)...

[Glassweb]

RB... this is a simple question of tastes, nothing intellectual or rational about this... it's just "who would it be"... Beatles or Stones.

[JEStanek]

From my gut, given just those options, I pick the Stones. However, neither would be on my list of top 20 Desert Island bands or acts, for that matter.

Jamie

[Paul Kotapish]

Beatles--no question. I love a lot of Stones tracks and found them really enjoyable--and good--live, but those Liverpool Lads are still it for me.

[artilleryo]

I would choose deafness.

[Eddie Sheehy]

Jethro Tull...

[Paul Kotapish]

I would choose deafness.

Perhaps you could arrange to join Glenn Gould on his Desert island with Petula Clark.

[OldSausage]

I'm glad to see the Beatles and the Stones are still so underrated. It must be a lot of fun to rediscover either of these bands in 2012, for those who didn't grow up on their music. Maybe today both bands are partially obscured by their very familiarity. It can be worth revisiting even if you think you know what's there. I'd choose the Beatles, but I'd be content with either.

[Mike Bunting]

I was a Stones guy in the beginning but now that my musical tastes have grown, I find the the Beatle music has aged far better, So for this question I gotta pick the Beatles.

[poniverus]

grateful dead

[jaycat]

Chuck Berry.

[Gerry Hastie]

The Beatles. No question. Working class and true rebels.

[Jacob]

Neither.

95415

[John Flynn]

I'm a huge fan of both groups. Saw both live, the Beatles in '66, the Stones in '72. It pains me to say that both performances were very disappointing, although that never diminished my love of their albums. I would have to chose the Beatles. I think the Stones are the greater rock band, but the Beatles go beyond being a rock band. I very much enjoy listening to the Stones, but listening to the Beatles still has the power to open my mind and change who I am.

[Charlieshafer]

Seeing the op wanted either the Stones or the Beatles, I'm going with the Stones hands down. Edgier, more interesting through the years, and 30-40 years on, they still have no overly-sweet over-commercialized vibe.

[John Kinn]

The Beatles of course (included the LOVE remix by George Martin and son).Extra: Beatles for mandolin.

[Denny Gies]

To answer the question, the Stones, but I'd prefer Led Zeppelin.

[yankees1]

Would rather have a blonde, brunette or redhead who is singing Beatle songs and she doesn't have to sing very good !

[AlanN]

Beatles were cutesy-wootsie, Stones were scary and gritty. Beatles.

[Bertram Henze]

...I can't think of too many things worse than an exclusive diet of Beatles, or Stones....
...
Just let me bring my mandolin and let me noodle.

What Jeff said.

[Marty Jacobson]

Just ask this guy....

-Je4ngaGhKI

[hank]

Stones

[Raider rider]

Beatles, Like both but over time I think the Stones would finish driving me mad quicker from being on a deserted island. Some say Im already mad and crazy lol.

[Larry S Sherman]

Beatles, although I'm enjoying reading Keith Richards' book (http://www.keithrichards.com/life/) "Life". The audiobook is really great (Johnny Depp and Joe Hurley reading).

The Beatles are a well that never runs dry.

Larry

[yankees1]

I'm a huge fan of both groups. Saw both live, the Beatles in '66, the Stones in '72. It pains me to say that both performances were very disappointing, although that never diminished my love of their albums. I would have to chose the Beatles. I think the Stones are the greater rock band, but the Beatles go beyond being a rock band. I very much enjoy listening to the Stones, but listening to the Beatles still has the power to open my mind and change who I am. And besides----Paul does play some mandolin !

[mandroid]

My buds in HS (65~66) had a early Stones cover band, they called the Warlocks..

[onassis]

The Mick Taylor era alone is reason enough for me to choose the Stones. Heck, Exile... is about reason enough.

[Mandolin Mick]

What a choice for a guy who played professionally in Beatles and Stones tribute bands!

Musically, I'd have to go with the Beatles, the only band to ever conquer the mainstream, yet retained an underground following ... think about it ...

[shortymack]

Name a Beetles or Stones song with mando in it then Ill tell you which one.

[mandolirius]

Could I just take a couple of Bill Monroe records instead?

[Glassweb]

Name a Beetles or Stones song with mando in it then Ill tell you which one.

They didn't write it, but on the Stones cover of Robert Johnson's "Love In Vain" Ry Cooder plays an unforgettable mandolin break that probably is one of the reasons I started playing mandolin.

[Glassweb]

Could I just take a couple of Bill Monroe records instead?

Sorry man, but no! It's Stones or Beatles. Not Jethro Tull, not Beethoven, not the Dead (all of whom I love)... the choice is The Beatles or the Rolling Stones. Jeez... you folks should be politicians... just answer the question! :grin:

[Elliot Luber]

I love both in moderation, but on a dessert island with 24x7 Stones, I'd probably end it. Beatles for sure.

[shortymack]

Hey thanks for pointing out that mando solo on love in vain, but.....I pick the beatles on songwriting alone. Plus no chicken dances.

[rb3868]

I love the Beatles, but their mega-fans annoy the heck out of me. They are the only band that virtually every mega-fan I've met refuses to admit recorded some outright crap - lyrics that were doggerel, music that was purely self-indulgent, songs that were just trite. (my favorites are Revolver and Rubber Soul). I remember mega-stones fans saying "Sucking in the Seventies" was the most appropriately named retrospective ever, and Zep fans saying "In Through The Out Door" was crap (I disagree with the later - and I think it may be the only Zep album without a track for which they faced a plagiarism lawsuit). I can't think of any act - solo or group - whose music I think hits 100 % of the time. Or painters, actors, sculptors, authors, etc. etc. Of course, I also freely admit to quite liking things I know are crap. It's what makes the world fun

[Jim]

I mentioned earlier just shoot me if I were to be forced to listen to only the Stones or the Beatles. I love the Idea of being stuck on a desert Island and just my mandolin would be fine. However, though I have liked a few songs by both the beatles & the Stones , I could be happy if I never heard a song by either of them again. It's not that they're bad, i've just heard the whole catalog way too much. As with many others , any one artist or group or genre would make me crazy (crazier?) fast.

[chasray]

Perhaps you could arrange to join Glenn Gould on his Desert island with Petula Clark.

So Petula Clark wins grammy in 1965 for "Best Rock and Roll Song". Folks...some things ain't right.

[EdHanrahan]

Big fan of both, but...

Would folks be offended if I chose Ian & Sylvia?? Of course, I must include Ian's later (solo w/band) cowboy-oriented stuff. An added bonus would be the fair amount of mandolin across that entire 4 or 5 decades of music!

[Jim Ferguson]

No doubt in my mind, no question about it..........easiest decision for me THE BEATLES!!!!!!! The most influential rock 'n roll band of all time!!!!!!
Peace,

[SternART]

Just saw a great Stones 50th Anniversary documentary on HBO.

[greg_tsam]

Just let me bring my mandolin and let me noodle.

And a lifetime supply of strings?

[Mandobart]

Stones. That is all.

[Bertram Henze]

Just let me bring my mandolin and let me noodle.
And a lifetime supply of strings?

The OP assumes a lifetime supply of electric power. With that, a string factory is just one small step. Without that, you can look at your Beatles/Stones record covers until the sun has bleached them beyond recognition.

http://www.m945.de/data/uddir/images/view_7_work_picture_copy_26865_jpg.jpg

[Bradley]

Beatles or the Stones.....I prefer jumping in the ocean.

[lonewolf]

You can't be more rebellious than the Stones, and not be incarcerated for life! Definitely the Stones especially in the early days when the blues were still so much in their work. I sold Richards that black Telecaster custom, that he played for many years in the "70's. They were super cool.
Gene Warner
retired repairman

[OldSausage]

The OP assumes a lifetime supply of electric power. With that, a string factory is just one small step. Without that, you can look at your Beatles/Stones record covers until the sun has bleached them beyond recognition.

http://www.m945.de/data/uddir/images/view_7_work_picture_copy_26865_jpg.jpg

I think the desert island scenario usually assumes either a wind-up gramophone or solar power.

[JEStanek]

I always viewed it as a rhetorical question not a real one. If I can only have 5 things on a desert island, I'll pick something other than CDs.

Jamie

[greg_tsam]

I always viewed it as a rhetorical question not a real one. If I can only have 5 things on a desert island, I'll pick something other than CDs.

Jamie

In that case I'll pick a fully loaded and stocked ocean cruiser, a GPS and 3 hot playmates who are drama free.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Although i like both bands,it would have to be the Beatles.I'd also like the recordings made by John Lennon after the Beatles split.
The Beatles composed several of the most played & loved songs 'ever' in world music,songs which are regarded as 'classics' & which have been recorded by 100's of other artistes.Strangely,i love the songs composed by Lennon & McCartney 'together',but although i love John Lennon's 'solo' songs,ive never liked anything at all by Paul McCartney. I wonder if JL was maybe responsible for more than his 50% in the song writing ???. When i hear a song such as 'Woman' by JL,it could have been a Beatles 'single' any day of the week.
'For me', JL was the genius behind the Beatles,& let's not forget the beautiful music composed by George Harrison,
Ivan;)

[farmerjones]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Rolling Stones.
i can almost ignore Mick. The Delta Blues come through Keef like no other.

Yes, there was a Skiffle band in Liverpool. They played to get the girls. But i never heard the Fab Four channeling Robert Johnson or Muddy Waters, like Keef.

I appreciate the orchestration of the Beatles, but the opening riff of Honky Tonk Women still grabs and takes hold of me.

[Bertram Henze]

Caution: Coming-out coming:

If I were forced to live with the music of my youth for the rest of my life, I'd take my old records of Genesis, Jethro Tull and - yes - Focus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4ouPGGLI6Q)! :cool:

[hank]

This thread reminds me of sandwiches again and how few people can just answer the OP's question as asked. The choice is one of two but you would never know it from the responses.

[journeybear]

Indeed. My first reaction was, "The Kinks!" No, actually, my first reaction was, "Eh." But now that I think about it, before I get to my final answer, I would say leave me on a desert island with an endless supply of food and water and a way to access the entire Grateful Dead archives. Listening to the scope of their repertoire, including covers, and the evolution of their music, would be a fascinating and time-devouring enterprise. It would take the rest of my life to deal with all that. And of course, a mandolin would be necessary, for my own thoughts and musical expression.

But to the matter at hand - the Beatles. No question. Again, the scope of their musical output is so much more far-reaching than anyone else's. Also, they have four singers, rather than The Stones' two. And before anyone starts running down Ringo's voice, I'm here to say he is still a better singer than Keith. :disbelief: So there! The Stones might be preferable in some situations, like dancing, but since a dance partner wasn't part of the deal ... But it hardly matters. I've listened to them spo much most of their songs are virually memorized. But yeah, to be able to relax and listen to anything of theirs any time I want, under the stars at night or in the shade during the day, with the warm breezes blowing, the waves gently whispering on the sand, the trilling of birds in the distance ... doesn't sound like such a bad way to spend the rest of my days, until the world ends ... :whistling:

[Bertram Henze]

In that case I'll pick a fully loaded and stocked ocean cruiser, a GPS and 3 hot playmates who are drama free.

You are supposed to choose music. Maybe we can find a compromise for the one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHsx1cvACkY) and the other (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIXqpva7qdg). Now all you need is that GPS...

[gauze]

stones, not a beatles fan (or the stones after like 72).

[mandroid]

Stones seem to be the survivors.. though the should not have , given the rich rock star life style.

[jaycat]

I must say, this thread really tickles me. It's really a reprise of an ongoing discussion many of us were engaged in 45 years or so ago. Or taking it back a bit further, "who's better -- the Beatles or the Dave Clark Five (or Gerry and the Pacemakers)?" . . . yes those questions were actually raised around 1964 or so.

Don't know the OP's age but I'm just glad the music of our youth is still eliciting strong opinions. Ideally, I think, you would want to create a conglomerate Stones/Beatles playlist for your desert island. I could live without Love Me Do but not without In My Life. Similarly, I could easily forgo Miss You but not Lady Jane.

I will note that nothing was the same after Brian died . . .who knows what might have been? Perhaps this discussion would have been a moot point.

[journeybear]

Perhaps this discussion would have been a moot point.

Perhaps it would? You mean it isn't and hasn't been from the start? :)) :)) :))

[Rob Meldrum]

The Beatles. Every album showed growth/change/new musical ideas. But the older stuff still has its own wonderful merits. As Brian Wilson (of the Beach Boys) noted, they were the first band to put out records where every song on the album was great. Most bands had two singles and a lot of filler per album. IMHO, Lennon and McCartney together were much better than either without the other.

Robster

[mandolirius]

This thread reminds me of sandwiches again and how few people can just answer the OP's question as asked. The choice is one of two but you would never know it from the responses.

Oh come on! The thread is obviously light-hearted and playful by its very nature. It practically invites capricious responses.

You really want pages and pages of people going "Stones" "Beatles" "Stones" "Beatles"?

[rbrazz]

I listened to the Beatles in the 60s and the Stones when I was in Viet Nam and smoking pot and shooting a m 60. The Beatles fit the 60s and peace and love and the Stones fit war. I still listen to the Stones and play some of their songs. I don't play any Beatle songs. I don't have any of eithers cds or tapes or records. I like the music of now and live now. I do have some Stones songs on itunes.

[Charlieshafer]

Oh come on! The thread is obviously light-hearted and playful by its very nature. It practically invites capricious responses.

You really want pages and pages of people going "Stones" "Beatles" "Stones" "Beatles"?

Right! Which is exactly why Herman's Hermits were better than the Lovin' Spoonful. And no one was better than Napolean XVI, or whatever he called himself. Who can forget "They're here they are they are they are they're here they really are.."

[journeybear]

You really want pages and pages of people going "Stones" "Beatles" "Stones" "Beatles"?

No. I want pages and pages of people going "Beatles" "Beatles" "Stones" "Beatles" "Beatles" "Stones" etc. A 2:1 ratio would be OK with me. :)

I can't really imagine what it must have been like in Britain at the time. Here in the US there was much talk about "The British Invasion," as suddenly a bunch of British bands flooded the airwaves in the wake of The Beatles. The Rolling Stones were arguably the best of these, and proved to be the longest-lasting as well. But there were so many of them: The Dave Clark Five, The Searchers, The Animals, The Kinks, The Who, The Yardbirds, The Zombies, The Hollies, Gerry And The Pacemakers, Freddie And The Dreamers, Wayne Fontana And The Mindbenders, Herman's Hermits, Manfred Mann, even duos like Peter and Gordon and Chad and Jeremy, and solo acts like Donovan, Petula Clark, and Dusty Springfield. So many. So many I may be mixing together acts from the First British Invasion (1964) with the Second British Invasion (1965), though there was surely overlap. The real discussion at the time was "who's better, The Beatles or The Dave Clark Five" - they were The Fab Four's biggest competitors until The Stones' massive hit "Satisfaction" in 1965. But The Beatles were always ahead musically, in terms of innovation, with the possible exception of The Yardbirds, who were nearly avant-garde. I mean, "Rubber Soul" was 1965, miles ahead of everything that had come before. These were heady times, indeed. And while some of all that does seem dated, a lot of it is still very entertaining, even all these decades later. And The Beatles' recorded output was, and is still, nearly consistently high quality. In terms of songwriting, arrangements, performance, and production, their recordings were examplars of craftsmanship, and provided and still provide much rewarding listening.

[Bertram Henze]

...there were so many of them: The Dave Clark Five, The Searchers, The Animals, The Kinks, The Who, The Yardbirds, The Zombies, The Hollies, Gerry And The Pacemakers, Freddie And The Dreamers, Wayne Fontana And The Mindbenders, Herman's Hermits, Manfred Mann, even duos like Peter and Gordon and Chad and Jeremy, and solo acts like Donovan, Petula Clark, and Dusty Springfield.

You forgot "Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich"

[journeybear]

No, I ignored them. ;)

But seriously, there was nothing like this before, as far as I know. Similar flurries pf activity have followed - psychedelic bands, Southern rock, Seattle/grunge - when all it seemed a band had to do was be in the right place at the right time sounding more or less right and it would get signed, as record companies didn't want to miss out on signing the Next Big Whatever. These sure have made for some memorable music, as well as a lot of good laughs and head-scratchers. Fun stuff, this music biz!

[jaycat]

. . . The Beatles' recorded output was, and is still, nearly consistently high quality. In terms of songwriting . . .

Love, love me do
You know I love you
I'll always be true
So please, love me do.

[doc holiday]

The Stones....as said the're edgier rather than saccharine....but to be truthful it would be a sad desert island experience. I would by far prefer Bill Monroe or Django Reinhardt & I do applaud the poster who would choose deafness..Merry Christmas. And Glenn Gould, yes I could get by on the Goldberg Variations.

[Mandolin Mick]

Jaycat,

You're picking a song Paul wrote when he was 16 ... although that's better than any other 16 year old I know! :)

[journeybear]

BTW & FWIW: One of my area PBS stations is running "Magical Mystery Tour" and also a doc about the making of it, tonight as a Great Performances double feature. I recall seeing MMT when it was first released, and it was about as trippy as any cinematic esxperience I've encountered. Which is not to say it's great cinema, but it sure was pretty out-there. It's no "Rolling Stones Rock And Roll Circus," but it's entertaining in its own wacky way. Hopefully this will be airing in your area too.


Love, love me do
You know I love you
I'll always be true
So please, love me do.

Yep. Says it all, in just a few carefully selected, nearly minimalist words. Thanks for proving my point. ;)

[jaycat]

Jaycat,

You're picking a song Paul wrote when he was 16 ... although that's better than any other 16 year old I know! :)

Well, I wasn't aware of that! Of course, one mustn't necessarily record everything one wrote when they were a teen.

And just to prove how impartial I am (yeah, right) I listened to In My Life a couple of times today. In my opinion that song really does "Say it all, in just a few carefully selected, nearly minimalist words." (to quote J.Bear). I'd stack that one up against anything by Cole Porter or George Gershwin.

[issuenumber1]

They didn't write it, but on the Stones cover of Robert Johnson's "Love In Vain" Ry Cooder plays an unforgettable mandolin break that probably is one of the reasons I started playing mandolin.

Just saw this the other night; no noted source for it, but it does come from "The most complete Ry Cooder discography in the Universe":

<http://www.ryland-cooder.com/BeggarsBanquet.html>

"Factory Girl"

The most countrified number on Beggars Banquet introduces an instrument wholly new to the Stones' repertory, the mandolin, as played by Ry Cooder. By the time these sessions were done, Cooder had been offered the chance to join the group as Brian Jones's replacement. He turned it down, of course, preferring instead to make his way as a solo act in his own image. (Emphasis mine.)

[journeybear]

OK - A quick check at the wiki page showed no such credit, so you know what that means. Wrong. That means, I added it. ;) They have Ric Grech for the fiddle credit on the song, too - the bass player for Family and Blind Faith - not Byron Berline, who played on the countrified version of "Honky Tonk Women" on the next album, "Let It Bleed." I'm willing to believe that was Ry; not willing to dispute the fiddle credit.

Now, having been reminded of this song, I have to amend my previous statements concerning the first time I heard a mandolin, especially in a rock context. Of course I heard this, and the album was released half a year after I got my first mandolin, so it should have registered. Somehow it didn't not to the extent that the mandolin work on "Love In Vain" did. I guess that is why I have long cited that in such discussions.

I have a hard time believing Ry was a serious candidate for replacing Brian Jones. His tastes hardly seem compatible, though the glimmer twins may well have wanted more from him. Providing a track to one song on three consecutive albums is a nice but not necessary contribution. Whoever wrote that on that site may well know more about this than any of us do, but in any event, it didn't happen. Mick Taylor turned in some fine guitar work much more in keeping with the classic Stones persona, indeed, helping to create much to the Stones' creative peak stretch. But still ... isn't it pretty to think so?

[Grampymando]

I'll take Mary Ann, thanks. ;)

[Charlieshafer]

I think they were searching for a while for potential replacements. It's worth remembering that Jones was useless for a while, thanks to drug addiction, and the Stones didn't count on him for much of anything for at least a year.

[Mandolin Mick]

I know that Jimmy Page, who was in the Yardbirds at the time, was being tossed around as a replacement as far back as `65. Jones would be "missing" and then show up. He missed the gig here in Milwaukee in '65 and they would perform as a 3 piece behind Jagger when that would happen. Wyman says that it was part of a condition that Jones had, who was a bit of hypochondriac. He would miss a lot of the sessions with a "doctor's excuse" and have the Stones' personal assistant call Richards.