The debate has been going on for decades. Which band is better? The Beatles, with their 4 part harmonies, ability to write some of the most covered songs of the Rock and Roll era and a wizard of a record producer and arranger in George Martin? Or is it The Rolling Stones, with their refusal to compromise when it came to their Blues roots, having one of the greatest frontman in music history in Mick Jagger or the fact that they are still together after more than 50 years? No one can come to an agreement on this. And so the debate goes on. I’m going to attempt to shed some light on this topic by offering up some observations I have made over the last 55 years regarding the continuing battle of Beatles vs Stones. Maybe by the end we will have a better idea of who is King...

Origins

     When discussing anything regarding Beatles vs Stones, one thing has to be understood that is quite often overlooked. The 2 bands came from areas of England that couldn’t have been more different. The most interesting thing about this is that the type of music each band produced was in direct contrast to the culture of the town each originated in. The Beatles began in Liverpool, a Liverpool in the 1960smajor English port city and a center of industry. Over its history it was a handler of general cargo, freight and raw materials such as coal and cotton. It was also involved in the Atlantic slave trade and In the 19th century, was a major port of departure for Irish and English emigrants to North America. Truly a blue collar worker’s town.

     London, however, was just the opposite. It was, and still, is the largest and most populated city in all of England. As such it was a center of commerce, finance, the arts,  the arts, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, professional services, research and development, tourism and transportation. It was truly a world class city. Mick Jagger had been childhood friends when they were young. But Richards’ family had moved him from Dartford, Kent, the town Jagger and he lived in, when he was still a child. It wasn’t until years later that he ran into Jagger again on a train platform in London where Jagger was studying at the London School of Economics. The rest is, as they say, history.London in the 1960s

   The contrasts between the 2 cities are unmistakeable. One was cosmopolitan. The other, blue collar. One was industrial. The other, devoted to the arts and entertainment. And one was a port city while the other was heavily industrial. You would think that the Stones, having originated in London, would be the band that took chances artistically and attempted to blaze new trails musically and that the Beatles, having come from a working class city, would have been the band to embrace a more basic form of music like the Blues. Well, as history has proven, that wasn’t the case.

Careers

     The Beatles were always experimenting and innovating. Their songwriting skills developed very quickly and, along with them, so did their skills in the studio. This of course had a great deal to do with their genius producer George Martin. He mentored and guided them along the way and, even though they disagreed with him at times, they trusted his instincts and judgement. As a result, each album got better and better instrumentally, techinically and from a songwriting aspect. It got to the point that the band retired from touring in 1966 to devote all of their time to just recording. This was a great decision in hindsight as they produced some of their best music of their career during this period. Most notably Sgt. Peppr's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

The Beatles in the Early Days

     The Stones, on the other hand, devoted most of their time to performing. Early on, they did mostly covers of hits by black Blues and R&B artists from America. This built a following for them, but soon their fan base and management were demanding original material. In the beginning, songwriting did not come as easily to them as it did for the Beatles. As a matter of fact, their manager at the time, Andrew Loog Oldham, described their early songwriting attempts as “soppy and imitative". It was quite a while before they had their first original hit. But once they had that first self-penned hit, they never looked back.

The Stones in the Early Days

Image

     In addition to hit songs and sold out concerts, one thing that has to be considered in this discussion is image. Each band had its own unique persona that influenced the way they dressed, how they spoke and even their songwriting and recording style.

     The early Beatle image was carefully crafted by their manager Brian Epstein. He had them all get indentical haircuts, thus giving rise to the nickname “mop top”, and dressed them in matching outfits. While being interviewed they were mostly prim and proper and always had a quip or two but were never rude or snarky. Their songwriting, quite often, was based on the universal themes of love, peace and hope. This led to experimentation in the studio. They used the techniques they learned in the studio to make their songs even more exciting and enjoyable. All of which culminated in their masterpiece “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”.

     The Rolling Stones also had their own unique style. Where the Beatles were clean cut, wore matching outfits and were very clean looking, The Stones had longer hair, wore mismatched clothing and appeared to be unclean. This was all a calculated move by their manager Andrew loog Oldham who sought to make the band “a raunchy, gamy, unpredictable bunch of undesirables" and to "establish that the Stones were threatening, uncouth and animalistic". While being interviewed, the members of the Stones quite often seemed distracted and bored. They were even borderline rude at times, thus feeding into their bad boy image. Their songs mostly dealt with themes of unfulfillment (I Can’t Get No Satisfaction), drug use (Mother’s Little Helper) and sexual promiscuity (Let’s Spend The Night Together) thus leading to the question “Would you let your daughter date a Rolling Stone?” The production quality in the studio was very basic and stripped down. Ironically, it was this bare bones quality that led to their masterpiece “Exile On Main St.”.

Legacy

     The Beatles changed the way people listened to music and the role they allowed it to have in their lives. In 1968 the program director of WABC in New York forbade his disc jockeys from playing any pre-Beatles music, thus drawing the line at the time for what would be considered oldies. The band were pioneers of music videos and were innovators of the album as an art form rather than a means of just promoting and selling a few singles. To mention the areas on which the Beatles had an influence would take all day. But, suffice it to say, their influence in many areas of popular culture is still felt more than 50 years after they broke up. To this day they are the best selling band in history with estimated sales of over 800 million physical and digital albums worldwide and have had more number-one albums on the British charts and sold more singles in the UK than any other act. In addition, they are also the best selling music artists in the US with 178 million certified units and hold the record for most number one hits on the Billboard Hot 100 with 20.

     Although the Stones had an influence on music and popular culture, it doesn't seem to have been as great as that of the Beatles. Sure, there hits are staples on most Classic Rock radio stations, and they still make the news from time to time. But as far as popular culture and music are concerned, they haven't had as lasting an impact as the Beatles have. That being said, they still have a legacy that is not to be forgotten or minimized. There are tons of bands that can only hope and pray that they will have the legacy that the Stones enjoy today. Their estimated record sales are over 250 million copies and have released 30 studio albums and 23 live albums. 1969's "Let it Bleed"  was their first of five consecutive No. 1 studio and live albums in the UK 1971's "Sticky Fingers" was the first of eight consecutive No. 1 studio albums in the US. The band ranked 10th on the Billboard Hot 100 All-Time Top Artists chart as of 2008 and celebrated it's 50th anniversary in 2012.

You Decide

     You may be a Beatles fan or you may like the Stones better. It's all about your tastes. I happen to like both bands for different reasons. I like the Beatles for their use of studio techniques, lyrics and chord progressions that were way ahead of their time. And I like the Stones for their raw grit, their Blues and R & B roots and their longevity. Mick Jagger stills sounds as fresh as when he was 22 years old. As does Keith Richards guitar playing. Only time will tell who is better. But one thing will always remain constant in the debate about who is King of Classic Rock: It will always be Beatles vs Stones...