Head To Head2: Beatles vs. Rolling Stones

[admin]

The Beatles would begin their chart success in December 1962 in the UK, but the British Invasion would not reach the shores of America until early in 1964. The Rolling Stones would climb the charts a year later in December 1963, again in the UK, but it would be November 1964 before time would be on their side in the United States.

These two groups would begin a rivalry that at times seemed as strong a two football clubs with fans around the world waiting for the next release. They did not disappoint. As in the case of waring sports teams, not many fans were supportive of both.

In Head to Head 2: Beatles vs. Rolling Stones, these two groups meet once again with an original composition selected from each of their first LPs. For the Beatles, it is Little Child and for the Rolling Stones it is Tell Me (You're Coming Back).


LITTLE CHILD

From the Beatles 1963 release "With The Beatles" the Fab Four still relied on covers but this trend was soon to change with eight original compositions seen on this album. The fifth song on side one was a curious one in which the Beatles rock and roll music would borrow a "bluesy style" entitled "Little Child." The harmonica, piano, bass and drums eclipse the
guitar playing of George Harrison who is rumoured to be on the track. The song is an up tempo high energy number on 1:42 in length.

For those who have forgotten or never new this number, you can listen to it through you

Little Child


Little child, little child
little child won't you dance with me
I'm so sad and lonely
Baby take a chance with me

Little child, little child
little child won't you dance with me
I'm so sad and lonely
Baby take a chance with me

If you want someone to make you feel so fine
Then we'll have some fun when you're mine
So come on, come on, come on

Little child, little child
little child won't you dance with me
I'm so sad and lonely
Baby take a chance with me, wow

When you're by my side you're the only one
Don't you run and hide just come on, come on
So come on, come on, come on

Little child, little child
little child won't you dance with me
I'm so sad and lonely
Baby take a chance with me oh yeah,
baby take a chance with me oh yeah,
Baby take a chance with me oh yeah


While not weathering the years as successfully as All My Loving and It Won't Be Long, it was a breath of fresh air at the time that was a sweet as the warm winds of any summer vacation.To this day, just as Little Child ends I break into "There were bells on the hill." Unless this happens to you, you were a fan of the Rolling Stones or you grew up after the 1960s.

The importance of relationships during our teen years is underscored in Little Child as we are reminded that life without a partner is a lonely place to be. The risk of relationships is also made apparent as one of the "lonely ones" begs over and over again "Take a chance with me." Fun loving, educational and perhaps autobiographical all at the same time. It would be a number of years before these same fun loving people would ask of " all the lonely people, where do they all belong."

The Beatle's "Little Child" is somewhat surprising with its blue chords and strikes out a bit from the rock tunes we might have expected. Certainly a reminder of their early days in which they repertoire borrowed from the blues.


TELL ME (YOU'RE COMiNG BACK)

Tell Me (You're Coming Back) was written by Jagger and Richards, a full minute longer than Little Child, being 2:48. It appeared on the first LP The Rolling Stones, released in 1964. I believe it to be the first Jagger and Richards composition to be recorded by the Rolling Stones although I defer to the experts in this regard. Suffice it to say that it was one of the earliest original numbers to be on vinyl. This song is somewhat surprising in that it is more in the style of a rock ballad of the day than it is a blues number.You can see and listen to Tell Me on you tube at the following addresses.

Tell Me



Just in passing, the lyrics to Tell Me follow.

I want you back again
I want your love again
I know you find it hard to reason with me
But this time it's different, darling you'll see

You gotta tell me you're coming back to me
You gotta tell me you're coming back to me
You gotta tell me you're coming back to me
You gotta tell me you're coming back to me

You said we're through before
You walked out on me before
I tried to tell you, but you didn't want to know
This time you're different and determined to go

You gotta tell me you're coming back to me
You gotta tell me you're coming back to me
You gotta tell me you're coming back to me
You gotta tell me you're coming back to me

I wait as the days go by
I long for the nights to go by
I hear the knock on my door that never comes
I hear the telephone that hasn't rung

You gotta tell me you're coming back to me
You gotta tell me you're coming back to me
You gotta tell me you're coming back to me
You gotta tell me you're coming back to me

The feel of Tell Me is very different from Little Child. Nonetheless, the theme is highly familiar with another young man pouring his heart out in an attempt to explain his bad manners in a last ditch attempt to win the favour of a partner who has sworn off him for good. Both are trying hard to answer the questions, what were you thinking and what is it about no that you don't understand?

So please take the time to rate these two songs. Which one do you prefer and why? Who was the most persuasive John or Mick. Do either get a second chance?

[phlemmy]

I'd never heard that Beatles song before. Can't say that it did anything for me. It totally signifies what the early Beatles were to me...goofy.

I chose the Stones song although it's not one of my faves of their early era.

[admin]

Sean: You have touched upon the playfulness of The Beatles' music which, I gather, was a shortcoming in their recordings from your point of view. I am not surprised that you have not heard "Little Child" before as it received very little airplay where I grew up. Having said that, few Beatles' fans would not have heard it.

You do strike upon a feature of the Beatles' music, however, that represents what I would consider almost a disconnect or dissociation between the mood created by the lyrics and the affect that stems from the performance. In "Little Child" the party mood of the performance created in part by the melody is inconsistent with the somewhat somber feelings conveyed by the lyrics. An exception to this dissociation is the line "I'm so sad and lonely" which has a harmony created by Paul and John that reflects sadness. Another example of a song in which there is a similar disconnect is that of "Misery" in which the melody and tempo conveys anything but misery. In places, the song is almost joyful.

Unlike "Little Child", Mick Jagger emotes well in "Tell Me" and the melody and his vocal tone is in keeping with the lyric and as such is more convincing that Lennon's somewhat disingenuous sounding tone in "Little Child." The opening riff of the 12 string, the interesting albeit simple drum pattern and even Mick's tambourine offer numerous layers to "Tell Me" in which the mood offers the listener with a sense of desperation of hopelessness that has one rooting for the heartbroken.

I have to give Mick the nod for the more convincing performance here and the somewhat more complex, novel and interesting lyrics of "Tell Me" tip the scales in the direction of the Rolling Stones in this head to head.

[1965]

The Beatles song is goofy and has throwaway lyrics, but it does sound good upon casual listening. While the Stones' song has a bit more meaning to it, it makes 2:48 sound like decades. Its repetitive draginess grates on me, so I'll have to go with Little Child. But as previously stated, neither of these songs are their respective bands' greatest works by any stretch of the imagination.

[kenposurf]

No contest...Tell Me

[winston]

I am in the minority in that I like both bands. In this case my vote went to The Stones. It is a better written song and it is played with conviction. Little Child whilst a nice sounding piece, to me it is incongruent and I would postulate that it likely was just a throw in filler for the album.

[admin]

Wes: Agreed this material is not the best for either group. I chose it as it was original material and it did not chart. It does, nonetheless, give us a window into the groups' early sound and in that respect the samples are fascinating to me. In passing, you raise a most interesting point about the duration of the songs. The Beatles' with the contemporary, under two minute, duration that was the standard of the day in 1963 and the Rolling Stones 1964 standard falling under three minutes. I recall the Animals' "House Of The Rising Sun" being 4:11 and perhaps the longest song I had ever heard at the time. But as for Mick's "apology" you can't rush these tender moments.

Brian: I quite agree that Little Child is quite an interesting melody and reminds me about how many very nice songs that I immediately embraced said so little. McCartney nailed this sentiment with "Silly Love Songs."

A comment made by many Rolling Stones fans of the day was that the music of the Stones was more meaningful and more challenging to play that the more innocent and easily playable material of The Beatles. I always felt that in addition to original material, the Beatles took harmony to a new standard in the early 1960s or at least reminded us of what could be. The Stones, on the otherhand, used their original compositions in a way that was less polished and rough around the edges.

[sowhat]

Well, sorry to say that, but for me it was more like choosing between bad and worse. Stones get my vote — at least, the tune isn't really that bad.

[admin]

Sheena: I cannot tell you the number of melodies that I now enjoy that I did not have time for a few decades ago. It never hurts to have a second listen.

[sowhat]

It's actually after the second listen, Peter. Well, i dunno. While the Stones' song brings up some emotion in me, the Beatles' song leaves me cold and wondering, "Yes, and?.."

[royclough]

Whilst I have to admit to being in The Beatles camp in the 60's and have never really been a Stones fan, Tell Me along with Come On are the two tracks by them I like the most.

That said however, Tell Me, in my view is far better than Little Child as I find it more emotive.

Little Child to me was what is sometimes called a album filler.

I do think though that comparison could be made on a like for like basis.

Tell Me came from The Stones debut album whereas Little Child came from Beatles second album, at least here in UK, may have been different in North America.

So to have a battle of versions say on a like to like basis, how about a comparison between two track taken from the respective debut albums

My choice would be Tell Me for The Stones as I felt it was the best track by far on their debut album.

The choice for Beatles more difficult for me but I was always struck by There's A Place the track is cleverly constructed in my view.

Still sounds good to me 46 years on

[shamustwin]

I think it would be a bit more fair to compare songs from the same year, if not songs released as close together as possible. By the time "Tell Me" was released, the Beatles' songwriting had more than likely progressed.

As far as the songs, from day one I figured "Little Child" to be a weak effort by the fabs, not up to par with many of the songs from the same LP. Sounds like a blatant attempt to write a dance tune, nothing more. "Tell Me" is just overall mediocre, poor playing, singing and production. An attempt at American Soul?

Not a shining example by either. At least the Beatles were more musically proficient, though the Stones' song has a bit more blues cred.

I prefer neither song!

[admin]

Jerry: When attempting a comparative analysis often times the rationale used for selecting material is quite arbitrary and as you have pointed out, a fairer comparison may have been to have choosen songs that were closer together in time. Roy makes much the same critique and I concur with both of you in this regard.

Interesting though, with the Beatles ahead of the game in their song writing some may argue that they should be better in all respects on their second album than the Stones were out of the gate. This was not completely the case and, in part, this is the point. I selected songs that were not hits for either group. Even though we may embrace neither, the analysis is still heuristic in my view. It is of interest to me that the Rolling Stones were ahead of the Beatles in some respects, something I did not see at the time. It was my view that the Stones demonstrated their ability to compete with the Fab Four early one and songs like "Tell Me" were an sample of success yet to come. Should catchy tunes be the single criterion that we use for greatness, complexity of melody and lyric, ability to emote. I don't have the answers to these questions but I will say that in looking at the Stones, retrospectively, they had more strengths than I allowed myself to see at the time.

Roy, choosing the precise track on the debut album for each group might be another way to make a more meaningful comparison. But how were the tracks selected, best first, best last, random? One thing I can argue strongly is that "There's A Place" is still a great number and we are in complete agreement here. Lennon was a great harmony singer and songs like this one bring out the magic.

I find that when I begin to compare any of the Rolling Stones material with that of The Beatles it always raises questions in my mind about what constitutes a successful record and the formula used by both groups in crafting their work. Sometimes less is more and simple chord changes or riffs trump sophisticated scores and studio orchestras.

What I especially enjoyed about your discussion Jerry and Roy is the thought that you have put into it and the recommendations regarding a fairer and hence perhaps more informative comparison of the respective talents of these famous groups. Trying to explain what is at the nexus of fame is often time elusive but that should never stop us from trying.

[shamustwin]

Not to harp on the point, but Tell Me was released as a single, whereas Little Child was (IMO) filler on the second side of an album.

Fun discussion and cool thread.

-edit- looking at the pictures above, was Little Child released as a single at some point? I don't recall that here in the US.

[admin]

Jerry: "Harping" is the stuff from which a detailed analysis is made. Speaking of harping there is quite a bit of it going on in "Little Child."

It is perhaps unfair of me to choose "Tell Me", it being released as a single. At least in the US. To the best of my knowledge, "Little Child" was released only as an EP. I have read that it was released as an EP in Mexico as late as 1974.

"Little Child" is reminiscent of a number of early Beatle tunes that were fun but certainly not going to the "toppermost." In the same league, at least to some extent, I include "Hold Me Tight" and "Not A Second Time." There are, of course, differences but the similarity of sentiment and rhythm is noted and sets the feet in motion, sometimes to change the track.

The music of the Rolling Stones was less predictable and its variability one of the attractions for me. I would argue that fans got comfortable with the Beatles' early music and found deviations from this style discordant, second-rate abrasive or amateurish. The momentum was with the Fab Four and it took a while before the "tides" would be turned. The "grass" is not always greener on another label. The Stones did eventually cross the blood-brain barrier but for the longest time were interpreted by the musical brain of many Beatle fans with a force equal to the resistance of a newly elevated neurotransmitter.