Head To Head2: Beatles vs. Rolling Stones

[winston]

What I liked about this period in musical history is that the Beatles and The Stones finally summed up on record what was being played in the clubs. It took the establishment (read record labels and the media) a long time to recognise that a fundamental change had occurred in terms of what people were listening to.

Established artists like Tommy Steele, Frank Ifield, Adam Faith and Cliff Richard quickly became passe. In short they did not play or fit into the scene where we went to hear fresh new music. Although we did not realise it at the time, we were in fact were listening to bands that were creating a whole new genre.

[fireglo]

I tend to like anything by the Beatles, but usually don't like the Rolling Stones.

[admin]

Brian: An excellent observation.

Once the record companies woke up to the sound that their consumers were endorsing, they never looked back. When all else fails, it never hurts to ask people what they like or dislike. One may learn something.

I still grin at Decca's bold statement about guitar groups being "out" in reference to The Beatles. A wake up call like no other.

[admin]

Timothy: Your comment is at the heart of trying to understand the appeal of the Beatles and Rolling Stones for different groups of fans.

I am hoping that those from the UK, now or then, will be able to offer their views on this matter. There is certainly a strong polarization when it comes to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. This difference, I would argue transcends the sixties and is still seen in newer audiences who are introduced to the early music of both groups for the first time.

What is it about human nature that has us attracted to one over the other. What is beneath the surface of this preference? Did their managers deliberately create this competition knowing the nature of pitting one group against another? Is this about the rivalry of the North versus the South of England, the more isolated versus the cosmopolitan, the rock and roll versus the blues.

Is there something inherent in our perception of music that will not allow us to embrace, even in part, what is different, novel or unusual? I would appreciate your thoughts.

[tamborineman]

Roy, I agree about There's a Place, a simple song that just works. I here a Lennon influence especially in the 'in my mind there's no sorrow' part.
I voted for Little child, I have no defence. I like the early Stones but some of it is just to crude and depressing, some of it was redeemed by an interesting guitar lick,i.e. The Last Time.

[fireglo]

As a kid, the Beatles seemed more friendly and approachable. The Rolling Stones seemed more edgy and rough to me, and that just wasn't appealing. Of course to some people, that is what made the Rolling Stones cool.

It wasn't just their appearance that influenced my choice. I really liked the Beatles music. I still do!

[shamustwin]

The very early Stones records just didn't sound good to me. Previous to the The Beatles, I bought Jan And Dean and Beach Boy records. Well produced records. The Beatles' first American release on VeeJay, Introducing the Beatles, sounded rougher, live, but not amateurish.

Early Stones (and a number of early Brit Invasion records) had an unfinished feel to them, to my ears. I appreciated the excitment of the new wave, but on many pre-Satisfaction songs, they sounded sloppy, not in a good "capture the moment" way.

This comes into play when comparing these two songs. Though neither, I feel, are very good songwriting wise, the playing, harmonies and production on Little Child kicks Stones' booty.

Peter, your harping pun was excellent, though I'm still trying to decode that elevated neurotransmitter thingy!