The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?
Originally posted on 1/27/15.
* The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?
Recent e-mail from reader Jay Tepper.
Hey Jeff,
I just turned 70 my wife is 68. We moved to Tamarac from Princeton, New Jersey 7 months ago. So far so good, we really enjoy the south Florida easy going lifestyle.
We came across your site purely by accident. We had typed in Hungarian food in Tamarac on Google and your site popped up.
We really enjoy your site. I wanted to mention that we tried your Uncle Lui’s pick and it was fabulous. We also have been to Char Hut on your say so and that was another winner.
Just wanted to tell you to keep up the great work and and while I am here, which group was better the Stones or the Beatles?
___
Jay Tepper:
Glad that you and your wife found Jeff Eats and that you are enjoying what it has to say.
On The Rolling Stones v. The Beatles, that’s purely a subjective call. Personally, I’m thinking The Beatles… What I am sure of-is that The Beatles are far more famous.
The proof is in the pudding.
Quickly tell me the names of The Beatles on “She Loves You”…now just as quickly, tell me the names of The Rolling Stones on “Satisfaction.”
See what I mean?
Thanks for reading…
Most people only know Jagger and Richards.
Everybody knows John, Paul, George and Ringo.
There were originally 5 Rolling Stones. There are now only 4 Rolling Stones. Of that 4 only 3 are original Jagger, Watts, Richards. Most people have no idea as to who The Stones have done replacements with. On the other hand, The Beatles are the Beatles, John, Paul, George and Ringo.,
Your forgetting Ronnie Wood. 1st played with the band in 1975.
Wood was not an original member.
Original 5, Jagger, Richards, Jones, Watts, Wyman.
The Rolling Stones are an English rock band formed in London in 1962. The first settled line-up consisted of Brian Jones (guitar, harmonica), Ian Stewart (piano), Mick Jagger (lead vocals, harmonica), Keith Richards (guitar), Bill Wyman (bass) and Charlie Watts (drums). Jones left the band less than a month prior to his death in 1969, having already been replaced by Mick Taylor, who left in 1975.
All 4 Beatles after the breakup had successful solo careers.
Without Jagger the remaining Stones are worthless.
The Beatles are so far superior that to even question where The Stones are in comparison is an absolute joke.
I love The Beatles. The Stones meh.
Popculture.com
Paul McCartney Has Fighting Words for the Rolling Stones
By STEPHEN ANDREW – October 13, 2021 03:51 pm EDT
0
✖
Paul McCartney recently dropped what many might see as fighting words for the Rolling Stones, referring to the rockers as a “blues cover band.” While speaking to The New Yorker, in a recent interview, The Beatles member shared his thoughts on the Rolling Stones. “I’m not sure I should say it, but they’re a blues cover band, that’s sort of what the Stones are,” he said. McCartney went on to comment on a more specific musical difference between his defunct group and the Stones, saying, “I think our net was cast a bit wider than theirs.”
Notably, Rolling Stones frontman Mick Jagger previously made some shady comments about The Beatles, during a 2020 interview. While appearing on Zane Lowe’s Apple Music show, Jagger addressed comparisons between the two groups by saying, “One band is unbelievably luckily still playing in stadiums, and then the other band doesn’t exist.” This comment came after McCartney appeared on The Howard Stern Show and boldly stated that “the Beatles were better” than the Rolling Stones.
McCartney has been opening up quite a bit lately, even recently sharing some previously unknown insight in tot The Beatles’ big break-up back in 1970. “I didn’t instigate the split. That was our Johnny,” McCartney told BBC interviewer John Wilson. “I am not the person who instigated the split.” The Wings frontman continued, “Oh no, no, no. John walked into a room one day and said I am leaving the Beatles. And he said, ‘It’s quite thrilling, it’s rather like a divorce.’ And then we were left to pick up the pieces.”
McCartney went on to share, “The point of it really was that John was making a new life with Yoko [Ono, Lennon’s widow] and he wanted… to lie in bed for a week in Amsterdam for peace. You couldn’t argue with that. It was the most difficult period of my life.” Finally, he added, “This was my band, this was my job, this was my life. I wanted it to continue. I thought we were doing some pretty good stuff – Abbey Road, Let It Be, not bad – and I thought we could continue.”
0
COMMENTS
While The Beatles are not out touring like the Rolling Stones, fans will be excited to know that Disney+ has produced an upcoming three-part documentary on the band, titled The Beatles: Get Back. It will chronical the making of Let It Be — released in 1970 — which had the working title of Get Back. The limited docu-series is said to draw from material originally captured in the 1970 documentary of the album which was filmed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg. The Beatles: Get Back is set to premiere on Disney+ consecutively on Nov. 25, 26, and 27.
Disclosure: PopCulture. is owned by CBS Interactive, a division of ViacomCBS. Sign up for Paramount+ by clicking here.
I see in today’s newspapers that Jagger and McCartney are fighting over which band was a better.
The Beatles had 4 super stars. The Stones were a 1 man show plus a drug addict.
No comparison. The Beatles were the greatest band of all time.
Jagger is delusional.
The Beatles were/are the greatest band ever.
Name The Beatles.
Name The Stones on Satisfaction.
The Beatles were the greatest.
Jagger is a fool.
The Stones were good.
The Beatles were great.
Mick Jagger sang lead on every song.
Without Jagger The Stones were nothing.
The Beatles were the best of all time.
Mick Jagger is absolutely delusional if he really believes that The Stones were better than The Beatles.
The BEATLES were the greatest.
The Stones are a great band.
That said, to put them in the same breath as The Beatles is absurd.
The Beatles were writers, musicians, trend setters.
Mick Jagger is The Stones. John, Paul, George and Ringo were The Beatles.
Mick Jagger has been doing the same crap for over 60 years. Dancing and prancing. If you’ve seen The Stones, you’ve seen the same show that Everyone else has. If for some reason, Richards is allowed to lead, the crowd heads out for a bathroom break.
Now take The Beatles, perfect harmonies, 3 real lead singers and Ringo and a list of songs that unlikeThe Stones’ songs, all different sounding.
The Stones were and are very lucky bar band.
The Beatles were the best.
They were both great. Just like McCartney said. The stones were a blues band. And a great one. The Beatles were also blues band. That also were part everly brothers. Part Beach Boys. Part San Fran airplane. Part Bach with MaCartney’s basslines,Bach trumpet, and classical strings in Penny Lane. Like he said the Beatles had many more influences making their music much more sophisticated. I hate to use the word better but they were. As far as pop rock goes, only the beach boys equalled and bettered the Beatles. And they were Brian Wilson versus all 4 brilliant Beatles and George Martin the greatest producer of pop ever. And Brian was their equal.
The Stones are ok. The Beatles are amazing.
Anyone who thinks that The Rolling Stones are better than The Beatles needs to have their head examined.
Hands down The Beatles.
Look at both groups songs. The Beatles songs cover many styles, While the Stones just have Jagger screaming away. The Beatles were the greatest band of all time.
The Beatles were a great band. The Stones aren’t even close. The Stones have one singer, period. All of The Beatles could sing lead.
Please…The Beatles were the greatest band of all time. The Stones wernt even close.
THE BEATLES.
The Beatles are the greatest band of all time.
When you really stop and think about it, The Stones have a lead singer and that’s it.
Jeff,
Hands down The Beatles.
The Stones are really nothing but Mick Jagger jumping around.
Anyone who thinks that the the Stones are better than The Beatles, doesn’t know squat.
Just look at The Beatles hits compared to The Stones hits. The Beatles have all types of music, while The Stones’ records all sound the same.
Good point. 99% of the readers can’t even name the original Stones’ members. Yet everyone here and their children and grandchildren know John Paul George and Ringo.
Jeff,
The Beatles were much more talented. In addition everyone knows John, George, George and Ringo, but would be hard pressed to name the original Stones.