The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones - was it ever really a choice?
The Beatles, an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960. A group of four men who many would say are the most successful musicians to ever have lived. Many of their earlier songs were covers from other musicians, and their later songs, written largely by Lennon-McCartney, are timeless. Many would say that Lennon-McCartney were the greatest writing duo of all time. The group's most famous and most successful lineup consisted of bassist Paul McCartney, guitarist George Harrison, drummer Ringo Starr (born Richard Starkey), and lead-singer/rhythm guitarist John Lennon.
The Rolling Stones, are an English rock band, still around today. They were formed in London in 1962, and their first and most famous line-up consisted of guitarist Keith Richards, vocalist Mick Jagger, drummer Charlie Watts, guitarist Brian Jones (who sadly passed away in 1969), bass guitarist Bill Wyman (who left the band in 1993). Since 1975, Ronnie Wood has been playing with the band, on saxophone and guitar.
The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are often considered by fans to be two separate camps. Contrary to popular belief, the two bands weren't rivals. They never hated each other. In fact, John Lennon had a close friendship with both Brian Jones and Keith Richards, as touched on in Richards' autobiography, 'Life'. But the age-old question has always been, 'the Stones or the Beatles?'
However, I don't think that there was ever a choice. I believe that you're one or the other. There is no way that one can limit themselves to the likes of 'She Loves You', or 'Jumpin' Jack Flash', you have to enjoy both bands, but everybody has a clear favourite. They're both amazing bands, and both changed the face of music - and the world - forever. Yes, you're allowed to like one band more, but you're not exclusively allowed to like only that band. And so I am writing this, hoping to finally enlighten some who would pose the question, and to spur on those who would argue against it.
When posing this question, 'Beatles or Stones?', one must take into account that The Beatles were considered by many to be a pop band, whereas The Rolling Stones were thought to be a rock band in comparison. This fact in itself implies that the two bands cannot be compared. They don't play the same genre of music - that's like asking somebody "Shawn Mendes or Beethoven?" It just doesn't make sense. Furthermore, The Beatles were innovators. Many music historians and fans would argue that John, Paul, George and Ringo walked so that everybody else - even The Stones - could run. One might even say that without The Beatles, there wouldn't be The Stones. In fact, Lennon and McCartney wrote The Stones' first top twenty hit, 'I Wanna Be Your Man', later releasing it on their 'With The Beatles' album in 1963. There is very clear evidence that The Beatles came first; notwithstanding the fact that the band started two years before The Rolling Stones. For example, each band had a drug which everybody associates with their 'drug phase'. For The Beatles, it was 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band', released May 1967. Similarly, The Rolling Stones had 'Their Majesties Request', which was released in December of the same year. Arguably, these time frames are so close that it is difficult to say that John, Paul, George and Ringo had the cutting edge here, but the release dates don't lie. The Beatles got there first, with The Stones recording their drug-fuelled album between February and October of that year.
On the other hand, however, many would point out that The Rolling Stones have achieved so much since 1970, when The Beatles broke up, that the question 'Beatles or Stones?' is no longer relevant, and so doesn't have an answer. The Rolling Stones have achieved so much in the fifty years that they have surely surpassed their 'rivals'... since 1963, The Beatles have sold around 183 million records... and The Stones have sold around 66.5 million. The Beatles, despite not having been together for fifty years, have still sold nearly three times as many records as The Rolling Stones - that ought to count for something, right? Touring for nearly sixty years, many would also argue that The Stones are the better band because they're more collaborative... but I would say that the way The Beatles went out was more romantic. Like Queen, they've become frozen in time, remembered as four young lads from Liverpool who made it big and changed the world. Furthermore, The Stones branched out in terms of music genres, including reggae, and disco, and so because they managed to think outside of the box, many would argue that they are more successful, and therefore the right answer to the question 'Beatles or Stones?' However, the counterargument to that point is that The Beatles never had the chance to branch out - they broke up before they could - and if they had reformed, what then? What songs might have been stolen from us on 8th December 1980 by one Mark David Chapman?
There is, as I have tried to explain to you, no right answer to this question that shouldn't even be a question... but everybody undeniably has one. I know that I do. Sorry Glimmer Twins, but I'm a Lennon-McCartney girl, through and through.
But I will leave you with these thoughts; is it better to keep going into your sixties, even seventies, or is it better - more romantic, even - to be frozen in time in the hearts of millions of teenage girls who have long since grown up and had their own families? Is it more impressive to keep churning out music, or is it more impressive to stay relevant, as The Beatles have continued to do for the past fifty years? And is there really even an argument? The Beatles were a vocalist band because, at one point, each member sang lead on a song. The Rolling Stones are a musician band, though Keith Richards has been known to sing lead on a few songs. Which one requires more talent? Does it matter?
The Beatles or The Rolling Stones - was it ever really a choice?