Excerpt from "We All Shine On" by Elliot Mintz: "One time, for instance, I casually mentioned an upcoming booking with Mick Jagger. "Why are you interviewing him?" John asked. [...] for some reason I foolishly blurted out, "Because the Rolling Stones are probably the greatest live touring band in the world." "Isn't that what they used to say about us?" John coolly replied. "But the Beatles aren't touring anymore," I said, stepping on a landmine. "The Beatles as a group don't exist anymore. And the Rolling Stones are as important a presence as anybody in rock 'n' roll." "The Rolling Stones followed us!" John shouted. "Just look at the albums! Their Satanic gobbledygook came right after Sgt. Pepper. We were there first. The only difference is that we got labeled as the mop tops and they were put out there as revolutionaries. Look, Ellie," he went on, "I spent a lot of time with Mick. We palled around in London. We go way back. But the Beatles were the revolutionaries, not the Rolling Pebbles!"
Damn, you said everything that I've been saying all in one video! John, Paul, and George often said that whatever they did, the Stones would repeat it a few months to a year later. John made reference to it in I Dig a Pony, "I roll a stoney, well you can imitate everyone you know." I believe We Love You and Dandelion were supposed to be rather Beatle-esque, both of them featuring John and Paul on background vocals. The Stones even had their ears pressed against the wall when the Beatles were first working on the song Let it Be in early 1969. The Stones quickly recorded Let It Bleed, actually beating the Beatles to the release before Let it Be.
Let it Be was recorded LONG before The Stones released Let it Bleed and was heavily bootlegged before it was finally released as a single, and then an album
I think it's worth noting that all three of the groups you described as "playing around with the psychedelic genre" prior to the Beatles debuted after "Revolver," which also does that. "Tomorrow Never Knows" goes even further than just playing around. This doesn't mean the Beatles were the first, of course, as "Paint It, Black" fits the bill pretty well and came out months earlier, and the Kinks' "See My Friends" and some of the Yardbirds stuff is moving in that direction, even if they're not full-blown psychedelia.
"Tomorrow Never Knows" 1966 was full-on psychedelic track which was before Piper at the Gates of Dawn or any other fully psychedelic track as far as I am aware.
i think the argument for the Stones using the Beatles as a direct influence for Paint It Black is moot, bands were experimenting with Indian influenced music earlier in 1965 the Kinks released See My Friends in July 1965, a song that features Indian-style droning qualities, and the Yardbirds released Heart Full Of Soul even earlier in June, again featuring droning (early takes of the song even featured an actual sitar, but it was deemed to not be pungent enough for the final record) and this isn't even mentioning how other bands like the Byrds (who spent their 1965 UK tour listening to John Coltrane and Ravi Shankar on repeat, later suggesting Shankar to George Harrison) were in the process of recording songs such as Eight Miles High it was more of a general "raga rock" movement than simply the Beatles inspiring everyone else to do it, and Brian Jones, being an eager multi-instrumentalist, seemed to be inspired by the baby steps of the Yardbirds and Kinks to go all in
I won’t disagree that Indian influences were already quite present before, but the timing of it all really is what made me include the example. Even if the Stones had that song ready to be released or had the idea prior to Norwegian Wood, it does not change that the song conveniently came after Norwegian Wood, and wasn’t even included in the UK version of the album (released) about 4 months after Rubber Soul, but in the US version 7 months later (although it was released as a single in May of that same year). So to me it looks like once they saw the success of Norwegian Wood, they decided to put out their own Indian juice
It always seemed to me that The Beatles gave everybody else license to use feedback, exotic instruments (examplified by the sitar) etc. And as always nothing appears out of nowhere so raga rock was going to happen but Norwegian Wood is still the first released pop song with a sitar. The american version of the Help! album also had sitar on there.
Some parts of The Rolling Stones' "Child of the Moon" melody are very, very similar to The Beatles' "Rain". And the words "love me, hold me" repeated in "I'm Free" are most probably a reference to "hold me, love me" in "Eight Days a Week" :)
The one thing the Beatles copied from the Stones was the very first “Paul Is Dead” song. The Stones wrote a song the day he died. The Beatles’ first was around 2-3 weeks later.
I wanted to point out something you said about the Stones copying the Beatles with what they did with “Country Honk” and I feel that some context is necessary. You were critical of the Beatles’ decision to put “Revolution 1” on the album that came out 4 months after the faster, fizzier version of the song had come out. But “Revolution 1” was the first version of the song ! In fact, it was the first recording of the White album sessions. It’s run-out provided the start incidentally, of “Revolution 9.” Anyway, John wanted “Rev 1” out as a single but Paul and George blocked it saying that it was too slow. So John re-recorded it faster and got it out on a single, the ‘B’ side of “Hey Jude.” And for the record they did a similar thing with both “Let it be” and “Get Back,” both of which contain different versions on the album version from that which comes out on the single. And this was years ahead of its time because once we got into the CD age, artists routinely would release alternate versions of songs, years after we’d all become acquainted with the original. The Stones routinely recorded many versions of a song. Most of them we never got to hear. With “Honky Tonk Women,” we did.
And I think for the official promo music videos The Rolling Stones used the same director Michael Lindsay-Hogg after The Beatles did. For example the visuals of "Child of the Moon" video have noticeable "Strawberry Fields Forever" vibes (also the same cinematographer was involved).
It was a bit unfair of John Lennon to have a go at the Stones for copying some of their songs like Norwegian wood for Paint it black and "All you need is love" for "We love you" You could say "Day Tripper" had a Stones guitar sounding riff similar to "The last time" Was Satanic Majesties a Sgt Pepper rip off? Maybe the cover but the songs on Majesties sounded nothing like Sgt Pepper. Maybe copying is the wrong word. Influence is probably better. And I don't want to get into the comparisons of Beggars Banquet and the White album!
Didn’t everyone copy The Beatles 😂 The Fab Four and The Stones were friends off stage so there was no competition really Now the big topic is Satanic Majesty’s ripped off Sgt Pepper isn’t true simply sonically and lyrically don’t match but the respective covers were shot by the same person named Michael Cooper
@@nvm9040 Well you do have a point. However as i said in the vid, there’s a difference between copying or giving a certain sound your own twist, and copying someone else’s ideas for marketing of songwriting practices, that’s just silly
I think you overlook something that was fundamental to the rise of rock and pop during the 1960s. Although you correctly mention ‘influence’ I feel that you dismiss its power and reach. If you look at the way pop and then rock evolved in the ‘60s, there wasn’t really a blueprint for anyone to follow. And so it made abundant sense that artists watched each other and noted what worked, what sold, what was acceptable, how far one could push, what would likely bomb etc. And the simple fact of the matter is that the Beatles were pioneers. They were at the vanguard of many moves and they kicked down doors that enabled so many others to also move the music on. For example, Motown in its various permutations had been releasing singles in the UK for a few years with no effect whatsoever. Then in interviews in the latter part of 1963, the Beatles made it known that they dug Motown music and on their 2nd LP “With The Beatles,” covered three Motown songs….and hey presto, within a year, “Baby Love” by the Supremes was at no.1 in the charts and Motown became one of the dominant musical forces in England during the ‘60s. Or there was the impact of the Beatles on the world of jazz as loads of young Americans were definitely jazzers, but also loved the Beatles…..if one fast-forwards to the mid-60s and beyond, jazz-rock {later mutating into fusion} got going as a partial result of the Beatles and most importantly, their success both artistically and in terms of how much they sold. So what has all this to do with whether or not the Rolling Stones’ copied the Beatles ? Well, for one thing, it provides the context and the backdrop in which the Stones first appeared. The Stones were a blues band and it was the example of Lennon and McCartney as writers {as it was for virtually every artist out of England and many from the USA in that period} that nudged them into writing. They couldn’t spend their entire lives covering old obscure blues tracks. So it made sense that they would look to the Beatles to see what was working, especially as they were being cast as the anti-Beatles. What the Beatles did for all of their contemporaries was something so important ¬> legitimization. They legitimized softer songs, strings, exotic instruments, unusual instruments, inventive album cover art and they especially normalized diversity. And that shouldn’t be overlooked. A folk tune among the rockers, the odd ballad among the louder rock’n’roll pieces, these gradually became passé as the album became the main medium for presenting an artist’s range. Bob Dylan wasn’t really diverse in his music; he was lots of other hugely influential things but when one listens to his great 3 mid-’60s albums that were hugely influential, there isn’t really stylistic diversity there. Not so with the Beatles. That were quite diverse right from the start and that increased particularly from Revolver. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were guys who did not have the years of experience in writing and arranging their own penned songs that John and Paul did. Those 2 had a good 7-year head start and they had George Martin to help them as well as having George Harrison who was quite experimental with things like the 12-string guitar and the sitar. So they had jewels galore at their disposal. The Stones were starting from an altogether disadvantageous position. Yet, they also led the Beatles in some ways, not least lyrically. “Stoned” in 1963, and “Satisfaction” + “Get Off of My Cloud” in ‘65 said things that went further than the Beatles had dared to go until “Rubber Soul” and beyond. The Stones also led the Beatles by recording so much of their music in America and getting for themselves a contract that was so good, it made the Beatles first contract with EMI look like an insult. And the Beatles, after John had participated in the Stones’ TV special, “Rock and Roll Circus,” and seeing the Stones evolve the song “Sympathy For the Devil” in Jean-Luc Godard’s film “One Plus One” went ahead with their own live idea which was initially “Get Back” and later came out as “Let it Be.” And the sound of the Stones’ fuzz guitar on satisfaction directly fed into some of the Beatles late ‘65 and ‘66 guitar tones. Some of the Beatles yearned to be known as bad boys like the Stones but it must also be said that John Lennon in particular felt the Stones copied the Beatles. He felt that “We Love You” {on which he sang backing vocals} was copying “All You Need Is Love” and that “Satanic Majesties” was aping Pepper. Personally, I think he was wrong on that, but John was competitive {which I do like} both within the Beatles and when it came to other artists. I think Keith Richards’ point was more accurate - many of the artists at the time were going through similar things, being exposed to the same kinds of people {Allen Klein, the Maharishi, Michael Cooper, Robert Fraser, Tara Brown, Marianne Faithful, Andrew Loog-Oldham,} and so a certain amount of overlap was inevitable. The Beatles sang on the Stones’ songs, the Stones were on Beatle songs like “Yellow Submarine” and “You Know My Name.” So no, I don’t think the Stones copied the Beatles any more than the Beatles copied anyone else. And if you read David Rowley’s superb book, “Beatles For Sale,” you’ll see that the Beatles cribbed many of their moves from other artists too but refashioned what they acquired in such an idiosyncratic way that it came out as something new. That is pretty much what the Stones did regarding the Beatles.
There is no shame if the Beatles are your role model and you want to do something like them. However, Lennon and McCartney are the best example of how to put together great compositions and a late bloomer like Harrison can certainly help you in the absence of your own inspiration or talent 👍
just off the top of my head: The Beatles and the Stones evolved similarly simply because they lived and recorded in the same era. It was NOT "musical influence" (like the Beatles and the Byrds and the Beach Boys) it was pure influence of the times that they lived in - eg HUNDREDS of bands in LONDON in the 60s were all doing the same thing. Oh and Dylan influenced Harrison... not Lennon :)
satanic majesties wizards cover was heavily influenced by sgt pepper cover beggars banquet cover was a copy of the white album and let it bleed let it be i rest my case
The beggars banquet original cover was rejected by their record company. The newer cover was chosen by the record label, likely to copy the white album. Look up the original beggars banquet cover, its quite good.
@colinhumphreys-t7v "satanic majesties wizards cover was heavily influenced by sgt pepper cover beggars banquet cover was a copy of the white album and let it bleed let it be i rest my case" There's a piece in the bible that says something to the effect that in court, when you hear one side of the argument, it always seems to be the right and only way......until you hear the other side ! i At first glance, the Satanic Majesties cover does seem to ape "Pepper." Until you look at it again. The only things they have in common are the wonderful colourfulness, they were both shot by Michael Cooper and they both name-check each other. There are no characters on the "Satanic" cover. This was the psychedelic era and psychedelic art was beginning to make its presence felt. The Stones cover has more in common with "Disraeli Gears" by Cream than the Pepper cover. ii Beggars Banquet was recorded between March and July of 1968. It was in the can and finished 4 months before the White album was finished _and it had a cover_. It was picture of a graffiti'd toilet wall and Decca didn't like it. They and the Stones fought over the cover for months - the album was due to be released on July 26th '68. In the end the Stones reluctantly gave in and their record company put out a cheap cover to help recoup some of the money wasted by the delay. Nothing to do with the White album. iii Let it be as a song came out in March of 1970 and the album came out in May. Let it Bleed came out the previous year !!! Your case may have rested, but now the defence has been heard, the jury is out deliberating and I hear their lawyers are more than confident of an acquittal ! 😄
The Stones didn't copy verbatim, they copied their ideas and some album concepts morphed into their own style. . Especially during the psychedelic era. But the Beatles did Yesterday wits a string section, so the Rolling Stones come out with a equally great son "As Tears Go By"...with a string section. Hello? Idea for the strings and melancholy song copied here. but not the subject matter or lyrics or exact melody. Sgt Peppers Album? Magical Mystery Tour? Stones come out with Their Satanic Majesties Request." and the were privy to the song Let It Be being recorded by the Beatles before anyone knew in 1969, due to their friendship, so they call their 1969 album Let It Bleed? come on , man...
And they started recording it long before. In fact, during both sessions, the Beatles looked in on the Floyd as both albums overlapped in their recording at EMI's studios.
Great video, brother 🕊A very accurate summary - featuring a lot of truths... and YES, the Stones were clearly influenced by history's greatest rock band or pop group (who were so super-evolutionary) that hundreds of artists have been inspired by many aspects of the way the Fab Four made music, movies, trends, fashion and once again, even history! 🎶🪲🪲🪲🪲
Same opinion. Pepper ranks last in my list, similar to Please Please Me. The Stones, until Majesty, followed up on Beatles trends a lot, but for me their psychedelic songs are much more enjoyable to listen to than many of the Beatles psychedelic phase.
@ I only made my comment regarding my enjoyment in listening to the albums. So as an example, I enjoy listening to Majesty much more than Sgt. Pepper. Or Between The Buttons is equal in enjoyment than Revolver. Pepper is the historical much more important album for sure. But in my personal opinion musical weaker.
The history of Rolling Stones and George Harrison, in 60's ... always in a creative delay of, at least, 2 years, to Lennon & McCartney ...simple like that
Simple answer, no! Satanic Majesties bears little resemblance to Sgt Peppers. Not their best, but contains some great songs: We Love You, 10,000 miles etc. The Stones unique take on psych. And great cover art, especially the 3D.
you said the practice of an acoustic song with string arrangement had never been done before....Im not so sure there... True Love Ways by Buddy Holly comes to mind
Boy...this guy is some kind of Beatles Worshipper...First, he says nothing about the Beatles copying many of their big hits...just watch the youtube video on this if for you want to see copying....And Maccartney even admitted to some of it...and there were some settlements... The Stones were singing satisfaction and get off my cloud in 65 while the Beatles were still singing their love songs....she loves you...she loves you, etc. I am sure every group including the Beatles as is stated did their share of copying...but the Stones style is so different... TO DIMINISH THE TREMENDOUS ABILITY OF THEIR STONES SONGS...many great ones after the Beatles were long gone....by this guy is not even worth responding to....actually... WHAT A HIT JOB...
@@derjogderjog8031 I am a really big fan of The Beatles! But also of The Stones. I don’t really know where to start with this comment. First of all saying that The Beatles were doing “love songs” in 1965 and only that is kinda silly, Rubber Soul was released in 1965, an album widely known as one of the most influential and important albums ever. Second of all, i believe you paid little attention to what i said, because i said nothing about plagiarizing the songs. I mentioned instances in which The Beatles had an idea on how to promote a song or a certain style they wanted to adopt and months later The Stones were seen doing the same thing. Influence is the most normal thing in the world (once again, as i said in the video) but copying marketing ideas or waiting for someone else to release something to see how it performs is a little different. The Stones and The Beatles are overwhelmingly different from each other, specially after 1967, no one’s denying that.
I know u love the Stones,but trashing another band to make your point never comes across well. What u said about 65 is just nonsense. She loves you is 63. And they changed in 65 to broaden there writing.
The Beatles are even on the cover.
John Lennon in an interview: "I think Mick is a joke. We do something and two weeks later they do the same thing."
"Did The Rolling Stones COPY The Beatles?". Always. Look at the record.
Excerpt from "We All Shine On" by Elliot Mintz:
"One time, for instance, I casually mentioned an upcoming booking with Mick Jagger.
"Why are you interviewing him?" John asked.
[...] for some reason I foolishly blurted out, "Because the Rolling Stones are probably the greatest live touring band in the world."
"Isn't that what they used to say about us?" John coolly replied.
"But the Beatles aren't touring anymore," I said, stepping on a landmine. "The Beatles as a group don't exist anymore. And the Rolling Stones are as important a presence as anybody in rock 'n' roll."
"The Rolling Stones followed us!" John shouted. "Just look at the albums! Their Satanic gobbledygook came right after Sgt. Pepper. We were there first. The only difference is that we got labeled as the mop tops and they were put out there as revolutionaries. Look, Ellie," he went on, "I spent a lot of time with Mick. We palled around in London. We go way back. But the Beatles were the revolutionaries, not the Rolling Pebbles!"
The Rolling Pebbles 😂 God I miss John
@@MyName-pl7zn We often called them the Groaning Tones 🤣 top that one John...
@@thomastimlin1724 🤣great one, love the Stones but that's funny
What kind of question is that? Of course they did. End of story.
Probably. Haven’t we all copied the Beatles at some point or another?
1st hit of Rolling Sones, in 1963 : "I wanna be your man", by Lennon&McCartney ...enough said?...lol
Damn, you said everything that I've been saying all in one video! John, Paul, and George often said that whatever they did, the Stones would repeat it a few months to a year later. John made reference to it in I Dig a Pony, "I roll a stoney, well you can imitate everyone you know." I believe We Love You and Dandelion were supposed to be rather Beatle-esque, both of them featuring John and Paul on background vocals. The Stones even had their ears pressed against the wall when the Beatles were first working on the song Let it Be in early 1969. The Stones quickly recorded Let It Bleed, actually beating the Beatles to the release before Let it Be.
@@magneto7930 I didn’t know about the Let It Be thing, that’s hilarious
@@Luna.reviewsI just gave you your 100th like. I really enjoyed this. Great upload!
"Let it be" / "Let it bleed" (????)
Let It Bleed by the Stones was released before Let It Be by The Beatles.
Let it Be was recorded LONG before The Stones released Let it Bleed and was heavily bootlegged before it was finally released as a single, and then an album
I think it's worth noting that all three of the groups you described as "playing around with the psychedelic genre" prior to the Beatles debuted after "Revolver," which also does that. "Tomorrow Never Knows" goes even further than just playing around. This doesn't mean the Beatles were the first, of course, as "Paint It, Black" fits the bill pretty well and came out months earlier, and the Kinks' "See My Friends" and some of the Yardbirds stuff is moving in that direction, even if they're not full-blown psychedelia.
Did every band in the 60s and 70s copy the Beatles? Of course
Even artists that came before copied them.
"Tomorrow Never Knows" 1966 was full-on psychedelic track which was before Piper at the Gates of Dawn or any other fully psychedelic track as far as I am aware.
I think if they'd used different cover art there wouldn't have been as much accusations of copying. The Album cover was very Beatle inspired.
i think the argument for the Stones using the Beatles as a direct influence for Paint It Black is moot, bands were experimenting with Indian influenced music earlier in 1965
the Kinks released See My Friends in July 1965, a song that features Indian-style droning qualities, and the Yardbirds released Heart Full Of Soul even earlier in June, again featuring droning (early takes of the song even featured an actual sitar, but it was deemed to not be pungent enough for the final record)
and this isn't even mentioning how other bands like the Byrds (who spent their 1965 UK tour listening to John Coltrane and Ravi Shankar on repeat, later suggesting Shankar to George Harrison) were in the process of recording songs such as Eight Miles High
it was more of a general "raga rock" movement than simply the Beatles inspiring everyone else to do it, and Brian Jones, being an eager multi-instrumentalist, seemed to be inspired by the baby steps of the Yardbirds and Kinks to go all in
I won’t disagree that Indian influences were already quite present before, but the timing of it all really is what made me include the example. Even if the Stones had that song ready to be released or had the idea prior to Norwegian Wood, it does not change that the song conveniently came after Norwegian Wood, and wasn’t even included in the UK version of the album (released) about 4 months after Rubber Soul, but in the US version 7 months later (although it was released as a single in May of that same year). So to me it looks like once they saw the success of Norwegian Wood, they decided to put out their own Indian juice
It always seemed to me that The Beatles gave everybody else license to use feedback, exotic instruments (examplified by the sitar) etc.
And as always nothing appears out of nowhere so raga rock was going to happen but Norwegian Wood is still the first released pop song with a sitar.
The american version of the Help! album also had sitar on there.
The Beatles were the first to use the sitar on record.
Some parts of The Rolling Stones' "Child of the Moon" melody are very, very similar to The Beatles' "Rain". And the words "love me, hold me" repeated in "I'm Free" are most probably a reference to "hold me, love me" in "Eight Days a Week" :)
@@adamwachowski1216 I didn’t know about these!! Thank you very much
The one thing the Beatles copied from the Stones was the very first “Paul Is Dead” song. The Stones wrote a song the day he died. The Beatles’ first was around 2-3 weeks later.
I wanted to point out something you said about the Stones copying the Beatles with what they did with “Country Honk” and I feel that some context is necessary.
You were critical of the Beatles’ decision to put “Revolution 1” on the album that came out 4 months after the faster, fizzier version of the song had come out.
But “Revolution 1” was the first version of the song !
In fact, it was the first recording of the White album sessions. It’s run-out provided the start incidentally, of “Revolution 9.” Anyway, John wanted “Rev 1” out as a single but Paul and George blocked it saying that it was too slow. So John re-recorded it faster and got it out on a single, the ‘B’ side of “Hey Jude.” And for the record they did a similar thing with both “Let it be” and “Get Back,” both of which contain different versions on the album version from that which comes out on the single. And this was years ahead of its time because once we got into the CD age, artists routinely would release alternate versions of songs, years after we’d all become acquainted with the original.
The Stones routinely recorded many versions of a song. Most of them we never got to hear. With “Honky Tonk Women,” we did.
And I think for the official promo music videos The Rolling Stones used the same director Michael Lindsay-Hogg after The Beatles did. For example the visuals of "Child of the Moon" video have noticeable "Strawberry Fields Forever" vibes (also the same cinematographer was involved).
It was a bit unfair of John Lennon to have a go at the Stones for copying some of their songs like Norwegian wood for Paint it black and "All you need is love" for "We love you" You could say "Day Tripper" had a Stones guitar sounding riff similar to "The last time" Was Satanic Majesties a Sgt Pepper rip off? Maybe the cover but the songs on Majesties sounded nothing like Sgt Pepper. Maybe copying is the wrong word. Influence is probably better. And I don't want to get into the comparisons of Beggars Banquet and the White album!
The stones tried so hard to be as good as the Beatles but failed and then got outsold by Zeppelin too
Didn’t everyone copy The Beatles 😂
The Fab Four and The Stones were friends off stage so there was no competition really
Now the big topic is Satanic Majesty’s ripped off Sgt Pepper isn’t true simply sonically and lyrically don’t match but the respective covers were shot by the same person named Michael Cooper
@@nvm9040 Well you do have a point. However as i said in the vid, there’s a difference between copying or giving a certain sound your own twist, and copying someone else’s ideas for marketing of songwriting practices, that’s just silly
Does a bear shit in the woods?
I think you overlook something that was fundamental to the rise of rock and pop during the 1960s. Although you correctly mention ‘influence’ I feel that you dismiss its power and reach.
If you look at the way pop and then rock evolved in the ‘60s, there wasn’t really a blueprint for anyone to follow. And so it made abundant sense that artists watched each other and noted what worked, what sold, what was acceptable, how far one could push, what would likely bomb etc. And the simple fact of the matter is that the Beatles were pioneers. They were at the vanguard of many moves and they kicked down doors that enabled so many others to also move the music on. For example, Motown in its various permutations had been releasing singles in the UK for a few years with no effect whatsoever. Then in interviews in the latter part of 1963, the Beatles made it known that they dug Motown music and on their 2nd LP “With The Beatles,” covered three Motown songs….and hey presto, within a year, “Baby Love” by the Supremes was at no.1 in the charts and Motown became one of the dominant musical forces in England during the ‘60s. Or there was the impact of the Beatles on the world of jazz as loads of young Americans were definitely jazzers, but also loved the Beatles…..if one fast-forwards to the mid-60s and beyond, jazz-rock {later mutating into fusion} got going as a partial result of the Beatles and most importantly, their success both artistically and in terms of how much they sold.
So what has all this to do with whether or not the Rolling Stones’ copied the Beatles ?
Well, for one thing, it provides the context and the backdrop in which the Stones first appeared. The Stones were a blues band and it was the example of Lennon and McCartney as writers {as it was for virtually every artist out of England and many from the USA in that period} that nudged them into writing. They couldn’t spend their entire lives covering old obscure blues tracks. So it made sense that they would look to the Beatles to see what was working, especially as they were being cast as the anti-Beatles.
What the Beatles did for all of their contemporaries was something so important ¬> legitimization. They legitimized softer songs, strings, exotic instruments, unusual instruments, inventive album cover art and they especially normalized diversity. And that shouldn’t be overlooked. A folk tune among the rockers, the odd ballad among the louder rock’n’roll pieces, these gradually became passé as the album became the main medium for presenting an artist’s range. Bob Dylan wasn’t really diverse in his music; he was lots of other hugely influential things but when one listens to his great 3 mid-’60s albums that were hugely influential, there isn’t really stylistic diversity there. Not so with the Beatles. That were quite diverse right from the start and that increased particularly from Revolver. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were guys who did not have the years of experience in writing and arranging their own penned songs that John and Paul did. Those 2 had a good 7-year head start and they had George Martin to help them as well as having George Harrison who was quite experimental with things like the 12-string guitar and the sitar. So they had jewels galore at their disposal.
The Stones were starting from an altogether disadvantageous position. Yet, they also led the Beatles in some ways, not least lyrically. “Stoned” in 1963, and “Satisfaction” + “Get Off of My Cloud” in ‘65 said things that went further than the Beatles had dared to go until “Rubber Soul” and beyond. The Stones also led the Beatles by recording so much of their music in America and getting for themselves a contract that was so good, it made the Beatles first contract with EMI look like an insult. And the Beatles, after John had participated in the Stones’ TV special, “Rock and Roll Circus,” and seeing the Stones evolve the song “Sympathy For the Devil” in Jean-Luc Godard’s film “One Plus One” went ahead with their own live idea which was initially “Get Back” and later came out as “Let it Be.” And the sound of the Stones’ fuzz guitar on satisfaction directly fed into some of the Beatles late ‘65 and ‘66 guitar tones.
Some of the Beatles yearned to be known as bad boys like the Stones but it must also be said that John Lennon in particular felt the Stones copied the Beatles. He felt that “We Love You” {on which he sang backing vocals} was copying “All You Need Is Love” and that “Satanic Majesties” was aping Pepper. Personally, I think he was wrong on that, but John was competitive {which I do like} both within the Beatles and when it came to other artists. I think Keith Richards’ point was more accurate - many of the artists at the time were going through similar things, being exposed to the same kinds of people {Allen Klein, the Maharishi, Michael Cooper, Robert Fraser, Tara Brown, Marianne Faithful, Andrew Loog-Oldham,} and so a certain amount of overlap was inevitable. The Beatles sang on the Stones’ songs, the Stones were on Beatle songs like “Yellow Submarine” and “You Know My Name.”
So no, I don’t think the Stones copied the Beatles any more than the Beatles copied anyone else. And if you read David Rowley’s superb book, “Beatles For Sale,” you’ll see that the Beatles cribbed many of their moves from other artists too but refashioned what they acquired in such an idiosyncratic way that it came out as something new. That is pretty much what the Stones did regarding the Beatles.
What a fantastic video have a great day Luna also happy Thanksgiving to the Americans from Canada ❤😊
They copy only the musical ideias, not the songs. Peppers x Majesties, Norwegian Wood x Paint It Black
I don't think of it as copying as much as is their interpatation of the music of the time . Did they RIP off disco when they did Miss You. No.
Norwegian Wood after See My Friends from the Kinks
This was back in the day when if the Beatles farted into a microphone...The Stones would follow suit within a week
There is no shame if the Beatles are your role model and you want to do something like them. However, Lennon and McCartney are the best example of how to put together great compositions and a late bloomer like Harrison can certainly help you in the absence of your own inspiration or talent 👍
just off the top of my head:
The Beatles and the Stones evolved similarly simply because they lived and recorded in the same era. It was NOT "musical influence" (like the Beatles and the Byrds and the Beach Boys) it was pure influence of the times that they lived in - eg HUNDREDS of bands in LONDON in the 60s were all doing the same thing.
Oh and Dylan influenced Harrison... not Lennon :)
they exceeded them in many way tbh - different bands - different feel
Exceeded in longevity, sure, but not much else though.
satanic majesties wizards cover was heavily influenced by sgt pepper cover beggars banquet cover was a copy of the white album and let it bleed let it be i rest my case
In defence of let it bleed, came out about 7 months before let it be did
The beggars banquet original cover was rejected by their record company. The newer cover was chosen by the record label, likely to copy the white album. Look up the original beggars banquet cover, its quite good.
@@Dbranderson216That's because they heard The Beatles were working on Let It Be in early 1969.
@@Revolver1981 yeah fair point lmao, definetly a lot more of a beatles fan anyway but I was willing to give the stones the benefit of the doubt
@colinhumphreys-t7v
"satanic majesties wizards cover was heavily influenced by sgt pepper cover beggars banquet cover was a copy of the white album and let it bleed let it be i rest my case"
There's a piece in the bible that says something to the effect that in court, when you hear one side of the argument, it always seems to be the right and only way......until you hear the other side !
i At first glance, the Satanic Majesties cover does seem to ape "Pepper." Until you look at it again. The only things they have in common are the wonderful colourfulness, they were both shot by Michael Cooper and they both name-check each other. There are no characters on the "Satanic" cover. This was the psychedelic era and psychedelic art was beginning to make its presence felt. The Stones cover has more in common with "Disraeli Gears" by Cream than the Pepper cover.
ii Beggars Banquet was recorded between March and July of 1968. It was in the can and finished 4 months before the White album was finished _and it had a cover_. It was picture of a graffiti'd toilet wall and Decca didn't like it. They and the Stones fought over the cover for months - the album was due to be released on July 26th '68. In the end the Stones reluctantly gave in and their record company put out a cheap cover to help recoup some of the money wasted by the delay. Nothing to do with the White album.
iii Let it be as a song came out in March of 1970 and the album came out in May. Let it Bleed came out the previous year !!!
Your case may have rested, but now the defence has been heard, the jury is out deliberating and I hear their lawyers are more than confident of an acquittal ! 😄
jimmy john is watching
Thanks for the video. That only helped me to realise that Stones were even bigger copycats than I ever imagined
Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear and rather, check out the arguments yourself. You might find that all is not as you think.
100%
The Stones didn't copy verbatim, they copied their ideas and some album concepts morphed into their own style. . Especially during the psychedelic era. But the Beatles did Yesterday wits a string section, so the Rolling Stones come out with a equally great son "As Tears Go By"...with a string section. Hello? Idea for the strings and melancholy song copied here. but not the subject matter or lyrics or exact melody. Sgt Peppers Album? Magical Mystery Tour? Stones come out with Their Satanic Majesties Request." and the were privy to the song Let It Be being recorded by the Beatles before anyone knew in 1969, due to their friendship, so they call their 1969 album Let It Bleed? come on , man...
Rubber Soul (The American Version) is the greatest album ever made.
@@charlesbronson4282 You know what? I could get behind that
Idk. I like White Album and Sgt Peppers
Tu parece brasileiro
Sergeant pepper came out before Pink Floyd‘s first album did.
And they started recording it long before. In fact, during both sessions, the Beatles looked in on the Floyd as both albums overlapped in their recording at EMI's studios.
Great video, brother 🕊A very accurate summary - featuring a lot of truths... and YES, the Stones were clearly influenced by history's greatest rock band or pop group (who were so super-evolutionary) that hundreds of artists have been inspired by many aspects of the way the Fab Four made music, movies, trends, fashion and once again, even history! 🎶🪲🪲🪲🪲
I know I'm in the minority, but SM is better than SP but "Revolver" is better than SM.
It ain’t even close
Same opinion. Pepper ranks last in my list, similar to Please Please Me. The Stones, until Majesty, followed up on Beatles trends a lot, but for me their psychedelic songs are much more enjoyable to listen to than many of the Beatles psychedelic phase.
Nope.
Between 1963 and 1969, each of the Beatles' albums is superior to the Stones' equivalent.
@@pedromarques7457 I guess that'a a matter of opinion. Abby Road can't touch Begger's Banquet or Let it Bleed.
@ I only made my comment regarding my enjoyment in listening to the albums. So as an example, I enjoy listening to Majesty much more than Sgt. Pepper. Or Between The Buttons is equal in enjoyment than Revolver. Pepper is the historical much more important album for sure. But in my personal opinion musical weaker.
Majesties not majestic
The history of Rolling Stones and George Harrison, in 60's ... always in a creative delay of, at least, 2 years, to Lennon & McCartney ...simple like that
Sort Answer: Yes
Long Answer: Yes, but No
@@shayhorvath2795 Even longer answer: Yes, but No, but Keith Richards sniffs glue
They found themselves and became the STONES with jumping jack flash, even The Beatles had to go through that.
Simple answer, no! Satanic Majesties bears little resemblance to Sgt Peppers. Not their best, but contains some great songs: We Love You, 10,000 miles etc. The Stones unique take on psych. And great cover art, especially the 3D.
you said the practice of an acoustic song with string arrangement had never been done before....Im not so sure there... True Love Ways by Buddy Holly comes to mind
@@DJRICKYG Good point!! That songs has a bit of percussion tho
I ha ha hi Rolling stone it, well you can Imitate everyone you know, yes you can Imitate everyone you know
I told you so, all I want is you.
Oasis copy beatles. stones copy beatles, beatles copy blues.
Boy...this guy is some kind of Beatles Worshipper...First, he says nothing about the Beatles copying many of their big hits...just watch the youtube video on this if for you want to see copying....And Maccartney even admitted to some of it...and there were some settlements... The Stones were singing satisfaction and get off my cloud in 65 while the Beatles were still singing their love songs....she loves you...she loves you, etc. I am sure every group including the Beatles as is stated did their share of copying...but the Stones style is so different... TO DIMINISH THE TREMENDOUS ABILITY OF THEIR STONES SONGS...many great ones after the Beatles were long gone....by this guy is not even worth responding to....actually... WHAT A HIT JOB...
@@derjogderjog8031 I am a really big fan of The Beatles! But also of The Stones.
I don’t really know where to start with this comment. First of all saying that The Beatles were doing “love songs” in 1965 and only that is kinda silly, Rubber Soul was released in 1965, an album widely known as one of the most influential and important albums ever. Second of all, i believe you paid little attention to what i said, because i said nothing about plagiarizing the songs. I mentioned instances in which The Beatles had an idea on how to promote a song or a certain style they wanted to adopt and months later The Stones were seen doing the same thing.
Influence is the most normal thing in the world (once again, as i said in the video) but copying marketing ideas or waiting for someone else to release something to see how it performs is a little different.
The Stones and The Beatles are overwhelmingly different from each other, specially after 1967, no one’s denying that.
I know u love the Stones,but trashing another band to make your point never comes across well. What u said about 65 is just nonsense. She loves you is 63. And they changed in 65 to broaden there writing.