Paul McCartney & Keith Richards Disagree On The Differences Between The Beatles & The Rolling Stones
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Paul McCartney & Keith Richards Disagree On The Differences Between The Beatles & The Rolling Stones amzn.to/45QR5Y5
There's a myth that you have to choose one of these two stellar bands over the other.
They both were spectacular; you might prefer one over the other, but everyone who loves rock and roll music should hear every song the Beatles and the Rolling Stones created.
Sounds like a recipe for a long snooze
@@jzkramer Only to a cretin! He did not say you have to LOVE all their songs but that they are at least worth hearing. I think the Beatles are easily the GOAT but even I dislike certain tunes of their's while the Stones' have had a lot more filler. No band lacks 'lesser songs'. No band had so many bangers like the Beatles did in various styles, many of which they pioneered. Indeed thanks to radio overkill dulling their impact (think Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' being overplayed like 'Hey Jude' the brilliance of pieces like Strawberry fields or 'Tomorrow Never Knows' lose their impact while many other great non hits get overlooked like 'It's all Too Much' or 'Happiness Is A Warm Gun' ('Hey Bulldog' being the welcome exception)!
If you look at streams it proves that some of their songs were duds even the ones claimed to be brilliant. Those songs like tomorrow never knows has the least streams of revolver. @@vladdrakul7851
@@vladdrakul7851 The Beatles didn't even come close to half the styles that the Stones had. Did the Beatles ever play Blues, the basis of rock? What are we talking about? The Beatles are a joke, as Zappa and many others said. After all, it is the greatest commercialism, which is why it is so maintained.
Keef is a true character, down to earth person. Great musician.
The Rolling Stones remained a garage band while the Beatles “evolved “ spiritually and intellectually..
I of course liked both 😎
Evolved into total boringness.
I'm a huge Beatles fan and like them more than the Stones, but to say that the RS remained a garage band when they draw 60,000 plus fans is nonsense.
Like Hendix, noone knows what would have core out of the Beatles after 1970 if they were better managed. The Stones and the Beatles are extremely different. Looking at the catalog for each band over the course of the 60s, what can be said more about the Beatles than the Stones is that the Beatles developed and matured more obviously. I am a fan of Keith after Brian Jones. Cheers
@@davidapatrickmoore They liked the same kind of music. They both like Buddy Holly, Elvis, Little Richard, Fats Domino etc. Both bands had two guitarists, a bass player, and a drummer. The Beatles had four vocalists, the Stones primarily one.
@MrAschiff After Brian, the Stones pretty much have one composer and the Beatles had four (we can count Ringo, he composed amazingly varied from parts).
Even with similar influences, the bands were very different. Cheers
The Stones might move my feet but The Beatles move my brain , heart and feet .....
@@user-qr7ee2cp4y Oh yeah - Brown Sugar great example .... "got me craving the, the brown sugar
Just like a BLACK girl should, yeah "
@@user-qr7ee2cp4y Yes , equally offensive. lol ....
Both great bands and love their music.
But the Beatles have got something no one else seems to have and I don't know what it is and you don't know what it is.
But the songs, no one can beat The Beatles for the songs
I love them both, but the Beatles had what may well be the two best songwriters in human history...
The Beatles wrote in a way the Stones could never conceive of. The Stones performed live in a way the Beatles could match in their early careers. That is why the Beatles > The Stones IMO
The Beatles sucked live. Played 25 minutes over screams and ran off. The Stones invented the modern rock tour and have toured for 60 years. The Beatles professionally toured from 62-66. End of story.
@@flyingburritobro68 Yes I can tell from the screams wherever they played those early years how much they sucked live. The energy in those early years was as good as anything the stones ever did. Unlike the Stones, the Beatles were also all musicians and composers and their musicianship grew their whole careers. The Stones never wrote more than three or four chord songs because that's all they were capable of writing and they still perform the same 30-40 tunes today that they did 40 years ago. They do put on a hell of a live show but the ticket prices are ridiculous these days and they play the same show every night so it ought be with all that practice. I think they both have some great tunes but neither band is in my top 5.
@@flyingburritobro68 The Beatles couldn’t even hear themselves play over the screams...can’t really fault them for the quality of their concerts. Nor their desire to forego touring after a few years. They were musicians and there simply was no point in what were effectively personal appearances due to the insane volume of the crowds. I was a young teen in those years btw, and the Stones were not even close in popularity back then. PS I’m not knocking the Stones, lots of great songs...but back in the day they couldn’t compete with the Beatles. TBH, they couldn’t compete The Beach Boys or the Monkees either (that probably sounds crazy today but Monkees had the highest attendance of any concert in 1967. The Stones came on strong later)
The Beatles never wrote anything to top Gimme Shelter or Sympathy For The Devil. Fact.
Heah stones were better at hard songs Beatles stayed soft pretty much theri whole career@@kenjohnston1257
I'd want the Stones to play my Bachelor party and the Beatles to play my Wedding.
Helter Skelter for the Bridal Waltz?
@@Rick-Jangle I believe the Beatles wrote one or two other songs suitable for a wedding. Regards
@@kentonkirkpatrick5225 Happiness is a Warm Gun?
I'd prefer the Beatles for mu funeral, so I don't have to listen.
@@branko4033 Why are you listening now?
It's not fair to compare anyone or anything in music to The Beatles. The bar they raised is not reachable. The Stones were/are a great band, but The Beatles were otherworldly.
Agree. The Beatles weren't a rock band. In today's terms they were Britpop.
Who cares.
I love that Keith is being interviewed by Hunter S. Thompson.
That’s the writer?
@@SargonofQueens Yes. The bald guy
Some high grade coke going down there
@@markrainsford9480 haha. Reasonable guessing
They were both great
If Keith outlives Paul he'll have the last laugh.
I think keith died years ago but they just forgot to tell him. At least paul is still compos mentis and active in a normal way.
Paul’s face is synthetic
Keith is a natural man
GHE BEATLES were better but I
Liked The Stones too
Rubber Soul and Revolver were much better records than Sgt. Pepper. Keith is right about that.
Being there first is everything. There would be no Stones without the Beatles. Not so the other way around.
I don't think the Stones' influence was "unparalleled" compared to The Beatles. And if that Richard quote re Sgt. Pepper was genuine, I wonder what he thought of Their Satanic Majesties Request! lol
I was going to point that, but then I saw your comment.
Fantastic to know they were friends!
Rolling Stones were dedicated followers of fashion. The Beatles dared to go in a direction where no one went before. The Beatles were the true rebels.
No, they weren’t. The Stones did baroque before any of the new British bands with 1965’s “Play With Fire.” They also did proto-punk with “Get Off My Cloud” and “She Said Yeah” in 1965. In 1966 they did proto-noise rock with “Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow?” Believe me, I could keep going.
The Beatles rarely did things first, they were just the biggest act, and thus many experienced some styles first through them. Raga rock is a great example of this. The Kinks did it first, but many probably got exposed to it first through “Norwegian Wood.” However, the Stones did it best with “Paint It Black.”
The album Aftermath, btw, had more exotic instruments than any Beatles album. What the Fab Four did with Revolver later in the year was catch up. They definitely went the extra mile in terms of experimentation with “Tomorrow Never Knows,” but the Stones were never that interested in recording a song that they couldn’t play live.
You are so wrong. The Beatles were the original boy band.
Beatles boy band popsters with a genius producer who used studio trickery and orchestras to make them listenable😎
No, the Stones are still doing the same stuff now that they were when they set out. Re-hashed American blues.
@@phreffable Still much better than bubblegum pop songs.
Where would the Beatles have been without their Uber producer/arranger George Martin?
The 5th Beatle had a helluva lot to do with their innovations.
Although the Beatles were my first introduction to Rock music aged 10 or 11 via my dad, I soon became pretty bored of them, I had discovered Jimi Hendix by myself around the age of 13/14. A few years later Punk/New Wave exploded onto the scene and the Beatles and Stones amongst us were considered as Boring Old Farts (whereas the Kinks remained as Well Respected Men).
Although the Beatles undoubtedly belong on the top, I still think they are the most overrated band ever, people claiming they invented everything in Pop and Rock music, even going as far as Punk and Alternative music. It's not so much the music I dislike, in fact there are some great songs I cherish, it's the permenant w@nkfests of their fans, claiming the supposedly fab4 are untouchable and miles ahead of everybody else. This intolerant narrative is stuffed down everybody elses throats, who dare to have another view on them.
There is no objective opinion to who is the best, it's all a subjective matter of different likes and dislikes we as humans develop.
Love Keith
you title says - Paul and Keith disagree - SO, WHERE WAS PAUL?
The Beatles on top!
I disagree. In the early days Stones were better. And The Beach Boys are far superior to The Beatles. ❤😊😮😉😎👍
The Beatles recorded their first album in one day. The Stones recorded their first EP in five...Pansies 😆
I love both bands, but the Beatles were clearly better.
“The stories that cannot be told … huh haha huh haha”. I love me some Beatles and Stones but I love me some Keef Richards best!
Lennon>
Coke , Acid , Dope ....
🎯💯🤘🤘🤘
Despite the blues base the Stones went a bit disco for a while. Maybe trying to stay relevant. For me the Beatles were a major influence for future prog rock. Not that they were overly prog themselves but set the stage for experimental sounds and styles that broke away from standard pho and blues based rock.
Fripp calls them the first prog rock band .
The Beatles shgowedf everyone, including the Stones, how to write their own material.
In the english language world perhaps, on the continent that was nothing new.
Beatles were nice Melodie’s. Stones were rock and roll.
talking about stuff 60 yrs ago.......back in the 60s they were not navel gazing about stuff in 1900 😂😂😂😂
Macca 😎 🍏 and 🏴☠️ Pirate Dad💀 friends forevermore! 😎💀🇬🇧🎸
At the time there was really no contest. Of course the Stones were big but in an entirely different league.
To me, the blues are like an Olympic event. The limits and markers are set and how you perform within the structure is where the magic happens. In many ways that is the ease of appreciating the blues: we know the structure innately, and really enjoy someone who can scale it in an exciting way. The stones wrote a TON of completely original songs after mastering that base.
The Beatles were a different animal. Everything from Elvis to Shakespeare, all forms of popular music were in their influence base, and particularly the black artists from the US. It informed their writing and playing styles. Those diverse influences and an incessant drive to better themselves and their music is what puts them ahead and above all others - objectively. The results prove the theory.
You cannot compare the Beatles to the Stones or either to Emerson Lake and Palmer or Jethro Tull or Genesis or the Moody Blues and so on.
Each have their own unique sound and different.
Though the Stones were always jealous of the Beatles.
Led Zeppelin !!!!!!!!!! The Beatles level of musicianship And the stones were at the chopsticks level The stones were a little better musicians than the Beatles , the Beatles were better song writers , then the stones , because of the pop early Beatles were better than what was going on in rock n roll . That’s not saying much Music sucked then , even in 68 the Beatles accomplished super group . They were like 4 children sniping at each other , it was like watching school kids , bottom they had great songs of course but even John said the early days they couldn’t hear themselves play , they didn’t progress musically. George and Ringo said they never practiced , and it shows , the stones and Beatles together didn’t compare to the mighty Zeppelin.
The Stones were R&B pop rock and the Bestles were Soul pop rock, both at the top of their game in the 60s, the Stones have continued
Think how good the stones could have been if Mick could sing.
The Beatles’ were a studio band. The Stones are performers.
Why should I have to choose which band is better when both were good to listen to?
without the Beatles there would be no Rolling Stones.
I disagree. Two different origins and influences. The Beatles have said they were influenced by Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Elvis, Carl Perkins, and Chuck Berry among others. The Rolling Stones were influenced by Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker, Elmore James, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Big Bill Broonzy, and Robert Johnson among others. The Rolling Stones were just too good to not make it on their own. They would have made it big even without being given "I Wanna Be Your Man".
utter nonsense
@@Stolehome66 even Keith Richards said it.
@@hulakan without the Beatles non of the british band would have made it .
@@peterhogan9537 Keith was being kind.
I've always thought that, when they both appeared in the early 60's, the Beatles made music for 11-year-old girls; the Stones made music for 14-year-old boys.
I'm English born and bred, and immensely proud that the 3 greatest bands ever were English...........Beatles. Pink Floyd and the Stones in that order. There's others as well, but these are the cremé de la cremé.
The Stones played live.
The Rolling Stones. Best rock band in history baby!
The Stones, The Who , and later AC/DC. That’s it
Listen to what the man said...
With over 160 + years between them, of course you going to remember differently
apples and oranges
Keith looked like he was 60 when he was 6 years old.
And will still look like he's 60 when he's 600 years old.
the Beatles were working class kids who worked for every single bit- the Stones were upper middle class art-school kids who wandered in after the Beatles kicked the door in. check out Lemmy from Motörhead's views... loved the Beatles, not time for Stones...
AI BULL AI BULL AI BULL AI BULL AI BULL...
The main difference is
1 band is still ROCKING
The other hasn’t existed for 50 years😂
Yet. Every one compares to the band that hasn’t played for 50 years. Wonder why kidney stones
The rolling stones are just a nostalgia band. If you call that ‘rocking’ ok dude…
The Beatles were the real, working-class street kids. The Stones were middle-class kids.
Total BS
Is that how you choose which music you like😂
@@donaldvanvliet9039 Not necessarily, but it points to the entire image of the Stones being media hype, and fake.
@@fshoaps if i’m not mistaken, keith richards father was a factory worker and they were fairly poor (working class) and mick jaggers father was a gym teacher (lower middle class). Charlie watts and bill wyman were working class (sons of a lorrydriver and bricklayer). Brian jones was the onl one from the upper middle class, but he didn’t last long….Doesn’t seem like a world of difference to the beatles if you ask me…not enough to declare their entire image a fake hype, like you do.
Name just one song of The Beatles that comes even close to the dark, raw, rock and roll balls of Gimme Shelter or Sympathy for the Devil. Nothing against the Beatles. They were the first ones to start it all, but (to me) they were a pop band (who never played live after they broke it real big) that wrote insanely great lyrics and melodies. But they had no balls! They weren’t a rock and roll band. That was the Stones. We should never compare the two.
How about “Revolution”? Or “You Can’t Do That” ?
And The Beatles were not “just a pop band”, they were a rock and roll band. Listen to their tapes from Hamburg Germany, they were were not some pop band, they were hard, fast, grungy, drug-addled tight unit.
Stones stayed strictly rock and roll, which they did very well. The Beatles were visionaries. There is no comparison to which band was more influential. In case you don’t know, that is the Beatles.
How about Helter Skelter and I Want You (She's So Heavy)?
I came of age with the Beatles in the 60's and it was accepted by everyone that the Stones were copy-cat Beatles. Beatles hair style, clothes, Stones made some good music, but we know they daddy was
You ever heard "Yer Blues"?
Both bands sounded like Hermans Hermits.
LED ZEPPELIN WASTED THESE 2 BANDS PERIOD
Yeah the Beatles were more innovative. But I could listen to the Stones for a day straight without getting bored.
The Beatles had four guys sing lead The Rolling Stones just one.
Beatles beautiful universal statements, but something often generic about the sentiments. Stones just stick to the ribs more, deeper immersion and intricacies of the blues, bedrock of American music.
As a 15 yr old the Beatles first album cover { the mystery of their faces } and Ed Sullivan showing their worth FINALLY gave British music a path. And we've never been the same.
In a way the Beatles gave us Gimme Shelter.
The only things I can even begin to equate to the Beatles are Elvis, Bob Dylan and perhaps Johnny cash
The Stones were basically just a blues cover band.
On their first albums the Beatles had much covers too
The more the merrier, at the time.
It would be interesting to see what the Beatles might have put out in the 70s which is my favorite Stones era had, well you know the story...
Without the Beatles, there would be no Rolling Stones. As Keith said, they opened the door. The Fabs have always joked that whatever they did, the Stones repeated it. John sings about it in I Dig a Pony, "I-I-I-I-I roll a stoney
Well, you can imitate everyone you know."
UGH, can you imagine getting stuck on an elevator with Keith and having to watch him slobber and tell half intelligent stories about things that may or may not have ever happened? Can you imagine the odor?
I am a Beatle person through and through but how can you NOT love songs like Midnight Rambler or Gimme Shelter? Both are world class acts(along with The Who and The Doors).BTW,what DID Paul say about The Stones in this clip?
I love the Beatles but the Stones blows them out of the water.
By what metric? Not even close.
@@paulswanson7915 Exile On Main Street. Best album ever.
Ik vind de stones orgineler in hun composities dan de beatles , want de beatles wilden nog weleens een bestaande tune of tekst gebruiken in een nieuw nummer en was niet echt bewust . De stones deden dat maar bij twee nummers volgens mij . En de blues was er standaard bij alle twee . Alleen bij de beatles was het wat meer pop . Wat originaliteit aangaat weet ik het niet , ze waren alle twee anders . Ik vind de beste nummers van de stones beter als die van de beatles . En dat zij tot nu toe nog steeds goed kunnen componeren is verbazingwekkend .
But Lennon better than McCartney
Keith is bitter and jealous.
Why?
Both were CRAP
The Beatles The Who The Stones The Kinks
Ah yes, the 2 most over rated bands of all time.interestingly,the only members not complete asshats were the drummers.there you go.ok ,maybe bill wyman ,got out when the getting was good.
Another ABBA fan 🤢
@flyingburritobro68 fanboy.telling that you picked Abba.project much?
The origins were different. Beatles were country bumpkins trying to look like well behaved suburban good kids, while the stones were street smart kids of a big city.
The Beatles were working class from the tough port city of Liverpool. The Stones were middle class art and college students from London
@@garykedans6255 yes!
That's just stupid and not even true and I don't have a horse in this race. I will say the Stones haven't recorded a good record since Some Girls and the Beatles were a bit more interesting but I like a lot of bands better than either one. I wish the Stones had kept Mick Taylor in the band though I think their music suffered from that. The Stones were upper middle-class art school kids it was the Beatles who were working class not that it really matters anyway.