The Stones ' pop period is better than the beatle' Rock attempts

quote:

---

Playback on other websites has been disabled

---

just like the OP

Stones are better than Beatles on every level.

I love both groups, but I'm not sure if I agree with this.

I will say this, everyone talks about how big Beatlemania was (it was), but in 1965-1966 the Stones were absolutely also on fire. They had hit after hit after hit.

BTW, the new Black and Blue box set is killer.

quote:

---

Stones are better than Beatles on every level.

---

Let me list some ways in which this is preposterously wrong:

a)The quality of the median song. The Beatles have ~185 originals. At least 100 of those (if not 150) are good enough to have been the envy of not just one hit wonders, but even decent bands that are well thought of. A litany of all-time, anthemic classics that somewhat define the Western canon. The Stones have - clustered at the top - an impressive array of all-timers. But there is so much middling dreck littered throughout.

b)Songwriting and the drive to write songs. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that The Beatles wrote and gave to the Stones their first big hit (I Wanna Be Your Man). Not only did they need to be spoonfed a new tune, but they didn't even realize it was POSSIBLE to write their own songs.

quote:

---

The Stones ' pop period is better than the beatle' Rock attempts

---

Which songs outside of Helter Skelter are you claiming were "rock attempts"?

So you didn't like my gif?

quote:

---

Stones are better than Beatles on every level

---

lead vocals?

harmonies?

quote:

---

Beatles production and engineering was also heads and tails ahead of everyone

---

Far ahead of Shel Talmy's work w/the Kinks and Who. Even Entwhistle admitted their production was miles and miles better (get it??? good.)

They were also superior, if not as markedly, to Oldham's work w/the Stones

quote:

---

Did you ever happen to read Geoff Emerick's book?

---

I read it years ago

it's full of errors and kissing paul's arse

google AI:

quote:

---

Geoff Emerick's book Here, There and Everywhere is considered inaccurate by many Beatles fans and historians due to alleged factual errors, a perceived strong bias towards Paul McCartney, and a negative depiction of George Harrison. Specific examples of inaccuracies cited include details about the recording of "Blackbird" and "Hey Jude," and claims about George Harrison's musical contributions. Other engineers, such as Ken Scott, have countered Emerick's version of events in their own books

---

quote:

---

I'm im agreement with you on this. Nobody was as big as the Beatles. However, they were most certainly in the same universe.

A distant second nonetheless.

---

Not the same universe. It's hard now even for people that are hugely into Beatles history to truly have a sense of how insane it was. When they went to Australia, 200K people lined the streets from the airport into town. Nothing like that ever happened for the Stones (or anyone else). Not even close.