Bluffcharging : Some Opinions and Stuff

21 Reasons The Stones Were Better Than The Beatles : Part One

February 17, 2008 · 16 Comments

As the Paul McCartney-Heather Mills divorce case draws to a close, it is almost inevitable that Sir Paul is frequently referred to as a musical genius and an integral part of The Beatles.

Half true…for sure. He was, of course, an integral part of The Beatles. Now, don’t get me wrong - I like The Beatles a lot. And I agree with those people that say “anyone who doesn’t like The Beatles is either deaf or lying”.

Nevertheless, The Beatles were - and are - overrated. Here is the first part of my 21 reasons why The Stones were better than The Beatles :

1) The Stones looked cooler

What’s this got to do with music? Everything. Keith and Mick were just cool - McCartney was a lovable, cheeky Scouser and Ringo was even worse.

2) The Wives and Girlfriends

The Beatles wives were partly responsible for their breakup. The Stones kinda shared and shared alike (Anita Pallenberg and all).

3) The Lyrics

The one thing that rarely gets mentioned about The Beatles is their lyrics. This is because, with only one or two exceptions, they are awful.

Here’s a few excerpts:

From Hello, Goodbye:

“You say goodbye and I say hello, hello, hello.
I don’t know why you say goodbye when I say hello, hello, hello.
I don’t why you say goodbye when I say hello.”

From Strawberry Fields Forever:

“No one I think is in my tree,
I mean it must be high or low.
That is you can’t you know tune in.
But it’s all right.
That is I think it’s not too bad. “

There’s much worse than this, of course, but you can find all the Beatles lyrics here - if you must.

By contrast, The Rolling Stones were pretty accomplished lyricists. Here’s a few excerpts:

From Salt of The Earth :

“Raise your glass to the hard working people
Let’s drink to the uncounted heads
Let’s think of the wavering millions
Who need leaders but get gamblers instead”

From I Can’t Get No Satisfaction :

When I’m watchin’ my TV
And a man comes on to tell me
How white my shirts can be
But he can’t be a man ’cause he doesn’t smoke
The same cigarrettes as me”

Lots more great Stones lyrics can be found at this website.

4) The Drummer

Ringo Starr is an amiable, likeable scouser. Unfortunately, what he is not is a good drummer. In fact, he wasn’t even the best drummer in The Beatles.

I’ve heard all the revisionist nonsense about Ringo’s abilities over the last few years, but that’s all it is: nonsense.

By contrast, Charlie Watts is a fantastic drummer. His minimalist style in The Rolling Stones often hides his natural jazz style, but what he does in the Stones is always, always perfect.

5) The Novelty Songs

When you’re five or six years old, ‘Yellow Submarine’, ‘When I’m Sixty Four’, ‘Here Comes The Sun’ and the like are fantastic songs. In pretty much the same way as ‘Mary Had A Little Lamb’ is fantastic poetry.

The fact is, though, that The Beatles novelty songs are, frankly, embarrassing. They’re generally awful music hall pastiche with - in far too many cases - the tone deaf Ringo singing.

The Stones avoided this trap and thank God for that.

6) Self-Indulgent Rubbish

While The Stones are responsible for the execrable ‘Satanic Majesties Request’, there is nowhere near the level of self-indulgent rubbish as that churned out by The Beatles.

‘The White Album’, for example, is four good songs plus an hour of tiresome half-written rubbish, like ‘Why Don’t We Do It In The Road’.

Is this really the work of the best band in the world ever? Nope…it’s just rubbish from a bunch of self-indulgent millionaires.

7) Where Did They Hide The Good Albums

The Stones recorded ‘Beggars Banquet’, ‘Sticky Fingers’, ‘Exile on Main Street’, ‘Goats Head Soup’ in succession.

The Beatles made only one really consistent album - ‘Sargeant Peppers..’. The rest were pretty ropey (Let It Be, The White Album, Revolver…some good, some bad on all).

I hope you enjoyed this first part of a three part series. Part two is here.

Categories: Music · Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,

16 responses so far ↓

  • Sonic Charmer // February 17, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    I think I’m a Beatles man myself. Lyrics? Can always cherry-pick the best Stones lyrics and stack ‘em against the worst Beatles lyrics, doesn’t prove much. Besides, who cares about rock lyrics? ;-) As for good albums I nominate Abbey Road (and since when is ‘Here Comes the Sun’ a novelty song?)…

    But overall, as I see it you’ll have two big problems to overcome in fully making the case for the Stones:

    1. Their lack of ‘authenticity’ as rockers - the Beatles got in fights and such; Mick Jagger the bad-boy rocker was in the London School of Economics.

    2. Their age. Rockers really aren’t supposed to be this old; there’s no real precedent. The Beatles had the good graces to break up young.

    But I do look forward to the rest. :-)

  • Sam_K // February 18, 2008 at 12:48 am

    Thanks for your comments, Mr, um, Charmer.

    Lyrios: Yeah, I was aware that it might look like cherry picking the worst of the Beatles vs the best of The Stones.

    The basic problem is that there really aren’t any good Beatles lyrics, whereas there’s loads of good Stones stuff.

    Authenticity: This is all a bit of myth. Both the Beatles and The Stones got in their share of fights.

    The idea that The Beatles are more authentic because they’re Scousers and the Stones are from Kent is totally nonsensical.

    There’s this stupid idea (usually perpetuated by middle class journos from the home counties) that all Northerners are working class and thereby instantly credible and all Southerners are middle class and therefore fake. This is just bulls**t.

    Jagger may have gone to LSE but John Lennon went to art school.

  • Sonic Charmer // February 18, 2008 at 2:57 am

    You make good points. I’ll wait for 8-21 ;-)

  • intuitivelyobvious // February 18, 2008 at 6:11 am

    You’ve made some good points…but both bands are still in my favorite top 3.

  • Toliy // February 19, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    I don’t like the Beatles, but even I can admit they did some dope shit that was beyond their time as far as pop music was concerned. The Stones just went back in time with their bluesy songs or played the same kind of music that every other band was producing in my opinion.

  • rob911 // February 19, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    the Beatles innovated and showed the world how pop music would be created and marketed for years to come (that’s not necessarily a good thing but it’s true). While the stones just did same old same old.
    The Beatles produce all their 13 studio albums (mostly good) in 6 years. The Stones have taken 44 years to make 30ish and a shit load of compilations.
    Now I know size isn’t everything but when you look at the quality of the work done by young men in a very short amount of time you can’t help but be impressed.
    One last point how many Beatles track have mass recognition value compared to Stones tracks. I’d say there were about 10 Stones tracks that are well enough know to be part of popular culture where as there must be 20+ Beatles tracks.

  • Dave // February 19, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    You can still hear the Beatles influence in so much of the music since. The rolling stones never really pushed their music and just relied on the traditional rock and blues standards.

  • Deano // February 19, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    Great article! I have always thought this about the Beatles but I could never bring it up with my friends with them being hardened Beatles fans. I do like them but I honestly think they are extremely overrated. Being the first to do something doesn’t necessarily make you the best.

    Anyway, looking forward to the rest

  • zydeco100 // February 19, 2008 at 11:50 pm

    Plus, the Stones did a cereal commercial jingle.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBmhEMFdl0

  • dan // February 20, 2008 at 12:57 am

    how can you be the best when there was nothing before. Of course everything would be better afterwards because they learnt from the originals.

  • danbodd // February 20, 2008 at 11:39 am

    Its kinda hard to compare the two as they both play different styles and both played some of their best music in very different social eras.
    However, the Stones have adapted better, granted, half the Beatles are dead, but still.. they never really changed, they split up and McCartney is still churning out the same crud (well at least in my opinion it’s crud) whereas the Stones’ music has developed while still keeping in theme with the bands beginnings.
    Also I think the Stones are much better entertainers.. if its a show you want, Stones anyday… take the latest Superbowl performances from The Stones and McCartney respectively…
    But then again, what do I know… I also have simon & garfunkel on my mp3 player…

  • Eli // February 21, 2008 at 2:03 am

    not pretty obvious you’re a big Stone fan.. *wink*

    here’s my $.02… it’s undeniable that The Beatles has super huge influence on today’s music. More than a handful of bands are here today because of the motivation they get on listening to Beatles records and an aspiration to get to the same level with them… amongst them are Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails, Oasis.. just to name a few.

    And the lyrics? Yep, The Beatles, specially John tries to write gibbirish (mostly on the Revolver onwards album) because people are trying to analyze and interpret each and every song… He got pissed in it one time, hence some ‘non-sense’ lyrics… (i am the walrus).. BTW, Strawberry fields? Most Beatles Critic adore that.

    … not pretty obvious i’m a Beatle fan eh? :)

  • Zeb // February 21, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    Your kidding, right? First you say in the beginning how you like the Beatles, but then you rip them to shreds… What hypocrisy.

    Next, don’t even get me started musically. Each Beatles album was different. Sure they had influences as we all do, but they created their own unique sound. And they were never satisfied with it or played it for it’s money’s worth till you could not stand it anymore. They constantly evolved. Listen to one Stones record, and you pretty much hear it all. Outside of Keith’s incredible lick on Gimme Shelter it’s the same standard blues for the most part.

    It’s a shame they broke up when they did, and even worse that Lennon was killed before they got over themselves to reunite. Keith Richards should have been dead a long time ago. To this day I don’t know how the man is still alive. Well if it’s true that one can sell themselves to the devil, he gets my vote for sure.

    PS - Sure people copy Keith, but how many more copy the Beatles! Nuff Said.

  • Mike K // February 24, 2008 at 8:42 am

    Put it this way…

    The Stones were a great band, as were the Beatles, but the Stones will never be anything more than a great band.

    The Beatles were so much more than a great band.. They represented music as a whole…

    Truth is … 40 years later.. People are still laughing at HELP! and A Hard Days Night Movies. Crowds of thousands are still singing the outro of Hey Jude, Sgt. Peppers will still be the number 1 album ever.. Yesterday will still be the most covered song ever, the Beatles will still be the most respected band ever, and the Beatles will still be the greatest band ever..

    you can listen to that band of one voice, or you can listen to a band of four in one..

    Noone would ever be able to convince me ..

  • dk // March 2, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    every time the Beatles made a musical movement the stones did the exact same shit one month later or at least tried to. the stones are just a bad boy version of the beatles minus the artistic merit. the made better sex-rock’n'roll than the Beatles later in their career but the Beatles were sex-rock when they came out and they graduated away from it and developing themselves more as musicians and producers, the Stones, even to this day, still just play off whatever the sound of the time is. i’m shocked they haven’t tried to release a screamo album yet.

  • Jeff // May 19, 2008 at 7:19 am

    Okay, Ringo wasn’t a great drummer but by no means is Watts any better. I am a drummer and I always thought Charlie Watts sucks, he was enough for the Stones but he doesn’t deserve half of the credit he receives; drums are a musical instrument too, not just a tool to keep the band in time. And on that note, John Bonham was even worse and yet he’s hailed as one of the greatest drummers ever lived. Hello? Has anyone ever heard of Neil Peart?! Both Zepplin and Rush formed in 1968; chew on that.

    Let’s say those “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “Hello, Goodbye” are terrible songs, of the roughly 193 recorded Beatles’ songs that I count, that constitutes for 1.03% failure rate, which falls within a 3-sigma boundary. That’s pretty good from a industrial engineer’s perspective. Seriously though, I can’t agree with you to any degree on this; Lennon was a phenomenal lyricist, that is the one thing about the Beatles I’ve always admired.

    I can see why you think the Beatles are overrated, because I used to until very recently. I’m trying to cover Beatles songs on acoustic guitar, but their chord progressions are insanely complicated and still they make all their songs sound simple. Because of this, all people find their music easy to listen to and can groove to it. That takes tremendous thought and creativity, I honestly have not heard a band that can do what they have done.

    In contrast, the Stones just ripped-off Robert Johnson, Son House, and John Lee Hooker, but mostly Johnson. All of which is a lot easier to do than innovate.

    So, from a musician’s standpoint, the Beatles are, without question, superior songwriters. If you like the Stones more that’s your own prerogative.

Leave a Comment