21 Reasons The Stones Were Better Than The Beatles Part Two

OK, following on from part one of 21 Reasons The Stones Were Better Than The Beatles here, imaginatively enough, is part two.

8 ) That George Martin Was Good, Wasn’t He

Let’s face it. Lennon and McCartney were good with a melody, but certainly weren’t the musical geniuses everyone thinks.

A large percentage of the arrangements and innovative instrumentation was down to their producer, George Martin.

Strip away a lot of that stuff and many of the songs don’t stand up anywhere near as well as the best of The Stones.

9) Still Got The Blues For You

A lot of the comments regarding part one of this article argued that The Stones were little more than a derivative blues band, while The Beatles were innovators.

The thing is, at the outset of both bands career, both were little more than copyists. The Beatles just played the latest pop hits (Twist and Shout, etc.) while The Stones played the blues.

The Stones, however, always had an authentic touch when playing differing styles of music as their career developed. They could do blues, country (‘Wild Horses’, etc.), reggae, rock…everything they did sounded right. Largely because Keith Richards just has a natural affinity for music in a way that McCartney and Lennon didn’t.

The Beatles, by contrast, just played pop music and, um, music hall.

10) In The Studio…No One Can Hear You Scream

The Beatles may have been a fairly good live band, but they threw a strop somewhere around 1965 because the screaming was too loud and they couldn’t hear themselves properly.

The Stones would have just bought bigger amps. Let’s face it, from the footage available, it’s clear that The Beatles weren’t anywhere near in the Stones league as a live band. The Stones were, probably even still are, the greatest live act in rock n’ roll.

11) They Influenced Who ?

OK, it’s undeniable that The Beatles have been a huge influence on popular music for, well, ever.

However, let’s have a quick look at the bands that followed the Beatles as part of the Merseybeat sound they popularised.

Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Searchers, Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas and The Swinging Blue Jeans. Rubbish, one and all.

Not to mention the fact that they helped kick start the musical career of Cilla Black.

By contrast, The Stones helped kick start the musical career of Marianne Faithful and the bands that followed them from the London r n’b scene included The Kinks, The Who and The Yardbirds.

12) OK, We Give Up

The Beatles lasted about six years, giving us a few good albums and lots of great singles. And then, well, they just gave up because they couldn’t really be bothered anymore. Listen to ‘Let It Be’ and you’ll hear the sound of a band who can’t be bothered.

The Stones, of course, are still going. While, admittedly, they haven’t done anything worthwhile in the last twenty years, they continued growing as a band way after The Beatles split and put out great album after great album well into the 1970s and even one (Tattoo You) in the 80s as well.

13) The Beatles Wrote The Worst Song Ever…Official

In 2004, a BBC released poll voted Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da the worst song ever. That’s because it is. Although Octopuses’ Garden runs it close…and Hello, Goodbye isn’t exactly the work of genius either.

14) Coyness Is Not An Attractive Feature In Grown Men

Both the Beatles and The Stones took their share of drugs. Well, Keith Richards probably took your share as well, but I digress…

Nevertheless, the coyness of the Beatles about the drug use was very far from endearing and smacked (pun intended) of a fear of losing their cuddly, family friendly image.

The Stones never allowed such concerns to get in the way of industrial quantity drug mis-use.