1 Reason Why The Beatles are better than The Rolling Stones (music review)
Yesterday, I read an article on Cracked.com by Adam Tod Brown that suggested when one is deciding between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones for the title of who I arbitrarily like better was a question of "Gone too soon" vs "Way overstayed their welcome." I’m sure Adam Tod Brown is great, but this is a false premise because obviously, The Beatles are the superior band.
Before I explain why The Beatles are superior, let’s get back to the premise (Or summation? Grammar is hard.) of Brown’s piece by starting with the idea that the Beatles were gone too soon. I don’t agree – The Beatles were together for ten or so years and put out many albums to the point where the idea was that the album that would become Let It Be would be called Get Back because they needed to "get back" to their roots. See what I’m saying? They’d been around for a long enough period of time and recorded so many different types of songs that The Beatles (or at least Paul McCartney) had to stop and say, "Whoa, we should relax." (Of course, although this album was released last, Abbey Road was the final collection to be recorded, so they certainly abandoned that idea…)
On the other hand, I can’t really argue against "Way overstayed their welcome." The Rolling Stones haven’t offered anything that anybody cared about since "Love is Strong," which wasn’t an especially interesting song, but had a video that resembled a beer commercial in all the right ways.
NOTE: I think there’s only one shot of the drummer in the entire video: he’s much too scary for film. This is because he died at some point in the 1970s but just refuses to stop drumming for The Stones. And this is how he looked in the 90s – now he looks like Professor Quirrell at the end of the first Harry Potter movie.
But, the biggest reason why The Stones have overstayed their welcome is tied into why they’re so inferior to The Beatles…
Not that there aren’t lots of reasons why The Beatles are a better band than The Rolling Stones (several of which are the albums A Hard Day’s Night, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, The White Album and Abbey Road), but the most important reason is that The Beatles never made a disco album. Could there be a bigger offense for an R&B/rock combo like these two bands to commit? I don’t think so, and The Stones did it. Sure you could argue that The Beatles were already broken up by the time disco loomed it’s ugly head and you could go further and point out that Ringo made a disco album, but Ringo the Fourth doesn’t count because it’s a solo album by Ringo Starr, a Beatle so out of the loop that there are several albums toward the end of The Beatles run that Paul McCartney apparently overdubbed his tracks because he (or the other three Beatles together) decided Ringo sucked so bad his playing shouldn’t be on their albums. Also, the other three Beatles? Yeah, zero disco albums.
Here’s the thing: The Beatles made at least three distinct different kinds of albums: pop, concept and psychedelic/experimental albums, mashed up in any way you prefer to express it. (For example, if you want to argue that Sgt. Pepper is a concept album and not a psychedelic album, that’s fine – or you could argue it’s both… whatever.) The Rolling Stones made two kinds of albums: pop and disco. And all of the pop albums sound very similar and they won’t stop making them. I’m not saying that The Stones didn’t produce any good songs; I think everybody is happy with "Paint it Black" and "" is flat out brilliant,but these songs are the exception, not the rule.
In the final analysis, Stones fans can argue their case until their blue in the face (Avatar style), but the simple fact is "Emotional Rescue" is a Stones song and that’s all there is to it.
Have you ever heard a more desperate attempt by anyone to sound like the Bee Gees? I shudder at the very prospect!