Paul McCartney tells Howard Stern why he thinks The Beatles were better than the Rolling Stones

[ficuswhisperer]

@blissinfinite67

66 to The Stones

1966 brought us Pet Sounds, nothing else can really hold a candle to that.

[SqualusAcanthias]

@generic_name

Lennon & McCartney (and Harrison too)

[SqualusAcanthias]

@anon67050589

I honestly do not think the Beatles would have done so well if they had started in the last 10 or 20 years.

Surely you are aware of the flaw in this argument.

[anon33176345]

@ficuswhisperer

1966 brought us Pet Sounds

Brought us Revolver too, hard to see how Aftermath measures up to either as an album, despite some excellent tracks.

[capnjimbo]

@ficuswhisperer

1966 brought us Pet Sounds, nothing else can really hold a candle to that.

Pet Sounds was a pretty major influence on Sgt Pepper too, so McCartney’s being a little disingenuous in acting like The Stones were the only ones that took inspiration from other bands.

[L0ki]

If you like that, you might like:

Yesterday (2019) - IMDb

[jonboy_nemo]

@clintcarlson77

neither of them can hold a candle to Pink Floyd’s music

i used to think the beatles were like mozart (formulaic and poppy) and pink floyd like beethoven (moody and innovative). i don’t look at it so simplistically anymore, and i grew out of my contrarian disregard for the beatles, but i definitely feel this statement.

[Aeroplane]

@Avery_Thorn

The Beetle’s image has been carefully maintained and curated by Apple music (the other one) to maintain the mystique. Sadly, John Lennon was the Kirk Cobain or the Bradley Nowell of his generation; his death is what really cemented the Beetle’s fame for ever.

This has to be the trollingest pair of sentences I’ve ever seen on this site.

[KathyPartdeux]

But who would have won in a fight? Charlie Watts or Ringo?

Watts is taller and has the reach - but Ringo has better footwork - and is much more savage. His ferocity surprises people.

[belovedvillain]

There’s a story of a raucous evening when Mick Jagger drunkenly calling for “his drummer”, only to have Charlie Watts rise out of bed, put on a 3-piece suit, and upon being greeted at the hotel room door, punching Mick right in the face. I think Charlie would win this fight.

[generic_name]

Yeah. . . well. . . great drummer, not much of a songwriter.

[peregrinus_bis]

Heretic! Heretic! Heretic!

I’m a believer - it wasn’t just JPGR, it was Epstein and Martin, the stories, the coincidence with and leveraging of media, the mystical German back-story, and absolute barrel-loads of talent and focus (for a while!).

Lots of bands all over the place had the opportunity, backing, access etc, but the Beatles had extra, and real charisma. Girls “fancied” other bands and singers, but they wept openly, and from early on, at the Beatles.

I think I’m saying this: without them, there wouldn’t be a “last 10 or 20 years” as we know it for someone to challenge. That weird alternative world would still have been there to access by someone.

And frankly, I can’t think of a band that has replicated what they did - did they kind of reach the frontiers of human experience, or is it possible for them to happen again?

[Carbohydrates11g]

That would be a mix tape. I’m cool with that too.

[stinkinbadgers]

Maybe an album’s worth in a few years. My point was that I think McCartney’s overstating the evidence for his case- Ok, they copied 2 things, but they found other influences, did a lot of their best stuff and had a creatively fruitful career after the Beatles broke up, so is it really relevant to which was “better”?

[ChuckV]

Eh. The Beatles could probably pull together a country album from isolated tracks as well. Not a very long one mind, but I think country albums of their era tended to run short.

[stinkinbadgers]

@anon67050589

But I do wonder, if you had people from other parts of the world who had never heard of the Beatles, and therefore didn’t know anything about the adulation, would they appreciate the songs if they heard them for the first time?

I don’t know how much prior knowledge they had, but a charming memory I have is of being on a college campus in the summer and seeing a large group of young Japanese students gathered in front of a dorm, rehearsing “Ob-La- Di, Ob-La-Da”. It was probably work for learning english, but they looked like they were having the time of their lives.

[MaiqTheLiar]

Ah, the age-old question, Beatles or Stones…

…my answer, really the only answer; Roky Erickson.

[blissinfinite67]

In general, I’d have to say '66 was the best year in pop music. Pop music perfection on all fronts - established acts, garage bands - right before the drugs really kicked in and every up and coming group thought their 17 minute dirge-fest was an artistic opus.

ETA: 1966 Ahhh,

[Espresso]

@stinkinbadgers

Also, maybe a band isn’t responsible for what they spawn, but Beatles imitators were/are a lot more insufferable than Stones imitators.

Huh. I’m curious to know which bands you have in mind.

Off the top, I can’t think of any really memorable Stones copycats, unless the entire genre of “blues rock” counts. Which I don’t think it does, because Led Zeppelin is easily as primordial to that genre as the Stones and arguably the bigger direct influence on more, and more famous, bands. I hear AC/DC or, say, Van Halen, I think Zep, not Stones.

I dunno, the Black Crowes? Utterly forgettable to me. I’ve seen Cracker called Stones imitators. That’s a band I like a lot, but I don’t really see them as thoroughly Stonesesque, a few isolated tracks aside.

So, I can’t think of anything “insufferable” in this camp simply because there’s little or nothing that’s even memorable, to me. I feel like I’m forgetting somebody…

As for Beatles imitators, I can think of some truly great (IMO) bands that were heavily inspired by the Beatles. To name just three: XTC (from 1986 on), ELO and The La’s. The latter are unusual in successfully evoking an early Beatles sound without sounding like a complete ripoff.

Then there’s Oasis, the ultimate Beatles rip-off. This is a band I personally file under “insufferable”, but even so I have to admit they put out a couple of really top-notch tunes.

Anyway… who’s better? I love them both, for different reasons. And glad we have both to enjoy.

Somebody mentioned Pink Floyd, and I’m totally on board with putting them on the same pedestal – for everything up to and including Animals. After that, not so much.

[ChuckV]

@stinkinbadgers

a charming memory I have is of being on a college campus in the summer and seeing a large group of young Japanese students gathered in front of a dorm, rehearsing “Ob-La- Di, Ob-La-Da”. It was probably work for learning english, but they looked like they were having the time of their lives.

I taught a class of middle schoolers in China “Yellow Submarine.” It went over well.