Who were the greatest?

Who were the greatest?

by Chris Brown, Daily Post

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0...name_page.html

IT'S A DEBATE that's been raging since the Sixties. Who was the greatest rock and roll band of all time: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?


And the opening of two new photographic exhibitions in Liverpool could fan the flames of debate once more.

Following a successful season in London, The Rolling Stones, by Gered Mankowitz, and The Beatles in India, by Paul Saltzman, will start a national tour at the Liverpool Conservation Centre this Saturday (1 Nov 2003).

Saltzman's images detail the most creative period in The Beatles' history. His candid pictures of their visit to the Maharishi's ashram in Rishikesh, India, in 1968 show them sunburned, unshaven, relaxed and at ease in their surroundings.

The pictures give a rare opportunity to see the real men behind one of the greatest bands in the world.

Saltzman, then 24, had come to the ashram to learn meditation to heal a broken heart and "find himself", unaware that The Beatles would be there.

Thirty years later, he rediscovered the images and was moved by what he saw.

They have been hailed as some of the best Beatles images ever taken.

Stephen Maycock, Sotheby's rock 'n' roll specialist, says: "The intimacy of these frames is quite remarkable, some of the best I have seen.

"Saltzman's photographs will be welcomed by both fans and historians of The Beatles alike, for these images provide a significant addition to the detail of what is a relatively little-recorded episode in the career of the most important rock group the world has known."

The Rolling Stones, by Gered Mankowitz, is the most famous collection of photographs of the band, documenting arguably their most important musical period, onstage, backstage, in the studio and at home from 1965 to 1967.

Mankowitz was only 18 when he met and started to photograph Marianne Faithfull. Her manager, Andrew Loog Oldham, was so impressed by the pictures that he immediately asked Mankowitz to shoot for another band he was managing - The Rolling Stones.

The first session of photographs he took at his Masons Yard studio in early 1965 led to the cover for the album December's Children and he was soon invited to become their official/unofficial photographer, joining them for their seminal autumn 1965 tour of America.

Over the next three years, Mankowitz shot Mick, Keith, Charlie, Bill and Brian at recording studios and in dressing rooms, on Primrose Hill, in their homes and during the infamous performance on the Sunday night at the London Palladium television show.

Spencer Leigh, BBC Radio Merseyside presenter and Merseybeat expert, says The Beatles exhibition is bound to attract more attention in Liverpool than the Stones.

"I'll definitely be going to see the exhibitions. It'll be a great opportunity to see some really important images of both groups.

"The photographs should be very interesting though, as when the two groups first became famous, The Beatles were widely regarded as looking great on camera, whereas people didn't think Mick Jagger was quite so photogenic. I think people are used to his face now though."

And on the rivalry, Mr Leigh adds: "The rivalry between the two groups back in the 60s was similar to the whole Oasis vs Blur thing in the 90s - it was manifested by the press rather than the bands themselves, who actually got on quite well. John Lennon even said at some stage that he would rather have been a member of the Rolling Stones than The Beatles!

"I would say that the Rolling Stones saw what the Beatles were doing and then did it themselves a few months later, such as when The Beatles did the whole psychedelia thing with Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and then the Stones followed a few months later with Their Satanic Majesties Request. The album artwork was very similar. Psychedelia never really suited the Stones, they had a harder sound than that.

"The Beatles were fortunate in that they had a great producer in George Martin whereas the Stones were produced by their manager who never really brought Mick's voice out - but they still sounded great.

"The 60s was an amazing period for music - there were a lot of creative people all being spurred on by each other. Groups were always trying to better each other musically and I think that was true of The Beatles and the Stones."

"The Stones got a lot of attention for being the more badly-behaved of the two groups, but the things they did that were considered outrageous then would be laughable now." Presented by HP, who have printed the entire exhibition, National Museums Liverpool and Proud Galleries London, the exhibitions will also be toured to Bristol, Glasgow and Brighton, whilst simultaneously touring in Paris and Milan.

* The Rolling Stones & The Beatles, Conservation Centre, 1 November to 9 December 2003

Beatles V Rolling Stones

Number one singles in the UK Beatles 17; Stones 8

Number one albums in the UK Beatles 15; Stones 10

Most weeks at number one Beatles 74; Stones 37

Most consecutive years with a number one Beatles 7; Stones 4

Weeks in the UK singles chart Beatles 456; Stones 367

The only ever double-whammy in music history took place on July 23 1964 when The Beatles knocked the Rolling Stones off the top slot in the singles and album charts.

Sir Paul McCartney is also the richest rock star in the UK by a wide margin, with an estimated fortune of £500m, three times greater than that of second-placed Elton John with a £156m fortune. But the Rolling Stones' Mick and Keith made the top 10 with fortunes of £145m and £125m.

Thanks for the article beatlz. This will come in handy with my debate with my neighbor, yes, she's a stone's fan (not that there is anything wrong with that).

I've never gotten this supposed rivalry. The Stones were the next biggest band of that era, but the gap in popularity and influence between the Beatles and them is huge. The Beatles blow them out of the water on every statistical category, even though the Stones had 30 more years than the Beatles did. The Beatles are way ahead on any poll you see, and sometimes the #2 band isn't even the Stones (in the US anyway, it seems to be Led Zeppelin a lot lately). And (this is just my opinion, no way of knowing for sure) I think without the Beatles breaking America, no one here would have ever heard of the Rolling Stones. I don't think they would have become popular (in the US anyway, don't know about the rest of the world) without the Beatles setting things up for them (and that goes for every British invasion band).

But I am actually somewhat of a fan of the Stones (minor one [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] *). I have nothing against them. But that comparison has always annoyed me.

[size="1"][ Oct 30, 2003, 05:48 AM: Message Edited By: Norwegian_Wood ][/size]

I Love the Rolling Stones but there is no comparison, musically or with popularity.
They just both happened to become big at the same time so they will always be associated with each other.

I knew there was a so-called rivalry. But i had no idea the numbers were so far apart!

Originally Posted By lennonluvr9:
I knew there was a so-called rivalry. But i had no idea the numbers were so far apart!

<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">I think the main reason they are mentioned together so much is the whole "British Invasion" thing. They are one of the few other bands that was actually a big sucess that younger people know much about, and of course they are still together.

But the figures are very telling. For example, in US sales-the Beatles are at 164.5 million and the Stones are at 63.5 million. That means the Beatles have sold over 100 million more albums in the US. And on the list of the 150 top selling albums of all time worldwide, The Beatles have 7 albums, the Rolling Stones have none. Sorry to go on like this, but these sort of figures kind of surprised me when I saw them. Very interesting in terms of the "popularity" issue.

[size="1"][ Oct 30, 2003, 07:16 PM: Message Edited By: Norwegian_Wood ][/size]

Good points you raised about the rivalry, Wood.

I love the Stones and have even seen them in concert.
Although I love the Stones (I love the Who even more than I love the Stones), I think everybody knows I love the Beatles most of all as everybody here does too.

Here´s another bunch of chart comparisons between these two groups. It covers the years 1962 - 1971:

Number One Hits

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 17
STONES: 8

United States

BEATLES: 20
STONES: 6

West Germany

BEATLES: 11
STONES: 6

Number One Albums

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 11
STONES: 6

United States

BEATLES: 14
STONES: 2

West Germany

BEATLES: 9
STONES: 4

Top 10 Hits

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 23
STONES: 14

United States

BEATLES: 32
STONES: 13

West Germany

BEATLES: 29
STONES: 15

Top 10 Albums

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 13
STONES: 13

United States

BEATLES: 19
STONES: 15

West Germany

BEATLES: 15
STONES: 14

Weeks at Number One (Singles)

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 69
STONES: 18

United States

BEATLES: 59
STONES: 15

West Germany

BEATLES: 40
STONES: 22

Weeks at Number One (Albums)

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 162
STONES: 38

United States

BEATLES: 118
STONES: 7

West Germany

BEATLES: 108
STONES: 20

Weeks On Chart (Singles)

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 347
STONES: 202

United States

BEATLES: 557
STONES: 240

West Germany

BEATLES: 557
STONES: 248

Weeks On Chart (Albums)

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 674
STONES: 348

United States

BEATLES: 1,363
STONES: 438

West Germany

BEATLES: 484
STONES: 366

Hit Singles

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 25
STONES: 16

United States

BEATLES: 61
STONES: 24

West Germany

BEATLES: 39
STONES: 20

Hit Albums

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 14
STONES: 14

United States

BEATLES: 26
STONES: 16

West Germany

BEATLES: 20
STONES: 16

Number Two Hits

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 4
STONES: 2

United States

BEATLES: 3
STONES: 1

West Germany

BEATLES: 6
STONES: 3

Number Two Albums

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 0
STONES: 2

United States

BEATLES: 4
STONES: 4

West Germany

BEATLES: 0
STONES: 4

Weeks at Number Two (Singles)

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 9
STONES: 6

United States

BEATLES: 6
STONES: 3

West Germany

BEATLES: 17
STONES: 8

Weeks at Number Two (Albums)

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 0
STONES: 4

United States

BEATLES: 24
STONES: 14

Highest Number of Hits in a Calendar Year

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 7 (1964)
STONES: 3 (1964-1966)

United States

BEATLES: 30 (1964)
STONES: 6 (1965 & 1966)

West Germany

BEATLES: 16 (1964)
STONES: 6 (1965)

Highest Number of Album Hits in a Calendar Year

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 2 (1963-1966 & 1968-1969)
STONES: 3 (1971)

United States

BEATLES: 11 (1964)
STONES: 3 (1965-1967)

West Germany

BEATLES: 6 (1964)
STONES: 3 (1965 & 1967)

Consecutive Number One Hits

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 11
STONES: 5

United States

BEATLES: 6
STONES: 2

West Germany

BEATLES: 6
STONES: 4

Consecutive Top 10 Hits

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 17
STONES: 14

United States

BEATLES: 19
STONES: 9

West Germany

BEATLES: 17
STONES: 14

Consecutive Number One Albums

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 7
STONES: 2

United States

BEATLES: 8
STONES: 0

West Germany

BEATLES: 2
STONES: 2

Consecutive Top 10 Albums

United Kingdom

BEATLES: 13
STONES: 13

United States

BEATLES: 11
STONES: 15

West Germany

BEATLES: 7
STONES: 11

[size="1"][ Oct 31, 2003, 04:14 AM: Message Edited By: Wolf ][/size]

Here´s an excerpt from an interview Mick Jagger gave Rolling Stone in 1995:

Weren't you particularly compared with the Beatles, though?

The Beatles were so big that it's hard for people not alive at the time to realize just how big they were. There isn't a real comparison with anyone now. I suppose Michael Jackson at one point, but it still doesn't seem quite the same. They were so big that to be competitive with them was impossible. I'm talking about in record sales and tours and all this. They were huge.

Bigger than Jesus?

They were bigger than Jesus!

And there came a point where you were Band 2 after that.

Yeah, we were Band 2. Like Avis. It's horrible being compared to a car.

Originally Posted By Wolf:
Here´s an excerpt from an interview Mick Jagger gave Rolling Stone in 1995:

Weren't you particularly compared with the Beatles, though?

The Beatles were so big that it's hard for people not alive at the time to realize just how big they were. There isn't a real comparison with anyone now. I suppose Michael Jackson at one point, but it still doesn't seem quite the same. They were so big that to be competitive with them was impossible. I'm talking about in record sales and tours and all this. They were huge.

Bigger than Jesus?

They were bigger than Jesus!

And there came a point where you were Band 2 after that.

Yeah, we were Band 2. Like Avis. It's horrible being compared to a car.

<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Way to go, Mick! Coming from the man himself, arguing over this should be unnecessary.

hey wait- what about drug busts? seriously, who had the most drug busts (counting even Beatles after the breakup). I was thinking that would be one the Stones would definately "win" but... John & George in the '60s and Paul in 1980. Then Mick/Keith in, what about '68 or so?

Rivalry? the friendship between the two groups seems more interesting than any so-called rivalry. The media always has to concetrate on a negative even if its outweighed by positives.
they played on eachother's records ("All You Need Is Love" & "We Love You") and certainly have had compliments for eachother over the years. and don't forget the Dirty Mac Band with John and Keith.
Beatles were/are Great; Stones were/are Great.

Originally Posted By Wolf:
Here´s an excerpt from an interview Mick Jagger gave Rolling Stone in 1995:

Weren't you particularly compared with the Beatles, though?

The Beatles were so big that it's hard for people not alive at the time to realize just how big they were. There isn't a real comparison with anyone now. I suppose Michael Jackson at one point, but it still doesn't seem quite the same. They were so big that to be competitive with them was impossible. I'm talking about in record sales and tours and all this. They were huge.

Bigger than Jesus?

They were bigger than Jesus!

And there came a point where you were Band 2 after that.

Yeah, we were Band 2. Like Avis. It's horrible being compared to a car.

<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">'Listen to what the man says' [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

but what about Ringo(and John): 'I'm the greatest' [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

The Beatles are the greatest band ever. The stones come in a 2nd or 3rd I would say. The Stones first big hit I Wanna Be Your Man was a Lennon/McCartney. So I think that the Stones are influenced by the beatles. When the beatles came out with a new sound the stones would have a new sound in six months.

I know most of you have been saying the Beatles were so much greater than the Stones, but I actually think it's pretty hard to compare them. If you look at just the sixties, then yes, the Beatles were much bigger, but the Beatles broke up in 1970. The Stones have been together for over 40 years! You usually think of the huge influence the Beatles had between 1963 and 1970 (and, I suppose, after that too) but I think the Stones have had the same amount of influence, just over a longer period of time. I guess you can tell I'm a bit of a Stones fan, (of course not as much as the Fabs) and I do agree that, in the end, the Beatles are 'greater', but I do believe the rivalry is closer between the two than most people think.

Anyway, that's just my two cents to add, and just my opinion. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Originally Posted By HELTER SKELTER:
The Beatles are the greatest band ever. The stones come in a 2nd or 3rd I would say. The Stones first big hit I Wanna Be Your Man was a Lennon/McCartney. So I think that the Stones are influenced by the beatles. When the beatles came out with a new sound the stones would have a new sound in six months.

<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">not only that, George recommended them to Decca records to be signed.

check this article
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0...name_page.html

Does anyone know of any bands who say they're inspired and/or influenced by the Stones?

It just seems like everyone is derivitive of the Beatles...

Originally Posted By onosideboards:
Does anyone know of any bands who say they're inspired and/or influenced by the Stones?

It just seems like everyone is derivitive of the Beatles...

<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Aerosmith and Primal Scream are two that spring to mind...

Beatles are the greatest.

Well, I don't like the Stones really, but even if I did, I know I'd still say that the Beatles rock and they really are the greatest band on earth!

Beatles Are Greatest

There is no question on earth, that the Fab Four are the greatest act ever.

They had everything, only listening to the old albums and there is hardly a bad song.

Today you are lucky to find one or two good songs, on an album.

Now I´m looking forward to Let It Be Naked, is already getting good feedback in Sweden.

All the best

Kenth