The Rolling Stones or The Beatles?

I don't care for either of them. But if I was forced to at gun point I'd pick the Stones

Definitely The Stones for me too. The Beatles wrote some songs that I do like, but I just have never been able to get into them. There's no doubt that they were more influential overall though.

The Beatles just do not really have an edge imo, no soul. It's all polished, rather than the more rough and rugged sound of the Stones. That doesn't mean they didn't write good songs. But just compare their version of With A Little Help From My Friends to Joe Cocker's cover - that about says it all.


True, but as overrated as the Stones are in some sense (I think they're great but, as you also indicate, there were comparable acts at the time or prior to them that do not nearly receive the same amount of praise), I think they are underrated in that they are pegged as just a typical rock riff group and sometimes even as a singles act. I think their run of albums from Aftermath (1965) till It's Only Rock 'N' Roll (1974), and especially from Beggars Banquet (1968) until Goats Head Soup (1973) is really excellent. Contrary to their reputation of being a straightforward rock act, studio versions of tracks like Gimme Shelter or Tumbling Dice are actually extremely difficult to replicate in a live setting and have a pretty unique sound. I also think their non-typical riff tracks like the sinister Under My Thumb, countryish Torn and Frayed and Dead Flowers, prog rocky 100 Years Ago, and melancholic Winter tend to get underrated.

As a live act, they did not have that much to offer until Mick Taylor joined the band in 1969. They were smokin' in the early 70s, until he left at the end of '74. If you like the Stones and have not listened to the Brussels Affair live release, you are in for a treat.

I do think they have not really put out anything great since 1974, with a few decent exceptions (Some Girls was pretty good). It's nice that they're still out on the road though. Jagger's stamina at his age is unbelievable.


No snark: I feel I've given it an honest try, but I have never been able to understand the cult of personality surrounding John Lennon, even before I learned he was physically abusive towards his wife and mentally abusive towards his eldest son (which obviously didn't help). Although it may be difficult to put into words, what do you (and other Lennon fans here) find appealing about him besides his songwriting? Or is it just that?

^Thanks for your response Matty, it's insightful and makes me curious to check out some of those Lennon solo records again (it's been a long time since I did). I do agree that Lennon was the better songwriter of the two. McCartney's solo output has been really weak.

When I was referring to them not having an edge, I wasn't thinking of the originality of their songwriting or recording techniques so much (which I recognize, though I do think it tends to be overstated), but it's the total package: their sound feels polished, slick, very pop. The production on some of the tracks you cite is 'heavy' (lots of fuzz etc), but a track like Yer Blues does not come across to me as the swampy, bluesy track it seems to be intended to be. Similarly, I think Helter Skelter is a decent song, but it sounds to me like a guy trying to write a heavy track. It feels forced and somehow just does not resonate with me. To again compare them to the Stones - to me an understated track like Under My Thumb packs way more (quiet) menace than Macca does on Helter Skelter. The Beatles' more obvious pop or avant-garde tracks sound more authentic to me, but I tend to find those less interesting musically.

I think what it comes down to, in the end, is that the Stones had stronger roots in blues and r&b, and this remained at the core of their sound even as they tried different styles and developed their own sound. I think that's what I'm missing from the Beatles' sound.

I'm not really an expert in music, which sucks because it means I can't discuss technicality's and I won't be of much use in this conversation but there's just something about the songwriting of The Beatles that evokes such emotion, such imagery in me that I cannot explain. The words grab me every time, they make me feel. I feel there's a Beatles song for every emotion I want to feel.

When it comes to the wife abuse, I hate how blown out of proportion it is. Everyone think's he is this monster who constantly beat the living shit out of his wife (maybe not you, but judging by the way some people speak about him you'd think just that). Put it this way: If John Lennon is a wife abuser, then Michael Jackson is a child abuser. I'm serious, and I'll tell you why. In fact, no, I'll let John, Cynthia and Yoko tell you: soundcloud.com/mayor_of_awesometown/lennonaccusations

In the sound clip above, you hear Cynthia Lennon explain that the first and only time he ever hit her was a smack out of nowhere and that he desperately regretted it, he never did anything like that again. Yoko on the other hand has never said that John hit her, in fact she's even denied it - even when they broke up for a few years in the early-mid 70s. The perfect time for her to go on about Lennon beating her if he did. So what we can see is that John Lennon was a moron and hit his wife at the spur of the moment, he made a mistake and regretted it. Never laid a finger on his wife again. Michael Jackson similarly dangled his baby boy off a multi-story hotel window, before taking him back in a couple of seconds later. That was a mistake too and he came to regret it, but otherwise he never did anything remotely abusive towards his children. Both of these people did something once off as an in-the-moment mistake and while they should be criticised for that specific act, it shouldn't become a definition of who they are. Calling someone a wife abuser to me implies they have often (usually actively) been physically or mentally abusive towards their wife when John Lennon simply wasn't.

He was far from a perfect human being and especially in his younger years, he was much rowdy and violent especially towards men when alcohol was involved, rough with women too I'm sure (certainly I've heard some wild sex stories in public places before he was famous, all consensually of course). An abhorrent father to Julian too, and it is rather sad because John began to make amends with their relationship in the 1970s. Apparently by the time he was murdered, things were actually going well between the two. John Lennon was an extremely flawed man, but a wife abuser he was not.

In fact while I'm on this, I think that's actually why I admire John Lennon. He was an extremely flawed human being, but I truthfully respect that some point around the turn of the 70s, he began to actively work on himself as a person by trying to repair his relationship with his son and being the best father he could to Sean. He was open and honest about his flaws in interviews too, using his fame and skills to not only bring attention towards worthy worldwide causes such as peace on earth, political and social justice etc, he even wrote songs about the oppression of females around the world. I admire him because he took the time to realise he was being a shitty person and actively worked towards bettering himself as a human being, and using his power to bring attention to worthy causes throughout his music. That is actually quite difficult. It's easy to always show love and this and that when you've always had a gentle personality, but it's another thing all together to actively work in the long term to bettering yourself as a human being. Make no mistake, he was a flawed human being as a youngster and he died as still a very flawed human being, but I find his efforts inspiring to this day.

John Lennon doesn't inspire me because of who he was as a teenager, but because of who he worked to become later on in life. If someone as flawed as Lennon can do it, why can't anyone else? Thankfully I'm nowhere near as bad as Lennon (in fact quite the opposite), but it inspires me to take my flaws and actively work on them like he went on to do. I hope that helps you understand why at least some people look up to him.

Neither ever really impressed me. I find the Stones a tad bit more soulful. But I could never really get into either. They both bore me, to be honest.

And I want to add, MJ was not a child abuser, not even to the extent that Lennon was a woman beater. I'm sorry but that's a false equivalence and I don't appreciate calling MJ a child abuser (after everything that he went through with such allegations) just to be able to draw a false parallel in Lennon's defense.

Lennon did hit a woman, whether just once or not, while MJ never abused a child. Hitting someone is a deliberate act of agression (even if it is just once), it's with the intent of hurting someone, while the baby dangling is just a lapse of bad judgement that didn't actually hurt the child. It was dangerous and that was the problem with it, but it's not a deliberate act of aggression.

Bad judgement =/= abuse.

You use these terms interchangeably just to be able to draw a paralell to an act that is considered domestic abuse by any measure.

Yes, potentially it could have been worse if he had dropped Blanket, but the act of dangling is still not abuse in itself. While hitting someone is.