RSS
Stones or Beatles?
Quick: what’s your answer? We (Tamsen and Matt) have been tossing this question around quite a bit lately, and we think it reveals a lot.
Stones or Beatles? So strong are our associations with both that no one ever thinks we’re asking about rocks and insects. The names are shared symbols, soundtracks to individual memories. You hear the White Album’s spine crack, the Sticky Fingers’ zipper growl. You hear teenage angst, one-night-stands, love lost and found. You hear the music of an era, and music for the ages.
Stones or Beatles? It’s tempting to hedge the question. The bad boys, or the dreamers? The interpreters or the creators? Some people will tell you it depends on their mood. Or the albums in question. Some answer with a different band entirely (Matt usually answers with The Beach Boys, others say Elvis, others The Dead).
But when pressed, most people have a firm opinion one way or another.
Stones or Beatles? Tamsen discovered quite by accident that Matt likes to use this as an interview question (quite by accident because Matt informed her she passed without ever having actually asked her the question…). Being a fan of unexpected questions, Tamsen has since been asking it a lot: on Facebook (where it kind of blends in to the random quizzes and apps), on Twitter (where it got more answers than any other status update she posted), at the Gravity Summit Tweetup (where it was so popular that others started asking it, even to MC Hammer [Stones]).
It’s a question people love to answer because it’s public and personal at once: everyone has an opinion, but everyone comes to that opinion in their own way.
Stones or Beatles? Most people haven’t consciously prepared their answer. So, when you ask it, you get an answer shaped by who they are and how they see themselves. To Matt, the question reveals both a person’s affinity for and knowledge of music (something he values pretty much above all else) and whether or not, in his eyes, that person is a “thinker [Beatles] or a feeler [Stones].”
To Tamsen, the answer (though interesting) is only the start of the story. She likes to ask why someone made the choice they made, which in turn reveals frames of reference: those who cite coolness value status, those who cite creators vs. interpreters value approach to ideas, those who talk about who’d be more fun to see value experiences.
In other words, your understanding of someone’s answer is inexorably shaped by your own.
Stones or Beatles? Yes, it’s possible to overthink this, and we have. But it’s still fun to ask—and interpret.
So…Stones or Beatles?
(And why?)
Categories Outside the Square
Twitter
LinkedIn
I love this post. Just fun. Stones, for me, always the Stones. Having seen them from the front row once, there is nothing like the “on the edge” energy they exude.
But yesterday, I noticed for the first time ever that I actually do like the Beatles now. I have never been a fan. But, our CD is cranking them right now and I still like it. Does this mean I am getting old
Keep up the fun conversation guys.
Sue
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sue Spaight, Tamsen McMahon, Anthony Verre, Sametz Blackstone and others. Sue Spaight said: This is a fun post – where do you stand? RT @tamadear: Stones or Beatles? The Post. http://bit.ly/37DCd0 [...]
For the record I answered “Beatles” when asked this question at the Gravity Summit after party. My reason was more cultural than anything else. My father was, and still is, a diehard Beatles fan.
Growing up, I got to know the songs and know the history behind the music. It created a real connection that is now part of me.
My equivalent of this question is “Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts?”
Can I vote for Zeppelin?
Random takes:
I think both have been significant to me for different reasons at different times. So I tried to think through what was unique about each outfit, and what about them resonates with me the most.
I think the Beatles innovated far more, and started more trends than they followed.
I think the Stones followed more trends, but they were also good at creating style mashups that combined a variety of influences into something uniquely theirs (rock, blues, psychedelia, country, pop.)
The Stones had really only one iconic voice, as opposed to the two the Beatles had (you could argue for three.)
Both created riffs and lines that are copied and repurposed through much of popular music today, but the Stones tend to influence rock musicians more, as opposed to the way the Beatles have had an influence on everything from pop to hip hop to folk music.
The Beatles had far more internal conflict — you wonder if they’d be merrily touring today like the Stones if everyone had survived. I think there was less of a band mentality in the group than an ensemble mentality — everyone was doing their own unique, individual thing to contribute to the whole.
The Stones were almost more stylish — even their girlfriends and wives were (Anita Pallenberg, Bianca Jagger, Patti Hansen, etc.) They defined what it was to look like a “rock star”. Yet the Beatles created style cues that have trickled down through pop music forever (the military jackets, the psychedelia, the hair, the boy band matchy-matchy thing).
The Stones are more known for their excesses — Keith Richards is an icon of “How did he survive all that?!”
So in the end, I’m not sure who I identify more with now — I loved the Beatles in high school because they were so lyrical and stylish and artsy. I loved the Stones in university because I dated a guy who would turn them up to 11 in his car and make the whole world seem a little more rock & roll cool.
I guess I’ll go with the Beatles, because their music fits into everything I feel and experience now: love (In My Life) wistfulness (Blackbird) ferociousness (Revolution) goofyness (When I’m 64, Octopus’ Garden), etc. And who can resist “Hey Jude”… best ever car/bar singalong song after “Sweet Caroline” and “Tiny Dancer”.
Meg! I love it!!
And yes you can certainly vote for Zeppelin. Now I just need to think of what that says about you…
But your response to the question says everything about you (and more!). You managed to nail down all the backing points about why you could choose one or the other.
I think the only thing that I could argue is the style of what it means to be a rock star today. Almost all Indie musicians now would fall into the Beatles sense of style. Years back I would say they took more of the Stones approach. But the shaggy hair and psychedelic look has stuck around more so than bandanas and waay too tight shirts. But that topic is even up for debate…
Anyways, if you were on the other side of an interview with me you’d be hired. Twice!!
Beatles. No question. Far better technically, and had more of my emotions covered by many of their songs. When I was learning guitar, I kept trying Beatles songs, but they were so hard. I have huge respect for what they did.
Beatles.
Stones. Until they turned, oh, 70. Then they got a little creepy. I’m just sayin.
The Beatles. Musicianship beyond measure. And I always found the Stones to be a little grating. Yeah, I know I’m gonna get crucified for that one. Mick Jagger gives me the creeps.
Not that I feel “educated” on the topic, but I do very much appreciate the Beatles. I didn’t love them the start, but each play gets better and better, and as Matt (co-writer) has taught me, the best albums are the growers.
Not even a competition.. BEATLES!
I have to admire the talent and complexity of the Beatles more, but it’s the Stones that make me move. So I’m shallow.
I’ve been asked this by two of your employees before and I’m still gonna give the same answer (mostly because I know how much it will drive Matt insane). Stones.
i guess it’s only fair that we tell you where we stand (but Matt will have to speak for himself). I’m a Beatles girl, always have been. Abbey Road is one of my favorites of all time, followed by the first album of the White Album, then Let it Be (both the Phil Spectored and un-Phil Spectored versions), and Sgt. Pepper’s.
But I love, love, love Exile on Main Street.
Matt and I had a fun time realizing we both have follow-up questions when people answer “Beatles.” I want to know which album; Matt wants to know “John or Paul?”
Neither of us has a follow-up for the Stones. (As Matt says, because they’re a feeling, and you can’t explain a feeling.)
Dilemmas like these are why someone invented Neapolitan ice cream. Don’t choose, indulge. I vote for the Clash as the third flavor (strawberry to…stones’ chocolate?? but then i guess the beatles had their strawberry fields…yet there’s no way the clash are vanilla).
Beatles
Abbey Road
Paul
Because I said so.
Two quotes that sum it up for all you poor souls that somehow like the Stones more:
“The Beatles’ run in the 1960s is good fodder for thought experiments. For example, Abbey Road came out in late September 1969. Though Let It Be was then still unreleased, the Beatles wouldn’t record another album together. But they were still young men: George was 26 years old, Paul was 27, John was 28, and Ringo was 29.
The Beatles’ first album, Please Please Me, had come out almost exactly six and a half years earlier. So if Abbey Road had been released today, Please Please Me would date to March 2003. So think about that for a sec: Twelve studio albums and a couple of dozen singles, with a sound that went from earnest interpreters of Everly Brothers and Motown hits to mind-bending sonic explorers and with so many detours along the way– all of it happened in that brief stretch of time. That’s a weight to carry.”
“It [the Sgt. Pepper's album] mostly seems like a slightly superior incarnation of The Rolling Stones’ Their Satanic Majesties Request, a record that (ironically) came out seven months after this one. Pop archivists might be intrigued by this strange parallel between the Beatles and the Stones catalogue—it often seems as if every interesting thing The Rolling Stones ever did was directly preceded by something the Beatles had already accomplished, and it almost feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970. But this, of course, is simply a coincidence. I mean, what kind of bozo would compare the Beatles to The Rolling Stones?”
There is no comparison. They did things no other band will ever do again, and got out before they ended up looking like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed36UQX8kXQ
I believe I came up with a somewhat sly and convoluted answer to the question when Matt asked it during my interview way back when.
I said the Stones have my favorite individual song from either band, but I like the Beatles more in general.
I believe Matt said that was acceptable.
And that song is…? Enquiring minds want to know!
Duh, paint it black.
Paint It Black was exactly my response when asked “Why?” during my interview, coincidentally.
I should have expected this to be a blog post. I’m only surprised it didn’t happen sooner!
I know that you say that Beatles are “thinkers” and Stones are “feelers” but on that I will have to disagree. I prefer the Beatles because they have a song to match every emotion, and every time I’ve ever taken a Myers-Briggs personality test I have been deemed a feeler. I agree with all of the above posts about the Beatles’ importance to music and culture. But for me, it is more than that. I can listen to Beatles music and think. I can listen and feel. Or I can just listen. But no matter how I experience the music it is always inspired. And that takes talent.
Though I do love the Stones for simple sentimental value. How can a girl not love something that reminds her of her father? (And it IS good music to roll the windows down and belt out at the top of your lungs on a good summer day).
Can I pick Boyz 2 Men?
Man they were great…
I wonder who would be the Boyz 2 Men equivalent for 1960 – 1970….
I’m Beatles all the way – but only the Across the Universe version of the Beatles. Gawd I love that soundtrack!
[...] always bring up the question: Stones or Beatles? We all know that The Beatles decided to bow out after a landmark album (Abbey Road) but the Rolling [...]
[...] question of Beatles of Stones is one I love to bring up. It says a lot about a person with how they respond. But we’re in a new era of music. This [...]