-
Which is better, the Rolling Stones or the Beatles, and why?
-
Hi Howard. Nice thought provoking topic here. With my Google search, I was just trying to answer your question “which is better…”. As I am sure we can all agree this is a very subjective question, so I will support my opinion by pointing out the fact almost all polls on the matter lists the Beatles as #1. There is wide and overwhelming public consensus to that. Who is #2 is irrelevant as the evidence I am providing answers your question for me anyway. I learned a long time ago when debating something as subjective as this, getting drawn into the details is never ending and pointless because the argument from both sides is anecdotal at best. Focussing on the results is more effective, so that is what I intended to do here. I agree with Tomas here on his assessment of that Quora article.
-
Hi Jung. The problem with focusing just on results doesn’t achieve anything meaningful as the result can be engineered simply by the way the question is presented and the criteria used, as well as the age, gender and culture etcetera of those participating. Therefore the question included “Why”.
For example, some time ago my country held a referendum to decide whether we should become a republic. At the time, all the polls indicated that a substantial majority was in favour. However, we had a very conservative Prime Minister in power and he was opposed to any change. Consequently his government designed the question in a way they new it would be defeated. The opposition would have worded the question differently and would have got a different result. By the same token, I believe Britain could have achieved a different Brexit response if the campaign and actual question were handled differently.
Eric Olsen’s review above, isn’t anecdotal. His argument is well researched and includes facts that list the achievements of each band. Your googled surveys give us no information at all, and many such surveys are based on particular age groups and specific media audiences and are consequently subject to the personal preferences and anecdotal information as you indicate.
I am not surprised you agree with Tomas’s assessment about the Quora article and I believe most Club members would share your view. However, it wasn’t the only Quora response as there were many, but this one had the most replies. Maybe I’ll let Keith Richards have the last word.
At one point during the recent television special honoring the 40th anniversary of “Saturday Night Live,” a door on the set opened, and Keith Richards emerged to enthusiastic applause. Wearing a black jacket and slacks, his white shirt billowing out of his pants, Richards strode with his customary swagger down a short flight of stairs to center stage. As always, he looked like that was exactly where he belonged. The only thing missing was a cigarette—and his guitar.
“In the early Sixties, a band came out of England and it changed the world,” he said, his voice a honey-and-gravel growl. He paused for effect. “But enough about the Rolling Stones,” he continued, smiling. “Ladies and gentlemen, Paul McCartney.”
-
Wow Howard, that is quite the epic review by Eric Olsen. I don’t know who he is, but I assume he is someone with some authority in the subject? By some of his off center choices of bands to be included in his top ten, I can only presume it’s a list of his favorites as opposed to a list of the all time greatest. Despite his obscure selections, interestingly the Beatles checks all his boxes and is his #1. Attests to the universal adoption of the Beatles as the best even among the more cult music followers like Eric Olsen.
-
Let me put my 2 cents worth in…
I grew up with 2 older brothers and their music tastes were different…. Still is… Lol… I grew up to appreciate both The Rolling Stones and The Beatles but I tended and still do, prefer The Beatles, their stuff is just more to my liking in the lyrical, instrumentation aspects while The Stones, yes have some good songs, etc but they appeal more for the entertainment aspect. I’ve never seen neither in concert but that is my take on this topic… I kinda see both in similar ways but The Beatles just have my vote and better edge on the merits I mentioned above. The Stones is more like a party band, whereas Beatles, more for listening enjoyment, yes Beatles could entertain too, but in a different and slightly less flamboyant manner than that of the Stones… (not sure if “Flamboyant” was the right word but it’s what I could think of at this moment to summarize their style as….)
-
Well articulated Jacki. What you said reminded me of what Brian Wilson remarked about Paul, his supreme melodies and the versatility. The Stones had some remarkable rock and roll tunes and sublime ballads but come nowhere close to the versatility of the Beatles output.
-
Nicely put Jacki. I like the Beatles for the same reason. As for the Stones, some of us grew up listening to them and have fond memories of all the parties we had that were highlighted by their music. Even today, I can still reflect on a particular day in the 1960s and 1970s purely by the music I was listening to, and as well as the Stones, this included the Beatles, The Kinks, Manfred Mann, The Hollies, The Who, Hermans Hermits, The Byrds, The EasyBeats, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, The Sex Pistols, The Saints, The Bee Gees, The Seekers and even Pussycat from Holland, just to name a few off the top of my head. We were so lucky to grow up with the music we had at the time.
I was living in Christchurch, New Zealand when I first heard Pussycat’s “Mississippi” in 1977. For a long time I always thought they must have been an American country and western group and it wasn’t until about ten years ago I found out they were three Dutch sisters and that they had the first ever Dutch number one single in the UK at the time. The song had been written by their guitar tutor in 1969 after he was inspired by the Bee Gees “Massachusetts”. Yes, music can have a lasting impression on some of us.
Just try substituting Massachusetts for Mississippi in this video:
-
You’re right, Howard. “Mississippi” really sounds like a “lost” Bee Gees song!
You probably know this story, but I thought I’d share it with everyone. Years after the release of “Massachusetts”, Robin Gibb met Judith Durham and told her that they had written the song for The Seekers, but their manager turned it down without running it by them. Then after Maurice died The Seekers recorded and released it in tribute.
One thing that puzzles me is why the list of major British groups from the 60’s always seems to omit the accurately but inefficiently named Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich. I discovered them on YouTube a few years ago, and to me they seem to be comparable to The Dave Clark Five. Could it be that they were just a year or two behind the times in an era of rapid change in the musical landscape?
-
-
Howard, I can certainly relate to how songs from a certain time growing up, can trigger such fond memories. For me it would be a little later in the late 70’s and 80s. When I hear certain songs by ELO, Eagles, Steve Miller Band, Elton John, it triggers volumes of memories from times hanging out at my best friends place listening to his records, and cruising around in his car listening to those tunes. I was just 15 but my friend was 16 and just got his drivers license so it felt like awesome freedom cruising around with our favorite music. Music we had as we were growing up certainly was a gift, and we were fortunate there were some great music to grow up with.
In the video Pussycat-Mississippi they use a Framus string instrument. It was funny on another post here today, we were just discussing a Framus 12 string used in “Nothing is In Vain”. The Framus in this video is not a guitar though.
-
Well I’m not surprised you developed a taste for Mustangs Jung. Nothing better than riding around in a car as a teenager listening to your favourite music. Can’t say I’m into the doof, doof, doof I hear emanating from cars these days though!
No need to guess what these two drag queens would have been listening to when they were 15/16!
https://test2.monalisa-twins.com/drifting/
-
LOL. ??. Love it Howard! Thanks for digging out their drifting video..For those new to the MLT club you probably figured it out, that not only are the twins remarkably musically gifted, but they are ultra cool too!
-
-
Hi Howard, thanks for pointing the Lennon quote info. Led me to another online search and I found the original audio of Jasper Carrott on the BBC saying the phrase in 1981, and not attributing it to John. That was later news outlets adding the “John Lennon famously said…”
Please be aware that the phrase “you’re being too sensitive”, at least here in America, is seen as a put-down and shutdown. Personally I have no problem with it, as I always try to be sensitive and don’t think there’s such a thing as being too sensitive. I’m not offended either, I love talking about The Beatles and don’t think they need defending. I have a bit of a knack to spot people who use words in manipulative ways. This “David Steward” puts as his tag line, a sentence to summarize who he is, as “A lifetime Beatles Fan”. You may think I read too much into it, but some Beatles fans, like myself, don’t remember a time when we were not Beatles fans. My earliest memory is being told that The Beatles had broken up, and I was devastated. I was 2. Point is that for some of us (millions?) The Beatles are more than music, and when someone says they are a “Lifetime” fan, that carries a weight and opens a trust from an unspoken understanding. He then proceeds to state that he likes the Stones more than The Beatles. If you define yourself like he did, then it’s a contradiction, you could call it a lie. He could have his tag line as “A Rock fan” or “I like The Beatles”. He didn’t. I’m pointing this out in Black and White, not an opinion. Unfortunately, I’ve seen this many times, and while I would like to think that they are doing it with good intentions, they are almost always not. Usually when you point out their deception, they go into a tirade on how you can’t talk to Beatles fans, to deflect from their ways. I don’t mind somebody saying they like NSYNC more if it’s genuine. My experiences shape who I am and what I like, and they are uniquely mine, as it is for everybody. I just don’t like it when people lie, especially if the only purpose is to put somebody down. That’s what prompt me to speak up.
Now, on the discussion of Beatles vs. Stones, it was also a “thing” when I was in school in my teens (80’s). I think the Stones were trying to ride their friends coattails and Brian Epstein went along with it because he was trying to create that clean image for them. Remember he got them out of the leather outfits and put them in suits.
In my opinion, The Beatles on stage blow everybody out of the water, not only Stones, but Bowie, Pink Floyd, Dylan, even Elvis. See those raw performances from the early 60’s and they are on fire, nobody wanted to go after them. The Stones were a great band, but I’d much rather have Paul or John as front man, than Mick. On songwriting, is a slam dunk, as is influence over other musicians. Longevity may be used in different ways, but today there’s more Beatles music being played than Stones music, even without counting solo work. Ringo is the best drummer in the world. Proof is that in 1968 he left The Beatles and they could have had any drummer they wanted, including Ginger Baker, Keith Moon, John Bonham, Mitch Mitchell, but they didn’t, they filled the studio with flowers and told him in no uncertain words that he was the greatest drummer. The Beatles were the greatest band and no other drummer could have done a better job. Now that’s my opinion, which happens to be John, Paul and George’s opinion. Paul even voiced it again this July 7. Biased? Maybe, but it carries a weight.
I share a birthday with Keith Richards and I’d love to see him play up close. Would like to hang out an afternoon with Ron Wood or Mick, but nothing would compare to spending a moment of time with Paul or Ringo. Or sitting in the Cavern with Mona and Lisa. ?
-
And well put Tomas. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I must say I agree entirely with most of what you have posted. I believe Dave Stewart was quite harsh and a little extreme with his assessments. However, I think it is a step too far to say that Ringo was the best drummer in the world. The rest of the Beatles preferred him because their playing style was developed with him and his drumming was so essential to their music. Just because they preferred him doesn’t mean they think he was the best drummer in the world, but rather the best drummer for the Beatles, just like Charlie is the best drummer for the Stones, Keith Moon the best drummer for The Who and John Bonham the best drummer for Led Zeppelin.
Remember, in 1975 Karen Carpenter was named drummer of the year by Playboy Magazine, even though most of her hits included a studio drummer (Hal Blaine), much to the chagrin of Jon Bonham. I guess this says more about Playboy readership than anything else.
I must apologise for the “too sensitive” quip. I think maybe I was being, umm, a little insensitive! I know Beatles fans are very passionate about their music and the Fab Four.
Don’t worry Tomas, I share your thoughts about the Beatles, just as every other member of this club would and just like you, I too would love nothing better than sitting in the Cavern with Mona and Lisa.
I’ll endeavour to post another comparison that hopefully isn’t so controversial.
-
I like this review by Michael Salfino from May 23, 2018, who uses categories like innovation, durability, and diversity, to make the age-old rock debate into a best-of-five series.
“The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones. The debate has been raging for decades, and it will never die. The two iconic British invaders are inextricably linked in history, influencing and rivaling each other in near equal measure. The Beatles may be the most celebrated rock band ever, but the Stones are the “Greatest Rock ‘n Roll Band in the World.” It’s like a battle of champions in sports, but without any rules or a scoreboard. So let’s approach this as if it were a sports series—an old-school, best-of-five, winner take all.
What are the categories to represent the games in this series? Using some of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame’s criteria—honorees must have “demonstrat[ed] unquestionable musical excellence and talent” and “had a significant impact on the development, evolution and preservation of rock & roll”—and some other factors that help quantify greatness, we came up with the following:
Innovation: Pioneering achievements that paved the way for others to follow. Doors the band opened that perhaps otherwise would have remained closed.
Inspiration: The number and quality of the groups that are deemed by music historians and critics to have built their sonic landscape upon their foundation. This, of course, is highly subjective, so for a neutral arbiter we turned to the internet music database AllMusic.com, whose editors determine for every recording artist the other artists or groups they “had a direct musical influence on, or were an inspiration to.”
Best Peak Work: When they were both at their best, who was better? It’s the inverse of durability.
Durability: it’s not just peak performance that matters in assessing the importance of an artist but how their art withstands the test of time.
Diversity: Having a sound is important but a measure of greatness is the breadth of their catalogue and not just a single or even a handful of signature characteristics.
OK, enough with the preamble and rules. let’s get this show rocking.
INNOVATION
This seems to be a slam dunk for The Beatles. Just their studio innovations alone could fill a book. They had the crudest instruments to create their sonic masterpieces, but in the spirit of how Isaac Newton invented integral calculus to prove the laws of gravity, The Beatles pushed their engineers and producers to pioneer double-tracking, backmasking, feedback, multi-tracking audio loops, stereo, overdubbing, distortion and on and on. Nearly every modern stereo recording technique grew from The Beatles’ innovation. They also were the first studio band, first to print lyrics on an album, first to popularize non-pop/hit (meaning FM) radio, pioneers of the rock concept album (even though their label, EMI, hurt the concept by stripping Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band of two key songs: “Penny Lane” and “Strawberry Fields Forever”), and the first to create a single with two “A” sides. They recorded the first satellite television broadcast, performed the first stadium show, made the first music video. And this doubtlessly leaves much out.So, easy win for the Fab Four, right? Not so fast. The Stones pioneered home-recording and the use of a mobile recording rig, developed a trademark logo that didn’t even include their name, reveled in being punks and rebels, did rock’s first unplugged (basically) album (“Beggar’s Banquet”), were the first group without their name on a record (in 1964), first to incorporate modern design into their record sleeves (with the 3D on Their Satanic Majesty’s Request and the zipper on Sticky Fingers), staged the first festival show headlined by a single group (OK it ended badly, but still), released the first rock live album to receive the same acclaim as studio efforts (Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out), were at least arguably the first band to play into cyberspace, and had their own list of studio innovations though mostly for the type of instruments used (electric pianos, marimbas).
The Beatles win here but it’s not a shutout.
INSPIRATION
It’s hard to even imagine rock ‘n’ roll without The Beatles. Jimmy Page said, “If it hadn’t been for the Beatles, there wouldn’t be anyone like (Led Zeppelin) around.” Even Keith Richards said, “The Beatles were the first to actually find that middle path between the artistic and the intellectual and at the same time still be on the street.” Every group in rock history is on at least one of those roads, all paved by the Liverpudlians. So it’s no surprise The Beatles have more than twice as many groups listed among those they “influenced,” either “directly” or substantively, as The Rolling Stones: 211, according to AllMusic, to the Stones’ 87. Let’s more closely examine the top 10 for each.Beatles: 10cc, Badfinger, Bee Gees, Cheap Trick, David Bowie, Donovan, Electric Light Orchestra, Harry Nilsson, Oasis, Supertramp, The Byrds.
Rolling Stones: AC/DC, Aerosmith, Faces, Flamin’ Groovies, New York Dolls, Royal Trux, The Black Crowes, ZZ Top, Billy Squier, David Bowie.You can argue that either way, I suspect. In fact you can say the Stones list is more top-heavy. But if you ask, say, Bob Dylan, he’‘ll give it to The Beatles. “We were driving through Colorado, we had the radio on, and eight of the Top 10 songs were Beatles songs…’I Wanna Hold Your Hand,’ all those early ones. They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid… I knew they were pointing the direction of where music had to go.”
Dylan never said anything similar about the Stones. And Dylan gets the final word. Things are not looking too good for the “Greatest Rock Band in the World.”
BEST PEAK WORK
The Stones have, of course, outlived The Beatles by five decades, but their peak periods are nearly parallel. Even the worst Beatles albums are very good. If you go track-by-track and grade every cut on a 100-point scale and average them (I did this once), the best Beatles album grades out as A Hard Day’s Night. (Of course, your mileage may vary.) If you are a Paul person (or don’t really know it), you’ll say Revolver. If John is your bag, you probably love Rubber Soul the best. If you want groundbreaking rock permanence, fine, Sgt. Pepper. Eclecticism, The White Album. Harmonic beauty and studio sophistication, Abbey Road.But I’m giving this game to The Rolling Stones. Sticky Fingers is flawless, consistently brilliant without any let up, diverse in mastering pop rock, hard rock, jazz-rock, country-rock (which this album pretty much invents) and confessional rock (“Moonlight Mile”). It’s arguably the greatest album ever made. It also features the best band lineup—with Mick Taylor replacing the late Brian Jones on guitar—ever. And while The Beatles have always been underrated players (especially McCartney’s bass playing), you can’t get better than Taylor and Keith Richards on guitar. Plus Charlie Watts finally figured out how to be a rock drummer on Sticky Fingers (it only took him about seven years). Look, you can fight me, you can bite me, you can bloody me, but even spinning it today on a turntable, this album “destroys your notion of circular time.”
DURABILITY
Now we have a series. Two games to one. Someone had to be up two games to one and it happens to be The Beatles. The Stones are in this! But durability? This does not sound promising.The Beatles were only a band for eight years, but they’ve maintained a hold on every generation that followed. Is it so shocking that the two best-selling vinyl LPs in 2017 overall (not just back catalogue) were Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road? No Stones album charted. Yes, the 50th-anniversary reissue of Sgt. Pepper obviously helped. But what explains Abbey Road?
Furthermore, The Beatles notched their 32nd Top 10 album in any sales in 2016 with Live at the Hollywood Bowl, which peaked at No. 7. Their catalogue is worth more than the GDP of most countries. But The Stones have enjoyed 37 Top 10 albums after adding Blue and Lonesome, a covers LP, in late 2016, which peaked at No. 4. This came more than 10 years after their last studio release, A Bigger Bang, which sold only 9,000 more copies in its first week of release.
Fifty-six years since forming, the Stones are still playing to sold-out crowds in the world’s biggest venues (like, right now). Keith Richards is not just merely still alive. How can anyone get the edge over The Rolling Stones in durability? Just staying together, especially Jagger and Richards, for more than half a century is mind-boggling, especially when you consider that The Beatles couldn’t even last a decade together.
I feel I can guarantee that people will be playing Beatles music for as long as we survive as a species. I’m a little less certain of that when it comes to the Stones. So we’re going to have to call this: tie.
DIVERSITY
The Stones can’t win but they can tie. This is a fair category since the Beatles had a seven-year recording career and just 213 original songs they actually released in their time. The Stones have been recording for exactly 213 years.The Beatles’ evolution over a relatively brief recording career is the most earth-shattering in the history of rock ‘n’ roll. It’s nearly impossible to even fathom that the group that released “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” in 1964 could in just three years record “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “A Day in the Life.” That “Hey Jude” and “Revolution” could be on the same single is as insane now as the day in 1968 when Jagger and Richards heard the acetate in a London club and realized that the ground they thought they’d made up with “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” was lost. Drown in your beers, boys.
The Beatles are unfair. They have the two greatest songwriters in rock history (oh, add “writing your own songs” to The Beatles’ innovations), plus George Harrison. All of them could write words and music, and all were endlessly searching and seeking new experiences so their progress was sure to be immense. The Stones are no slouches here. But they’ve always been more in tune with processing popular sounds and making them their own rather than really expanding their pallet. “Miss You” is a great Stones disco song, but it’s a “Stones disco song.” The same is true when they explore blues, soul and country. They have a signature sound that trademarks whatever they do. The defining characteristic of The Beatles, perhaps, is that, in the final analysis, they really don’t have a signature sound. That is perhaps what it means to be “Beatlesesque.”
It’s a closely contested series, but when the buzzer sounds it’s The Beatles (Innovation, Inspiration, Diversity) over The Stones (Best Peak Work—no small achievement—and the push on Durability). Stay tuned for the rematch.
-
Beatles are better.
1) A conservative estimate is that they have sold 1.6 billion singles and 177 million LPs in the US alone. It goes to 600 billion LPs worldwide. And that is after being in the public eye as a group for 6 years. By comparison the Stones have sold 240 million LPs.
2) Paul on bass. Listen to Paperback Writer, Rain and Something.
3) 21 number 1s in the US and 27 in US/UK combined. By comparison the Stones have had 8 number ones.
4) 25 Beatle albums have reached number 1 on Billboard which means more of their compilations/re-releases were number 1 than albums they actually released.
5) All of the primary Beatles LP releases charted in 1987. Still don’t know why unless it is because everyone bought the CDs.
6) The 3 Anthology LPs were in the top 5 in 1995/6.
7) The CD “1” was number one in sales in 2000 and in 2001. It was released in late 2000 and dominated sales for both years.
8) In 2016 two Beatles LPs were in the top 15 LPs for the year…….50 years later.
9) 2017 the number 1 LP in UK (#3 in US) was the re-release of Sgt. Peppers……50 years later.
10) 2018 the number 6 Billboard album was the White Album.
11) The most covered pop song ever is Yesterday. #2 is Something.
I’m a numbers guy have degrees in statistics and economics…..so to me numbers tell a story.
Mike
-
Mike,
Very impressive research on those stats, but I think on #1 you meant 600 million LP’s rather than 600 billion!
-
Yep, the 1.6 billion was so much that I carried it over to the LPs.
-
-
Good point Dave! I have to say that Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich are favourites of mine. In fact, one of the very first records I remember buying (second hand), was their “Bend It” single in the mid-sixties.”Bend It!” was a big hit in Europe, including a Number One in Germany. To obtain a bouzouki sound on the recording, an electrified mandolin was used. The song was inspired by music from the film soundtrack of Zorba The Greek. The British music magazine NME commented that dozens of US radio stations had banned the record because the lyrics were considered too suggestive. The group responded by recording a new version in London with a different set of words, which was rush-released in the US, as the original single was withdrawn from sale.
Later in the sixties, I also purchased the Dave Clark Five’s Greatest Hits and in the seventies, it was Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich’s Greatest Hits.
An interesting fact about the group, vocalist Dave Dee, an ex-policeman, was at the scene of the motoring accident that took the life of the American rock and roller Eddie Cochran and injured Gene Vincent in April 1960.
The reason they weren’t successful in the US is probably that their record companies, US labels, Fontana and Imperial Records, failed to secure them a US tour or TV appearances. Fontana set up just two appearances on national US TV programs. In contrast, Dave Clark, who was probably the worst rock drummer of all time, had a real skill at self-promotion and Americans of the time were really into their almost vaudeville type performances. Just my opinion and apologies in advance if I have just offended any DC5 fans!
Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich really liked to dress up colourfully and I have no doubt their live performances would have been a treat. They were fortunate in having two great songwriters in Ken Howard and Alan Blaikley. As well as their number 1 hit, “The Legend of Xanadu”, these two also wrote the hit song “Have I The Right” for The Honeycombs, who were fairly unique at the time for featuring a female drummer (Honey Lantree), who, dare I say it, could have held her own against Dave Clark. Not sure how she would have stacked up against the very talented Mona though!
-
Thanks, Howard. You’re an invaluable fountain of information!
It’s a shame, in the Internet age, that DDDBM&T’s treatment by U.S. record companies fifty years ago still defines their legacy, or lack thereof. When I first found them on YouTube I thought I had tapped into a parallel universe. I couldn’t (and still can’t) believe a group with so many groovy songs could be so completely unknown nowadays.
I think their most fascinating production was “Tonight, Today”, which they recorded after Dave Dee left the group. It’s essentially got three different songs going at the same time, which is the musical equivalent of juggling balls while standing on your head.
-
-
Hi Michael. This is my second attempt at a response as my original post was lost to the ether when I clicked on the submit button.
That’s a very impressive set of statistics and you are obviously a very passionate Beatles fan. Definitely nothing wrong with that and you’re certainly a member of the right club. However, you would be well aware of the phrase, “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”! Determining record units sold is not easy and there are different criteria for counting the numbers, including the particular country. However, as you indicate, no one comes close to the Beatles for total units sold.
Following is just one example of the statistics.
- To ensure the highest level of fact checking and editorial control, this list sources sales figures to news organizations and highly regarded music industry related organizations such as MTV, VH1, Billboard and Rolling Stone.
- The figures of total certified units within the tables below are based on certified units of albums, singles (including digital downloads) and videos.
On the table provided, we find the following numbers:
Beatles: Total available certified units: 278 million and Claimed: 600 million
Stones: Total available certified units: 99.3 million.
However, sources claim anything from 200 to 250 million Stones units sold.
Now I’m sure you would have to agree that commercial success doesn’t necessarily equate to quality or worthiness. According to the BBC, the Bay City Rollers sold 120 million records. Now that would dwarf the record sales of many excellent groups, including the MLT. This is one of the reasons that Michael Salfino used some of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame’s criteria—honorees must have “demonstrat[ed] unquestionable musical excellence and talent” and “had a significant impact on the development, evolution and preservation of rock & roll”—and some other factors that help quantify greatness. You will notice commercial success isn’t one of the criteria.
According to certified numbers from The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), with 183 million certified album sales, no artist compares to The Beatles. You can add the numbers of industry giants Zeppelin and the Stones together and, at 178 million, the two bands still come up short of The Beatles. The nearest competitor (Garth Brooks, 148 million), stands at 35 million sales short of that number. And that’s not even counting the No. 1 singles the Fab Four released over the years.
I’m pleased to see so many people have been coming to the defence of the Beatles, as I expected. However, I would just add the following. Look at the RIAA certifications for albums, and the Stones are tied with Aerosmith.
Now as big as Aerosmith have been, there has never been a minute where they were as overall-BIG as the Rolling Stones. Among groups, only the Beatles or Led Zeppelin qualify. That’s why the Stones can still sell out 70,000 seat football stadiums and nobody else can. Other old acts like Aerosmith can’t, and modern superstars like Beyonce can’t. They are the only ones who can book and sell out multiple football stadium dates in the USA.
-
Hi Howard;
Yes, I am familiar with the lies, damned lies, and statistics saying. I have an MS in statistics and during my professional career heard it at least once a month over 30-some years.
But, I went to the stats because nearly every other way of determining “best band” is subjective (even Rolling Stones lists) and I treated the buying of LPs, etc. as votes for the particular band. I also kept the comparisons based on the same numerical idea so that if the measurement was off, then it would be off for both groups. In that case the magnitude of the difference would be a better measure. Also the fact that the Beatles are still charting 50 years after the fact is partly due to marketing (re-releases) but also that their music is seen as meaningful to younger generations.
On the other hand (I have a few degrees in economics, so I can get away with saying this)…..there was a cultural and sociological line of demarcation in the US (can’t speak for other countries). The demarcation was before and after Beatles. Guys grew out their hair after the Beatles, guys wanted to start forming bands because of all the screaming girls, etc. That could be said to be true for the other bands from England but we had the phrase “Beatlemania” and not “Stonesmania”. It was also believed that the Beatles paved the way for the other groups and individuals to “invade” (Stones, Kinks, Who, Dusty, Petula, Beau Brummels, and even Freddie and the Dreamers—–which proved that the US would have embraced nearly all things from England).
I believe one telling component is what the Rolling Stones believed about the competition between the two groups. Keith R. said in his autobio that the Beatles were seen as the “4-headed monster” which he clarified to mean that any of the 4 would have been successful as the “front man” for any group they led. He did not make that claim about any other group. Keith also conceded that the Beatles “broke down the door” for all the other groups from England.
Another thing I have noticed is that the Beatles were very innovative and “broke some musical rules” and still made the music appealing. I am currently learner the lead guitar part to Ticket To Ride and I am noticing that the lead part was not written by one person. The beginning part appears to have been written by John, the middle by George, and the riffs by Paul. And the parts do not make sense to me in terms of strict, classical musical theory…….but it still works. There are some chordal patterns in If I Fell and She Loves You that deviated from traditional RnR and music theory which others were not doing at the time, but it still worked and changed the way RnR was approached by successive groups. Then when you add in alternative instruments that George Martin introduced to the Beatles and the innovation continued: harps, French and English horns, string quartets, and on and on.
As far as filling stadiums…….I would point to the 100s of millions who watched the Beatles in the late 1960s via satellite. We could also travel down the road of comparative TV market share on Ed Sullivan with the various groups, but it is late at night here and……well sleep seems more inviting than a web search for TV ratings in the US.
So, I went with the numbers because things can be quantified that way, but I also believe these other items show the uniqueness of the Beatles. Mike.
-
Yep, if Americans took to Freddie and the Dreamers, they’d take to just about anything. Didn’t really take to the Kinks though but loved The Dave Clark Five!
Yes, no doubt about the numbers and I well understand and appreciate the Beatles universal appeal and greatness. Still, some people like apples and some people prefer oranges and although sometimes a pointer, as I stated, commercial success isn’t the definitive proof of how good a group is or why people may prefer them.
I think that using some of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame’s criteria is a better method for the sake of this argument and explains why some very popular and commercially successful acts haven’t been accepted.
I have heard a couple of American DJs debating why Paul Revere and the Raiders were never accepted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Popular and very successful in the States but I guess just too vaudeville for the Hall of Fame.
Now I don’t expect to change anybody’s views and don’t want to as I accept that this club will always have dedicated and passionate Beatles fans, including me. Maybe it’s my schizoid tendencies that have me wavering sometimes!
-
Yep……on the other hand again. I am not against the Rolling Stones. I actually have a few of their CDs. I believe their best period was the last years of Brian Jones through Mick Taylor period. Songs like She’s A Rainbow, Dandelion, Honky Tonk Woman, Ruby Tuesday, Wild Horses are among my favorites.
I don’t think groups like Paul Revere and the Raiders or the Monkees should be in HOF…..but with that said, I understand that the HOF selections are a little political too. I have heard that anyone who recorded on ATCO has an easier path to the HOF…..but again that is hearsay. I do question why some groups like Steppenwolf are not in the HOF….they wrote two classic rock songs and that is more than what some others have done who are in the HOF. Then there are groups that I put in the gray area like the Association and Carpenters…….soft pop and rock but there are some classics in their resume and they sold a bunch. John Denver also falls into that category as well.
Yeah, I guess I am in the camp of there are the Beatles and then there is everybody else. So, I am at the extreme for the Beatles. It could be that it is because I grew up with them. I was 10 going on 11 in Feb. 1964 and I was 16 going on 17 when they broke up.
Good talk. Mike.
-
Log in to reply.
