-
Which is better, the Rolling Stones or the Beatles, and why?
-
Hi Howard, yes please keep your insightful analysis and knowledge of the music world and rock history coming! It’s fascinating and always enjoy and learn a lot. After all, it’s the Beatles and all these great legendary bands from the 60’s that MLT get their inspiration from.
I see some parallels between Brian Wilson and the abuse he suffered from his father with his 2 little brothers and Beethoven who was similarly abused with his two younger brothers.
-
Was Paul McCartney in awe of John Lennon?
This is an interesting Quora response.Ely Matawaran, A.b. economics Bachelor of Arts Degrees, San Beda University
Do you know who said “John Lennon’s whole life was a cry for help”?Answer: Paul McCartney. He said so to Billboard.
And do you know who said “Paul McCartney is an egomaniac about everything.”?
Answer: John Lennon. He said so to Playboy.
That Paul McCartney is so in awe of John Lennon have never crossed my mind until I saw this Quora question that is requesting for an answer from me.
Paul McCartney is his own man and was never in awe of Lennon for he considered him as an equal. But after the ‘martyrdom’ of Lennon he was afraid that equality was in jeopardy.
Here’s what he said to Esquire on July 2015:
“John became a ‘martyr’ after his death and I started to get frustrated because people started to say, ‘Well, he was The Beatles’. And me, George and Ringo would go, ‘Er, hang on. Only a year ago we were all equal-ish’’. Yeah, John was the witty one. John did a lot of good work. But he also did a lot of not-great work. Now the fact that he’s now martyred has elevated him to a James Dean and beyond. So now there’s going to be a revisionism and it was going to be: John was the one.
Then Yoko would appear in the press saying (adopting a comedy Yoko accent), ”Paul did nothing. All he did was book the studio.’ Like, f— you, darling! Hang on. All I did was book the f—ing studio? Well, ok, people know that’s not true. But that was just a part of it. I mean, if you just pull out all his great stuff and then stock it up against my not-so-great stuff, it’s an easy case to make.”
Now would Paul be talking like that if he was in awe of John?
Remember that from the first time they met Paul was the one who impressed John, not the other way around.
After seeing and hearing Paul playing his Little Richard routine, John recalled he thought, ”It’s obvious he can play the guitar. He’s as good as me. But I’ve been kingpin until now. If I’d take him in, what’ll happen? But he is so good, he is worth having.”
At the same time, here was what the unimpressed Paul was thinking about John who had been drinking a bit, “Gosh, he’s all a bit smelly and beery!”
Later, Paul played a couple of new tunes that impressed John who wanted to know where he found them. Paul said he wrote them himself, one of which was ‘I Lost My Little Girl”.
It was Paul’s attempts at songwriting that inspired John Lennon to write.
And so, as they say, the rest was rock n roll history.
(With excerpts from the book “McCartney-Songwriter” by Howard Elson)
-
Was Paul McCartney a better guitar player than George Harrison?
This is one person’s opinion.
Lou Carlozo Lou Carlozo, Investment Contributor at U.S. News and World Report (2014-present) Updated Apr 18
“By far, by far, by far, Paul McCartney was the better lead guitar player, and there’s a lot of evidence to support this.
The original instrumentation of The Beatles from their Silver Beetles/Johnny & The Moondogs/Hamburg-era incarnations was always three guitar players: John, George and Paul. When they booked gigs, often without the benefit of the drummer (the Beatles blew up drummers more often than Spinal Tap), they’d tell club owners reluctant to book them, “The rhythm’s in the guitars!”
Once Stu Sutcliff (a terrible player but a close pal of John’s) exited the group, Paul was the natural choice to move over to bass because he had the most musical skill all around—and George certainly didn’t want to take over. The compromise was simple: the second best lead guitarist in the group assumed that role in exchange for the best lead guitarist on bass. Along with Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones and John Entwistle of the Who, McCartney redefined what a bass player in rock music could be—a first-class melody man with bass-drum power in his pick. John Lennon, even in his time of life where he hated just about everything Paul stood for, conceded, “Paul is one of the most innovative bass players ever.”
George’s style was certainly interesting, but hardly innovative and mostly reflected influences typical of the time: Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly, Scotty Moore and ’50s instrumental rock, including “Raunchy,” which landed him a spot in the group. But soon, his limitations as a guitar player became apparent. As he was unable to play the complex solo triplet on “A Hard Day’s Night,” engineer Norman Smith had to pitch the tape to half speed and have the riff doubled by a piano. In later live versions recorded at the BBC, that solo snippet is dubbed in from the album. At the time, George certainly deserved credit for popularizing the Rickenbacker 12-string guitar, but it was not an instrument he sought out so much as gifted to him by Francis Hall of Rickenbacker. Actually, it was offered to John first—John decided George might be better suited to play it.
From about that time on, Beatles fans saw hints that Paul might indeed have better lead guitar skills. On George’s “Think for Yourself,” Paul’s fuzz bass dominates the song as a fairly nasty-sounding subsonic lead guitar. The lead work on “Another Girl,” from “Help!” is likewise Paul at the helm, demonstrating an ability to negotiate the fretboard in ways George did not or could not.
But it’s “Taxman” where McCartney busts out of the gate. Engineer Geoff Emerick relates how Harrison—not out of perfectionism but limitation—simply couldn’t nail down a solo to match his acidic commentary on the British tax system. McCartney’s work is stunning: A D-key raga utilizing the open D string against fretted notes, and movement up and down the neck, with rapid note decorations that made it stand out.
Don’t get me wrong—George was a good and solid lead guitarist. But playing the instrument slowly and somewhat conventionally, he wasn’t near Paul’s equal. The “Good Morning, Good Morning” solo (a Fender Esquire through a Selmer amp) is Paul’s handiwork. Is there anything even close to it on “Sgt. Pepper”? He also played the lead guitar on the opening “Sgt. Pepper” cut as well, complete with flick-of-the-wrist riffing (not at all a characteristic of George’s playing—thanks to Quora community member Dan Rosenberg for helping me nail this detail).
Paul’s virtuoso performances on guitar also include “Blackbird,” and in his solo career with Wings, it’s hard to imagine George doing the angular, leather-and-dagger solo Paul does to close out “Helen Wheels.” I know as a lead guitar player, I spent quite a long time trying to learn it—it’s not as easy as it sounds.
George did of course innovate once he learned slide guitar, and just because he’s slow didn’t mean he was sleepy. “Something,” “Drive My Car,” “I Saw Her Standing There,” “Octopus’s Garden” and the beautiful, chiming C major to A descent on “You Never Give Me Your Money” all argue for respecting him as a player (that last specimen, by the way, a neat reworking of the guitar Harrison added to Eric Clapton’s “Badge”).
But Paul? He could rock the drums, piano, bass and guitar in a way that presaged him being a one-man band towards the end of The Beatles and the years after. Yes, as a lead guitarist he had his mawkish moments, especially on “McCartney” … then again, what could top his melody-line work on “Maybe I’m Amazed”?
I can’t help thinking there are many others out there like me who in our love of The Beatles craft, studied McCartney much closer than Harrison. In my pantheon of Top 10 guitarists who influenced my style, he’s definitely up there. The solos of George Harrison are certainly effective, catchy even. But they are what they are. Many of McCartney’s solos, by contrast, shimmer with occluded layers I’m still trying to unearth.“
-
Good Q Howard… I’ve got phonedata on briefly.. Having trouble falling asleep… Menopausal times.. Just lovely… Lol…. Well daylight savings times does that to me too… Lol…
I have to say that although for me, I think both are equal of their own musical guitaring aspects but I have to slightly favor George’s style… It’s a tad more to my liking…. I do love his stuff he did with Travelling Wilburys…. I guess having one out of my 2 older brothers who enjoys playing Blues style of Guitaring most and that’s what I grew up with being exposed to… My bro playing guitar tunes of bkues/ciuntry/rock by Beatles/Stones/Led Zeppelin, etc… And having jam sessions in the basement vwith his other music minded buddies… Well, it just kind of gravitated my opinion of preference a tad more towards George… Lol… As you say, to each of their own opinions… This was mine. ??
-
-
Thanks for sharing Jacki. I understand where you are coming from. I’m trying to get out of the habit of keeping musicians hours. Not so good when you’re not a musician.
It’s 4.30 pm, Thursday here in Aussie land at the moment, so a long way to go for me before bedtime!
George was crucial to the whole Beatles phenomenon as was Ringo. However, I’m one of those people who thinks Paul was their best musician. His live shows today are brilliant.
-
Some interesting comparison there Howard between Paul and George on their guitar skills, and Paul and John’s opinion of each other. All I can say is, for me Paul is the songwriting genius of the group, although I think John was a brilliant songwriter and legend in his own right and profoundly influenced and added to Paul’s brilliance. Together the 4 of them were far more brilliant than the sum of their parts.
-
I haven’t commented before here, but I think they are both great bands, it all comes down to personal taste. In all honesty I prefer the The Who to either one of them.
-
What did The Rolling Stones think of The Beatles?
This is a response from Ely Matawaran, Quezon City.
“Sir Paul McCartney told the Radio Times that The Rolling Stones envied The Beatles singing prowess.
Sir Paul said:
“The four of us (Beatles) were unusual.
“I talked to Keith Richards recently…well, a couple of years ago, and his take on it was: ‘Man, you were lucky, you guys, you had four lead singers,’ whereas The Rolling Stones only had one.
“I could sing, John could sing, George could sing and Ringo did numbers that he could sing. So it wasn’t just a front man and a back-up band.
“We were an entity. Mick used to call us ‘The Four-headed Monster’.”
In the 2013 book Beatles Vs Rolling Stone by John McMillian, Mick Jagger admitted they were outshone by The Beatles during the 60s.
“That’s us, the second best in the land”, said Jagger.
According to the book, Mick Jagger was shocked by the amount of hysteria surrounding The Beatles in the U.S. and wasn’t jealous of how trapped they felt because of their fans.
“I don’t envy those Beatles”, declared Jagger.
The Beatles had to endure constant bedlam because of their popularity including fears of assassination, riots and causing scandal.
Meanwhile, the Rolling Stones on the other hand enjoyed much higher level of freedom as they toured America and the world in the shadow of Beatlemania.
Few knew that Mick Jagger was in the audience when The Beatles played in front of then record audience of 55,600 people at Shea Stadium, Flushing, Queens in 1965.
And his reaction: that of fear!
He was scared of the level of fame the Beatles had achieved.
And as The Beatles became more creatively ambitious in the mid-60s, they started functioning a bit like generational pied pipers, inspiring the jealous admiration of their peers as well as legion of imitators.
As for the Rolling Stones, Mick was quoted as saying, “We have to be better because we’re only number two.”
Thank you.“
-
This may not be directly related to the Stones or Beatles but I thought it worthwhile throwing it into the mix, even though some of you may not be impressed with this dude’s guitar playing!
Classic Composers Guitar Battle – Beethoven VS Bach Vs Mozart Vs Vivaldi
-
Why did Paul McCartney sulk when John Lennon decided to do all the vocals on the song Come Together, and why did Paul then later secretly go into the studio by himself without the other band members’ knowledge and overdub his vocals?
”Short Answer: “Tit-For-Tat”. Detailed explanation:
By all accounts it was because John had wanted (desperately) to be asked to sing the lead vocal on “Oh Darling”.
John had been listening to Paul struggle with the vocal part and thought “I could do that in a couple of takes…why doesn’t he ask me to try singing it?”
Paul didn’t ask John to sing “Oh Darling”, preferring instead to chain-smoke for nearly a week straight to “roughen up” his voice and John took this as an affront…in fact he had been quoted as saying: “…if he (Paul) had asked me to sing on that (Oh Darling) I would have tried to keep the band together a little longer…”
Which (obviously) didn’t happen.
It was sort of Paul’s way of saying: “I can do a John Lennon vocal…I don’t need John to do this for me.”
A hurt Lennon responded by doing a (very credible…almost uncanny, really) background vocal to “Come Together” that really, really sounds like Paul is singing on it…“I can do a Paul McCartney vocal…I don’t need Paul.”
Yet another reason why this was becoming an untenable situation for all involved.
For all those who really believe the group didn’t need to disband, it’s details like this (and having to live with them day-in and day-out for years on end) that broke up The Beatles…not money, managers or women. All of whom were just convenient excuses for four man-children with limited communication skills who had outgrown the need for each others input and wouldn’t accept each other’s criticisms…and wouldn’t talk things out.”
-
Was Paul McCartney hard on George Harrison?
This is another response from Ely Matawaran, Quezon City.
“Yes is the answer. While John Lennon would allow Harrison to weave guitar hooks into his compositions, McCartney would sometime remove Harrison’s solos on such songs such as “Another Girl”, “Penny Lane” and “Hello, Goodbye”.
During The Beatles years, when Harrison started to assert himself musically, he chafed at what he saw as McCartney’s dictatorial direction.
In The Beatles Anthology, he recalled:
“There came a time when Paul (McCartney) had fixed an idea in his brain as to how to record one of his songs…It was taken to the most ridiculous situation, where I’d open my guitar case and he’d say, ‘No, no, we’re not doing that yet.’…It got so there was very little thing to do, other than sit around and hear him going, ‘Fixing a hole…’ with Ringo doing the time.”
It had gotten to the point where Paul was telling him how to play his instrument and we all heard him say in the “Let it Be” film:
“I’ll play what you want me to play. Or I won’t play at all if you don’t want me to. Whatever it is that’ll please you, I’ll do it.”
And it had gotten to the point where he wanted to leave the biggest band in the world and move on. He had actually walked out of a recording session but was prevailed upon later.
In the post-Beatles years, in a Press Conference for his 1974 tour he said,
“I’d join a band with John Lennon any day, but I couldn’t join a band with Paul McCartney, but it’s nothing personal. It’s just from a musical point of view.”
Was it not really personal? Maybe. But I think if you’re an artist trying to express your art and somebody tried to suppress it, you’d have a personal grudge on that somebody. Artists are sensitive people.
And how about Paul, was the reason personal why he was hard on George whom he said he considered his little brother? Or was it because of this – a case of elder brother being hard on his younger sibling?
I don’t think so, he had not targeted him. For Paul, a driven and passionate man, was not only hard on Harrison but equally hard on everybody, including himself.
In the book “Still the Greatest; The Essential of the Beatles Solo Careers” it was written that throughout the Seventies, guitarists for Wings would quit after realizing that they would have almost zero input on what they played on or did not play, which is fine; McCartney’s a musical genius and should be able to hire those who will do what he wanted done.
And I think there it was, the operative word – genius.
They say that geniuses are hard to work with because they hear voices in their head and they’d rather listen to those voices than to people around them.
So McCartney could not help himself but be himself. He would not listen to Harrison, he himself told in a video interview that he rejected Harrison guitar work for ”Hey Jude’ because “that’s my song.”
But Harrison must have his say, for he was not a session guitarist being paid by the hour. He was a Beatle, and an emerging musical giant at that, especially in the late 60s.
And so there was the problem. As Harrison himself complained that there seemed to be no more room for a contribution from him because ‘Paul had fixed an idea in his brain how his songs must be recorded.’
Meanwhile, at that time, he personified what French Poet Victor Hugo described as an idea whose time has come. Something that must be given way for it’s hard to stop.
And this became obvious when right after The Beatles broke up, his solo recordings were the biggest hits and outselling Paul’s. Thank you.”
-
Nice video Howard, I liked that! You know what Beethoven said about the guitar, and I can easily believe it here.
-
I’m going to keep this short and to the point. I’m 69 years old so I was a teenager when both groups came into existence. First, the Rolling Stones. They were my first introduction to Rhythm and Blues. I loved their early albums (mid to late 60’s) but lost interest later on in their career. Now for the Beatles. Just a few anecdotes: I first heard about them in December of 1963 when they released “I Want To Hold Your Hand” in the United States. I watched all the Ed Sullivan shows and was one of the first in line to purchase “Meet The Beatles” for 77 cents, a promo by local radio station 77 WABC. I had the wonderful fortune of seeing them live at the 1965 Shea Stadium concert. I was blown away when I heard for the first time ”I’m a Loser” on Shindig and couldn’t wait to buy “Beatles ’65” to hear the recorded version. I can go on and on, but just let me say that 55 years later and owning almost every album and compilation issued over this time span. Just to name a few: “The Decca Auditions “, a copy of the original “Yesterday and Today” butcher cover album and their recent stereo vinyl box set. I recently saw the movie “Yesterday” and was pleasantly surprised how well it was done and enjoyed it very much. The Beatles will always be very close to my heart, and I continue to listen to their music on a regular basis. The only group I enjoy to listen to as much lately is as you have probably already guessed: The MonaLisa Twins! Nuff said.
-
Who does this remind me of ??? ?
-
I’m surprised Paul The Who wasnt mentioned earlier. Stones vs The Who would be a closer and more interesting match up. The charismatic Mick Jagger vs big vocal range superstar Roger Daltry, and Keith Richard’s vs Pete Townsend for guitar dominance both on stage and in the studio.
-
The Who released some excellent singles and were a great live band in the sixties. However, song writing and album wise, they don’t come close to the output and quality of the Stones. A comparison of their albums is a simple test. As for guitar playing, Keith Richards and Brian Jones were the more consummate rhythm/lead guitarists and The Who relied heavily on the lead bass playing style of John Entwistle, who was the real superstar, and the only member of the band to have formal music training.
In 2011, Entwistle was voted as the greatest bass guitarist of all time in a Rolling Stone magazine readers’ poll, and in its special “100 Greatest Bass Players” issue in 2017, Bass Player magazine named Entwistle at number seven.
Log in to reply.
