Stone Those Beatles (and Their Little Fans, Too)!

You know the age old debate that drives a wedge between friends, relatives and neighbors alike. It splits families apart as if they were tissue paper. No, it’s not religion, or politics, or even favorite sports teams. It’s a musical battle royale, except no music is being sung. It’s Stones fans vs. Beatles fans, and both groups know they’re right. Let me lay it down for you.

It’s longevity vs. history. It’s stadium shows vs. remastered albums. It’s the “good” boys vs. the “bad” boys. And it’s also a dichotomy in my own household. My wife is a lifelong Beatles fan. She has all the memorabilia so I guess she’s more of a classic fanatic. When we first got together, knowing the level of her fandom, I vowed to get her every single album on CD. That’s right around the time they were remastering them so it was a good plan, and I came through. I just told her not to play them around me.

Because I’m Stones all the way. Now, I will admit that I don’t love every single Rolling Stones song, but the ones I love I REALLY love, like “Sympathy For the Devil.” I have also been updating my Stones collection for the past few years, but only from tapes to CDs, the difference between me growing up with tapes, and my wife growing up with vinyl. Anyway, the Stones have a far more extensive catalogue, and I tell my wife that if the Beatles had been around that long they would have had a few clunkers too. Just listen to “Real Love” and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

So why is there such a divide between fans of the two groups? In ’90s terms we’re talking Oasis vs. Blur. In ’80s terms maybe more like the Police vs. Wham! The bands couldn’t be more different. And yet they’re so often mentioned in the same breath. That’s probably because both have influenced modern music to a large degree (but so also have Buddy Holly and David Bowie, but they’re not bands). Pretty much every band these days hails from one of the two styles of music, including the bands I just mentioned from the ’80s and ’90s.

The Beatles had that squeaky clean image when they first broke onto the scene, but they eventually started experimenting in many different ways, yet somehow they still maintain some of that mystique, probably because they broke up so early in their career, and there is always that question of what might have been. The Stones, on the other hand, had that bad boy image from that start. I mean, just look at Keith Richards and you can see why. They drank, they smoked, they swore, and they did it all in public. If you think about the world of the ’60s you’ll see how that was against the norm. But it worked for them, and it still does. Sure, their more recent music can’t hold a candle to what they did in the ’60s and ’70s, but it’s no slouch either. Songs like “Love is Strong,” hearken back to that bluesy, soulful vibe they’ve always had.

So who wins the debate? It will forever be a tie because there’s really no way you can measure them up against each other. If the Beatles had continued as a group, who’s to say they would have continued to grow musically and lyrically? And if the Stones had broken up early on, who would have argued for “Brown Sugar” being better than what the Beatles were producing then? It all comes down to a matter of taste, and while my wife prefers the Beatles, I have a soft spot for the Stones. And some people don’t even choose. Artists like the aforementioned Oasis, Jet, and Muse give proper credit to both bands for helping to shape their sounds.

What’s your preference?

Sam