Mick Jagger can’t sing.
The fact that he’s a “rock” singer, not a “pop” singer, is no excuse.
Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison could sing. Even Ringo could hum along.
That’s why the Beatles have sold gazillions more records than the Stones.
You don't have to be Tommy Lee (Motley Crue) all over his giantic kit to make your point. However, when Ginger Baker (Cream) and John Bohham (Led Zepplin) emerged with their original beats/styles, a new day appeared for drummers. Sorry, got off point.
Jagger and Richards wrote rock songs that people will be tapping their foot to and dancing to for years beyond this conversation, as Beatle fans do their intellectual gymnastics about their complex arrangements and how influential they were.
The Beatles early stuff was bubble gum - the Stones early stuff were rhythm&blues with many covers of Muddy Waters, Bo Didly, and other blues greats until they expanded on that on their second album. The Beatles may have claimed those legends as their influence, but they sure didn't show it in their recordings - the Stones did from day one.
It would have been interesting to see what the Beatles could have done if they hadn't broken up (thinking Styx or Rush). I doubt as many classics as the Stones - again, too much intellect and too little soul. This debate will go on past our time, however, I enjoy it. Thanks for your input.
Hardly. The Stones are right behind the Beatles with sales, besides Dylan and Elvis and the old Vegas crooners.
The test of time is who wants to listen to who and when. Again, I challenge anyone to give me radio call letters that play the Beatles over the Rolling Stones. Other than wedding receptions, the Beatles music is defunct, while the Stones' classics live on in every jukebox in America and possibly the world.
Just curious, did you ever like Motown as in the Supremes, Temptations, Four Tops, Miracles, etc.?
BTW, I mean no slight to you, I find this Beatles vs Stones debate interesting...always have. So what's your take on Cream or the James Gang?