The Beach Boys Versus The Rolling Stones: 50th Anniversary Showdown

[Moon Dawg]

 When The Rolling Stones gas it up in 2013 for THEIR 50th anniversary celebration, some level of point/counterpoint with The Beach Boys' 50th will prove inevitable. After all, no major rock band has ever made it the big 50. Now we have two of the most iconic bands EVER hitting the mark  at approximately the same time. (For the record, we know The Beach Boys formed in 1961, but didn't enter the public consciousness until the "Surfin' Safari"/"409" single hit the Top 20 in 1962; ditto The Stones forming around 1962 and hitting the U.K. charts with "Come On" and "I Wanna Be Your Man" in 1963.)  

 Regardless of what colossal levels of commerce The Rolling Stones generate in 2012-13, it seems to me that The Beach Boys have shockingly - to many anyway - actually raised the bar: a new hit album that contains music within shouting distance of their finest work; an astoundingly good and well received tour that includes the band's best setlists since at least 1975; a genuine fellowship among the participants. Heart, soul, and spirit cannot be faked, and The Beach Boys' 2012 expedition had been brimming with all three.    

  Certainly Mick and Keith must be aware of what The Beach Boys are up to, and they may even be taking notes. They also must know that putting 3 or 4 new tracks on a new comp (a la 40 LICKS in 2002) would look lame after the success of THAT'S WHY GOD MADE THE RADIO.

 Here's wishing The Rolling Stones a 50th Anniversary as wonderful as The Beach Boys' 50th, even if Mick Jagger has always been chickensh*t to share a stage with them.

 Just a few thoughts to ponder as our heroes go where no rock bands have gone before...

 
 

 

[bgas]

When The Rolling Stones gas it up in 2013 for THEIR 50th anniversary celebration, some level of point/counterpoint with The Beach Boys' 50th will prove inevitable. After all, no major rock band has ever it the big 50. Now we have two of the most iconic bands EVER hitting the mark  at approximately the same time. (For the record, we know The Beach Boys formed in 1961, but didn't enter the public consciousness until the "Surfin' Safari"/"409" single hit the Top 20 in 1962; ditto The Stones forming around 1962 and hitting the U.K. charts with "Come On" and "I Wanna Be Your Man" in 1963.)  

 Regardless of what colossal levels of commerce The Rolling Stones generate in 2012-13, it seems to me that The Beach Boys have shockingly - to many anyway - actually raised the bar: a new hit album that contains music within shouting distance of their finest work; an astoundingly good and well received tour that includes the band's best setlists since at least 1975; a genuine fellowship among the participants. Heart, soul, and spirit cannot be faked, and The Beach Boys' 2012 expedition had been brimming with all three.    

  Certainly Mick and Keith must be aware of what The Beach Boys are up to, and they may even be taking notes. They also must know that putting 3 or 4 new tracks on a new comp (a la 40 LICKS in 2002) would look lame after the success of THAT'S WHY GOD MADE THE RADIO.

 Here's wishing The Rolling Stones a 50th Anniversary as wonderful as The Beach Boys', even if Mick Jagger has always been chickensh*t to share a stage with them.

 Just a few thoughts to ponder as our heroes go where no rock bands have gone before...

 
 

 

The Stones will probably include Blondie on stage, tho, to tip the balance

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok.

[Catbirdman]

To be honest I don't think the Stones could care less what the Beach Boys did/are doing. Whatever they plan on doing for their anniversary, I'm sure they're quite secure in themselves. What more do they need to prove?

That said, deep down they know they're chickensh*t to get on stage with the Beach Boys.

[Moon Dawg]

To be honest I don't think the Stones could care less what the Beach Boys did/are doing. Whatever they plan on doing for their anniversary, I'm sure they're quite secure in themselves. What more do they need to prove?

That said, deep down they know they're chickensh*t to get on stage with the Beach Boys.

 Agree that Keith could care less, but Mick has probably noticed. Wonder if The Beach Boys' frontman has any thoughts on Mick this year?

[Wah Wah Wah Ooooo]

Mick and the Lovester should face off to see who can move more effeminately on stage

[Aegir]

The Stones will probably include Blondie on stage, tho, to tip the balance

that's both true and funny.

[Oily Pig]

Glad to chime in on this one!  I was a major Stones fan for over 40 years and just a casual Beach Boys fan during that period.  Have seen the Stones 34 times, Beach Boys 5 times.  In addition, i was a regular poster on two of the Stones message boards for the past 10 years or so and became friends with some of the members.  After the BB tour was announced, for some unknown reason i "switched sides".  Now I can't get enough of the BB and only casually like the Stones.  As this tour progressed, I posted some nice words about the Beach Boys tour on the Stones boards.  Each time, my posts were attacked by other posters.  One of the members of the IORR board was so offended that he tried to start an argument with me by claiming that BB tunes were simple-minded compared to Stones tunes!  If that boy could bottle "stupid", he'd be a millionaire!!!

Of course, all of that is irrelevant to the question.  But knowing what I know about the Stones (and their fans), i'll guess this...

1)  The last several Stones cd's were mediocre at best.  No way could they out-do TWGMTR.  no way!  It's better than any Stones album since Tattoo You (from 1981), and the passage of time might regard it even more generous than that.  I doubt they will do any new material, but you never know.  Lately, they've been "opening the vaults" - releasing outtakes and live performances.  Even those were not as good as they could have been had they done it up right - nothing from the Brian Jones era and not enough from the Mick Taylor era.  lots of great stuff still in the vaults.

2) any tour is sure to be short.  Keith's health will not hold up to a major tour.  If you've seen any of his performances of late, then you know they've been pretty bad.  Mick is still a phenomenal performer on short gigs, but it remains to be seen if he can still do a 2-hour show.  My guess is that he can.  He's in extraordinary shape for a man of ANY age!

3) If the Stones do tour again, no doubt that $$$-wise they'll beat the pants off the Beach Boys regardless of how many shows they do.  There's enough folks out there still willing to shell out $500 per ticket and arenas will be the order of the day.  I can't imagine how much a meet-and-greet will cost, but no doubt the hard-cores will eat it up.

4) The Stones have been doing basically the same set-list for the past 20 years.  I can't compare them to the Beach Boys in that regard - before this tour my last BB show was in 1980 or so.  But i will say this...  dag gone i LOVED the Beach Boys set list.  I never get tired of their hits and LOVE the album cuts they've been doing.  The Beach Boys greatest hits have, IMO, have stood the test of time better than the Stones' hits.

Bottom line... if they do a 50, the Stones will no doubt out-gross the BB, but the cd (if any) and the tour won't be nearly as good.  NOT --- EVEN --- CLOSE!

[Pretty Funky]

Not that it is a contest but my winner is the act with the best 50 year album. Not sales but reviews. We know that 'Radio' has been pretty well received.

So good luck with that Mick and Keith!

[Justin]

Regardless of what colossal levels of commerce The Rolling Stones generate in 2012-13, it seems to me that The Beach Boys have shockingly - to many anyway - actually raised the bar: a new hit album that contains music within shouting distance of their finest work; an astoundingly good and well received tour that includes the band's best setlists since at least 1975; a genuine fellowship among the participants. Heart, soul, and spirit cannot be faked, and The Beach Boys' 2012 expedition had been brimming with all three. 

My hardcore fandom for the Beach Boys only began a few years ago; before then my "primary" band has been the Stones.  I'm a huge fan and I make the rounds on the Stones boards and keep up to date with their plans for their next tour/performances.  All I know is that I'm thankful the Stones decided to postpone their festivities until next year otherwise I wouldn't have been able to see as many BB shows as I did this year.  Phew!  So anyway, with that said, your post peaked my interests.

Yes the Beach Boys surpassed many people's expectations on this tour but I wouldn't say that they have "raised the bar" but rather simply "met" the bar.  A bar that was set by many other huge older acts that go out there and let the older catalog speak for itself: Stones, Paul McCartney etc.  Please know that them "meeting" the bar is me NOT belittling their accomplishments because that bar was pretty damn high as it is.  For them to have met it is a huge accomplishment...they came together wrote a very respectable (no pun intended, promise!) album and they are touring a  kick ass show to boot.  The Stones' last album "A Bigger Bang" in 2005 also garnered them a #3 debut on Bilboard just like the BB snatched last week.  Both bands also got favorable reviews for their albums as back to basics late in the game "classics."   The ABB tour that followed the album was the number one biggest grossing tour until it was bumped a couple years ago by U2's 360 tour. 

In terms of song choices the tour delivered a couple good nuggets but nothing could beat the game plan they set out for themselves in 2002 for their 40th Anniversary tour.  A worldwide tour where in some cities they would do three shows in three different venues: a stadium, an arena and a small club/theatre.  Each venue was presented with a specialized setlist with huge deep cuts and totaled about 80 different songs for the entire tour.  The arena shows got something special where they devoted that night to a specific classic album and they would play a chunk of songs from that album.   It was their most dynamic tour in decades. 

With that said, the Beach Boys are slightly late for joining in the "hey we're going to have a huge tour too!" game since the band has been so fractured in recent times.  They were smart to join forces finally for the 50th Anniversary and also have themselves put their own stamp on the tour record and scrap books.  The tour will end up being a huge success but in no way should it make Mick or Keith take a peek over here.  They've had many tours of their to go well, they don't need any tips or suggestions from the Beach Boys or U2 or whomever.  At this point, the only thing Mick can take out of the Beach Boys is that they were able to pull everyone together and actually pull it off.  That is currently the issue with the Stones, trying to figure out logistics to commemorate the anniversary.  They don't want to do a huge tour (for a few reasons) but they do want to do something.  They want to include past members (Taylor and Wyman) but they need to coordinate their schedules and of course come to financial agreements.  The moral of the story should be "If Mike Love and Brian Wilson can come together....anyone can!"   The two bands have a loyal fanbase and each tour will do fine considering there won't be TOO much of a fan crossover between the two bands.

[Oily Pig]

let me add one more thing.... the last several Stones tours were predictable and even (shock!) to an extent...boring!!!  Even a lot of their hard-core fans will tell you that.  The Beach Boys 50th tour is fresh and alive by comparison.  Even the theater shows on the Licks tour were pretty much the same old war horses with a couple of rarities thrown in.

Very happy to be here with you guys!!!!

[Justin]

4) The Stones have been doing basically the same set-list for the past 20 years.  I can't compare them to the Beach Boys in that regard - before this tour my last BB show was in 1980 or so.  But i will say this...  dag gone i LOVED the Beach Boys set list.  I never get tired of their hits and LOVE the album cuts they've been doing.  The Beach Boys greatest hits have, IMO, have stood the test of time better than the Stones' hits.

Bottom line... if they do a 50, the Stones will no doubt out-gross the BB, but the cd (if any) and the tour won't be nearly as good.  NOT --- EVEN --- CLOSE!

See, I would've gone ahead with this a little differently.  To me both bands are incredible and I can't put one song of one band's over another.  The Beach Boys can't lay down "Midnight Rambler" and the Stones can't do "Good Vibrations."  I'm past the point where I pick a "winner."  It's apples and oranges.  Part of why the BB tour is working really well is because this is the first united tour as a full group in years.  You said yourself that you saw the Stones 45 times and the BB less than a handful.  What'd you expect was going to happen?  The Stones by comparison have toured way more consistently than this version of the BB.  That has everything to do with it.

let me add one more thing.... the last several Stones tours were predictable and even (shock!) to an extent...boring!!!  Even a lot of their hard-core fans will tell you that.  The Beach Boys 50th tour is fresh and alive by comparison.  Even the theater shows on the Licks tour were pretty much the same old war horses with a couple of rarities thrown in

I can't agree with any of this.  How is the BB tour fresh exactly when it's tailored the exact same way as a Stones show?  First half: deeper cuts and fan favorites while the second half is your typical greatest his home stretch designed for the casual/tourist fan?  The BB only seemed "Fresh" for the aforementioned reasons above.  Your own preference is of course your own but let's not make such declarative statements when they're really personal opinion.  And your summary of the Licks theatre shows is pretty off...out of a typical 22 song set, more than half were songs haven't played in decades if ever at all....definitely more than "a couple rarities thrown in."

Both bands are irreplaceable so let's not dismiss the Stones just because a dumb guy on a board said something stupid and left a bad taste in your mouth. 

[JohnMill]

Personally I wish The Stones would just go away.  But that's just me.  I can appreciate and even respect their legacy but their 50th anniversary will be one I'll be sitting out personally.

[Oily Pig]

see guys, this is exactly what i mean about these stones fans... i come out here to get away from them and they still can't leave me alone!!!  they gotta moan and groan all night long when you say something they don't like.  both of their main fan message boards have deteriorated into babble, hope they don't drag it over here.  i highly doubt that any of the Beach Boys fans would suggest i put my basset hounds to sleep so that i could attend more Beach Boys shows.   yep, that actually happened to me on one of the stones boards - actually the guy said it to my face at a meet-up.  another time i took one of them with me to an out of state show and the guy trashed the motel room while i was out, of course the room was in my name.  i could go on and on and on.  this guy here just thinks it was one incident, but that was all i cared to go into.  there was A LOT more to it!!!

4) The Stones have been doing basically the same set-list for the past 20 years.  I can't compare them to the Beach Boys in that regard - before this tour my last BB show was in 1980 or so.  But i will say this...  dag gone i LOVED the Beach Boys set list.  I never get tired of their hits and LOVE the album cuts they've been doing.  The Beach Boys greatest hits have, IMO, have stood the test of time better than the Stones' hits.

Bottom line... if they do a 50, the Stones will no doubt out-gross the BB, but the cd (if any) and the tour won't be nearly as good.  NOT --- EVEN --- CLOSE!

See, I would've gone ahead with this a little differently.  To me both bands are incredible and I can't put one song of one band's over another.  The Beach Boys can't lay down "Midnight Rambler" and the Stones can't do "Good Vibrations."  I'm past the point where I pick a "winner."  It's apples and oranges.  Part of why the BB tour is working really well is because this is the first united tour as a full group in years.  You said yourself that you saw the Stones 45 times and the BB less than a handful.  What'd you expect was going to happen?  The Stones by comparison have toured way more consistently than this version of the BB.  That has everything to do with it.

let me add one more thing.... the last several Stones tours were predictable and even (shock!) to an extent...boring!!!  Even a lot of their hard-core fans will tell you that.  The Beach Boys 50th tour is fresh and alive by comparison.  Even the theater shows on the Licks tour were pretty much the same old war horses with a couple of rarities thrown in

I can't agree with any of this.  How is the BB tour fresh exactly when it's tailored the exact same way as a Stones show?  First half: deeper cuts and fan favorites while the second half is your typical greatest his home stretch designed for the casual/tourist fan?  The BB only seemed "Fresh" for the aforementioned reasons above.  Your own preference is of course your own but let's not make such declarative statements when they're really personal opinion.  And your summary of the Licks theatre shows is pretty off...out of a typical 22 song set, more than half were songs haven't played in decades if ever at all....definitely more than "a couple rarities thrown in."

Both bands are irreplaceable so let's not dismiss the Stones just because a dumb guy on a board said something stupid and left a bad taste in your mouth.  

[AllIWannaDo]

Stones Members circa 2012

All appear fit and able to play, even Mick Taylor, Wyman look willing and able to some extent.
On a playing level, the ONE concern is Keith Richards, can he play anymore? apparently arthritic hands, coupled with forgetting riffs like Gimme Shelter and his kinda coasting performances are a big concern for a gig, never mind a tour
On a writing level, i am fearful - Keith again hmmm... is there anything left in the tank, heart says yes/head says no
Mick - i am also fearful,however! given his melodies/lryics on plundered my soul and other new/old songs from the recent remasters/expanded releases shows he's defo capable of it, but also capable of bumming it

i'd like to see taylor, wood, richards all playing, with bill and charlie and mick, bobby keys etc and play like they did in the early 70s pomp - that would be nice

[southbay]

The Stones will out gross the Beach Boys on tour, not even close.  Serious question though...when was the last Stones album of new material to chart in the top 3?  I honestly don't know as I am not a big Stones fan.

[I. Spaceman]

The Stones will out gross the Beach Boys on tour, not even close.  Serious question though...when was the last Stones album of new material to chart in the top 3?  I honestly don't know as I am not a big Stones fan.

The last album of original material they released, in 2005.

[sidewinder572]

The Rolling Stones are the 2nd most over-rated band in history. The first is Nirvana

just my opinion

[oldsurferdude]

To be honest I don't think the Stones could care less what the Beach Boys did/are doing. Whatever they plan on doing for their anniversary, I'm sure they're quite secure in themselves. What more do they need to prove?

That said, deep down they know they're chickensh*t to get on stage with the Beach Boys.

 Agree that Keith could care less, but Mick has probably noticed. Wonder if The Beach Boys' frontman has any thoughts on Mick this year?

Not a big RS fan, but Jagger will kick Myke's butt down the road as far as he wants to. He is the ultimate frontman and  Myke will always be choking in his dust. Mick and the band will get great press as the world's greatest rock and roll band of all time.

[bgas]

To be honest I don't think the Stones could care less what the Beach Boys did/are doing. Whatever they plan on doing for their anniversary, I'm sure they're quite secure in themselves. What more do they need to prove?

That said, deep down they know they're chickensh*t to get on stage with the Beach Boys.

 Agree that Keith could care less, but Mick has probably noticed. Wonder if The Beach Boys' frontman has any thoughts on Mick this year?

Not a big RS fan, but Jagger will kick Myke's butt down the road as far as he wants to. He is the ultimate frontman and  Myke will always be choking in his dust. Mick and the band will get great press as the world's greatest rock and roll band of all time.

But , BUt, Mike and the BBs did Jumping Jack in concert, when have the Stones ever had the balls to do any BBs?  ( never; that's right)

[Moon Dawg]

To be honest I don't think the Stones could care less what the Beach Boys did/are doing. Whatever they plan on doing for their anniversary, I'm sure they're quite secure in themselves. What more do they need to prove?

That said, deep down they know they're chickensh*t to get on stage with the Beach Boys.

 Agree that Keith could care less, but Mick has probably noticed. Wonder if The Beach Boys' frontman has any thoughts on Mick this year?

Not a big RS fan, but Jagger will kick Myke's butt down the road as far as he wants to. He is the ultimate frontman and  Myke will always be choking in his dust. Mick and the band will get great press as the world's greatest rock and roll band of all time.

 Perhaps Mick loves Mike. Or vice versa.

[Sheriff John Stone]

If the Stones tour in 2013, will they consider it their 50th Anniversary tour? Maybe diehards could clarify, but I thought the Rolling Stones were acknowledging 2012 as their 50th anniversary, but chose not to tour regardless.

Maybe they could pull a Beach Boys, who were formed in 1961, did their first gig in 1961, and released their first record in 1961, but celebrated their 50th Anniversary in 2012!

[Moon Dawg]

If the Stones tour in 2013, will they consider it their 50th Anniversary tour? Maybe diehards could clarify, but I thought the Rolling Stones were acknowledging 2012 as their 50th anniversary, but chose not to tour regardless.

Maybe they could pull a Beach Boys, who were formed in 1961, did their first gig in 1961, and released their first record in 1961, but celebrated their 50th Anniversary in 2012!

 Watts joined the Stones about January 1963, even though the group existed months before. As noted above, both bands entered public consciousness in 1962 and 1963, respectively. The Stones have already stated that any 2013 events/activities will mark their 50th anniversary. 

[Sheriff John Stone]

If the Stones tour in 2013, will they consider it their 50th Anniversary tour? Maybe diehards could clarify, but I thought the Rolling Stones were acknowledging 2012 as their 50th anniversary, but chose not to tour regardless.

Maybe they could pull a Beach Boys, who were formed in 1961, did their first gig in 1961, and released their first record in 1961, but celebrated their 50th Anniversary in 2012!

 Watts joined the Stones about January 1963, even though the group existed months before. As noted above, both bands entered public consciousness in 1962 and 1963, respectively. The Stones have already stated that any 2013 events/activities will mark their 50th anniversary. 

Thanks for the clarification.

[RubberSoul13]

The Beatles. Neither the beach boys nor the stones legitimately have 50th reunion's this year. The Beach Boys should've been last year, and the stones should be next year, as far as first studio recording release goes.