The Smiley Smile Message Board

The biggest debate in Rock n Roll history is  ..Who's the best Beatles or Rolling Stones?
Well for me that's like picking your father or mother but out of these albums which do you prefer?


Rubber Soul vs. Aftermath
Revolver vs. Between the Buttons
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band vs. Their Satanic Majesties Request
Magical Mystery Tour vs. Beggars Banquet
White Album vs. Let it Bleed
Abbey Road vs. Sticky Fingers
Let It Be vs. Exile on Main St.

For me the debate has always been Who's the best Beatles or Beach Boys.  For me it's a more compelling debate because with all due respect to The Rolling Stones, it was The Beach Boys as stated by Sir George Martin that provided The Beatles with their greatest musical challenge.  For me The Beatles/Stones debate isn't even much of a debate, Stones had their moments but it's pretty much a clean sweep by The Beatles. 

Yes that's true to beach boys pushed them to their musical pinnacle..:)..thanks to Brian Wilson..but besides Today/Pet Sounds/Smile none of their albums could even be mentioned in the same sentence as the Beatles masterpieces..
Now the Stones have a bit more albums that could be.

Possibly not sure if that is true or just subjective opinion.  But then again I'm not much for The Rolling Stones anyhow.  One thing to consider about The Beach Boys subjectively speaking they may just have the greatest album of all time and the greatest single of all time in their trophy case.  So for me that more than makes them the creative equal of The Beatles.  Something in fact that I've been meaning to do for awhile and keeping putting it off is make a "mix cd" (I don't do mp3) of all The Beatles hits and pair them back to back with The Beach Boys hits from that same era.  I want to hear how some of those songs flow into each other, I think it would make for an interesting listen.

that would be an interesting listen :) you should do it..matter of fact i might have to take your idea and see what i can come up with lol
and well might? honestly pet sounds is the greatest album of all time..tell me an album that SOUNDS better..lol

I'd break it down this way in album terms:
Beatles masterworks:
Hard Day's Night (in its UK version), Help (same), Rubber Soul (either US or UK), Revolver (same), White Album (I ain't no Pepper fan): 5
Stones masterworks:
Aftermath (US or UK versions), Between The Buttons, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main St: 6
Beach Boys masterworks:
Today, Pet Sounds, Smile (sessions), Wild Honey, Friends, Sunflower: 6

And after FTTBA and PCH, who knows but that Brian could make it 7 before long?

ok I like this :)

Beatles masterworks:
Hard Day's Night (Uk), Help (Uk), Rubber Soul (Uk), Relvolver (Uk),Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band , Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, Abbey Road : 8

Rolling Stones masterworks:
Aftermath (Uk & Us) Their Satanic Majesties Request, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main St, Goats Head Soup: 7

Beach boys masterworks:
Today, Pet Sounds, Smile: 3
I love Wild Honey and Smiley Smile but referring to them as masterworks is pretty funny  :lol

Well, I meant Smile Sessions, not Smiley Smile. As an overall concept SS is very erratic - and how could it be otherwise? But WH and Friends are really well put together, track for track.

And when I refer to albums I mean ones that were programmed as such - in the case of the early Stones and Beatles LPs, by the bands themselves in England or by A&R people in the States.  And the American albums would have to have a substantial amount in common with their UK equivalents.  There was no Magical Mystery Tour album in the UK - it was a double EP there, which was issued here on a 12" along with some singles. And the double EP was still padded - "Flying," anyone? (Well, yes, Today has "Our Favorite Recording Sessions." But other than that its sequencing is pretty carefully thought out.)

The Stones's Satanic Majesties is a great personal fave of mine - I listen to it more often than any of their other records - but there's no denying that it's got two or three sloppy, highly self-indulgent tracks.

That's no fair flying = our favorite recording sessions..so that's dismissed...magical mystery tour in the u.s. is what i meant :) the us version of rubber soul is :/ well it's great but it's missing "nowhere man" and "if i needed someone" those are 2 of my favorite songs from that album ..i just wish they took out "what goes on" & "run for your life"...
"Rubber Soul was deliberately reconfigured to appear a "folk rock" album to angle The Beatles into that emergent lucrative American genre during 1965."
so it only makes sense why they added "it's only love" & "i've just seen a face"

The Us Rubber Soul is superbly selected and sequenced. One time when the A&R guys got it right. As pretty much everybody on this board could recite in their sleep, that record and not the UK version, was what made Brian decide to go to work on Pet Sounds to keep up.

i prefer the uk version :) and definitely the uk version of help is superior to the crappy us version lol

Beatles vs Rolling Stones? No contest. Beatles had the melodies, the harmonies, the....EVERYTHING! Beatles vs Beach Boys is much more interesting. After 1970, though, what do we do, compare BB's albums from the 70's with solo Beatles? I have to think that even if the Fab Four had stayed together, they would have eventually put out a clunker album. Every band does if they stay together long enough.

Ha. This thread makes me laugh. Newguy, please follow my good friend George Harrison's advice, and think for yourself. Honestly, I mean how much of the music you listen to is not because you read on some internet list that it's a "masterpiece" or "one of the greatest things ever"? You just hang around this board with a huge arrogant persona about what's great and what isn't, and it's not even your own opinion.

not even my own opinion? wtf i just named the albums i listen to the most..you have some nerve telling me what is or isn't my own opinion  lol YOU BIG OLE' MEANY!  :-\

But anyway, I'll say the Beatles. The Rolling Stones are right behind though. And i'm not trying to be mean. Sorry if i came across that way. I'm just saying you don't have to argue with people just cuz they are answering your question in a different way than you think. You raise some very interesting questions on the board most of which catch my interest at least. Sorry i probably should've reacted a little better.

yes sometimes it does seem like I do attack some of you guys but I'm really not ..I have to work on that because I don't want to come across as being rude..
Who's music do you enjoy most of all the Beatles or Beach Boys?

The Beach Boys for sure. But that's kind of weighing their first like 27 albums up against the Beatles only 10. That's a lot of the reason i like the Beach Boys so much, is cuz they have a consistent discography from the beginning to almost the end and its huge. The Beatles actually were my favorite for awhile, but i think i actually got sick of them because of people constantly putting them up on a high pedastal and seeing a bunch of other bands who were just as great or greater kinda being crapped on by people. I can't really deny how big, or influential, or talented, or good they were. But listening to them anymore i kinda feel like i'm doing it because they are the biggest band ever and i should be listening to them. Not cuz i want to. But as far as the original question goes, I'd still say the Beatles just because if I said the Rolling Stones, i'd be doing it out of spite for the Beatles and I'd also probably be wrong. But again man, i'm sorry about the outburst. That was a sh*tty thing to say to someone i don't even know.

I remember I used to listen to the Beatles because of my mom and her infatuation with them,even my aunts made my cousins listen to them because when they were so obsessed so it's like a family thing. So I tired to not listen to them just because I wanted to rebel against it...but when I heard the music it was like I knew all of it even before hearing everything. I found out that when I was a baby my mother would always play the Beatles next to her tummy while I was inside of it..so it's the first music I ever was introduced too so it holds a special place in my heart. :love
I have a personal connection to their music like I can't explain..it doesn't feel like music it feels like a huge part of my life and that's why they are my favorite.. :listening
Now the stones have a part of me because of my dad I always heard stories of me dancing to the stones music as a baby and trying to imitate Jagger. He even got me baby rolling stones shirts..when I listen to their music it reminds me off my childhood but more importantly my dad and that reason alone makes their music so sentimental and is something that not many groups/artists do for me.  ;D

Hell they're all good. Favorite periods

Beach Boys 63-73
Beatles 63-68
Stones 63-68.

If Their Satanic Majesties and Goat's Head Soup are masterworks than Wild Honey is the f***ing Sistine Chapel of music.

Amen...

Really though I think it's a much fairer fight to pit The Stones against The Beach Boys. That being said, TBB still win by a long run.

Goats Head Soup has Silver Train...Wild Honey has Here Comes the Night....Wild Honey has Let the Wind Blow (which is awesome) and Goats Head Soup has Dancing with Mr. D (one of the greatest stones songs ever)
So Goats Head Soup totally takes the cake on this one.

By a long run? WTF! That's not accurate at all!
You're being so biased!

I think lots of bands beat the Stones "by a long run" - The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Kinks, The Band. I'd put solo acts like Neil Young, Bob Dylan, and Stevie Wonder ahead of them too though Stevie may only beat them by a short run.

Sticky Fingers (1971) is better than Surf's Up (1971) as a start to finish consistent (no skipping) listening experience-but Surf's Up would have beat it-if Dennis hadn't pulled his tracks off it at the last minute-

I'm glad you like it. Personally, I'd put Wild Honey in with the 20 greatest albums of the 20th Century. I don't think Goats would fall into the top 100. But again, that's just my personal opinion.

Biased? I grew up loving the stones. I still love their 64-68 period. But the Beach Boys at their peak totally kill any claim the Stones could have. For every 1 awesome Stones track you can pin 3 or 4 Beach Boys track which best them from the same period. But in the end it's just a matter of opinion, rather than bias. It's a distinction I have noticed you have some difficulty with.

What I like about Wild Honey is it's the Beach Boys Motown album (full of soul) and it has a specific sound that distinguishes it from all the other 60's BB albums..
I love the cover art too..its definitely in my top 5 BB albums...

It's all subjective, I would choose the Beach Boys but I think a popular poll would choose the Beatles over and over again, over any other band.  The Stones aren't even close in most people's eyes.  I think many polls would actually chose the Beach Boys over the Stones, but that's just me.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I think you'd consistantly see bands like AC/DC and even Led Zeppelin chosen over the Stones as well.  I think they're great, but popular opinion?

It is certainly different. I've heard the "Motown" description and I get it, but I'm not sure I'm totally on board. As a huge Motown enthusiast, I don't see the similarity in sound. Motown got their sounds down to an art. You can tell right away when you're hearing something by Holland-Dozier-Holland or a track written by Smokey, or a Stevie song. I really don't see Wild Honey tapping into that at all - nor do they tap into the Atlantic/Stax sound for that matter. There is some soul influence though, which to me, puts this album more in line with stuff like Midnight Confessions by The Grass Roots, Baby Now That I Found You by the Foundations, Judy in Disguise, which came out around the same time.

The stones were great from 1966-1981 :) the beach boys at their peak are better than any other group at their peak and that's the truth. The horrible thing about it all was the boys had no longevity once Brian lost it :/ their music started becoming worse as the years went by.

RockandRoll, I think those comparisons are accurate.  It's not Motown, and not even what i'd call "Blue eyed Soul"... it's kind of an A.M. radio sound that grooves, maybe we should invent a term for it?  

BTW when I was a kid 'Midnight Confessions' was one of my favorite songs.  I'm talking about the 80's!  I found a bunch of records in a house we moved into, and that was my favorite of all of them.  I listened to it over and over again, really had no idea what the song was about though... but the soul in it was attractive to me.  So maybe there is a term for all that.  

I agree with the middle of your statement. If it were an Oreo cookie, I would devour the frosting and toss the cookie away.   ;D

haaaaaaaaa ;) ..the 2nd half of it is true too right?

Well Daft Punk loves Wild Honey too their earlier name was "Darlin" because of the beach boys song :)

Yeah. I remember a few years ago when a whole room full of people were astounded that I preferred the Stones over Queen.

The reason why this Beatles v. Stones thing persists is because they were the two biggest Brit bands in the 60s, when taking account of success both in England and America. It was a rivalry between fans more than anything - The Beatles were positioned as good boys while the Stones were positioned as bad boys. The rivalry was not really a pairing of singles or albums (though there was some of that) but also a pairing of aesthetic, style, behavior, mannerism, class, etc. One did comedy movies while the others were staunch adherents to the Muddy Waters/John Lee Hooker mythology.

And in fact, we're well beyond that now. The Beatles went on to become something in the public imagination that they weren't in the 60s, and same with the Stones. But for some reason people still latch onto the debate, giving it a meaning now that it never had when it was first created.

I think your description suggests we're onto something - Groove Pop? Sunshine Soul? I'll let you have a second go at it.


Me too! Same time period. I think it was on a compilation cassette that my dad got at a gas station. It had a lot of pop stuff from the late 60s on it - Marvin Gaye's I Heard it Through the Grapevine, Diana Ross's Ain't No Mountain, Steppenwolf's Magic Carpet Ride, etc.

To risk sounding racist, the songs are great but the reason they're not soul is that they're not 'dark' enough.  When a soul singer like Aretha or Sam Cooke or whatever sings, you FEEL it.  I mean you know that they're singing about things that started before they were even born.  Aretha sings about loving a man, she's singing about the way she feels, and the way her ancestors feel somehow.  Hard to explain.  I'm white, maybe I can't. 

It's not necessarily a race thing, I've seen plenty of white people who sing with soul and would give ReRe a run for her money.   

Midnight Confessions, "Wild Honey", "Judy In Disguise", ... it has soul, but it's just not as deep.  It's hard to explain but you can hear it, it's not that they're faking it. 

I'd LOVE to ask Aretha Franklin her opinion on that. 

Haha - I may not have put it EXACTLY that way but I do agree with you. Some people came close to achieving that sound. Not sure if you've heard much of their stuff but I thought that Zoot Money's Big Roll Band from the 60s did a not bad job of getting that feeling. I can't find a full version of their cover of James Brown's I'll Go Crazy for some reason but here's a slice of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XcNqaYe8xc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XcNqaYe8xc)

In fact, I think there's something to the fact that the people who really understood the feel of old blues and soul were impoverished working class British boys rather than their counterparts in the States, which at that same time was going through a period of unparalleled prosperity.

Music is, of course, a key component of any culture and cultural identity and I think it also informs your sensibilities from a very young age. People like Aretha Franklin and Sam Cooke were inevitably inundated with things like the early 1920s and 1930s blues and, of course, Gospel, that people like the Wilsons and The Grass Roots, etc weren't exposed to to such a degree.  And, as a result, it would be impossible for them to capture that sound in any authentic way - it just wasn't in their bones.

Fortunately, you're right, things like Darlin' and Midnight Confessions aren't fake because there's almost an awareness that they can't do what Otis Redding does and so they bring their own sensibilities to it.

Yes.  Carl Wilson had his own bullshit in his childhood, so he knows ups and downs too... but still, he grew up in Hawthorne.  He's likely as soulfull as it gets in Hawthorne.  Aretha was born in a 1 room shack... and half the people she met in her childhood thought she was inferior because of it.  When she sings about something that hurts her, or something that inspires her, it's likely coming from a whole different place than Carl's ever visited.   It doesn't make Carl's soul any less valid.

I agree with the british comparison too.  It's similar to the gangsta rap phenomenon, 90% of NWA/Dr.Dre fans were white kids living in the suburbs!  The british/soul connection was much more natural, but it's strange how music can speak to different groups of people depending on how and where they were raised.


I'll check out the Zoot Money stuff. 

The Rolling Stones were great well before 1966. They did blankety-blank SATISFACTION before that, fer cripes sakes.

Newguy, at what point would you say Brian lost it?

I'm speaking as far as albums go :)

well he never lost his talent but sanity i would say around smile era(obvious) he started to really crack but in his music it really seemed like he was straight. it's weird how he could be so strange personality wise but musically gifted..that's a god given gift..

I'm getting to the point where I want to blame it more on bad management and decisions, than "Brian's Crazy".  I mean sh*t the stones had a guy die and went on to bigger and better things. 

That the entire world doesn't cherish "I Can Hear Music" and songs like that is a failure of management, not of creativity or artistic direction... which was what Brian would have brought to the table if he was around more. 

there are so many gems after pet sounds that were amazing! that showed the boys still had it in them...
til i die,do it again,i can hear music(great cover),let the wind blow,passing by,busy doin nothin,be with me,this whole world...(man there is so many i can name!)

Here's my counter-argument: around the smile era, Brian didn't lose single iota of his sanity and I don't find any suggestion that he did to be obvious in the slightest.

Albums aren't the be-all and end-all of rock and roll. And even then, The Rolling Stones Now! is one of the greatest rock albums ever.

that's true ...there's too many covers on that album

I never was an album guy.  I think it's because I generally prefer to listen to music in my car; and still enjoy listening to the radio.  So I guess I was conditioned (from a young age) to hear a mix of songs, not to hear 10 or 12 songs in a row by the same band.  A nice single is much more impressive to me than what album it's on (with notable exceptions).  "Beast of Burden" transcends whatever album it was on, I would have no clue... but would argue all night long on how great that song is.  

COVERS? As if that somehow makes a performance inferior to one that is written by the artist? Boy, you must really look down upon Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, The Ronettes, etc. Boy, come back in five years or something.

I don't know any of Frank Sinatra's work..My favorite Elvis songs are the ones he did not his earlier cover songs ..
I just can't get into many covers it seems so unofficial to me and most of the blues songs the stones did seemed so inferior to the original it's an absolutely ridiculous way..

Beatles, no contest.

The stones were a different band, more interested in jamming then innovating.

Guess I'm dumb: what does FTTBA stand for?

From there to back again.  I would muster more, but I'm still dumbstruck by Newguy saying he doesn't know Frank Sinatra. 

WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU WAITING FOR?