Jack White: The Rolling Stones Copied The Beatles

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

"People want The Rolling Stones to be cool, dirty, raucous. They don’t want to understand that The Rolling Stones were chasing a hit constantly and feeding off whatever the hippest thing was, copying whatever The Beatles did last week," he explained. “That disrupts the fantasy. And the fantasy’s amazing – I have indulged many times with those kinds of bands. That’s not an insult. That’s them being smart and figuring out a way to keep a train moving.”

 

https://www.iheart.com/content/2022-04-10-jack-white-accuses-the-rolling-stones-of-copying-the-beatles/?mid=835631&rid=99009473&sc=email&pname=newsletter&cid=NATIONAL&keyid=National iHeart Daily Classic Rock [Combo #2]&campid=headline2_readmore

 

@Rico

I have to agree!

Didn't most Stones albums coincide w/Beatles albums... ??

 

Like "Their Satanic Majesties Request" The Stones answer to "Sgt. Pepper's."

[T&C]

20 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

I have to agree!

Didn't most Stones albums coincide w/Beatles albums... ??

 

Like "Their Satanic Majesties Request" The Stones answer to "Sgt. Pepper's."

That is about the only comparison I can think of but the albums didn't sound alike at all. Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Yardbirds, etc were all cranking out at least 1 album a year for awhile.

[Shake_My_Head]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Whole lot more than just one song.

 

Well, tough to blame the stuff he wrote so Linda could be part of it.     That was more home studio out-takes, playing around with the old lady than anything.   Even he's embarassed by it:

 

"The weakest song I have ever written in my life.

Paul McCartney   

https://www.the-paulmccartney-project.com/song/bip-bop/

 

But  'Scrap heap of history,' though?    Nah...

Edited April 11, 2022 by Shake_My_Head

[muppy]

very current news on Jack White being published. He asked for his GF's hand in marriage and married her on that very stage the same night. I'm a huge White Stripes fan. Only recently began listening to them actually. 

 

regarding the thread Im not hearing much similarity at all between Stones and Beatles. not sure why he would say that.

Both British though *shrugs*

 

https://pitchfork.com/news/jack-white-proposed-to-and-married-olivia-jean-on-stage-at-detroit-concert/

[Rico]

1 hour ago, Buftex said:

It may have been true, up to a certain point...but after the Beatles put out Srgt Pepper, and the Stones put out Their Satanic Majesties Request, the Stones realized they didn't have to do follow the Beatles lead any more. The Stones were hardly the only band to fall into that trap... the Stones true artistry came after that with Beggar's Banquet where the Stones really became their own thing....***** Jack White...White Stripes sound like Led Zeppelin!

That's very true.

 

The way I look at it, I think the Beatles were the greatest pop band ever and the Stones were the greatest rock band ever.

[Gugny]

14 hours ago, Rico said:

That's very true.

 

The way I look at it, I think the Beatles were the greatest pop band ever and the Stones were the greatest rock band ever.

 

I get what you're saying, but something about calling the Beatles a pop band rubs me the wrong way.  I do realize that their early stuff was very poppy.  I also concede that Macca was a pop song writing machine till the end.  But I don't necessarily consider all of their radio-successful hits to be pop songs, per se.  And the unreleased tunes were certainly not pop.  The White Album was chock full of rock/rock-n-roll.

 

However ... when I think "rock and roll," the Stones always come to mind first for me.  I feel like it's attitude and presence, just as much as it is the music.

 

[Rico]

5 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I get what you're saying, but something about calling the Beatles a pop band rubs me the wrong way.  I do realize that their early stuff was very poppy.  I also concede that Macca was a pop song writing machine till the end.  But I don't necessarily consider all of their radio-successful hits to be pop songs, per se.  And the unreleased tunes were certainly not pop.  The White Album was chock full of rock/rock-n-roll.

 

However ... when I think "rock and roll," the Stones always come to mind first for me.  I feel like it's attitude and presence, just as much as it is the music.

 

They definitely could rock out, mostly Lennon but even Macca, Helter Skelter for a great example… but I do think they were more pop than rock for the most part. Stones could also be pop, for example Ruby Tuesday, but I think they were more rock & roll, then rock. Agree about the attitude, my favs are always full of it!

[Greybeard]

17 hours ago, T&C said:

Wonder where the Kinks fit in here lol.

      To a large extent, I always thought the Kinks were an acquired taste.  If it wasn't for that little green amp they probably would have had no following at all.  Still hoping that Ray is capable of one more tour.

 

     The one thing you can say about the Beatles and the Stones is their music has held up rather well.  Maybe not all of it, but more than most bands.

[Buftex]

23 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I get what you're saying, but something about calling the Beatles a pop band rubs me the wrong way.  I do realize that their early stuff was very poppy.  I also concede that Macca was a pop song writing machine till the end.  But I don't necessarily consider all of their radio-successful hits to be pop songs, per se.  And the unreleased tunes were certainly not pop.  The White Album was chock full of rock/rock-n-roll.

 

However ... when I think "rock and roll," the Stones always come to mind first for me.  I feel like it's attitude and presence, just as much as it is the music.

 

Honestly, I think people get way too caught up in labels, and categories when it comes to music. Terms like "pop" and "rock" , and what those genre categories include, change over time.  The Beatles and Stones were both great pop bands...they were also great rock bands.  It gets way too controversial, especially when people flip out over things like who is inducted into the "rock -n' roll" hall of fame.  Something can be "rock" and also be "pop".

Edited April 12, 2022 by Buftex

[Gugny]

Just now, Buftex said:

Honestly, I think people get way too caught up in labels, and categories when it comes to music. Terms like "pop" and "rock" change over time.  The Beatles and Stones were both great pop bands...they were also great rock bands.  It gets way too controversial, especially when people flip out over things like who is inducted into the "rock -n' roll" hall of fame.  Something can be "rock" and also be "pop".

 

Totally agree.  The RRHOF is a complete joke and I no longer pay attention who's inducted/snubbed.  It's a crock.

[Rico]

53 minutes ago, Buftex said:

Honestly, I think people get way too caught up in labels, and categories when it comes to music. Terms like "pop" and "rock" , and what those genre categories include, change over time.  The Beatles and Stones were both great pop bands...they were also great rock bands.  It gets way too controversial, especially when people flip out over things like who is inducted into the "rock -n' roll" hall of fame.  Something can be "rock" and also be "pop".

Yes, but it fits my narrative that Stones > Beatles. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

56 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Totally agree.  The RRHOF is a complete joke and I no longer pay attention who's inducted/snubbed.  It's a crock.

TheMan finally got to you! 😆 

 

I always though you were TheMan! 😏

 

Keep up the good work Establishment! You flipped The Gugster! 

 

 

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

TheMan finally got to you! 😆 

 

I always though you were TheMan! 😏

 

Keep up the good work Establishment! You flipped The Gugster! 

 

 

 

What the ***** does this mean?

[Buftex]

6 minutes ago, Rico said:

Yes, but it fits my narrative that Stones > Beatles. 

I love them both...but push comes to shove, I'll take the Stones too...

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

What the ***** does this mean?

Exactly what it says. The establishment finally broke you! 

[Rico]

26 minutes ago, Buftex said:

I love them both...but push comes to shove, I'll take the Stones too...

I like to compare their legacies at different points in history.

Beatles > Stones 1964- 1969

In their prime, I will begrudgingly give the nod to the “lads”.

 

Stones > Beatles 1964 - 1988

Solo Beatles except for a few high points like POB & ATMP detracted from their legacy.

 

Beatles > Stones 1964- present

Vegas Stones really detracted from their legacy.

[Buftex]

7 minutes ago, Rico said:

I like to compare their legacies at different points in history.

Beatles > Stones 1964- 1969

In their prime, I will begrudgingly give the nod to the “lads”.

 

Stones > Beatles 1964 - 1988

Solo Beatles except for a few high points like POB & ATMP detracted from their legacy.

 

Beatles > Stones 1964- present

Vegas Stones really detracted from their legacy.

 

Nothing the Beatles did excites me more than the Stones from 1968-1972.  For me (and I realize this is all personal), "Beggar's Banquet", "Let It Bleed", "Get Your Ya-Ya's Out", "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile On Main Street" is about as great as it gets.  That period of Stones music especially is kind of template for everything I love about rock-n' roll. 

 

They may not have ever been the studio masters that the Beatles (and George Martin) were, but their music during that period was just so authentic... their brilliance can't be denied.  There had been other great  white, British blues acts before, but the Stones were the first ones to perfect the formula, and make it sound like it was coming from them...not just respectfully copying a sound. It wasn't stylized. They were living it.  True art.  Not easy to pull off, especially since it was all sounds and styles that had been around for decades.  

 

I can argue that the Beatles (1962-1970), and possibly David Bowie (1969-1980), had longer streaks of excellence than the Stones...but for me, neither ever matches the inspiration of those 5 years of Stones records.  The Stones stuff that came before it (the Brian Jones era) and their albums from "Goats Head Soup" through "Some Girls" were only a notch below that truly golden-era.  They will always have a slight edge over the rest, for me...no matter how long they stick around past their prime.  

[Augie]

20 hours ago, Rico said:

Very true when it came to the studio. 
 

Of course live, the Stones blew the Beatles off the map. 

 

My older sister saw them both about a week apart when I was little. I remember her running up and down the street with her friends screaming to “practice”. She said at the Beatles concert that was ALL you could hear, young girls screaming. 

[Gugny]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

I like to compare their legacies at different points in history.

Beatles > Stones 1964- 1969

In their prime, I will begrudgingly give the nod to the “lads”.

 

Stones > Beatles 1964 - 1988

Solo Beatles except for a few high points like POB & ATMP detracted from their legacy.

 

Beatles > Stones 1964- present

Vegas Stones really detracted from their legacy.

 

The Beatles quit at the right time.  When I think of that, I always think about the Police, who quit after a 5-year run.  I could talk about the Police for days, but I won't get off topic, LOL.

 

Some bands just go on for too long.  I am a HUGE Zep fan, but - while I'm obviously not glad that Bonham passed - had they kept making new music, it would have been pure crap.  Lots of crap on In Through the Out Door.

 

The Stones' longevity is nothing short of remarkable.  They were still pumping out hits in the 80s, for Christ's sakes.  I never factor in solo stuff when thinking about the Beatles' (or other bands) legacy.  That stretch through 1969 was the greatest in rock and/or pop history, in my opinion and it's why I always opine that they're the best ever.

 

[thenorthremembers]

One of the best moves Id made in my life is to stop taking anything a musician, actor, or artist says seriously.