Beatles or Stones -- that was the existential dilemma my generation faced. (Bill Clinton chose Elvis Presley, BTW, which is why I never trusted that rat bastard from day one. But I digress.)
So -- let's have it out on a level playing field.
From 1964, and a session with the BBC, here's the Fab Four -- John singing lead -- with a smokin' version of Chuck Berry's venerable "Carol.
And from just about the same time, here are the other guys on The Mike Douglas Show with a got-live-if-you-want-it version of the very same song.
Discuss.
15 comments:
Team Beatles here.
We can debate the relative strengths of the rhythm sections, but I can't get past the fact that Mick Jagger is not one of my top 500 lead singers in Pop history. And it might be unfair, but he bothers me more on covers than on his own material.
I'm opting for the Stones in this case, but solely beause Bill Wyman is playing through the same model pre-CBS Fender Bassman amp that I have used since 1980.
Fabs. No contest.
Forget who's better, how about that promo of "England's Newest Hitmakers" that Mike Douglas is holding?
I go with the Fabs, too, 'cept that Mick's dance moves remind me of the great Pete Fleischman! And the bonus "Tell Me" made me sigh....
Fabs. People forget that before John Lennon was a hippie burnout he was England's first great white R&B singer. So much color and subtlety. At this point Jagger's a dorky imitation.
apparently, the beatles/stones debate is not resolvable within the first 50 years, as to my ears, the stones version is obviously superior. i think mick's not dorky at all, but quite sly; lennon is a better vocalist overall, but i'm not sure he's a better vocalist for chuck berry tunes.
The problem with the Stones version is that the way it's miked, all you can hear is Brian's rhythm guitar.
The problem with the Stones version is that the way it's miked,
Respectfully, the problem with the Stones version is the way it's Mick-ed.
One man's sly is another man's "obvious, overblown, artless."
Gimme Liverpool o'er London this time around. . . .
I prefer the sound of the Beatle version, but I love the video of the Stones on the Mike Douglas show with the old guy guests sitting with Douglas, the conversation about hair, the front row of screaming girls...especially the one in the mod hat.
Of course, most of the "old" guys were probably younger then than I am now...
Honestly, neither version is great. Lennon sounds like he's forcing the vocals, unlike say, the balls he shows on "Leave My Kitten Alone." And the Stones version is just your standard Chuck Berry cover. Neither really shows what either band could do.
Overall, I take The Beatles. There are just too many lousy songs on the first 4-5 Stones records.
"The barbers are starving..." Those Rolling Stones could have played the borscht belt.
This is like asking which 1940s bluegrass act did the best version of a Carter Family tune. Seems like every Brit Invasion band had to do the Chuck Berry bit to be in the corps. Prefer the Beatles 'cause they sound like they want me to enjoy the song as much as they do. That nasal throaty voice of Lennon seals the deal for me.
AP
I lurve both bands naturally, The Beatles foremost. The Beatles were smooth and The Stones gritty. Both bands chose their covers somewhat unwisely. They had to have filler until they came into their own as good (or great) songwriters.
As for the cover of Carol, as Sal said, it's just a Chuck Berry song which the stones tended to cover all the way through their career, mostly Live. My personal fave version is the Live version from Ya Ya's. That one cooks.
Didn't I see this exact post a few days before yours on Willard Wormholes ?
I never thought about breaking it down like this until Dave's comment about the rhythm section, but here goes:
Charlie and Ringo are pretty evenly matched as excellent timekeepers with style, but Ringo sings, and writes songs, and is a star in his own right.
Bill is a perfectly good bass player, but Paul sings, writes, and never had his bass taken away and played by Keith ("Live With Me").
John and Brian were both competent rhythm players, and even though Brian played lots of instruments (including sax on "You Know My name Look Up The Number"), John sang, wrote, and never got fired.
George and Keith are kind of a draw.
Mick prances and plays harp better than any of the Beatles.
Beatles win.
Post a Comment