Beatles vs. Stones

^ ;-) .

While McCartney is a pretty good multi-instrumentalist, he can barely play drums. Emitt Rhodes---very Beatles influenced---started on drums (during his Freshman and Sophomore years in High School he was in The Palace Guard), moving to guitar and vocals when he formed The Merry-Go-Round in 1966. The group had a national hit single while Emitt was a Junior. On his 1970 debut solo album he wrote every song, played every instrument, and sang every vocal part, as did McCartney on his solo debut that same year. Play those two albums back-to-back, and you will see why I consider the idolization of the music of 1960’s groups over-the-top. Emitt’s album is considerable better than McCartneys. IMO, of course. Emitt’s songwriting, playing, singing, and production are first rate. Billboard Magazine declared Emitt’s album to be "One of the best albums of the decade." Not the year, the decade! I’ll wager far more people own McCartney’s album than Emitt’s, a ridiculous state of affairs, and a real shame.

Another great solo debut in which the artist plays and sings (almost) everything is Dave Edmunds’ 1971 album entitled Rockpile. While not a songwriter, Dave has excellent taste in material, and album is chock full of blistering hot American Rock ’n’ Roll. The album was recorded at Rockfield Studio in Wales (Dave is Welsh), with Dave producing. The album produced one hit single, the absolutely amazing "I Hear You Knocking". Dave went on to make some of my favorite music of the 1970’s and 80’s, far more to my liking than did McCartney, Lennon, Harrison, and The Stones.

@onhwy61 I thought you were joking at first, but the last bit of your post leaves me confused. Are you making these comments sincerely or as satire?

The Beatles were always compared to rival bands and people were already writing them off by 1965.

Initially they were going to be superceded by Gerry and the Pacemakers whose first 4 releases scored a remarkable 4 out of 4 UK number 1s.

Then it was the Dave Clark Five who made a great initial splash, whilst over in America they were compared to the Four Seasons.

Later it was the UKs Herman's Hermits and after that it was the Monkees.

In reality though, it was never the Stones or any of those bands that the Beatles were comparing themselves to.

Instead it was America's foremost 1960s group the Beach Boys, headed by the enormously creative Brian Wilson.

That particular rivalry spurred both bands to ever increasing heights.

Whereas you could say that the Beatles knew where to place the full stop (period) on their magnum opus Sgt Pepper, poor Brian got lost in the enormity of his soaring ambitions during his 1967 Smile follow up to the already brilliant Pet Sounds from the year before.

For me, had Brian safely found his way out this would have been the real 1960s rivalry for the best band in the world.

Instead, the Beatles went on for 2 further years of creative exploration whilst the Beach Boys had to mainly make do with the Smile leftovers.

Nevertheless they did manage at least one more classic during this difficult time.

@cd318 Yeah, I have to agree that, at their best, the Beach Boys’ recordings are things of absolute loveliness. As fine as anything ever put to vinyl.

@bdp24 “…I consider the idolization of the music of 1960’s groups over-the-top.” 
Without sounding gushy or “over-the-top,” what is “over-the-top” about folks putting Beatles #1, or putting a band that made “Jumpin’ Jack Flash,” “Satisfaction,” “She’s a Rainbow,” “Mother’s Little Helper,” “Dandelion,” “Paint it, Black,” “Honky Tonk Women,” “Sing This All Together,” Beggar’s Banquet, and Let it Bleed way up in the upper echelon of pop history?  

Velvet Underground? Sly and the Family Stone? Silver Apples? Kinks? Miracles? Stooges? Delfonics? Can? Zombies? Famous Flames? Bee Gees? Os Mutantes? White Noise? Beach Boys? 

That bunch of groups (throw Beatles/Stones in there) composed music that essentially laid the foundation of all popular music of the last 50-odd years.