Beatles vs. Stones

It’s the “Coke or Pepsi?” question of rock: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

Most of us have an immediate, visceral response: a gut reaction based on one band striking an inner chord in a way that the other just doesn’t.

For me, it’s The Stones. Always has been, though as I’ve grown older, the question prompts a bit more pause and pondering. But as much as I love The Beatles, the bluesy grit, funky grooves and maximum riffage of Keith & Co. wins out over the pop songcraft, progressive artistry and sonic experimentalism of The Beatles.

Of course, it is a bit of an apples-and-oranges consideration from today’s vantage point (as opposed to weighing the two choices in, say, 1968 or ’69). The Stones have been an active enterprise for nigh on a half-century. The Beatles body of work represents a mere decade. What they did in that brief period of time is unparalleled. On the other hand, The Stones longevity (or at least The Glimmer Twins’) is unmatched in rock music, even if they’ve had an orchestra’s worth of players pass through the ranks.

But, as Mick said during his band’s ill-fated December 1969 visit to a Northern California racetrack,. “Why must we fight?” So, in the spirit of detente between the two camps:

Here’s a fun mashup: “Sympathy for the Devil” meets “With a Little Help From My Friends.”