The question always lingers: Which should be considered the better band, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? Since most music enthusiasts would consider those to be two of the top bands of all time, then the winner of that debate clearly becomes listed as the greatest. After a recent Rolling Stones kick I had been on in which I caught a number of shows on their latest tour, Fifty Years and Counting, I wanted to examine this issue more closely and see if I could find enough viable reasons to why the Rolling Stones should be considered the best. As a sequel to declaring Johnny Mathis the greatest singer ever, which still holds true, its equally important to know which is the greatest band ever.
Most experts and music fans give the crown to the Beatles, and its very understandably so, but I feel there's solid evidence to rightfully place the Stones on the throne. I've always been partial to the Stones and their songs over the Beatles, so perhaps this isn't completely objective, but I feel I can make a logical case that all can agree is sensible and fair to both parties.
1. Band Definition:
A band is a company of musicians with different roles who come together to produce music and songs. Both the Rolling Stones and the Beatles have been made up of great musicians, but its really the Rolling Stones who needed each other more than anyone in the Beatles did. Each member of the Beatles; John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and even Ringo Starr, were all able to spring into their own solo careers and gain success. Though they were great together, they were also marketable by themselves (although Ringo falls short under the other three). McCartney even formed his own band Wings and recorded a long set of hit songs outside his Beatles roster.
The members of the Rolling Stones would've never been able to break up in that fashion and maintain the same high levels of success. Over the years Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have had their grudges which put the Stones on the verge of breaking up, but it never happened. During down periods when the Stones were on "break", Richards would cut his own albums, as well as Jagger, and both couldn't come close to the commercial success McCartney, Lennon, and Harrison received with their solo careers. It's likely one of the main reasons the Stones never broke up; Jagger and Richards need each other in order to survive. That's really what a band should have - the need to be together. Not only the need, but defined roles. With the Stones, Mick Jagger is the lead singer, Keith Richards is on the first guitar, Ronnie Wood on the second guitar, and Charlie Watts is on the drums. There's an order to things; Ronnie Wood doesn't grab the mic for a few of songs, and when Keith Richards does during a concert its only to give Jagger a bathroom break. With the Beatles, outside of Ringo Starr on drums, any one of the other three members could've been the "lead" guy. Through a combination of certain factors, mainly personality and character, Lennon usually played that #1 guy role, but there's no doubt with the Rolling Stones that Mick Jagger is the man up front with the microphone. Everyone else behind Jagger has a defined role and they stick with it.
That might leave the Beatles as the greatest collection of musical talent of all time, but not necessarily the greatest band. The Rolling Stones, with their need for one another in order to survive and the fact their roles are clearly mapped out, fit more into what a band should be all about.
2. James Dean Syndrome:
3. Dated Music:
The Beatles produced a great deal of hit songs that do this day are as popular now as when they first were released, but sound-wise they're all stuck in the 1960's. The tunes reflect the clean-pop and hippie-love feelings of that decade which soon became extinct once the mass protesting and Vietnam War phenomenons overshadowed society. The Rolling Stones were able to create songs during that same era which have transcended through time A song such as "Paint it, Black", could've easily been written in 1975 or 1992, but it came out as early as 1966. In the Year 1992, I doubt music fans would've been as receptive to a song about holding a girls hand or a paperback writer. The Stones were musically well ahead of their time and stayed parallel with the youth uneasiness that was growing by the late 1960's into the early 1970's. "Gimme Shelter" is a staple in plenty of Martin Scorsese's films and is widely regarded as a relevant song in modern times - and that came out back in 1969 and was partially written with the Vietnam War in mind.
Other popular Stones songs from the time the Beatles were still round or shortly after the breakup; Heart of Stone(1965), Get Off of My Cloud(1965), Sympathy for the Devil(1968), Midnight Rambler(1969), You Can't Always Get What You Want(1969), Monkey Man(1969), Honky Tonk Women(1969), Brown Sugar(1971), Wild Horses(1971), Can't You Hear Me Knocking(1971), Tumbling Dice(1972), It's Only Rock and Roll(1974), could easily fool listeners into thinking they were released a decade or two later than they actually were. In later years, with songs such as Shattered(1978) or Emotional Rescue(1980) the Stones were able to display more range and produce hits outside their normal sound. "Shattered" is more or less a punk-rock song and in "Emotional Rescue" Mick Jagger sings the majority of the song in a very high pitched 'Barry Gibbs-type' voice in which you wouldn't even realize it was him doing that unless you knew it. The Beatles never came close to mastering similar material that was so far ahead of their time and of different variety in sound texture. Nowadays, basically every NFL Football game begins the opening kickoff with Start Up Me(1980) and with nearing the age of 70 for most of the band members, the Stones recently released Doom and Gloom(2012) and it sounds on par (probably better...actually) with what any rock band in their 20's is putting out on the charts these days.
There's probably a hundred different reasons why the Beatles decided to break up outside of Yoko Ono, but one distinct possibility could be that they weren't able to collectively change with the times, therefore needed to creatively go their own ways. It's hard to predict what Lennon would've done had he not been killed, but examining Paul McCartney after Wings ended in 1981, he hasn't had a real hit song in over thirty-two years and he was the mainly the "Keith Richards" writer for the Beatles. Granted, the bulk of the Stones' best material was in the 1960's and 70's, but they kept producing good material in the 80's, 90's, 00's, with the for mentioned "Doom and Gloom"(2012) and "One More Shot"(2012). Having attended a Paul McCartney concert in person back in 2011; its a fantastic show and he certainly puts alot of energy into it as the Stones do despite the age, but musically you know your experiencing classic hits from the past versus the Rolling Stones who always provide the illusion that the band is fresh and the songs are new releases.
4. Mayhem:
Though its has nothing to do with actual music, a band, especially hovering somewhere in the rock genre, should not have a clean-cut image. Whereas the Beatles were initially described as someone fathers wouldn't mind their daughters bringing home, the Stones with their long hair, shabby outfits, and crude song lyrics for the times, were viewed as the polar opposite. Early on in the UK the Stones had a great number of their shows ended abruptly from crowds out of control and police intervention. The Beatles also had screaming girls clamoring over them, but there wasn't the same type of physical danger and rioting that was occurring with the Rolling Stones. The Stones themselves weren't encouraging that sort of behavior, but they certainly used it as a device and also staged some negative P.R. situations to help build upon the "bad boy" image. Keith Richards was frequently targeted by police for possession charges and both he and Mick Jagger would face drug charges later on a number of occasions, but usually those situations would get dismissed or squashed in some way. The Beatles also dappled in their fair amount of drugs too, but they did a much better job in hiding it and it was really the Stones who became the center band of attention on that topic. Keith Richards is revered as the master of the drugged-out musicians and is still alive and kicking to this day while so many others have overdosed taking far much less compared to him.
The signature moment of chaos surrounding the Rolling Stones was on December 6, 1969 at the Altamont Speedway in Northern California. After the City of San Francisco refused to let the Stones to have the free concert in the city, a secondary location was selected on the outskirts of town. Since the venue was in no-man's land where there wasn't a strong local authority presence, and on the recommendation from the Grateful Dead who used them previously, the Stones management hired guys from the Hells Angels biker gang to serve as security guards for the event. Nearly 300,000 people attended the concert and it was afterwards described as a bedlam of drug use and violence. Mick Jagger was allegedly punched by a fan before the show and the entire band was nervous about playing in front of the hostile crowd. The Hells Angels on duty that night parked their bikes in the front of the stage to ward off the crowd and carried cue sticks to use as possible weapons. The atmosphere was volatile from the start and only intensified once the Stones got on stage. A few songs in, a scuffle occurred when a gentleman tried to rush the stage against the will of the Angels. The man pulled a gun and a member from the Hells Angels responded by stabbing him with a knife. The incident was depicted in the 1969 documentary about the Stones' tour, "Gimme Shelter". At least three to four other people were killed that night has well, but under "accident" circumstances, including a drown body found in a nearby creek.
Not to say violence and death is important in order for a band to be considered a success, but it just goes to show that there's always some type of passion and raw energy from people that emits when the Rolling Stones are around. The Beatles had people yelling and cheering for them as well, but you couldn't image them being involved with anything like Altamont, let alone have empty beer cans and bottles of Jack Daniels up on the stage while they're doing a show. At the time, President Richard Nixon was trying his best to prevent the Stones from playing on American soil and when they were touring in the US, many local police forces heavily surveillanced them in hopes of getting a drug best or perhaps something better. The Rolling Stones were the ultimate anti-heroes of the time and were in correlation with the civil unrest of society. In contrast, the Beatles simply grew out their hair and stopped shaving for a while.
5. Longevity:
This is the strongest point that puts the Rolling Stones over on the top of the Beatles, and although some might find it unfair since the Beatles ended in 1971, the fact remains the Stones are still intact as of 2013 - therefore it must be considered a legit viable. Just because the Rolling Stones didn't break up around the same time as the Beatles doesn't mean they had the easy advantage. A band that remains together can have continued success, or they can just as easily hit a wall at some point and be forced out. Even though the Stones have had the benefit of continuing on since 1971, they've also been fighting that uphill battle since 1971 to stay together and on top of their game. Whereas the Beatles had a large amount of success from 1960 to 1970 and called it quits by 1971 when they were at the top. Members of the Beatles broke off to have great hits by themselves, but as a band the Beatles never had to struggle to stay on top during the 70's, 80's, 90's, and so on. They've been able to rest on the laurels of their brilliant 1960-1970 work and were never put to the test afterwards. Conventional wisdom detects that since they had a large following and a long list of major hit songs, the Beatles could've gone on like the Stones did and found continued success in later decades, but that never happened so the would never know.
It's extremely difficult, in not, almost impossible to maintain the high success levels because there's so many factors outside the music alone which can derail an artist or band. Another phenomenal band from the UK that came out around the same time as the Beatles and the Stones did was the Bee Gees. They had a few hits by the late 1960's, were somewhat quiet by the early 70's, but then from the mid-70's to the end of the decade they were considered the crème de la crème of the Disco Era. Their work on the soundtrack to the film "Saturday Night Fever" was iconic and the were #1 group at that moment. They could've probably had even more hits, but they used their songwriting skills to sell off songs that other artists eventually made famous. They reached the pinnacle, but the only problem was that they got too-too big for their own good and they were so tied to into the disco sound that once that cultural era ended, people got tired of hearing about the Bee Gees. They weren't selling records anymore and basically went on a fifteen year hiatus until there was renewed interest in their music by the mid-90's. Luckily for them, as songwriters they continued to write hits for other artists during the 80's and early 90's to make money, but they themselves had fizzled out for a long period. By the time there was some renewed interest, Barry Gibb had back issues, Maurice Gibb died unexpectedly in 2003, and quite recently Robin Gibb died in 2012. Andy Gibb wasn't officially a "Bee Gee", but was rather a successful solo artist who overdosed on drugs in 1988.
If there were any solo artists who alone could've matched the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, it would have to be Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson. Elvis had the foundation for a longer career beyond the year he died, 1977, but he couldn't control his drug use or weight and by his final years he'd become an embarrassing shell of his former shelf. Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, passed away in 2009, but for all intents and purposes his career was done by 1993. The final sixteen years of his life was filled with all sorts of bizarre behavior and sexual abuse allegations that always seemed to cloud of his head. Even the Chairman of the Board, Frank Sinatra, hit a wall in the late 1980's when he attempted a comeback and his voice simply wasn't there anymore. Once the Beatles broke up in 1971, they didn't have to face any of these challenges collectively, the Rolling Stones did. There could've been an incident where Keith Richards overdosed or Mick Jagger put on 200 lbs like Elvis and secluded himself like Michael Jackson did in Howard Hughes fashion. Perhaps Mick Jagger's voice could've evaporated like Sinatra's did. There could've been that instance, whether in 1975, 1984, 1996, 2002, 2013 where people were simply tired of the Stones. None of that ever happened!! There has to be a value placed for them not tripping into any of these pitfalls.
Their recent 2012-13 tour, 50 Years and Counting, drew in sell-out crowds who were willing to pay exceedingly high ticket prices to see this band and hear these songs they've known for many decades. The shows were amazing and all members of the band looked to be in top form. Okay, there's more wrinkles and grey hairs to go around for everybody. Perhaps Mick Jagger has a few less moves than he did twenty or thirty years ago and maybe his voice is down an octave, but its overwhelmingly more than adequate to putting on a great show. Some musical expert can probably dissect a million reasons why the Beatles and their music reigns supreme even with being on the shelf since 1971, but when a band can stay together for as long as the Stones have, avoid career hazards, produce new hit songs along the trail, bring in capacity crowds, and perform amazing live shows in top physical form, that leaves no doubt who the winner is. If they weren't the greatest they wouldn't have made it this far and with this much success.
Hopefully they got another fifty years left in them......
Most experts and music fans give the crown to the Beatles, and its very understandably so, but I feel there's solid evidence to rightfully place the Stones on the throne. I've always been partial to the Stones and their songs over the Beatles, so perhaps this isn't completely objective, but I feel I can make a logical case that all can agree is sensible and fair to both parties.
1. Band Definition:
A band is a company of musicians with different roles who come together to produce music and songs. Both the Rolling Stones and the Beatles have been made up of great musicians, but its really the Rolling Stones who needed each other more than anyone in the Beatles did. Each member of the Beatles; John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and even Ringo Starr, were all able to spring into their own solo careers and gain success. Though they were great together, they were also marketable by themselves (although Ringo falls short under the other three). McCartney even formed his own band Wings and recorded a long set of hit songs outside his Beatles roster.
The members of the Rolling Stones would've never been able to break up in that fashion and maintain the same high levels of success. Over the years Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have had their grudges which put the Stones on the verge of breaking up, but it never happened. During down periods when the Stones were on "break", Richards would cut his own albums, as well as Jagger, and both couldn't come close to the commercial success McCartney, Lennon, and Harrison received with their solo careers. It's likely one of the main reasons the Stones never broke up; Jagger and Richards need each other in order to survive. That's really what a band should have - the need to be together. Not only the need, but defined roles. With the Stones, Mick Jagger is the lead singer, Keith Richards is on the first guitar, Ronnie Wood on the second guitar, and Charlie Watts is on the drums. There's an order to things; Ronnie Wood doesn't grab the mic for a few of songs, and when Keith Richards does during a concert its only to give Jagger a bathroom break. With the Beatles, outside of Ringo Starr on drums, any one of the other three members could've been the "lead" guy. Through a combination of certain factors, mainly personality and character, Lennon usually played that #1 guy role, but there's no doubt with the Rolling Stones that Mick Jagger is the man up front with the microphone. Everyone else behind Jagger has a defined role and they stick with it.
That might leave the Beatles as the greatest collection of musical talent of all time, but not necessarily the greatest band. The Rolling Stones, with their need for one another in order to survive and the fact their roles are clearly mapped out, fit more into what a band should be all about.
2. James Dean Syndrome:
We as humans tend to always look back to the past as the "golden years" and there's always the romanticism with those who die early. Combining the two; when someone or something died early during the "golden years" it elevates the status ten fold than what it really was. For example, James Dean is seem as the quintessential icon of the 1950's, mainly because of his image from the film, "Rebel Without a Cause". In reality, was he a "Marlon Brando" or "Laurence Olivier" in terms of acting ability, no way! What makes him viewed as an all-time great is basically the fact he died young in a car crash and his lasting image is the character from the 'Rebel' movie. That's all. Elvis is another 50's icon who left the world relatively too soon, but at least he contributed something more substantial in that decade than just a cool image.
The Beatles have a touch of this spell as well, even though they certainly provided much more substance with their music than Dean did with his movies. When the Beatles decided to break up in 1971, that was their "James Dean car accident". They were still in a position to offer alot more to music fans and there was an empty feeling that they were taken away from society too soon before their time should've been up. That romanticism from the band dying early has built up extra layers of nostalgic greatness around them which is likely a tad bit further than the truth. In conjunction with that, when Lennon was murdered in 1980 at the age of 40 and George Harrison passed from lung cancer at the age of 58, both relatively early ages to die, it all just adds to the 'gone-too-soon' mystic. Once Lennon was killed in 1980, the Beatles were officially beyond the point of no return and the years since have been adding more and more layers of greatness onto the band's image.
3. Dated Music:
The Beatles produced a great deal of hit songs that do this day are as popular now as when they first were released, but sound-wise they're all stuck in the 1960's. The tunes reflect the clean-pop and hippie-love feelings of that decade which soon became extinct once the mass protesting and Vietnam War phenomenons overshadowed society. The Rolling Stones were able to create songs during that same era which have transcended through time A song such as "Paint it, Black", could've easily been written in 1975 or 1992, but it came out as early as 1966. In the Year 1992, I doubt music fans would've been as receptive to a song about holding a girls hand or a paperback writer. The Stones were musically well ahead of their time and stayed parallel with the youth uneasiness that was growing by the late 1960's into the early 1970's. "Gimme Shelter" is a staple in plenty of Martin Scorsese's films and is widely regarded as a relevant song in modern times - and that came out back in 1969 and was partially written with the Vietnam War in mind.
Other popular Stones songs from the time the Beatles were still round or shortly after the breakup; Heart of Stone(1965), Get Off of My Cloud(1965), Sympathy for the Devil(1968), Midnight Rambler(1969), You Can't Always Get What You Want(1969), Monkey Man(1969), Honky Tonk Women(1969), Brown Sugar(1971), Wild Horses(1971), Can't You Hear Me Knocking(1971), Tumbling Dice(1972), It's Only Rock and Roll(1974), could easily fool listeners into thinking they were released a decade or two later than they actually were. In later years, with songs such as Shattered(1978) or Emotional Rescue(1980) the Stones were able to display more range and produce hits outside their normal sound. "Shattered" is more or less a punk-rock song and in "Emotional Rescue" Mick Jagger sings the majority of the song in a very high pitched 'Barry Gibbs-type' voice in which you wouldn't even realize it was him doing that unless you knew it. The Beatles never came close to mastering similar material that was so far ahead of their time and of different variety in sound texture. Nowadays, basically every NFL Football game begins the opening kickoff with Start Up Me(1980) and with nearing the age of 70 for most of the band members, the Stones recently released Doom and Gloom(2012) and it sounds on par (probably better...actually) with what any rock band in their 20's is putting out on the charts these days.
There's probably a hundred different reasons why the Beatles decided to break up outside of Yoko Ono, but one distinct possibility could be that they weren't able to collectively change with the times, therefore needed to creatively go their own ways. It's hard to predict what Lennon would've done had he not been killed, but examining Paul McCartney after Wings ended in 1981, he hasn't had a real hit song in over thirty-two years and he was the mainly the "Keith Richards" writer for the Beatles. Granted, the bulk of the Stones' best material was in the 1960's and 70's, but they kept producing good material in the 80's, 90's, 00's, with the for mentioned "Doom and Gloom"(2012) and "One More Shot"(2012). Having attended a Paul McCartney concert in person back in 2011; its a fantastic show and he certainly puts alot of energy into it as the Stones do despite the age, but musically you know your experiencing classic hits from the past versus the Rolling Stones who always provide the illusion that the band is fresh and the songs are new releases.
4. Mayhem:
Though its has nothing to do with actual music, a band, especially hovering somewhere in the rock genre, should not have a clean-cut image. Whereas the Beatles were initially described as someone fathers wouldn't mind their daughters bringing home, the Stones with their long hair, shabby outfits, and crude song lyrics for the times, were viewed as the polar opposite. Early on in the UK the Stones had a great number of their shows ended abruptly from crowds out of control and police intervention. The Beatles also had screaming girls clamoring over them, but there wasn't the same type of physical danger and rioting that was occurring with the Rolling Stones. The Stones themselves weren't encouraging that sort of behavior, but they certainly used it as a device and also staged some negative P.R. situations to help build upon the "bad boy" image. Keith Richards was frequently targeted by police for possession charges and both he and Mick Jagger would face drug charges later on a number of occasions, but usually those situations would get dismissed or squashed in some way. The Beatles also dappled in their fair amount of drugs too, but they did a much better job in hiding it and it was really the Stones who became the center band of attention on that topic. Keith Richards is revered as the master of the drugged-out musicians and is still alive and kicking to this day while so many others have overdosed taking far much less compared to him.
The signature moment of chaos surrounding the Rolling Stones was on December 6, 1969 at the Altamont Speedway in Northern California. After the City of San Francisco refused to let the Stones to have the free concert in the city, a secondary location was selected on the outskirts of town. Since the venue was in no-man's land where there wasn't a strong local authority presence, and on the recommendation from the Grateful Dead who used them previously, the Stones management hired guys from the Hells Angels biker gang to serve as security guards for the event. Nearly 300,000 people attended the concert and it was afterwards described as a bedlam of drug use and violence. Mick Jagger was allegedly punched by a fan before the show and the entire band was nervous about playing in front of the hostile crowd. The Hells Angels on duty that night parked their bikes in the front of the stage to ward off the crowd and carried cue sticks to use as possible weapons. The atmosphere was volatile from the start and only intensified once the Stones got on stage. A few songs in, a scuffle occurred when a gentleman tried to rush the stage against the will of the Angels. The man pulled a gun and a member from the Hells Angels responded by stabbing him with a knife. The incident was depicted in the 1969 documentary about the Stones' tour, "Gimme Shelter". At least three to four other people were killed that night has well, but under "accident" circumstances, including a drown body found in a nearby creek.
Not to say violence and death is important in order for a band to be considered a success, but it just goes to show that there's always some type of passion and raw energy from people that emits when the Rolling Stones are around. The Beatles had people yelling and cheering for them as well, but you couldn't image them being involved with anything like Altamont, let alone have empty beer cans and bottles of Jack Daniels up on the stage while they're doing a show. At the time, President Richard Nixon was trying his best to prevent the Stones from playing on American soil and when they were touring in the US, many local police forces heavily surveillanced them in hopes of getting a drug best or perhaps something better. The Rolling Stones were the ultimate anti-heroes of the time and were in correlation with the civil unrest of society. In contrast, the Beatles simply grew out their hair and stopped shaving for a while.
5. Longevity:
This is the strongest point that puts the Rolling Stones over on the top of the Beatles, and although some might find it unfair since the Beatles ended in 1971, the fact remains the Stones are still intact as of 2013 - therefore it must be considered a legit viable. Just because the Rolling Stones didn't break up around the same time as the Beatles doesn't mean they had the easy advantage. A band that remains together can have continued success, or they can just as easily hit a wall at some point and be forced out. Even though the Stones have had the benefit of continuing on since 1971, they've also been fighting that uphill battle since 1971 to stay together and on top of their game. Whereas the Beatles had a large amount of success from 1960 to 1970 and called it quits by 1971 when they were at the top. Members of the Beatles broke off to have great hits by themselves, but as a band the Beatles never had to struggle to stay on top during the 70's, 80's, 90's, and so on. They've been able to rest on the laurels of their brilliant 1960-1970 work and were never put to the test afterwards. Conventional wisdom detects that since they had a large following and a long list of major hit songs, the Beatles could've gone on like the Stones did and found continued success in later decades, but that never happened so the would never know.
It's extremely difficult, in not, almost impossible to maintain the high success levels because there's so many factors outside the music alone which can derail an artist or band. Another phenomenal band from the UK that came out around the same time as the Beatles and the Stones did was the Bee Gees. They had a few hits by the late 1960's, were somewhat quiet by the early 70's, but then from the mid-70's to the end of the decade they were considered the crème de la crème of the Disco Era. Their work on the soundtrack to the film "Saturday Night Fever" was iconic and the were #1 group at that moment. They could've probably had even more hits, but they used their songwriting skills to sell off songs that other artists eventually made famous. They reached the pinnacle, but the only problem was that they got too-too big for their own good and they were so tied to into the disco sound that once that cultural era ended, people got tired of hearing about the Bee Gees. They weren't selling records anymore and basically went on a fifteen year hiatus until there was renewed interest in their music by the mid-90's. Luckily for them, as songwriters they continued to write hits for other artists during the 80's and early 90's to make money, but they themselves had fizzled out for a long period. By the time there was some renewed interest, Barry Gibb had back issues, Maurice Gibb died unexpectedly in 2003, and quite recently Robin Gibb died in 2012. Andy Gibb wasn't officially a "Bee Gee", but was rather a successful solo artist who overdosed on drugs in 1988.
If there were any solo artists who alone could've matched the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, it would have to be Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson. Elvis had the foundation for a longer career beyond the year he died, 1977, but he couldn't control his drug use or weight and by his final years he'd become an embarrassing shell of his former shelf. Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, passed away in 2009, but for all intents and purposes his career was done by 1993. The final sixteen years of his life was filled with all sorts of bizarre behavior and sexual abuse allegations that always seemed to cloud of his head. Even the Chairman of the Board, Frank Sinatra, hit a wall in the late 1980's when he attempted a comeback and his voice simply wasn't there anymore. Once the Beatles broke up in 1971, they didn't have to face any of these challenges collectively, the Rolling Stones did. There could've been an incident where Keith Richards overdosed or Mick Jagger put on 200 lbs like Elvis and secluded himself like Michael Jackson did in Howard Hughes fashion. Perhaps Mick Jagger's voice could've evaporated like Sinatra's did. There could've been that instance, whether in 1975, 1984, 1996, 2002, 2013 where people were simply tired of the Stones. None of that ever happened!! There has to be a value placed for them not tripping into any of these pitfalls.
Their recent 2012-13 tour, 50 Years and Counting, drew in sell-out crowds who were willing to pay exceedingly high ticket prices to see this band and hear these songs they've known for many decades. The shows were amazing and all members of the band looked to be in top form. Okay, there's more wrinkles and grey hairs to go around for everybody. Perhaps Mick Jagger has a few less moves than he did twenty or thirty years ago and maybe his voice is down an octave, but its overwhelmingly more than adequate to putting on a great show. Some musical expert can probably dissect a million reasons why the Beatles and their music reigns supreme even with being on the shelf since 1971, but when a band can stay together for as long as the Stones have, avoid career hazards, produce new hit songs along the trail, bring in capacity crowds, and perform amazing live shows in top physical form, that leaves no doubt who the winner is. If they weren't the greatest they wouldn't have made it this far and with this much success.
Hopefully they got another fifty years left in them......
September 13, 2005 in New York, NY
The Rolling Stones
Madison Square Garden
July 15, 2011 in The Bronx, NY
Paul McCartney
Yankee Stadium
December 13, 2012 in Newark, NJ
The Rolling Stones
Prudential Center
June 14, 2013 in Boston, MA
The Rolling Stones
TD Garden
June 18, 2013 in Philadelphia, PA
The Rolling Stones
Wells Fargo Center
June 24, 2013 in Washington, DC
The Rolling Stones
Verizon Center
