Sep 022009
If we only include officially released recordings, which was the better cover band, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? Covers on bootlegs are not allowed for consideration, but covers-rich collections like The Beatles at the Beeb are in the mix.
I’m not about to dictate the meaning of “better cover band,” so you may use your own criteria, from “most authentic covers” or “ability to make the cover songs their own.” Each band’s entire body of work shall be taken into account, meaning the Stones may benefit from or be harmed by the inclusion of covers from their releases over the past 20 years. Please show your work. I’ve got some thoughts on the matter myself, but they’re not fully formed. I look forward to our working this out together.
I think they both did a fine job at covering songs & putting there own mark on them, as evidenced above. Neither band sounds like the original source (though Jagger does have a lot of Don Covay influence in his early vocals, in general. It’s a bit like Macca’s Little Richard-isms; it’s there, but it’s not *the only* influence). It’s kinda of an impossible question, as they were both trying to do different things (“very diplomatic”- as some wag once said), but, for me, as far as successfully covering a tune & making it their own ( which, IMO, is the only point IN recording a cover), it’s a tie. I honestly can’t say one band is better than the other at this.
Now, if it was The Who & The Beatles or Stones, I’d say The Who loses as a recorded cover band in every way, as their originals were far more successful compared to their generally rather anemic recorded versions of others’ songs (Fortune Teller & Eyesight To the Blind are the only exceptions that come to mind as really working for them as studio recordings). I think The Kinks also fall into this category.
I prefer the Beatles to the Stones in the Cover Wars. Stones did bloooz covers better – not that the Fabs did many pure blooz but the Beatles kicked the Stones butts on Motown and other R&B songs. They were pretty equal on the Chuck Berry songs.
“Please Mr Postman”, “Anna” “Baby Its You” are all amazing.
John was better than Paul at singing covers.
What a shocker, Andy!
Beatles over the Stones thanks to Lennon. Officially released covers should have some reason to exist, a reason to make it worth your time to listen to them instead of the originals. When the Beatles were putting out covers, the justification was pretty simple: they existed to let people hear those songs as performed by young John Lennon when he had the best voice in rock ‘n roll.
Lennon with his full voice unloading on Solider of Love, Baby It’s You, Leave My Kitten Alone, Slow Down, Twist & Shout, Anna, Please Mister Postman and so on is worth hearing every time.
For his part, while not as exciting as Lennon at the time, McCartney didn’t lower their batting average with his vocals on things like Long Tall Sally, Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey Hey or ‘Til There Was You, and the fact that they could pull off something from The Music Man has to give them points for range.
On the other side of things, those covers at the tail of of Anthology 3 where Lennon’s voice is completely shot have to be factored into things if latter day Stones covers are also in the mix.
I guess the question of whether George delivered on his covers is something worth discussing.
The Australian Rolling Stones fan page just reported the Charlies Watts has left The Rolling Stones for good
http://undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=9154_EXCLUSIVE:_Charlie_Watts_Quits_The_Rolling_Stones
The Beatles did a great job of covering Motown and Brill Building songs. The Beatles had a softness to them that helped them tune into the songs and, in many cases to my hears, make their versions of those songs more long-lasting than the originals. Their Larry Williams covers, with Lennon singing pinky rock songs like “Bad Boy,” “Slow Down,” and “Dizzy Miss Lizzy,” are all pretty great. Their cover of “Words of Love” is fine but not essential. Same goes for the occasional country-rocker by George or Ringo. To The Beatles’ credit they put their stamp of craftsmanship on everything they covered, even those mostly godawful McCartney workouts on Little Richard songs and the almost wholly inessential, in my opinion, Chuck Berry covers.
The Stones’ covers, especially in the early years, really sound like filler, but often in a good way. They are rarely “authentic” sounding, in my opinion, but they celebrate the spirit of being who they were through many of those songs, especially the Southern soul covers, like “Have Mercy,” and their Chuck Berry covers. I mean, their cover of “Come On” can be heard, in one way, as pathetic, but I find it really spirited and joyful – and original. It’s a big difference between the early Stones’ throwaway covers of throwaway Chuck Berry numbers and The Beatles’ completely professional covers of high-quality Berry standards.
I’m sure I’ll have more thoughts on the subject, but these are my initial ones.
Beatles WAY over The Stones..and I agree, mostly due to Lennon’s vocal
Bad Boy
Kansas City
Dizzy Miss Lizzie
Words Of Love
Twist and Shout
Act Naturally
Soldier of Love
Matchbox
Leave My Kitten Alone
..are my favorites
The Beatles made covers their own in a way that very few artisit have ever been able to do
Two words: “Mister Moonlight”
I’ll take The Beatles for alot of the same reasons that have been stated above. But the biggest reason for might be that I just like The Beatles better as a group.
TB
The Beatles were just a more accomplished recording band in their early years, partly the result of the Hamburg apprenticeship and partly the result of having a better producer and studio. The Stones took a longer time to learn to make records, and Mick definitely took a longer time to learn how to sing.
Yeah, it’s not close, altough a few of those Stones covers are among my favorites like It’s All Over Now. I love that guitar that sounds like a chicken. I agree that Mr Moonlight is the worst Beatles cover but John sings the hell out it as he does for all of his covers. I disagree somewhat about their Berry covers, Roll Over Beethoven and Sweet Little Sixteen always kick ass live for them. Lennon really gets a good feel for desperation in the Memphis lyrics too.
I’d love to be contrarian here, and my heart always picks the Stones over the Beatles, but I must agree with the great insights above. Beatles all the way, if for nothing more than “Bad Boy”–to me just about the most underrated Beatles recording of all. I’d like to think the Stones’ choice in covers was more adventurous, but even then I’m not sure. Great question Mr. Moderator, one that leaves me in great doubt, which I despise. Please tell me Charlie Watts leaving the band means the absolute end of the Stones. How can they even think about continuing without him? The coolest guy in rock ever.
I’m surprised at how little support the Stones are getting. A few of their early hits, near signature songs, are covers (not including failed singles like “Come On” and “I Saw Her Standing There”:
Not Fade Away
Time Is On My Side
It’s All Over Now
Then there are cool covers from the early albums:
Around and Around
Have Mercy
I Just Want to Make Love to You
She Said Yeah
Talkin’ Bout You
Walking the Dog
You Better Move On
I like some of their other early covers, too, but I acknowledge that a lot of them are a mess.
A little later, with blackface applied, they do some more key songs in their catalog:
Prodigal Son
Love in Vain
You Gotta Move
Shake Your Hips
Stop Breaking Down
While sucking in the ’70s, the band knocked out fun takes on some Motown chestnuts, like “Ain’t Too Proud to Beg” and “Just My Imagination.”
OK, I won’t go further – and a lot of the other covers are lame, if possessing charm. I can see why many of you find The Beatles to be a better cover band. They’re definitely of consistently higher quality in their covers, even when covering a turd like “Mr. Moonlight,” which I think is actually a pretty cool-sounding recording of a turd of a song. I guess what I like about the early Stones covers (and that’s my favorite period of the Stones) is that there’s little difference between their best originals and their best covers. They never put a lot of thought into their covers, but they bashed them out as if for their own amusement. A lot of Beatles covers, as polished as they are, are nowhere near as well written their originals. The result, to me, with the exception of the Motown and girl group covers, often sounds more transparently like filler, or a diversion from the regular procedings.
The Stones have had a few cool moments, particularly Route 66, Prodigal Son and I even like Can I Get A Witness.
But the Beatles win for Anna alone.
And even if the Beatles didn’t have Anna in their repertoire, the Stones would still lose just based on their abysmal version of Mercy Mercy.
Oh, and King Bee from England’s Newest Hitmakers isn’t too bad either.
I think I need to make a 12 song ipod mix of each (Beatles Ultimate Covers and Stones Ultimate Covers) and see which one works best.
I was hoping we’d end up with this resolution, jungleland2! Stay tuned (busy day on my end today).
My vote is for the Stones. The Beatles did some terrific raveup/fan worship covers as youngsters, but off the top of my head, I remember the Stones doing some better interpretative covers.
Also, the Charlie Watts-leaving-the-band-story is a hoax.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=8473484
Read that article though and tell me that references to a “Rolling Stones official” don’t explain everything wrong with the boys today, though.
There’s been a Rolling Stones Official since 1965, so I don’t think that’s what’s gone wrong. I think what’s gone wrong is that they’re in it for business reasons, not because they still love rock n roll.
Considering the general Stonesy love around here, I’m surprised so many of you are so sure The Beatles were the better cover band. I’d rather listen to Now! than any Beatles covers. Not that I don’t like a lot of Beatles covers, but Now! is almost all covers and it’s one of my all time favorite albums. Down the Road Apiece, Mona, Everybody Needs Somebody to Love…Man, BigSteve has a point about their earlier studio ventures, but they knew what they were doing when Now was cut and pasted together here in the US.
I’ll also put in that The Stones covered The Beatles better than The Beatles, at least on record. Their version of I Wanna Be Your Man smokes The Beatles. It’s not like it’s a great song, but The Stones find whatever is in there to make it worthwhile and they pull out everything good that can be pulled out of that song. Brian Jones is killer on it, and I’d be interested to know if anyone else in Britain at that time was using slide guitar in rock n roll.
I know this is an old post, and I almost just let it slip by as a nice old debate but The Stones version of “I Wanna Be Your Man” was a terrible cover. Everything was sloppy, it was dragging and painful. I can’t believe I’m gonna say this but I’d rather hear Ringo. I will admit that it is cool to see a slide used (although inappropriately).
Ok, that was just gut reaction, here’s less bitter take (sort of):
Buddy Holly: tie
Mostly ho-hum but I like the harmony and slight flourish on Words of love and the energy of Not Fade Away. Both lack the rhythmic intricacies of the Holly originals.
Overall, I’d give it to the Beatles. John kills the vocals and they are just tighter and deliver. There’s a reason you hear the boys’ version of Twist and Shout more than the Isley Brothers.