To learn how to hear the hidden messages in Beatles songs search ''Truth Contest'' in google, and click the first result,open (The Present),and read through the section about the Beatles.
No one's probably gonna read this, but I’ll say it anyway cuz I feel at least 1 person will. I'm a young designer and graffiti artist, I know there's a million out there but I feel like my art has a unique individual style.
If you just take a min and give me a chance I'll make you a believer. I would love nothing more than to have a loyal following on youtube. If anyone who reads this could press the "THUMBS UP" others will see it. Just a simple button push will make a huge difference.
Since I was a child I was never really able to get into the stones. I can't really explain it. I mean... I like a few of their songs here and there... but they never came even close The Beatles' shadow.
am i the only one who thinks stones version owns i mean its so raw i like the beatles more though but for RnB nobody could beat the stones they had black souls
I love both but i always thought that The beatles were the 'good guys' and The stones were the 'bad guys' because of the drug abuse and the scandals... And that for some reason always made them more appealing...
check out Keith! He's all over the place - 'this is before he began to look like living death'. Amazing - I remember seeing them on Ed Sullivan and actually being a little freakout out (scared) since I was used to the smiles of Lennon/Macca. The snarling of Mick was very cool and his MOUTH was HUGE. Early shades of Steven Talerico (tyler).....
@TheMrQwertyify honestly if brian jones (in my opinion) were in the beatles, it would have messed things up for them. he was too badass and they were too goodie good. Brian is the bast Rolling Stone though for me so, i don;t know.
@nirvana2thedoors If you believe what you read then it was The Beatles who were more badass then The Stones but they were just portrayed that way in the press. You wouldn't be able to print half the things that John Lennon got up to. Not that it really matters anyway cause both bands kicked ass!
@utahjazzman21 How does Journey and Bon Jovi come right after the Stones? I like Journey, but right after The Stones? Well it's everyones opinion I guess.
I love the Beatles version definitely. And "I Wanna Be Your Man" you would just think that's Beatles, not Rolling Stones. And it sounds like them too. But if you say "Sympathy for the Devil" You just know that's not a Beatles song, you know...
@Mokkari77 I've yet to see a comment that actually does realize this. Why can't anyone just take it how it is. They're both great and they both made a great contribution to music. Why isn't that enough for people?
@mrmagicroundcircle Absolutely, but I'm not sure how they kept fans with that bad of a frontman. The Beatles had it all. The singing ability, the charm, the good looks (no homo), the song writing ability and the versatility. The Stones lack about 80% percent of that list. To be fair, The Stones should never be compared to The Beatles, under any circumstance, for that reason.
I prefer Rolling Stones, I'm not gonna get factual and say that beatles were more influential and sold more records because i don't judge music with sales, i judge on how it sounds. To me personally, i liked the Rolling Stones' sound.
@MrKingMacca okay is ringo singing every beatles song? no he isnt. and every song hes playing the same fucking 4/4 beat. whereas watts is a jazz drummer and it shows through really well he's great definitely a better drummer than ringo, i love the beatles more than i love the stones but watts is the better hands down. you obviously dont know a thing about music if you dont think ringo is an elementry drummer and watts is better
watts is never palying anything else but boring repetitive 4/4 beats, jazz influence up his ass, and wyman is the most biring to listen to basss player ever, even the dude from ac/dc is more exciting to listen to.
Rain is better than anything Watts drummed in the last 50 years.
Problem: Both The Beatles and The Stones got started at about the same time with some similarities and both have had incredible careers and amazing music.
@goharshahid93 the beatles are musically better..what is musically better? well, they have more genres, more variation of sounds, more studio techniques, better lyrics, more instrumentation...so it's open for more kinds of people. rolling stones doesnt have the variation of the beatles and it's more for a certain kind of people. the beatles doesnt have 1 ''crap'' song.
@goharshahid93 I like the beatles version A LOT more than the stone's version..your comment about the song are just personal taste, just like mine. but the beatles are musically better so they helped the stones. :)
@utahjazzman21 Can you remove Journey from the list utter fucking tosh. I rate ELO higher and would not put them on that list ACDC also does not warrant a place or Bon Jovi . Replace them with the WHO and your list is fine and rap was also before 2008 started in 1974 my friend.
I think what fuels the Beatles is that you have a Paul McCartney as optimist and John Lennon as cynic. An optimist questions and challenges cynicism and a cynic questions and challenges optimism. Put the two together and you get an explosion of energy.
Beatles never took a fucken song from The Rolling Stones because they didn't need it. Beatles are way better. Beatles= 27 Number One Hits in about 8 to 9 years, Rolling Stones = 9 Number One Hits in about over 40 years... Yeah I think Beatles win by Faaaar. xD
@Space9Man why do Beatles fans make a big deal out of the Stones doing a Beatles song, like its proof that the Beatles were better. Does this mean the artists that the Beatles covered early in their careers are better artists then the Beatles.
This is just a dumb argument and I always see Beatles fans trying to make it. Big deal the Stones covered a Beatles song early, they covered many Churck Berry songs.
@45arther They covered it because they were in need of a hit. The Beatles actually finished the song in front of them & gave it to them. The Stones took it & it gave them that boost that they needed to burst out. The Beatles covered yes but they didn't take it from competition like Stones did at that time. Plus skip the 1st part of my comment & go over to the other facts. The Beatles are the top selling Most influenctial band of all time. Even Keith Richards said that The Beatles paved their way
@45arther Oh & his name is CHUCK Berry. Also put it this way. Each Beatle could write & sing their own songs. The Rolling Stones can't do that. It's just Mick and Keith who write and Just Mick who mainly sings. The Beatles were a 4 front man band, Perhaps the only all front man group of all time. When Ringo Starr is inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (Which he will be) The Beatles will become the 1st band in history to have all members individually be inducted as a band & as solo artists
@Space9Man that in itself shows what a joke the beatles hype it. Ringo might make the hall of fame. LOL. Like if he wasn;t a beatles he would have a chance. give me a break. Harrison probably shouldn't be in there.
@45arther George Harrison probably shouldn't be in the rock and roll hall of fame? I don't know how to respond to that other than.... Go fucking read something. Anything, just fucking read you stupid bastard.
@therealfactor harrison had a couple of good albums after the beatles breakup. there are alot of people who put out a few good albums that are not in the hall offame. face it, alot of praise Harrsion and Ringo get is because they are former Beatles. Very famous musicians.
@45arther And saying that if Ringo and Harrison weren't Beatles they wouldn't have a chance is like saying if you weren't an astronaut you wouldn't have had the chance to go to the moon. Well no shit? Point being they WERE fucking Beatles! They made up 50% of the best selling, most creative, most original, most influential, most diverse, greatest fucking band in history and you think they don't deserve to be in the hall of fame? They are the fucking hall of fame!
@45arther God damn you pissed me off. Why don't you not compare the two? It isn't a fair comparison, it's like comparing the beatles to elvis! Or comparing a computer to it's maker! It doesn't work dude! The stones would with out a doubt, undisputibly not exist if it weren't for the beatles, as the beatles wouldn't if it weren't for elvis. So why the hell would you call their run a "hype" Words have definitions, and a hype doesn't last 50 years you stupid prick.
If Harrison hadn't played how he played your favorite band, whoever the hell they are, would. not. exist. I don't know how more obvious it could be man. Just read about it. Pick any band in the world, look at their list of influences --it absolutely always leads back to the beatles. All 4 of them. Why do you think they never let ringo or harrison walk out when they threatened to? They were the only 4 that could make it work, they all knew it. Once in a century band. Don't dog them.
It was a throwaway. The only two versions of the song were Ringo and the Rolling Stones. That shows how much importance we put on it: We weren't going to give them anything great, right? (John Lennon)
okay i cant say anything both the beatles and rolling stones are legends when it comes to music they change the revolution of it so if anybody is dissing anyone one of them they fucking suck and dont understand the true value of music
@Bekistas I was a teenager in those days, so I watched that era progress; I don't see it looking backward. One thing we can be sure of is that the Beatles would never have gone as far as they did if they had not dumped that loser Pete Best and replaced him with the great RingoStarr, and if they hadn't had George Harrison quietly fleshing out the great tunes composed by Lennon and McCartney. It took all Four to be Fab.
@matto902 Replace Harrison with Richards??? George was much better than Keith, Your crazy Listen to the live in DC. 1964 version by the Beatles and then try saying that Keith could replace him. Watts wasnt any better than ringo either.
nobody needs him, every other band wnet crazy psychedelic outlandish rythms while the stones rythm section was as boring in 63 as they were in 67.
their best basslines were played by keith on jack flash and devil.
and george owns keith, keith's good rythm nothing more, one of the worst soloists you'll ever hear, that#s why during the taylor years their sound was so awesome, keith didn#t even try to solo.
I think The Beatles were extremely over rated at the beginning of their career, and only seemed to really truly deserve their "gods of rock" title when they became more outlandish - when Lennon and McCartney realized that they really could write real music and proper songs.
dude, she loves you, i wanna hold your hand, can't buy me love, all my loving, a hard day's night, they had it all together from the very start, love me do is keiths favorite beatles song and he begged paul to let him play it with him at the super bowl show, but paul declined.
@OropherThranduil Although I like those songs and they are pretty good, but I don't think that's anywhere near their best stuff. They were talented from the beginning, yes, but they seemed very middle of the line and generic in that era.
when i listen to she loves you, and then some other hits from 63 like i like it, how do you do, sweets for my sweets, do you love me i see a HUGE gap in quality, and she loves you has that youthfull energy, and ringos little drum intro is so recognisable and pauls bassline, the little lead breaks.
those are just 4 of the songs that hit nr 1 in 63.
and you shouldn't forget that i want to hold your hand broke down the american music wall for the british invasion.
@OropherThranduil Well yes that's true, I did overlook those points which was silly and ignorant of me. I suppose I'm not giving them enough credit for their earlier music, a little too hung up on comparing it to their later stuff and not recognizing it for what it is of its time. Cheers!
i know what you mean, for a long time i also went more with the later albums, but from their 5 beatlemania albums i think their debut is my favorite, it's just such a great, enyoyable record, and since i have their complete BBC recordings (about 450 songs) i have many live versions of every track from album 1, and i went to a ringo all star band concert last sunday, great, from the early albums he sang boys, honey don't and act naturally.
In fact we can't really feel that this song was given to the stones by the Beatles. That's not in the style of the Stones. I prefer Beatles version even if i usually like the Stones. You can hear the new song of Beady Eye : Beatles and Stones. They totally caught what I think.
And God, Keith is like George Clooney : today, older but better :D
Thanks for this. And no, both versions are great! That argument gets old after a while. Beatles, cleaner a bit better produced, Stones, raw, punky. Who would ever want to choose?
Yeah, great song and all, but the Stones make it sound raw and sexy, the Beatles play the version your Mum would tap her feet to. Jones' guitar solo proves the sheer invention of the Stones, the Beatles were kinda straight.
As much as I like them both, I like the upbeat version that the Beatles put out more than the Stones version. That being said, I like both versions of the song, and I sill love the rough tone, and imitation southern accent that Jagger offers.
This song has a hidden message in it, like many Beatles songs. To find out what it is, search "truth contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read the section about The Beatles.
My favorite verion of this song is the live one in Washington 64'....so upbeat, and loud! I dislike the studio version though and of course when compared to The Rolling Stone's version IT SIMPLY SUCKS! The version of the Stones however is so different I LOVE IT TOO it sounds more depressed, crude and Mick's voice is awesome!!
Alright, the Beatles version is recorded, the Stones are live. You should compare this to the Stones studio version, the solo in the Stones studio version is pure rock attitude, it's raw, loud, and sounds like it's going over the edge at any second.
when i first saw this i thought Keith was George, they both look so alike.
at first i was like ":O WHOA why is George is being so bad ass here?, i never knew he played with the Stones in this song"
but then i was like "D: well Keith is still awesome :D"
brandini734 4 days ago
Ringo's voice is not close as good as Mick's, but if John sang it I think I'd prefer the Beatles' version.
NeyoProductions 2 weeks ago
The Beatles version is better
Briannastokes24 2 weeks ago
The Stones is cool
But
The Beatles epic
glinos123 3 weeks ago
es mas limpio el sonido de The Beatles
Pinfloinada 1 month ago
best version beatles!!
KanonGoldensZ 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To learn how to hear the hidden messages in Beatles songs search ''Truth Contest'' in google, and click the first result,open (The Present),and read through the section about the Beatles.
23rock3 1 month ago
Both good, but I prefer the Beatles version
TrailBlazer65 1 month ago 3
I Like stones two,but the beatles version is more headshakin!
legalzinho12 1 month ago
BEatles Play Better!
TheMarques400 2 months ago
I love both <3, but I must admit that you hear better with the beatles... beatles rules!
runaways5 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No one's probably gonna read this, but I’ll say it anyway cuz I feel at least 1 person will. I'm a young designer and graffiti artist, I know there's a million out there but I feel like my art has a unique individual style.
If you just take a min and give me a chance I'll make you a believer. I would love nothing more than to have a loyal following on youtube. If anyone who reads this could press the "THUMBS UP" others will see it. Just a simple button push will make a huge difference.
63Mastermind 2 months ago
The best one is from the beatles, the rolling copy them (Y)
bubuandfreinkvideos 2 months ago
Since I was a child I was never really able to get into the stones. I can't really explain it. I mean... I like a few of their songs here and there... but they never came even close The Beatles' shadow.
SaintJorge304 2 months ago 3
am i the only one who thinks stones version owns i mean its so raw i like the beatles more though but for RnB nobody could beat the stones they had black souls
thesinner922 2 months ago 4
Beatles' version is flawless and.. boring. Jagger is Jagger, even his singing out of tune is legendary :)
sole0soleo 2 months ago
I like more stones version
sebaXcore06 3 months ago
is simple.. beatles version is more POP and stones version is more rock & roll
sebaXcore06 3 months ago 4
Keith Richard and brian jones Looks Cool!
Mattis659 3 months ago
I love both but i always thought that The beatles were the 'good guys' and The stones were the 'bad guys' because of the drug abuse and the scandals... And that for some reason always made them more appealing...
hplonglive 3 months ago
Beatles made better version of this song but I still like Stones more
pierdolefication 3 months ago
who sing at 0:27 for the stones?
MrMattis121 3 months ago
@MrMattis121 Mick Jagger
brandini734 3 months ago
@brandini734 thanks but i don't know who is the guy at 0:46 -PLEASE THANKS!!!
MrMattis121 3 months ago
@MrMattis121 Keith Richards
brandini734 3 months ago
@brandini734 ok last thing i promise who is at 0:38 who sings?
Mattis659 3 months ago
@Mattis659 Brian Jones
brandini734 3 months ago
@brandini734 thanks that was all.
Mattis659 3 months ago
So the Stones were young once! Thought so.
Baritone45 3 months ago
Stones!!! <3
fsiqe 3 months ago
the beatles= sweet rock
the swtones= hard rock,
es la diferencia
PERUTECHNO 3 months ago
JOHN LENNON JOHN LENNON JOHN LENNON!!!! IS AWESOME AND SO CUTE!!!
Astronecking 3 months ago
Wow, a scorching Jagger vocal vs. another lukewarm Ringo vocal. No contest.
steveconn 4 months ago
la mia parte preferita inizia a 1:03
angel24297 4 months ago
check out Keith! He's all over the place - 'this is before he began to look like living death'. Amazing - I remember seeing them on Ed Sullivan and actually being a little freakout out (scared) since I was used to the smiles of Lennon/Macca. The snarling of Mick was very cool and his MOUTH was HUGE. Early shades of Steven Talerico (tyler).....
MsJollycholly 4 months ago
@MsJollycholly Tyler always was a Mick clone.
steveconn 4 months ago
What if Brian Jones would have been in The Beatles????
TheMrQwertyify 4 months ago
@TheMrQwertyify honestly if brian jones (in my opinion) were in the beatles, it would have messed things up for them. he was too badass and they were too goodie good. Brian is the bast Rolling Stone though for me so, i don;t know.
nirvana2thedoors 4 months ago
@nirvana2thedoors Agree. I just think he's pretty awesome too I really wish there was more footage of him too, interviews, etc.
TheMrQwertyify 3 months ago
@nirvana2thedoors If you believe what you read then it was The Beatles who were more badass then The Stones but they were just portrayed that way in the press. You wouldn't be able to print half the things that John Lennon got up to. Not that it really matters anyway cause both bands kicked ass!
WallOfSound1990 3 months ago
GO BEATLES!!!!!! BEATLES R WAY BETTER THAN TH STONES!!
911abbeyroad 4 months ago
@utahjazzman21 And where is Led Zeppelin? Throw AC/DC off too, all their songs sound the same.
SNIPERSHEEPDOG 4 months ago
@utahjazzman21 How does Journey and Bon Jovi come right after the Stones? I like Journey, but right after The Stones? Well it's everyones opinion I guess.
SNIPERSHEEPDOG 4 months ago
I love how they do that
E14875 4 months ago
BEATLES....
abhikoolblue 4 months ago
Stones version is better. But I prefer Beatles anyway
Yarda69 4 months ago
The Beatles!!!!!!!!!
Patii823 4 months ago
I love the Beatles version definitely. And "I Wanna Be Your Man" you would just think that's Beatles, not Rolling Stones. And it sounds like them too. But if you say "Sympathy for the Devil" You just know that's not a Beatles song, you know...
chookieJS 5 months ago
The number of people who refuse to realize both bands liked and respected each other is amazing.
Mokkari77 5 months ago 23
@Mokkari77 I've yet to see a comment that actually does realize this. Why can't anyone just take it how it is. They're both great and they both made a great contribution to music. Why isn't that enough for people?
jonahtran1 6 days ago
THE BEATLES!!!!!!
mi6thebeatles 5 months ago
Yeah.... NO CONTEST ! The Beatles version of "I Wanna Be Your Man" made ROADKILL out of the Stones version ...... and with RINGO as the lead singer!
SirReal1958 5 months ago 4
Clearly The beatles Did It Better But I Like The Stones Take On it :P
MrsHarrison21Xxx 6 months ago 4
the beatles kicked the stones butt on this one
amjordan 6 months ago 62
the stones sound fucking aweful
mrmagicroundcircle 6 months ago
@mrmagicroundcircle As always. Jagger couldn't carry a tune in 5 gallon bucket.
gixzo 6 months ago
@gixzo never the less highly entertaining band no doubt charisma plays a huge.part
mrmagicroundcircle 6 months ago
@mrmagicroundcircle Absolutely, but I'm not sure how they kept fans with that bad of a frontman. The Beatles had it all. The singing ability, the charm, the good looks (no homo), the song writing ability and the versatility. The Stones lack about 80% percent of that list. To be fair, The Stones should never be compared to The Beatles, under any circumstance, for that reason.
gixzo 6 months ago
@gixzo I 100% agree with you
Cwall96 4 months ago
@goharshahid93
the rythm section on the stones version is as weak as it could get, watts and wyman are boring, unimaginative and so fucking average.
until satisfaction jagger sounded like a snotty kid, not a rock or blues singer.
and brians slide playing, sorry, but very unimpressed.
if you want great slide listen to what george did from strawberry fields onwards, especially his solo career.
the beatles version has Energy, it's vital , it kicks you in the balls.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@goharshahid93
30.
it's 30 great songs.
thirty.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@goharshahid93
Charlie sucks and is boring and his beats put me to sleep.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
the beatles are way way way way way way way way way way better then the stones there is no comperison
mi6thebeatles 6 months ago
[iminent=XkHC3EFIjR3] dont click the flame
mi6thebeatles 6 months ago
STONES SUCK
thedrummerdude1000 6 months ago 3
BEATLES=STONES!!! END OF STORY!!!!
Stop F**KING COMPARING THEM!! THEY BOTH MADE SOME GOOD SONG AND THEY BOTH WERE UNIQUE SO STOP IT ALREADY! It's getting annoying!
MonaeJune 6 months ago
wow the Beetles really wrecked that song. Jagger sings it better
Obamaphiliac 6 months ago
@Obamaphiliac STONE HAVE NO ENERGY
thedrummerdude1000 6 months ago
ES MUCHO MEJOR LA DE LOS Beatles
TheNarny 6 months ago 2
and the beatles are just lip syncing there sound better when they do it in real life
bobluman4 6 months ago
the beatles one is cleaner but they both have a different sound im not even gonna compare
bobluman4 6 months ago
Fu*k Mick, Ringo and The Beatles rocks <3
miaa981 7 months ago
This song is the reason the stones became famous
kinghhhofkings 7 months ago
2 diffrent bands with 2 diffrent unique sounds... Yes for me the Stones is the best, but they aren't compareable. Thx for 2 great bands...
ConservativeDK 7 months ago
I prefer Rolling Stones, I'm not gonna get factual and say that beatles were more influential and sold more records because i don't judge music with sales, i judge on how it sounds. To me personally, i liked the Rolling Stones' sound.
TOM71292 7 months ago
Stones > Beatles.
ThePillowDrummer 7 months ago
The Beatles were Northern working class and The Stones were Southern middle class.
The sound says it all. No better, no worse, just different. (Having said that I think the Beatles version blows the others away).
panchopuskas1 7 months ago
@goharshahid93 watts drumming puts ringo to shame.
johnnygermisdead 7 months ago
@johnnygermisdead Watts drumming puts himself to shame. It's a fucking joke compared to ringo, and ringo is singing
MrKingMacca 6 months ago
@MrKingMacca okay is ringo singing every beatles song? no he isnt. and every song hes playing the same fucking 4/4 beat. whereas watts is a jazz drummer and it shows through really well he's great definitely a better drummer than ringo, i love the beatles more than i love the stones but watts is the better hands down. you obviously dont know a thing about music if you dont think ringo is an elementry drummer and watts is better
johnnygermisdead 6 months ago
@johnnygermisdead
xDDDDDD
funny.
watts is never palying anything else but boring repetitive 4/4 beats, jazz influence up his ass, and wyman is the most biring to listen to basss player ever, even the dude from ac/dc is more exciting to listen to.
Rain is better than anything Watts drummed in the last 50 years.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@johnnygermisdead Okay okay you have a point. But we can all agree that George plays this much better than brian jones
MrKingMacca 5 months ago
Problem: Both The Beatles and The Stones got started at about the same time with some similarities and both have had incredible careers and amazing music.
Solution: Buy the albums from both bands.
That was easy
runningtortoise2 7 months ago in playlist Rolling Stones
@goharshahid93 the beatles are musically better..what is musically better? well, they have more genres, more variation of sounds, more studio techniques, better lyrics, more instrumentation...so it's open for more kinds of people. rolling stones doesnt have the variation of the beatles and it's more for a certain kind of people. the beatles doesnt have 1 ''crap'' song.
msanm5 7 months ago
The beatles were way better st singing it.
bobgotwrecked 7 months ago
@goharshahid93 I like the beatles version A LOT more than the stone's version..your comment about the song are just personal taste, just like mine. but the beatles are musically better so they helped the stones. :)
msanm5 7 months ago
@goharshahid93 the beatles wrote the song so there version is the best!
selenagomezfan172 7 months ago
Everyone knows the Beatles are better. But that doesn't mean the Stones aren't good too. The Stones are legendary.
spreadtherandomvibe 7 months ago
The Beatles version is clearly better. Jagger is a terrible singer.
gixzo 7 months ago
amazinggg
elephrantic 7 months ago
the beatles vs stones=beatles jajaja
andresmexicano1 7 months ago
Beatles > Stones> Journey> Bon Jovi> ACDC>any music before 2008>all hip hop> All rap> Katy Perry>Justin Bieber.
utahjazzman21 7 months ago 48
@utahjazzman21 you forgot Led Zeppelin vs The Beatles.
pxbx91 5 months ago
@utahjazzman21 no. Bon Jovi, Journey and ACDC are all shit. Beatles are boring compared to The Stones. There is some decent music about today.
PrimalStones 5 months ago
@utahjazzman21 lol any music before 2008 , thats funny 2008 ..
panzermann007 5 months ago in playlist Rolling Stones
@utahjazzman21 Beatles > or = Stones > all the same! =) I love stones and beatles!! nice! =)
infestedmenrocks 5 months ago
@utahjazzman21 wait..so theres a difference between hip hop and rap? it all sounds like the same shit to me...
chookieJS 4 months ago
@utahjazzman21 Can you remove Journey from the list utter fucking tosh. I rate ELO higher and would not put them on that list ACDC also does not warrant a place or Bon Jovi . Replace them with the WHO and your list is fine and rap was also before 2008 started in 1974 my friend.
MsMrReason 4 months ago
@utahjazzman21 I laughed at Journey and Bon Jovi.
EvilAnticsLive 3 months ago
I think what fuels the Beatles is that you have a Paul McCartney as optimist and John Lennon as cynic. An optimist questions and challenges cynicism and a cynic questions and challenges optimism. Put the two together and you get an explosion of energy.
guruuDev 7 months ago
I like em both...is it bad?
rsmaniac100 7 months ago
How come Charlie didn't sing for the Stones? He's the drummer just like Ringo's the drummer.
rogerdat33 7 months ago 2
1:48 to 1:54 was the best part of the video!!!! George is so cute <3
BabyFace1946 7 months ago
la gran y simple cancion en comun
eltigrejony 7 months ago
I will say it the Beatles version is better. Stones even copied the Beatles head shakes, LOL, check it out at :50 sec.
DAVWAVE 7 months ago
both versions are just incredible! this is music!!
ThePurpleman21 8 months ago
Mick and George you can both be my man.
Yellow4494 8 months ago
great tribute from the stones to the beatles
55102 8 months ago
The Beatles > The Rolling Stones
menoziinrevoltado 8 months ago
Beatles never took a fucken song from The Rolling Stones because they didn't need it. Beatles are way better. Beatles= 27 Number One Hits in about 8 to 9 years, Rolling Stones = 9 Number One Hits in about over 40 years... Yeah I think Beatles win by Faaaar. xD
Space9Man 8 months ago 3
@Space9Man why do Beatles fans make a big deal out of the Stones doing a Beatles song, like its proof that the Beatles were better. Does this mean the artists that the Beatles covered early in their careers are better artists then the Beatles.
This is just a dumb argument and I always see Beatles fans trying to make it. Big deal the Stones covered a Beatles song early, they covered many Churck Berry songs.
45arther 8 months ago
@45arther They covered it because they were in need of a hit. The Beatles actually finished the song in front of them & gave it to them. The Stones took it & it gave them that boost that they needed to burst out. The Beatles covered yes but they didn't take it from competition like Stones did at that time. Plus skip the 1st part of my comment & go over to the other facts. The Beatles are the top selling Most influenctial band of all time. Even Keith Richards said that The Beatles paved their way
Space9Man 8 months ago
@45arther Oh & his name is CHUCK Berry. Also put it this way. Each Beatle could write & sing their own songs. The Rolling Stones can't do that. It's just Mick and Keith who write and Just Mick who mainly sings. The Beatles were a 4 front man band, Perhaps the only all front man group of all time. When Ringo Starr is inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (Which he will be) The Beatles will become the 1st band in history to have all members individually be inducted as a band & as solo artists
Space9Man 8 months ago
@Space9Man that in itself shows what a joke the beatles hype it. Ringo might make the hall of fame. LOL. Like if he wasn;t a beatles he would have a chance. give me a break. Harrison probably shouldn't be in there.
45arther 8 months ago
@45arther George Harrison probably shouldn't be in the rock and roll hall of fame? I don't know how to respond to that other than.... Go fucking read something. Anything, just fucking read you stupid bastard.
therealfactor 8 months ago
@therealfactor harrison had a couple of good albums after the beatles breakup. there are alot of people who put out a few good albums that are not in the hall offame. face it, alot of praise Harrsion and Ringo get is because they are former Beatles. Very famous musicians.
45arther 8 months ago
@45arther And saying that if Ringo and Harrison weren't Beatles they wouldn't have a chance is like saying if you weren't an astronaut you wouldn't have had the chance to go to the moon. Well no shit? Point being they WERE fucking Beatles! They made up 50% of the best selling, most creative, most original, most influential, most diverse, greatest fucking band in history and you think they don't deserve to be in the hall of fame? They are the fucking hall of fame!
therealfactor 8 months ago
@45arther God damn you pissed me off. Why don't you not compare the two? It isn't a fair comparison, it's like comparing the beatles to elvis! Or comparing a computer to it's maker! It doesn't work dude! The stones would with out a doubt, undisputibly not exist if it weren't for the beatles, as the beatles wouldn't if it weren't for elvis. So why the hell would you call their run a "hype" Words have definitions, and a hype doesn't last 50 years you stupid prick.
therealfactor 8 months ago
@therealfactor really. The Stones were already playing rock and roll before they ever heard of the Beatles. So you are wrong there.
45arther 8 months ago
If Harrison hadn't played how he played your favorite band, whoever the hell they are, would. not. exist. I don't know how more obvious it could be man. Just read about it. Pick any band in the world, look at their list of influences --it absolutely always leads back to the beatles. All 4 of them. Why do you think they never let ringo or harrison walk out when they threatened to? They were the only 4 that could make it work, they all knew it. Once in a century band. Don't dog them.
therealfactor 8 months ago
@Space9Man Swish, three points, nothing but net.
DAVWAVE 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
personaly, I like the Beatles version.
GeorgeHarrisonLuver1 8 months ago
i like them both but this song is better from beatles
MrJointa 8 months ago
the stones went to the beatles for a hit single!
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAA
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAA
msanm5 8 months ago
beatles are more legends than stones
aryowailangitoyo97 8 months ago
beatles sing it better
zoneporno 8 months ago
It was a throwaway. The only two versions of the song were Ringo and the Rolling Stones. That shows how much importance we put on it: We weren't going to give them anything great, right? (John Lennon)
ZZqezza 9 months ago
LOLOL mick jagger at 0:27 (:
Monkee97 9 months ago
Comment removed
Monkee97 9 months ago
Paul's grin at 1:50 always makes me sad. I wish I was there, sharing the fun with the boys.
TylerKG123 9 months ago
okay i cant say anything both the beatles and rolling stones are legends when it comes to music they change the revolution of it so if anybody is dissing anyone one of them they fucking suck and dont understand the true value of music
shadowfalcon14 9 months ago
OK OK OK. This song would be perfect, in my humble opinion, if you took the beatles version and replaced george and ringo with Charlie and Keith, eh?
matto902 9 months ago
@matto902 no no no, George and Ringo are what made the song better.
coalb389 9 months ago 3
@matto902
Take out George!? The Best Lead guitarist there is? No one truly understands what he did and he was very underrated
Bekistas 9 months ago 21
@Bekistas I was a teenager in those days, so I watched that era progress; I don't see it looking backward. One thing we can be sure of is that the Beatles would never have gone as far as they did if they had not dumped that loser Pete Best and replaced him with the great RingoStarr, and if they hadn't had George Harrison quietly fleshing out the great tunes composed by Lennon and McCartney. It took all Four to be Fab.
KaptKan1 8 months ago
@Bekistas Ya ya!
Dontbotherjust 5 months ago
@Bekistas AMEN
MJRiley878 5 months ago
@matto902
Bekistas 9 months ago
@matto902 wtf?? george and ringo out? thats just terrible
yomeroytumera 9 months ago
@matto902 Replace Harrison with Richards??? George was much better than Keith, Your crazy Listen to the live in DC. 1964 version by the Beatles and then try saying that Keith could replace him. Watts wasnt any better than ringo either.
BL80488 8 months ago
@matto902
who needs charlie watts?
nobody needs him, every other band wnet crazy psychedelic outlandish rythms while the stones rythm section was as boring in 63 as they were in 67.
their best basslines were played by keith on jack flash and devil.
and george owns keith, keith's good rythm nothing more, one of the worst soloists you'll ever hear, that#s why during the taylor years their sound was so awesome, keith didn#t even try to solo.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
I think the Rolling Stones version is better, personally. The Beatles one has a nice melody, but the Stones has more "umpf" to it.
KidsWithGuns1992 9 months ago 2
I think The Beatles were extremely over rated at the beginning of their career, and only seemed to really truly deserve their "gods of rock" title when they became more outlandish - when Lennon and McCartney realized that they really could write real music and proper songs.
KidsWithGuns1992 9 months ago
@KidsWithGuns1992
dude, she loves you, i wanna hold your hand, can't buy me love, all my loving, a hard day's night, they had it all together from the very start, love me do is keiths favorite beatles song and he begged paul to let him play it with him at the super bowl show, but paul declined.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil Although I like those songs and they are pretty good, but I don't think that's anywhere near their best stuff. They were talented from the beginning, yes, but they seemed very middle of the line and generic in that era.
KidsWithGuns1992 6 months ago
@KidsWithGuns1992
when i listen to she loves you, and then some other hits from 63 like i like it, how do you do, sweets for my sweets, do you love me i see a HUGE gap in quality, and she loves you has that youthfull energy, and ringos little drum intro is so recognisable and pauls bassline, the little lead breaks.
those are just 4 of the songs that hit nr 1 in 63.
and you shouldn't forget that i want to hold your hand broke down the american music wall for the british invasion.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil Well yes that's true, I did overlook those points which was silly and ignorant of me. I suppose I'm not giving them enough credit for their earlier music, a little too hung up on comparing it to their later stuff and not recognizing it for what it is of its time. Cheers!
KidsWithGuns1992 6 months ago
@KidsWithGuns1992
i know what you mean, for a long time i also went more with the later albums, but from their 5 beatlemania albums i think their debut is my favorite, it's just such a great, enyoyable record, and since i have their complete BBC recordings (about 450 songs) i have many live versions of every track from album 1, and i went to a ringo all star band concert last sunday, great, from the early albums he sang boys, honey don't and act naturally.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
i swear george is playing a six string
micoandeyna 9 months ago
@micoandeyna
it's his, by then, fresh 1963 Rickenbacker 360-12, the 2nd one ever build.
he played a 1962 Rickenbacker 425 Fire-glo solidbody but that had a completely other look to it.
you can read all about it on the site The Fab Guitars of the Beatles, there's even a pic of rory storm days ringo playing guitar.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
Stones>Beatles
Tschirikow 9 months ago
@Tschirikow Beatles>Stones XD :))
rosypixar 7 months ago
@rosypixar STONES > BEATLES
INFLUENZARECORDS 7 months ago
@INFLUENZARECORDS why???
rosypixar 7 months ago
In fact we can't really feel that this song was given to the stones by the Beatles. That's not in the style of the Stones. I prefer Beatles version even if i usually like the Stones. You can hear the new song of Beady Eye : Beatles and Stones. They totally caught what I think.
And God, Keith is like George Clooney : today, older but better :D
chokicou 9 months ago
They are not two different styles. They are both beat style.
drrobertoboogie97 9 months ago
Is George playing a 6-string or a 12-string?
coolerruler1 9 months ago
Beatles>Stones
backintoyouropenarms 9 months ago 41
@backintoyouropenarms me>you
MrKushsmoker21 7 months ago
@backintoyouropenarms yes hahah
andresmexicano1 7 months ago
The Beatles: WIN
The Stones: FAIL
myrtlebox 10 months ago 4
ARRIBA LOS BEATLES NADIE PODRA IGUALARLOS ! YEAH!
coyndalennon77 10 months ago
The BEATLES always didn't care of play back ! lol
Ms94170 10 months ago
Beatles version is much faster. Beatles = rock n roll
stones= bluesy rock n roll
bseenmedia2 10 months ago
The Beatles are miming. The Stones ain't. Hmmmm.
rorycomm 10 months ago
@rorycomm The Beatles wrote it. The Stones didn't. Hmmmm.
dandaily4 10 months ago 3
@dandaily4 Doesn't matter, Dylan wrote 'All Along the Watchtower', his is hardly the definitive version.
There's no comparison between Stones/Beatles if you take them as live acts; Stones, all day long.
rorycomm 10 months ago
@rorycomm I say it depends on where they are performing live. On a rooftop, it's The Beatles.
dandaily4 10 months ago
Thanks for this. And no, both versions are great! That argument gets old after a while. Beatles, cleaner a bit better produced, Stones, raw, punky. Who would ever want to choose?
peterzang 10 months ago
The Stones are weird!the guitar is like way out of wack n stuff.
xxfrosteex 10 months ago
Yeah, great song and all, but the Stones make it sound raw and sexy, the Beatles play the version your Mum would tap her feet to. Jones' guitar solo proves the sheer invention of the Stones, the Beatles were kinda straight.
rorycomm 10 months ago
As much as I like them both, I like the upbeat version that the Beatles put out more than the Stones version. That being said, I like both versions of the song, and I sill love the rough tone, and imitation southern accent that Jagger offers.
JuuceBoxx 10 months ago
This song has a hidden message in it, like many Beatles songs. To find out what it is, search "truth contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read the section about The Beatles.
vividDC 10 months ago
am i the only one that thinks the beatles slightly resemble Thunderbird puppets in this clip :)
pelamar121 10 months ago
The Beatles son los mejores y ya
MrWings1976 10 months ago
My favorite verion of this song is the live one in Washington 64'....so upbeat, and loud! I dislike the studio version though and of course when compared to The Rolling Stone's version IT SIMPLY SUCKS! The version of the Stones however is so different I LOVE IT TOO it sounds more depressed, crude and Mick's voice is awesome!!
historiadorderock 10 months ago
WOW - never knew this - very cool!
wjv4me 10 months ago
Alright, the Beatles version is recorded, the Stones are live. You should compare this to the Stones studio version, the solo in the Stones studio version is pure rock attitude, it's raw, loud, and sounds like it's going over the edge at any second.
jeremy81781 10 months ago