"They took"... lol, Lennon and McCartney wrote the bloddy song for them... Still they were friends, read Keef's book... they were like "Our single is ready now" "Okay our's isn't, so release your first"...
People need to know your history. The Beatles discovered the Stones and were good friends. April 14,1963 The Beatles first saw the Stones play. Later, George Harrison recommended to Decca Records (the recording label that passed on the Beatles) to sign the Rolling Stones to a deal. John and Paul wrote this song for them to use for a single and subsequently did their own version 3 wks later. It was the press who created The Beatles vs The Stones argument. Get over it; they are both great!
This version has a more rock n roll feeling to it. But the Beatles' version is more pop-ish. I can't really say which is better because they're both good in their own way!
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.
Of course "this Beatles vs. Stones thing" is getting old. It's so obvious that The Beatles are the clear winners that it's simply embarrassing when people try to perpetuate this media-invented "rivalry". It's no contest.
I really wanted to like this, but Mick sounds terrible. But I can at least respect how this song sort of helped propel them forward a bit. Mainly though their career is based on them being awesome.
there is no way to compare the Beatles and the Rolling Stones! They are both great bands that made music history, would detract from a comparison of the two, so it would be fair.
and the dogs are still howling with pain after listening to this. I love The Rolling Stones but goddamn Mick sounds like shit put through the whiskey masher on this XP!!!
@eduardo0796 was not only one version, was a song written just and only by The Beatles =) version of The Rolling Stones did so more points for The Beatles ;D yeah!!!
The Stones used a Beatles song to get into the top 20. I like the Beatles more but i still love the Stones it's just cool how they covered a Lennon/McCartney song.
When you’re five or six years old, ‘Yellow Submarine’, ‘When I’m Sixty Four’, ‘Here Comes The Sun’ and the like are fantastic songs. In pretty much the same way as ‘Mary Had A Little Lamb’ is fantastic poetry.
The fact is, though, that The Beatles novelty songs are, frankly, embarrassing. They’re generally awful music hall pastiche with – in far too many cases – the tone deaf Ringo singing.
The Stones avoided this trap and thank God for that.
Ringo Starr is an amiable, likeable scouser. Unfortunately, what he is not is a good drummer. In fact, he wasn’t even the best drummer in The Beatles.
I’ve heard all the revisionist nonsense about Ringo’s abilities over the last few years, but that’s all it is: nonsense.
By contrast, Charlie Watts is a fantastic drummer. His minimalist style in The Rolling Stones often hides his natural jazz style, but what he does in the Stones is always, always perfect.
The Stones, however, always had an authentic touch when playing differing styles of music as their career developed. They could do blues, country (‘Wild Horses’, etc.), reggae, rock…everything they did sounded right. Largely because Keith Richards just has a natural affinity for music in a way that McCartney and Lennon didn’t.
The Beatles, by contrast, just played pop music and, um, music hall.
The Stones were little more than a derivative blues band, while The Beatles were innovators.
The thing is, at the outset of both bands career, both were little more than copyists. The Beatles just played the latest pop hits (Twist and Shout, etc.) while The Stones played the blues.
The Beatles may have been a fairly good live band, but they threw a strop somewhere around 1965 because the screaming was too loud and they couldn’t hear themselves properly.
The Stones would have just bought bigger amps. Let’s face it, from the footage available, it’s clear that The Beatles weren’t anywhere near in the Stones league as a live band. The Stones were, probably even still are, the greatest live act in rock n’ roll.
@hellterskelher beatles had to sing while holding guitars all at times...only mick jagger sang from the rolling stones and all he held from time to time was a mic
By contrast, The Stones helped kick start the musical career of Marianne Faithful and the bands that followed them from the London r n’b scene included The Kinks, The Who and The Yardbirds.
The Beatles lasted about six years, giving us a few good albums and lots of great singles. And then, well, they just gave up because they couldn’t really be bothered anymore. Listen to ‘Let It Be’ and you’ll hear the sound of a band who can’t be bothered.
In 2004, a BBC released poll voted Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da the worst song ever. That’s because it is. Although Octopuses’ Garden runs it close…and Hello, Goodbye isn’t exactly the work of genius either.
The Rolling Stones have had albums that tanked. The Beatles never released an album that didn't shoot to #1. As of January 2010 the Stones' 1997 album Bridges to Babylon had sold 1.1 million units in the US. It took 13 years. The Beatles White Album sold that much in the first two weeks of it's sale in 1968. The Beatles are a multibillion dollar industry and they separated in 1969. The Stones still tour, and yet Paul McCartney is richer than Mick Jagger.
@SonicVSJasonGriffith : Sir, I'm sure that your statistics are well founded; however, just because an artist or a group is more successful monetarily, or just because a band or artist scores more pop hits does not mean that the group or artist in question is better. The Beatles were a great band in their own right and obviously had universal appeal, but in my opinion, the Rolling Stones were a far more influential band, especially when considering the other genres of Rock music to follow.
@SonicVSJasonGriffith : Another obvious difference about the Stones is their longevity albeit a few lineup changes, which shows fans and critics alike an unwavering love and dedication to producing new music. I personally own a decent sized record collection. In fact, I have more Beatles albums than I do Stones albums, but for the most part, my Bealtes albums sit on the shelf collecting dust, while my Stones albums get constant replay on my turntable.
Yeah, the beatles wrote this and it was a joke as far as they say. So, in beatles history is a lesser work, but to the stones was their arrow to fame! So...
I too like The Beatles' version more, and I'm not a big Stones' fan. But I'm not gonna bitch about it. They were friends and there wasn't any competition between them.
The Beatles were/are modern prophets, and there are hidden messages and meanings in many of their songs. To learn how to perceive these hidden meanings, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then open The Present and read through the section about The Beatles.
I love this, I'm pretty sure endeverafter did a cover of it also and I used to like them so it's an even cooler song three of my favorite bands having had sung this.
The Beatles version IS way better. Just like @TheBlueBeatle said, it is slow and drunk like. They act like... I don't know... some retarted, drunk, teens! Although, The Rolling Stones newer songs (70's+) were better than this crap. Ohh, especially Paint It Black! One of my Fav's! :)
@levelhickbros YES THEY DID! George Harrison is one of the best guitarists EVER! (next to Keith Richards,Paul McCartney, Jimi Hendrix, and Angus Young) But, you are entitled to your opinion. I thing Keith is awesome
Okay... Personally, I prefer The Beatles. Not just because I'm a huge Beatle fan but this was.......terrible... slow and drunk like. Almost like they would be at the footstep at the girls door singing this.... LMAO but they're good in their way..
For me Beatles are n.1, but i also adore the Rolling Stones!I think that everyone that loves music (and is not just a fanatic) will like both of them ..
most of you guys think your opinion is right and the beatles version is much better,well music isnt about what you think is better,its about what you like,and in my opinion i like the stones version better,but that doesnt mean it is actually better than the beatles because i love the beatles anyway.in conclusion most of you guy are stuck up your own ARSES.
Paul Mc Cartney wrote the song.The stones made it to a different song.They always asked ---"Hey,we are not ready with mixing the single(a 2 song black round ----ok)so either of them said OK.We are read to go-and new songs were released every other Month..By The Beatles.By the Stones-and in between.......To have been.to have listened--Now I really miss them good old times-
like Rolling Stones, I just found this new band MORRE who i wanna promote while im here. They created THEIR OWN SOUND, which is why I appreciate them so much, and i hope for you to do the same for CREATIVE musicians.
I love the Stones but the Beatles came first. Listen to intro of the video, the stones first hit was a Beatles cover, that says it all really. Check out Keef doing his Beatles mop top impression.
Why? Cruder, ruder, more energy and more real. No fancy pants and falsity . The Beatles were great too, but if you got a lot of blood in your veins you need the ROLLING STONES!
@TheCoolio4 Actually there was competition. The two bands fought costantly to be ahead of the other, HOWEVER! members of the Stones and the Beatles were friends. They were rival bands, but they were still friends.
Because people are idiots or believed in what the media and advertisement churned out at the time. The only way I see them pitted against each other could be friendly rivalry, and even then it's far fetched that's true
@TheCoolio4 yes they were very good friends. There is videos of mick jagger in the studio with the beatles and he can be seen on the video for all you need is love.
Mick Jagger and Kieth Richards were also reportedly in the same room as lennon and mccartney when they wrote this song.
@TheCoolio4 That is both true and false. They were very good friends but there was a competition between the two. This was good because they influenced each other and they also tried to top each others albums. This made some of the best albums of all time. Check your facts next time before you talk about stuff you don't know anything about.
I think it's a lot of hype. I like ``Honky Tonk Women,'' but I think Mick's a joke with all that fag dancing; I always did, I think it's a joke.
Do you see him much now?
I think Mick got jealous I would like to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on every fuckin' album. Every fuckin' thing we did, Mick does exactly the same he imitates usYou know, Satanic Majesties is Pepper;
ringo would not be happy.
georgeythebeatlesfan 3 days ago
@georgeythebeatlesfan
Did you know that John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote this song special for the Stones;)
So why would Ringo not be happy..
nouhuys16 1 day ago
@stigler30 you need a Brain Transplant FACT!
15Jsayrestem 2 weeks ago
"They took"... lol, Lennon and McCartney wrote the bloddy song for them... Still they were friends, read Keef's book... they were like "Our single is ready now" "Okay our's isn't, so release your first"...
joriszsz 4 weeks ago
Haha, look at Keef doing the macartney silly head dance! lol
jez20 1 month ago
People need to know your history. The Beatles discovered the Stones and were good friends. April 14,1963 The Beatles first saw the Stones play. Later, George Harrison recommended to Decca Records (the recording label that passed on the Beatles) to sign the Rolling Stones to a deal. John and Paul wrote this song for them to use for a single and subsequently did their own version 3 wks later. It was the press who created The Beatles vs The Stones argument. Get over it; they are both great!
queegs73 1 month ago 7
Hey guys why don't you SHUT THE FUCK UP. Your statements are based on opinion, rendering your arguments futile.
longbongotimee 1 month ago 2
Dude listen to Brian his voice is a howling!!!!!!
ele523 1 month ago
Stones>Beatles
MegaCokamo 1 month ago
This version has a more rock n roll feeling to it. But the Beatles' version is more pop-ish. I can't really say which is better because they're both good in their own way!
7starjazz 2 months ago
Rolling Stones + Beatles = Epic
hwanj 2 months ago 3
the Stones should pay to destroy this tape
SmileyGarrish 2 months ago 3
wow there was something wrong with him that day..
lovegeorgeharrison60 2 months ago
I think the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are both awesome and I love them equally. Always have, always will.
camiewashere 2 months ago
" This Beatles vs. Stones thing is really getting old :" => The beatles gave it to the rolling stones
laeti459 2 months ago 2
Ringo did this better [2]
TheMarques400 3 months ago 2
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 3 months ago
A huge fan of both but comparing both versions, this is hands down the best version! So powerful, pure rock and roll.
Gwuba 3 months ago
I really don't care what people say.. what rolling stones makes me feel beatles can not do it
juani0villanos 3 months ago
Of course "this Beatles vs. Stones thing" is getting old. It's so obvious that The Beatles are the clear winners that it's simply embarrassing when people try to perpetuate this media-invented "rivalry". It's no contest.
No offense to Stones fans. They rock too.
EmilyARTS 3 months ago 6
beals are better
rishlakish 4 months ago
great video. thanks!
Mushies1000 4 months ago
they rock! !! but Ringo's version it's the besstt
FLdeargentina 5 months ago
STONES! <3 (i'm 13 & love them)
angel9072010 5 months ago
It's one of the greatest bands of all time covering ANOTHER one of the greatest bands of all time.
griffin324 5 months ago
Your mother did this better.
fabulousfennigan 5 months ago 3
The guitar line sounds familiar. Can't figure out if it's the one in "Fortune teller" or not....
TheStinkyFingers 5 months ago
The Beatles wrote this and gave it to the Stones as a quick release to follow Off the Hook.
Breatherable 5 months ago 4
co wy gadacie, świetne wykonanie i tyle w tym temacie.
12341234123412341296 5 months ago
wow, you guys just don't appreciate music that doesn't sound pop-ish.. it takes guts to appreciate the stone's sound :)
sweetmay73 5 months ago
I really wanted to like this, but Mick sounds terrible. But I can at least respect how this song sort of helped propel them forward a bit. Mainly though their career is based on them being awesome.
HypocriticalNarwhal 6 months ago
this sounds soo shit
ThePug96 6 months ago
there is no way to compare the Beatles and the Rolling Stones! They are both great bands that made music history, would detract from a comparison of the two, so it would be fair.
Love the Beatles
Love the Rolling Stones ;)
pietrofratini 6 months ago
are you kidding me TheBlueBeatle3 that was great
MrJimHenderson1 6 months ago
Just enjoy the music. Beatles and Stones are rare musicians who seem scarce these days :(
HolyScarab6 6 months ago
and the dogs are still howling with pain after listening to this. I love The Rolling Stones but goddamn Mick sounds like shit put through the whiskey masher on this XP!!!
ncisducky4ever 6 months ago 11
@eduardo0796 was not only one version, was a song written just and only by The Beatles =) version of The Rolling Stones did so more points for The Beatles ;D yeah!!!
raquelmishe 6 months ago
go suck a dildo, all of you
DownTownStalker 6 months ago
talk about bad singing
XxxSKULLISEMOxxX 6 months ago
Beatles are better. And Keith Richards was hot.
raintalonwindclan 6 months ago
Great Take !! Luv Sir Brian Jones part on this one.
Cupidville 6 months ago
BEATLES ARE BETTER
mi6thebeatles 7 months ago
Mick Jagger sounds like he has an IQ of 10.
117glenn 7 months ago
Mick Jagger sounds like he has an IQ of fucking 15
117glenn 7 months ago
@117glenn and you sound like a idiot of 3 IQ
Salyngalem 7 months ago
Stones so sexy 'n acid is better
seavoyagerful 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
jcrdend 7 months ago
The Stones used a Beatles song to get into the top 20. I like the Beatles more but i still love the Stones it's just cool how they covered a Lennon/McCartney song.
dubbly1 7 months ago
Bottom line, the Stones were BIG but The Beatles were bigger than Jesus...Beatles!!!
zacatecas3 7 months ago
the beatles version is so cheesy
MrMusicENT 7 months ago
beatles or the stones? stones baby, always the stones. the stones were for men to listen to, the beatles were for chicks and hippies
MrCagekicker 7 months ago
@MrCagekicker Well you're an opinionated little fuck aren't you?
dubbly1 7 months ago
@dubbly1 eh, this is coming from a family with two sisters totally Beatles crazy and two brothers all for the Stones. it happens
MrCagekicker 7 months ago
Ringo did this better.
wjm52358 7 months ago 58
@wjm52358 Are you a fucking idiot?
stigler30 1 month ago
@stigler30 Chill,dude, its just my opinion!
wjm52358 1 month ago
@wjm52358 The Rolling Stones version is better. FACT!
stigler30 1 month ago
@stigler30 No, just a normal idiot
wjm52358 1 month ago
@wjm52358 Its just my opinion
wjm52358 1 month ago
the betles are way better there is no comperison with Stones:X and the beatles :D
mi6thebeatles 7 months ago
great raw stones-love it
bigdisme100 7 months ago
they are both great!
muell0815 8 months ago in playlist Rolling Stones
This has been flagged as spam show
The Novelty Songs
When you’re five or six years old, ‘Yellow Submarine’, ‘When I’m Sixty Four’, ‘Here Comes The Sun’ and the like are fantastic songs. In pretty much the same way as ‘Mary Had A Little Lamb’ is fantastic poetry.
The fact is, though, that The Beatles novelty songs are, frankly, embarrassing. They’re generally awful music hall pastiche with – in far too many cases – the tone deaf Ringo singing.
The Stones avoided this trap and thank God for that.
hellterskelher 8 months ago
Ringo Starr is an amiable, likeable scouser. Unfortunately, what he is not is a good drummer. In fact, he wasn’t even the best drummer in The Beatles.
I’ve heard all the revisionist nonsense about Ringo’s abilities over the last few years, but that’s all it is: nonsense.
By contrast, Charlie Watts is a fantastic drummer. His minimalist style in The Rolling Stones often hides his natural jazz style, but what he does in the Stones is always, always perfect.
hellterskelher 8 months ago
@hellterskelher
It seams you do not like the Beatles. And you do not have even a clue about them.
So stay with Monkeyface and the drugboys and keep your ANTIBEATLES nonsense for yourself.
John91040 8 months ago
@John91040 "Monkeyface and the drugboys", huh ? Who lasted longer ? The Beatles and the Stones actually liked each other, they were friends.
Rustina61 8 months ago
@Rustina61
The Beatles are still in business. They still sell more LPs/CDs than most of todays bands. So what you want to say with your questions?
John91040 7 months ago 2
The Stones, however, always had an authentic touch when playing differing styles of music as their career developed. They could do blues, country (‘Wild Horses’, etc.), reggae, rock…everything they did sounded right. Largely because Keith Richards just has a natural affinity for music in a way that McCartney and Lennon didn’t.
The Beatles, by contrast, just played pop music and, um, music hall.
hellterskelher 8 months ago
The Stones were little more than a derivative blues band, while The Beatles were innovators.
The thing is, at the outset of both bands career, both were little more than copyists. The Beatles just played the latest pop hits (Twist and Shout, etc.) while The Stones played the blues.
hellterskelher 8 months ago
@eduardo796 stones version is better
hellterskelher 8 months ago
The Beatles may have been a fairly good live band, but they threw a strop somewhere around 1965 because the screaming was too loud and they couldn’t hear themselves properly.
The Stones would have just bought bigger amps. Let’s face it, from the footage available, it’s clear that The Beatles weren’t anywhere near in the Stones league as a live band. The Stones were, probably even still are, the greatest live act in rock n’ roll.
hellterskelher 8 months ago
@hellterskelher beatles had to sing while holding guitars all at times...only mick jagger sang from the rolling stones and all he held from time to time was a mic
tripper85 8 months ago
By contrast, The Stones helped kick start the musical career of Marianne Faithful and the bands that followed them from the London r n’b scene included The Kinks, The Who and The Yardbirds.
hellterskelher 8 months ago
OK, it’s undeniable that The Beatles have been a huge influence on popular music for, well, ever.
However, let’s have a quick look at the bands that followed the Beatles as part of the Merseybeat sound they popularised.
Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Searchers, Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas and The Swinging Blue Jeans. Rubbish, one and all.
Not to mention the fact that they helped kick start the musical career of Cilla Black.
hellterskelher 8 months ago
The Beatles lasted about six years, giving us a few good albums and lots of great singles. And then, well, they just gave up because they couldn’t really be bothered anymore. Listen to ‘Let It Be’ and you’ll hear the sound of a band who can’t be bothered.
hellterskelher 8 months ago
BTW Beatles went to see STONES in CONCERT in sixties you know better touring band
hellterskelher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Beatles Wrote The Worst Song Ever…Official
In 2004, a BBC released poll voted Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da the worst song ever. That’s because it is. Although Octopuses’ Garden runs it close…and Hello, Goodbye isn’t exactly the work of genius either.
thank god stones never did a version of this CRAP
hellterskelher 8 months ago
STONES are better than that beatles dead band
hellterskelher 8 months ago
They took song from The Beatles -.- Mick Jagger isn't sung this so good as Ringo did.
Beatles are the best!
miaa981 8 months ago
The stones rock would so love to see them in concert..
itsmedonna 8 months ago
The stones rock would so love to see them in concert..
itsmedonna 8 months ago
THE BEATLES WERE... THE STONES ARE !!!!! PRETTY BIG DIFFERENCE DON'T YA THINK ? >:D
chazzdurden 8 months ago
@chazzdurden
The Rolling Stones have had albums that tanked. The Beatles never released an album that didn't shoot to #1. As of January 2010 the Stones' 1997 album Bridges to Babylon had sold 1.1 million units in the US. It took 13 years. The Beatles White Album sold that much in the first two weeks of it's sale in 1968. The Beatles are a multibillion dollar industry and they separated in 1969. The Stones still tour, and yet Paul McCartney is richer than Mick Jagger.
All in all, Beatles win.
SonicVSJasonGriffith 7 months ago
@SonicVSJasonGriffith Lol thanks for the info but in that case ABBA is even bigger, its not all about selling albums I think :P
chazzdurden 7 months ago
@SonicVSJasonGriffith : Sir, I'm sure that your statistics are well founded; however, just because an artist or a group is more successful monetarily, or just because a band or artist scores more pop hits does not mean that the group or artist in question is better. The Beatles were a great band in their own right and obviously had universal appeal, but in my opinion, the Rolling Stones were a far more influential band, especially when considering the other genres of Rock music to follow.
Lunatic4Bizcas 7 months ago
@SonicVSJasonGriffith : Another obvious difference about the Stones is their longevity albeit a few lineup changes, which shows fans and critics alike an unwavering love and dedication to producing new music. I personally own a decent sized record collection. In fact, I have more Beatles albums than I do Stones albums, but for the most part, my Bealtes albums sit on the shelf collecting dust, while my Stones albums get constant replay on my turntable.
Lunatic4Bizcas 7 months ago
@SonicVSJasonGriffith good point
dubbly1 7 months ago
Yeah, the beatles wrote this and it was a joke as far as they say. So, in beatles history is a lesser work, but to the stones was their arrow to fame! So...
gazuaman 8 months ago
I prefer the Stones (by a nargin) but I do think the Beatles version is better.
jackflash1996 8 months ago
I too like The Beatles' version more, and I'm not a big Stones' fan. But I'm not gonna bitch about it. They were friends and there wasn't any competition between them.
xmarijeeemj 8 months ago
the Beatles wrote This song, and the Beatles are the best!
DaNxLennon 8 months ago
yes the beatles and the stones were friends who like most people were after the almighty dollar or pound .....
karmicsin1 9 months ago
Did the beatles or stones write this?
thisaintnopicknick 9 months ago
@thisaintnopicknick
Beatles (John Lennon and Paul McCartney - although McCartney wrote most of it)
OllieRetroSound 9 months ago
Es obvio que el tema es de Los Beatles, suena como de ellos.
Pabloprock 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we had rolling stones and the beatles, now we have justin bieber and lady gaga
the world is dying....
vanamutt43 9 months ago
Keith looks like the fifth Beatle))
OlgaGavrikova 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Beatles were/are modern prophets, and there are hidden messages and meanings in many of their songs. To learn how to perceive these hidden meanings, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then open The Present and read through the section about The Beatles.
vividDC 9 months ago
0:31
MrPhilTheThrill 9 months ago
that face he makes at :31 haha
MrPhilTheThrill 9 months ago
beatles version is better
eduardo0796 10 months ago 39
@eduardo0796
hmm... maybe so... and Ringo's voice fits it better too... but i don't count it among my BEATLES' very favorites...
MrLizardisle 9 months ago
@eduardo0796
Way better!
meechneek 8 months ago
i like both stones and beatles, but beatles' version is better
pleasedontask 10 months ago 3
HOW THE FUCK DOES BILL PLAY LIKE THAT!?!?!?!?
XtrmMcjohnson 10 months ago
absolute copy of beatles. but terrible copy. dislike copies cause originals are better
MrJiovinco1 10 months ago
lovin it
DownTownStalker 10 months ago
I love this, I'm pretty sure endeverafter did a cover of it also and I used to like them so it's an even cooler song three of my favorite bands having had sung this.
animepimp96 10 months ago
Beatles version is the better than this one
Johnmcartney10 10 months ago
Stones 4 ever
patsyG123 10 months ago
stones are better
dudilsta 10 months ago
@dudilsta hahahaha!!
TheOa9 10 months ago
@TheOa9 good. you agree
dudilsta 10 months ago
The Beatles version IS way better. Just like @TheBlueBeatle said, it is slow and drunk like. They act like... I don't know... some retarted, drunk, teens! Although, The Rolling Stones newer songs (70's+) were better than this crap. Ohh, especially Paint It Black! One of my Fav's! :)
John37816 10 months ago
@John37816 honestly,it really did sound weird like they were drunk.
TheChocobread 10 months ago
one things for sure...
the beatles didnt have a guitarist better than keith richards
levelhickbros 10 months ago
@levelhickbros YES THEY DID! George Harrison is one of the best guitarists EVER! (next to Keith Richards,Paul McCartney, Jimi Hendrix, and Angus Young) But, you are entitled to your opinion. I thing Keith is awesome
zmon49 10 months ago
@zmon49 you left out Joe Perry from Aerosmith
TheThomasmoon 10 months ago
Okay... Personally, I prefer The Beatles. Not just because I'm a huge Beatle fan but this was.......terrible... slow and drunk like. Almost like they would be at the footstep at the girls door singing this.... LMAO but they're good in their way..
TheBlueBeatle3 10 months ago 12
I love both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones...
But I like Ringo's 'I Wanna be your man' better..
Maybe beacuse I'm great fan of Ringo, I don't know...
TRS's version is awesome to!
jaSama02 10 months ago
For me Beatles are n.1, but i also adore the Rolling Stones!I think that everyone that loves music (and is not just a fanatic) will like both of them ..
apostolosss 10 months ago
they dont look like there having much fun...boy this is the worst song that the rolling stones have ever done...and thats through a a lot of albums.
RyanTh3Lion 10 months ago
BEST VERSION EVER!!!!!
DownTownStalker 10 months ago
I prefer the Beatles over the rolling stones... But Mick Jaggers voice in this song is pure sex! xD
xoxonceuponatimexox 11 months ago
I prefer beatles version
franguaful 11 months ago
most of you guys think your opinion is right and the beatles version is much better,well music isnt about what you think is better,its about what you like,and in my opinion i like the stones version better,but that doesnt mean it is actually better than the beatles because i love the beatles anyway.in conclusion most of you guy are stuck up your own ARSES.
DownTownStalker 11 months ago
the beatles version is the best!!!!!
videomanf 11 months ago
"struck HORROR in the homes of conservative english"....HAHAHA white people scare so easily, don't they :)
bluedaisy729 11 months ago
don't mean to insult the stones in any way, but the beatles version is definitely the best!
papstbenni 11 months ago
didn't take much back then did it.
A4moondoggy 11 months ago
haha i wanna be yo man
DownTownStalker 11 months ago
Paul Mc Cartney wrote the song.The stones made it to a different song.They always asked ---"Hey,we are not ready with mixing the single(a 2 song black round ----ok)so either of them said OK.We are read to go-and new songs were released every other Month..By The Beatles.By the Stones-and in between.......To have been.to have listened--Now I really miss them good old times-
69MC97gc 11 months ago
he's right,it's a joke.they're both GREAT so let's leave it at that
DownTownStalker 11 months ago
like Rolling Stones, I just found this new band MORRE who i wanna promote while im here. They created THEIR OWN SOUND, which is why I appreciate them so much, and i hope for you to do the same for CREATIVE musicians.
MORRE - RENEGADES check their others online
johndeeretraktr 11 months ago
com'on people this version is THE BEST
DownTownStalker 11 months ago
the 60s were there best years
DownTownStalker 11 months ago
the guitar sounds so rusty in a cool way
DownTownStalker 11 months ago
this version is CLASS!!!
DownTownStalker 11 months ago
hmmm loveeee the beatles and loveeeee the stones....
but this song definately sounds better sung by the beatles
agreed??
Sublime2010Ya 11 months ago
John said he gave them this song because it was a "throwaway." That's also why he gave it to Ringo. Poor Ringo.
TheFpuff 11 months ago
it's horrible!!!!!!!!!! the beatles are the best
rosypixar 11 months ago
they suck!!!! beatles foreverr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MHGH1996 11 months ago
@MHGH1996 how can u just say "they suck",i am a huge fan of the beatles but u obviously haven't heard the rollinstones other songs
DownTownStalker 11 months ago
how can RS be related to the Beatles in anyway?
Geehumshriber 11 months ago
Beatles - GREATEST BAND EVER !
Rolling stones - bad imitation......
Gr33nDay1000 11 months ago
@Gr33nDay1000 You're right The Beatles are one of the best bands ever, but so are The Stones, so don't fucking insult them.
SirBraxton1989 11 months ago
Awful
HappySunshineStar 11 months ago
I love the Stones but the Beatles came first. Listen to intro of the video, the stones first hit was a Beatles cover, that says it all really. Check out Keef doing his Beatles mop top impression.
idjb75 1 year ago
Why? Cruder, ruder, more energy and more real. No fancy pants and falsity . The Beatles were great too, but if you got a lot of blood in your veins you need the ROLLING STONES!
JoshSwartzberg 1 year ago
SO STOOOOONED!!!
mscrazyeliot 1 year ago
I love this version but I prefer Beatles's version !
RingoGeorgeJohn 1 year ago 17
@RingoGeorgeJohn hmmm ok, i think their version sucks... and this song is the only bad song of the stones
sammyjny 8 months ago
Keith is REALLY rocking out! Go Keith!!
lollipopkiss5 1 year ago 4
die beatles haben den song besser gesungen :p !
YELLOWSUBMARINE2O11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
richards bein a dick at 0:55 thinking he is george shaking his head like a beatle
shareschannel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
richards bein a dick at 0:55 thinking he is george shaking his head
shareschannel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
richards bein a dick at 0:57 thinking he is george shaking his head
shareschannel 1 year ago
Comment removed
shareschannel 1 year ago
The two bands respected eachother and were good friends. There wasn't any competition between the two. Why can't people understand that?
TheCoolio4 1 year ago 82
@TheCoolio4 Actually there was competition. The two bands fought costantly to be ahead of the other, HOWEVER! members of the Stones and the Beatles were friends. They were rival bands, but they were still friends.
hemoglobin55 1 year ago 6
@TheCoolio4 ... let it bleed..my friend!!
mrdublicity 1 year ago
@TheCoolio4 well there was a small one wasn't it ?... but not the hate kinda one... more like two runners pusing themselves
MrGreggy431 1 year ago
@TheCoolio4
Because people are idiots or believed in what the media and advertisement churned out at the time. The only way I see them pitted against each other could be friendly rivalry, and even then it's far fetched that's true
Anontalkwarrior 1 year ago
@TheCoolio4 yes they were very good friends. There is videos of mick jagger in the studio with the beatles and he can be seen on the video for all you need is love.
Mick Jagger and Kieth Richards were also reportedly in the same room as lennon and mccartney when they wrote this song.
Drenwickification 11 months ago
@TheCoolio4 because people want to live there fantasys i guess so they just make ilusions for themselves
TheSovietBears 11 months ago
@TheCoolio4 Only until somebody from The Rolling Stones slept with George Harrisons first wife. lol.
Chloe1215 11 months ago
@TheCoolio4 That is both true and false. They were very good friends but there was a competition between the two. This was good because they influenced each other and they also tried to top each others albums. This made some of the best albums of all time. Check your facts next time before you talk about stuff you don't know anything about.
kemicchew 10 months ago
@TheCoolio4 I always say the same thing!
RingoGeorgeJohnPaul2 10 months ago
Comment removed
archdestijl 10 months ago
@TheCoolio4 John Lennon interview:
What do you think of the Stones today?
I think it's a lot of hype. I like ``Honky Tonk Women,'' but I think Mick's a joke with all that fag dancing; I always did, I think it's a joke.
Do you see him much now?
I think Mick got jealous I would like to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on every fuckin' album. Every fuckin' thing we did, Mick does exactly the same he imitates usYou know, Satanic Majesties is Pepper;
archdestijl 10 months ago
@archdestijl sounds like John is a little jealous
livewirevirginia 9 months ago