‘Hard Day’s Night’ was the first UK Beatles album with no covers. ‘Help’ actually had two:

Honestly... both have their qualities. I’m intrigued by the Beatles songwriting skills. I’m intrigued by the Stones’ stage presence and persona.

Great video!! I love both the Beatles & the Rolling Stones!! Two outstanding & influentual bands!!

Tell Me / is an original Jagger / Richards on their debut album

That was awesome. “Put this on when you are not at home and you’ll love it”. I’m still laughing!

I love them both.

Love them both when I started collecting vinyl the Beatles was my first obsession I have their 45s with picture sleeve then the Stones Mazzy great collection and break down by year man you know your stuff I wasn't born when the Beatles toured but I did see the Stones 40 Licks tour simply amazing great episode Norman. Lovellandrew

While I give the edge to The Beatles, I'm so glad that we got to enjoy both bands. What a collection!!! What a fantastic video!!!

Beatles The Kicked started Cilla Black's career. Worra lorra laffs that's given us.

Great video really enjoyed this thank you

Hard to compare the two. It's two different kinds of music, two different images. If both bands were new today, they wouldn't even be on the same Billboard chart, nor would they be on the same radio station. Also hard to compare a band known for it's longevity with a band together for 8 years. They're both incredible.

Apples or Oranges? 🍏 vs 🍊?

This is great!!

I like them both. I have a lot of Beatles on vinyl (100), but most by The Stones (550).

The Beatles. Huge range. Better singers. More variety. Better producer. And I like the Stones.

This whole presentation has got me quite emotional. Wow! what a journey.

Hi watched this and enjoyed it ..

all you need is.... hot rocks

Hey mazzy. Great video and what a collection. I have to side with the stones on this one... due to the fact I saw them in concert and was amazed. But... what the Beatles did for rock and roll and pop culture in general will never be matched. I agree with between the buttons, I’m also a huge fan of let it bleed in mono. I am putting together the stones mono box set piece meal... I was able to score the Beatles mono box set on CD. So much great information and me being a mono guy, this was amazing!

Keith Richards played bass in the Dirty Mac.

Do you know what 12 x 5 means? 12 songs 5 guys.

Thank you, Mazzy! I have to say I'm firmly in the Beatles camp. They seem to me the more intellectual band whose interests even ventured into avantgarde territory. The Beatles' music was more humanistic and the Stones' more hedonistic, even darkly so. For the most part, my favorite Stones records are from the Brian Jones era: Aftermath, Her Satanic Majesties Request, and especially Between The Buttons.

Both discographies are great and should be owned by all music enthusiasts. The greatest downfall of the Beatles, however, is that they stopped playing live in ‘66. How does a band cease playing live? What a shame that their greatest studio work never saw a stage. Bands belong on a stage; performing together, in front of an audience - their fans. To me, that’s where true chemistry shines. Blues, jazz, soul.. all the greats had great albums, but they blew the world away on stage. Personally, that “by default” year was 1966.

Don’t forget The Beatles faces are hidden in the 3D Cover of Satanic Majesties Reqyest

Beatles fan, but I do like the Stones. A lot. I realisze this comment is just shy of two years too late, but love your videos - please keep 'em coming!

There is no comparison. The Beatles was the first boy band, singing cute lullaby love songs to little girls. They only existed for less than ten years. The stones are the ultimate rocking roll band. Still performing after 60 years.

In my life , I love Beatles more! Love the Andrew Oldham Orchestra playing the background. Poor Richard Ashcroft.

Hilarious! Good records for vacuuming!

Is there any record you haven't got mazzy?it's like a goldmine your collection.how do you have the time to listen to everything,as I have trouble with what i got and that's nothing compared to yours.keep up the good work

Awesome vid man!

Beatles will always be number one , the Goat . That doesn’t make the stones anything less than a great band

Whenever this argument comes up, I always say Love Me Do to Tomorrow Never Knows in THREE EFFING YEARS!!!!!!!!! Now tell me who are the better band? The Beatles did it all and achieved everything artistically, spiritually, commercially and emotionally that they needed to in 7 Years. And I agree 100% that I'm glad they never got back together, although we wouldn't have been subjected to some of the Solo Travesty's 😁 For me, you only need compilations for each Beatle and definitely All Things Must Pass, Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, and Band on The Run. Ram has to be one of the most overrated albums of all time. The Stones stopped being great about the time of Some Girls and I would argue that Exile On Main Street is a half baked, badly produced mess! So shoot me! 😊

It's like you ask father : " Do you more love your son or your daughter ?"

From 1960 to 1962, The Beatles gave over 280 concerts in Hamburg, where they also signed their very first contract and met a man named Ringo Starr. To walk in the footsteps of the young Beatles in Hamburg is to discover a city with an atmosphere as legendary as it is inspiring. Beatles very strong

I love both bands equally; couldn't pick one over the other. Watching Get Back in Disney+ has given me a new appreciation for how well the Beatles worked together as a band and despite quitting touring and increased studio experimentation and cutting parts separately, they remained one helluva live band. The rooftop concert was phenomenal.

As long as guys like us keep buying old records and talking about the good old days of Rock n Roll this debate will always exist The whole rivalry really comes from the fact that they both existed in the same era Sure there was a certain amount of copy catism and whatnot but they were 2 totally different bands If I had to pick which one was better I’d take the a little bit of both and choose The Who LoL Seriously though I love both of those bands and have a leaning more towards the Stones Man hard to believe they’re still trucking along With the Beatles imagine what might have been if only Lennon hadn’t fallen to Chapman’s bullets We could have potentially experienced more Beatle music This was really fun Mazzy You are on a roll The hottest thing in the VC right now is your channel my friend Peace ☮️ Cosmic Brian

Great chronological comparison side by side of the two bands.

Super video, knocked it outa the park Mazzy! Stones, Mick Taylor years are my favorite.

the beatles the stones. in grew up loving both. and still do thre music will live for ever and ever amen , thats when marketing could see how they cld make a extra dollar great video loved and and had a laugh

This whole Beatles versus Stones controversy is SO infantile

“Bon Vivant”, Mazzy, as I’m sure you are too! 😊

I really like your idea that The Stones should get together with Rick Rubin and create a really stripped down blues record. This was a very thorough and well thought out video. I like the conclusion you came to that The Beatles did right by ending early. I feel as though most bands have a shelf life of about 10-15 years max and then they should move on. However, I am going to with Jon from the Digital Gramophone and say that The Kinks should be in the conversation. They are my favorite band to come out of The British Invasion era and are never included in the debate. Maybe it's because of their song content, it's far more focused on small towns and everyday events. Regardless, this was very informative and thank you for going through it.

Beatles no question especially if we’re just talking the 60’s but I love the stones in that period too

I love the Stones, but they don't compare to The Beatles. On a side note, I know a few Led Zeppelin fans who might argue about the Stones being the best rock and roll band ever.......

I'd have liked a fuller review of that book you mention in passing to see whether the writing has any style and how original the research may be, but you glossed over that and spent 40 mins telling me what I already know with 2 cool hats.

Is the hat change considered the Maslovian Flip?

Pepsi or Coke? Lol. I love both bands. Sometimes I feel dirty, grungy and so I listen to the Stones. Sometimes I feel good natured and musically cultured so I listen to The Beatles...not that the Beatles never got dirty. Both bands are great. My favorite Stones album is Exile and my favorite Beatles album is the White Album. Thank you for your thoughts!

Apples vs. Oranges. Vocal-driven pop, vs. guitar-driven rock. I was only 8 when the Beatles ended, so I know which I identified with more - the Stones. But I also know who changed Western culture, and the future of music, more than anyone else, except (maybe) Elvis - the Beatles.

Beatles for the art, Stones for the stage.

Great collection. I prefer the Beatles earlier albums through Revolver , then The Stones from the late sixties on

It's strange how The Beatles/Rolling Stones rivalry really only exists in the minds of their fans and that rivalry in enough of itself is largely the product of the musical papers back in the sixties pitting the two bands against one another as the deadliest of enemies. Nothing could be further from the truth obviously as there was great relations between the two bands. At least from The Beatles perspective, according to George Martin the rivalry that they engaged the most in the sixties was actually with The Beach Boys as both The Beatles and their producer were taken with Brian Wilson's ability to produce and arrange music which in turn challenged The Beatles musically and creatively. But even in that sense, The Beatles were rarely imitators and although they certainly drew influence from their contemporaries they appropriated those influences in such a way that they blazed their own trail. As a personal aside, while I appreciate the music of The Rolling Stones, more so as an influence on some of my favorite bands/musicians from the seventies, there is really no contest when it comes to The Beatles/Rolling Stones debate. The Beatles had three of the greatest songwriters in the history of music in their camp and while the Rolling Stones could certainly write great songs, I just have never viewed them in that light of having that core of songsmiths within their ranks.

Weird video. Amongst so many great ones, though, Mazzy!!

"Undercover: fun to vacuum your house to" HA HA! "Bigger Bang: good album for putting on when someone else is vacuuming your house and you're out for dinner. Put this on when you're not at home and you'll luv it" I laughed so hard at that comment!!! I'm still laughing! Bigger Bang has got to be the worst Stones album. Thanks for your video.

Hard Days Night all originals, Beatles For Sale 6 covers and 8 originals. Help has two covers. (UK)

Bring it on. I see alot of Beatles fans. But I'm like a rolling stone 😶😂 bring the hits. Stones fans can take it. We got thick skin. Try to make me cry. Tell me how you hate the stones. I dare you. All in fun though hehehe

And my brother's back at home with his Beatles and his Stones We never got it off on that revolution stuff What a drag, too many snags

In the Marvel Universe, the X-men were a giant leap forward in evolution. The Beatles were X-men. The Stones are my second favorite band, but The Beatles music catalog is almost perfect.

XTC vs. Adam Ant? I love both the Beatles and the Stones. This rivalry thing doesn't work with me. Two Different bands who were famous at similar times. You said early on that the video was heavily biased. You weren't kidding. I enjoyed the video anyway. Peace and love.

Beatles or the Stones...yes The Kinks !

I solved this dilemna!! the Stones are the greatest rock band of sll time.... the Beatles are the greatest band of all time!!

The Beatles no contest.

Actually, you are leaving a ton of information out. As far as the Stones and Michael Cooper, the Stones had been friends with Michael Cooper since early 1965. Michael Cooper is the one who suggested that the Satanic Majesties Request album cover be in 3 D. Michael Cooper was studying 3D photography in NYC in 1966-1967. He also had access to one of two 3D cameras at the time. One was located in Japan, the other was located in Mount Vernon New York. If you look on the back of the Stones album cover it says that the album cover photo was taken at Pictorial Studios in Mount Vernon NY. The fact that Michael Cooper was a friend, and that he had access to the 3 D camera & it was his idea, had everything to do with him designing and photographing the cover. It had nothing to do with The Beatles. Question: Is the Sargant Pepper album cover in 3 D? No, it is not. Michael Cooper was a free lance photographer. He would jump at the chance to do a Beatles and a Stones album cover. After all they were two of the most popular bands from the 1960's. The Rolling Stones & The Beatles have had their picture taken many times by the same photographer; David Bailey, , and Ethan Russell to name a few. So, let's not dwell on the fact that the album covers come out of the same psychedelic era.

Sadly, The Beatles would eventually choose to emulate The Rolling Stones in the worst way possible, hiring Allen Klein to manage them ... he was the Donald Trump of Rock’n Roll ... I believe it was Klein who broke up the Beatles!

I like the both depending on my mood. The big question is Beatles or Elvis? LOL! Gold Massy!!

I love both but I would give it to the stones. Their best albums are more consistent for me. but both bands belong at the very top for sure

As someone who really likes both groups a whole lot but tends to favor the Rolling Stones golden a era a little more, I think the Rolling Stones clearly sound better in stereo overall, but the Beatles sound better in mono much like Bob Dylan's golden era mono box set sounds better than the Rolling Stones in mono in my opinion. I immediately liked the Beatles more after discovering the best mono recordings including the latest mono box set versions of Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour and even the White Album sounding fantastic clearly better than any stereo version with their weird wide separation of sound between right and left speaker. Also, The EMi Revolver Mono and the Parlophone Mono Rubber Soul sound fabulous and really jump out of the speakers and make other stereo versions I have heard pale in comparison. I think the Parlophone Mono Rubber Soul has the most impeccable sound of all: great resonant projection and crystal clear articulation. Though I was a little disappointed with the Rolling Stones mono box set, the bright side is I realized the Rolling Stones sound engineers did a great job with the stereo versions.

Stupid question they asked this in England 67. 3 points for first 2 for second 1 for third. Guess who won the Kinks cause they got 2 points from everyone.

Did you delete my post?

The Beatles wanted to hold your hand and the Stones wanted to burn your city, they used to say. In my opinion it's the question Blues or not. The Beatles came from Buddy Holly/the Everly Brothers and the Stones from Bo Diddley/Muddy Waters ("Rolling Stone", that named the band, is a famous Muddy Waters Song!). They had Chuck Berry as an influence in common. The Stones survived, because they had (black) roots, that were still alive. Under the influence of their producer ("the fifth Beatle") George Martin, who had studied classical composition, the Beatles went into the direction of historical (dead) classical music with great results: A Day in the Life, I am the Walrus, the medley from Abbey Road. The only nod to that by the Stons was the Bach choir on "You can't always get what you want" (on Let it bleed. By the way: Is there any connection between the album titles "Let it be" and "Let it bleed"?). The Stones turned to the Country Blues (Rev. Wilkins, Robert Johnson, Fred McDowell). Maybe that is the reason, why "Let it be" didn't really work. The Beatles didn't get back far enough. So the answer to the question Beatles or Stones depends on your personal connection to the (Country) Blues and anything from Chess records ("Blacks and Jews is Blues"). P.S.: "Feel on Baby" from Under Cover is the best Stones' Reggae. You should stop vaccuming when it's on. It's worth listening.

Isn't that bit apples vs. oranges..?

I came back to this one. I refuse to get into the debate. I'll just say that I'm more familiar with the Beatles discography than the Stones. That being said; I find many good folks sort of just give "Bridges to Babylon" a cursory nod. Give it another listen. There are some rippin' and gritty good pieces to be heard here.

What an incredible collection Mazzy. Just incredible. This is how I see it. Zep>Who>Stones>Beatles. My mom is from Manchester and blistered my ears with Beatle music from an early age. Maybe why I rate this last of the great 4. Enjoyed! Andre’

Jeezuz dude....20 Light Years From Home?

I have a feeling there are going to be some fireworks in this comment section.

the Stones first LP had 'Tell me' written by Jagger and RIchards and the second LP has 'off the hook' 'what a shame' and 'grown up wrong' nonetheless interesting video mate, I grew up in northern england sixties and loved the Beatles and liked the Stones who did seem to copy album covers etc and clearly wanted to be the Beatles but....

On the backs of giants

Help! Larry Williams song: Dizzy Miss Lizzy

The Beatles would definitely had their work cut out for them if they were to compete with the stones for the next 20 solid years... BUT, the stones were 5 players with a shifting sands of side Men.... Their style was More congruent with those next 20 years..... No doubt though the Beatles could have done quite well if they stayed together... All those marginal hits they had as solo players would HAVE been Way bigger

Part 1 I have seen and heard these comparisons so many times and I have mostly ignored them. It has come to a point where I just have to put my five cents in. Yes, I am a huge Rolling Stones fan but I have no problem accepting something if it's true, and unfortunately, a lot of these comparisons people make where they insinuate the Stones were "imitating", "copying", "stealing", or whatever you call it, actually have some logical explanations. Let me break this down into several posts as this is a long video. 1) The Rolling Stones mono box set was NOT put out by the Rolling Stones but by ABKCO Records who own the publishing rights to their 1960s catalog. And "yes" I would think that the box sets (Beatles 2009, Stones 2016) having a white background was more of a coincidence than a deliberate copy. The Stones box set had a black and white photo on the cover which would look better with a white background. Secondly, even if the Rolling Stones did put out this box set, which they didn't, why would they deliberately do something like that on purpose so many years after the Beatles broke up? Do you really believe the Rolling Stones are still trying to compete with the Beatles after all of these years? 2) As for the 'With The Beatles' album cover and the comparison with the Rolling Stones first album cover. I have to be honest with you, I never even thought of making this comparison until Beatles fans pointed out this overreaching comparison on the Internet. The Beatles album is a closeup of their heads. The Rolling Stones album cover is a color photo of a faraway shot showing an almost full-body picture. As for the "black background", "silhouette" or "shading" which if memory serves me, I believe was caused by a fireplace that was on one side of the room when photographer Nicholas Wright did the photoshoot in 1964, which he explained in an interview. I also don't remember him even mentioning the Beatles as being any kind of influence in the photos he took of the Stones that day. Keep in mind this is the Rolling Stones first album, they were not a huge legendary band yet, so it is debatable as to whether they had any pull when it came to telling photographers how they wanted their photoshoots to be done. Personally, In my opinion, I think even trying to compare these album covers is stretching it.

Mazzy, --Yes, "Beatles for Sale" had 8 originals, but also 6 covers. You said "no covers". Also, you said "Help" had no covers. Not true, --the last song is their cover of "Dizzy Miss Lizzy". Last track on the album. You said the first Stones album was all covers. No, it had one original -"Tell Me". Great song. You said Rolling Stones #2 had "no friggin' originals". It had 3 originals. --You said the Stones "12 by 5" was "all covers". Not true, it had 5 originals. I mean, come on Mazzy. I'm not siding with either band here, but facts are facts. --It is what it is.

WRONG! The Their Satanic Majesties Request was NOT designed by Peter Blake. It was designed by The Rolling Stones themselves along with Michael Cooper. The problem with these people who point out all of these so called comparisons is that they make things up. The guy making this video laughs like the things he’s pointing out are obvious.

OLDHAM is not pronounced with an "H" phonic. It's silent Mazzie. Thus "OLD'-UM" is the correct pronunciation.

Funny how Paul describe's "I wanna be your man" giving to the stone's !!!!! Sooo why listen to any more? PLUS Who's made the MOST Album's ?????? ALSO Who's still playing together ???

Both controlled by the Taverstock Institute

If the Stones career was condensed down to 8 years, essentially the same length of time as the Beatles recording career then I would argue that it’s a draw. The Stones from 65 to 73 were supreme. Aftermath Between the Buttons Their Satanic Majesties Requests Beggars Banquet Let it Bleed Sticky Fingers Exile Goats Head Soup That is one helluva a run of amazing records not to mention their live masterpiece, Get Yer Ya Ya’s Out.

There was The Beatles then everyone else. I love The Stones but they weren’t even close to the consistency

Were they all the same age? If the Beatles were older maybe that is why their song writing skills showed earlier. I think Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman were older than the rest of the band, but they were not involved with the writing, in general. Thanks, Chris

The Stones as many followed the leader ,but then the leaders got disoriented and lost. The songs got so scattered and none bridged . My first LP was Rubber soul Revolver second . Peppers was a gimmick LP . Nice colors ,cut outs and of course the Paul's dead scam thing The Stones didn't copy that . I tried to stay dedicated to Beatles but they lost their way. I really liked the White LP . It really defined the individuals,but it was like a collection of solos,but that put me out .No more team sound. The Stones always had that over the Beatles. It's more than just the music. The Stones shocked and showed them who was the best 😎

Beatles were a phenomenon, the stones more than a phenomenon, a way of life.

It's not enough just to compare numbers of hits or even originals...... Obviously ,,, just my imagination And tons of other covers were done different enough to make super stars of them and countless others.... AND One hit if it's different enough can make one artist famous for life And define a totally New genre in music..... So , EACH recording needs to be scored beyond Just A HIT OR ORIGINAL OR NOT

Part 2 9:30 You mention that the Lennon/McCartney song "I Wanna Be Your Man" was the first Stones hit. Actually, the first hit the Stones had in the UK was their very first single which was a cover of a Chuck Berry song called "Come On" which peaked at # 21 on the UK charts - their first Top 40 hit in the UK. The first four singles the Stones made was bigger than the previous one: 1) "Come On" # 21, 2) "I Wanna Be Your Man" # 12 3) "Not Fade Away" # 3 4) "It's All Over Now" # 1 All of their first four singles were covers as well. For some reason, over the years so-called historians have been trying to credit "I Wanna Be Your Man" as their first "hit" song. It was the band's first single to make the Top 20 but was not really their first hit. I guess Buddy Holly fans can say the Stones first UK Top 10 hit was a Buddy Holly cover. Keep in mind, which is something no one ever mentions, is that Lennon and McCartney wrote songs that were bigger hits for other artists than "I Wanna Be Your Man" was for the Rolling Stones. In 1964 Peter & Gordon had a # 1 hit in the UK and US with "A World Without Love" which was much bigger than "I Wanna Be Your Man" was for the Rolling Stones. In 1963 Billy J. Kramer & The Dakotas had a # 1 hit in the UK with a Lennon & McCartney song called "Bad To Me". How come Beatles fans rarely point this out? Both "A World Without Love" and "Bad To Me" were both very Beatles sounding covers which can hardly be said of the Stones cover of "I Wanna Be Your Man" which the band clearly put their own stamp on it giving it a more bluesy sound with Brian Jones slide guitar. 13:30 You mention the Beatles released "All You Need Is Love" as a single. You also mention that the Stones released "We Love You" as a single and questioned whether it was a response to the Beatles song. Actually, the two songs are about two different things. The Beatles song is about peace and love which was the vibe of the time. The Stones song was written in response to all of their fans who supported them when they were arrested for drug possession in 1967, "We" (the Stones) "Love You" (the fans) for supporting them during their trying times. The songs are really about two different things. Mick Jagger did an interview which appeared in a British music magazine in August 1967 to promote the "We Love You" single. In the interview, Mick was asked when he wrote the song and mentioned he wrote it "four months ago" which would mean April. I don't think Mick Jagger was aware of "All You Need Is Love" until he appeared at the Our World broadcast in June 1967. I never heard the Stones ever say it was a response to the Beatles song. I think people are just assuming it is because of the word "Love" in the titles. In all my years of being a Rolling Stones researcher, I never heard that the Stones were "having problems" with the song "We Love You" until John Lennon and Paul McCartney came into the studio to record background vocals. I spoke with the recording engineer George Chiantz and he mentioned that John and Paul came into the studio and did background vocals but didn't' mention anything to me about the Stones "having problems". The only song he mentioned anything about from the Their Satanic sessions where there was a problem is when they were doing the mellotron on "2000 Light Years From Home", and it was basically Brian Jones who was able to figure out how to get a proper sound on the mellotron because of its delay in sound when you press the key. 14:51 "See a pattern here?" Honestly, no I don't.

Beatles fanatic here! Love the Stones too, but nowhere close to the Beatles for me. There is another "The Beatles vs the Rolling Stones" book by music critics Jim Derogatis and Greg Kot that I own and really enjoyed. Lots of pictures. It was a gift to me in 2011.

😂 right off the bat, I wasn’t aware that the Beatles owned the rights to white boxes. Man, this is why Beatles fans can be so silly and insufferable at the same time. The Stones did have “Tell Me,” an original, in their debut. So you’re wrong. Also, they had already written “As Tears Go By” but given it to Marianne Faithfull. That song alone is better and more mature than anything the Beatles had written by that point. It’s also relevant to point out that Jagger and Richards were 2 1/2 years younger than Lennon and one year younger than McCartney. The Beatles’ main songwriters should’ve been a little ahead of the Stones’. Yet “As Tears Go By” is way more mature, as I said. Your “I Wanna Be Your Man” anecdote happened in 1963, not in 1964, as you later corrected. And needless to say, the song didn’t do that much better than the Stones’ previous single. Not much of a hit, really. However, this song does prove how superior the Stones were as musicians. The Beatles’ version is anemic. After that encounter, Jagger and Richards wrote a number of songs that they didn’t feel were good enough for the band. These songs were pitched and sold to other artists (most likely managed by Oldham too). It’s erroneous to think that they couldn’t have filled their early albums with originals, they just chose to mature as writers first. But by the end of the year they did begin to release originals as singles, mainly “Heart of Stone.” “We Love You” is about saying thanks to their fans for sticking it out after authorities tried throwing them in jail. Remember the Redlands raid? It has nothing to do with “All You Need Is Love,” I don’t know how you slipped on this one. The timeline is pretty easy to follow here. The photographer for the cover of Their Satanic Majesties Request was actually more of a friend to the Stones. He was there when they got busted at Redlands. Also, Between the Buttons with its psychedelic pop tendencies is closer to Sgt. Pepper than TSMR to Pepper. TSMR is more experimental, more like the first Pink Floyd record. The cover art direction is the only thing remotely similar to Pepper. The Rock and Roll Circus and the Magical Mystery Tour movies are totally different projects. The Circus was a concert show to promote Beggars Banquet. Your insinuation here is nonsensical. How convenient that you didn’t mentioned the 1968 Goddard film One Plus One, in which we get to see how the band arrived at the version of “Sympathy for the Devil” we all know and love, along with Goddard’s political crap. Does this mean that the Beatles copied the Stones in ‘69 when they let a camera crew film them in the studio for what would become the Let It Be film? In fact, Let It Be kinda copied both One Plus One and the Rock and Roll Circus. 😱 Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed are better than anything the Beatles ever did. To talk about Sticky Fingers and Exile would be overkill. The Beatles had gotten left in the dust way before they imploded. The arrival of Mick Taylor to the Stones would cement them as the greatest musical act ever. No one touched them in the studio or live. P.S. Blue and Lonesome is a great record. It sounds amazing, exactly like blues should.

Great video Mazzy. I'm with you on the comment the Beatles really needed one another to produce the product they did. It's really no battle for me. I dig the Stones but I don't think they were even in the same league. I also think the Stones should have hung it up awhile back. They last album they did that I liked through and through was Tattoo You.

Great video on stones v Beatles.just to say that the stones did write a song on they debut album called tell me (your coming back)under the Monika,nanker pheldge in 64 .stones first for me but I am biased.but great we can still discuss it which still makes it relevant to this day.two superb bands

New show for you dedundent Records I vored looking at/ Yes MOUSE it's time to travvel

I like you Mazzy but this discussion is not for me. Silly. The bands do not compare. And they did not compete beyond the competition any band felt.

I just got that Beatles mono boxset today in the mail LOL and a Rolling Stones bootleg from 1970. Jam on vinyl and I did some trading and thats is what I got. I have to go with the stones!!! Enjoyed the video

THE BEATLES . If you compare time period up to 1970 . Beatles set the Bar. Stones had there run 1968 Beggars to Exile on Main Street. Stones are great but THE BEATLES Rubber Soul to Abbey Road. Let it Be alittle uneven. The Beatles are the Peak of the Mountain.

I always though the Beatles vs Stones discussion a bit of wank. Now the Beatles vs Freddie and the Dreamers, that's something you can get your teeth into.