The Rolling Stones and Beatles comparison that drove John Lennon mad: “I always objected”
The Beatles and The Rolling Stones might have been at the forefront of the British invasion, but much separated the groups, from their sonic character to the individual personalities of band members. Many comparisons have been presented between the bands over the years, and according to the late figurehead of the Fab Four, John Lennon, there was one that he absolutely could not stand.
While it’s natural for the groups to have been compared due to their musical and cultural significance to the artistic explosion of the 1960s and everything that came after, the differences are clear. The account might be incredibly one-sided, but Lemmy, the late Motörhead leader, who was right in the thick of it at the time, once outlined the discrepancies between the two bands. It makes for an interesting general view.
He said The Beatles were from Liverpool, “a hard, sea-farin’ town” whereas “The Rolling Stones were the mummy’s boys'” from the suburbs of London. He added: “The Stones made great records, but they were always shit on stage, whereas The Beatles were the gear.”
As for Lennon, though, he had a much more forensic understanding of what made the two bands distinct. After years of hearing all kinds of comparisons, he also once made it clear which ostensible parallel he hated the most. That was the one that The Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts was a better player than the man who kept The Beatles rhythmically robust, Ringo Starr.
There’s no doubt that both are fine drummers and were absolutely vital to their respective outfits. Watts brought ice-cool jazz refinement to his group’s rollicking rock and a necessary touch of humility to offset the superstar behaviour of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. As for Starr, he is one of the most gifted but constantly overlooked drummers, with the talent and artistic merit to underpin all of The Beatles’ great musical experiments and always serve the song, no matter how out there they were.
Simply put, it irked Lennon that the jazz-trained Watts received more plaudits than Starr, who, despite having no formal training like his southern counterpart, he believed was just as good, if not better, behind the kit. It’s somewhat ironic given that in the same quote championing Starr’s ability, Lennon also says that “he’s not technically good”.
“Ringo’s a damn good drummer,” Lennon says in The Beatles Anthology. “He was always a good drummer. He’s not technically good, but I think Ringo’s drumming is underrated the same way as Paul’s bass-playing is underrated.”
Lennon then expanded on his gripe more. “If you compare [Paul McCartney’s] bass playing with The Rolling Stones’ bass playing, and you compare Ringo’s drumming with Charlie Watts’ drumming, they are equal to them, if not better,” Lennon said. “I always objected to the fact that because Charlie came on a little more ‘arty’ than Ringo and knew jazz and did cartoons, that he got credit. I think Charlie’s a damn good drummer and the other guys a good bass player, but I think Paul and Ringo stand up anywhere with any of the rock musicians.”
For Lennon, the reasons why Starr was deemed less artistically viable than Watts all came back to social background. While this was immensely frustrating, he should have been safe in the knowledge that not only was his band far more significant but that they were the ultimate working-class outfit, showing us regular folk that dreams are obtainable. That counts for much more than anything The Rolling Stones have achieved.
Never Miss A Beat
The Far Out Beatles Newsletter
All the latest stories about The Beatles from the independent voice of culture.
Straight to your inbox.