It’s a question as old as time (or, we suppose, the late 1960s): who is the better band, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Steven Van Zandt, long-time member of Bruce Springsteen’s backing E Street Band, has some thoughts.
Videos by American Songwriter
During a 2016 interview with FOX 4 Dallas-Fort Worth, the guitarist and actor laid out what he believes are the major differences between two of the most iconic bands to come out of that period in British rock and roll.
Do you agree with his argument?
Steven Van Zandt On Beatles vs. Rolling Stones Debate
E Street Band guitarist and Sopranos actor Steven Van Zandt was born in November 1950, which means he was in the target demographic for the birth of rock and roll just over a decade later. Van Zandt was a teenager when he saw the Beatles make their Ed Sullivan Show debut. He watched the Rolling Stones do the same on Hollywood Palace. By the late summer of 1964, Van Zandt was starting bands with his classmates to replicate what he watched on television. Simply put, if there were an expert witness to answer the Beatles vs. Rolling Stones debate, he’d be a likely contender.
To begin, Van Zandt starts with a simple argument of seniority. “Beatles were first,” he told FOX 4 Dallas-Fort Worth. “But the Stones…the Beatles revealed a new world. The Stones let you in. When we saw the Beatles, keep in mind, they were halfway through their career, right? They were very sophisticated. They revealed this new world of bands. There had never been a band in America. Not really, you know. It was individuals. There was doo-wop groups, instrumental groups. There’s no such thing as a band, other than the Crickets by way of Texas [which is where] the Beatles got their name.”
“Guys who are writing and singing and playing, right?” Van Zandt continued. “That was a new world, man. But they were so good that it wasn’t like, ‘Oh, I want to do that, you know.’ Six months later, here comes the Rolling Stones.”
How Each Band Inspired A Different Idea In Aspiring Musicians
Steven Van Zandt compared what it was like seeing the Rolling Stones for the first time versus the Beatles. The Beatles showed up on American television sets clad in sharp suits, leather boots, and matching hairdos. The Rolling Stones looked like you picked up a group of ragtag buddies at the local diner. Their music had a rougher edge, too, despite the Beatles’ history of performing raucous dive bars during their early years in Hamburg. Whereas the Fab Four left behind their leather-clad persona for a shot at mainstream stardom, the Rolling Stones thrived in their slightly dirtier reputation.
“[The Stones] didn’t have the harmony that was perfect. The hair wasn’t perfect, except for Brian Jones. You know, those Beatles, I probably can’t do that. But these guys, maybe I could, you know? It made it look accessible. They made it look easier than it was. They were the first punks, really.”
Based on Van Zandt’s argument, one could deduce he’d crown the Rolling Stones as the champion of their age-old competition with the Beatles. After all, it was what the Stones did with the legacy the Beatles started that ended up inspiring a young Van Zandt growing up on the Jersey Shore. So, would you agree with the E Street Band guitarist, or are you Team Beatle?
Photo by Paul Bergen/Redferns
Leave a Reply
Only members can comment. Become a member. Already a member? Log in.