Did the Rolling Stones' music go downhill after the Beatles broke up?

Reader Neil McCarthy responded to my recent interview with Mick Jagger and Keith Richards about the expanded reissue of the Rolling Stones’ 1972 album “Exile on Main St.” with an intriguing theory that’s been voiced by others over the years.

In short, McCarthy thinks the Stones’ music started on a downhill slide around 1970, when the Beatles broke up — and he suggests that was no coincidence.

“I've never felt ‘Exile’ was anything but a sloppy attempt to match the Beatles’ White Album. Understand, I love the Stones and loved them -- I was born in 1950 and early on (1965) 'knew' this is my group….Anyway their best albums, for me, were ‘Aftermath,’ ‘Between The Buttons’ (truly truly so underrated and, so, not listened to, but ohhh what a masterpiece) and ‘Beggars Banquet.’

“With the passing of the Beatles,” McCarthy wrote, “the Stones truly seemed to lose their footing in 'manning up' to produce truly great tunes.”

I don’t agree, because I think there were plenty of great tunes on the albums that came on the heels of the Fab Four’s breakup in 1970: “Sticky Fingers” (1971) and “Exile,” to say nothing of some top-drawer material on “Some Girls” (1978), “Tattoo You” (1981) and “Steel Wheels” (1989). And “A Bigger Bang” from 2005 ranks among my half-dozen favorite Stones albums ever.

But I bounced McCarthy’s theory off a couple of people close to both camps for their reaction.

First, “Breakfast With the Beatles” host Chris Carter, who said, “Actually, I think that the Stones got better as the Beatles broke up.

“From 1968 on to …what, “Tattoo You,” they were top shelf," Carter said. " ‘Beggars [Banquet]’ to ‘Exile’ is the most perfect five-LP run of any band ever (including [Get Yer] Ya Ya’s [Out] … and including the Beatles!”

Then I ran it by Don Was, who has produced several Stones albums in recent years, including “A Bigger Bang” and the bonus tracks on the “Exile” reissue. Was, who started following both bands from the first time their music reached U.S. shores in the 1960s, said, “I've heard the 'loss of Beatles competition' effect theory bandied about in reference to Brian Wilson as well ... not sure that I buy in.

“There is a limited window of time in which one can go into the studio and engage in an intense daily pursuit of fickle radio play and the latest fad,” Was said. “It becomes a pointless bore and a grind; eventually, it becomes indistinguishable from the job you joined a band to avoid in the first place! Not to mention that there's an endless supply of bread, girls, bad drugs and yes men that accompany success and conspire to dull the competitive edge.’

“Great as they were, the Beatles (and just about everyone else, as well) imploded under the circumstances,” Was noted. “It's testimony to the awesome strength, toughness and talent of the Stones -- and Bob Dylan, for that matter -- that they've not only endured but maintained a very high level of consistent quality for an additional 40 years. For what it's worth, after bearing firsthand witness, I see it as a herculean feat.”

Any dissenters out there in Stones -- or Beatles -- land?

-- Randy Lewis

Top photo: Mick Jagger and Keith Richards at Nellcote, France, circa 1972. Credit: Dominique Tarle / Universal Music Group

Bottom photo: John Lennon, George Harrison, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr in 1969. Credit: Apple Corps Ltd.

---

Clicking on Green Links will take you to a third-party e-commerce site. These sites are not operated by the Los Angeles Times. The Times Editorial staff is not involved in any way with Green Links or with these third-party sites.

---

Comments

[G_malo]

Gotta disagree with you, Kipstar. The Beatles could haved produced that - if they really wanted to, but that's not who they were. The Stones were imitating a multitude of great blues artists from the 30's on who did it just as well or even better. What the Beatles created was much, much more than that. They were on a planet of their own.

[Eric Lindbom]

That comment about supposedly declining quality is ludicrous since both STICKY FINGERS and EXILE have excellent material. The decline came with the arrival of GOAT HEAD'S SOUP.

[Ramblin Doug]

I don't think the Stones went downhill after the Beatles broke up...but I definitely think the Beatles went downhill after the Beatles broke up.

Seriously, tho, I would use the same evidence brought up on these posts to reach the opposite conclusion:
As noted, the Stones albums of the 60s mirror the Beatles's so clearly that its pretty obvious they were trying to compete and keep up. I think for that reason, Exile, Sticky Fingers and BB is where they finally developed and nailed down what everybody now takes for granted as "The Stones' sound"...and this
change was probably the most important one they ever made, because it enabled them to carry on.
I grew up on, and love their 60s stuff, but the Stones sound IS Exile.

[Andrew Shelley]

Mr. McCarthy is entitled to his opinion, but he's way off the mark, IMHO. First off, the Stones were hitting the start of their peak as the Beatles were starting to burn in flames. I think The Stones started to go downhill around the early to mid-80's. Obviously, Tattoo You was a kick ass record. However, after the 1981 U.S. Tour, they started having issues with playing the songs without heart in '82. I think turning 39/40 for Mick Jagger was harder on him than he has confessed to. Undercover was a good album, but it reminded me of Goats Head Soap; it had potential, but lacked that Stones magic. Then, you had the mid-80's with Mick's pop-solo crap, that just sucked so badly, I can't imagine what caused him to do it? But, if you want to know the real cause, it was Keith leaving Anita and having a new family with Patti. Patti cleaned up Keith's ways, as best she could, and then combined with the fact that Mick Jagger could actually leave the Stones, I think, scared Keith into compromising his values. Yeah, you had good records Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, and A Bigger Bang, but nothing that ever captured the Stones old magic. I've seen the Stones 22 times since 1981, and I was 13 years old then, and I can attest to the fact that they are still a great band live, maybe the best? But, 1981 Stones and the 1989 Steel Wheels Stones were two completely different bands. The old Stones were like watching a tight rope act, hoping they didn't fail, and when they didn't, it was awesome. The new Stones are like watching a musically safer band. Combine all of that with Mr. Cohl and his 500.00 tickets, and you have what you have now---corporation rock.

[Andrew Shelley]

Oh, and I forgot the death of Ian Stewart....that was a major blow to the Stones. I'm not a Beatles fan anyways; too white, too intellectual while trying make rock ‘n roll into something else. Rock 'n Roll is a black man's music played by white folks. It's three chords, booze, sex, drugs, pain and aggression---The Beatles, to me, never encapsulated that. But, they never idolized Blues players either, so I don't fault them or knock them either.

[The Royal One]

Being the then-youngest of seven-children, I was 9 years-old by January, 1973.
Music, LP's , 45's , not so much eight-tracks, were valued amongst us kids.
Blessedly, my musical intuition was far, far, beyond my years. Everyone,
in my world at least, loved The Beatles and The Stones. Still, it was like all the
"kids" held The Beatles in both, a suspended-state-of-Awe, and a loving reverence. Like a cool, loving, brilliant family-member, that was taken much
too soon. Looking it back, I now believe (like Elvis to many) they actually defined the word, Icon. Of course, from time-to-time, The Rumor:
Somebody's someone somewhere heard, THE BEATLES ARE DOING A CONCERT! Of course, it was always the proverbial ONE NIGHT ONLY reunion.
Good Lord...if only.

The Stones? The Stones were so cool and so bad, they BROKE The Beatles
apart..lol. Or, so was the word among pre-teens. My Cousin Andy (May God rest his soul) in the late-sixties was an aspiring chopper-riding hippie.
One afternoon, after insuring that Pop was gone, he hijacked his
stereo, and played The Stones, maybe "Let it Bleed", REPEATEDLY.
Whoa. These dudes, my child-mind quickly established were NOT The Beatles. They were different, but there songs we SO good and they were SO
cool, like *gasp* The Beatles. Maybe after THE break-up, The Stones
actually, stepped-up? "Sticky Fingers", "Black and Blue", "Some Girls".
By the time those incredible albums came-out, they had long occupied
their own edgy, spacey, funky, Rock and Roll Universe, that we would share, every few years.
The Beatles. The Stones. ALL kinds of GREAT Music, everywhere. I was certainly, a Fortunate Son.

[Michael Culver]

That's a big crock.

[Brooke Halpin]

Knowing what I know about Mick Jagger, I would think that he saw the breakup of The Beatles as an open door opportunity for The Rolling Stones to step forward and establish themselves as outlasting The Beatles and coming up with strong material. And I believe Sticky Fingers certainly contains excellent songs and supports that theory.
-Brooke Halpin

[kevin combs]

HEYY HEYY

You got me ROCKIN!

(repeat)

[Pat]

"It's testimony to the awesome strength, toughness and talent of the Stones -- and Bob Dylan, for that matter -- that they've not only endured but maintained a very high level of consistent quality for an additional 40 years"

It makes it a lot easier for a group to last 40 years when the lineup changes. Dylan is just one guy, so it's hard for him to break up with himself. Really, The Stones are Mick and Keith with some other guys. The Beatles (as the world knew them after 1964) were always the same 4 guys, and it's tough to keep that going for a long time, especially with all the egos involved.

McCartney has lasted as long as The Stones and Dylan. Whether you like him or not, he continues to sell tickets.

I like everybody mentioned, but I hate the argument about the longevity of The Stones. If it was the exact same lineup as 1964 I would buy it. But it's not.

[Jenny Slater]

The Stones were good at Stealing BLACK music and playing it to White Audiences. Making it safe to like Blues, just like Led Zepplin.

The Beatles was just a collection of 4 Solo Artists. Ok, 3 Solo Artists and 1 Drummer. Not really a band making music together.

[Mary Anderson]

The Beatles and Stones arrived at about the same time but they had totally different music. Both excelled at what they did.
The Stones music was not affected by the Beatles disbanding. Stones music was down and dirty, in your face and unapologetically raw. Beatles music, after the earlier stuff was intellectual and creative.

[The Royal One]

Jenny, Jenny, Jenny (867..nevermind): First, we'll establish the fact that
"black" is a color, R&B is Music, then, we'll work from there:

Now, whether we are discussing Juju, Skiffle, Mariachi, or 17 th Century
Classical, the minute ANY particular form of Music becomes appreciated,
embraced -if you will- and especially supported (i.e. recordings, concerts), it in-effect becomes OUR Music. While actual ownership rightfully belongs to it's composer (s), the artistry is bestowed upon, ALL aficionado's.
From Mozart to Mahalia to McCartney, they wouldn't and couldn't lay
exclusive claim to theirs or ANY genre. If that was the case, they (and ALL
others) would've stayed in some empty room with "their" Music.
All of the great blues-loving artist from the U.K. and the U.S. were
always very vocal and open: We loved the blues, we loved American R&B.
That's not even close to "stealing". That, is giving due respect.

[rusoviet]

Saul Davis - 'Spare a thought for the stay at home voters...'

[Zimi Ahzrix]

Stones' true collapse began when Jagger sought out a solo career. He flopped and his heart wasn't in it anymore.

[adam]

The Strolling Ruins haven't made a decent album in more than three decades. Mick and Keith (the gummer twins) are a corporate entity in business for one reason: more $. They ceased being musicians years ago.

[Steve Horan]

I agree with Woofer that Mick Taylor's joining had a major and positive impact on the Stones (though he only played on two Let It Bleed tunes, "Country Honk" and "Live With Me"). Not only for what he added as a lead guitarist but for helping Keith find his true identity as an ace rhythm guitarist! Watching the T.A.M.I show on PBS, I was struck that Keith played every lead guitar solo. Rhythm guitar is his strength.

Also, Jimmy Miller started producing them with Beggar's Banquet and his contributions (mainly adding neat percussion touches) are also responsible for their great run of albums from BB through Exile (plus Honky Tonk Women and Jumping Jack Flash). They may have had better pop tunes during the Jones era but they made their best recordings and were a much better band during the Miller era, excepting Goat's Head Soup.

[ME]

John Lennon said the Stones copied everything The Beatles did...if you look closely he has a point....(somewhat)

It's NO coincidence they titled their 1969 Let it Bleed while The Beatles had Let it Be in the can..and were bleeding financially

Between The Buttons cover looks amazing like Rubber Soul...Paint it Black plays after George's sitar recordings...As Tears Go By plays up to the string quartet tracks...Majesty's Request...is a "wanna be" Pepper

There are others...and Lennon was not so nice as he points these out to Jan Wenner in 1970....after all The Beatles did lead the way....

I wouldnt call Exile a copycat White lp though...Beatles had so many variations of styles and sounds on their record...they are both double lps and the comparison ends there

[rusoviet]

Where to begin?

Ok kudos for anyone lighting up the pathetic decade known as the the 'Swinging Seventies' - (my apologies to that classic Jack In The Box ad)

I give you....Robert Planet! (hmmm better lay off the Frank Zappa innuendos but I digress).

No one could suceed professionally in that awful decade of 'I am woman hear me roar while I blow my a&& out the door...' I mean sports fans what else was the seventies then the epitome of the dominant 'prez' Jimmah huh?

Jann Wenner copped the Stones name for his dream some 40 years hence i.e. 'Someday a lazy hack from Cook County will resurrect our loss of JFK and we shall deign him 'Obama is god' " Huih? Got it?

What I am trying to say is that such loath the fact that many love the Stones but understand the clowns that claim their ownership...

John Tunney anyone?

[juepucta]

Nope. Their run was actually pretty solid until Tattoo YOU (which i am aware is pretty much an outtakes and rarities of the 70s album so it might no count).

They also managed to stay relevant and incorporate new sounds seamlessly (disco, punk, reggae).

I would argue that they go downhill after Tattoo You, barely regaining some glory on Voodoo Lounge (and maybe the live Stripped).

People should give the Beatles vs. Stones thing a rest. It was never real.

-G.

PS: yeah, the Stones' greatest moment was 68-72 and the four studio albums from those years.

[The Royal One]

Juepucta, First we'll establish the fact that we are discussing two legendary
bands, at-least FORTY-YEARS after their formation, then work from there:

"Tatoo You" -Superb.
"Steel Wheels"-Surprisingly, superb. "Almost Hear You Sigh" ANY questions?
"Voodoo Lounge" Strong, and Stones-y.

The Stones Vs. The Beatles thing was never real, true, but it will always
make for great conversation, about two mind-blowing bands.

Mr. Lewis, what about that Pink Floyd Vs. Led Zeppelin showdown?

[Jason Smith]

I've never felt that The Rolling Stones albums hold up as great albums. Over their career they had lots of really great songs, but on their albums they have so much filler. Maybe that's because I'm less familiar with them than The Beatles, whom I grew up cherishing, or maybe it's because I only enjoy the rockers and not so much the slower and or basic blues Stones songs. Even EXILE has a lot of that filler. For example, after "Rocks Off" I just want to skip forward to "Tumbling Dice", then I want to skip ahead to "Loving Cup" and "Happy"...

This is true of their whole career, not just during The Beatles reign.