Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Dash_Starkiller

The Beatles vs The Stones!!

Recommended Posts

Ok sorry for the click bait title but I was hoping to hear everyone’s opinions on who’s Gibson acoustic sound they prefer. I think that both bands use of Gibson acoustics, in different ways, contributed a lot to the overall tone, sound, atmosphere, and vibe of the songs and bands image.

 

If you look at the Beatles, the use of the J160e and to a point Texan and J200 contributed to a very very specific sound. Let’s focus on the 160e. Now I can’t think of any other band that has ever utilized this guitar more than them. The mix of ladder bracing, laminate top, and pickup created a distinct sound that, in my opinion, no one has ever replicated. For studio sound it’s believed that the guitar was mic’d and run through an amplifier. That, along with the ceramic saddle and most likely nickel strings, created a jangly, almost metallic sound. My example of the sound I want to focus on is the song “I’m only sleeping.” The acoustic sounds almost metal with a sound that is almost brash at first then grows on you. A much different approach to a typical acoustic sound.

 

Now for The Stones. Much more simplified acoustic sound. I’d say the primary guitar you’d hear with them are a classic mid 60s hummingbird (also perhaps a dove?). Which it did have an adjustable saddle it had a much warmer sound when compared to a standard Beatles acoustic sound. My example for a classic Stones acoustic track is “Sweet Virginia.” The opening acoustic picking, with its bass walks and overall country and western vibe, provide a much different soundscape. To me it sound like an acoustic mic’d right at or near the soundhole. Warm and pronounced. I feel as though the Stones took a much more simplistic approach to acoustic than the Beatles. Is it better? Well that’s just up to your personal opinion these days...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No comparison for me. The Stones all the way. The Beatles were a great studio band and they were very innovative with their instruments and different sounds...along with the great songwriting of Lennon and McCartney. But The Stones were and still are "The Stones." Pure rock & roll mixed with hardcore blues, and down-and-dirty-in-your-face folk, and a shake-the-ground beat. Add to that the combination of Jagger and Richards writing great songs. The Beatles represented guys I could never be or maybe didn't even want to be, while The Stones were "me."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No comparison for me. The Stones all the way. The Beatles were a great studio band and they were very innovative with their instruments and different sounds...along with the great songwriting of Lennon and McCartney. But The Stones were and still are "The Stones." Pure rock & roll mixed with hardcore blues, and down-and-dirty-in-your-face folk, and a shake-the-ground beat. Add to that the combination of Jagger and Richards writing great songs. The Beatles represented guys I could never be or maybe didn't even want to be, while The Stones were "me."

 

 

This says it all, period! I was trying to think of what to say and then saw this. You can shut down the post now! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difference between the 2 is the key. And as stated several times here : Why choose half when you can choose double.

 

That said you miss out a couple of factors.

 

1 - The Fab-Martins. J & P both got rosewood D-28's in 1967 and used them on The White Album. Crucial for the expression'n'atmosphere there.

2 - Both bands had plastic bridges in the herd. McCartney's Texan was one of them.

Lennon's replacement after the first J-160E was stolen is another. Give Peace a Chance is played on that guitar.

Stones got theirs after Exile on Main St., but Sweet Virginia was probably done on the pale Hummingbird w. adjustable rosewood saddle and new strings

(Fabs never used rose-inserts).

 

But sure, John's and George's then modern slopes are unique and quite brittle.

It gives the songs a certain edgy sound, we now automatically connect with their universe.

95 % of their fans are totally oblivious to factors behind these things,

but luckily Paul got the 1964 Epiphone Texan in time for Yesterday, I've Just Seen a Face and Rubber Soul.

Wouldn't have been nice to live without the mellower acoustic voice on those tunes/records.

 

My 5 Yen - Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This says it all, period! I was trying to think of what to say and then saw this. You can shut down the post now! LOL

The Beatles led and everyone else followed. They did it and everyone tried to do in the next 6 months or so. Love both. I only listen to The Stones from about Beggars Banquet to Goats Head and I also love Some Girls. The Beatles I mostly focus on the music once they started getting into drugs from Rubber Soul on. Saw the Stones once and wished I didn't.

 

Long Long Long, Here Comes The Sun, Two Of Us, Across The Universe, Norwegian Wood, Things We Said Today, Blackbird, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, I Will, Julia, Dear Prudence and on and on.

 

If I had to take one catalog to a deserted island it would most likely be the Fab 4.

Edited by LP Trad Pro II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about Gibson acoustics.....many people regard them as the 'bees' knees'...….[biggrin]

 

The J160e was an interesting choice for the Beatles and perhaps proves the point that 'tone is in the fingers'.....dry.gif

 

The magnetic P/U with nickel strings is not to everyone's taste, but was probably the best electro-acoustic available at the time.... additional external mic'ing would broaden the palette somewhat...

 

IMO the Stones have produced some 'strong' and effective acoustic sounds over the years, which millions dig

 

The Beatles, again IMO, have produced a broader range of acoustic sounds to suit their more sophisticated harmonies and perhaps reflect George Martin's heightened sensibilities....

 

V

 

:-({|=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the Stones have produced some 'strong' and effective acoustic sounds over the years, which millions dig

Agree and agree again, , ,

and they did it on different, still always adjustable Birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grew up with them both, saw them both live (the Stones more than once), and have never stopped loving both. But Street Fighting Man and Jumpin' Jack Flash were recorded in the studio with acoustics. Any questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what they would buy today. The gear they had early on was hard to come by...and a little bit ‘management and producer driven’

 

I mean, John wanted to sound like Chuck Berry > Gibson 335?

 

George wanted to sound like Chet > Gretsch Country Gentleman?

 

Paul - don’t know. Did he?

 

Keef wanted to sound like Chuck and Muddy > Gibson 335 AND Fender Tele.

 

What did they want to sound like acoustically? And who?

 

 

BluesKing777.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stones ... no contest!

 

 

I was lucky enough to see Mick's 63 Hummingbird up close in London:

 

image_zpsicen3bmx.jpeg

 

 

image_zpszuxbz3aq.jpeg

 

 

The original version of Sympathy for the D was very "Dylanesque"

 

Something like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

Edited by JuanCarlosVejar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what they would buy today. The gear they had early on was hard to come by...and a little bit ‘management and producer driven’

 

I mean, John wanted to sound like Chuck Berry > Gibson 335?

 

George wanted to sound like Chet > Gretsch Country Gentleman?

 

Paul - don’t know. Did he?

 

Keef wanted to sound like Chuck and Muddy > Gibson 335 AND Fender Tele.

 

What did they want to sound like acoustically? And who?

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

I don’t know where I read this BUT I’ve heard that John originally meant to ask for an ES-125. But mistakenly got the j160e. I wonder what would have happened if they got those instead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what they would buy today. The gear they had early on was hard to come by...and a little bit 'management and producer driven'

 

 

What did they want to sound like acoustically? And who?

 

I think J & G was fascinated by the electric/acoustic combo of the the relatively new J-160Es.

No doubt they wanted electric guitars as a first priority, but these came in as a strong second.

There probably were a few artists with them, but I don't believe they wanted to copy their/any sound. They just plugged in and went for it.

 

Regarding Stones, they had the J-200 as well.

Read somewhere recently (was it here) that Gibson gave the 2 forst-wave Hummingbirds and the Jumbo to Brian, Keith and Mick on the first US-tour.

They too just went ahead and began recording. The mic-inside-sound-hole-thing was wild - and really paid off. But not especially original.

I'm almost sure a lot if us did it too long before finding out it was the key to the hip Stones acoustic-rock sound.

It was in the cards to drop it in there and see what happened. For then to receive whining feedback and other horrible sonic results through the stereo-speakers.

 

 

Nowadays it's hard to imagine with how much appetite people experimented back then.

Kids, youngsters, amateurs everywhere just threw themselves into electric realm to experience the power

And some even dropped dead while trying.

Heaven bless the electric shocked fallen pioneers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stones for me. Some of the greatest guitar sounds-acoustic and electric-any band has ever put to tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where I read this BUT I've heard that John originally meant to ask for an ES-125. But mistakenly got the j160e. I wonder what would have happened if they got those instead...

As we know, John, George and Brian Epstein bought the pair the same day at Rushworth's.

The event is documented by now famous and invaluable photographs. You might be right, but everything seemed very much under control and in order.

 

https://www.google.d...iw=1366&bih=630

 

Notice what seems to be an ordinary saddled the J-45 on the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was lucky enough to see Mick's 63 Hummingbird up close in London:

 

 

image_zpszuxbz3aq.jpeg

 

 

But this one has the 1968 screws and must be considered extremely faded if it ever was a weak-pigmented burst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice photo, but to the photog, or the man orchestrating the photo, it looks very "staged"- I mean, who stands a case up like that? Dig the inside peek of the vintage case with the blotchy pattern (which was reissued in the '90's for a while), but that is just about the most precarious way to place a case.

 

"Mic inside a case"? Remembering when I experimented with that. . . it was a disaster. And don't dare move while playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice photo, but to the photog, or the man orchestrating the photo, it looks very "staged"- I mean, who stands a case up like that? Dig the inside peek of the vintage case with the blotchy pattern (which was reissued in the '90's for a while), but that is just about the most precarious way to place a case.

Did U check the link ?

 

"Mic inside a case"? Remembering when I experimented with that. . . it was a disaster. And don't dare move while playing.

Yes, hahe, , , disastrous is the word. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did U check the link ?

 

Ah, there it is, in the small print:

 

"The guitars arrived from the U.S. on 10 September and it is assumed

that this is the date of these photos. However, as evidenced by Andy

Babiuk, these photos might have been taken at a later date. Babiuk

presents the fact that the guitars have smudges on the finish and

shoulder straps are attached. It seems unlikely that new guitars would

have these features. Bill Harry states that the event was staged

specifically for the Mersey Beat paper"

 

I was too busy looking at the photos- thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, there it is, in the small print:

 

"The guitars arrived from the U.S. on 10 September and it is assumed

that this is the date of these photos. However, as evidenced by Andy

Babiuk, these photos might have been taken at a later date. Babiuk

presents the fact that the guitars have smudges on the finish and

shoulder straps are attached. It seems unlikely that new guitars would

have these features. Bill Harry states that the event was staged

specifically for the Mersey Beat paper"

 

I was too busy looking at the photos- thx

The whole set-op theory was new to me. Sounds realistic.

 

Anyway, it so amazing that the stolen twin showed up a couple of years ago.

What a tale - reallyreally exciting. .

 

The world now needs Paul's Höfner and Donovan's cherry 45 to emerge. Then everything will fall into place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we know, John, George and Brian Epstein bought the pair the same day at Rushworth's.

The event is documented by now famous and invaluable photographs. You might be right, but everything seemed very much under control and in order.

 

https://www.google.d...iw=1366&bih=630

 

Notice what seems to be an ordinary saddled the J-45 on the wall.

 

Could you imagine them with any other acoustic/electric guitar? Would the fundamental sound have changed? Would they write the songs the same way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This link says something - https://www.beatleso...rushworths.html

So does this pic.

1962 ~ L4fD8Du.jpg

 

 

Brian Epstein should have been made King of England or Prime Minister for his persuasive power if he could talk the generally immovable John into getting the ‘nice’ acoustic- electric Gibson instead of the full electric early version of some kind of custom death metal style guitar he may have envisaged....as well as going to the ‘moptop’ hair from the fairly plain ‘do’ in the photo....

 

 

BluesKing777.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...