The Stones

Derivative band that had a hard on for The Beatles

Was the Rolling Stones' "Their Satanic Majesties Request" their attempt to imitate "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by the Beatles?

There’s a short answer, and a longer answer … I’ll try to cut it down the middle and share a ‘medium answer’.

The shortest answer is that John Lennon said, “Satanic Majesties is Pepper.”

Critics agreed BTW, and looked down their noses at Satanic Majesties as a derivative work.

Comparing some songs from Sgt. Peppers (released May 1967) with Satanic Majesties (Dec. 1967) … (I don’t mean tune-wise, I mean subject-wise)

There’s “Lucy in the Sky” … with … “She’s a Rainbow” (which was released as a single, with a psychedelic sound, and which charted at #25)

There’s “Strawberry Fields” (which I always consider part of Pepper) … with “Another Land” (which was also released as a single BTW)

There’s “A Day in the Life” (or “Only a Northern Song,” also a part of the Peppers sessions) … with … the really far-out psychedelic “2000 Light Years From Home”

What’s behind all this is …

The ‘Beatles as good boys, Stones as bad boys’ fable was alive in Gt. Britain from the start.

The contrast between their first appearances on Ed Sullivan set it all up … The Fabbers in suits, The Stones’ Jagger in a sweat shirt, The Fabbers proclaiming to America’s teenie-boppers “I Wanna Hold Your Hand,” Jagger mugging the camera suggestively purring the innuendo, “Time is on my side …”

The good boys/bad boys thing was really good publicity for both bands. This joining-at-the-hip in fans’ eyes had gone so far that the Stones’ delayed (Dec. ’67) album Their Satanic Majesties Request was somewhat of a derivative of the contemporaneous work of the Beatles’ 1967 Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, with the similarities extending to the album’s cover. As Lennon said, “Satanic Majesties is Pepper.”

(DID YOU KNOW: recording of the album began in January ‘67, but it got delayed to December {more on this later}, as the ‘morality police’ took it all seriously and The Stones got busted — whilst George Harrison first got slipped out the back door.)

(Their Satanic Majesties Request … the cover)

and … this little cover

And …

… what’s more interesting to me is that, as part of the Their Satanic Majesties Request recording sessions, in August, 1967… a song was recorded that wasn’t part of the album… a song which The Stones have never performed … and which had John Lennon and Paul McCartney clearly and overtly opening the song, then singing the backup vocal parts … and, beyond that … late night FM rumors-at-the-time were whispering that Lennon had written the song …

The song: “We Love You”

For a longer answer about this song, see (my answer isn’t really about what Jagger thinks … it’s about The Beatles-Stones Thomas J. Beaver's answer to What did Mick Jagger think of the Beatles?

However, by 1971 The Beatles were no more, and John Lennon was no longer playing along with the good-boys-bad-boys partnership. In his blistering ‘71 Rolling Stone interview, Lennon lambasted Mick Jagger. “Every f***in’ thing we did, Mick does exactly the same — he imitates us. And I would like one of you f***in’ underground people to point it out, you know Satanic Majesties is Pepper … ‘We Love You’ — it’s the most f***in’ bullshit, that’s ‘All You Need Is Love’.”

That's why I say they are derivative. They didn't set trends they followed them.

Can you name a few songs by the Beatles that sound like it's a rip off of something else?

Well just name some songs. They did a couple of cover songs early on. But their original songs I don't think sound like anybody else.

Quote from TheDolt

The entirety of their early catalog was heavily influenced by little richard and chuck berry. The very name beatles was a spin on buddy holly, the crickets. Buddy Holly was influenced by blues men a mundo.

John Lennon is a negro by influence.

Can you point to any Beatles song that sounds like Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly?

Quote from TheDolt

Can you point to one early one that doesn't sound like a progression?

You two are blinded by your cultish devoted love of one britiot cunt.

So now you're changing the goal posts.

You said that The early Beatles catalog was based on Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly. And then you can't name one song that sounds like Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly.

The Beatles were groundbreaking. Even from the beginning. They had a new sound. You probably can't tell now because it sounds old to everybody. But back then they burst under the scene with a very new and exciting sound.

The rolling Stones did not. The rolling Stones are derivative. They never had an original sound and they never burst onto the scene with any kind of excitement or new sound. They also never changed. They never had their rudder, as BJ says.

The rolling Stones were always following somebody else. Following trends. Following the Beatles, and even almost exactly copying their concept on several things. Especially Sergeant pepper.

And then they did all the other crap that the stones did. Disco, New Wave, or whatever it was at the time that they thought was the new thing.

And then they still never did anything that was interestingly different. They have some great songs though. Not saying they don't have a great songs. They don't have a ton of them though. Especially for how long they've been a band. And they still a band.

Quote from El Sluggo Loco

All music is derivative, duh. I watched a very interesting video by Justin Hawkins and some chicky, talking about how most artists lie about their want/need to be original. To create an auditory "artform" which is completely original and without standing on the shoulders of those that came before would be completely unlistenable/tolerable by the listening public. We're all ripping off Pythagoras. However, it's completely unfair to any artist for the listener to immediately, when hearing something new... to try to discern whom they're "trying to sound like".

We have that one song ocean. That's the only one of our songs that I can actually easily say what it sounds like. I can say that it sounds like a grunge, Soundgarden kind of song.

Other than that I have a lot of difficulty, and I have to choose because I'm promoting the music and they want you to select artists that you sound like. And I can't do it. I have to just make shit up.

The Stones flat-out COPIED the Beatle's lol

The Beatles even gave them their first song

John Lennon said it best.

When asked what he thought of The Rolling Stones, Lennon replied: “I think its a lot of hype. I like ‘Honky Tonk Woman’ but I think Mick’s a joke, with all that fag dancing, I always did. I enjoy it, I’ll probably go and see his films and all, like everybody else, but really, I think it’s a joke.”

Wenner, sensing that the Beatle had more to get off his chest in regards to the Stones lead singer, pursued the subject and asked if the two had ever crossed paths: “No, I never do see him,” Lennon answered abruptly.

“We saw a bit of each other around when Allen was first coming in – I think Mick got jealous. I was always very respectful about Mick and the Stones, but he said a lot of sort of tarty things about Yhe Beatles, which I am hurt by, because you know, I can knock the Beatles, but don’t let Mick Jagger knock them.”

Taking things a step further, Lennon made the not-so-subtle hint that Jagger and the Stones regularly copied the Beatles: “I would like to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on every ****in’ album. Every ****in’ thing we did, Mick does exactly the same – he imitates us.”

It’s quite the accusation. The two bands have clearly always been pitted as rivals but on very few ocvcassions has it been confirmed. Lennon believed his band were being copied across their career: “And I would like one of you ****in’ underground people to point it out, you know Satanic Majesties is Pepper, ‘We Love You’, it’s the most ****in’ ********, that’s ‘All You Need Is Love’.

“I resent the implication that the Stones are like revolutionaries and that the Beatles weren’t. If the Stones were or are, the Beatles really were too.”

Lennon doesn’t want to climb down though, “But they are not in the same class, music-wise or power-wise, never were. I never said anything, I always admired them, because I like their funky music and I like their style. I like rock and roll and the direction they took after they got over trying to imitate us, you know, but he’s even going to do Apple now. He’s going to do the same thing.”

Lennon concluded: “He’s obviously so upset by how big the Beatles are compared with him; he never got over it. Now he’s in his old age, and he is beginning to knock us, you know, and he keeps knocking. I resent it, because even his second ****in’ record we wrote it for him. Mick said ‘Peace made money’. We didn’t make any money from Peace. You know.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It's no wonder Jagger wanted to keep a close eye on The Beatles, especially after they had helped The Rolling Stones find a new brand of success.

In the early 1960s, Jagger became acquainted with the Fab Four and eventually got a massive song from them: I Wanna Be Your Man.

"We knew [the Beatles] by then," Jagger remembered. "And we were rehearsing and Andrew brought Paul and John down to the rehearsal. They said they had this tune, they were really hustlers then. I mean, the way they used to hustle tunes was great."

Lennon and McCartney told the frontman: "Hey Mick, we’ve got this great song." Jagger continued: "So they played it and we thought it sounded pretty commercial, which is what we were looking for, so we did it like Elmore James or something.

"I haven’t heard it for ages but it must be pretty freaky ’cause nobody really produced it. It was completely crackers, but it was a hit and sounded great onstage."

I Wanna Be Your Man reached number 12 in the UK singles charts, making it their highest-charting track ever.