Beatles or Stones?

[Nitrofrost]

That is one hell of a choice but it comes down to the Beatles I mean they changed alot of things and lead a revolution.

[CGM]

Here's a point of comparison... When's the last time you heard a Stones tune in a department store or a doctor's office, or an elevator for that matter?

For the Stones, hiring Ron Wood was a step in the wrong direction IMO. It would have been better if they had found themselves a real good lead guitarist, which Wood ain't.

[Formerly D@vid Leeder]

When I was a child, I listened to The Beatles. When I was a teen, I listened to The Stones.

Now I'm a geezer and I listen to both, but too many of The Beatles' songs seem whiny and depressing. The Stones are fun and engaging. The Beatles were great, but over time they don't have that essential ingredient...they made great MUSIC in different styles, but The Rolling Stones made great ROCK AND ROLL!

[wesrman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC1EZ...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKpB6...eature=related

[Gandalf]

I like The Beatles and The Stones. Both extremely important bands.

I dont see the need to choose between them because they were completely different. I do think The Beatles were more ecletic and more consistent. The White album is as diverse as you can get in pop music. But if you want a dirty rock album Exile on Main Street is still great.

[hfahrenheit]

Here's a point of comparison... When's the last time you heard a Stones tune in a department store or a doctor's office, or an elevator for that matter?

For the Stones, hiring Ron Wood was a step in the wrong direction IMO. It would have been better if they had found themselves a real good lead guitarist, which Wood ain't.

they very nearly had Jeff Beck, and I think that would have been great.

[CGM]

Here's a point of comparison... When's the last time you heard a Stones tune in a department store or a doctor's office, or an elevator for that matter?

For the Stones, hiring Ron Wood was a step in the wrong direction IMO. It would have been better if they had found themselves a real good lead guitarist, which Wood ain't.

they very nearly had Jeff Beck, and I think that would have been great.

That I didn't hear. Yeah, that would have been very interesting for sure. And it would have been good music for a while. But I can't see it lasting. Beck was/is too much of an individualist, and his style is a creative jazz fusion sort of thing which I think wouldn't find a good outlet in the Stones.

[hfahrenheit]

Here's a point of comparison... When's the last time you heard a Stones tune in a department store or a doctor's office, or an elevator for that matter?

For the Stones, hiring Ron Wood was a step in the wrong direction IMO. It would have been better if they had found themselves a real good lead guitarist, which Wood ain't.

they very nearly had Jeff Beck, and I think that would have been great.

That I didn't hear. Yeah, that would have been very interesting for sure. And it would have been good music for a while. But I can't see it lasting. Beck was/is too much of an individualist, and his style is a creative jazz fusion sort of thing which I think wouldn't find a good outlet in the Stones.

"quirky" is always the word I hear him described with most; did you ever hear the "Jeff Beck Band"?... with Rod Steward at lead vocals?...

now, why couldn't that have lasted?

[mrbig1]

Here's a point of comparison... When's the last time you heard a Stones tune in a department store or a doctor's office, or an elevator for that matter?

For the Stones, hiring Ron Wood was a step in the wrong direction IMO. It would have been better if they had found themselves a real good lead guitarist, which Wood ain't.

I was sitting in the doctors waiting room and a Beatles song came on. Their music was so beautiful. 50 years from now the Beatles songs will still mean something. People will still get it. The Rolling stones of 1964 are the same in 2008. The Beatles of 1964 were not the same in 1966. Thank you Marijuana.

[Youngblood]

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RaNQjhXhfVs

[CGM]

Here's a point of comparison... When's the last time you heard a Stones tune in a department store or a doctor's office, or an elevator for that matter?

For the Stones, hiring Ron Wood was a step in the wrong direction IMO. It would have been better if they had found themselves a real good lead guitarist, which Wood ain't.

I was sitting in the doctors waiting room and a Beatles song came on. Their music was so beautiful. 50 years from now the Beatles songs will still mean something. People will still get it. The Rolling stones of 1964 are the same in 2008. The Beatles of 1964 were not the same in 1966. Thank you Marijuana.

No. Thank you Bob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybI34Z_ZHbo

[wesrman]

The Beatles of 1964 were not the same in 1966. Thank you LSD.

FYP.

[mrbig1]

Rubber soul was their first album while on weed. The LSD thing came later. I'm not saying the weed is good or bad but they did become better song writers.

[CGM]

Some interesting stuff here on the influence Dylan had on Lennon's songwriting

http://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/yo...our-love-away/

[mrbig1]

learn something new everyday.