Beatles or Stones?

[Youngblood]

coo coo ka choo

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOKvonLrH8

[wesrman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID-1IoLMoeM

[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]

dude- stones all the way. the beatles were the world's first boy band; they were made popular by catering to 14 yr old girls, and off of that success they were able to do the more "experimental" stuff, which would have been largely ignored had they not been tween idols.

true enough, they paved the way for the British invasion, but atleast the stones didn't cater to pubescent girls and had the decency to rip off blues tunes and not open themselves up for later comparisons to new kids on the block, etc...

personally, I think Led Zep tops them both; although not as popular (because of the lack of appeal to children), they started a genre of music (hard rock/metal) and never, ever, ever- could be compared to a manufactored, little coporation created, tween popular pop for girls.

[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.

[hfahrenheit]

The Beatles were the most popular pop band of all time, no doubt about it, although personally I find a lot of their stuff overrated, IMO.

Musically they were probably ahead of their time, George Martin had something to do with that. So many great melodies also. But lyrically? Browse through their song catolog and make note of how many of their songs were filled with incredibly trite, inane, downright silly lyrics. But I guess lots of people like that kind of stuff.

Beatles Lyrics Archive

I know it's very subjective, but some of Lennon's later lyrics are outstanding IMO. McCartney is definitely lacking as a lyricist though, against IMO.

Agreed on Lennon. Most of the silly stuff can be blamed on McCartney I'm sure. Harrison didn't write a lot of the songs for the Beatles, but there were a few. If I Needed Someone, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, and Something were all Beatles standouts by Harrison. In their last couple of years, Lennon and McCartney collaborated less and less, and generally sang their own songs.

For me, Harrison is the single redeeming component of the Beatles- agreed that Lennon's later stuff (i like "imagine" just like everyone else) is pretty good at times, but as a collective work, it's the boy band-tween girl pop that made them, and the success of all later efforts is largely owed to that initial sellout.

[hfahrenheit]

Yesterday is the most covered song in history. Frank Sinatra said Something was his favorite love song. Rolling stone magazine rated the 100 greatest albums of alltime. 4 of the top 10 were Beatles albums and 6 of the top 20. With over a half a billion albums sold world wide,that just about says it all.

I give Rolling Stone, (and Billboard for that matter) zero credibility. Successful marketing sells albums, not quality of music. It's why a band like Pearl Jam will sellout every single concert they put on world wide, but have no Billboard impact whatsoever, whereas some rap act will have great Billboard numbers but terrible touring numbers. Rolling Stone is just a mouth piece for the corporate music machine.

[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