The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

4zn76tysfajdxp · 02-01-2010 03:45PM

Dudess wrote: »

Is the Mars bar story true or not though? For me that is the most pressing issue.

I hope so.

Your new avatar sucks.

MaybeLogic · 02-01-2010 03:47PM

Dudess wrote: »

Is the Mars bar story true or not though? For me that is the most pressing issue.

I had to look that up.
Great idea. What better way to enjoy a Mars Bar.

Glassheart · 02-01-2010 03:48PM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

The beatles where pop! Its doesnt matter what you try and say its a fact back then they where popular thus genra pop was given unfortuantly they fall under this.
like it lump it protest it. its a fact.

Blah blah

Rolling Stones apologists always come out with this gibberish.
Of all the great bands from that era the Stones brought absolutely nothing new to rock music.It took them five years to make a decent record.Before that they were merely a singles band.

The Beatles vs The Who is a much more suitable poll imo.

Dudess · 02-01-2010 03:49PM

Mars was a good choice too. A Yorkie would be a bit... pointy. :eek:

Wibbs · 02-01-2010 03:49PM

stovelid wrote: »

Clearly the Beatles were the more (incredibly so) innovative band, whereas the appeal of the Stones is more about the spirit of the times; a certain rebelliousness, although it all seems quite innocent now.

Pretty much. I like both, but to compare their impact is a non starter and largely fruitless. The Beatles were lightyears ahead on so many levels. Indeed the Stones often tried to copy them and followed directions the Beatles were going in. They changed music forever. Their work in the studio, treating it like another instrument for one. The album concept(not concept album though) itself they would be credited with creating. Even modern touring in arenas and stadiums largely started with them.

They were innovators in music video too. As they stopped touring they sent the promo films and the album "on tour" for them. Indeed they made that very point at the time. Theres an interesting interview with McCartney in 67 AFAIR where he posits that in the future the promo film/video would be very important. As important as the single itself. Yes there had been promos before, but they were performance based. They got rid of that. They even set up their own record company Apple and promoted other bands through it. Often for free too.

They had so many firsts in music no other band comes close. Their range and output and staggering growth over a crazily short time marks them far far ahead of the Stones. The stones hit a formula and hit it well, but they got stuck in it. Every new release the Beatles had showed growth and change and innovation.

As songwriters? Jagger/Richards dont come close. I like their stuff, but there's a chasm of raw talent between them and Lennon/McCartney(and later Harrison).

Simply put music today would not be the same without them. On the other hand if the Stones had never existed, not that much would be different. The chances are the Stones may not have even tried to write their own songs if the Beatles hadn't shown it could be done.

People forget that at the time the vast majority of acts performed songs written by others(its come full circle now actually). For an act to write and perform all their own stuff was unheard of. They changed that. So when you see a guitar band that writes its own stuff and performs it, the Beatles DNA is strongly coursing through their blood.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 02-01-2010 03:54PM

Dudess wrote: »

Mars was a good choice too. A Yorkie would be a bit... pointy. :eek:

You should try a Toblerone.

stovelid · 02-01-2010 03:58PM

Helena Fierce Jacuzzi wrote: »

You should try a duty free Toblerone.

.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 02-01-2010 04:00PM

Hell, it was thanks to The Beatles that The Stones even broke into the charts in the first place:

Dudess · 02-01-2010 04:03PM

Helena Fierce Jacuzzi wrote: »

You should try a Toblerone.

stovelid wrote: »

.

I don't like the high-brow direction this thread is taking...

4zn76tysfajdxp · 02-01-2010 04:04PM

stovelid wrote: »

.

Jesus, I'd love some Pringles right about now.

Dudess · 02-01-2010 04:07PM

Glassheart wrote: »

It took the Stones five years to make a decent record.Before that they were merely a singles band.

That's how I'd view The Beatles - you have to consider individual opinion too.

The Pontiac · 02-01-2010 04:07PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty much. I like both, but to compare their impact is a non starter and largely fruitless. The Beatles were lightyears ahead on so many levels. Indeed the Stones often tried to copy them and followed directions the Beatles were going in. They changed music forever. Their work in the studio, treating it like another instrument for one. The album concept(not concept album though) itself they would be credited with creating. Even modern touring in arenas and stadiums largely started with them.

They were innovators in music video too. As they stopped touring they sent the promo films and the album "on tour" for them. Indeed they made that very point at the time. Theres an interesting interview with McCartney in 67 AFAIR where he posits that in the future the promo film/video would be very important. As important as the single itself. Yes there had been promos before, but they were performance based. They got rid of that. They even set up their own record company Apple and promoted other bands through it. Often for free too.

They had so many firsts in music no other band comes close. Their range and output and staggering growth over a crazily short time marks them far far ahead of the Stones. The stones hit a formula and hit it well, but they got stuck in it. Every new release the Beatles had showed growth and change and innovation.

As songwriters? Jagger/Richards dont come close. I like their stuff, but there's a chasm of raw talent between them and Lennon/McCartney(and later Harrison).

Simply put music today would not be the same without them. On the other hand if the Stones had never existed, not that much would be different. The chances are the Stones may not have even tried to write their own songs if the Beatles hadn't shown it could be done.

People forget that at the time the vast majority of acts performed songs written by others(its come full circle now actually). For an act to write and perform all their own stuff was unheard of. They changed that. So when you see a guitar band that writes its own stuff and performs it, the Beatles DNA is strongly coursing through their blood.

Well said and great post!! The Beatles were also the first British act to break into the American and global market in a big way, paving the way for groups like The Stones. They've got more number one albums than any other group in history. Sgt Pepper is widely regarded as one of the most influential albums of all time, if not the most influential.

BluesBerry · 02-01-2010 04:07PM

The Beatles

But love the rolling stones as well

4zn76tysfajdxp · 02-01-2010 04:10PM

Dudess wrote: »

That's how I'd view The Beatles - you have to consider individual opinion too.

I rather like The Beatles' early album stuff. Even if they were choc-a-bloc with covers like this:

Snowie · 02-01-2010 04:12PM

stovelid wrote: »

Clearly the Beatles were the more (incredibly so) innovative band, whereas the appeal of the Stones is more about the spirit of the times; a certain rebelliousness, although it all seems quite innocent now.

while yes the beatles where inovative but it was down to the hole approach to music as any one with half a brain cell can distinguish, they really did revolutionse things but i wouldnt call them rock i think that s a bit ott I mean in ways yeah there a great band and they kept things freash its not like listening to the kings of leon who last 3 albums sound all the same! where as the beatles well no one album is similier but the fact remaing that i still personally wouldnt call them rock and role,. I always thaught of them more as pop ..

I mean they are the perfect sucess story they kept on reinventing there album's and kept there music differen t and more so kept people guessing.

i dont have a problem with them.. I never thuaght of them as a rock band in a rounded of way
i mean when i think of rock i think the rolling stone led zeplin, i culd keep on going i never thaught of the beatles as a rock band..........

El Siglo · 02-01-2010 04:28PM

The Beatles, because they were as good individually as they were as a group.

Wibbs · 02-01-2010 04:36PM

Dudess wrote: »

That's how I'd view The Beatles - you have to consider individual opinion too.

Oh yes very true, but as I say, before them the very notion of any act being anything but a singles band didnt exist. So even the discussion itself one has to thank them for.

Out of that, they were the first band to release an album that had no singles on it. Sgt Pepper. Strawberry fields forever/Penny Lane were the first two tracks laid down for that album(and the first double A side single too by the by), but they decided to release them and not put them on the album.

They had a lot of firsts. First worldwide satellite broadcast wanted a musical bit and who did they ask? They knocked up All you need is love to order for it. First use of deliberate feedback on a record. New recording techniques they came up with would even tax my long windedness

You see studio bands wearing headphones? That was one of theirs. First band to release an album, the same album, worldwide at the same time, with a gatefold sleeve and extra stuff within it. Sgt Pepper. A good example of how they never stood still, is when that came out everyone including the stones went all psychedelic and jumped on the bandwagon. 8 months later(with an EP and movie in the middle), they come out with the White album(which is not psychedelic), completely changing tack yet again. It was a double album too.

Funny, I'd agree with Snow-monkey. They're not a rock band. Though they recorded heavy rock songs.

Helter Skelter is almost punk and heavier than what the stones were up to. They're not a ballad band either though they recorded some of the most enduring ballads in musical history. They're not an avant garde band either, though again defo went avant garde. They weren't so much a pop band, though in the early days they were.

In fact that's why I rate them in a different league. They cant be pigeon holed. They refused to do it themselves. That's why they're a breed apart IMHO.

ejmaztec · 02-01-2010 04:37PM

The Stones have always been the better of the two, even more so now:pac:. The Beatles only started to be good when they got their hands on a sh1tload of drugs.

Dudess · 02-01-2010 04:51PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Beatles only started to be good when they got their hands on a sh1tload of drugs.

Agreed!

Daemos · 02-01-2010 04:53PM

[insert Atari Jaguar related pun here]

Dan Dare · 02-01-2010 05:03PM

Interesting thread, love the Stones but the Beatles were the more innovative band by far. When the Beatles remastered CD's were released in September, I bought the Abbey Road album (which I hadn't heard in years). Two things struck me, firstly, boy did they go out on a high, and secondly, how "rock music" it sounds. Dudess, I'm not sure that Yorkie Bars existed in 1967!

ashyle · 02-01-2010 05:04PM

Wouldn't class myself as the biggest fan of either, but when it comes down to their tunes and the influence they have on 'modern' music, it has to be the Beatles...

ashyle · 02-01-2010 05:11PM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

No thats not true infact the beatles played pop. granted they have few ok song's. there are better bands out there.

the wwho crosby stills and nash to name two. of course there the rolling sstones and many others i think to make a comparison, of the beatles and The rolling stones is a bit like saying, a pairs nicer then a potato.

Of course there are better bands. They are compared because they were both big around the same time.

What's wrong with pop???!

Snowie · 02-01-2010 05:14PM

ashyle wrote: »

Of course there are better bands. They are compared because they were both big around the same time.

What's wrong with pop???!

did i say, i have a problem with pop?

ashyle · 02-01-2010 05:18PM

Well no, but I'd consider a band like the Stones pop too! Just cos it literally means popular music to me!

The Pontiac · 02-01-2010 05:18PM

ashyle wrote: »

Of course there are better bands. They are compared because they were both big around the same time.

What's wrong with pop???!

We'd be here all day if we were choosing our favourite bands. The Beatles aren't my favourite band, but I still think they are the 'greatest' band of all time.

Of course there are better bands

So, do you care to name them?

ashyle · 02-01-2010 05:38PM

<Ollie> wrote: »

We'd be here all day if we were choosing our favourite bands. The Beatles aren't my favourite band, but I still think they are the 'greatest' band of all time.

So, do you care to name them?

I said that in agreement with Snow Monkey. And previously I said they have had a huge influence on modern music. If I was to name the bands that I think are better I'd be going off topic even more :P

rednik · 02-01-2010 05:54PM

The Beatles were the greatest and their legacy will live longer than the Stones.

JackKelly · 02-01-2010 05:57PM

The Kinks?

Glassheart · 02-01-2010 06:14PM

Dudess wrote: »

That's how I'd view The Beatles - you have to consider individual opinion too.

Hate to be a nerd but Rubber Soul was released two years into their career.
A Hard Days Night might not be considered a classic by contemporary standards but it's full of great (and original) songs too...

The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

Comments