I dont hate Te Beatles..Not at all...I just think that its about time that the fairy tales come to an end. Now the fairy tales that were once nothing more than crazy Beatle fan rants have actually made their way into mainstream publication..I don't feel that The Stones or any other groups should have their past tainted by misguided foolishnes..Thats All!! And No Gazza..I am not the master...I am just a person that refuses to believe that The Beatles Invented Music.

Charlie

Quote
Bärs
The debate is surely stupid since neither band invented anything. They did exactly what others had done before them, and their success was because of sociological reasons and marketing. From a cultural point of view the Beatles significance is the beatlemania and the Stones significance is Satisfaction and Brians and Micks faces. Concerning the music it's all about taste.

Yes, but there's a world of difference between invention and innovation, the latter of which both the Beatles and the Stones were masters of, but the Stones grew old, trashing their legacy and allowing themselves to become ludicrously contrived, almost to the point of a laughable parody.

...no longer influenced by their own past, they came to merely live off it.

The invented the Beatles sound not the Music ...music is as old as the road to Rome as we say here...

Invented is maybe a big word, they just were lucky with there writting capability there voices and there faces which match the whole Beatle picture perfectly

__________________________

Quote
soulsurvivor1
I dont hate Te Beatles..Not at all...I just think that its about time that the fairy tales come to an end. Now the fairy tales that were once nothing more than crazy Beatle fan rants have actually made their way into mainstream publication..I don't feel that The Stones or any other groups should have their past tainted by misguided foolishnes..Thats All!! And No Gazza..I am not the master...I am just a person that refuses to believe that The Beatles Invented Music.

Charlie

I dont think anyone with any shred of credibility claims that they did.

All you've done is quote (or distort) carefully selected pieces of utter drivel supposedly stated by a few morons in order to advance a pointless argument.

They certainly popularised and developed a few things, but no one with any amount of brain cells seriously puts 1962-63 as Year One when it comes to the Origin of Popular Music.

Quote
bernardanderson
i think perhaps the reason why some people don't like the beatles or don't "get them" is because, and i say this knowing it might seem radical thinking to some, but the beatles music is deeper than the stones. there's more intellectualism involved in understanding the brilliance of what the beatles did. with the stones, they are rock and roll. simple as that. rock and roll doesn't involve thinking. let's face it, the majority of mankind is dumb, intellectuals are frowned upon. to fully appreciate and understand classical music, for example, there is an element of intelligence that is needed. not to totally compare the beatles to mozart, but hell, even leonard bernstein praised the beatles!

Bernard,

I'm not looking to get into a debate here, so don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think people not liking the Beatles has to do with not getting them. I think it just has to do with personal taste. I personally like the Beatles, but I happen to like the Stones more. That doesn't make me any less intillectual than a Beatles fan. A woman I know said the same thing to me years ago after we got into a disagreement about how everything the Stones did they copied from the Beatles. She ended the argument by saying "besides, everyone knows Beatles fans are more intillictual than Stones fans." Not for nothing, but what she said is just ignorant, and I'm sure if you heard some of the things she said you would probably agree with me (she also believes the Ku Klux Klan were misunderstood). I would never say to anyone who doesn't like the Stones that "they don't get them," or are less intellectual than me. There are intelects who like both bands. Yes, for most part Rock 'n' Roll is simple music, but that's what makes it so brilliant. As for Leonard Bernstein - he was one of the few composers who appreciated Rock 'n' Roll music. I believe he was backstage for one of the Stones shows at Madison Square Garden in 1969. He is also quoted as saying that "Paint It Black" by the Stones was one of the greatest songs of the 20th Century.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-29 04:14 by originalstones.

Quote
originalstones
Bernard,

I'm not looking to get into a debate here, so don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think people not liking the Beatles has to do with not getting them. I think it just has to do with personal taste. I personally like the Beatles, but I happen to like the Stones more. That doesn't make me any less intillectual than a Beatles fan. A woman I know said the same thing to me years ago after we got into a disagreement about how everything the Stones did they copied from the Beatles. She ended the argument by saying "besides, everyone knows Beatles fans are more intillictual than Stones fans." Not for nothing, but what she said is just ignorant, and I'm sure if you heard some of the things she said you would probably agree with me (she also believes the Ku Klux Klan were misunderstood). I would never say to anyone who doesn't like the Stones that "they don't get them," or are less intellectual than me. There are intillects who like both bands. Yes, for most part Rock 'n' Roll is simple music, but that's what makes it so brilliant. As for Leonard Bernstein - he was one of the few composers who appreciated Rock 'n' Roll music. I believe he was backstage for one of the Stones shows at Madison Square Garden in 1969. He is also quoted as saying that "Paint It Black" by the Stones was one of the greatest songs of the 20th Century.

touché

There doesn't have to be some argument about it. I love The Beatles and The Stones pretty much equally. They're the two greatest and most important bands ever, the most innovative, the ones that paved the way for everyone else. The influence is innumerable for both bands. Ask any band who's been important in the last fourty our so years, and I have no doubt that they'll freely admit to being influenced by The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Of course, some will be influenced without even knowing it; that's how important both bands are.

One reason The Beatles will be remembered so fondly is that they split before they became shite. The Stones have released atrocities such as Black & Blue, Dirty Work and Bridges To Babylon. I like Voodoo Lounge and about half of Steel Wheels, and they still play a great gig now and again, but they've been below par for many years now. The worst The Beatles did, after non-stop evolution and innovation for several years, was Let It Be, which is hardly apalling. And it was their last album (though penultimate one that recorded) so at least they knew when to stop.

The Stones are a much-loved insitution anyway, as with The Beatles. There's no comparison other than the fact that they're both loved by millions, billions even, and are both @#$%& amazing. So please stop with the ridiculous "OMG BEETLES SUCK BECAUSE THEYR PUSSIES THAT DONT ROCK" arguments. Thanks if you could be bothered to read this.

Lots of you do not understand that the Stones have to compete with THEMSELVES!!! It is like a baseball player who hits .424 his first year. He will never do that again so according to a lot of you he should retire after ONE year. Ridiculous.

Also, rock and roll is about performing live. The beetles were borrrrrrring live (and as you know, I think their songs were pap/pop drivel, but that is another story).

Again, back to baseball. Do you want a designated hitter or a person who is GREAT defensively and offensively? That is The Stones. The greatest all-around baseball player ever.

the beetles - or no one - have/will never compete with Aftermath > BTB > Satanics> Beggars > LIB > YYs > Sticky > EOMS > GHS > IORR > BnBlue>Some Girls> E Rescue>Tattaoo You.

NEVER!!!

Are there some albums in there that are not A+? Yes. But too many of you only choose to string together the sacred 5. Sorry. My string is much longer and much more compelling

Stones baby!

I am here to help!

Normaly I avoid these kind of discustings.......but what the heck still got a few days to go and next year I will do better........

We are on a Stones board and all of us posters love the Stones more then anyone else, but compare to the Beatle freakes (most of them hate the Stones), we (most of us) love the Beatles too ........what's wrong with that

I think this post will never end...........you must love one Beatle song mickscarey?

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-29 02:46 by NICOS.

To pick up on a new thread here, I will say the Beatles had more interesting and varied facial hair phases than the Stones...What WAS up with Sir Mick's Emotional Rescue era whiskers anyway?

And The Liverpudlians covered up their serious drug usage much better than the Stones did, at least at the time. It wasn't all tea and funny cigarettes for the Moptops.

hee hee oh yes and the Fab Four looked a lot better on children's lunchboxes than the Stones would have...

there weren't any Stones lunchboxes were there?

Quote
mickscarey
Lots of you do not understand that the Stones have to compete with THEMSELVES!!! It is like a baseball player who hits .424 his first year. He will never do that again so according to a lot of you he should retire after ONE year. Ridiculous.

Also, rock and roll is about performing live. The beetles were borrrrrrring live (and as you know, I think their songs were pap/pop drivel, but that is another story).

Again, back to baseball. Do you want a designated hitter or a person who is GREAT defensively and offensively? That is The Stones. The greatest all-around baseball player ever.

the beetles - or no one - have/will never compete with Aftermath > BTB > Satanics> Beggars > LIB > YYs > Sticky > EOMS > GHS > IORR > BnBlue>Some Girls> E Rescue>Tattaoo You.

NEVER!!!

Are there some albums in there that are not A+? Yes. But too many of you only choose to string together the sacred 5. Sorry. My string is much longer and much more compelling

Stones baby!

I am here to help!

If this post weren't so utterly pathetic, I'd swear this geezer was trying to use baseball as some kind of analogy for music.

...me thinks you're the one needing help!

I have not distorted anything..I merely rebuffed some of the insane foolishness that many Beatle fans spew towards Stones fans. There have been entire books written by obvious Beatle fans that attempt to substantient these insane claims. As for your crack about my lack of education..Your Wrong Again..I have 30 Credits above my Masters Degree. Regarding your insinuations about how Beatles fans and their music is superior to the Stones music and fans does not hold water. Seems to me that any one with a shred of intelect would realize that this is a Rolling Stones message board. People who speak negatively about The Rolling Stones should expect a reaction. Why should Stones fans on a Stones message board have to cow tow to Beatles fans? We shouldn't. Regarding your crack about how I spend so much time reading about the Beatles..I could say that you, A Beatles fan spend so much time reading posts on a Stones message board.


Charlie

Quote
soulsurvivor1
As for your crack about my lack of education..Your Wrong Again..I have 30 Credits above my Masters Degree.

i guess it wasn't english grammar that you studied?

This was the funniest thread ever; and I read it all. Good reading. Thank you all.

Its only a message board

I find the beatle songs quite boring, and often childish, and to label them as intellectual is a confession of sorts. Of course beatle fans think everyone needs to fall for the hype, everyone has to like the beatles the most. The Stones fans have to defer to them in order they(beatle fans) can feel validated. soooo wrong, it is fine to dump on the beatles. If you can free yourself from the beatlemania forces and subsequent pr, and just blast the music, it's the Stones all the way.

Quote
soulsurvivor1
I have not distorted anything..I merely rebuffed some of the insane foolishness that many Beatle fans spew towards Stones fans. There have been entire books written by obvious Beatle fans that attempt to substantient these insane claims. As for your crack about my lack of education..Your Wrong Again..I have 30 Credits above my Masters Degree. Regarding your insinuations about how Beatles fans and their music is superior to the Stones music and fans does not hold water. Seems to me that any one with a shred of intelect would realize that this is a Rolling Stones message board. People who speak negatively about The Rolling Stones should expect a reaction. Why should Stones fans on a Stones message board have to cow tow to Beatles fans? We shouldn't. Regarding your crack about how I spend so much time reading about the Beatles..I could say that you, A Beatles fan spend so much time reading posts on a Stones message board.


Charlie

1. Never made any reference to your 'lack of education'. Couldnt give a flying f**k how many 'credits' you have. You do seem to rant like a 10 year old though. Pretty hard to take seriously someone who refers to The Beatles as a 'gay quartet' and then brags (incoherently) about how many qualifications he has.

2. Wasn't me either who mentioned about Beatles fans being 'superior'. For a supposedly intelligent person you sure are having some difficulty in making a coherent rebuttal as your statements above seem to be made as if you were replying to the same person, when they're actually aimed at several people who made different statements. Is that so hard to grasp?

3. I haven't made one negative comment about the Stones on any post in this thread. Care to show me where I did?

4. You're the one who's obsessing about a band you dont like. Not me. Personally, I dont waste my time reading books about people I don't like, and your sweeping generalisations are exaggerated anyway.

5. "People who speak negatively about The Rolling Stones should expect a reaction". Who are you? The Stones Taliban ?

6. I wasn't aware that there was a rule on this forum that dictates that you're only allowed to enjoy the work of one artist. Even though I do prefer the Stones, who the f*** are YOU to dictate to me (or anyone else) what bands I should and shouldnt like? Piss off.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-29 03:56 by Gazza.

Go Back To Strawberry Fields and ask Penny Lane..I say what I want when I want..Beatle Boy

I see what you did there, Charlie. That was bloody good!

Quote
Gazza
...
2. Wasn't me either who mentioned about Beatles fans being 'superior'...

Yes it's me!

And to answer to soulsurvivor1, what the f#@] if Gazza is a Beatle Fan, I'm also a Beatle Fan and Gazza has a great F@€@€@ Site on the Rolling STONES called Rocks Off and i try also to do my best with the Rolling STONES on my blog!

If you're not able to understand that one could like both, so...

My purpose on this thread was not to start a fight with each member of this board,
but try to find some pros and cons of the guy from guitar 101 that's all!

As this thread start to end with stupid fights, i think I will ask Bv to close it!

HMN

1. gazza needs to spend his time on his beetles bored (get it, being funny here. get it? bored in place of "board") - ha. I am amusing, right?

2. guess what, I just minted the new phrase for 2010 - and onward!!!
"BEETLES BORED".

Please feel free to use it.

Thanks to all - and special thanks to all true Stones Fans who think they are #1.

Merry christmas.

<< the beetles - or no one - have/will never compete with Aftermath > BTB > Satanics> Beggars > LIB > YYs > Sticky > EOMS > GHS > IORR > BnBlue>Some Girls> E Rescue>Tattaoo You >>

Is your constant misspelling of "Beatles" as "Beetles" deliberate to show contempt, which would be petty; or do you actually not know how to spell it, which would be amazingly ignorant? Either way it doesn't make you look particularly good.

I don't understand the vitriol against the Beatles. Whether or not you enjoy their music, they were strong supporters of the Stones early on, and they provided the template for Mick & Keith to be successful songwriters; both very important factors in the Stones success, IMO.

there is zero vitrioltowards the beetles. I just do not get why all these folks have nothing better to do than post about them. If they love them so much, go to either a beetles site, or nsync, or backside boys, or whatever.

Also, there are TOO many people here who are amazingly hung up with the fact that one MUST like or love the freakin beetles. Well, I do not, never will, and think they are one of the greatest scams hung on the poeples of the world. I find then (and nsync and the backside boys) REAL boring.

I am not trying to offend anyone but after all this is a STONES FORUM>

Thanks for asking.

The Stones RULE.

"MKjan" got it right on!

Quote
mickscarey
there is zero vitrioltowards the beetles. I just do not get why all these folks have nothing better to do than post about them. If they love them so much, go to either a beetles site, or nsync, or backside boys, or whatever.

Also, there are TOO many people here who are amazingly hung up with the fact that one MUST like or love the freakin beetles. Well, I do not, never will, and think they are one of the greatest scams hung on the poeples of the world. I find then (and nsync and the backside boys) REAL boring.

I am not trying to offend anyone but after all this is a STONES FORUM>

Thanks for asking.

The Stones RULE.

I think you have made your point - repeatedly. I can't speak for anyone else here, but in my view the Rolling Stones do not exist in a vacuum, and as the two groups came on the scene at roughly the same time, and had many parallels and similarities, and had influence on each other's music, it is perfectly normal for them to be discussed in the context of the Stones and their music, social impact, etc. I don't share your impression that discussion of the Beatles is disproportionate.

OK, do you share the thought here on this site that one HAS TO love the beetles?

MICKSCAREY, WHY THE @#$%& DO YOU ALWAYS SPELL IT AS "BEETLES"?!?!!? ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
if your aim is to annoy, then congrats you win!!

"there are TOO many people here who are amazingly hung up with the fact that one MUST like or love the freakin beetles. Well, I do not, never will, and think they are one of the greatest scams hung on the poeples of the world. I find then (and nsync and the backside boys) REAL boring".

okay we get your point! YOU HATE THE BEATLES. you are amazingly hung up on the fact that you hate them and you cannot go without declaring it constantly. now quit hijacking threads with your annoying posts and let beatles fans have a conversation.

Both were great at what they did and so I don't feel the need to compare as I love both bands for different reasons. Beatles versus Stones? Beatles and Stones!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-29 05:46 by ChrisM.

Quote
mickscarey
OK, do you share the thought here on this site that one HAS TO love the beetles?

No, but I might gently suggest you are perhaps a little defensive. I haven't seen anyone say you have to love the Beatles. You obviously don't, so fine. Why pick a fight about it?