For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Midnight Toker
Comparing the two is like comparing a Ferrari and Porsche Turbo Carrera. They are both awesome.
The Beatles started it, the Stones will finish it. The Stones are still rocking 39 years after ther Beatles split up. Although they were competitve, they had great admiration for one another.
The Beatles may have sold more records, but the Stones are more dynamic on stage. Who wins? We do as fans. Without either of them, the history of rock and roll would never have been the same.
The music from both will remain timeless.
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 Beatles are a scam?
Sorry, your 15 minutes are up. Thanks for playing.
Your consolation prize is a brand-new set of Beatles reissues...in mono!
The Stones RULE.
Quote
Barn OwlQuote
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,
Quote
bernardanderson
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!
Quote
BärsQuote
bernardanderson
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!
That is not true. Classical music is perhaps the easiest music to listen to, besides pure pop music. That's why it's still so popular.
Quote
DeliveranceStraightwayHolinessQuote
BärsQuote
bernardanderson
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!
That is not true. Classical music is perhaps the easiest music to listen to, besides pure pop music. That's why it's still so popular.
This generalization of "Classical" music is in itself a misguided term. What is commonly lumped under "Classical" music spans the era from Monteverdi, Palestrina to Britten, Shostakovich.
And this is not a dig at bernardanderson; always enjoy your posts, and am not trying to start a side-plot going in this hilarious thread.
Agreed, Bars.Quote
BärsQuote
DeliveranceStraightwayHolinessQuote
BärsQuote
bernardanderson
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!
That is not true. Classical music is perhaps the easiest music to listen to, besides pure pop music. That's why it's still so popular.
This generalization of "Classical" music is in itself a misguided term. What is commonly lumped under "Classical" music spans the era from Monteverdi, Palestrina to Britten, Shostakovich.
And this is not a dig at bernardanderson; always enjoy your posts, and am not trying to start a side-plot going in this hilarious thread.
Of course, but I'd say the term is typically used in connection with baroque music up to the romantic period. And that music is usually very listener friendly, which of course does not imply that it lacks depth or intelligence.
Quote
BärsQuote
Barn OwlQuote
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,
No, there is no innovation or invention going on in the Beatles, Stones or any other rock band. Classic rock'n'roll, for example Chuck Berry, is simply boogie woogie in a guitar band. And boogie woogie is a up tempo twelve bar blues made for dancing. And the blues is originally secular negro spirituals. And negro spirituals are a combination of european and african musical elements etc etc.
The british rock scene in the fifties and sixties was 100 % dependent on american music. The americans were the inventors, not the british youth. They just had the right looks and appeal to attract the large financially strong (white)audiences.
Btw, about this connection between Harrison and the sitar. I read that it was the classical violinist Menuhin who during a tour in India got Ravi Shankar to play in the West, and so he did as early as 1956. In other words it was India that came to the West, and the instrument was well known in Europe and USA when Harrison got interested in it.
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
Quote
Barn OwlQuote
BärsQuote
Barn OwlQuote
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,
No, there is no innovation or invention going on in the Beatles, Stones or any other rock band. Classic rock'n'roll, for example Chuck Berry, is simply boogie woogie in a guitar band. And boogie woogie is a up tempo twelve bar blues made for dancing. And the blues is originally secular negro spirituals. And negro spirituals are a combination of european and african musical elements etc etc.
The british rock scene in the fifties and sixties was 100 % dependent on american music. The americans were the inventors, not the british youth. They just had the right looks and appeal to attract the large financially strong (white)audiences.
Btw, about this connection between Harrison and the sitar. I read that it was the classical violinist Menuhin who during a tour in India got Ravi Shankar to play in the West, and so he did as early as 1956. In other words it was India that came to the West, and the instrument was well known in Europe and USA when Harrison got interested in it.
Here's a simple task for you to perform:
Play anything by Chuck Berry followed by Strawberry Fields Forever.
If you can't notice any differences then you are either:
a) deaf;
b) plain stupid;
c) pig ignorant;
d) all of the above.
All life is out there, if you want it.
...it's just beyond the end of your nose.
Quote
MKjanQuote
Barn OwlQuote
BärsQuote
Barn OwlQuote
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,
No, there is no innovation or invention going on in the Beatles, Stones or any other rock band. Classic rock'n'roll, for example Chuck Berry, is simply boogie woogie in a guitar band. And boogie woogie is a up tempo twelve bar blues made for dancing. And the blues is originally secular negro spirituals. And negro spirituals are a combination of european and african musical elements etc etc.
The british rock scene in the fifties and sixties was 100 % dependent on american music. The americans were the inventors, not the british youth. They just had the right looks and appeal to attract the large financially strong (white)audiences.
Btw, about this connection between Harrison and the sitar. I read that it was the classical violinist Menuhin who during a tour in India got Ravi Shankar to play in the West, and so he did as early as 1956. In other words it was India that came to the West, and the instrument was well known in Europe and USA when Harrison got interested in it.
Here's a simple task for you to perform:
Play anything by Chuck Berry followed by Strawberry Fields Forever.
If you can't notice any differences then you are either:
a) deaf;
b) plain stupid;
c) pig ignorant;
d) all of the above.
All life is out there, if you want it.
...it's just beyond the end of your nose.
I would prefer Chuck Berry songs to Strawberry Fields any day, it's better rock'n'roll. Just not buying the "profound epiphany and enlightenment" tag that beatle fans insist I must do.
Quote
MKjan
Why?, I recognized a difference you listed, and because my tastes are different.....
Yes, of course I am stating my preferences, but I do not hate the beatles, I simply don't care for their music very much. From time to time I can enjoy a few of their songs, but no hatred at all.Quote
Barn OwlQuote
MKjan
Why?, I recognized a difference you listed, and because my tastes are different.....
And your own personal "preference" is exactly where you're coming from, though I would aver that such enlightened musical appreciation is derived no doubt, from a hatred of all things Beatle along with a cheerleaderesque "Stones-Are-The-Best-RAR-RAR-RAR" stance.
If you don't believe me, take a glance through your previous posts.
...critical subjectivity doesn't become you.
Quote
MKjan
Why?, I recognized a difference you listed, and because my tastes are different.....
Quote
Barn OwlQuote
BärsQuote
Barn OwlQuote
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,
No, there is no innovation or invention going on in the Beatles, Stones or any other rock band. Classic rock'n'roll, for example Chuck Berry, is simply boogie woogie in a guitar band. And boogie woogie is a up tempo twelve bar blues made for dancing. And the blues is originally secular negro spirituals. And negro spirituals are a combination of european and african musical elements etc etc.
The british rock scene in the fifties and sixties was 100 % dependent on american music. The americans were the inventors, not the british youth. They just had the right looks and appeal to attract the large financially strong (white)audiences.
Btw, about this connection between Harrison and the sitar. I read that it was the classical violinist Menuhin who during a tour in India got Ravi Shankar to play in the West, and so he did as early as 1956. In other words it was India that came to the West, and the instrument was well known in Europe and USA when Harrison got interested in it.
Here's a simple task for you to perform:
Play anything by Chuck Berry followed by Strawberry Fields Forever.
Quote
71Tele
<< Contrary to Berry's rockers Strawberry Fields Forever lacks cultural relevance (it's just one pop song among thousends), and if you like it or not is a simple matter of taste. Personally I think it's over-produced crap. The funny thing is that Strawberry FF never would have been written without Chuck Berry and his fellow american rock'n'roll artists inspiring John and Paul to play american music. >>
If you think Strawberry Fields "has no cultural relevance" I don't think you have paid much attention to popular music for the past 40 years. Yes, someone inspired the Beatles to start doing what they did, just like someone inspired Chuck Berry, and so on, and so on. You are searching for an argument to justify your loathing of the Beatles, but you haven't made a good one yet. Why don't you just say you don't like them and leave it alone? You are not convincing anyone.
Quote
71Tele
<< Contrary to Berry's rockers Strawberry Fields Forever lacks cultural relevance (it's just one pop song among thousends), and if you like it or not is a simple matter of taste. Personally I think it's over-produced crap. The funny thing is that Strawberry FF never would have been written without Chuck Berry and his fellow american rock'n'roll artists inspiring John and Paul to play american music. >>
You are searching for an argument to justify your loathing of the Beatles.
Quote
MKjanQuote
71Tele
<< Contrary to Berry's rockers Strawberry Fields Forever lacks cultural relevance (it's just one pop song among thousends), and if you like it or not is a simple matter of taste. Personally I think it's over-produced crap. The funny thing is that Strawberry FF never would have been written without Chuck Berry and his fellow american rock'n'roll artists inspiring John and Paul to play american music. >>
If you think Strawberry Fields "has no cultural relevance" I don't think you have paid much attention to popular music for the past 40 years. Yes, someone inspired the Beatles to start doing what they did, just like someone inspired Chuck Berry, and so on, and so on. You are searching for an argument to justify your loathing of the Beatles, but you haven't made a good one yet. Why don't you just say you don't like them and leave it alone? You are not convincing anyone.
Can you please write out the cultural relevance of Strawberry Fields, and include what exactly about that song makes it so relevant, what is unique to that song that makes it so significant and if you could please sum up what you think is the message of this song that is so groundbreaking.