Quote
nightskyman
The Beatles were the first to open up the American market for british bands and in a big way. Though the Stones and other bands were competitive with the Beatles in terms of output and touring, etc., from 1964...the Beatles maintained superiority from late 1965 on with their output.

The 'Let It Be' album was not up to par, but only because it was not recorded in the usual manner (also no one othet than McCartney seemed to want to be there at Twickenham Studios). Even so, there are some great songs on the album, so even that one cannot be completely ignored.

The Rolling Stones put out some great records, but only a few over their long history come even close to the Beatles 1965-1969 output (Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, perhaps Sticky Fingers but that's debatable).

Maybe it is just me but when you look at The Beatles early solo efforts it seems like they still had several great albums in them.

If they had continued working together, sounding ideas off of each other, both supportive and critical, they had a few more great records in them.

It might have saved us from some of McCartney's solo 'granny music' like Silly Love songs?

It is no wonder Macca supports Pussy Riot because he has written a lot of music for pussies!

I don't care the "argument" here, but I think the case of longevity has its pros and cons. Is it better to quit when you are still in relatively height in your and band's craetivity or just continue even though the muse has left the building? The Beatles took teh first option, and the Stones the latter. The result is that every Beatle record has an identity of its own, and each is a work in progress. They never reached the point whrere they stuck to a certain sound or style. That's why listening the Beatles catalog is still rather richer adventure than the Stones' one. But if the Stones had call it quits say, in 1973, and with GOATS HEAD SOAP (that is pretty much an equilavantr to LET I BE in compared to their former efforts), The Stones would have also left a recorded legacy that is pretty much equalavent to the Beatles one in terms of progression. After that the band has realeased two albums that somehow can be compared to their earlier greatness (SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU), but the rest is rather mediocre and repitive stuff, and I think it bores to hell a casual listener (who is not a devoted fan and of that sound and style). The result is that rather large percentage of Stones catalog is pretty much one-dimensional and non-innovative.

But had the Beatles continued what had happened to them? Had they stuck to the sounds of their late 60's, and started producing rather same sounding albums? And had they they invented the Vegas concept much earlier? Hard to say, but I can't really see them competing with their earlier (phenomenal) catalog - no one can. The times and customs change and that hectic time of the 60's can't be repeated.

In a way it is great that The Stones continued, and 'survived' and entered the new era(s) as the biggest band in the world, and thereby showed their unique competative nature with younger acts - Zeppelin, U2, etc. - the 'Vegas' era is is an incredible achievement by its own, as musical legacy doesn't offer pretty much. I suppose the legacy will be something like that the Stones will be remebered for offering great shows - with the best front man ever - but who also recorded some graet music in the beginning of their career, while the Beatles is solely known for their incredible recorded history of great music. Well, this is something Jagger already pointed out in STONES IN THE PARK - the point of the Beatles was doing records, while theirs was that of doing concerts... I think this live aspect needs to be emphasized if s one tries to 'argue for' the Stones - with recorded output the Beatles are in the rank of their own (and this confession comes from a person who knows all the Beatles stuff, owns their catalog, recognizes their brilliantness, enjoys sing-a-longing their songs, but who has never actually got excited in listening their records. Just not my cup of tea. )


- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-31 10:22 by Doxa.

Quote
FrankM
They both put out tons of great music but to me The Stones were better. The whole Beatlemania thing was a giant wave that the Beatles rode until the end. By 1966 they were so popular they could have released any halfway decent song and it would have zoomed to the top of the charts.

Let It Be (the album) was very weak imo for a Beatles album but since it was recorded before Abbey Road?, I guess you can argue they finished on a high note.

I'm totally with Frank on this one he's just backed up exactly what I said on page 9 or 10 of this thread! Virtually the same words I used.

"I've got nasty habits I take tea at three"

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
can't really compare the two (because they were different) but if realism is what you're looking for, then yes, the stones win

stones were gritty, raw and blues; beatles won moms over with their nice pop, although their pop got more sophisticated

60s: beatles put their smiling faces on album covers, stones put pictures of toilets on album covers and still sold millions

in that period (Beggars Banquet, LIB etc) the stones wrote @#$%& great blues and country-influenced rock, while The Beatles mainly did sometimes boring, drippy, trippy,"experimental", "psychedelic" stuff that can be pretty tough to sit through

the stones were way better live

the 70s: stones: sticky fingers stones exile ..etc

the 70's beatles: Wings , Yoko Ono`s songwriting and Ringo Starr solo albums

'nuff said

And again someone else who speaks the TRUTH and makes a lot of sense!

"I've got nasty habits I take tea at three"

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
drbryant
This is the last one - but this really ends the argument, right?

I'm sold, you just changed my vote!

Yes the case for the Stones doesn't get much stronger than this!!!

"I've got nasty habits I take tea at three"

Quote
mitchflorida1
I doubt if Jagger even thinks the Stones were better than the Beatles.

Yeah maybe because he's not such a big head tosser as Paul McCartney is!!!

"I've got nasty habits I take tea at three"

Quote
His Majesty

The quiet one gets his point across. All Things Must Pass - RIP

i recently listened to the white album and sgt pepper.. don't kill me, but i found
them overrated. some, obviousely great songs, but some really boring moments for me. too pretentious, haughty . i don't know, i never fell in love with the beatles, even if they wrote many great songs.
in my opinion, the beggar's banquet- exile on m. st. era is unbeatable; but it is also true that this is a stones fans site

The Rolling Stones had better girlfriends and wives.

WE ALL LIVE IN A YELLOW SUBMARINE YELLOW SUBMARINE YELLOW SUBMARINE
oh brother

Quote
folke
The Rolling Stones had better girlfriends and wives.

Layla






The beautiful Olivia Trinidad Arias








Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-31 21:45 by 2000 LYFH.

McCartney has more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ then anyone else!

Nice trunks Eric.

Quote
nightskyman
The Beatles were the first to open up the American market for british bands and in a big way. Though the Stones and other bands were competitive with the Beatles in terms of output and touring, etc., from 1964...the Beatles maintained superiority from late 1965 on with their output.

The 'Let It Be' album was not up to par, but only because it was not recorded in the usual manner (also no one othet than McCartney seemed to want to be there at Twickenham Studios). Even so, there are some great songs on the album, so even that one cannot be completely ignored.

The Rolling Stones put out some great records, but only a few over their long history come even close to the Beatles 1965-1969 output (Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, perhaps Sticky Fingers but that's debatable).

Perhaps Sticky? Sticky Fingers alone was as good as anything The Beatles ever did.

Quote
tat2you
WE ALL LIVE IN A YELLOW SUBMARINE YELLOW SUBMARINE YELLOW SUBMARINE
oh brother

"You're awful bright, you're awful smart
I must admit you broke my heart
The awful truth is really sad
I must admit I was awful bad"

You might not want to go there.

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
tat2you
WE ALL LIVE IN A YELLOW SUBMARINE YELLOW SUBMARINE YELLOW SUBMARINE
oh brother

"You're awful bright, you're awful smart
I must admit you broke my heart
The awful truth is really sad
I must admit I was awful bad"

You might not want to go there.

"No sittin' down on your butt, the world don't owe you...you start to lose your nuts, don't you look seedy"

Quote
FrankM

Quote
nightskyman
The Beatles were the first to open up the American market for british bands and in a big way. Though the Stones and other bands were competitive with the Beatles in terms of output and touring, etc., from 1964...the Beatles maintained superiority from late 1965 on with their output.

The 'Let It Be' album was not up to par, but only because it was not recorded in the usual manner (also no one othet than McCartney seemed to want to be there at Twickenham Studios). Even so, there are some great songs on the album, so even that one cannot be completely ignored.

The Rolling Stones put out some great records, but only a few over their long history come even close to the Beatles 1965-1969 output (Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, perhaps Sticky Fingers but that's debatable).

Perhaps Sticky? Sticky Fingers alone was as good as anything The Beatles ever did.

Yeah, you're actually right on that one. I take it back. It has been awhile since I last listened to, but seeing the track list on it I realize there are great tracks on it beyond 'Brown Sugar,' 'Wild Horses' and 'Sway.'

i really like both---Beatles and Rolling Stones: but my no 1. STONES.

Quote
Rocknroll1969
McCartney has more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ then anyone else!

This is definitely true.

You know, I've given this some careful thought, and I think that the members of this Rolling Stones forum need to face the facts. The fact is that the Beatles were GREAT (not just good) pop artists. Great pop music, like ABBA, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Phil Collins and Elton John - will always be more popular than rock, so I think you can say it's better. I think we need to respect that - to be honest, I think that the Beatles, even though I am not sure they were as good as ABBA (whose songs are catchier and more popular today), are as good as Phil Collins (easily) and probably better than Madonna, Michael and all the other great pop artists! Think about it:

1. Beatles songs are easier to use in weddings and proms. I think when Phoebe got married on Friends, they were playing "Here There and Everywhere"! Elton's "Your Song" is great as well. You certainly wouldn't want to get married to "Satisfaction" or "Brown Sugar"!

2. Little children like the Beatles - my little one likes And I Love Her and Silly Love Songs because they played them a lot on GLEE, and they sing them at her school. She likes Abba's songs from Mamma Mia! as well. I don't think they'll play "Honky Tonk Women" at junior school.

3. Beatles songs work well in cartoons - Yellow Submarine, Rupert and the Frog Song were good cartoons. The Stones music works well with Scorcese movies, and the Sopranos and V for Vendetta, but those are violent and not good for society.

4. You can enjoy dinner with Magical Mystery Tour as background music, because it isn't so noisy, like Beggars Banquet.

5. Music like Phil Collins, the Beatles, and Elton are great for getting up to go to work. I like "Against All Odds" and "Good Day Sunshine" or "Here Comes the Sun" because they make me feel inspired to go to work. I listen to "Sympathy for the Devil" and I feel like finding a drink and a woman - that's not good!

So, I guess that we should understand when Beatles fans come to a Stones forum to post comments (just like when Red Sox fans come to a Yankees forum), they aren't being "trolls" - that's unfair. They are here because they love great pop music, for all of the reasons I've stated, and want to help us understand that. Perhaps we should all pull out our copies of Abbey Road or Super Trouper and just enjoy . .



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-31 22:58 by drbryant.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Rocknroll1969
McCartney has more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ then anyone else!

So, I guess that we should understand when Beatles fans come to a Stones forum to post comments (just like when Red Sox fans come to a Yankees forum), they aren't being "trolls" - that's unfair. They are here because they love great pop music, for all of the reasons I've stated, and want to help us understand that. Perhaps we should all pull out our copies of Abbey Road or Super Trouper and just enjoy . .

One flaw in your theory...I love both bands. Not sure if that's allowed here, but I'm guessing I'm not alone.

Nice trunks Eric.

....YEAH Clappy looks happy



ROCKMAN

Many people here write like rock journalists.
















That's not a compliment.

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Rocknroll1969
McCartney has more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ then anyone else!

So, I guess that we should understand when Beatles fans come to a Stones forum to post comments (just like when Red Sox fans come to a Yankees forum), they aren't being "trolls" - that's unfair. They are here because they love great pop music, for all of the reasons I've stated, and want to help us understand that. Perhaps we should all pull out our copies of Abbey Road or Super Trouper and just enjoy . .

One flaw in your theory...I love both bands. Not sure if that's allowed here, but I'm guessing I'm not alone.

I'm a stones fan at a stones site and have always loved both. Start listening to them 48 years ago (seems like Yesterday)! OBTW, I like the Beatles better than ABBA. You do make valid points though, good post...

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Rocknroll1969
McCartney has more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ then anyone else!

This is definitely true.

You know, I've given this some careful thought, and I think that the members of this Rolling Stones forum need to face the facts. The fact is that the Beatles were GREAT (not just good) pop artists. Great pop music, like ABBA, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Phil Collins and Elton John - will always be more popular than rock, so I think you can say it's better. I think we need to respect that - to be honest, I think that the Beatles, even though I am not sure they were as good as ABBA (whose songs are catchier and more popular today), are as good as Phil Collins (easily) and probably better than Madonna, Michael and all the other great pop artists! Think about it:

1. Beatles songs are easier to use in weddings and proms. I think when Phoebe got married on Friends, they were playing "Here There and Everywhere"! Elton's "Your Song" is great as well. You certainly wouldn't want to get married to "Satisfaction" or "Brown Sugar"!

2. Little children like the Beatles - my little one likes And I Love Her and Silly Love Songs because they played them a lot on GLEE, and they sing them at her school. She likes Abba's songs from Mamma Mia! as well. I don't think they'll play "Honky Tonk Women" at junior school.

3. Beatles songs work well in cartoons - Yellow Submarine, Rupert and the Frog Song were good cartoons. The Stones music works well with Scorcese movies, and the Sopranos and V for Vendetta, but those are violent and not good for society.

4. You can enjoy dinner with Magical Mystery Tour as background music, because it isn't so noisy, like Beggars Banquet.

5. Music like Phil Collins, the Beatles, and Elton are great for getting up to go to work. I like "Against All Odds" and "Good Day Sunshine" or "Here Comes the Sun" because they make me feel inspired to go to work. I listen to "Sympathy for the Devil" and I feel like finding a drink and a woman - that's not good!

So, I guess that we should understand when Beatles fans come to a Stones forum to post comments (just like when Red Sox fans come to a Yankees forum), they aren't being "trolls" - that's unfair. They are here because they love great pop music, for all of the reasons I've stated, and want to help us understand that. Perhaps we should all pull out our copies of Abbey Road or Super Trouper and just enjoy . .

The stones are pop music too.

Personally I enjoy dinner listening to "Love in Vain" with a good bottle of red wine.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-01 02:31 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
.

I agree!

weird post, i am not sure if it was a joke or something

I think when Phoebe got married on Friends, they were playing "Here There and Everywhere"! Elton's "Your Song" is great as well. You certainly wouldn't want to get married to "Satisfaction" or "Brown Sugar"!

i wouldnt want to get married to anybody called 'phoebe'. i wouldnt even want to watch 'friends'

Great pop music, like ABBA, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Phil Collins and Elton John - will always be more popular than rock, so I think you can say it's better. I think we need to respect that - to be honest, I think that the Beatles, even though I am not sure they were as good as ABBA (whose songs are catchier and more popular today), are as good as Phil Collins (easily) and probably better than Madonna, Michael and all the other great pop artists! Think about it

ok, so i thought. mcdonalds (pop) is popular, but are their burgers 'great' or better than real burgers (rock) ? no. they are disposable and lousy. in fact you'll get sick from too much of it

2. Little children like the Beatles - my little one likes And I Love Her and Silly Love Songs because they played them a lot on GLEE, and they sing them at her school. She likes Abba's songs from Mamma Mia! as well. I don't think they'll play "Honky Tonk Women" at junior school.

good. HTW is too good a song to waste on the ears of children. its meant for booze sucking adults like me. little children arent the best critics of rock and roll or pop music, anyway, and GLEE sucks

3. Beatles songs work well in cartoons - Yellow Submarine, Rupert and the Frog Song were good cartoons. The Stones music works well with Scorcese movies, and the Sopranos and V for Vendetta, but those are violent and not good for society.

nuff said. cartoons are for children. rock and roll is for adults. rock and roll isn't violent, the stones music isnt violent, nor are scorcese movies. crazy f*ckers dressed like batman characters shooting people in theatres are

4. You can enjoy dinner with Magical Mystery Tour as background music, because it isn't so noisy, like Beggars Banquet.

how fabulously groovy

5. Music like Phil Collins, the Beatles, and Elton are great for getting up to go to work. I like "Against All Odds" and "Good Day Sunshine" or "Here Comes the Sun" because they make me feel inspired to go to work. I listen to "Sympathy for the Devil" and I feel like finding a drink and a woman - that's not good!

i get inspired to go to work because they give me a pay check . a guinness for breakfast inspires me to go. all stones songs make me feel like finding a drink and a woman, and thats good!

So, I guess that we should understand when Beatles fans come to a Stones forum to post comments (just like when Red Sox fans come to a Yankees forum), they aren't being "trolls" - that's unfair. They are here because they love great pop music, for all of the reasons I've stated, and want to help us understand that. Perhaps we should all pull out our copies of Abbey Road or Super Trouper and just enjoy . .

stones aren't pop. not to me. they are the greatest rock and roll band EVER. bar none, not even close, get outta here

unless your whole post WAS a joke then sorry i take it all back



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-01 04:09 by pinkfloydthebarber.