After Philly #2 and watching this....The Stones have cemented their place as the Worlds Greatest Rock and Roll Band. Unreal...there's no one close.....

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Gazza

Quote
StonedInTokyo
Who's better, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? It's an endless argument that has been going on for 50 years and may never be settled. ..

Only for people with a mental age of about 12 who still think its 1964.

Meanwhile, the rest of the planet have managed to get a life.

And WhackODong is about 12 years old in his little short bus head. It will never be settled because there's nothing to settle. It's music. It's art. What it isn't is who's won x-amount of championships, MVPs and scoring titles and set records for blah blah blah to be settled on as being The Best Ever. That kind of stuff belongs in sports only, not art.

Regardless of how corporate The Rolling Stones have made the art of playing live and selling whatever.

Music isn't a sport but to suggest that there isn't competition in the music business between artists is beyond naive. Ever watch American Idol? It's a competition. I suggest you google: Beatles vs Rolling Stones. I also suggest you read a recently released book by Jim Derogatis and Greg Kot called: The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions On The Great Rock 'N' Roll Rivalry.

Just about anything males get involved with turns into a competition. This is especially so in rock 'n roll. Have you ever been to a "Battle of the Bands" competition? Get your head out of the sand, man!

Thought you were gone until October?

Music is NOT a competition. Just because there are "music" TV shows and 'battle of the bands' that make it so does not make music as an art and making a living a competition. Pull YER head out of your sandhole. Bealtes Vs Stones is a creation, a myth - just like some other book. Only moronic music fans buy into such tripe. Those bands never thought of it that way nor do they ever.

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I can think of two groups of people that don't give a crap about "The Beatles vs. The Stones"....

and they are The Beatles and The Stones.

They are Englishmen. Do you honestly expect them to come out and say they care about being recognized as the greatest rock 'n roll band of all time? Of course any rock 'n roll band would want that title. Don't be naive. But, at the same time don't take it so seriously. It's only rock 'n roll. Sometimes you are as stiff as a board. Lighten up and enjoy the ride.

Thanks, JumpinJackOLantern!

Apparently you didn't get the memo. He's on vacation for the summer and will speak to all of us again on October 18 - the night of the full moon.

Obviously you ignore your own "memo" then, WhackOLanternRanger.

GasLightStreet ...dude ur delusional if u don't think Jager doesn't wanna check out thinkin he was the greatest rock and roll front man of all time (Which he is) and his band was the greatest ever.

PS....I more time at the GARDEN.

JumpinJackOLantern.
Could you please share with us mere mortals, the drugs that u r taking.......

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
Gazza

Quote
TheLoneRangerRidesAgain

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Gazza

Quote
StonedInTokyo
Who's better, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? It's an endless argument that has been going on for 50 years and may never be settled. ..

Only for people with a mental age of about 12 who still think its 1964.

Meanwhile, the rest of the planet have managed to get a life.

And WhackODong is about 12 years old in his little short bus head. It will never be settled because there's nothing to settle. It's music. It's art. What it isn't is who's won x-amount of championships, MVPs and scoring titles and set records for blah blah blah to be settled on as being The Best Ever. That kind of stuff belongs in sports only, not art.

Regardless of how corporate The Rolling Stones have made the art of playing live and selling whatever.

Music isn't a sport but to suggest that there isn't competition in the music business between artists is beyond naive. Ever watch American Idol? It's a competition. I suggest you google: Beatles vs Rolling Stones. I also suggest you read a recently released book by Jim Derogatis and Greg Kot called: The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions On The Great Rock 'N' Roll Rivalry.

Just about anything males get involved with turns into a competition. This is especially so in rock 'n roll. Have you ever been to a "Battle of the Bands" competition? Get your head out of the sand, man!

You said 'artists' and then ruined your argument in the next sentence by the words 'American idol'

I am assuming you are just taking a humorous little poke at the extremely talented artists that have come forth from AI.

And I'm assuming you're being sarcastic.

No doubt some of them have talent, but there's more 'artistry' in an orangutan's arsehole than there is in anything associated with Simon Cowell.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Jeez. I would like to see the chart that saw them soaring past The Beatles. You're sir, are an idiot. If all Beatles members had been alive, who do you think the Glasto crowd would've wanted tonight? Take a wild @#$%& guess.

But wasn't it the greatest show ever...wasn't it the greatest Rambler ever...you mean some posters here are getting slightly carried away with themselves? How can that be?

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Thrylan
The Beatles have been over for over 40 years......perspective.

and despite that have outsold the stones (and every other rock and roll band) over the past 20 years.

Bestselling recording artists, 1991-2011

1. Garth Brooks (68,561,000)
2. The Beatles (63,299,000
3. Mariah Carey (53,612,000)
4. Metallica (53,170,000)
5. Celine Dion (51,492,000)
6. George Strait (43,310,000)
7. Eminem (41,166,000)
8. Tim McGraw (40,169,000)
9. Alan Jackson (38,860,000)
10. Pink Floyd (37,228,000)

Unfortunately, those stats don't really help the argument do they? If number of albums shifted is the measure of musical/cultural importance are you saying Garth Brooks is a more significant artist than the Beatles? Acts 1 - 9 (2 of whom I actually had to google to find out who they are, are 'better' than Pink Floyd. The Stones don't even compete as recording artists and haven't really tried to for decades - they are pre-eminent live, performing artists. You pays your money and takes your choice.

of course i'm not saying any of those things.

i was pointing out to a poster who said "The Beatles have been over for over 40 years......perspective." that the Beatles still remained extremely popular despite not recording for 44 years.

......and Paint It Black is the most popular Stones single on iTunes.....again, perspective.

i'm not sure what you think you're achieving by adding the word "perspective" to the end of your posts.

if you think the beatles' were "over 40 years ago" in anything other than the fact that the band disbanded 43 years ago, i disagree with you.

As a band, they have been defunct. The fact that the Stones have stayed together, with relatively few personnel changes is no small feet in itself. The Beatles never carried the burden of expectation really; When the game got serious, they were done. Had they continued through the drugged out 70's(and beyond), they would have had some clunkers for albums. If you really want to get into it, throw out everything up until @65'or 66', when both groups started to gain artistic control, and the Stones start gaining momentum. The White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be are great albums.....but I'll take BB,LIB,SF over them, and oh yeah, GYYYO, an all timer live album, that I have no evidence in believing the Beatles had in them. When the game got "real", they broke up. Hell, The Who released Live at Leeds and Who's Next.....everyone upped their game, except the Beatles.

To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of the "wind up" mop top early years, when they clearly had an edge, but they were a pop outfit, eager to please. As someone mentioned earlier, the Stones charted with a pure blues....remarkable.

It's just really, all a matter of perspective, hence, "perspective."

Quote
Thrylan
As a band, they have been defunct. The fact that the Stones have stayed together, with relatively few personnel changes is no small feet in itself. The Beatles never carried the burden of expectation really; When the game got serious, they were done. Had they continued through the drugged out 70's(and beyond), they would have had some clunkers for albums. If you really want to get into it, throw out everything up until @65'or 66', when both groups started to gain artistic control, and the Stones start gaining momentum. The White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be are great albums.....but I'll take BB,LIB,SF over them, and oh yeah, GYYYO, an all timer live album, that I have no evidence in believing the Beatles had in them. When the game got "real", they broke up. Hell, The Who released Live at Leeds and Who's Next.....everyone upped their game, except the Beatles.

To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of the "wind up" mop top early years, when they clearly had an edge, but they were a pop outfit, eager to please. As someone mentioned earlier, the Stones charted with a pure blues....remarkable.

It's just really, all a matter of perspective, hence, "perspective."

Hate to break it to you, but The Beatles pretty much invented "the game"...and nothing could have been more "serious" or "real" than their time together. They "upped their game" at every turn.

All this talk of the longevity of The Stones and the fact that The Beatles were so short-lived.

The combined output of the songwriting of Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison would have made for some impressive Beatles albums at least through 1980 and beyond.

But in terms of longevity, The Beatles never would have lasted as long as the other big guns of their time, like The Who and The Stones, no matter what.

Even if Lennon had never been killed and the Beatles had never broken up, they would still have been defunct as of now for 13 years or so.

George's cancer would have happened anyway, so The Beatles never would have carried into this century as an active unit.

So perhaps it's best that they stopped when still at the top of their game--we wouldn't be talking of their recording career in such relevant terms had they soldiered on through the decades--the 80s would no doubt have presented something of a speed bump to their legacy.

i just want to post my thoughts on who is better or more popular or whatever. imo the beatles were the biggest band from the big 4 or the british invasion because they are the least threatning and the songsa are the most accessible. the stones came after them and suddenly parents had no problem with the beatles. the who and the kinks came after that and suddenly the stones seemed a bit less dangerous to the parents at the time. the beatles songs usually had very vague lyrics that could apply to most peoples lives. the stones had a bit harsher lyrics and were heavier. the who and the kinks wrote songs about specific situations that a lot of people could not connect and were very british so americans had a problem connecting with the songs. thats all. nothing more nothing less.
which song is easier to commect with the masses "i saw her standing there", "dedicated follower of fashion", "19th nervous breakdown" or "pictures of lily"?

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
Thrylan
As a band, they have been defunct. The fact that the Stones have stayed together, with relatively few personnel changes is no small feet in itself. The Beatles never carried the burden of expectation really; When the game got serious, they were done. Had they continued through the drugged out 70's(and beyond), they would have had some clunkers for albums. If you really want to get into it, throw out everything up until @65'or 66', when both groups started to gain artistic control, and the Stones start gaining momentum. The White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be are great albums.....but I'll take BB,LIB,SF over them, and oh yeah, GYYYO, an all timer live album, that I have no evidence in believing the Beatles had in them. When the game got "real", they broke up. Hell, The Who released Live at Leeds and Who's Next.....everyone upped their game, except the Beatles.

To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of the "wind up" mop top early years, when they clearly had an edge, but they were a pop outfit, eager to please. As someone mentioned earlier, the Stones charted with a pure blues....remarkable.

It's just really, all a matter of perspective, hence, "perspective."

Hate to break it to you, but The Beatles pretty much invented "the game"...and nothing could have been more "serious" or "real" than their time together. They "upped their game" at every turn.

So they enjoyed and agreed with the way Brian Epstein dressed them up? No. How long did the Stones wear the Houndstooth jackets......not long. The Beatles gained a lot of support from NOT being the Stones. The Stones were a lot scarier. I don't discount their legacy, they are 1 or 2, depending on who you are. The difference is simple, the Beatles wanted to "Hold Your Hand", the Stones "Wanted to Make Love to You", big difference.

This will get me killed, however, in my opinion, Paul has never and will never write with any adult depth.....Silly Love Songs. I'm a John guy, "How did he Sleep?" I don't know. Paul is likely the best pop song writer ever, but there's not much below the surface. Lennon's heart bled out of his mouth, with his emotionally exhausting personal songs.....Paul cashed checks. John could have been a Stone, Paul could not.

Also, top to bottom, the Stones were overall better musicians. George and Brian tie, Paul edges Bill, Stones sweep the rest.

Back to the main thrust, the Beatles wrote non offensive pop songs, built to sell. The Stones stayed truer to their roots, so going by sales alone is misleading.

"I hope I die before I get old." "You Really Got Me." Really, too British to connect with?

Quote
keefriffhard4life
i just want to post my thoughts on who is better or more popular or whatever. imo the beatles were the biggest band from the big 4 or the british invasion because they are the least threatning and the songsa are the most accessible. the stones came after them and suddenly parents had no problem with the beatles. the who and the kinks came after that and suddenly the stones seemed a bit less dangerous to the parents at the time. the beatles songs usually had very vague lyrics that could apply to most peoples lives. the stones had a bit harsher lyrics and were heavier. the who and the kinks wrote songs about specific situations that a lot of people could not connect and were very british so americans had a problem connecting with the songs. thats all. nothing more nothing less.
which song is easier to commect with the masses "i saw her standing there", "dedicated follower of fashion", "19th nervous breakdown" or "pictures of lily"?

Agreed, part of what I was saying, and, if you were 13, standing in the store with your mother, which was the least offensive to her. Again numbers alone lie.

Quote
Aquamarine
"I hope I die before I get old." "You Really Got Me." Really, too British to connect with?

yes those are earlier songs but as the who and kinks gerw the songs became less easier to connect to. the kinks for sure after they got banned from touring in america for a few years hurt them and they just focused on britain with albums like the kinks are the village green preservation society and arthur(or the decline and fall of the british empire).

The Kinks are very, VERY, distinctly British. Its amazing that they are as popular as they are in America, all things considered.

Quote
GRC
GasLightStreet ...dude ur delusional if u don't think Jager doesn't wanna check out thinkin he was the greatest rock and roll front man of all time (Which he is) and his band was the greatest ever.

PS....I more time at the GARDEN.

He knows better, but it is doubtful you will ever get him to admit it. Stubborn as a mule.

Quote
stonehearted
All this talk of the longevity of The Stones and the fact that The Beatles were so short-lived.

The combined output of the songwriting of Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison would have made for some impressive Beatles albums at least through 1980 and beyond.

But in terms of longevity, The Beatles never would have lasted as long as the other big guns of their time, like The Who and The Stones, no matter what.

Even if Lennon had never been killed and the Beatles had never broken up, they would still have been defunct as of now for 13 years or so.

George's cancer would have happened anyway, so The Beatles never would have carried into this century as an active unit.

So perhaps it's best that they stopped when still at the top of their game--we wouldn't be talking of their recording career in such relevant terms had they soldiered on through the decades--the 80s would no doubt have presented something of a speed bump to their legacy.

I am not here to knock the Beatles. They have been on top for decades, but the Stones reaching 50 years and still performing at such a high level just has to give them the nod. I would still like to see the Stones do a new album just to seal the deal.

First Springsteen and U2 can not touch the Stones. In terms of importance the Stones are the only rival to the Beatles throne and just because they played a good show at Glastonbury they have not overtaken the Beatles. No one will ever overtake the Beatles.

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
Thrylan
As a band, they have been defunct. The fact that the Stones have stayed together, with relatively few personnel changes is no small feet in itself. The Beatles never carried the burden of expectation really; When the game got serious, they were done. Had they continued through the drugged out 70's(and beyond), they would have had some clunkers for albums. If you really want to get into it, throw out everything up until @65'or 66', when both groups started to gain artistic control, and the Stones start gaining momentum. The White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be are great albums.....but I'll take BB,LIB,SF over them, and oh yeah, GYYYO, an all timer live album, that I have no evidence in believing the Beatles had in them. When the game got "real", they broke up. Hell, The Who released Live at Leeds and Who's Next.....everyone upped their game, except the Beatles.

To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of the "wind up" mop top early years, when they clearly had an edge, but they were a pop outfit, eager to please. As someone mentioned earlier, the Stones charted with a pure blues....remarkable.

It's just really, all a matter of perspective, hence, "perspective."

Hate to break it to you, but The Beatles pretty much invented "the game"...and nothing could have been more "serious" or "real" than their time together. They "upped their game" at every turn.

So they enjoyed and agreed with the way Brian Epstein dressed them up? No. How long did the Stones wear the Houndstooth jackets......not long. The Beatles gained a lot of support from NOT being the Stones. The Stones were a lot scarier. I don't discount their legacy, they are 1 or 2, depending on who you are. The difference is simple, the Beatles wanted to "Hold Your Hand", the Stones "Wanted to Make Love to You", big difference.

This will get me killed, however, in my opinion, Paul has never and will never write with any adult depth.....Silly Love Songs. I'm a John guy, "How did he Sleep?" I don't know. Paul is likely the best pop song writer ever, but there's not much below the surface. Lennon's heart bled out of his mouth, with his emotionally exhausting personal songs.....Paul cashed checks. John could have been a Stone, Paul could not.

Also, top to bottom, the Stones were overall better musicians. George and Brian tie, Paul edges Bill, Stones sweep the rest.

Back to the main thrust, the Beatles wrote non offensive pop songs, built to sell. The Stones stayed truer to their roots, so going by sales alone is misleading.

This will also get me "killed" but the fact of the matter is, Paul's son James writes with more depth than his father. If you think I am kidding just check out his new album.

Quote
Thrylan
The Kinks are very, VERY, distinctly British. Its amazing that they are as popular as they are in America, all things considered.

They were distinctly British up to 1970 with the release of Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of The British Empire), around the time they also scored their last big hit in the U.S. for some time, with Lola.

Their commercial resurgence in the U.S. began in 1977 with their signing to Arista Records and the release of their Sleepwalker album. For their run with Arista they were very smartly marketed to a stadium concert audience and many of their songs fit well within the mainstream U.S. rock radio format.

In recent years, Ray Davies has spent more time living in and writing about life in the U.S. His much-delayed solo career was launched in 2005 with an EP that contained a single that was a salute to a U.S. holiday, Thanksgiving Day.

Quote
slew
First Springsteen and U2 can not touch the Stones. In terms of importance the Stones are the only rival to the Beatles throne and just because they played a good show at Glastonbury they have not overtaken the Beatles. No one will ever overtake the Beatles.

As much as I love the Beatles you just can't ignore what the Stones have achieved. The time has come for the Beatles to vacate the throne. It's the honorable thing to do.

Quote
Thrylan
The Kinks are very, VERY, distinctly British. Its amazing that they are as popular as they are in America, all things considered.

In the sixties we loved most all of the British bands. We still love them.

Quote
slew
First Springsteen and U2 can not touch the Stones. In terms of importance the Stones are the only rival to the Beatles throne and just because they played a good show at Glastonbury they have not overtaken the Beatles. No one will ever overtake the Beatles.

Good points, IMO, I give the Stones the nod for transcending all "periods." The British invasion time, which is important to" rock" music as Chuck or Elvis, the Beatles do get the nod. But beyond that, the Stones actually defined many of what we consider to be the "standards" of rock. The Stones have done work in 6 decades, the Beatles, 2, and I am being kind.

Beethoven still sells......

Quote
Thrylan
The Kinks are very, VERY, distinctly British. Its amazing that they are as popular as they are in America, all things considered.

yes songs like "waterloo sunset" and "days" are anthems in britain but to most rock fans in the USA are unknown songs

Haven't we had enough of these Beatles versus Rolling Stones threads, Mr Again? They don't seem to lead anywhere and they aren't particulary funny...

LRRA = JOL

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
Thrylan
The Kinks are very, VERY, distinctly British. Its amazing that they are as popular as they are in America, all things considered.

yes songs like "waterloo sunset" and "days" are anthems in britain but to most rock fans in the USA are unknown songs

Absolutely. BTB is the Stones "Kinks" album to me, very derivative.

Quote
Stoneage
Haven't we had enough of these Beatles versus Rolling Stones threads, Mr Again? They don't seem to lead anywhere and they aren't particulary funny...

Of course it's silly. But it's a topic every fan of Rock n roll enjoys and is a testament to the power of both bands.

There is a great song written about it in fact - gimme sympathy by metric:
video: [m.youtube.com]

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Stoneage
Haven't we had enough of these Beatles versus Rolling Stones threads, Mr Again? They don't seem to lead anywhere and they aren't particulary funny...

Of course it's silly. But it's a topic every fan of Rock n roll enjoys and is a testament to the power of both bands.

There is a great song written about it in fact - gimme sympathy by metric:
video: [m.youtube.com]

Besides, I haven't talked about the Kinks in years..