The Beatles got this attention for being the first. Obviously, there won't be the same attention given to the bands who were second, third, fourth, etc.

Unfortunately the Stones get more attention for anniversaries of Altamont.

Quote
spsimmons
I love the Stones, but they did not have the same cultural impact as the Beatles. No way will The Stones' first appearance on Ed Sullivan get any kind of mention on it's 50th anniversary.

Agree. Who actually remembers when the Stones first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. I'm a huge fan but don't know. The Stones impact is current - unreal that this band could be a headliner at Glastonbury last year, and could be considered as a headliner at Pinkpop this year. The legacy is ongoing and the impact is current. That's an amazing thing.

Not even close. Stones the best ever. By miles and miles

Quote
drbryant

Who actually remembers when the Stones first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show.

October 25, 1964.

I think it's a little unfair that despite the stones finally surpassing the beatles in importance during their 50th and Counting tour the Beatles get all the Ed Sullivan 50th attention.

Burns in my craw.

Beatles vs. Stones - Stones.

...........................Beatles
Stones





They both come first........

__________________________

Quote
treaclefingers
I think it's a little unfair that despite the stones finally surpassing the beatles in importance during their 50th and Counting tour the Beatles get all the Ed Sullivan 50th attention.

Burns in my craw.

Very little coverage here in Japan. Everyone is waiting for the Stones.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
treaclefingers
I think it's a little unfair that despite the stones finally surpassing the beatles in importance during their 50th and Counting tour the Beatles get all the Ed Sullivan 50th attention.

Burns in my craw.

Very little coverage here in Japan. Everyone is waiting for the Stones.

Just for the record, love the Beatles so it doesn't actually burn in my craw.

One month and The Beatle hype is over again

__________________________

Quote
NICOS
One month and The Beatle hype is over again

about time for another Sons of Beatles tour!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
NICOS
One month and The Beatle hype is over again

about time for another Sons of Beatles tour!

Dhani Zack and Julian...Paul have any son playing rock'n'roll?

2 1 2 0

I just read an article in Mojo tonight that revealed to me what I guess everybody else has known for decades: that the Beatles' US albums were very different in terms of tracks, cover art, etc. (up to Sgt. Pepper or so, anyway), from the UK versions, which I had always thought were the standard/official versions of each album. I mean, I knew that the Stones' albums weren't exactly the same in the US, but this is the first time I learned the Beatles' albums were so radically different. That, plus the fact that Ed Sullivan meant nothing to us in the UK, makes me realize what very different experiences we had of the band on each side of the Atlantic, for those first couple of years at least.

Not only that, they also sounded radically different. Even when I started buying the Capitol Beatles albums in the early 80s, this is what She's A Woman (from Beatles '65) sounded like on the radio and on turntables in the U.S.

Their albums were butchered, according to the Beatles themselves

(I must admit I haven't heard the Capitol albums myself)

Quote
Come On

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
NICOS
One month and The Beatle hype is over again

about time for another Sons of Beatles tour!

Dhani Zack and Julian...Paul have any son playing rock'n'roll?

I think James plays something...can you call it rock'n'roll though?

Quote
stonehearted
Not only that, they also sounded radically different. Even when I started buying the Capitol Beatles albums in the early 80s, this is what She's A Woman (from Beatles '65) sounded like on the radio and on turntables in the U.S.

Does it sound better in your opinion? I've always be intrigued myself about variations here and there on the U.S. releases.

As an American I find it cheesy that they called the TV salute the other night the Beatles 50th, as if the band didn't exist until they appeared on Sullivan. They'd even been called the Beatles since '60 or '61. What the show did remind me is that the Beatles were singular throughout their existence and blew everybody else away. The Stones never did, and never will, have the overall impact of the Beatles. Someone who lived through that period knows exactly what I mean.

I remember even a later period song like Get Back would make you stop, listen, and then discuss the direction the band was going in. The Stones, by contrast, were rising in the States, but had not yet reached the mass audience they eventually would by the time the Beatles split.

I don't listen to the Beatles much anymore, but that's more because every second of every song is already deeply ingrained in my neural pathways. I can no longer tell you the running order of each song on each album by the Fabs, but I could at one time. The Stones, as great as they were, simply weren't in the stratosphere the Beatles were. Nobody was. I personally like the Stones musicality better. Keith was a better lead than George in the early days. And there are a few Stones songs in the Beatle's league. But the Beatles are the standard for a reason.

"Unlike Stones, Beatles Knew When to Quit" ...... (Oh Really)!

[www.bloomberg.com]

Quote
2000 LYFH
"Unlike Stones, Beatles Knew When to Quit" ...... (Oh Really)!

[www.bloomberg.com]

Sadly, there's some truth to that. If the Stones had disbanded after the 1990 tour, we would remember them as feuding, like the Beatles, reuniting for one last great album, Steel Wheels, and then a majestic stage run around the world and goodbye....

We would have missed the No Security Tour, but VoodooBridgeBang is not essential Stones. Now they're running on fumes. They're still great ambassadors to turn on the kiddies to rock and roll, but the glory days are long gone.

I think the Beatles broke up too soon. They should have at least had one massive tour when the audio and stage presentation were better than a stadium P.A. When you watch the Wings DVD from the '76 tour it's pretty cool to hear McCartney do some Beatles numbers when he's still young. An early 1970s tour by the Beatles would have dwarfed everything before and after.

Silly argument. Who keeps bringing it up? There are the Stones..and then everyone else. Case closed. Stop it!

Quote
michaelsavage
Silly argument. Who keeps bringing it up? There are the Stones..and then everyone else. Case closed. Stop it!

Don't you mean 'There are the Beatles, a couple steps down are the Stones, a couple more steps Led Zeppelin, three more The Who', and then everyone else? Even to be mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles is quite enough. Most people do say 'The Beatles and The Stones'. The Stones never had the top five spots on the Billboard charts. They didn't kick in the door for British acts. They didn't have double A-sides like Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields, or Hey Jude/Revolution, with both sides being top sellers. The Stones weren't in movies. Most people couldn't have named all the members. The Beatles were four superstars, the Stones were one. It's okay. Being number two to the Beatles is not shameful. They were plain and simple a phenomena.

Wow. You are wrong on EVERY count. That's hard to do but you achieved it. Well done! (By the way, you would be better served on a beatles site)

The Beatles paved the road, the Stones kept on rolling.

well that's true but I don't think the Stones aspired to the same sterile greatness as the Beatles..we know playing live matters to the Stones.
the Beatles just had a different way of going about being a band.

Plus they were generic and safe and pop which is why they had wider appeal. Even grandmas. the Stone are the greatest rock n roll band all time why even bother to talk about it any more it is more than silly

Quote
michaelsavage
Plus they were generic and safe and pop which is why they had wider appeal. Even grandmas. the Stone are the greatest rock n roll band all time why even bother to talk about it any more it is more than silly

Yeah I think michaelsavage is right let's stop this nonsense........and close this thread

__________________________

Quote
michaelsavage
Wow. You are wrong on EVERY count. That's hard to do but you achieved it. Well done! (By the way, you would be better served on a beatles site)

I would not be better served on a Beatles site. I already know everything I need to know about them, and most of their worthwhile outtakes, etc, have been released. And saying that the Beatles were greater than the Stones doesn't mean I'm not a huge Stones fan. There's thousands of bands. Only one is at the top, the Beatles, and one is slightly below, the Stones. I also like other groups, but not like I dig the Stones. I'm not a fan of 90% of the past 25 years, but there's still a lot to love.

Yes, the Beatles had a very wide net of appeal. But they could rock. They were rock and roll plus. And for a golden period in the 60s, so were the Stones. They were never just a rock and roll band. The Stones were the second best pop band of the 60s. That's why we even mention them in the same stata as the Beatles.

Quote
Koen
The Beatles paved the road, the Stones kept on rolling.

And others paved the road for Beatles.....