I prefer the stones but I dont see the need to them be #1!!!!

I like the fact that the stones aren't quite as popular, quite as accepted. They're the dark horse, not the obvious choice. thats part of what fascinated me about them in the first place. I prefer it that way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-01 07:14 by ryanpow.

Yeah I never bought that old saying "2nd place is the first loser". There is no shame in being the second best rock band of all time.

In baseball there is only one Babe Ruth, in basketball only one Jordan. Doesn't mean players like Mays, Gehrig, Chamberlain, Russel etc. aren't great players.

let me put it another way: They're number one in my book. But I like the fact that they're not the number pick of the general public.

Thats a tough question. It's like what came first...the chicken or the egg?
We should thank and praise the Beatles for knocking down the doors, and letting the rest in.
The bottom line is the Beatles get my vote, if it weren't for them, there would be no Stones as we know them today.
While the Stones still continue to roll, I don't think they will ever match the legacy of the Beatles.

When I said The Stones were the second best band of all time it was from an objective point of view. They are MY favorite so from a subjective point of view I could say they were the greatest of all time but the majortiy of people would not agree with me- outside of this forum anyway.

From an objective point of view I think you would have to say the Beatles were better in the sense that they achieved a higher level of popularity, had more chart hits, record sales etc. etc. than The Stones.

A counter argument would be that The Beatles had the edge since they were the first to hit the scene. I guess you can argue that The Stones were actually better and if they had burst onto the scene first they would have been like The Beatles.

This goes along with my theory that if the Beatles didn't exist then The Stones would have been as big as the Beatles. A lot of people mistaken think that no Beatles would have meant no Stones. This is simply not true. Yes the Beatles were a catalyst but if they never existed, sooner or later some British music would have made it to America and other parts of the world. Instead of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" being a huge catalyst it may have been something like "Satisfaction" or "Get Off My Cloud" that set everything in motion.

Oh please, Queen beat Jimi Hendrix -- who can possibly take it seriously after that outcome? (but I voted anyway)

Put this up on Shidoobee as well. The Stones aren't even 100 votes behind as of now. BUFFOONS!

JumpingKentFlash

This is up on Shidoobee....

It's a new day...vote again....vote at work & at home..tell your friends to vote.

vote...vote...vote everyday...

It really works to vote. Check out what this guy Dan H. wrote about the last week's winners (This text is to the right of where you vote):

Rolling Stones

A surge of classic-rock-centric votes on Wednesday of last week cemented runaway victories for Zeppelin and the lot, but it also nudged the Rolling Stones ahead of Nirvana, squelching once and for all the notion that people could possibly admit to liking a band who released a meaningful album in the voters’ own lifetimes as much as bands from the 60s and 70s. Regardless, The Stones have done nothing in the ‘07 tournament but prove again and again that they belong in rock’s storied pantheon of having a whole lot of people click on a circle next to your name. Yes, they’re now staring down The Beatles, but after a Sweet Sixteen loss to the Cure in ‘06, getting to the Elite Eight in ‘07 could already be considered a victory for the world’s most most enduring, most profitable live act.

JumpingKentFlash

Yes..I read this yesterday and this guys opinion SUCKS...he obviously is not a RS fan...


We have the POWER to vote...so lets encourage everyone to vote.

why should anyone over the age of about 8 really care? Seriously?

sweetcharmedlife Wrote:
>
> As far as Stones vs Beatles. Yes the Stones are my
> favorite band. But why all the Beatles
> bashing?........Is not possible to like both
> bands?

Evidently not, as some people seem to think its still 1964.

......That's a rhetorical question,please do
> not answer.


I will. They're by some distance my two favourite bands.

WHen I first saw these voting-threads, I thought there was a music-magazine-voting...not that it would matter much...but who reads that "bandmadness"-web-site anyway? It's just a teen-blog.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-01 17:39 by Erik_Snow.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will. They're by some distance my two favourite
> bands.


Really? You love The Beatles? Welcome to the club mate. I thought you liked them, but I also thought that it was The Stones, Bruce and U2 that was your fave bands.

JumpingKentFlash

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but who reads that
> "nadmadness"-web-site anyway? It's just a
> teen-blog.

Now they have got new readers, teens (grand)parents until Stones drops.

OMG!!!

What do you want to prove?
You are all like children, trying to win a competition.

Who @#$%& cares about who wins. ENJOY THE MUSIC INSTEAD!

blah..blah..blah..

Alot of STones fans care...

So if ya dont want to vote then dont...It is your choice...

But there are alot of fans that do care and do want to vote..

so vote if ya want..cause we need the votes..

thanks

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I will. They're by some distance my two
> favourite
> > bands.
>
>
> Really? You love The Beatles? Welcome to the club
> mate. I thought you liked them, but I also thought
> that it was The Stones, Bruce and U2 that was your
> fave bands.


well..Bruce isnt a 'band'. My favourite three acts by a mile are The Stones, Dylan and Springsteen (the order of preference varies according to moodswings!)

Elvis would be next followed by The Beatles. Neil Young, Johnny Cash, Lucinda Williams and Steve Earle would probably be after that.

I was a Beatles fan before I'd ever heard anything by the Stones.

I like U2 but they wouldnt be in my top 10 or 12 acts or even in a list of my favourite five or six bands. My other favourite 'bands' would be The Clash and The Who. Generally, I've tended to gravitate towards solo acts for the most part.

I just don't understand why you want to vote, when you are convinced about who you like the best anyway. You can't decide for people who's the better by voting in a competition!

lazy-slob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just don't understand why you want to vote, when
> you are convinced about who you like the best
> anyway. You can't decide for people who's the
> better by voting in a competition!

It's just a way to have fun and pass the time. I don't think anyone is taking it too seriously or will lose sleep if The Stones lose.

Someone made a good point about it being just a teen blog. That would explain why The bands that are more popular among younger people would excel, but then why have The Beatles gotten so far? I thought The Beatles were a bit passe among younger people.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-01 19:28 by FrankM.

Hey, the Stones are losing!
We need a little more than 103 votes for not to lose!
I know you can do that if you want.
If not for the Stones, do it for those who want to see them winning!

(I thought the Stones fans were a great family... Am I wrong?)

I tell you why The Beatles will win that competition, FrankM.
It's because The Beatles music will never be passe among any generation. Like them or loathe them, the kids parents have all the Beatles albums and the kids will discover the albums again, just like their forthcoming kids will discover them.
You can't argue against it: The Beatles are the most popular band ever, and if you need prove just look at how much the "Beatles 1" compilation sold: 25 million units in the first 3 weeks. The buyers were mostly young people.

We can all have our personal favourites. People in here prefer the Stones, others prefer AC/DC, David Bowie, you name them.
The fact is that The Beatles are the most popular of them all and also the most loved among people.

You may be right about the Beatles being the most popular and most loved band of all time Lazy, but if they are more popular among younger people then I must be missing something. I occasionally see young kids walking around with Stones T-shirts, haven't seen one with a Beatles shirt in years (talking about younger people here).

I'm in my late thirties so maybe I am out of touch with the younger generation. I would be interested in hearing the opinions of anyone in this forum in their late teens/early twenties. Are the Beatles more popular in your high school/college campus etc. than other classic rock bands like The Stones, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd etc.?

Also keep in mind lazy that if The Stones lose The Beatles will beat them like 53/47 or something like that, so it isn't exactly a pummeling. I'm sure the Beatles have many fan sites that are engergizing their people to vote too.

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh please, Queen beat Jimi Hendrix -- who can
> possibly take it seriously after that outcome?
> (but I voted anyway)


That's one of the first things I noticed..I clicked off right then and there.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may be right about the Beatles being the most
> popular and most loved band of all time Lazy, but
> if they are more popular among younger people then
> I must be missing something. I occasionally see
> young kids walking around with Stones T-shirts,
> haven't seen one with a Beatles shirt in years
> (talking about younger people here).
>


Most kids I see wearing Stones shirts arent even fans of the band! A Stones t-shirt is seen as a trendy retro fashion craze for goodness sake.

The Stones arent popular with young people for the simple and much-discussed reason that that generation has been priced out of their concerts



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-01 20:55 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You may be right about the Beatles being the
> most
> > popular and most loved band of all time Lazy,
> but
> > if they are more popular among younger people
> then
> > I must be missing something. I occasionally see
> > young kids walking around with Stones T-shirts,
> > haven't seen one with a Beatles shirt in years
> > (talking about younger people here).
> >
>
>
> Most kids I see wearing Stones shirts arent even
> fans of the band! A Stones t-shirt is seen as a
> trendy retro fashion craze for goodness sake.


Maybe you're right about this point. One girl I saw with a Stones shirt looked about thirteen so maybe her mom gave her the shirt- but I still think other classic rock bands including The Stones are more popular among younger people than The Beatles.


> The Stones arent popular with young people for the
> simple and much-discussed reason that that
> generation has been priced out of their concerts


You make a good point about the ticket prices being too much for younger people but Zeppelin hasn't played a concert in nearly thirty years and they are still quite popular with the young crowd. You don't have to see a band live to appreciate their music.

I just think the average seventeen year old would laugh at The Beatles, maybe The Stones too but to a lesser extent. I mean The Beatles sound dated to me and I am 39. How would they sound to someone a lot younger?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-01 21:22 by FrankM.

Maybe it's different in America, but the Beatles are more popular than the Stones here in Europe.
I've met many youngsters who have been to a Stones concert and are wearing a t-shirt (Gazza are right, many who weares the shirt aren't even fans), but they don't own a single Stones album.
Almost every youngster I know have a Beatles album or two. They may like a lot of other bands also and maybe they even like another band more than Beatles, but the point is that almost everyone have something Beatles-related in their collection, which confirms their importance.

I don't care who wins, because it won't affect anyone other than the hard-core fans of Stones, who have voted and voted just so they can say: See, the Stones won, the Stones won!!! They are better than the Beatles!
Pointless...

...By the way: Again, if you need proff how popular the Beatles are among youngsters, then look at how many copies Beatles 1 sold. And why would they laugh at the Beatles? Their songs are evergreens to everyone -just like artists like Louis Armstrong or Gershwin, who also sounds "dated", but their songs lives on...

FrankM Wrote:
>
> Maybe you're right about this point. One girl I
> saw with a Stones shirt looked about thirteen so
> maybe her mom gave her the shirt- but I still
> think other classic rock bands including The
> Stones are more popular among younger people than
> The Beatles.

'classic rock' (whatever that is) - maybe, but in general - no.
>
>> You make a good point about the ticket prices
> being too much for younger people but Zeppelin
> hasn't played a concert in nearly thirty years and
> they are still quite popular with the young crowd.

Led Zeppelin were a far bigger band commercially than the Stones were.


> You don't have to see a band live to appreciate
> their music.

They dont need to keep active to remain popular. Same with The Beatles, same with Elvis. Its an image thing and people of that age are very image conscious. If an artist burns out prematurely when theyre still young, their image remains untouched, Thats why James Dean and Marilyn Monroe remain more popular and iconic than the likes of Marlon Brando. Thats why Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix remains popular. You know that old adage about dying young and leaving a good looking corpse.

The Beatles will always be perceived as 'youthful' and therefore 'cool' because when the band broke up they were still all in their 20's. Their career lifespan also fits nicely in that little 60's 'bubble' which will forever be seen as a magical era.

Image-wise the Stones have suffered (relatively speaking) by remaining together and ageing. The Stones havent been perceived as cutting edge or 'cool' since the early to mid 70s as far as that goes. Twenty year old kids dont tend to make icons of current acts who are old enough to be their grandparents. As one of the few acts from that era still active, they could have reversed that image they have with young people by making themselves more accessible to them, but going eight years between records (which to anyone around 20 is almost half a lifetime) and pricing their shows out of range theyve effectively cut themselves off from a potentially large younger audience over the last decade.

Totally disagree with you guys. I never said The Stones were "cool" among younger people- I said they were cooler than the Beatles. Why? Because their music has aged better. Yes a handful of Stones songs (LSTNT etc.) sound dated, but the vast majority of Beatles songs sound dated.

Maybe it is different in other parts of the world where you guys are from but high school kids in America don't listen to the Beatles nor do they think they're cool. Like I said before they have become passe. Do they think the Stones are cool? Probably not but cooler than the Beatles.

Gazza, you have to admit the music of the Stones has aged a lot better than the music of The Beatles. It's almost irrefutable. How many times can you listen to "All You Need Is Love" and "Let It Be"? They are simpleton songs compared to "Wild Horses", "Sympathy.." etc.

And this is coming not from a Beatles basher but from a guy who loved the Beatles- my favorite group until I discovered The Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-01 22:15 by FrankM.