The beatles stones debate was only ever relevant when they were UKs top 2 bands. The both had their influnces, I allways felt that the Fabs veered more towards the soul side and the stones the blues in their influnces and songs they covered. why anyone is debaiting it today is beyond me. i would be curious to know how many who cite one as a better live band then the other have seen both of them live.

Two great bands, end of story.

Now wottaboot the great battle of britpop Oasis Vs Blur

YAWN

i know there is a lot of albums by the beatles the stones could never have made.

but likewise the beatles could never have produced paint it black or gimme shelter never mind play them live.

can you imagine the beatles producing an album like exile on main street, i cant.

er, no..but what does that prove other than both bands are different?

Jesus wept.

>> i would be curious to know how many who cite one as a better band in concert
than the other have seen both of them in concert. <<

are you really curious? i have.

Moses stormed around all exasperated-like :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-09 18:48 by with sssoul.

LOL..brilliant

Abraham just pissed his pants....

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
also had an early phase of playing
> town fetes and the like.
> it's not a "versus" thing to me, mind you, just a
> historical-accuracy thing.


Yeah, thats right, when they were known as the Quarry Men, though in regard to the 'town fetes' comment. I think we have to bare in mind, trhat aside from maybe Lennon, they all under 18 and probably still at school!

I know its not a Vs issue. I do agree with you there. Lets just call it a knee jerk reaction to all those who beleive the Beatles were BORN a pop act with matching outfits!

>> a knee jerk reaction to all those who believe the Beatles
were BORN a pop act with matching outfits! <<

i can relate - but at the same time it's not right that they suddenly sprang into existence
as rockers on a Hamburg stage, or that the Stones got their start in some sort of overprivileged scenario.

two great bands, but how can you take this test seriousely when almost 70% of the people say that ringo is better than charlie?
with the same philosophy you can say that work is better than sex, rain better than sun, fiat better than ferrari.
c'mon, it can't be serious!

boston2006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who wrote the best protest songs?
> Rolling Stones: Street Fighting Man/Get Off My
> Cloud 27%
> The Beatles: Helter Skelter/Revolution 73%

I always thought that "Helter Skelter" was about sex? "When I get to the bottom...." and all that. (Think Macca actually said so himself)

Maybe a protest song against sex? ;-)

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> a knee jerk reaction to all those who believe
> the Beatles
> were BORN a pop act with matching outfits! <<
>
> i can relate - but at the same time it's not right
> that they suddenly sprang into existence
> as rockers on a Hamburg stage, or that the Stones
> got their start in some sort of overprivileged
> scenario.



Why is it not right? Its just the way they were. The Beatles were rock'n rollers playing sleazy clubs. The Stones were not.

I don't think the Stones beginings were overprivilaged, just safe and normal in comparison.

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> boston2006 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Who wrote the best protest songs?
> > Rolling Stones: Street Fighting Man/Get Off My
> > Cloud 27%
> > The Beatles: Helter Skelter/Revolution 73%
>
> I always thought that "Helter Skelter" was about
> sex? "When I get to the bottom...." and all that.
> (Think Macca actually said so himself)
>
> Maybe a protest song against sex? ;-)


McCartney has said the meaning of the lyrics is literal ie, playing on a children's slide:

When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride
Till I get to the bottom and I see you again


Charles Manson unfortunately thought it signalled the beginning of Armageddon and had his followers go on a killing spree.

>> Why is it not right? <<

sigh: what's not right is the implication that the Beatles' very first gigs were in the wilds of Hamburg.
as you've noted yourself, they started out playing town fetes and other local gigs, while attending school,
living at home, etc - which was at least as "cozy" and "safe and normal" as the early/pre-Stones' situation
at a similar point in their career. both bands started out playing where they got gigs, just like any band;
and if the 1960 Beatles had been offered a residency in SW London instead of Hamburg
i seriously doubt they would've rejected it as too tame.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-10 11:53 by with sssoul.