does anyone else get pissed off at how hyped the beatles are and how much they overshadow the stones????

I mean it really annoys me that if the stones are mentioned on tv regarding the 60's they are always an afterthought to the beatles.

I have to almost make an excuse to like the stones and defend them- some people just write them off because they have been told the beatles are better and I have to let them listen beggars banquet,let it bleed etc to make a case that they are mistaken.

don't get me wrong i like some of the beatles songs and they kicked the door down for the british invasion in the u.s.a. but take the prvious post for alice cooper did he have to mention the beatles, i think there is real naivety in terms of there influence on music ......i mean what influence do they have on rock truly?? Aerosmith, Acdc, etc they are all copies of the rolling stones don't sound anything like the beatles to me. the only bands that come to mind that sound like the beatles are ELO and mcfly - maybe oasis only because of liam's singing not the sound of the songs.

when i got roy carr's book from the 70's which is a bible as far as I was concerned he always wrote reviews comparing the albums with the beatles..or singles.....e.g paint it, black was accompanied with a quote by john lennon "anything we did the stones copied in 6 months" - agreed john your influence was huge but in my opinion the stones did it better.Roy carr also refferred to the beatles as the "masters" so i thought ...WOW i love the stones the Beatles must be even better.

Not to my ears.....maybe their famous songs have been played to much, I mean I can't remember how I felt when I heard I want to hold your hand for the first time so it's sounds like a song i'm tired of hearing as with all there other big hits.

I mean Maybe i was born in the wrong era - the 70's becuase most of the beatles stuff sounds like nursery rhyme's to me. to anyone from the uk will remember the children's programme playschool, well "fixing a hole" sounds like something the presenter would sing to big ted after he found a hole in his sock -and their is loads more like that. maybe there influence was so big that everyone copied it and I am tired of that "sound"

I argue with people who claim the stones aren't cool comapred to the beatles. in terms of cool. I have never heard the stones music played as orchestral lift music, as a pan pipe collection on a plane waiting to take off, or on a collection of kids sing along songs.....etc

the final straw for me was a programme on tv - "the 60's,the beatles decade" no mention of any other band apart from them. well if you take that approach on sales of records only, then the 70's were the osmond decade, the 80's were the madonna decade, the 90's were the spice girls decade. sorry but the 90's decade was not about the spice girls for me..

I also feel that apart from dylan the stones were miles ahead of the beatles in subject context- - Beatles start their album in 1965 "baby you can drive my car peep,peep yeah!" while the stones are writing about not being able to get a shag becuase it's that time of month for his girlfriend in satisfaction.

I could go on and on but i do feel that it's time for history to be reviewed maybe the stones did not have the consistancy in songwriting comapred to the beatles but to me what they did write and record sounds, that stand the test of time to my ears compared to the beatles and send shivers up my spine where the beatles music does not.

what do you guys think? did i have to be their(the 60's) to apprciate the Beatles????? Am I the only one to think this?

The Stones are my favourite band and I love them to death. Had The Beatles continued there is no doubt that the Stones would have eclipsed them with 3 specific albums- Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile. When I say eclipse I'm referring to the music/critically. Probably not commercially. The Beatles would never have came up with anything like those albums (not that they couldn't have) it just wasn't the direction they'd have taken. Either Lennon or McCartney said they'd have ended up sounding like ELO. Also they were a band imploding, who for one reason or another had ran their distance.

It's no slur whatsoever on The Stones at that time but there is absolutely no way they had the 'power' The Beatles had at their peak.

"I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon."

The Beatles broke the new ground, the Stones in many cases saw what was happening and did it better in my opinion. The Stones rocked harder but the Beatles defined 60s pop and psychedelia in particular. I've never been bothered by the argument as I love both bands.

I was'nt there (the 60's) either, so I can only offer my opinion. The Beatles were without a doubt one of the most exciting musical phenomenons of the 20th century. The fact that these two young men wrote so many incredible songs in seven years bowls me over. They were simply amazing. Their early image also was quite clever. They were cheeky but never threatening. Whereas the Beatles were loved by children, parents and grand-parents the Stones were different. They were too odd, to effeminate, too unflinching in their surliness. The Stones were every bit a match for the Beatles. Their songwriting is as good if not better than the Beatles. Had the Stones split in 1970 they too would be viewed in the same light. When the retire/die there will achieve that level of respect.

To some one who loves The Frogglewhillip Jug Band they are the greatest band in the world, if it's Beatles it's Beatles and if it's Stones it's Stones.

It's all just opinion and no one is right or wrong. Just chill out. Remember if you lived some where like Darfur you would have more important issues to deal with than such trivial issues as Beatles vs Stones.

Who cares?

What year is this anyway - 1964?

NOT AGAIN???!!

APPLES 2 ORANGES

Quote
robertfraser
most of the beatles stuff sounds like nursery rhyme's to me. to anyone from the uk will remember the children's programme playschool, well "fixing a hole" sounds like something the presenter would sing to big ted after he found a hole in his sock -and their is loads more like that.?

ah, the innocence of youth......

Quote
ROLLINGSTONE
The Stones are my favourite band and I love them to death. Had The Beatles continued there is no doubt that the Stones would have eclipsed them with 3 specific albums- Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile. When I say eclipse I'm referring to the music/critically. Probably not commercially. The Beatles would never have came up with anything like those albums (not that they couldn't have) it just wasn't the direction they'd have taken. Either Lennon or McCartney said they'd have ended up sounding like ELO. Also they were a band imploding, who for one reason or another had ran their distance.

It's no slur whatsoever on The Stones at that time but there is absolutely no way they had the 'power' The Beatles had at their peak.

Well, I really like the "heavy" sound of the late Beatles (especially the Abbey Road Album). I think that if the Beatles didn't break up and followed the direction of the AR album, they would go completely somewhere else than the Stones with their best releases and it would be very very interesting, since it wouldn't be so easy to compare as the earlier RS and B stuff and it would not make sence to speculate who overshadowed who. But that is just IF...

I guess there was and there is room for both of them, but I admit I also feel it is historically inaccurate and unjustified the amount of hype The Beatles receives nowadays (it wasn't like that in late-seventies or in the 80's). My remark is not contradicting the fact we are now talking about the most important, popular and innovative band ever - but enugh is enough, for god sake. Sometimes it just feels like nothing else happened in music scene - or even anywhere in culture - in the 60's than the Beatles, if you now what I mean. The other 'hype' I hate is the one about Elvis.

- Doxa

But we can love oh yes we can love
And my brothers back at home with his Beatles and his Stones

Quote
Bingo
But we can love oh yes we can love
And my brothers back at home with his Beatles and his Stones

Ah, Mott The Hoople. Another great band somewhat underrated.

I don´t believe. Again?

It's an old hat, really.

I have no problem in respecting the Beatles for what they are. I remember a Mick Jagger interview from the mid 90's where he did exactly the same, telling "Rolling Stone" they were simply playing in another league in the 60's (although I admit he must have been referring to how "big" they were at the time).

But arguing about who's "best"? I prefer the Stones. But not by law. Just by opinion... ;-)

With reference to The Stones' influence on rock that's undeniable but remember that Ozzy was more influenced by the Beatles.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

Where and when would I ever want to hear a Beatles song other than a Karaoke version in a dentist office?

PECMAN

Lots of folks/critics said the Stones were flying past the beatles by the late 60s - 1967-68

beetels are pop and roll

Stones = rock and roll

Beatles = Studio Band

Stones = Live Band

Quote
HEILOOBAAS
Beatles = Studio Band

Stones = Live Band

Precisely. Plus the Stones' haven't been accorded their due place in 'history' simply because they are still a working band.

Yes. To whatever the question or answer was. And no to the other bit.

Fine with me.

Like mentioned in the thread:

Beatles a pop band - play pop music to a broader group of people. (One guy was commenting, that Beatles were playing more hard music on AR - come on. A little try, but in deep basic Beatles were a pop band. What has Macca produced? Pop music. Lennon to a certain extent - he was a bit less pop. Harrisson: pop music (ELO). So, Beatles would never have become a more progessive rock band.....)

Stones a rock band - play rock / blues music to smaller group of people.

Do I care - NO. I would not like Stones to play pop music. If they had done so, I would never have been a Stones fan.

If Stones get less attention than Beatles fine. Spice Girls, Back Street Boys, Madonna, Robbie Williams (at least in Europe) etc. also get more attention than Stones. Who cares.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-18 20:37 by bumbum.

a resounding NO is my answer. But I tell you what BORES me to tears rather than pisses me off is the continuual need to not just compare but WORSE that after 40 odd years someone actually cares if some one prefers the Beatles to the stones, jeesus get about all the bands that are mentioned as an afterthought to the stones. there's some guys out there who never get mentioned and probably supported the pretty things in 64.


GET OVER IT FOLKS, It wasn't even very interesting back then. and another thing

ah feck ive lost the will to even bother.

AC/DC VERSUS RUSH - AC/DC ALL THE WAY!
CHER VERSUS ELTON JOHN -
STYX VERSUS BILLY RAY CYRUS -
RUSH VERSUS GENESIS -
THE SEX PISTOLS VERSUS JANE'S ADDICTION - JANE'S ALL THE WAY!
MUDDY WATERS VERSUS LED ZEPPELIN - MUDDY WATERS ALL THE WAY!
WILLIE DIXON VERSUS LED ZEPPELIN - WILLIE DIXON ALL THE WAY!
RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS VERSUS COLDPLAY - CHILIS ALL THE WAY!
FRANK SINATRA VERSUS OZZIE OSBOURNE - FRANK!

Etc...there, that should do it. Some obvious no winners.

The Beatles were maybe better individual musicians, (except for Ringo, that is) but when talking about band chemistry, the Stones are far superiour. And that speaks for itself as we know what the chemistry within the Beatles led to. But Lennon / McCartney sure did write som fine songs!

[www.reverbnation.com]

We just have to live with the fact that the Beatles are the greatest POP band in de world, and as POP is more popular then Rock the Stones are always second

__________________________

It's a crap comparison.

However, whilst it is true that the Beatle would have struggled to match the Stones in terms of creativity in the early 70s, you have to acknowldge that all four Beatles have to one extent or another had solo careers that the indivdual Stones could only dream of. McCartney, Harrison and Lennon all produced albums that stand up to anything the Stones collectively did in that period. I haven't got the sales figures but Flowers in the Dirt was as big an album as Steel Wheels was in 89. Did ABB sell much more than Memory Almost Full?

Not being confrontational just pointing out that as a commercial entity, albeit in a fragmented form, the Beatles have always matched the Stones. If one cares to you can probably make an arguement for artistic parity as well.

In 1986 was Dirty Work a better album than Press to Play?

Was Steel Wheels any better than Flowers In The Dirt?

It's Only Rock and Roll v Band On The Run (or Imagine).

Is Exile better than All Things Must Pass?

the stones win because they did not BREAKUP,and 39 years after the beatles did the stones are still rocking .i wonder what Macca thinks of that ?

As he counts his millions I shouldn't think Macca gives it much thought. I shouldn't think the Stones give it much thought either. I think they are all above such petty rivalry.

zzzzzzz