The Beatles or The Stones? Cast your vote
Jul 16, 2008 at 9:25 AM Post #93 of 120
Turned out to be quite an interesting thread, this.

There is no doubt the Beatles were a very good band and highly influential in their day, but they were one of several acts who can claim that in music history. Off the top of my head, there’s been Robert Johnson, Miles, Elvis, Brian Wilson, Jimi, Led Zep, the Pistols (not great musically, but what an impact they had in 1977), Bob Marley and probably more since. The Beatles are no better or worse than any of them and don’t particularly deserve to be singled out at the greatest of the great.

At the end of the day, musical taste is highly subjective. Personally, I can take ‘em or leave ‘em, but if you like ‘em, that’s fine by me.
 
Jul 16, 2008 at 4:12 PM Post #94 of 120
Quote:

There is no doubt the Beatles were a very good band and highly influential in their day, but they were one of several acts who can claim that in music history. Off the top of my head, there’s been Robert Johnson, Miles, Elvis, Brian Wilson, Jimi, Led Zep, the Pistols (not great musically, but what an impact they had in 1977), Bob Marley and probably more since. The Beatles are no better or worse than any of them and don’t particularly deserve to be singled out at the greatest of the great.


I see what you're getting at, but while Robert Johnson made an impact on and inspired many bands to take raw black, blues and popularize it into white, rock/blues (Stones, Cream, etc.) ... no doubt a major turning point in music history, and Elvis became an international sensation as a performer ( like Michael Jackson or Frank Sinatra in a way), and the others influenced and were admired by pockets of people who appreciated their particular, specific, and limited genre of music ... especially the Sex Pistols, who IMO, made an impact on only a small, very limited area of music and fans. The Beatles on the other hand, inspired tens or hundreds of thousands of kids to become musicians and join bands, set fashion trends, headed the "British Invasion" which gave prominence to British bands around the world, generated a massive buzz and press coverage internationally, and gained a following that crossed all ages and music styles. Years later, they're still prominent and current with things like the Cirque du Soliel "Love" show. For example, my long dead grandmother even liked the Beatles ... Sex Pistols, Brian Wilson, Led Zep, Robert Johnson ... not so much.

Quote:

To me, the Beatles evolved from the early days and their rock and roll roots to the introspective albums of Rubber Soul, Revolver, Srg Peppers etc. The Stones remained the Stones. That difference is why I vote for the Beatles.


I originally voted for the Stones, as I've liked their stuff since day one, and still like most of it today ( The first two albums I ever bought .... in the mid-sixties .... were Stones albums ) But based on the quoted truth and logic above, I'd have to admit that the Beatles exhibited the most growth, and were the most creative and trend-setting of the two bands. The thread/poll title is rather vague, so I guess it depends on how you interpret the thread's question.....who is your favourite? .... who's the most creative? .... who's had the biggest impact? If the question was "which band's catalogue would you prefer to be stuck on a deserted island with", while a tough choice, I'd probably still go with the Stones.
 
Jul 16, 2008 at 4:37 PM Post #95 of 120
I voted Beatles.... I like them much more than the Stones, but I own a lot of both.




-Nick
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jul 17, 2008 at 4:23 AM Post #99 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif
In chairs perhaps.
smily_headphones1.gif



Regardless of the smiley, I must retort to your obviously flippant response.

The Who made the Stones (and pretty much everyone else there) look like poseur wannabees when they performed on the Stones' home turfed Rock and Roll Circus and stole the show.

bwaahaahaa.
wink.gif



i do admit Lennon did kick ass...
 
Jul 17, 2008 at 10:15 AM Post #100 of 120
The first band I ever saw live was The Who. 4th October 1975, 3 days before my 15th birthday. Keith Moon doing Boris the Spider blew me away. Never saw the Beatles or the Stones. If I had, maybe my thoughts would be different. Some bands are great on record and lousy live, others lacklustre on vinyl (or CD, showing my age there), but kick ass in front of an audience. Occasionally, you get a band or artist that does both and they are what we consider great.

Either way, I don’t normally dis other people’s musical tastes, so I apologise for that. I was having a bad day. Maybe I’ll did out some Fab 4 stuff and give it a fresh listen now I’d have my turntable serviced.
 
Jul 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM Post #101 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by andyalfa /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The first band I ever saw live was The Who. 4th October 1975, 3 days before my 15th birthday. Keith Moon doing Boris the Spider blew me away. Never saw the Beatles or the Stones. If I had, maybe my thoughts would be different. Some bands are great on record and lousy live, others lacklustre on vinyl (or CD, showing my age there), but kick ass in front of an audience. Occasionally, you get a band or artist that does both and they are what we consider great.

Either way, I don’t normally dis other people’s musical tastes, so I apologise for that. I was having a bad day. Maybe I’ll did out some Fab 4 stuff and give it a fresh listen now I’d have my turntable serviced.


I would give the white album and Abbey Road a good listen it really shows
their diversity.
 
Jul 17, 2008 at 2:21 PM Post #102 of 120
That said, I’ve recently acquired some old J.J.Cale LP’s I want to try out first. And there’s my original vinyl copy of Dark Side of the Moon I haven’t heard for a while too. Maybe The Beatles will have to wait a little longer.
 
Jul 17, 2008 at 5:03 PM Post #103 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by andyalfa /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The first band I ever saw live was The Who. 4th October 1975, 3 days before my 15th birthday.


I envy you sir. I never saw them live.
 
Jul 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM Post #104 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by ingwe /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I envy you sir. I never saw them live.


x2

The Who were quite an amazing band live, purely judging from some of their live albums, as I could never have seen them live (I wasn't born yet...).

Also, about the poll of this thread. I just thought I'd share my distaste for the Rolling Stones. I really hate them. I don't mean to dis other people's tastes, cause if you like the 'Stones that's fine, but I don't. I think they try too hard to be bad-asses and just aren't, and I strongly dislike Mick Jagger. Does anyone else feel this way?
 
Jul 19, 2008 at 1:52 AM Post #105 of 120
^ agreed...I always felt thje Stones were POP and in the 70's I felt the music scene was so open. FM radio was in it's infacy and college radio stations were cutting edge. I grew up in Buffalo NY and was lucky enough to see an amazing group of bands in town from week to week. You must listen to the whole Beatles catalog to her the inovations by this band....they never had a "Some Girls" album. It would have been great to here them in the 80's nut I have read that Mc Cartney said they may have sounded somthing loke ELO if they continued. If you were alive in the 70's that was the greatest era of music because of the fact that big buisness didn't have the control there is now. Just my 2 cents....oh....the Stones suck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top