Jump to content

Beatles or the Stones


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think with the Beatles it's sometimes even hard to comprehend how short a time they were actually together and popular. Everything they put out was released over 7 years and 2 months. "Please Please

Since the Who came up, I have to bring up Zeppelin and Floyd... Pink Floyd> Led Zeppelin> The Rolling Stones = Beatles >The Who. Ten years ago, I would have rated Beatles last.

My favorite Stones song is by far "She's a Rainbow" which is about as unlike most of their work as it possibly can be.

Ha. I find that amusing, especially because I would rather listen to that stupid Friday song from a few years ago on repeat rather than listen to Zeppelin or Floyd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know just about 3 or 4 Stones songs (that I even had to look up to realize they are by them) versus so many Beatles songs that I know well, so I think this is a pretty damn lopsided choice for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean... We are traveling pretty far to get to Sabbath. Sabbath rule though. I'd also take The Stooges above all the other bands mentioned, except the Beatles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man how can anyone hate "God Only Knows", "Good Vibrations", "In My Room", "Wouldn't It Be Nice"?

Countless hours growing up with my Dad playing Beach Boys, Everly Brothers, and Ricky Nelson in the car on his 8 track during many out of state road trips. You learn to hate it pretty fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google "the only band that matters." That's the correct greatest band ever.

You have never made a truer statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends...I don't think early Beatles are anything special. But later Beatles, especially with an increased influence from George Harrison, were exceptional. So on average, the Rolling Stones, but the highs of the late Beatles are better than the Stones.

 

So, super unpopular opinion...I believe the Beatles are WAY overrated. There were bands way ahead of the Beatles. Even in 1966, when Revolver was released, Pet Sounds and Aftermath were released. There were other bands, such as The Animals, with much more progressive sounds.

 

If I were to pick a band from that era that was truly ahead of its time and commercially successful, I would go with Pink Floyd...even before you get to Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall you had Piper at the Gates of Dawn and Live at Pompeii. Although not as near as successful as their later works of works at that time, they were commercially groundbreaking.

 

With all of the said, the most UNDERRATED band of all time is ELO. I read an interview with Paul McCartney in which he said he thinks if the Beatles would have stayed together, they would have sounded like ELO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see people putting down early Beatles stuff. I love that stuff. How can you not smile when you hear "She Loves You" or "I Saw Her Standing There" or "A Hard Day's Night" and a dozen others? Just all such fun songs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the Who came up, I have to bring up Zeppelin and Floyd... Pink Floyd> Led Zeppelin> The Rolling Stones = Beatles >The Who. Ten years ago, I would have rated Beatles last.

I AGREE with this >>>>

The Stones and the Beatles get compared because theres nobody else at that level of cultural impact and awareness. Seriously, try to think of one. The Who is great, but nowhere near that level of cultural saturation. Nirvana was huge, but they didnt have the cultural staying power. And in that regard, the Stones are a very distant second to the Beatles. It barely counts, its so distant. The Beatles Anthology and TV special(s?) was a huge cultural moment, and that was decades after they broke up.

 

I dont love the Beatles, but theyre the most culturally important musical act of the past 70 years. You could argue their influences, but theyre only significant because they influenced the Beatles.

Good points!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see people putting down early Beatles stuff. I love that stuff. How can you not smile when you hear "She Loves You" or "I Saw Her Standing There" or "A Hard Day's Night" and a dozen others? Just all such fun songs.

I vastly prefer the early stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always looked at the Beatles later work as nothing but a reaction to the success of their early work. The went another direction for the sake of going another direction and it shows. When I listen to it, that's all I hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see people putting down early Beatles stuff. I love that stuff. How can you not smile when you hear "She Loves You" or "I Saw Her Standing There" or "A Hard Day's Night" and a dozen others? Just all such fun songs.

Even some Beatles fans think the early work is simple, or too much a "prisoner" of their influences, as opposed to the latter half where their songwriting strengths / individuality flowered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in those early days they were innovative. The first use of intentional feedback on a recording was "I Feel Fine" in 1964. Also Harrison's use of a 12 string guitar in 64 was not usual and gave the Beatles a different sound than other bands of that era.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in those early days they were innovative. The first use of intentional feedback on a recording was "I Feel Fine" in 1964. Also Harrison's use of a 12 string guitar in 64 was not usual and gave the Beatles a different sound than other bands of that era.

Not my favorite era, but I agree. When you think about it, SOMETHING had to make the Beatles stand out when they quickly rose in popularity, right?

 

 

I see people putting down early Beatles stuff. I love that stuff. How can you not smile when you hear "She Loves You" or "I Saw Her Standing There" or "A Hard Day's Night" and a dozen others? Just all such fun songs.

I don't hate those songs by any means, just not my favorite era. I prefer the later, post-Rubber Soul era.

 

As for the Stones, for me the high water mark was late 1960s to Tattoo You. Rest of it doesn't grab me in the same way as pre-Rubber Soul Beatles.

 

 

A side note, anyone ever watch the movie Nowhere Boy, which was about early John Lennon when he was with the Quarrymen and early Beatles? Not sure how historically accurate it is because I am not a Beatles expert by any stretch, but I thought it was a pretty interesting movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The early Beatles are sometimes interesting to look at, especially the albums. They were so popular that the record company obviously wanted to just keep pushing content out. They were releasing 2 albums and 4 singles a year. Their first 4 albums have tons of covers on them to fill them out, other than A Hard Days Night, which is really the pinnacle of the early Beatles "Merseybeat" kinda sound. The album is near perfection for the style. Just look at the track listing:

 

A Hard Days Night, I Should Have Known Better, If I Fell, I'm Happy Just to Dance With You, And I Love Her, Tell Me Why, Can't Buy Me Love, Any Time At All, I'll Cry Instead, Things We Said Today, When I Get Home, You Can't Do That, I'll Be Back.

 

It's just perfection.

 

Their next album, Beatles For Sale, is nowhere near this good. Whereas "A Hard Day's Night" was all Beatles originals Beatles for Sale had 6 of the 14 songs were covers. The only really good songs are "Eight Days a Week" and "I'll Follow the Sun."

 

I think they knew they couldn't just keep releasing Merseybeat kinda stuff or they'd just fade away. They had perfected it with "A Hard Days Night" and any more would just be diminishing returns. The next album after Beatles for Sale was Help! which featured great songs like "Yesterday", "Ticket to Ride", "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away".

 

Then the next album was "Rubber Soul", one of the greatest albums ever. In addition to that they released as singles around that same time: "We Can Work It Out"/"Day Tripper", "Paperback Writer"/"Rain".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to say, when I picked the Stones I wasn't even remotely thinking of the back half of their career. They went pop in the 80s, and beyond that they were just fodder for ad commercials and celebrity appearances. They ceased being relevant ages ago.

 

When I think of the stones I'm thinking pre 1972. Everything post Sticky Fingers is pretty meh, save for a random track here or there. Everything from Tattoo You to present is actively crap.

 

So really, I'm comparing them to the Beatles in the same era and not considering anything post 71/72.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of these bands suck compared to Black Sabbath.

Sabbath has four distinct parts of their career. Personally I think the second Ozzy era is the worst. Iommi has done an excellent job of keeping them relevant over 50 years.

 

Someone said rock band versus pop band. A lot of the Beatles legend comes from Paul and John's solo careers. The Beatles were only together for ten years. In those ten years they have a lot of hit songs. A bunch of classics in there. The Stones have been going since the Beatles started. With patches of inactivity. That said, it gives them the opportunity to release more mediocre to bad material. I like the Stones, but with any rock band that has been around a while, there is some lean material in there.

 

Out of the two I'd pick the Beatles because there is less filler in their library. I like the Rolling Stones. I'd take The Who over them any day though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...