The Beatles vs Rolling Stones debate  |
| |
| I don't know if I am the only one - I suppose there must be other Beatles fans that get rattled when Rolling Stones fans claim that the Stones were a "better" group at all counts. Most of them support this "fact" with the following arguments: 1. The Rolling Stones wrote and performed "serious" rhythm and blues music when the Beatles were playing "candy floss pop music" (their words, not mine) 2. The Rolling Stones were "bad guys" and "rebels" when the Beatles were "mummy's boys in suits" (their words, not mine again) When challenged though with the evident question "Well, which group was more influential then?" they seem to go mumbling "Oh yeah, we don't say that the Beatles weren't good, we only say that the Stones were better". All I've got to say is: 1. If the Beatles wrote "candy floss" pop, how come the first #1 song the Stones ever had was a Lennon-McCartney song, also performed by the Beatles? 2. Well, if the Beatles were "mummy's boys in suits" then why is John Lennon considered to be a "must" musical influence for every young rebel? And don't say it was his solo career - "Revolution" was very much a Beatles song! Phew, it was nice to get this out of my system :) What do you think? | | | | | |
| |
| | Stones Find Stones Online. Free Shipping $50 on 100,000 Items! Target.com/FreeShipping
| You Have Kidney Stones? Try This Natural Remedy. Eliminate Stones Fast. KidneyStoneOut.com/Doctor-Approved
| Kidney Stones Find local doctors& care centers. Search your listings at Local.com. Health.Local.com
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
1. mrtimharry (957)
|
4 years ago
| | Wasn't around when the Beatles were together but I am still a fan of their music. The lyrics are in general not complicated or thought provoking but they are easy to remember. I can appreciate the Rolling Stones for their longevity but would be hard pushed to name a fraction of the number of songs as opposed to Beatles songs | | | | | | |
| |
| Stones Find Stones Online. Free Shipping $50 on 100,000 Items! Target.com/FreeShipping | add comment | | |
|
|
2. mrgpk66 (723)
|
4 years ago
| | Two different Bands and 2 different Styles. The Beatles started soft with Great Music , the Stones had a more slightly faster tempo. Both had did versions of Blues & Rock Tunes. The Beatles led the British Invvasion and the Stones came a little later. Their both Great Bands and The Bealtes had more Messages in their Music and spoke out in what was happening in the World in their Lyrics and to the Media. If the Bealtes didn't Break up they would be Rocking like the Stones until George Harrison Passed and John Lennon would have not been Shot in front of the Dakota Apartments on West 72nd Steet in NYC. The Bealtes just started it all with the Long Hair & Beards as a Standard for Metal Music of the 1970's till today. Plus Songs like Helter Skelter ( about Charles Manson), Daytripper and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (LSD)all about Drugs and John Lennon kicked in his Guitar Amp in the Song Revolution for that Odd Sound was High during the Recording Session. The Bealtes & The Stones were never Rivals and were professional Musicians and Played each others Songs sometimes and Friends and of course the Object is to Sell more Records and that How they made their Living. Bands are here for the Us The Fans, not beacause One is Better than the Other. | | | | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | I agree with you that the Beatles and the Stones were not enemies. I also agree that it is pointless arguing which band is the best, because it's all a matter of taste at the end of the day. I am not a Stones fan myself, but I respect the influence the Stones have in music. It's not the Stones themselves that rattle me, after all I like a few of their songs. What I can't stand is that every time I say to people that I like the Beatles, Stones fans turn and say to me "That's lightweight music, the Stones were much better". And when you ask them to support their argument, you find out that all they've heard of the Beatles is some greatest hits album! I've got no problem with people not liking the Beatles, it just gets on my nerves that people cannot respect my preference as I would respect theirs! | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | I agree with you that the Beatles and the Stones were not enemies. I also agree that it is pointless arguing which band is the best, because it's all a matter of taste at the end of the day. I am not a Stones fan myself, but I respect the influence the Stones have in music. It's not the Stones themselves that rattle me, after all I like a few of their songs. What I can't stand is that every time I say to people that I like the Beatles, Stones fans turn and say to me "That's lightweight music, the Stones were much better". And when you ask them to support their argument, you find out that all they've heard of the Beatles is some greatest hits album! I've got no problem with people not liking the Beatles, it just gets on my nerves that people cannot respect my preference as I would respect theirs! | | | |
| |
| You Have Kidney Stones? Try This Natural Remedy. Eliminate Stones Fast. KidneyStoneOut.com/Doctor-Approved | add comment | | |
|
|
3. Scoop_Dogg (1932)
|
4 years ago
| | The Beatles are simply the greatest band ever. It is over 30 years since they split and they are still extremely popular and imfluencial. The Stones were just another group of that era and though they have continued to perform to this day (which is amazing) they never have and never will, have such an impact on the world of music. There are many other bands such as The Who and The Kinks that I would place above The Stones IMO. | | | | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | Same here...as you well know the Bonzos are the second love of my life but I love the Kinks, I like the Who, but Stones... yeah, a few songs that are blatantly Beatles sound alikes! Not to mention that, come to think of it, I would definitely put some bands from the other side of the Atlantic (namely the Byrds and the Beach Boys) and even Pink Floyd of the Barrett era above the Stones! | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | Same here...as you well know the Bonzos are the second love of my life but I love the Kinks, I like the Who, but Stones... yeah, a few songs that are blatantly Beatles sound alikes! Not to mention that, come to think of it, I would definitely put some bands from the other side of the Atlantic (namely the Byrds and the Beach Boys) and even Pink Floyd of the Barrett era above the Stones! | | | |
| |
| Kidney Stones Find local doctors & care centers. Search your listings at Local.com. Health.Local.com | add comment | | |
|
|
4. keymandan (737)
|
4 years ago
| | Whose music is the most influential? Come on - Lennon and McCartney are considered in the same category as George Gershwin, Burt Bacharach, and Oscar and Hammerstein as the greatest songwriters of the 20th century. The same could not be said of Jaggers/Richards. Maybe 2 or 3 of their tunes can be considered classics, as opposed to the a virtual library of Beatles tunes. But aside from that, the Stones have continued in their old age to represent the drug culture at its most destructive. All the Beatles walked away from that many years ago or at least they did it with enough moderation not to look like death warmed over by their middle ages. Oh, by the way, "Revolution" was a true collaboration between Lennon and McCartney, but in reverse to the usual. Whereas McCartney normal provided the tune on the very few they collaborated on, in this case he penned the words. And "Revolution" is not a call to revolt against the powers that be, but rather admonished us to not go too far in that revolt - kind of like "Same as the Old Boss" by the Who. This was typical of McCartney, who became the conservative Beatle, and the wealthiest of course. | | | | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | Oops, I read in a Beatles related book that John Lennon wrote the lyrics of Revolution (so many books, so many years ago, I don't even remember which one it was), so I'd better investigate this further before I stand corrected... but considering that John Lennon went way further than that in his solo career, you may be right! Maybe I should have used "Happiness is a warm gun" as an example! :) | | | |
keymandan (737)
|
4 years ago
| | Nice to meet you Piggybank! Anybody who can discuss the Beatles... I do know that Liverpool is in England, and I favor the Beatles because they represented the Queen well! Yes, of course John did not have a stop sign. It is not a secret for longevity, and I only feel sadness for what could not last though many would have had it so. "Lest a seed fall in to the ground, and die, it abideth alone." There is our hope for when the good die young. | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | Well, I don't know if that's any consolation, but John Lennon lived a full life and left an impact... very few people who live to be 100 manage to do this. I love talking about the Beatles, especially with people who were around at the time and experienced their music first hand. In a way, it was unfortunate that I was born in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I still heard the music and love it, so that's a good thing. | | | |
keymandan (737)
|
4 years ago
| | I was forbidden to listen to them by my Pentecostal mother until I was 16. She was convinced that the British Invasion was planned by M5 agents to seduce the American teenagers - silly her, she thought of us all as having children's minds regardless of what our bodies were doing :=} At any rate, M5 (is that it, it's M some #) did a pretty decent job of seducing us all to hell. Maybe literally - I hope not. I see you are British, so ya'll never had a chance... | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | Oh dear... I would go on and on about the bad effects of religion in people's lives, but that would be another discussion all together... lol, I live in Britain but I'm not British, I'm Greek :) We listen to a lot of British and American music in Greece and the Beatles had a huge impact to that generation - not only in Greece, more or less all over Europe. There was even a rumour that the Beatles would come in Athens for a concert, but it never happened. Oh well, we were lucky enough to get the Stones in the 80s. I didn't go, of course, but I suppose it was better than nothing :p | | | |
keymandan (737)
|
4 years ago
| | Yeh, we got some Greeks that live near here at the OU campus in Norman, Oklahoma. I tried to become one, but "the Greeks don't want no freaks." My mother's influence wasn't actually bad - in place of the Beatles she had me take classical piano. When I learned to play guitar, there was a lot of American music to learn, including playing along with the "standards". Tough stuff, I'll tell you. And to think that St. Paul didn't know how to read or write music, and yet incorporated all those modulations and transition chords into his melodies. Kudos, I say, kudos. | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | Oh well, didn't mean to offend your mother in particular, but of what I read the people in the States who were more anti-Beatles were religious groups. Things apparently became even worse after John Lennon was misquoted and people thought he said that the Beatles were better than Jesus... And as for your experience, I am not surprised, I must be the only Greek I know in Britain who hasn't got many Greek friends (well, most of them finished with their studies and went home and I decided to stay). The majority of my Greek friends were always moaning of lack of opportunity to practice their English, but the moment someone British joined the company, they forgot all about them and spoke Greek to each other! I prefer to mix with all kinds of people, that is the idea anyway, and my English has improved a lot as a result... | | | |
keymandan (737)
|
4 years ago
| | OT! My bad. Sororities and fraternities on campus are referred to as Greeks because they are known by their Greek letters. Nevermind... Lennon was not misquoted, he was misunderstood. Whatever he may have meant to say, it was the use of drugs that offended my mother, who would not even allow aspirin in the house. And that teenagers would fall for the erroneous supposition that by taking drugs, you would somehow or other become as good of a writer as one of the Beatles, rather than the discipline of studying music and a well rounded education. "Religious people" have gotten a bum rap - far from stifling the music of the Beatles and Stones, and rock in general, they served to give them a cause de celibre. [We must overcome these "white shirt-black tie" boogeymen and mad mothers. We'll show them! We'll put out 30 #1 hits!] | | | |
| |
| Local Coupons 1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Save 50-90% on your city's best! www.Groupon.com | add comment | | |
|
|
| 5. vinny_the_hack (50)
|
4 years ago
| | I cannot put my finger on it. All I know is that I have a very deep emotional connection to The Beatles and their music. I was in a relationship for 28 years before divorcing, but I will never tire of The Fab Four. | | | | | | |
| |
| Ask a Dr: Kidney Stones 18 Doctors Online Now Answer Your Kidney Stones Questions In Minutes. Health.eAnswer.com/Kidney-Stones | add comment | | |
|
|
6. Qaeyious (2105)
|
4 years ago
| | Yes, I also agree that it is a matter of taste, and for my taste I can listen to the Beatles a lot longer than the Rolling Stones. Further, there is only one group I can listen to for hours on end, and that is Yes as they were during the 70s - their only top 40 hit during that era was "Roundabout" What can I say? Some of us have class :p "Candy floss pop"? - I heard Tommy James (of Tommy James and the Shondells, of "Crimson and Clover" fame) complain about critics calling their works "Bubble Gum Rock" - I suppose that is the price one pays, working to put some sounds together and manage to have some people remember it decades later - you can only do that with loyal fans -- So -- now, what about Aerosmith? :D | | | | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | Well, some candy floss pop is ok - feeling in a happy clappy mood and wanting to listen to some happy clappy music is not necessarily a bad thing... But to say that the Beatles did candy floss pop? Especially after 1964? Heck, it must have been the best candy floss pop in the world, since there are people (me included) who heard the music long after the Beatles were over and still going out to buy the records... | | | |
| |
| eBay ® - Official Site Get great deals on eBay. Buy It Now or Win It! www.eBay.com | add comment | | |
|
|
| 7. lonelylucie (95)
|
4 years ago
| | i love Beatles i will say...i think their lyrics tell people what is responsibility or peace and so on...rolling,,,i don't want to say...they are too crazy...but B 's things are gentle and warm...that's my own opinion. | | | | | | |
| |
| Cheep Bargins Deals Mobile,Tablet,eBook,Games,Apparel,Beauty,Toys Software http://www.beztdeals.com | add comment | | |
|
|
8. sageivyberyl (703)
|
4 years ago
| | Don't get me wrong. The Stones are a great band. But it is laughable to consider them better then the Beatles. The Beatles conquered the world while the Stones were still trying to find a sound. If it were not for the Beatles the Stones may not have been accepted anywhere. As far as being bad boys, well, John was a bad boy long before the Stones even knew what a bad boy was. He simply toned it down when he married and had a child. The Beatles took their music more seriously and were one of the first (definitely before the Stones) tried various types of music and found new sounds. Most people who are Beatles fans are also Stones fans. But we know who did what and when. Even the Stones will tell you that the Beatles were a huge influence on them. They were an influence on most musicians who came after them. Considering the fact that the Stones are still doing the same thing they were doing 40 years ago says a lot. 30 years ago, every member of the Beatles had grown and moved forward in their lives and in their music. The Beatles had 4 amazingly talented men who were geniuses at what they did. They all branched out in other fields. All were successful outside their music. And as for John Lennon. There is a reason he was a musical legend long before he was assassinated. He was a genius in so many field with talents most people only dream of having. | | | | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | Now that I'm calm, all I can say is that I wouldn't have put it better myself :) | | | |
| |
| Watch TV On Your PC Watch 3500+ Channels On Your PC. Unlimited Usage. No Monthly Fees! www.StopPayingCableBills.com | add comment | | |
|
|
9. SuzyPuppyChese (567)
|
4 years ago
| | To me it's like comparing apples and oranges, their music is just so different. The fact is that back when their careers began, fans and media created a rivalry where there was none. The members of the two bands were actually friends and in fact traded songs with each other. I see no conflict in liking both. | | | | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | I have no problem with that either. My problem is with Stones fans who just state that the Stones are better than the Beatles without even bothering to listen to any of the Beatles albums apart from greatest hits albums. If somebody says to me "you know what, I like the Stones" I'll say to them "yeah, great, but they're not really my cup of tea". I won't go on demeaning the Stones like some Stones fans demean the Beatles! | | | |
SuzyPuppyChese (567)
|
4 years ago
| | lol. .you know I came back to this discussion because I had a memory I wanted to share with you. When I was about 13, I was a loyal Beatlemaniac. One of my sister's friends had told her the Beach Boys were great and just had everything over the Beatles. My sister repeated this to me, and I called this girl up and actually cussed her out! hahaha Yes, it's irritating when people want to lord it all over something you love. | | | |
| |
| Listen To Rolling Stones Get Free Music, Lyrics & Downloads For Rolling Stones & Other Artists Music.PureDef.com | add comment | | |
|
|
10. jillmalitz (4117)
|
4 years ago
| | I was in high school when both bands exploded on the scene. I always liked the Beatles music because it was ale to cross so many lines from rock to ballad. And of course when they first came out they were "cute". The Stones were in no way "cute". To me the were ugly. They also seemed to always be edgier and harsher in their music. The appealed to a certain type audience. But then again I liked the Beatles better. | | | | | | |
| piggybank (26)
|
4 years ago
| | Yeah, I think that has an extra appeal to ladies as well. I think the Beatles are cute too, I would go as far as saying that George Harrison looked great when he was young! Pity the Stones definitely lose on this front... I don't know, my father likes both the Beatles and the Stones, so I've heard quite a few Stones albums. I just don't like them, whereas I love the Beatles. However, I can't deny that the Stones are one of the most influential groups ever. | | | |
| |
| Free Music Downloads Listen to Hot Artists 100% Free. Download Now! InTuneMP3.com/Music | add comment | | |
|
|
| | Local Coupons 1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Save 50-90% on your city's best! www.Groupon.com
| Ask a Dr: Kidney Stones 18 Doctors Online Now Answer Your Kidney Stones Questions In Minutes. Health.eAnswer.com/Kidney-Stones
| eBay ® - Official Site Get great deals on eBay. Buy It Now or Win It! www.eBay.com
|
|
| |
| |
| |