Beatles or the Stones?

The Stones are a great rock band. The Beatles changed popular music as we know it. They changed Western Culture as we know it. There is no comparison between the two.
 
stjames said:
The Stones are a great rock band. The Beatles changed popular music as we know it. They changed Western Culture as we know it. There is no comparison between the two.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
The Beatles took rock and turned it into pop.
Rock and Roll died on the Ed Sullivan Show.
 
The Beatles...They were a band who, on the same album, could go from a soft, slow ballad, to rock-n-roll, and pull it off.
 
The Beatles are also historically significant for creating the first popular "concept album", "Sergeant Pepper's". It was the first hit album that was conceived as an entire album with a theme and continuity between songs, rather than just a mishmash of songs thrown together. Later, The Who, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, and Jethro Tull (and many others) made many "concept albums".

Of course, the idea of making "Sergeant Pepper's" was largely influenced by "Freak Out" by Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, which actually was the first true rock "concept album". The Beatles (particularly John and Paul) liked the idea so much that they made their own. The irony was that FZ hated "Sergeant Pepper's", prompting his next album "We're Only in it for the Money" which lampooned "Sgt's" album art, and the 60's counter-culture movements.

But still, even though if it weren't for "Freak Out", "Sergeant Pepper's" might not have happened, if "Sergeant Pepper's" didn't happen, it's possible albums like "Tommy", "Aqualung", or "Dark Side of the Moon" might not have happened either.
 
In fact, very little of what The Beatles did wasn't borrowed or adapted from somebody else. Much of their signature riffs and styles were borrowed/adapted (ie: stolen with love and respect) from 50's and 60's black American rhythm and blues. What makes them significant is how they turned such music into mainstream pop rock.*

If you can catch it, there's a show that PBS sometimes airs called "John Lennon's Jukebox" (actually an episode of the "South Bank Show" from UK). John Lennon's Jukebox was John's portable 40 record jukebox that he took with him on the road, and in it you can find much of what influenced The Beatles' style and songwriting. In the show, many of the writers and performers of the music found in the jukebox talk about their music, the Beatles' music, and even which parts of their songs the Beatles borrowed from them. Very interesting stuff.


*Then again, the exact same thing could be said about the Stones.
 
To me, the Stones have a few songs that are better than any Beatles songs (Gimme Shelter, Satisfaction, Can't Always Get What You Want...) but the Beatles have many more great songs than any other band. The Beatles are one of the few bands that I can play their whole album and enjoy it. I like the Stones for singles.
 
Planterz,
I always thought (at least when I got older - not while I was living thru it) that the Beatles borrowed most from the "girl groups" of the 60's (Chiffons, Crystals, Shirelles as I noted above), and though Len and Mc always seemed to mention Chuck Berry and the Everly Brothers (among others) I don't remember hearing them credit the 'girls.' Interesting that George lost a lawsuit brought by whomever it was accusing him of stealing licks for "My Sweet Lord" from The Chiffons "He's So Fine." When he heard about it, John said George shoulda known better.

Lava_lamp,
Though I don't agree that those songs are better singles than ANY by the Beatles, I do think it's a terrific point that the Stones were more a "singles" group in the sense that it was always more of a 'chore' for me to get thru a Stones LP than a Beatles back then. But I liked it all.

Gargs
 
stjames said:
The Beatles changed popular music as we know it. They changed Western Culture as we know it. There is no comparison between the two.
Click to expand...

But is it really good music? It changed a lot, a lot changed in the years they were big but does that mean it was good?
 
I am not a huge Beatles fan, because I have always heard how great they were and they were geniuses unfortunately I heard Yellow Submarine a few to many time to buy into that. For me the Stones always seemed more "Rock and Roll" to me, they were the ones at Altamont signaling the end of an era, they also have at least two songs that were banned from radio during their time, Sympathy for the Devil and Street Fighting Man. Plus Keith Richards just seems more Rock and Roll to me. Also I have never forgiven John Lennon for bringing the world Yoko Ono
 
protourist said:
But is it really good music? It changed a lot, a lot changed in the years they were big but does that mean it was good?
Click to expand...

Here's how I argue this:

  • There will always be "pop" music.
  • This fact remains true no matter how far back in history you look. 21st century, 20th century, 19th century, 16th century, it doesn't matter. Music changes, the "who" that decides what music is popular changes, but has been and always will be "pop" music.
  • There will always be crappy music.
  • Often, there will be crappy music that is popular, and pop music that is crap.
  • Such crap, although popular for a time, doesn't remain popular for very long. 5, 10, or 20 years later, even the people who, at that time, liked the crap will someday realize that it was crap.
  • Good music will always remain good music.
When was the last time you heard "Achey Breaky Heart" (Billy Ray Cyrus) or "Waterfalls" (TLC) or "The Right Stuff" (NKOTB)?

And what went through your mind when you heard it? Probably something like "Jeez, I can't believe they're actually playing this crap".

Whereas songs like "Penny Lane" or "Ruby Tuesday" or Bethoven's 5th Symphony will always be great. It doesn't matter how old, or what "popular" music happens to sound like at any given time, great music remains great.
 
In hindsight, probably "The Beatles", but back in the day, they weren't even close to being as cool as the "Rolling Stones".
 
Stones for me..

"Begger's Banquet"
"Let It bleed"
"Sticky Fingers"
"Exile On Main Street"

Classic blues based rock at the time they were "The greatest rock and roll band in the world" IMO the 4 above-still hold up well today. Newer stuff is OK but never matched those four...
 
For me there is NO contest: The Beatles.

I've been listening to music since literally the crib, when the Beatles and all those bands first came to America, due to my older bro and sis who bought all kinds of rock, pop, R&B, and later blues. I still remember my bro coming home with his new Sgt. Pepper's album when it hit the stores (I was 4).

I like a few songs from the Stones, mostly very old ones, but I like almost every song by The Beatles to one degree or other. Sure, they did borrowing and adapting songs from others early on, but no other band had such an evolving range of styles, and in such a short period, than The Beatles. And when they re-did someone else's songs, (IMO) they usually did it better than the originals. My personal favorite Beatles album is The White Album which, oddly enough, was made when the group was in discord. Another favorite is Rubber Soul. Sgt. Pepper's is great, but is only one of my middle favorites.

Simply put, the creative range they covered in the mere 8 years or so that they were in the limelight has never been equalled. There are people who will say it's all due to hype, but hype only lasts for so long. If there's no true talent or artistic merit behind the music, all the hype in the world won't support it into future decades. Tons of bands made great music, and had songs here and there that were great; The Beatles have been the most consistently great with almost every song on every album.

Also, many people villify John Lennon for going with Yoko. I'm not a fan of her either. In fact, IMO she's a horrible 'musician' among other things. If I ever hear her banshee wail and off-tune warbling again, it'll be too soon. But the fact is, The Beatles were about ready to split by that time, anyway. Even if Yoko had never existed, it would have happened. Apparently, Lennon saw something he liked and was happy with, and regardless, it wasn't his lifelong duty to live his life solely to please everyone who may not agree with him. I can still appreciate his and the other Beatles' contributions to music, as a group and solo, without letting his choice of wife affect my opinions.

Jim
 
Planterz said:
When was the last time you heard "Achey Breaky Heart" (Billy Ray Cyrus) or "Waterfalls" (TLC) or "The Right Stuff" (NKOTB)?

And what went through your mind when you heard it? Probably something like "Jeez, I can't believe they're actually playing this crap".

Whereas songs like "Penny Lane" or "Ruby Tuesday" or Bethoven's 5th Symphony will always be great. It doesn't matter how old, or what "popular" music happens to sound like at any given time, great music remains great.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up!
 
gajinoz said:
I like both, but if I had to choose one, it would be the Beatles. Apart from anything else they were, as a group, more innovative musically that just about anyone else, including the Stones. Did you know it was John Lennon who first used guitar feedback in a recording. Stuff like that.
Click to expand...

Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream...

I love the Stones, but this one goes to the fab four.
 
When I was in my pre-teen's to early teen's, it was hands down the Beatles. Late teen's to early adult it was definitely the Stones. Now in mid-life I like both equally. The songs by both take me back...the "sound track" of certain periods in my life.
 
Man - this stuff was a long time ago. I remember it like it was yesterday, but turned sixty a few months ago. Truth be told, with a few exceptions after Sgt. Pepper's for me it was mostly 'By By Miss American Pie'...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top