When they were head-to-head in a Blur/Oasis fashion it was the Beatles, no contest. The Stones peak came when the Beatles were splitting up. Stones can't match the Fabs for impact but Beggars/Bleed/Sticky/Exiles - what a run of albums.
[cite]Posted By: 24 Red[/cite]When they were head-to-head in a Blur/Oasis fashion it was the Beatles, no contest. The Stones peak came when the Beatles were splitting up. Stones can't match the Fabs for impact but Beggars/Bleed/Sticky/Exiles - what a run of albums.
I agree with this.
Up to and including Sgt. Pepper everybody, including the Stones, followed where the Beatles lead them (often with hilarious consequences cf. "Their Satanic Majesties").
Even "Aftermath" arguably the Stones best mid-period album, came out the same year as "Revolver".
Of course, the Stones singles were always mustard; but it was only when they stopped mimicking the Beatles and forged their own musical identity starting with Beggars Banquet that they really came into their own.
Also Mick adopted the personna of the character he played in "Performance" as his ongoing public image and soon "the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world" was born.
Ultimately though, as Spiced Addick says, you gotta love them both.
I was a child of the sixties, born in January 1948, as such I was smack bang in the middle of the whole sixties phenomina.....I will go to my grave thanking the almighty for that..........how bloody lucky can you get!
The Beatles were undoubtedly the greatest musical influence that the world of rock or pop has ever seen...they alone were responible world wide for millions of kids to pick up a guitar and become (for a few minutes at least), budding pop/rock stars.
It's worth remembering that The Beatles themselves, during their Cavern and Hamburg days were very very rocky and ballsy....real high energy stuff, so don't have this perception that they were entirely main stream.
The Stones have stood the test of time and although 'never' as popular, I(and I suspect many from my generation) retain a sense of pride that they came out of the sixties and still to this day can fill major venues anywhere in the world..and long may it continue.
The Beatles song writing was simply astounding, can there ever have been a duo (Lennon & McCartney) who were so prolific and over such a short space of time.
They laid down the ground rules from which pop/rock bands still to this day aspire in some obscure and odd way.
The Stones would 'never in a million years' have had the success they have had were it not for The Beatles having laid the groundwork.......and as much as I respect The Stones, it must be said that it would never have been the case the other way around.
As I type, Magic Radio are playing "The Long and Winding Road"....now how prophetic is that...that's the magic of The Beatles for you...........god bless them!
Stones for the variety and modernity of their sound. I genuinely think they've influenced more bands today than the Beatles. Obviously two great bands, but.. Main Street, Sympathy, Paint it Black are all tunes that are both brilliant and stand the test of time. If you listen to great Beatles tracks, you can immediately tell that they belong to a bygone era, whereas I think if you heard Paint it Black for the first time, now you could be forgiven for thinking that one of today's bands had suddenly upped their game.
Some strange comments from folk who weren't there at the time(sorry if this sounds a little pompous)....had the Beatles gone on, then who knows what they might have turned out, they had the incredible ability to change their style and direction it was quite phenominal..........It's become somewhat passe amongst folk (particularly not from that era), to say they prefer The Stones...The Stones were just a side show (along with many other bands), to The Beatles..and were very much second fiddle during that era....those of you who wern't there along for the ride will find that hard to believe..........but it's very true I can assure you.
The Stones influenced more bands?.....Don't you think The Beatles influenced The Stones somewhat........in certain aspects they most certainly did.
Before The Beatles there wern't really any bands that rocked the world in order to 'influence' anyone.....well to speak of that is.
Add to that the Everly Bros, later Beach Boys. Beatles for me, you had to decide at school (born 1946)......at Bromley Tech Dave Jones (Bowie) and Frampton in year below me.
The Beatles couldn't have written Sympathy for the Devil or Tumbling Dice, The Stones couldn't have written For No One or Elanor Rigby. Impossible to compare, only a preference. A bit like 'what's better, beer or wine?'
i may only be 18 but there's no contest whatsoever, The Beatles were the most complete band that (so far) have ever existed and Paul McCartney surely the best singer/songwriter to have existed. I like the stones but The Beatles are just too much to compete with.
Comments
Isn't it?
At the time you had to choose,
Now we can calmly say BOTH - and I do.
I agree with this.
Up to and including Sgt. Pepper everybody, including the Stones, followed where the Beatles lead them (often with hilarious consequences cf. "Their Satanic Majesties").
Even "Aftermath" arguably the Stones best mid-period album, came out the same year as "Revolver".
Of course, the Stones singles were always mustard; but it was only when they stopped mimicking the Beatles and forged their own musical identity starting with Beggars Banquet that they really came into their own.
Also Mick adopted the personna of the character he played in "Performance" as his ongoing public image and soon "the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world" was born.
Ultimately though, as Spiced Addick says, you gotta love them both.
Beatles overall are more consistent/ every track listenable, but the Stones win on out and out classics like Paint it Black.
Whoops, off topic alert, off topic alert!
Now then, John or Paul (or George or Ringo)?
Paul for me. At the end of the day it's all about the tunes and Macca sure could write them.
Rock 'n' Roll............
BUT, one of my all time favourite songs is The Beatles "And your bird can sing"
The Beatles were undoubtedly the greatest musical influence that the world of rock or pop has ever seen...they alone were responible world wide for millions of kids to pick up a guitar and become (for a few minutes at least), budding pop/rock stars.
It's worth remembering that The Beatles themselves, during their Cavern and Hamburg days were very very rocky and ballsy....real high energy stuff, so don't have this perception that they were entirely main stream.
The Stones have stood the test of time and although 'never' as popular, I(and I suspect many from my generation) retain a sense of pride that they came out of the sixties and still to this day can fill major venues anywhere in the world..and long may it continue.
The Beatles song writing was simply astounding, can there ever have been a duo (Lennon & McCartney) who were so prolific and over such a short space of time.
They laid down the ground rules from which pop/rock bands still to this day aspire in some obscure and odd way.
The Stones would 'never in a million years' have had the success they have had were it not for The Beatles having laid the groundwork.......and as much as I respect The Stones, it must be said that it would never have been the case the other way around.
As I type, Magic Radio are playing "The Long and Winding Road"....now how prophetic is that...that's the magic of The Beatles for you...........god bless them!
The Stones influenced more bands?.....Don't you think The Beatles influenced The Stones somewhat........in certain aspects they most certainly did.
Before The Beatles there wern't really any bands that rocked the world in order to 'influence' anyone.....well to speak of that is.
The Beatles couldn't have written Sympathy for the Devil or Tumbling Dice, The Stones couldn't have written For No One or Elanor Rigby. Impossible to compare, only a preference. A bit like 'what's better, beer or wine?'
Me, I prefer whisky.
Massively???