Beatles. They pioneered pretty much everything, pushed the genre hard. Stones were -- and ARE -- fun, but if I could only listen to one or the other the rest of my days, it would be Beatles.
Up hills slow, Down hills fast Tonnage first and Safety last.
I was a kid in England in the '60's, dunno if that gives me any special insight but seems to me the Beatles and the 'Stones were apples and oranges from the very beginning. Beatles were clean and the 'Stones were sex.
Remember the penultimate Beatles album "Let it be"? "Sticky Fingers" with the album cover of a crotch and zipper was what the Stones were putting out about that same time.
Closest I came to either personally was as a little kid standing amid a crowd of hysterical teenage girls outside a theatre where the Beatles were gonna play that night, my sister wanted to go so we went, we heard someone drumming on a drumset through a fire exit door. Then there was a guy looked like George passed by in a taxi and all them girls took off screaming. I went home. My sister seen 'em perform that night.
Here's as good a history of the times as any, tho its supposed to be a parody...
Twenty years back the 'Stones came to play San Antonio. One of my students at the time drove 'em in a hotel shuttle van to go eat in a Cajun place. Keith Richards sat up front and lit him a cigarette. The kid weren't all starry-eyed or anything, to him, even back then the Stones were just a bunch of famous old guys.
Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
Lots of opinions, but again mostly a derailment. Beatles, Stones, which is better?
Yeah, derailments, opinions; like azzholes, everybody's got one.
I liked (and still do like) both the Beatles' and the Stones' music from back in the day. (Wouldn't pay a plug nickel to see the Rolling Geriatric Junkies play live nowadays, but that's my own "derailment"...) I have almost all the records both groups laid down and listen to them often. I honestly couldn't say either one was a "better" band. The Stones' music was much more blues-based, the Beatles more on the "R" side of R&B. Both branched into some wild stuff. Some days I prefer Beatles, other days Stones, yet other days Waylon or Willie. It's all good music.
Originally Posted by shrapnel
...people have always knocked Led Zepplin and "Stairway To Heaven", yet this video posted earlier testifies to the talent of Led Zepplin, a band that never had a single number 1 in it's career and still has plenty of albums in print...
Yeah, Zep got slagged by most "serious" musicians/critics from their inception. Most of us at the time couldn't give a tinker's fart for what they thought, and bought their records by the ton. I actually played my first 2 copies of Led Zep II (the "Whole Lotta Love" record) so often I wore them out and had to replace them. Moby Dick, Heartbreaker, and Ramble On were staples of many garage bands during the 70's, 80's, and 90's, my own included.
I recall reading a feature article on Zep in Rolling Stone Magazine in 1990, and the article pointed out although they had never had a #1 single**, by September 1990 Led Zeppelin had sold more albums worldwide in the preceding 20 years than any other band in the same time span, and by a HUGE margin. To date Led Zeppelin worldwide albums have sold between 280 and 300 million copies, eclipsing any other recording artist including the Beatles and Elvis. In the USA, The Beatles are still #1, with Garth Brooks and Elvis at the #2 and #3 spots, and Zep is still running 4th with 111,000,000 verified new album retail sales.
** note that although they never had a No. 1 single, nine of their ten albums were No. 1 on the Billboard album charts.
Last edited by DocRocket; 12/18/15. Reason: fixed punctuation errors
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
I never met Yoko, but I sat next to Jerry Hall at the Calgary Stampede Finals once (1993 or '94, IIRC) and she was not only the hottest gal in the bleachers, she was also a classic Texas lady rod-ay-oh fan. I vote Jerry.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
I was a kid in England in the '60's, dunno if that gives me any special insight but seems to me the Beatles and the 'Stones were apples and oranges from the very beginning. Beatles were clean and the 'Stones were sex.
Remember the penultimate Beatles album "Let it be"? "Sticky Fingers" with the album cover of a crotch and zipper was what the Stones were putting out about that same time.
Closest I came to either personally was as a little kid standing amid a crowd of hysterical teenage girls outside a theatre where the Beatles were gonna play that night, my sister wanted to go so we went, we heard someone drumming on a drumset through a fire exit door. Then there was a guy looked like George passed by in a taxi and all them girls took off screaming. I went home. My sister seen 'em perform that night.
Here's as good a history of the times as any, tho its supposed to be a parody...
Twenty years back the 'Stones came to play San Antonio. One of my students at the time drove 'em in a hotel shuttle van to go eat in a Cajun place. Keith Richards sat up front and lit him a cigarette. The kid weren't all starry-eyed or anything, to him, even back then the Stones were just a bunch of famous old guys.
IMO the Beatles suck. Bunch of whiny,pinko, leftist. Stones are pretty good. In addition the Stones play a range of styles while all Beatles music sounds the same to me.
If it weren't for the Beatles, the "British Invasion" wouldn't have been as big so I'll give them credit for that but I'm a Zepplin and The Who kind of guy...
"Camping places fix themselves in your mind as if you had spent long periods of your life in them. You will remember a curve of your wagon track in the grass of the plain like the features of a friend." Isak Dinesen
One thing the Stones do better than anyone are at making memorable opening riffs. Chatted to some friends about this the other day. So many great ones instantly come to mind: Start Me up, Can you Hear me knocking, Satisfaction, Brown Sugar, Waiting on a friend, Miss You. Whether you like the song or not the openings are simply unbeatable.
Beatles suck but Metallica is great? Lawd. I find most of there stuff cartoonish- sort of caricatures of death metal and kind of funny. I haven't read this entire post but I know the is always one guy chiming in on how Kiss is great.. Holy Crap
Best Brit invasion band- The Who ! Original balls to the walls rockers.
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of . Confucius
I've actually seen both of them - The Beatles and Stones, in concert and even though I really liked the Beatles when I was younger, the Stones were always the better entertainers. They put on a much better show. The Stones' crowds were always just as hyped at the end of the concert as they were at the beginning, whereas the Beatles were kind of a let down at the end of the show. Other than what plays on the radio, I haven't listened to either one in quite some time as my tastes in music have "evolved" over the years- though I still like Clapton and some of his contemporaries and sit up and sing along when Zeppelin comes on. May have to get out the old vinyl and get the turn table warmed up this afternoon. May have to make up a tape/CD for driving the hot rod with a few of the suggestions above mixed in...
Bob
Never underestimate your ability to overestimate your ability.
